Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter beachieca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beachieca

Guest
I know that a common argument against the Catholic church has to do with the celebration of the Eucharist during mass. While non-denominational Christians recognize the body and blood of Christ by grape juice or wine and pieces of bread, they don’t believe when that it could turn into the actual body and blood of Christ.
I read John 7:54-58,** “for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”** and to me that right there gives proof that Christ meant that his body and blood is just that…his body and blood.
Even when some of his disciples left him b/c they didn’t believe and couldn’t accept that it really was his body and blood, Jesus knew they wouldn’t believe before hand but still emphasized how real it all was. I don’t think that this is one of the times in the Bible when it was meant to be taken in the context of a metaphor. In my opinon, reading and believing it as a metaphor would be taking it out of context.
Then again, I read 1Cor: 27,29 and it says “For anyone who eats and drinks witout discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.” In the dictionary discerning means: to recognize or identify as separate and distinct. So in other words, “for anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing or identifying the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.” Am I correct? So if you read both of these, how can anyone say that the Eucharist is anything other than the “real thing?”
Anyway, I’d be very interested to see what a non-denominational Christian would have to say 🙂 I’m only trying to figure it all out.
Thank you and God Bless
 
Im probably a bad example of protestant since I dont behold strongly to a particular church but maybe I can offer help. I think its grape juice or wine in different churches, (isnt that why Mr Welch made the juice for a fine wine replacement.) I think if the actual wine bothers people maybe some are recovering alchololics?? or if its bread, pre broken or whole loaf etc, wine grape, (Im slightly grossed out by sharing a cup I perfer the tiny cups but its only a preferrence) its what a person is doing and what it represents is more important.

As for what it all represents, Ive heard of this "catholics are drinking blood BUT Ive also heard it said of christians on a whole that we drink blood. Christ taught in parables and examples I take it when He says this is my body then I see the bread break but Im reminded of His body and how it was broken and maimed on the cross and He did not have to be there but was there for me.
Same as with the blood, it was shed for me.

I think your right about someone eating and drinking “without recognizing or identifying the body eats and drinks judgement on himself” Therefore one need to examine their own heart and decide if they truly want to identify with and recognize who Christ is. If He is indeed their Saviour and did infact die on the cross for a wretch like me.

If I am lying about how I feel about such things then I will bring judgement on myself because of that lie, as God knows the heart.

So maybe its this metaphor you speak of but I dont see where any meaning is lost?? I dont imagine blood and chunks of flesh going in my mouth, I pray thats not what you mean. I think of the sacrifice and offering made on my behalf (and everyonee elses) 🙂
 
40.png
beachieca:
I know that a common argument against the Catholic church has to do with the celebration of the Eucharist during mass. While non-denominational Christians recognize the body and blood of Christ by grape juice or wine and pieces of bread, they don’t believe when that it could turn into the actual body and blood of Christ.
I read John 7:54-58,** “for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”** and to me that right there gives proof that Christ meant that his body and blood is just that…his body and blood.
Even when some of his disciples left him b/c they didn’t believe and couldn’t accept that it really was his body and blood, Jesus knew they wouldn’t believe before hand but still emphasized how real it all was. I don’t think that this is one of the times in the Bible when it was meant to be taken in the context of a metaphor. In my opinon, reading and believing it as a metaphor would be taking it out of context.
Then again, I read 1Cor: 27,29 and it says “For anyone who eats and drinks witout discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.” In the dictionary discerning means: to recognize or identify as separate and distinct. So in other words, “for anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing or identifying the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.” Am I correct? So if you read both of these, how can anyone say that the Eucharist is anything other than the “real thing?”
Anyway, I’d be very interested to see what a non-denominational Christian would have to say 🙂 I’m only trying to figure it all out.
Thank you and God Bless
Click to expand...
Decerning:

Anyone who takes Holy Communion unworthily, ie Didnt go to confession as needed, or didnt fast, receives but still is skeptical as to the real presence would be grounds for bringing condemnation upon the receiver.
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
Decerning:

Anyone who takes Holy Communion unworthily, ie Didnt go to confession as needed, or didnt fast, receives but still is skeptical as to the real presence would be grounds for bringing condemnation upon the receiver.
Click to expand...
I can go with that, although a non catholic would probably confess to Christ, but confession would be done just differently than a catholic.

Im not sure about fasting being diabetic hope its not the case as it would leave me out of the whole thing.

But Im with you all the way on the skeptical, one cannot fool God.
 
I am no Protestant any longer but… A long time ago, in a land far far away, I too was was a Protestant.:banghead:

Anyway, when we took the Bible out of context. A verse here and a verse there. No context on where they came from. It was easy to believe that grape juice was used by Jesus and it was symbolic only. After all, how could Jesus ferment the grape juice if He didn’t let it sit for years to get the alcohol in it? (Hum??? That one used to stump me till I was Catholic and realized Jesus was God and could do ANYTHING he wanted - even ferment wine. As a Protestant I just assumed Jesus couldn’t make wine from grape juice?😦 )

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?:hmmm: )
 
Did Jesus take the cup of wine or the small plastic sippies of grape juice? Another protestant contradiction.

Alcoholics have exception, I guess, but no one is required to take the blood. But I doubt that is the reason for the Protestant “tradition”. I think they so reject the body and blood of Christ that they are removing themselves further and further away from the True Presence.
 
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.
 
re the wine vrs grape juice

I have never heard that protestants claim Jesus drank grape juice and not wine. If a church does not like to use actual wine then I would say it probably goes back to alcohol and its abuse somehow and its not used because of that.

There is probably some history there along those lines. It would be awful to ask a alcoholic to take wine and threaten their sobriety. So Im sure with some exceptions no one thought Christ drank grape juice. And the grape juice when served is considered to be the blood represented by the wine. Read what I said earlier no loss of meaning.

And Im hoping that is not a polerizing issue with people if its wine or juice, I pray its not come to that !
 
The Eucharist IS Scriptural is where you can see many of these arguments played out in full.

To me these passages as stated in posts 1, 2, and 4 just sew up the whole doctrine. To me they are about as simple and plain as the sun in the sky on a clear day. How others miss it is pretty hard for me to fathom, but I guess that is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is one of the strongest doctrines of the Catholic Church IMO.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Catholics would have everyone believe that the Lords Supper is theirs exclusively. This is just not true. Most Celebrate the Lords Supper with much reverence and awe.
Did you know that Johnny Cash recieved the Lords Supper daily in his latter years? He has testified that his throat cancer was put in remission because of it and meditating on Isaiah 53.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Both, ie by also receiving the Body and Blood of Christ one is breaking the fast and as such is food for the body.
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Catholics would have everyone believe that the Lords Supper is theirs exclusively. This is just not true. Most Celebrate the Lords Supper with much reverence and awe.
Did you know that Johnny Cash recieved the Lords Supper daily in his latter years? He has testified that his throat cancer was put in remission because of it and meditating on Isaiah 53.
Click to expand...
The “Lord’s Supper” (as you call it) in which Jesus is physically and spiritually present is exclusive of the successors of the apostles. This means that only Catholics and Orthodox can claim this sacrament as their own. Bread and grape juice is another matter; I won’t claim a monopoly on these.
 
Church Militant said:
The Eucharist IS Scriptural is where you can see many of these arguments played out in full.

To me these passages as stated in posts 1, 2, and 4 just sew up the whole doctrine. To me they are about as simple and plain as the sun in the sky on a clear day. How others miss it is pretty hard for me to fathom, but I guess that is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is one of the strongest doctrines of the Catholic Church IMO.
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...

Are you saying you agree with our posts? 🙂

Im trying to figure out where the argument is, as some have said Im not sure of a church that does not take this seriously.

The only debate I was aware of was frequency is it every time or every second sunday etc.
 
Only in the last 500 years has anyone made the mistake of believing that communion is merely symbolic or anything other than what the Catholic Church has taught and believed for 2,000 years. The New Testament scriptures speak clearly and concisely and the writings of the Early Church prove that they too believed the very same thing. In other words they shared the self same Eucharistic beliefs that we Catholics do today because they were taught that same interpretation of the Word of God by the apostles themselves.

Unless of course one is willing to believe that St. John was a heretic and taught the men that he discipled wrong doctrine? :eek:

Two of St. John’s best friends and disciples were Sts. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch. Both became bishops of churches and both paid with their lives for the faith. Polycarp was burned alive singing hymns and Ignatius was thrown to wild animals in Rome. St. John died in about 100 and Ignatius went to his about 10 years later.

Ignatius wrote letters to different churches and many of them survive today. In about 107 st. Ignatius wrote a very telling letter (link) to the church at Smyrna, and here’s what he said about the Eucharist, what it means and those who don’t agree.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Not much doubt there is there? Just like the New Testament passages on this, he is very clear and up-front (even strict) about it.

People can believe whatever they please, but the fact is that like it or not, Catholic Eucharistic teaching is what agrees with the New Testament and the early church’s teaching.
Pax vobiscum,
 
Church Militant

Is what you said the argument? Im terribly sorry but Im not following what your getting at :confused:

re the VII chapter who is abstaining?

Maybe we need a better defination of symbolism?

This is why I asked if you agreed with the posts you quoted then it would be easier to understand what you mean.

🙂
 
Kitty Chan:
Are you saying you agree with our posts? 🙂

Im trying to figure out where the argument is, as some have said Im not sure of a church that does not take this seriously.

The only debate I was aware of was frequency is it every time or every second sunday etc.
Click to expand...
Kitty, I’ll respond to your last 3 posts, okay?

I am Catholic and since your profile does not specify your religious affliliation, I can only base my response upon what I have read in these 3 posts. I take it that you are non-Catholic at this point?

On the wine issue, that would not be a problem for an alcoholic since no one is required to receive under both species. Therefore, they could simply receive the host. Please remember that the last supper (which was the first Eucharist) was a Passover meal and therefore included real wine. It still does today.

There can never be a Catholic Eucharist that uses anything other than wine and unleavened bread. (Again remember that Passover meal which includes unleavened bread as a requirement.)

The fasting requirement is only one hour and so long as you eat before that you should be okay both on your fast and your diabetes. However…The church also allows for those who have medical reasons that require them to eat ot take meds, and they waive the fast for them. That part is a discipline, and not a doctrine so it can change (and has before. I recall fasting from Midnight the night before when I was a kid, which could be hard, but I also recall that in Catholic School we were fed breakfast after Mass every day, and that was really cool.).

On your frequency question I’m assuming that you are asking just how often we can receive the Eucharist? Bear in mind that we have Mass every day and sometimes many times a day, and the Eucharist is an integral part of that liturgy every time. The rule of thumb is that a Catholic can receive twice a day, provided that we participate in a Mass both times, or that one of the receptions is part of the Sacrament of the Sick. Like say I went to 8:30 Mass in the morning and then that afternoon got hurt in a car accident and Father John came and gave me the Eucharist as part of the sacramental annointing for my healing as per James 5: 14-16.
14 Is anyone among you sick? 6 He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.
So understand that we celebrate communion at every Mass, and that there are many many opportunities to participate. I like to go as often as I can. The very minimum is once a week, though the church requires Confession and Communion at least once a year at Easter time, but I don’t think I could wait like that. 😦
I hope I have helped clear up your questions.
The peace of Christ be always with you.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
The essence of this view that the Lord’s Supper is food for the spirit rather than the body hinges on a typical Protestant assessment that something “spiritual” cannot be physical. This frequently translates into equating “spiritual” with “symbolic.”

Catholic theology is deeply incarnational, deeply rooted in creation history. The John 6 passage to which much of this discussion relates contrasts “my flesh” – i.e., the flesh of Jesus, which we must eat – with “the flesh.” The distinction is pivotal. Catholics have no trouble valuing the physical Body (Jesus’ Body or our own) as spiritual – after all, the Resurrection testifies to its destiny.
 
40.png
exoflare:
The “Lord’s Supper” (as you call it) in which Jesus is physically and spiritually present is exclusive of the successors of the apostles. This means that only Catholics and Orthodox can claim this sacrament as their own. Bread and grape juice is another matter; I won’t claim a monopoly on these.
Click to expand...
I do very well with the Lords Supper thank you.
 
40.png
mercygate:
The essence of this view that the Lord’s Supper is food for the spirit rather than the body hinges on a typical Protestant assessment that something “spiritual” cannot be physical. This frequently translates into equating “spiritual” with “symbolic.”

Catholic theology is deeply incarnational, deeply rooted in creation history. The John 6 passage to which much of this discussion relates contrasts “my flesh” – i.e., the flesh of Jesus, which we must eat – with “the flesh.” The distinction is pivotal. Catholics have no trouble valuing the physical Body (Jesus’ Body or our own) as spiritual – after all, the Resurrection testifies to its destiny.
Click to expand...
My physical body is the temple of God within the physical body a spiritual reality can be present. When Jesus said My food is to do the will of My Father and again My food is every word that proceeds from the Father he is talking about a spiritual reality in the physical realm. Spiritual realms can coesist in the physical and even superimpose on the physical.
But “What is born of spirit is spirit and what is born of flesh is flesh”.
 
40.png
mercygate:
The essence of this view that the Lord’s Supper is food for the spirit rather than the body hinges on a typical Protestant assessment that something “spiritual” cannot be physical. This frequently translates into equating “spiritual” with “symbolic.”

Catholic theology is deeply incarnational, deeply rooted in creation history. The John 6 passage to which much of this discussion relates contrasts “my flesh” – i.e., the flesh of Jesus, which we must eat – with “the flesh.” The distinction is pivotal. Catholics have no trouble valuing the physical Body (Jesus’ Body or our own) as spiritual – after all, the Resurrection testifies to its destiny.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as Mercy points out, the tendency to blur the meaning of the words “spiritual” and “symbolic” is quite popular nowadays. Just consider the spiritual warfare in which we live in our culture nowadays; it is a very real and present thing. So the Church’s teaching is that the Eucharist is a spiritual food, one that the Lord Himself promised would give eternal life (cf Jn 6).

Also, if one were to interpret Jn 6 in a “symbolic” manner rather than a literal one, it would essentially reduce to gibberish. As has been pointed out by others more qualified than myself, the Semitic idiom “to eat the flesh of,” as symbolic meaning, means to insult or demean. So, were Jesus to be speaking figuratively, he would promise eternal life to the one who slanders or demeans Him. Doesn’t make too much logical sense that way.

CathChemNerd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top