Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[Doreen]

Robert in SD:

Hi Doreen;

I think the two experiences share one thing in common. That is, both experiences are a communion with God. It is God responding to a person’s desire to bring God into their life. But there are differences in the experience too.

There are fundamental differences between the Catholic and protestant understandings of “accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” Both Catholic and Protestant accept such a deep personal commitment to Christ as necessary and essential to one’s spiritual life, and we all should develop a personal relationship with Christ, for without it we are not headed for salvation. But the fundamental distinction between Catholics and Fundamentalist Christianity on this issue is that under the Protestant understanding (sometimes described as “sola fide”) one is believed to attain *salvation * at the point of “accepting Jesus” - Catholics profess that the acceptance of Christ is the beginning of a lifetime of faith, hope, and charity that if lived in Christ will lead to salvation at the end of one’s earthly life.

So, Catholics attach a great deal of importance to the experiences in which we have a communion with God - the Eucharist, confirmation, or even personal moments when we recommit ourselves to God. But we do not recognize these instants in our life as determinative of our salvation. So, our experiences differ from the fundamentalist experience of being “saved.”

-Peace

**ATTENTION OP:
I think we have wonderful clarity here in response to the OP. ** Wow. This is really fascinating!
Thanks, Robert!

Before I ask another question…I’ll have to go read about what the RCC DOES recognize as determinative of salvation. I think I asked that question in an earlier post, and I probably got a reply, maybe even a link, so I’ll have to go research that.

And the only other thing I’d add is that I was at first thinking (when I first heard the protestant message) that all I had to do was “say the prayer”…and things would automatically change.

I can tell you I said the prayer countless times before change happened. It was gradual…as gradual as my ability to really open and desire a pure heart…so this common experience is really amazing.

And I think some do error in their thought that the prayer itself suggests commitment and communion, when it is what is in the heart that truly counts.

 

[Shiann]

Doreen:

I clicked on the “this rock” link and here are some quotes that make me question:

**I shouldn’t judge my brother about his beliefs. **
**The Church makes no judgments about whether any person is a true Christian, not even about its own members. **

Now, while I agree: we can’t know our brother’s hearts…It makes me wonder now: how has the church selected it’s priesthood all these years? I’m serious. What’s the process? Anyone here know?

The Church does not hand pick priests. Men and women are called by God to the religious life. Many times you will hear stories of how these people were trying to live “normal” lives but were drawn again and again back to training for a life serving God and His Church.

The Church encourages religious occupations.

When a young man or woman has interest in becoming a priest or nun respectively, they generally approach their parish priest and begin a formal discernment process with guidance from other priests or nuns. After that they may begin their education in the faith in seminary or under the direction of an Order (for nuns) or even in college for formal training in nursing or another trained occupation.

There is usually a VERY long process to become fully initiated into the religious life, and it is a true test of the individuals intent and desire to live that life completely and fully for God and for the Church. It is a blessing to watch these young people bloom and flourish under such circumstances.

And secondly…I’m not really sure what to think about the second statement…simply because, while judging others isn’t generally a good thing, I guess I am hoping my church elders are making some judgements about the selection of its leadership. So…now I have a whole new quandry (sp?).

We are forbidden from judging another’s heart. Making discernments however are encouraged as prudent activities. You will never hear of the Church saying someone is specifically destined for hell.

And another quote that surprised me, from This Rock:

it [the church] assumes that all Catholics believe in the Eucharist in the way the Church teaches.

This made me nod my head, thinking, “Right, so this is how I spent approximately 32 years of my life feeling lost in the church.” Now again, go easy here.

Forgive me here, but whose fault is that… the Church’s?

The evidence is there… it is explicit in the Catechism. There is innumerable volumes of texts which serve to explain Church theology.

As some have pointed out already- the Church in America has been sadly lacking in catechis… but it isn’t the Church’s duty to educate- it is the parent’s duty. When I see my dd’s catechism lacking, I supplement it.

Is the failing all the Church’s fault?

I am assuming I am not alone in having had a very vague understanding of the RCC, the church of my youth…and even as a young adult, I couldn’t seem to sort it out…and honestly, you might say, “well, why didn’t you go ask the priest?” and to that, I will say, "I didn’t even know what the question should be!"

I know exactly what you mean here, I am a product of the 70 and 80’s lack of catechism… but that doesn’t shift the obligation of every Catholic to know his or her own Faith. The Catechism is a perfect place to start if one is confused, but can’t formulate specific questions.

Start at the beginning… when something pops up that you don’t understand, or agree with- THERES the question you ask. Just because you find yourself going to another church building on Sunday doesn’t remove the questions in your heart. You don’t even need to buy a catechism- there’s a bunch online. But start at the beginning and start asking the questions that surface.

Sorry. I know those who haven’t been following my brief history on this site are wondering where this crabby windbag is coming from.

I’ll rest now…and go to the Lord for my comfort.
D. :crying:

Blow all you want. And welcome!

PS The line is from an Irish blessing:

May the road rise up to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
May the rain fall soft upon your fields
and until we meet again…

irishcultureandcustoms.com/Blessings/Bless.html

 

[StMarkEofE]

Wisdom:

The Orthodox broke from us their teaching on the eucharist is more or less the same as ours,…

Yes, our Eucharist has remained the same over the many centuries. We still administer the Consecrated Body and Blood of Christ to our faithful in both species. A fuller expression of its reception. I believe the Eastern Catholics do the same.

 

[St.Eric]

SolaChristo:

Is the Lords Supper food for the body or food for the spirit?
I contend that it is food for the spirit and as such must be looked at as a spiritual reality not a physical one.
Please read 1 Corinthians in contest—read the whole passage and see what it means to eat and drink unworthly.

John **6:66 ** As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Those who walked away rejected Christ’s WORD, and that WORD was that unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. If you love me you will keep my commandments.

 

[prodigal-sun]

SolaChristo:

And we eat His flesh by chewing on His word.

Why not his flesh by chewing on his flesh… this is what he asked us to do!

Peace!

 

[Wisdom]

StMarkEofE:

Yes, our Eucharist has remained the same over the many centuries. We still administer the Consecrated Body and Blood of Christ to our faithful in both species. A fuller expression of its reception. I believe the Eastern Catholics do the same.

Since Vatican 2 most latin rite parishes also administer in both species, we agree it is the fuller expression of the expression. Remeber the black plague in the west was a big reason this was discontinued in the middle ages.

 

[Wisdom]

Doreen you really bring up some false presumptions in your agument first of all I don’t know what the heck an average joe catholic is. If you mean cultural catholic who goes to church twice a year yeah there are plenty of those and if this seems to describe the lukewarm familyu that practices the externals of the faith a couple times of the year. They do seem like lousy examples of the faith but there are many protestants who fit this bill as well. In fundamentalist church’s which it sounds you have converted to this is not the case for a couple reasons few people are actually born into these faiths or churchs as many are pretty new churchs or denoms many are converts from other faiths so you choose to be part of it thus a little less of the cultural non-denom factor. However they suffer a different thing, turnover stay in teh church 5 years I gurantee few people stick around, people constantly church shop in these churchs are looking to recapture the fire they initally had at their conversion experince. These fellings you see come and go it is the dry faith that keeps you going the emotional conversion experience does not plast its an emotion. Truth is not judged on emotion nor if some adherents of the faith are lukewarm or not. Truth is based on Christ and if Christ did find a church, in this case the catholic church and proomised that the gates of hell will not prevail then whether or not you have some on fire people in a church he did not find does not matter, that is emotionalism. The most on fire people of any faith are Muslims now just becasue they are true beleivers does that make it true? The same goes for Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses they are on fire more than the typical evangelical really . Mormons typically 2 years out of their life for their faith and Jehovah’s witnesses bascially work close to 4o hour workweek for their church both things few on fire evangelicals can match in commitment. Emtionalsim does not equate Doreen. Jesus judges us indivually and not by the so called average joe you like to compare yourself to. What he or she does is of no consequnce to your salvation.

 

[Jon_S]

Jesus didn’t pull off his own finger and offer it as his body and blood. He blessed the bread and wine and it became his body and blood. The molecular structure of the bread and wine did not change in a way that we as human beings can fully understand.

That is my understanding of transubstantiation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Veritas41]

People work by how they train. Protestants are trained to take verses out of context so they do it naturally and without thought about it. It’s just the nature of the Protestant beast. (beast - is that a pun? "

As a former Protestant, I have to agree 100% with this statement. Years ago I read a book by a Protestant evangelist who was telling the story of his small group evangelism (I can’t remember the person’s name unfortunately, this was about 20 years ago). He mentioned that he had atheists, Protestants and Catholics in attendance, and it was always the Protestants (or those from Protestant backgrounds) who would respond, “The Bible doesn’t say *that!” *when confronted with the actual text of a passage. The Catholics and atheists tended to take the passage at face value, whereas the Protestants *read into *the text what they had been taught it was supposed to say. And I’ve encountered this many times when discussing Catholic teaching with Protestants and providing texts from Scripture to back it up. It’s amazing the interpretive gymnastics that some go through to avoid anything but the clear meaning of the text in order to preserve their own pet teachings.

For that reason, Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 is interpreted to be “symbolic”. Why? Because Jesus clearly says eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary to have His life in us, which would contradict the teaching of “faith alone” where only faith is necessary for salvation. So, Protestants interpret the “eating and drinking” of His flesh and blood as a metaphor for “feeding” on Christ *spiritually (*depending upon Him for salvation) which then makes the passage compatible with salvation by faith alone.

 

[Veritas41]

Tonyagrace:

Kitty

I have an idea and please prayerfully consider before you say no.
Please go to your closest Roman Catholic Church,
find the red lit candle,
there is the Tabernacle; where the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is contained. The Blessed Sacrament.
Have a seat or kneel
there are usually chairs or a kneeler close by…just get comfy.
And** just pray **in His Holy Presence.
Okay so maybe you don’t believe yet…
**just pray **and
ask God to give you His wisdom and understanding…
tell God, you don’t get it.
Tell God you are mulling it over and over and you keep getting stuck on certain pieces of the puzzle.
Ask God for His Holy Wisdom and Understanding…
not us a bunch of mortals…we can’t explain it to you…it is not something thier, my or your intelligence can grasp…
you need to go to HIM!
Blessings and Love

Great Advice!

 

[Wisdom]

Veritas41:

People work by how they train. Protestants are trained to take verses out of context so they do it naturally and without thought about it. It’s just the nature of the Protestant beast. (beast - is that a pun? "

As a former Protestant, I have to agree 100% with this statement. Years ago I read a book by a Protestant evangelist who was telling the story of his small group evangelism (I can’t remember the person’s name unfortunately, this was about 20 years ago). He mentioned that he had atheists, Protestants and Catholics in attendance, and it was always the Protestants (or those from Protestant backgrounds) who would respond, “The Bible doesn’t say *that!” *when confronted with the actual text of a passage. The Catholics and atheists tended to take the passage at face value, whereas the Protestants *read into *the text what they had been taught it was supposed to say. And I’ve encountered this many times when discussing Catholic teaching with Protestants and providing texts from Scripture to back it up. It’s amazing the interpretive gymnastics that some go through to avoid anything but the clear meaning of the text in order to preserve their own pet teachings.

For that reason, Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 is interpreted to be “symbolic”. Why? Because Jesus clearly says eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary to have His life in us, which would contradict the teaching of “faith alone” where only faith is necessary for salvation. So, Protestants interpret the “eating and drinking” of His flesh and blood as a metaphor for “feeding” on Christ *spiritually (*depending upon Him for salvation) which then makes the passage compatible with salvation by faith alone.

Tell me about it.
When confronted with the verse “Baptism now saves you”
The evangelical says not it doesn’t mean that literally.
Its amazing the mythlogical references and apocalyptic references in Genesis and Revelation are taken literally to them when there is good evidence to support these part of those books were not meant to be interpreted literally but any mention of sacraments in teh Bible are not literal but symbolic. There are extreme problems with evangelical exegesis of scripture but they refuse to admit it.

 

[Huguenot]

exoflare:

I’m well aware that’s your opinion. But an opinion in itself doesn’t prove very much.

True …but it’s true the other way round too …

 

[Doreen]

Wisdom,
I am really not sure what you’re trying to say in your reply to me…what part of what I have said are you alluding to? I understand you to be saying something about that many evangelicals base their faith on emotion…but I can tell you that is NOT the case with me. And to have you say that it is, truly is insulting to me.

There are a few posts that follow yours where these same generalizations are being made.

Folks, if you really want to have a valuable discussion, you have to be careful to avoid throwing people in a bundle (i.e. casting stereotypes) and being unwilling to listen to the voices on here.

I have more to say…but life calls!
D.

 

[Doreen]

Wisdom:

Doreen you really bring up some false presumptions in your agument first of all I don’t know what the heck an average joe catholic is. If you mean cultural catholic who goes to church twice a year yeah there are plenty of those and if this seems to describe the lukewarm familyu that practices the externals of the faith a couple times of the year. They do seem like lousy examples of the faith but there are many protestants who fit this bill as well. In fundamentalist church’s which it sounds you have converted to this is not the case for a couple reasons few people are actually born into these faiths or churchs as many are pretty new churchs or denoms many are converts from other faiths so you choose to be part of it thus a little less of the cultural non-denom factor. However they suffer a different thing, turnover stay in teh church 5 years I gurantee few people stick around, people constantly church shop in these churchs are looking to recapture the fire they initally had at their conversion experince. These fellings you see come and go it is the dry faith that keeps you going the emotional conversion experience does not plast its an emotion. Truth is not judged on emotion nor if some adherents of the faith are lukewarm or not. Truth is based on Christ and if Christ did find a church, in this case the catholic church and proomised that the gates of hell will not prevail then whether or not you have some on fire people in a church he did not find does not matter, that is emotionalism. The most on fire people of any faith are Muslims now just becasue they are true beleivers does that make it true? The same goes for Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses they are on fire more than the typical evangelical really . Mormons typically 2 years out of their life for their faith and Jehovah’s witnesses bascially work close to 4o hour workweek for their church both things few on fire evangelicals can match in commitment. Emtionalsim does not equate Doreen. Jesus judges us indivually and not by the so called average joe you like to compare yourself to. What he or she does is of no consequnce to your salvation.

Wisdom,
This is the excerpt that you wrote which I’m trying to connect with something I’ve said.

Thanks.
D.

 

[Wisdom]

IF anyone throws people in a bundle its you Doreen. What with the average Joe Catholic rant and that average catholics don’t know Jesus, etc it is you who are putting people in a box. Your a litlle thin skinned when it comes to criticism but you have no problem throwing out the broad accusations. Judging from your post I don’t think your faith is based on anything besides emotion as you haven’t give solid reasons besides family and friends who happen to mariginal catholics as a reason for thinking the religion cannot save people via Christ.

Now be honest Doreen do you think Catholcism is inferior to your brand of fundamentalsim?

 

[Doreen]

I’m sorry, Wisdom, that you feel so adamantly negative. I am simply pointing out the facts as they are apparent in my world.

The FACT is, by the way, that since you end your statement as you do,

Judging from your post I don’t think your faith is based on anything besides emotion as you haven’t give solid reasons besides family and friends who happen to mariginal catholics as a reason for thinking the religion can save people via Christ.

shows me that you have NO interest in discussing anything. (not to mention the fact that the final sentence makes no sense at all)You simply want to state how very right you are, and be done with it. So why do you bother to spend time on this thread?

After all, it is a question directed to protestants…

And…you have a lot of nerve telling me that my relationship with Christ is all about emotion…it’s like this:

The FACT is He saves me because I stand on His Word.
I have FAITH in Him to mean what He says.
Therefore, YES, I feel HIS presence in a real and tangible way.

You, clearly, have NO experience with the real presence, or you would not be lambasting someone else who shares that experience, because YOU would know, without question, as I do…that Christ is REAL, He’s living and active in your life. You’d be humbled by the experience, as I am, and you would not be so quick to bash someone who shares this wonderful gift of God.

SO that is as simple as it is. You are simply IGNORANT of Christ as you surely do not know His grace and His likeness. I surely don’t see it or hear it in your tone.

If my words about my friends and family offend thee, thou ought look in the mirror closely, friend.
D.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Let’s get back on track folks.

Rachel

 

[Doreen]

Rachel Malloy:

Let’s get back on track folks.

Rachel

I sincerely apologize, Rachel, for letting “emotions” enter this dialogue. I repent of my part in it. Thanks for keeping us accountable.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Doreen:

And…you have a lot of nerve telling me that my relationship with Christ is all about emotion…it’s like this:

The FACT is He saves me because I stand on His Word.
I have FAITH in Him to mean what He says.
Therefore, YES, I feel HIS presence in a real and tangible way. (NOTE: Doreen - Nothing in this statement is contrary to the Catholic faith you left behind.)

You, clearly, have NO experience with the real presence, or you would not be lambasting someone else who shares that experience, because YOU would know, without question, as I do…that Christ is REAL, He’s living and active in your life. You’d be humbled by the experience, as I am, and you would not be so quick to bash someone who shares this wonderful gift of God.

SO that is as simple as it is. You are simply IGNORANT of Christ as you surely do not know His grace and His likeness. I surely don’t see it or hear it in your tone. (Doreen - But that does not mean He is not present.)

If my words about my friends and family offend thee, thou ought look in the mirror closely, friend.
D.

Doreen;

Judging from your posts, it sounds to me like you did not experience the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church, nor did those Catholics who are close to you. But, now that you are attending worship services at an evangelical protestant church you state you are experiencing the presence of Christ in your life for the first time. I believe that your experience is similar to many who have left the Church. And, if this is correct, I do not doubt your sincerity, nor do I doubt that Christ has touched your life.

Having said that, let me add that I do not believe that you had to leave the Catholic Church to experience Christ in your life. Sadly, in my opinion, you felt you had to leave the church because for whatever reason you simply did not understand what (or who) was there for you - Christ. I’m not making a judgment about your decision. Indeed, it sounds to me like there were many reasons beyond your control that influenced your life choices, including a lack of proper catechism, lack of familial support, indifference, … etcetera. We live in a broken world, where the path to truth is full of obstacles, twists and turns. Many have been blinded to the truths that are right in front of them. All I would suggest is that you remain open to the truth, no matter where it leads. In my case, I was raised Catholic, fell away for a number of years, and returned to the faith later - finding Christ truly present in the Church and her sacraments. Perhaps you too, are on your way home? Maybe that’s why you’ve been led here.

Also, let me add that I believe that the fullness of Christ’s teachings are not present outside of the Church. Although many of His teachings are understood and lived to a great extent by those who are separated in doctrine from full unity with Catholic Church. I have no doubt that many men and women who are reformed christians live godly lives in Christ and that those lives are lived with a unity of spirit in Christ that must be respected by Catholics. No good Catholic would doubt the sincerity or their separated christian brothers and sisters But, as a Catholic I do believe that their *understanding * of their faith - as beautiful as it may be - is not totally correct. I also believe that the best place to experience Christ is within the Church, living a sacramental life. Saying this takes nothing away from the reality of your experience with Christ. It only opens for you the possibility for a deeper experience - IMHO.

Doreen, nothing in my statements implies that I question the sincerity of your faith, or the reality of your experience with Christ. My only “criticism” (for lack of a better word) is in your perception of the Catholic faith that you chose to leave. My hope is that you will be open to returning, if you discern that to be God’s will.

Keep asking the hard questions.

-Peace

 

[Dorothy]

Kitty Chan:

I like what you Tonyagrace posted about what the Pope said. I have no problem or arguement with what was said by Tonyagrace, or you Aquinas.

Well I like what you say here although the last part about things being boring is not true. Thats not a issue. To me when you both describe this I agree, and thats where I keep coming back to if I agree with what you are saying, then where is the arguement.

Perhaps the secret is Im not a card carrying fundy, maybe thats why this conversation to me does not connect totally to understanding just what you are getting at.

To me I see there is some kind of a difference of perception, whereas Catholics see the actual flesh going in the mouth and non Catholics see the flesh broken, is this it??

An important point to ponder is that Catholics, when they receive the consecrated Bread and Wine are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. And, that is the Risen, Glorious Body of Jesus Christ. If they receive just a crumb of the wafer, or just a drop of the wine they are receiving what I typed above.