How to explain to a Protestant that the Eucharist isn't cannabalism?

[Kliska]

You and I are not going to get anywhere, and this edifies no one. Thank you for your time in trying to school me. Truly.

Grace and Peace

 

[Nicea325]

My brother/sister in Christ all I want for you to present me ONE ECF who defended a symbolic Eucharist as being orthodox? You refuse give any one name. Sorry,but that is not how historical sources are presented when asked to support an argument.

God Bless you too.

 

[Kliska]

As usual. A living testament as to why Protestants are so divided. Founded by humans.

All of Christianity was founded by God. Rail at me if you wish, if you gain something by it, but make no mistake all believers are His, and a part of His One True Church. Any misrepresentation is a fault of mine or other humans, not the Founder, I can assure you.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Nicea325]

All of Christianity was founded by God. Rail at me if you wish, if you gain something by it, but make no mistake all believers are His, and a part of His One True Church. Any misrepresentation is a fault of mine or other humans, not the Founder, I can assure you.

Grace and Peace.

I gain nothing,but rather I am sad.

 

[Hat4]

The premise I have a problem with is “All Christians agreed on this for the vast majority of Christianity.” After researching this for myself I don’t believe that is true, and can be seen in scripture itself. No wish to argue the point, that’s just my finding. Will answer the last bit next.

I apologize that I’ve been busy lately and have been unable to respond. Do you mean you’ve researched this and found that the early Christians did not believe that Jesus was present in the bread and wine? I’d have to see where the early church rejected this belief because I’ve never seen were they ever doubted this. You may interpret the Bible however you like but to say this hasn’t been a major point of Christian belief from the beginning will require some proof. Also, the first time anyone ever thought that the people who left Jesus were just there for a hand out would be nice.

 

[Nicea325]

K

liska:

The premise I have a problem with is "All Christians agreed on this for the vast majority of Christianity." After researching this for myself I don’t believe that is true, and can be seen in scripture itself. No wish to argue the point, that’s just my finding. Will answer the last bit next.

And if you are so confident it was not true,then I find it very odd how you refuse to defend something you so strongly believe. I have been studying early church history for over 20 years and I have yet to read a single document supporting or defending your argument by ANY early church father. Again…show me your findings? Who were these Christians who taught what you did? Where are those writings at?

And sorry,your interpretation are like the thousands out there…your personal interpretation. What makes your interpretation the correct one?

 

[pacloc]

The problem with creating your own version of Christianity is that you end up sinning against “The Word” that is pure truth. Jesus has and is doing things that are definite truth, whether we interpret it correctly or not doesn’t change the reality. So by saying that I come to my own understanding of “truth” by experiment and study, you are creating your own truth, no matter how good your intentions are. Your truth will even change as you grow in knowledge, which means that it was not really truth at all, but a misconception. This is nothing different from what athiests and agnostics do in their life, they decide for themselves what is the purpose of being and what is important for them. The difference between this and true Christianity is that Christianity has “The Word” given by God the Father which is unchangable. We as Catholics do not try to experiment or study in the pursuit of deciding what is truth, the only study and experiments that we pursue are to prove to ourselves The Word we have been given. We trust in Jesus’ promise that he would be with us forever, and that means that the Church Fathers spoke correctly about subjects such as this one and the trinity.

What I would ask is, do you think it possible that the Catholic Church might be correct on this subject? Or are you certain that it is not even possible. Because if you view it as possible, you owe it to our Church Fathers and ultimately Jesus to really try to conform to him, not have him conform to you. Just because in your mind eating Jesus’ flesh and blood doesn’t sound right doesn’t mean that you are free to change The Truth that has been taught. It is also funny how many protestants easily accept the Trinity, when the Trinity is less defined in the scripture than the topic at hand. How is it that you believe what the Catholic Church teaches on the Trinity if you are basing everything off of reading and interpreting the Bible on your own? The chances of you actually coming up with the idea of the Trinity on your own is slim to none because it is a difficult doctrine to explain, but we have faith that the Church was lead by the Holy Spirit in defining what we do know about it.