Protestant Communion Help Needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMatt25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure if you and ckempston really disagreed all that much or if it was more or less a little semantics in play.
Well, yes and no.

He was indeed stating the Catholic Church’s position of faith seeking understanding. But he was proclaiming it under an antithetical phrase: unquestioning obedience. (Perhaps “antithetical” is too strong a word. But I can’t think of a better one right now. Contrary? Unsupported?)

It would be like someone proclaiming, “God hates humanity” but then saying, “Well, yes, God is love and loves each and every human person.”

The first is contrary to the second. But if one really is proclaiming the latter, then he is in agreement with the CC.
Are you saying though the Catholic Church Herself doesn’t demand obedience if one desires to be in the best of standings with Her, even if one reasons differently?
Replace the “Catholic Church” with Jesus in your question above. What would your answer be there, Matt?

That is, “Are you saying though that Jesus himself doesn’t demand obedience if one desires to be in the best of standings with him, even if one reasons differently?”

Clearly, if one wants to be in the best of standings with Jesus, one must conform one’s beliefs to Him.
 
Do you consider your church to be a house of the Lord? Why, if He is no more present there than at your home?
Indeed.

And if being “spiritual” present with someone is just as good as being “physically” present, why don’t wives just tell their husbands, “Honey, my being spiritually present to you is just as good as being physically present with you. So I’m going to go shopping but I will be here with you this evening in spirit. Bye!”
 
It means you do it whether you understand the reason or not.
No. It means you obey without QUESTIONING. Unquestioning obedience.

Questioning is permissible, rational, and even demanded of Christians.
Well that’s a good analogy. 😃 However, unfortunately, we don’t have Jesus to audibly explain every detail of his teachings to us. Even Rome doesn’t claim to do that.
“Audible” instruction is not necessary when when have the promise of Jesus that “he who hears you hears me.”
I’d say after a few instances of asking “faith seeking understanding” types of questions, the son learns to just trust and obey first, knowing that understanding will come later if he doesn’t have it now.
Fair enough. But you see that you used the word “questions”, which means that “unquestioning obedience” was never a command. Even you are claiming that questions are permissible.
 
Probably the same place they found the Doctrines of Sola Scriptra and Sola Fidelis;)
If your description were correct, then the confutators would have rejected the entire Augsburg Confession. As you know, much of it was accepted by them.

Jon
 
Well, yes and no.

He was indeed stating the Catholic Church’s position of faith seeking understanding. But he was proclaiming it under an antithetical phrase: unquestioning obedience. (Perhaps “antithetical” is too strong a word. But I can’t think of a better one right now. Contrary? Unsupported?)

It would be like someone proclaiming, “God hates humanity” but then saying, “Well, yes, God is love and loves each and every human person.”

The first is contrary to the second. But if one really is proclaiming the latter, then he is in agreement with the CC.

Replace the “Catholic Church” with Jesus in your question above. What would your answer be there, Matt?

That is, “Are you saying though that Jesus himself doesn’t demand obedience if one desires to be in the best of standings with him, even if one reasons differently?”

Clearly, if one wants to be in the best of standings with Jesus, one must conform one’s beliefs to Him.
PRmerger, that’s sorta what many of our Protestant brothers and sisters seem to telling us in answer to those disciples who walked away. Jesus had already told them he was speaking spiritually I think is the argument, and they didn’t obey. They were still hung up on the literal.
 
PRmerger, that’s sorta what many of our Protestant brothers and sisters seem to telling us in answer to those disciples who walked away. Jesus had already told them he was speaking spiritually I think is the argument, and they didn’t obey. They were still hung up on the literal.
And yet he didn’t call them back to correct them. :hmmm: It would seem that they understood it literally, and he knew they understood it literally, and thus it was a “hard saying.”

I think it speaks volumes that it was at this moment that Judas left the group. Judas is in the company of those who wouldn’t accept Jesus’ literal teaching.

Anyway, I’m not certain what your comment above has to do with my post about unquestioning obedience and semantics. The Church does not demand unquestioning obedience any more that Christ did.
 
And yet he didn’t call them back to correct them. :hmmm: It would seem that they understood it literally, and he knew they understood it literally, and thus it was a “hard saying.”

I think it speaks volumes that it was at this moment that Judas left the group. Judas is in the company of those who wouldn’t accept Jesus’ literal teaching.

Anyway, I’m not certain what your comment above has to do with my post about unquestioning obedience and semantics. The Church does not demand unquestioning obedience any more that Christ did.
Well yes but perhaps you might be missing the point of some of our Protestant brothers and sisters, PRmerger. It being from what I can gather is that Christ, beginning at about vs 62 in Jn 6, knowing they were grumbling, did explain to them He was speaking spiritually and figuratively. About spirit and life and “eating”/consuming the belief in Him as the Son. And how many times would we want Him to continue explaining it to them? At some point He would have to let them walk away when they were not listening or obeying.

I was merely responding to your comment about conforming in obedience one’s belief in Him to be in the best standing. But perhaps as our friend ckempston implied much earlier, faith discussions, because it is faith, can be circular.

I know though as a result of the fruits of this discussion, as we walk in Christian communion united in Him, I am grateful to have a better understanding of the faith of some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in regard to this.

Nevertheless God bless you and peace.
 
Well yes but perhaps you might be missing the point of some of our Protestant brothers and sisters, PRmerger. It being from what I can gather is that Christ, beginning at about vs 62 in Jn 6, knowing they were grumbling, did explain to them He was speaking spiritually and figuratively. About spirit and life and “eating”/consuming the belief in Him as the Son. And how many times would we want Him to continue explaining it to them? At some point He would have to let them walk away when they were not listening or obeying.
Fair enough. And if this is their point I would ask them if they really believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing, as he speaks about in John 6:64?
I was merely responding to your comment about conforming in obedience one’s belief in Him to be in the best standing. But perhaps as our friend ckempston implied much earlier, faith discussions, because it is faith, can be circular.
Yes. If conforming one’s belief in Him puts one in the “best standing”, then conforming one’s beliefs to His Body, the Church, also puts one in the “best standing.”
I know though as a result of the fruits of this discussion, as we walk in Christian communion united in Him, I am grateful to have a better understanding of the faith of some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in regard to this.
I respect your effort on this, Matt. But I must be frank and say I am ambivalent about it. If there is an absolute truth, then hearing discussions about about an incorrect truth and why they believe it seems futile.

That is, if someone really believes that Joseph Smith is the author of Veritatis Splendour I think the rational and merciful thing is to show this person the truth. I wouldn’t indulge too much effort into trying to understand why he believes this is true–although, to be sure,* some* attention might be paid to that.
Nevertheless God bless you and peace.
Right back at cha, Brother! ❤️
 
Fair enough. And if this is their point I would ask them if they really believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing, as he speaks about in John 6:64?

I respect your effort on this, Matt. But I must be frank and say I am ambivalent about it. If there is an absolute truth, then hearing discussions about about an incorrect truth and why they believe it seems futile.
Well PRmerger, I don’t know. Not sure if they would corelate Jesus’ one time sacrifice on the cross with being physically present now. But maybe some of our Protestant brothers and sisters can respond better to your question to them. Sure Jesus sacrificing His flesh on the cross for us, profits us. But some might say He resurrected and is sitting at the right hand of the Father until He physically comes again. Or of course unless one believes as SDAs do in one resurrection as they believe is outlined in 1 Thess 4, it is indeed our spirit, not flesh that at first profits with a taste of heaven.

Thanks PRmerger. But you know I’m more an old school, ecumenically spirited Catholic so to speak. 👍 I can recall the day when my parish priest at the time and the PCUSA pastor of my small hometown had a wonderful ecumenical relationship. So not futile to me. But peace and maybe others will yet chime in to help you understand how they see Jn 6:64. All the best on your faith walk. It’s a lifelong journey! God bless!
 
=PRmerger;7376459]Fair enough. And if this is their point I would ask them if they really believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing, as he speaks about in John 6:64?
Christ’s flesh profits everyone who believes on His name. It profits me for the forgiveness of sins when I receive His flesh in the Eucharist.
I respect your effort on this, Matt. But I must be frank and say I am ambivalent about it. If there is an absolute truth, then hearing discussions about about an incorrect truth and why they believe it seems futile.
PR, let me know if you believe the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans “seems futile” after reading the following, on topic about Holy Communion.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon
 
Christ’s flesh profits everyone who believes on His name. It profits me for the forgiveness of sins when I receive His flesh in the Eucharist.
Amen!
PR, let me know if you believe the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans “seems futile” after reading the following, on topic about Holy Communion.
Oh!! Dearest brother Jon, I would never profess that "the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans ‘seems futile’ " even prior to reading your link!
 
Scipture provided:

Mark 2:7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” These are the Jew talking about Jesus… Talk about taking the Bible out of context, you missed the “Mark” on this one

job 14:4
"Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one! "

Micah 7:18
18 Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?

Again, Jews before the time of Jesus. Jesus changed everything, He instituted the Priesthood and gave the Priesthood the authority He want it to have, the forgiveness of sins was but just one of them.
So you have one New Testament quote, taken out of context, how do you reconcile that with the following passages from Sacred Scripture?

James 5:14-16 Is anyone among you sick? 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, 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. 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.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 20:22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

2 Cor 5:18-19 And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
 
Getting back on track with the subject of Communion, a couple of pages back in post 72, I asked “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”?

Does any Protestant want to respond? I would like to hear your rational.
 
Getting back on track with the subject of Communion, a couple of pages back in post 72, I asked “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”?

Does any Protestant want to respond? I would like to hear your rational.
wmscott, I’m not Protestant so I’m unsure how a Protestant might respond. But I’m just thinking one response might be that while of course God is almighty and all things are possible with Him, it’s just not clear though how this would prove a belief in a physical real presence and/or transubstantiation.
 
wmscott, I’m not Protestant so I’m unsure how a Protestant might respond. But I’m just thinking one response might be that while of course God is almighty and all things are possible with Him, it’s just not clear though how this would prove a belief in a physical real presence and/or transubstantiation.
Hi CMatt25, I agree with the possible explanation, however I wanted to ask this question because many Protestants are quick to dismiss any theology that is Catholic in nature simply because it is Catholic, regardless if it is truth or not. Many time in rejecting Catholic theology they inadvertently put limitations on God without realizing it. To admit that the Catholic Church is right is to think and reason beyond a few verses from the Bible that they are used and comfortable with.
 
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.
Matt:

I saw the question in the writings of St. Thomas More. It seems quite clear that if our Lord Jesus meant John 6 in the way most Protestants believe He did, he would have run after those Disciples who left saying, “Wait! This is all a misunderstanding!..” The fact is that not only didn’t our Lord do that, He “doubled down” by saying,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
John 6:53-56 – RSV
And, Then letting them go -
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
John 6:66 – RSV
This was a Passage, and a question, I had to deal with myself on my journey from Protestantism to Catholicism. I don’t think most Protestants have actually asked themselves that question. CKempson seemed to believe the ECF’s were divided about whether or not Christ was really present in the Eucharist. Despite their lack of Precision, they weren’t (Heresies such as Nestorianism , Pelagianism and the Protestant Reformation forced the Church to define Her Terms and to be more Precise in how She Spoke about the things of God)…

Regarding the Rich Young Ruler - He was worshiping another god before God - Money. As our Lord Jesus said, we can’t serve 2 gods (God & Mammon) at once. As the Commandments say, the Lord God delivered us out of the Land of Bondage, and we are to serve Him and Him alone. Yeshua means “The Lord is Salvation”. So God delivers us from bondage to sin and death - the least we can do is to worship Him and Him alone. Because of his wealth and his attachment to his money, the Rich Young Ruler wasn’t able to do that. That was proven by his inability to do the following:
*And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”


*
*And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, **“One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” **
But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich.
Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” *
Luke 18:18-25 – RSV
One look at the Book of Acts will show that many Early Catholics took that as a command. Various Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Fathers commanded that widows, orphans, the poor and visitors be treated with the same reverence and respect we treat the Eucharist (remember, they died protecting the Eucharist), and Bishops were even instructed to give up their seats to the old and infirm who were visiting their Dioceses…

Just last week, I saw a contrast I think demonstrates this - My old parish had a sign which talked about the “Great Accomplishment” they had made paying for an ornament above their entrance (They had been raising funds for this for 1-1/2 to 2 years). Meanwhile, My New Parish had an “Appreciation Dinner” for all those who had given money to help pay for an aggressive Physio-Therapy Program (3 hours/Day - 6 Days/Week) which a young lady with a Spinal Cord Injury has undertaken since April, 2009. She’s trying to walk again, and the Maronites of Southern California are paying most of the bills for her “Aggressive Physio-Therapy Program” - So far, they’ve paid $200,000 (almost 10x what the ornament my old parish installed cost).

The “Dinner” was a Fundraiser", and I watched people who had already put $300 to $2,500 towards this lady’s P/T put another $100 to $500 in the till…

“Go, and sell all you have, and give…” Sure beats running around trying to buy more “stuff”. Remember,
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
Matthew 6:24 – RSV
Or in Musical form…
Servant - World of Sand - Two Masters
new.music.yahoo.com/servant/tracks/two-masters–175852627
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
 
How do you explain why Jesus did not stop those disciples who walked away from Him near the end of Jn 6 and clearly tell them He was not speaking of eating his flesh literally?
You are leaving out at least half of the story. They didn’t walk away merely over the flesh and blood talk. The crowd began grumbling when Jesus said this:

John 6:38 *For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 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 them up at the last day.”

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?*”[/woj]]]

IMO you are being disingenuous in asserting the crowd left solely because of talk of flesh and blood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top