Protestant Communion Help Needed

[Barbkw]

Justin Martyr - 103 to 165 A.D.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

"CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

• For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

Were the early Christians celebrating a Protestant service or a Catholic Mass?

 

[wmscott]

Skipping down to verse 58, “He that eateth my body and blood, truly made meat and drink, though after [in] a spiritual manner…”

Sorry CMatt25, one more

Pinwheel, each and every time I approach the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist, I do so in the most spiritual manner I can.

 

[CMatt25]

I’d also point out the fact that Jesus wasn’t crucified yet at the Last Supper, but it didn’t seem relevant to the question, so I left it alone.

Not only in John 6 does Christ use eating to refer to spiritual nourishment, but in the episode with the woman at the well. He tells his disciples he has food to eat that they do not know about. The same word for “eat” is used here as in John 6 - phago.

As far as the ECFs, I’m of an opinion with Calvin, of whom I’m not a huge fan, but I’ll quote him here:

“for those holy men were ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other, and are sometimes at variance with themselves.”

In other words, the ECFs at times seemed to have MPD, and they were certainly guilty of amplifying what some previous “father” said so that the story grew with the telling, and is why Roman Catholicism has continually added to its explanations (while remaining unchanged, of course - sorry for the sarcasm). Personally, I often think that Catholics appeal to the Fathers out of ignorance (not that I’m suggesting that’s the case here), because you at least alluded to a specific quote, with which I am familiar. But I don’t think the argument in appealing to some quote from an ECF is ever as convincing as it’s made out to be.

I know, I know: “The ECFs gave us the Bible!” and “The Bible is a product of the church, not vice versa!” As I’ve pointed out in other conversations, every argument for Christianity is eventually reduced to assumptions and circularity. I believe what I do about the Bible by Faith, just as you believe what you do about the Catholic church by Faith.

Well of sorts you’re preaching to the choir. I often seem to be finding myself reminding my fellow Catholics it’s pretty much all faith when we get right down to it. I truly do appreciate your responses thus far though. I’ve learned. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry CMatt25, one more

Pinwheel, each and every time I approach the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist, I do so in the most spiritual manner I can.

wmscott, no need to be sorry. The thread will progress as it does. And whiIe I’m unsure I know of anyone who takes everything in Scripture literally… One person may take a 24 hr evening and morning 6 day Creation literally but not the Eucharist. Another visa versa and so forth. I’m actually going to go and literally eat dinner now. But I’ll check back later.

 

[Cat_Herder]

@cooterhein - good point: eating human flesh is unlawful in the Torah, as is drinking any kind of blood. This lends additional credence to the fact that Jesus was looking for spiritual followers, which these individuals revealed they were not by their LITERAL interpretation of his words.

John 4:23-24 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

It’s not the Father, Son and Holy Symbol.

The spiritual is just as real as the physical–indeed more so. Spiritual realities may or may not take on physical appearances; usually they do not. Hence Jesus is a vine although He does not appear as a green leafy plant; He actually and truly does unite all Christians in a spiritual bond (the communion of saints). Jesus really is a Lamb although He has no wool; He is the actual and real sacrifice for sins. And the Eucharist actually and truly is His Body regardless of whether His Body is visible or perceptible to the physical senses.

 

[ckempston]

It’s not the Father, Son and Holy Symbol.

Nobody said it was. Actually, in this case it would be Father, Symbol, and Holy Spirt.

The spiritual is just as real as the physical–indeed more so. Spiritual realities may or may not take on physical appearances; usually they do not. Hence Jesus is a vine although He does not appear as a green leafy plant; He actually and truly does unite all Christians in a spiritual bond (the communion of saints). Jesus really is a Lamb although He has no wool; He is the actual and real sacrifice for sins. And the Eucharist actually and truly is His Body regardless of whether His Body is visible or perceptible to the physical senses.

Indeed, the spiritual is more real than the physical. It does not follow, however, that bread becomes flesh and wine becomes blood. While Jesus is certainly, in some sense, LIKE a vine, he is not IN ESSENCE, a vine, while IN SUBSTANCE he is man and God. Do you see the difference? Because that’s what Transubstantiation is. The esssence changes, but the substance remains. This is not the case with the analogies you’ve provided.

 

[JonNC]

While I am not a Protestant, I think there is one important point that should be made here.
When certain Protestants claim that their communion is only a symbol, they are speaking the truth. They have no authority to concecrate the elements of bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ. The only choice they have if they do believe that it was meant to be the real presence is to become a member of the Catholic Church. They will never have the real presence otherwise.

Steve,
This is clearly the Catholic teaching (well, not quite, as the CC recognizes others’ apostolic succession and validity of orders). And you ought to state and believe this position, as a Catholic. That said, please excuse us as we disagree.

Apologies to the OP as this may be off topic.
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Because Jesus wasn’t concerned with numbers but unquestioning obedience.

I don’t know whether this belief can be found in Scripture. Can you provide a reference?

The same reason he didn’t stop the rich young ruler who walked away sad.

Did the “rich young ruler” leave Jesus? Or was he simply walking away?

Or, you could take that literally too and sell all of your possessions and give them to the poor. Somehow, I doubt you’ll do this.

Right. This is not to be understood that one MUST sell all his possessions, only that his possessions ought not be pre-eminent in his life.

The disciples frequently misunderstood Jesus or just stood there flabbergasted at what he said.

Indeed. But the point is that Jesus’ disciples in John 6 did not misunderstand him. That’s why they left. Because it was a hard saying. They were trying to create a messiah in their own image and likeness.

Just like Christians today, esp. those who “church-shop”, refuse to believe in the “hard sayings” of Christ (such as divorce, for example) and try to conform a church to their own religion…rather than conforming their beliefs to that of Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Nobody said it was. Actually, in this case it would be Father, Symbol, and Holy Spirt.

You did, by asserting that spiritual = symbolic as follows:

This lends additional credence to the fact that Jesus was looking for spiritual followers, which these individuals revealed they were not by their LITERAL interpretation of his words.

You are asserting that spiritual realities are not literally real. They very much are.

Indeed, the spiritual is more real than the physical. It does not follow, however, that bread becomes flesh and wine becomes blood.

Why does it not follow?

While Jesus is certainly, in some sense, LIKE a vine, he is not IN ESSENCE, a vine, while IN SUBSTANCE he is man and God.

If Jesus is not in substance a vine then there is no connection between Christians. If Jesus is not in substance a lamb then there is no sacrifice for Christians. What does not follow is that Jesus would have the appearances of either a vine or a lamb. Nor does it follow that Christ somehow ceases to be man or God because He chooses to be the vine interconnecting Christians or the paschal Lamb.

Do you see the difference? Because that’s what Transubstantiation is. The esssence changes, but the substance remains. This is not the case with the analogies you’ve provided.

I am not dealing in analogies.

 

[Reuben_J]

Indeed, the spiritual is more real than the physical. It does not follow, however, that bread becomes flesh and wine becomes blood. While Jesus is certainly, in some sense, LIKE a vine, he is not IN ESSENCE, a vine, while IN SUBSTANCE he is man and God. Do you see the difference? Because that’s what Transubstantiation is. The esssence changes, but the substance remains. This is not the case with the analogies you’ve provided.

Don’t quite get you here. In transubstantiation, the substance changes - the bread and the wine to the real Body and the real Blood of Jesus. I thought that this is the problem that Protestants are struggling with or disbelieving rather.

The misunderstanding I often see among the Protestants is that they expect the substance to look and taste like the accidentals - that is human flesh and blood. Of course it is not because we can never know how the substance of Jesus the Divine or Spirit looks and tastes like.

The revelation by Jesus that his body is food no doubt the foreshadow of what he will be - that he is Spirit.

 

[Barbkw]

It’s not the Father, Son and Holy Symbol.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t quite get you here. In transubstantiation, the substance changes - the bread and the wine to the real Body and the real Blood of Jesus. I thought that this is the problem that Protestants are struggling with or disbelieving rather.

Indeed. It seems that it is a “hard saying” to accept that bread and wine are actually the body/blood, soul and divinity of God Himself.

However, it seems to be a more incredulous belief that God, the Numinous, the Transcendent, the Divine, could become a man,, than it is to accept that bread and wine could be transformed into His Real Presence.

And if one can accept the Incarnation, how far of a stretch could it be to accept Transubstantiation?

 

[Reuben_J]

Indeed. It seems that it is a “hard saying” to accept that bread and wine are actually the body/blood, soul and divinity of God Himself.

However, it seems to be a more incredulous belief that God, the Numinous, the Transcendent, the Divine, could become a man,, than it is to accept that bread and wine could be transformed into His Real Presence.

And if one can accept the Incarnation, how far of a stretch could it be to accept Transubstantiation?

With due respect to the Protestants here, this is what I am thinking too. Perhaps we take this belief for granted because we are Catholics. We are taught that this is what the Church believes and what our early brethrens believed and did. We are simply inheriting those belief and practice and the literal message of the Bible does make sense because of them. For without them, and simply just reading the Biblical text, well, I can understand the difficulty of understanding and accepting the “hard saying”.

 

[PRmerger]

With due respect to the Protestants here, this is what I am thinking too. Perhaps we take this belief for granted because we are Catholics. We are taught that this is what the Church believes and what our early brethrens believed and did. We are simply inheriting those belief and practice and the literal message of the Bible does make sense because of them. For without them, and simply just reading the Biblical text, well, I can understand the difficulty of understanding and accepting the “hard saying”.

Yes, and with due respect to the non-Catholic Christians here, their difficulty in accepting the Real Presence in the Eucharist puts them in the same category, IMHO, as Muslims who consider it blasphemy–blasphemy!!–for Christians to proclaim that God would ever condescend to become a man.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, and with due respect to the non-Catholic Christians here, their difficulty in accepting the Real Presence in the Eucharist puts them in the same category, IMHO, as Muslims who consider it blasphemy–blasphemy!!–for Christians to proclaim that God would ever condescend to become a man.

Hoping that this will not derail the thread, I’ll just posit another entry because I think this is indeed an important factor to this topic.

Muslims can’t accept the incarnation because they start from their own scripture but thinking that they have their tradition all the way back to the prophets in the OT. Their problem is they do not accept the Scripture that speaks about these prophets. They need to (should) ‘inherit’ the belief of the ancient prophets by referring to the scripture that produced them.

One can see the parallel with the non-Catholic Christians. Only a slight twist - they believe in the scripture but do not allow the practice of the ancient Christians to teach and guide them. Catholics do; in a belief and tradition that’s uninterrupted since Christianity began. So Real Presence, Transubstantiation, is no big deal, for it is always there.

 

[ckempston]

I don’t know whether this belief can be found in Scripture. Can you provide a reference?

I have to admit I’m a bit surprised anyone would question this, though I’m glad to provide references.

Luke 9:23 Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.
Luke 9:62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 14:27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
John 5:38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

Did the “rich young ruler” leave Jesus? Or was he simply walking away?

How would this make a difference?

Right. This is not to be understood that one MUST sell all his possessions, only that his possessions ought not be pre-eminent in his life.

Well, there you go. That’s not what the passage literally says, yet you interpret it so. Why? Why do you put a spin on this passage that obviously makes it non-literal, but don’t do the same for John 6?

Indeed. But the point is that Jesus’ disciples in John 6 did not misunderstand him. That’s why they left. Because it was a hard saying. They were trying to create a messiah in their own image and likeness.

We have no indication whether the disciples understood Jesus in John 6. You’re reading something into the passage that’s not there. It was a hard saying because they took him literally, just like Catholics do, which is not what he intended.

Just like Christians today, esp. those who “church-shop”, refuse to believe in the “hard sayings” of Christ (such as divorce, for example) and try to conform a church to their own religion…rather than conforming their beliefs to that of Christ.

Not sure what the relevance is here. Oh, I know, because nobody ever gets divorced or church shops in the Catholic church. That’s why people go to another parish if they don’t like the priest. Or if they have enough money to send to Rome they can get 2nd, 3rd, 4th…marriages blessed. No, no worldly conformance going on in the Catholic church at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Because Jesus wasn’t concerned with numbers but unquestioning obedience.

I don’t know whether this belief can be found in Scripture. Can you provide a reference?

I have to admit I’m a bit surprised anyone would question this, though I’m glad to provide references.

Luke 9:23 Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.
Luke 9:62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 14:27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
John 5:38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

Beautiful verses, all.

But none of them, even remotely or marginally (no matter how much one strains to see it!) states that Jesus is “not concerned with numbers but with unquestioning obedience.”

Where does Scripture state this?

 

[ckempston]

You did, by asserting that spiritual = symbolic as follows:

No, spiritual is simply spiritual. Doesn’t have to be symbolic. You seem to be attacking a strawman here. I’m guessing you’re assuming things based on previous discussions with protestants, which is understandable. I’m an a-typical protestant, and I imagine most of them would call me a heretic.

You are asserting that spiritual realities are not literally real. They very much are.

No, I’m asserting that spiritual realities are spiritual. You are asserting that spiritual realities are carnal.

Why does it not follow?

It’s pretty simple. You have not presented a valid, formal argument that demands that bread and wine become flesh and blood.

If Jesus is not in substance a vine then there is no connection between Christians. If Jesus is not in substance a lamb then there is no sacrifice for Christians. What does not follow is that Jesus would have the appearances of either a vine or a lamb. Nor does it follow that Christ somehow ceases to be man or God because He chooses to be the vine interconnecting Christians or the paschal Lamb.

Are you sure you understand Transubstantiation? Because it’s pretty obvious you didn’t get what I wrote. Perhaps some fellow Catholics can help you out.

I am not dealing in analogies.

You cannot understand the Gosples without understanding, and dealing in analogies. By definition, a parable is an analogy. Jesus used them constantly, as he did in all the cases I mentioned. Jesus is not literally a vine, but he is like a vine in some way. Jesus is not literally a wooden gate, but he is like one in some way.

 

[ckempston]

Beautiful verses, all.

But none of them, even remotely or marginally (no matter how much one strains to see it!) states that Jesus is “not concerned with numbers but with unquestioning obedience.”

Where does Scripture state this?

You’re kidding, right? Just to make sure I understand, is it the numbers, or the unquestioning obedience part that you’re having trouble with?

 

[PRmerger]

You’re kidding, right? Just to make sure I understand, is it the numbers, or the unquestioning obedience part that you’re having trouble with?

Both!