Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[Doreen]

Little Mary:

Doreen, you left half educated. go back and fully educate yourself on the Catholic faith and stop bashing it based on limited knowledge.

Little Mary,
Thanks for all the compassion expressed here.

Really though, you are correct in saying that I was not properly educated in the church, and this is a sad thing for me, but I wish to share my sad case to hope to see change happen for others!

If the church of the 70’s and 80’s failed me, it likely failed many others. Doesn’t that concern you at all?

I hope that some who are staunch and sturdy in their Catholic understanding might bring to the attention of their superiors the very devastating effects poor teaching from such a powerful entity as the RCC can be for our nation!

I am working to “fully educate” myself on this website for lack of other resources right now…and I appreciate all the wonderful insight you can give me.

I have been impressed by those on these pages who have shown me grace and understanding.

None of this, mind you, belongs on this thread. Sorry, Folks! I’m new to this whole manner of dialogue, so I will try to do better in keeping my thoughts threaded correctly.

God Bless You!
D.

 

[prodigal-sun]

SolaChristo:

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”.

Aye, & Jesus was born of flesh and blood and that is why he told us to “eat his flesh & Drink his blood”

Please keep working it out in your head, Our Lord will show you the way if you let him.

Peace!

 

[Wisdom]

This grace juice controversy is quite silly there is no scriptural or historical reason for it, for grace juice is a modern invention using an entirely different grape than wine grapes. Those who make the excuse that its good for alcoholics miss the point.

Also if your catholic and an alcholic you can request to have unfermented wine (not grape juice) given in communion, if your a regular parishoner at a parish this is not a problem usually a discussion with the priest or a head eucharistic minister usually does the trick. However if you visit a church if you avoid the wine for the reasons discussed and partake of only the sign of bread you still partake of the body and blood of Christ per catholic teaching.
The partaking of the the signs of bread and wine is merely a fuller expression of the sacrament and should be encouraged particiapation by the laity per the teaching of Vatican 2 but it has no effect on your participation of the full body and blood of Christ.

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

Little Mary,
Really though, you are correct in saying that I was not properly educated in the church, and this is a sad thing for me, but I wish to share my sad case to hope to see change happen for others!

If the church of the 70’s and 80’s failed me, it likely failed many others. Doesn’t that concern you at all?

As a convert, this is my number one concern about the Church: you and your whole generation who were often neglected and misled by people who co-opted what they claimed was “the Spirit of Vatican Two” and tried to re-write the faith. The Council was not a dogmatic council but a pastoral council: nothing changed in the core teachings. (Yes: it IS still a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday without good reason. Yes. Confession is still a sacrament, and required before receiving the Eucharist if one is not in a state of grace.)

I hope that some who are staunch and sturdy in their Catholic understanding might bring to the attention of their superiors the very devastating effects poor teaching from such a powerful entity as the RCC can be for our nation!

With your experience, you should head that committee!

I am working to “fully educate” myself on this website for lack of other resources right now…and I appreciate all the wonderful insight you can give me.

I have been impressed by those on these pages who have shown me grace and understanding.

None of this, mind you, belongs on this thread. Sorry, Folks! I’m new to this whole manner of dialogue, so I will try to do better in keeping my thoughts threaded correctly.

Technically, this does not belong on this thread but in a way, it does – because the Eucharist is the central unifying act of our faith and fellowship with Christ.

God love ya, Doreen! Keep asking questions. Maybe start new threads for each one. Have you been to the home page of Catholic Answers and looked at the tracts there? They give bite (byte?) sized introductions to some of the key questions people ask about the faith.

I think we gave you a link to the on-line Catechism of the Catholic Church– didn’t we? You can buy a hard copy through Amazon or Barnes & Noble (I prefer the larger format “green” one). Some people find it a little above their heads but most people can handle it fairly well. Start reading it at Part IV – Prayer. It is the most beautiful, brief (about 75 pages) discourse on prayer that you will ever see.

 

[Mickey]

Doreen:

Do you want my hypothesis/formula for the blood now?

Welcome Doreen!

I think what you are missing here is that the Eucharist is both “The Real Presence” of Jesus Christ and a spiritual communion with Him.

That is the consistent teaching for about 1500 years until the reformers decided there should be a revision of thought. It has always been very clear to the early Christians that John 6, (as well as other passages), teaches the Real Presence. However, the reformers introduced an alternative understanding and many cannot see the clear teaching any longer. There is a very interesting passage written by St Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans. St Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle St John. I apologize to those who have read this a thousand times already on this forum, but I feel it is worth re-posting over and over. It shows us how the early Christians understood the Eucharist. I will also post a quote from Justin Martyr. Peace and blessings to you on your journey, Doreen.

IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS

From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.* (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

 

[Paris_Blues]

I’m not saying this to be a smart-alic (was going to say the other word but decided not to!) but why is it that other Christians believe that our Lord turned water into wine at the Wedding at Cana (BECAUSE IT IS IN SCRIPTURE**) BUT CAN’T BELIEVE HE CAN TURN A WAFER INTO HIS OWN BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY!???**[unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_shock.gif](javascript:insertsmilie(’:shock:’)):ehh:[unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_shock.gif](javascript:insertsmilie(’:shock:’))[[unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_shock.gif](javascript:insertsmilie(’:shock:’))[[unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_shock.gif](javascript:insertsmilie(’:shock:’))](javascript:insertsmilie(’:shock:’))](javascript:insertsmilie(’:shock:’))

Sorry, I’m okay. Now if you’ll excuse me, I am going to go look at the menus)

 

[Tonyagrace]

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

You know what is so funny about this! Non Denominationals and other Protestant groups take EVERY part of the Bible literally EXCEPT this part of John Chapter 6! Jesus is offering a never ending eternal banquet / feast and the jews that walk away have an eating disorder…they don’t get it…if Jesus did NOT mean for this to be taken literally Jesus would have STOPPED the people walking away. But HE didn’t, because we are supposed to receive His Body and His Blood to be renewed, refreshed, and cleansed daily!

 

[Kay_Cee]

Doreen:

I posted this perhaps on the wrong thread, but here again is my take on the Eucharist…as seen from a non-Catholic/protestant perspective:

As I look at all the references to the bread…I can make this almost as simple as a complex algebraic formula.

John 4:34 Jesus says, “My food, is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

Food = doing God’s will and FINISH the work (says Christ)

But Jesus says this is **His **food. He doesn’t say it is **our **food.

So, because Jesus refers to food in a symbolic way once, that means that every time He refers to eating, He means it in a symbolic way?

BTW, when his disciples fail to understand Him in John 4, He clears the matter up by telling them He is speaking in a symbolic way. However, in John 6, He does no such thing. Instead, He repeats Himself: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you.” (John 6: 53-54)

Jesus says: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” vs. 29

Hence: God’s Work = Belief in Christ

Verse 33 “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Hence: God’s Bread = Christ

35…“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

Hence: The Bread of Life/Christ + our seeking him + our belief = total satisfaction (Somebody please tell this to the Rolling Stones so they can retire! )

40 “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Hence: God’s will = we look to the Son, believe and live

50 “But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

HERE IS (the bread) = I AM (the living bread)

This bread = flesh that will be given up
Eat this bread = Life

56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

Eat = remaining in me and I in him
Eat = Abiding

57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

Jesus lives because of the Father = We live because of the Son

58 " …he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

Feeds on = continual abiding

Which brings us back to an important preceding statement:

John 4:34 “My food, is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

Food = Work

That is if we are “fed” by Christ, on Christ, we’ll be able to work as Christ to fulfill the will of God which is that we look to Christ, believe and live…and pass it on.

I read your argument three times, and quite frankly, I can’t follow it. It seems to me that:

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven” = I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” = The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

“My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” = My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you” = Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you.

“Take and eat” = Take and eat.

“This is my body” = This is my body.

“Take and drink” = Take and drink.

“This is the cup of my blood” = This is the cup of my blood.

Can you show me any examples where the early Christians believed the figurative or metaphorical sense of the Eucharist that you’ve outlined above?

 

[Mickey]

Tonyagrace:

You know what is so funny about this! Non Denominationals and other Protestant groups take EVERY part of the Bible literally EXCEPT this part of John Chapter 6!

Sadly, they have no choice. John 6 does not fit into their reformed theology and hence must be re-interpreted. This breaks my heart. :crying:

 

[Paris_Blues]

:crying::crying:[’)"]http://unity.enya.com/images/smiles/icon_smile_disapprove.gif](javascript:insertsmilie(’[V)unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_sad.gif[[’)"]http://unity.enya.com/images/smiles/icon_smile_sad.gif](javascript:insertsmilie(’)
ME TOO!!! IT’S SAD!

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

I posted this perhaps on the wrong thread, but here again is my take on the Eucharist…as seen from a non-Catholic/protestant perspective: . . .
HERE IS (the bread) = I AM (the living bread)

This bread = flesh that will be given up
Eat this bread = Life

56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

Eat = remaining in me and I in him
Eat = Abiding

57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

Jesus lives because of the Father = We live because of the Son

58 " …he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

Feeds on = continual abiding

Which brings us back to an important preceding statement:

John 4:34 “My food, is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

Food = Work

That is if we are “fed” by Christ, on Christ, we’ll be able to work as Christ to fulfill the will of God which is that we look to Christ, believe and live…and pass it on.

Be careful, Doreen. You’re starting to sound mighty Catholic. :yup:

 

[SolaChristo]

ThomasMore1535:

Yes, I did misunderstand that part, and I apologize, insofar as I misunderstood when you said that you believed that Jesus died physically, but not spiritually.

Nevertheless, this still undermines your argument, because it’s quite clear that something PHYSICAL (His Death) is the source of grace for us. Why then do you say that the Catholic claim on the Eucharist is wrong, because it is physical? You are still contradicting yourself.

When Jesus died on the cross He was our sin offering/scapegoat our sins were placed on Him. By His death the righteous requirement of the Law has been fulfilled. By His resurrection we are given newness in life.
what I have said is that the Eucharist is a spiritual reality a spiritual truth a food for our spirit not physical.

 

[SolaChristo]

Little Mary:

Actually the bible says “…and the WORD became flesh…”

So for Him to say to eat his flesh, that must be what he meant. He is the Word. He speaks, and it is so. “Let there be light” Sound familiar? If He says it is then it is. ‘for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.’

And we eat His flesh by chewing on His word.

 

[SolaChristo]

Tonyagrace:

You know what is so funny about this! Non Denominationals and other Protestant groups take EVERY part of the Bible literally EXCEPT this part of John Chapter 6! Jesus is offering a never ending eternal banquet / feast and the jews that walk away have an eating disorder…they don’t get it…if Jesus did NOT mean for this to be taken literally Jesus would have STOPPED the people walking away. But HE didn’t, because we are supposed to receive His Body and His Blood to be renewed, refreshed, and cleansed daily!

I dont take that we are to be born again to be a rebirth of our physical bodies its a rebirth of our spiritual man.
The disciples that walked away believed that they must literally eat His body and drink His blood. The OT forbides the drinking of blood, they could not reconcile the two commandments one not to dirnk blood and the other to drink blood.

 

[mercygate]

SolaChristo:

And we eat His flesh by chewing on His word.

Since this thread is “Protestant Argument of the Eucharist,” we’ll take your word for it. By “word” we understand you to mean Scripture, and by “chew” we understand you to mean “contemplate, study, absorb intellectually and emotionally.”

Catholics would heartily affirm your position since from our viewpoint, this kind of “word” is the only thing you can “chew” on since you reject Apostolic Succession. There can be no Real Presence without real Priests. Therefore, denial of the real presence is honest, notwithstanding the difficulties created by Scripture.

 

[SolaChristo]

mercygate:

Since this thread is “Protestant Argument of the Eucharist,” we’ll take your word for it. By “word” we understand you to mean Scripture, and by “chew” we understand you to mean “contemplate, study, absorb intellectually and emotionally.”

Catholics would heartily affirm your position since from our viewpoint, this kind of “word” is the only thing you can “chew” on since you reject Apostolic Succession. There can be no Real Presence without real Priests. Therefore, denial of the real presence is honest, notwithstanding the difficulties created by Scripture.

A misconception.

1Peter2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, B]5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” F9 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, F10 “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” F11 8 and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” F12 They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.** 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; **

and again

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. 4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed F1 us from our sins in His own blood,** 6 and has made us kings F2 and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. **

 

[mercygate]

SolaChristo:

A misconception.

1Peter2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, B]5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” F9 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, F10 “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” F11 8 and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” F12 They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.** 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; **

and again

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. 4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed F1 us from our sins in His own blood,** 6 and has made us kings F2 and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. **Misconception? Sola, those verses are in the Catholic Bible, too, believe it or not. But there is a distinction between the priesthood of all the faithful and the ministerial priesthood clearly evidenced in the New Testament, as there are multiple charisms of the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:11). The fullness of the apostolic charism (Mt. 28:18-20, Jn 20:21-23) resides in the bishops, successors of the Apostles (Acts 1:26).

 

[Mickey]

SolaChristo:

And we eat His flesh by chewing on His word.

Correction. We eat His flesh by receiving the Word (Jesus) in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[mercygate]

Mickey:

Correction. We eat His flesh by receiving the Word (Jesus) in the Holy Eucharist.

. . . as in The Word made flesh.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

. . . as in The Word made flesh.