B
BILL_PICK53
Guest
Why do non-catholic take almost all the Bible LITERALLY, but will when it comes too John chapter 6 they say it is a Symbol or figurative and the Bible does not say it is,WHY
- Status
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Why do you make sweeping statements like this Bill? You don’t know. You can’t know whether or not all non-Catholics take almost all of the bible literally and I’m pretty sure that it just is not true. I know it’s not true for this non-Catholic.
R
Ruthie_again
Guest
This is the problem with interpreting the Bible for oneself. One is free to decide what is literal truth, what is myth, what is allegory, what was added later, etc etc.
The answer to your actual question is that they don’t want to believe the Eucharist is Jesus’ body and blood. It’s too hard a teaching for them, so they refuse to follow Him in this. (See Jn 6:52-66.)
God bless you, Bill!
Ruthie
The answer to your actual question is that they don’t want to believe the Eucharist is Jesus’ body and blood. It’s too hard a teaching for them, so they refuse to follow Him in this. (See Jn 6:52-66.)
God bless you, Bill!
Ruthie
L
lax16
Guest
Richard - he didn’t say **all **non-Catholics.
Good point though. Which protestant sects don’t take the bible literally?
The protestants I know are literalists. Hopefully we’ll get some of them to answer this very good question!
B
benidict
Guest
the Anglicans and Orthodox agree with the Catholics on the real presence, do they not? tho i dont believe we can call them protestant. so its probably not the best example.
peace 
peace
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
Well, speaking just for the Protestant I was, maybe am, and those I’ve known … we DON’T take the Bible literally at every juncture. We draw the line at different places, sure, but just for example, we don’t literally believe:
- That God has “wings”
- That He is actually employed as a shepherd
- That His “rest” on the seventh day was comparable to our understanding of the word or its Hebrew equivalent
- That seeming cruces in Scripture don’t call for thought & discrimination
I’m sure that our Catholic brothers will kindly rush to point out all the holes they see in such a Protestant hermeneutic, but the point is, I don’t think one could fairly call it “literalist,” except when compared with its Catholic counterpart.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
First of all, even the literalist Protestants do not actually take the whole Bible literally - and Catholics take some of it literally. Protestants don’t think Jesus is literally a vine, or a door. I would say, such people allow for metaphor where metaphor is clearly what is required. (They seem to me to be less likely though to go for drawn-out spiritual allegory, although the accept some examples.)
But for various reasons they have come to the conclusion that sacraments are NOT how God works. That being the case, only a metaphorical reading of that passage makes sense.
There are many Protestants who are not literalists, though it would be best to say that everyone is to a degree. Anglicans, Lutherans, many Calvinists, many Methodists, a lot of the national European Churches. Plus most of the really liberal groups are not literalists.
But for various reasons they have come to the conclusion that sacraments are NOT how God works. That being the case, only a metaphorical reading of that passage makes sense.
There are many Protestants who are not literalists, though it would be best to say that everyone is to a degree. Anglicans, Lutherans, many Calvinists, many Methodists, a lot of the national European Churches. Plus most of the really liberal groups are not literalists.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
I must just ask why have you two threads on the same subject running at the same time??
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458177
And why Bill Pick and Bill Pick53??
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Ruthie, I recently read that lutherens also believe in the eucharist at mass. Is this true folks?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Don’t Catholics take the Bible literally?
What part of the Bible is figurative to Catholics?
Lutherans agree on the real presence, as well.the Anglicans and Orthodox agree with the Catholics on the real presence, do they not? tho i dont believe we can call them protestant. so its probably not the best example.
Jon
T
Third_Day
Guest
From my experience talking with Baptists and non-denoms they take John 6 to be symbolic because of their experience with the Lord Supper at their worship service. When the bread is distributed like crackers in plastic wrapping and grape juice is given in tiny paper cups the impression of symbolism is presented and there is no way that they are going to believe that this"bread" is the Real Presence of Christ.
When I have told them that because they do not have a priesthood with the authority to consecrate and therefore,their bread and grape juice is symbolic, it seems to help them understand.
That is my experience. Others may not feel that way.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
John Martignoni has an excellent response on his website (The Bible Christian Society). It’s short so I include it here.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Literalism–1] Adherence to the explicit sence of a given text or doctrine.
2] Literal portrayal; realism.
Literal–1 a] According to the letter of the scripture.
b] Adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or
expression.
c] Free from exageration or embellishment.
d] Charicterized by a concern mainly with facts.
2] of, relating to or expressed in letters.
3] Reproduced word for word.
So you are saying that Catholics take the scripture as symbolic according to your “raining cats and dogs” by saying it really don’t mean cats and dogs are coming down but it is a symbol of it raining hard.
So when Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood, he really means it as a symbol of his body and blood and not his real body and blood. So according to what you wrote, that would be the literal meaning. Or would it be a Literalism meaning that it is his real body and real blood. But it couldn’t mean that because that is, according to you, a non-Catholic meaning.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Which non-Catholics are you talking about, Bill? There are a LOT of non-Catholics.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The key is to ‘know when to hold them and know when to fold them’ if you don’t mind me borrowing from a well known movie.
D
Dokimas
Guest
There’s enough Biblical evidence not to take your understanding of ‘communion’.
BTW, the CC doesn’t take it as literal as you make them out to take it. Why are the ‘bread’ and the ‘wine’ offered to all each and ever time ‘communion’ is taken? Remember Jesus offered His Body AND His Blood. Also remember the ‘Last Supper’ included Both the Body AND the Blood.
Before anyone accuses others of not being accurate, don’t you think they themselves should be accurate, especially when they are supposed to have ALL the correct understandings?
1Corinthians 11:
23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread AND drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Note: Paul did NOT say, ‘for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you eat the Body of Jesus and Drink His Blood.’
D
Dokimas
Guest
I noticed that too. The CC is ‘literalist’ when it comes to ‘communion’. Evangelicals take it literal (as Jesus intended), IMO. Funny how that works out.
C
campeador
Guest
1 Cor. 11:27–28:
Note: it does NOT say ‘Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the symbolic remembrance of the body and blood of the Lord.’
- Status