Protestant Communion Help Needed

[ckempston]

There is not a word about essences in the transubstabtiation section. Transubstabtiation is a conversion of substance, not essence. Jesus is not present merely in essence.

Yes, it does. I suggest you read it again, perhaps employ the simple “Find” function in your browser. In addition, you might want to study Aristotle, whose theories on metaphysics constitute more of the basis of Catholic doctrine than the Bible.

This was not an Aesop’s fable. Jesus was clearly talking about His own future journey–to heaven, to take the throne alongside His Father. He will return to judge the stewards based on their works.

Fable, parable, and allegory are all synonymous. Certainly Jesus was talking about himself; however, the story itself was a parable, an allegory, a fable - i.e. it was fictional, though it’s characters were analogous to the spiritual truths Jesus was teaching.

And if you’re going to use “like” to demarcate symbolic things, what will you do with the word “is?”

Please be charitable.

“Is” is used in several ways, (as any fan of Bill Clinton could tell you).

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is (Gr: esti) the word of God.

It is quite clear, (except, quite predictably, to you and other Catholics present), that the verb “esti” is being used here by Jesus to say, “In the *fictional *story I’ve just told, the seed represents the word of God.” Coincidentally, the same verb is used in Matt 26:26, where Catholics demand that “is” cannot possibly mean “represents.”

After looking at this, the lightbulb came on for me, and it’s clear to me why Catholics have such a problem defining a parable, allegory, or analogy the way it should be. The New Testament authors clearly do not always use the verb “to be” as the argument for the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation demands.

 

[ckempston]

Jesus is human. And He spent the better part of His earthly ministry walking around Galilee while making humanistic arguments.

Oh my gosh. I feel like I should be getting paid to teach you. Look up and study humanism and then come back when you’re ready.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Oh my gosh. I feel like I should be getting paid to teach you. Look up and study humanism and then come back when you’re ready.

I didn’t say He made secular humanistic arguments.

 

[CMatt25]

My faith does not teach unquestioning obedience.

A God who demands this is a monster. He is a god like that depicted by Islam.

PRmerger, CCC speaks about following conscience so not to be condemned. Yet at the same time often I will see here on our CAF ppl saying, sure but you must follow a correctly informed conscience and are expected to obey even while we question or don’t understand.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Fable, parable, and allegory are all synonymous.

Is “prophecy” also synonymous with these? After all, most prophecies are figurative.

 

[CMatt25]

My two cents

 1. **Protestants I know believe in the 'real presence' in a different sense.** They rely on the promise of Christ that "lo, I am with you always...." So, Jesus is present at communion, but also at every other service. You cannot logically speak of him as 'less present' here or there. He is present or not present.

 2. T**hat, however, is not the same as transforming the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.** To almost all Protestants that is symbolic language, like Christ saying that he is the gate, the door, the vine, etc. He often spoke in such allegorical language, so common in the Middle East then, and still today.

 3.** There were mystery cults during those times** that taught that if one consumed the blood of a god or goddess, one would take on some of the virtues, strength, etc. of that deity. Mithraism had some of that element in it. I believe the cult of Isis had a similar ritual. There is fear among many Protestants that early Christianity was influenced too much by such cults that were competing for followers. 

 4. **Although Judaism strongly rejected the idea of Christ as the Messiah, it did focus considerable attention upon the necessity of blood sacifice,** hence the sacrifice of live animals. This was and is part of other cultures as well.

 5.** To most liberal Protestants the thought of consuming the body and blood of Christ is simply not acceptable**. It seems too 'pagan' to them, something that is no longer palatable and logical in their mind. They also would object to the idea that a priest, through a ritual, can transubstantiate - that is, change bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. They regard communion as symbolism, perhaps important and powerful symbolism, but symbolism nonetheless.

 6. **Evangelical Protestants are more likely to focus on the blood sacrifice, and many of their popular hymns do that**. For example, "There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel's veins" or "There is power, power, wonder-working power, in the blood of the lamb..." They, too, reject transubstantiation. They range from Protestants who emphasize communion to those who treat if as tangential. 

 7. **Liturgical Protestants, such as Episcopalians and Lutherans, stress communion much more than Protestants of Calvinist or Wesleyan or Pentecostal heritage.** There is a trend among some of these Protestants, however, such as the Methodists, to put more emphasis on communion than years ago. It once was celebrated quarterly (four times a year) in most Methodist churches. Today, it is once a month, and many churches offer it weekly at, perhaps, an early service on Sundays. 

 8. **The main psychological barrier to transubstantiation among Protestants (and others) is that it shares too much in common (in their minds) with cannibalism**. Yes, Catholics may be turned off by this objection, but I believe it is what millions of Protestants simply cannot accept. A poll not long ago in *US Catholic* found that about one-half of all Catholics in America doubt or reject transubstantiation, also. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and all who seek to live lives reflecting the love and commandments of Christ. May religion become more of a bridge and less of a barrier, with a growth in mutual respect for those with differing interpretations of scripture.

Thanks Roy for your post. Just as a side note, the Disciples of Christ believe in a spiritual presence/symbolic Communion. Yet I do know hold a Communion service weekly. And to your last paragraph. Seeking a bridge across the barriers and respecting each other with at least some understandng of different interpretations was sorta what I was trying to achieve by my original questions. And I do have a better understanding now. Thanks to all who have chimed in and to anyone who yet may. Peace.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

CKempston:

I think I’m pretty familiar with most of the things the Early Church Fathers argued over - Whether Christ was present in the Eucharist in the way described in John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11-12 (and even by the Greek word Our Lord used to describe the type of “Bread” we’re to ask for in Matt 6:11 & Luke 11:3) was not one of those things. In fact, at least one of those who was regarded as a Martyr is a Roman teenager who kept the Eucharist in his hand while he was being beaten to death by a gang of thugs until his Bishop arrived, and only then let it drop into his Bishop’s hand as he died… That’s hardly the act of someone who believed in the “Symbolic Presence” you claim is consistent with the Clear Meaning of Scripture.

The simple question is, if our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ really meant that the bread and the wine would only be a “Symbol” or a “Sign” of his Body and Blood and not His Actual Body and Blood, why didn’t He just say, “Stop! You’re not understanding what I’m saying!” Why didn’t he just say what you just said? and, What almost every Protestant has said since the beginning of the Reformation?
Your whole interpretation of John 6:63
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(John 6:63 – Revised Standard Version)
is undone by the fact that Jesus did not correct this supposed misapprehension or try to keep these disciples from leaving. it is undone by the fact that Our Lord “Doubled-Down” and then allowed them to walk. and, It seems that you forgot that the language Jesus mirrors what He said when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:23-24
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
(John 4:23-24 – RSV)
Which mirrors a prophecy of the Messiah found in Malachi:
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
(Malachi 1:11 – RSV)
This one seems to have been a favorite of the Church Fathers, for they saw it’s fulfillment in the Church which offered the “Sacrifice of Praise” from the Rising of the Sun to it’s setting in all nations as described in the Babylonian Talmud…

I’ll ask you to read four books -
The Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn
The Mass of the Early Christians, by Mike Aquilina
The King’s Good Servant, but God’s First, The Life and Writings of St. Thomas More, by Thomas Monti
The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World, Thomas Nelson (Publisher)

I hope this isn’t overwhelming,
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Cat_Herder]

My two cents

 1. **Protestants I know believe in the 'real presence' in a different sense.** They rely on the promise of Christ that "lo, I am with you always...." So, Jesus is present at communion, but also at every other service.

Is He more present at a given service than He is in your house when two people gather? If not then why even go to church?

You cannot logically speak of him as ‘less present’ here or there. He is present or not present.

Was He any more present in Mary’s womb in 1 BC than He is in your room today? How about on Mount Calvary on Good Friday, 33 AD?

This is what is dangerous about messing with the Eucharist–objections to the Real Presence often have repercussions against the Incarnation.

 2. T**hat, however, is not the same as transforming the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.** To almost all Protestants that is symbolic language, like Christ saying that he is the gate, the door, the vine, etc. He often spoke in such allegorical language, so common in the Middle East then, and still today.

The gate, door and vine are spiritual realities. They are not symbols.

 3.** There were mystery cults during those times** that taught that if one consumed the blood of a god or goddess, one would take on some of the virtues, strength, etc. of that deity.

Does that include Judaism?

 5.** To most liberal Protestants the thought of consuming the body and blood of Christ is simply not acceptable**.

They say this while dancing around singing about being washed in the very same Blood. Is that Blood a spiritual reality or just a symbol?

 

[CMatt25]

The simple question is, if our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ really meant that the bread and the wine would only be a “Symbol” or a “Sign” of his Body and Blood and not His Actual Body and Blood, why didn’t He just say, "Stop!
I hope this isn’t overwhelming,
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

Hi Michael, I think what has been explained, someone can correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems the belief that has been expressed to answer your question is this…

Because Christ had already spoke in a spiritual sense in Jn 6 and the disciples walking away did so because they were still not understanding and instead were stuck on the literal. In some way like the young rich ruler walking away because he was taking literally the words to sell all possessions. Or the woman who asked for water for thirst and Jesus offering another “drink” besides the well water to quench “thirst” eternally. All very figurative. I hope that helps with your question as to how others might answer. God bless and peace.

 

[wmscott]

I think that what this issue really boils down to, as well as with other theological issues, that some of the many different denominations of Protestants have against the Catholic Church, is that you can’t take one subject and parse it out without taking into account all of the other theological truths. You can’t discuss the Eucharist without discussing the Crucifixion can we? There are so many theological issues that are all tied together.

You can’t discuss the truth of the Sacrament of the Eucharist without taking into account the truths of all the other Sacraments, or the truths of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, truths of the Magistrium, the truths of Sacred Tradition, or the truths of Sacred Scripture, in other words the fullness of truth. It is just not that simple.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,
Thanks for the quick reply. What would be so hard to agree with about those statements is not necessarily the details of what He said, but His authority to say them.

That is indeed true, Xin.

However, how is that applicable to Jesus’ words in John 6 any more than his teachings in Matthew 4?

That is, his disciples did not leave when he made other proclamations. Yet, presumably, his authority was not under question with those statements. Why?

And, do you know who, signifcantly, left after Jesus proclaimed the Bread of Life discourse?

Judas.

 

[wmscott]

I guess I would like to ask all of our Protestant friends, and without citing a few verses here and there, what is it that makes you feel or believe that it is beyond the power and capabilities of God to be truly present in the Eucharist Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Roy,
Just a couple of comments, if I may.
First, thanks for distinguishing Lutheran belief and practice, as you have.

=Roy5;7370390]** 1. Protestants I know believe in the ‘real presence’ in a different sense.** They rely on the promise of Christ that “lo, I am with you always…” So, Jesus is present at communion, but also at every other service. You cannot logically speak of him as ‘less present’ here or there. He is present or not present.
While true, Christ’s words in the Last Supper accounts seem to indicate something more than this. Paul’s also indicates something more, when he says:
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

That, however, is not the same as transforming the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

To almost all Protestants that is symbolic language, like Christ saying that he is the gate, the door, the vine, etc. He often spoke in such allegorical language, so common in the Middle East then, and still today.
While this argument can be made regarding John 6, the Last Supper accounts speak in a different, and I believe, literal direction. In the cases you mention above, He says “I am the…”. At the Last Supper, He doesn’t say, “I am this bread”, He says, in effect, “This is me”. The bread IS my body, etc. This is not allegory, or metaphor, but literal. He put HIs hands on the bread, and said this is my body.

1. Liturgical Protestants, such as Episcopalians and Lutherans, stress communion much more than Protestants of Calvinist or Wesleyan or Pentecostal heritage.

True, and I believe because, in part, we do recognize the sacramental nature of the Eucharist.

1. The main psychological barrier to transubstantiation among Protestants (and others) is that it shares too much in common (in their minds) with cannibalism

. Yes, Catholics may be turned off by this objection, but I believe it is what millions of Protestants simply cannot accept.
Perhaps coming out a Lutheran background, I haven’t heard much of this. I would say the issues Lutherans have with Transubstantiation are 1) the metaphysical nature of it, and 2) this expression of the mystery, while perhaps reasonable, is not what Christ or Paul state. Christ simply says, “This is my body”, without further explanation. At least for me, it is the binding of the conscience of the believer to this human expression of the real presence that is troubling.

A poll not long ago in US Catholic

found that about one-half of all Catholics in America doubt or reject transubstantiation, also.
Honestly, and with due respect, I find this irrelevent. But that said, did the poll say whether or not they reject the real presence?

God bless Catholics, Protestants and all who seek to live lives reflecting the love and commandments of Christ. May religion become more of a bridge and less of a barrier, with a growth in mutual respect for those with differing interpretations of scripture.

Well said, Roy.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, it does. I suggest you read it again, perhaps employ the simple “Find” function in your browser. In addition, you might want to study Aristotle, whose theories on metaphysics constitute more of the basis of Catholic doctrine than the Bible.

Fable, parable, and allegory are all synonymous. Certainly Jesus was talking about himself; however, the story itself was a parable, an allegory, a fable - i.e. it was fictional, though it’s characters were analogous to the spiritual truths Jesus was teaching.

“Is” is used in several ways, (as any fan of Bill Clinton could tell you).

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is (Gr: esti) the word of God.

It is quite clear, (except, quite predictably, to you and other Catholics present), that the verb “esti” is being used here by Jesus to say, “In the *fictional *story I’ve just told, the seed represents the word of God.” Coincidentally, the same verb is used in Matt 26:26, where Catholics demand that “is” cannot possibly mean “represents.”

After looking at this, the lightbulb came on for me, and it’s clear to me why Catholics have such a problem defining a parable, allegory, or analogy the way it should be. The New Testament authors clearly do not always use the verb “to be” as the argument for the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation demands.

Excuse me? Catholics have a hard time defining a parable,allegory or analogy? Are you truly that arrogant? Catholics had the Bible long before any of your “johnny-come-lately” churches popped-up like wild weeds everywhere.

 

[PRmerger]

Why, PRmerger, would you think it would be so palatable for them to understand Jesus was divine and to believe He was their spiritual food and drink? And for them to “eat”/believe He would be sacrificing His flesh and blood for us?

I think it is so palatable because millions of Christians find it palatable, as opposed to accepting the “hard saying.”

And if what you are asking is why they did not crucify in John 6, perhaps because it was not the will of God nor in His plan for the crucifixion to take place yet at that point. Just a thought. Peace.

I apologize for not being clear. Why didn’t they try to stone him, as they did when he stated, “Before Abraham was, I am”. That also was not the will of God nor in His plan for the crucifixion, yet the Scriptures clearly depict that the Jews attempted to stone him.

 

[PRmerger]

I said unquestioning obedience.

Right. My God does not demand “unquestioning obedience”. Your God does?

Unquestioning obedience means you obey even when you DON’T understand, which is precisely what Jesus teaches.

Um…no, ckempston. “Unquestioning obedience” means…er…you obey without questioning.

This is *not *the Catholic understanding of a God who wants us to love him with our entire heart, soul and MIND.

IF you obey THEN you will understand and THEN you will be set free.

Yes! This is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[PRmerger]

fides quaerens intellectum means precisely what I described above. Trust and obey first, THEN you will understand.

Then we are agreed!

However, this is absolutely NOT the same as “unquestioning obedience”.

Then either you can’t read for comprehension or you’re being obtuse.

This is rude. And a Christian ought never say such things. And it’s reportable.

 

[estesbob]

To this end what I find rather disingenuous is when some Protestants will fight tooth and nail to defend taking the Bible literally, but when Sacred Scripture is cited that irrefutable defines, proves, or justifies Catholic theology, then the Bible is to be taken symbolically or that the Catholic Church just got it wrong all together. Just an observation of mine.

First rule of Sola Scripture:

Scripture is to be taken literlally UNLESS doing so affirms a Doctine of the catholic Church

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, CCC speaks about following conscience so not to be condemned. Yet at the same time often I will see here on our CAF ppl saying, sure but you must follow a correctly informed conscience and are expected to obey** even while we question** or don’t understand.

Indeed.

“To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” --CCC 892

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”–Fides et Ratio

2 errors: to exclude reason; to exclude all but reason–Blaise Pascal

Which brings me to ckempston’s opinion that God demands “unquestioning obedience”. That is faith DEVOID and DIVORCED from reason. It is an aborted attempt to soar to the heavens relying on only one wing.

 

[Poco]

wmscott;7367518:

To this end what I find rather disingenuous is when some Protestants will fight tooth and nail to defend taking the Bible literally, but when Sacred Scripture is cited that irrefutable defines, proves, or justifies Catholic theology, then the Bible is to be taken symbolically or that the Catholic Church just got it wrong all together. Just an observation of mine.

First rule of Sola Scripture:

Scripture is to be taken literlally UNLESS doing so affirms a Doctine of the catholic Church

Yes, Genesis is to be taken literally but John 6 is just symbolic.