Protestant Communion Help Needed

[CMatt25]

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.

Greetings PLeeD, I did at least point out I know in a post to PRmerger, that Jesus was also asking the Jews to believe in Him as the Son of God. But thank you for your addded clarification. God bless and peace be with you.

 

[CMatt25]

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

Thank you Michael and for your story. It sort of reminds me of a priest at a parish I have attended who said in a homily that when questioned about “beautifying” the decor in these unsettling economic times, that his answer for the poor was they should get a job. A good theory indeed but I imagine not always doable especially in such times. Of course I know there will always be poor but I am still troubled by his words to this day. The ornament shall fade or lose its luster. Yet the work your new parish has done I am sure shall shine always within the heart of that young woman. Godspeed her recovery.

 

[Ryan_Miller]

*The Jews asked, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

What confused them is that they were trying to take Jesus literally. They were blind to the spiritual dimension.
*
The Jews understood Jesus perfectly. If they had misunderstood Him Jesus would have clarified Himself and stated that he meant it only figuratively. Christ did not do this. He instead made his point stronger by saying, “Amen I say to you. Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you fill not have life everlasting.”

 

[PLeeD]

Greetings PLeeD, I did at least point out I know in a post to PRmerger, that Jesus was also asking the Jews to believe in Him as the Son of God. But thank you for your addded clarification. God bless and peace be with you.

Thank you. I read the whole thread closely, but must have missed that part where you mentioned it. I felt the need to respond because I’ve seen the points made your original post on CAF several other times.

IMO, the fact that the grumbling started over Jesus saying he was sent from heaven diminishes the strength of using the subsequent verses as an argument for transubstantiation. Glossing over that fact when arguing in favor of transubstantiation further weakens the argument IMO. There were other “hard teachings” besides the flesh and blood that caused people to walk away.

As for our AoG communion, I’d say we believe in a real spiritual presence in the bread and wine. Our pastor always makes the biblical point that partaking unworthily brings judgement. Communion is treated with the utmost in reverence.

As for the ECF’s, St. Augustine said this:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

 

[PRmerger]

As for our AoG communion, I’d say we believe in a real spiritual presence in the bread and wine. Our pastor always makes the biblical point that partaking unworthily brings judgement. Communion is treated with the utmost in reverence.

While I do not dismiss “spiritual presence”–this can be quite powerful indeed–there is no substitute for the Physical Presence of God, Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity.

I can experience a spiritual communion with my husband or family whenever I am traveling and they are not with me physically. I feel their presence strongly sometimes! But there is no substitute for being physically in the same home with them. And, who can doubt that the physical One Flesh union enjoyed in the Marital Embrace increases the intimacy between 2 Others much greater than a spiritual union?

 

[CMatt25]

Thank you. I read the whole thread closely, but must have missed that part where you mentioned it. I felt the need to respond because I’ve seen the points made your original post on CAF several other times.

IMO, the fact that the grumbling started over Jesus saying he was sent from heaven diminishes the strength of using the subsequent verses as an argument for transubstantiation. Glossing over that fact when arguing in favor of transubstantiation further weakens the argument IMO. There were other “hard teachings” besides the flesh and blood that caused people to walk away.

As for our AoG communion, I’d say we believe in a real spiritual presence in the bread and wine. Our pastor always makes the biblical point that partaking unworthily brings judgement. Communion is treated with the utmost in reverence.

As for the ECF’s, St. Augustine said this:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

PLeeD, no problem Something can be easily overlooked among everything. I just know I have learned a lot and come to a better understanding of the spiritual real presence or symbolic views. I hesitate even sayng symbolic because it is my hope Christ’s spirit is indeed present in real form not only in your AoG but in every church where Christians gather in His name. Where 2 or 3 gather in His name, there He is.

I believe understanding, whether we agree or not, is a good step to further our unity as Christians. So if you don’t mind me asking, when you partake worthily, what is meant in AoG by that? Is it that you partake worthily by distinguishing/remembering (as you pointed out Augustine said we should do) Christ’s sacrifice for us? Believing the bread represents the flesh He gave up for us?

 

[PLeeD]

So if you don’t mind me asking, when you partake worthily, what is meant in AoG by that? Is it that you partake worthily by distinguishing/remembering (as you pointed out Augustine said we should do) Christ’s sacrifice for us? Believing the bread represents the flesh He gave up for us?

I don’t mind at all.

BTW, the Assemblies of God doesn’t have an extensive set of required beliefs. So long as there is commitment to the Gospel, there is fairly wide latitude for pastors to set the tone for their individual church. So what I say is only my understanding of the beliefs presented at the particular church where I’m a member, and not necessarily for all AoG churches.

I think the official AoG position is that the bread and wine is symbolic. My pastor, however, has used the term “real presence” while conducting communion. I gather that he means a real spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine. It’s a presence beyond the sense of “wherever one or two gather”.

Worthiness has nothing to do with your belief in the substance of the bread and wine.

Worthiness is the status of your relationship with Christ - maybe better said, your state of grace. That is, are you repentant of your sin, and do you desire a closer relationship with Jesus? If that is the case, then you are partaking worthily, accepting the sacrifice that He made on the cross. So even if you believe the bread an wine are only symbolic, you are still engaging in a real encounter with Him.

 

[CMatt25]

Worthiness has nothing to do with your belief in the substance of the bread and wine.

Worthiness is the status of your relationship with Christ - maybe better said, your state of grace. That is, are you repentant of your sin, and do you desire a closer relationship with Jesus? If that is the case, then you are partaking worthily, accepting the sacrifice that He made on the cross. So even if you believe the bread an wine are only symbolic, you are still engaging in a real encounter with Him.

So when Paul says in 1Cor 11:29 those who eat without discerning the body bring judgment upon themselves, you would say one discerns the body by believing in and remembering His sacrifice for us, correct?

 

[PLeeD]

So when Paul says in 1Cor 11:29 those who eat without discerning the body bring judgment upon themselves, you would say one discerns the body by believing in and remembering His sacrifice for us, correct?

Hmm. It seems you are focusing in on the phrase “discerning the body” as if the point of Paul’s writing concerns the substance of the bread and wine. If you read 1 Cor 17-34, you see that Paul’s point is in reference to the spirit in which the Corinthians are partaking of the bread and wine, and that he is not at all concerned about the substance.

I understand “discerning the body” to mean “recognizing the sacrifice”. That is, when we take communion the focus is on what Jesus did for us. It’s not to fill our bellies because we are hungry. That is what Paul was criticizing, and it has nothing to do with transubstantiation.

 

[larkin31]

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.

this is very helpful–explains even more than I knew from my Protestant past.

Matt, are you getting helpful answers?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I understand “discerning the body” to mean “recognizing the sacrifice”. That is, when we take communion the focus is on what Jesus did for us. It’s not to fill our bellies because we are hungry. That is what Paul was criticizing, and it has nothing to do with transubstantiation.

How can you discern the body, or be guilty of the body, unless the body is there?

Why is it the eating and drinking of the Lord’s Supper and NOT the general attitude of the Corinthians that makes them guilty of the body and blood?

 

[PLeeD]

How can you discern the body, or be guilty of the body, unless the body is there?

By eating the bread because you are hungry, or drinking the wine because you are thirsty, with no recognition of Christ’s sacrifice. That was what Paul was complaining about.

Why is it the eating and drinking of the Lord’s Supper and NOT the general attitude of the Corinthians that makes them guilty of the body and blood?

Because sharing in communion is a holy act that demands greater reverence than the general attitude a person may display at other times.

BTW, I make no claim that this passage either proves or disproves transubstantiation. My opinion is that it says nothing on the issue, and so bears no relevance to the discussion.

 

[Cat_Herder]

By eating the bread because you are hungry, or drinking the wine because you are thirsty, with no recognition of Christ’s sacrifice. That was what Paul was complaining about.

Because sharing in communion is a holy act that demands greater reverence than the general attitude a person may display at other times.

BTW, I make no claim that this passage either proves or disproves transubstantiation. My opinion is that it says nothing on the issue, and so bears no relevance to the discussion.

But what makes it holy?

Doesn’t Paul answer that in 1 Cor 10:16?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PLeeD]

But what makes it holy?

Because Jesus told us to, and because we assume that we are entering into his living presence when we do it?

Doesn’t Paul answer that in 1 Cor 10:16?

There is nothing there about eating real flesh or drinking real blood.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Because Jesus told us to, and because we assume that we are entering into his living presence when we do it?

How?

There is nothing there about eating real flesh or drinking real blood.

Search the Scriptures…

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:3-7[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 12:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 10:10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 1:29[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:45-56[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:19-20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PLeeD]

Search the Scriptures…

You said to look at 1 Cor 10:16. I replied nothing there talks about transubstantiation.

I’ve read all the scripture that you would point to as a basis for it. I find nothing that compels me to believe that it’s true. I see no reason to assume that Jesus is really bread any more than he is a door, vine, or gate. If you do then I’m glad for your faith.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You said to look at 1 Cor 10:16. I replied nothing there talks about transubstantiation.

I’ve read all the scripture that you would point to as a basis for it. I find nothing that compels me to believe that it’s true. I see no reason to assume that Jesus is really bread any more than he is a door, vine, or gate. If you do then I’m glad for your faith.

Jesus is not really bread; instead the bread is really Jesus. The difference is that there is no bread on the altar after the consecration.

Jesus is a vine, a door and a gate. These are spiritual realities (not symbols) that do not correspond to a physical appearance. That does not make them any less real.

Why do you think that spiritual realities must always have a physical appearance? Have you ever seen an angel? If not, how do you know that they exist and are not just symbols? When someone is “baptized in the Holy Spirit” are there flames and wind? Does that mean there is no baptism, just a symbol?

Do you say there is no vine simply because you can’t see a vine? Do you say the Eucharist is not His Body simply because of your senses?

 

[JonNC]

You said to look at 1 Cor 10:16. I replied nothing there talks about transubstantiation.

I’ve read all the scripture that you would point to as a basis for it. I find nothing that compels me to believe that it’s true. I see no reason to assume that Jesus is really bread any more than he is a door, vine, or gate. If you do then I’m glad for your faith.

A couple of points, if I may.

Jesus did not say He was bread. He did say, metaphorically, that He is the door, vine, gate, etc. But that is not the language of the Eucharist.

At the Last Supper , He took bread in His hands and said “This is my body”. The direction is quite different. And in this way, the language is quite literal. The bread IS His body. The wine IS His blood. For us to eat and drink for the remission of sins.

Jon

 

[CMatt25]

this is very helpful–explains even more than I knew from my Protestant past.

Matt, are you getting helpful answers?

Hi Larkin, :yup: this thread is blowing my mind. Figuratively not literally that is. I of course always understood Catholic belief on the matter. Protestant belief too I thought up to a point or so. One point being when those disciples walked. And even that has been explained to me from the view of those Protestants who do not hold to a physical real presence. I can only hope the answers are being a help to all of us. I think it’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood when we Catholics, Protestants, and even agnostics as yourself, can reach somewhat of a better understanding of each other. A happy holiday to you and best wishes in the new yr my friend. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Hmm. It seems you are focusing in on the phrase “discerning the body” as if the point of Paul’s writing concerns the substance of the bread and wine. If you read 1 Cor 17-34, you see that Paul’s point is in reference to the spirit in which the Corinthians are partaking of the bread and wine, and that he is not at all concerned about the substance.

I understand “discerning the body” to mean “recognizing the sacrifice”. That is, when we take communion the focus is on what Jesus did for us. It’s not to fill our bellies because we are hungry. That is what Paul was criticizing, and it has nothing to do with transubstantiation.

Your understanding of discerning to mean recognizing His sacrifice is pretty much what I meant when I asked if you discern the body by believing in and remembering His sacrifice. Thanks.