Protestant interpretation of the real presence

[wisdomseeker]

Very true we are called to be a body not an organization. There is a difference.

the Body of Christ. it doesnt say that we are all authorities in the Body, does it? do you deny the authority of the Apostles over the people? or do you see that they had no authority to declare the Truth and settle squables that arose by the opinions of those in the Body? do you claim to read in the Bible that the Apostles consulted wiht the laity about the Truth?

please stick to the questions.

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**

 

[RedBert]

I guess we should feel sorry for the Jews who had their scriptures ( and the stone tablets written by the Hand of God) but did not have the Catholic Church to interpret God’s Word for them.

The “same” Church that Paul had to correct in his letters, the “same” Church that Christ himself had to correct in 5 of the 7 letters in Revelation.
In ONE generation, the church was going off track, and you claim today that 2000 years later it is free of error?.

how God’s Word is the authority? where is that in the Bible? show me please

When Christ had to correct the Pharisees, he used SCRIPTURE.
When Christ confronted Satan , he used SCRIPTURE.
When the eyes were opened on the road to Emmaus , Christ used SCRIPTURE.
When someone shows the main and plain things in SCRIPTURE to a Catholic, the reply is “ that’s your interpretation”

So we are at the point AGAIN, where Protestants are making a Biblical point on doctrine: and no matter how strong and clear the is : the Catholics can’t accept the Biblical Truth because they defer the authority to the Catholic Church

 

[wisdomseeker]

I guess we should feel sorry for the Jews who had their scriptures ( and the stone tablets written by the Hand of God) but did not have the Catholic Church to interpret God’s Word for them.

The “same” Church that Paul had to correct in his letters, the “same” Church that Christ himself had to correct in 5 of the 7 letters in Revelation.
In ONE generation, the church was going off track, and you claim today that 2000 years later it is free of error?.

When Christ had to correct the Pharisees, he used SCRIPTURE.
When Christ confronted Satan , he used SCRIPTURE.
When the eyes were opened on the road to Emmaus , Christ used SCRIPTURE.
When someone shows the main and plain things in SCRIPTURE to a Catholic, the reply is “ that’s your interpretation”

So we are at the point AGAIN, where Protestants are making a Biblical point on doctrine: and no matter how strong and clear the is : the Catholics can’t accept the Biblical Truth because they defer the authority to the Catholic Church

and just how is this going to resolve the issue of authority between you and me? i am using the Bible and so are you. i believe Jesus when He said: This is my BODY, TAKETH AND EAT IT, THIS IS MY BLOOD TAKETH AND DRINK IT. I SAY: I BELIEVE JESUS. BUT YOU SAY: I DONT BELIEVE JESUS. How are we going to solve this issue that we have? i would like for you to stop preaching and answer the questions. remember now, i also have authority according to you.

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**

 

[RedBert]

…now explain to me how is everyone in authority? who teaches and who listens?

once again : how did the Jews manage to read and understand Scripture without the Catholic Church?

 

[jericho777]

Really! so, according to you the people is the one in authority in the Church, correct?

is it what you are saying?

now explain to me how is everyone in authority? who teaches and who listens? how is that we both are authorities and you keep insist on having authority over me?

1 Chor 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

The leaders of the church are responsible to make sure the doctrine in scripture is taught. The leaders of the church should be held accountable to accurately teach doctrine. Remember the churches in Rev. who had false doctrines.

 

[wisdomseeker]

1 Chor 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

The leaders of the church are responsible to make sure the doctrine in scripture is taught. The leaders of the church should be held accountable to accurately teach doctrine. Remember the churches in Rev. who had false doctrines.

So, now you admit that in the Church there are those in authority. good. that is a start?

now, we are left with the issue how these authorities in the Church are to be appointed. by whom? was the Church to be continued from the time of the Apostles on?

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**

 

[RedBert]

and just how is this going to resolve the issue of authority between you and me? i am using the Bible and so are you. i believe Jesus when He said: This is my BODY, TAKETH AND EAT IT, THIS IS MY BLOOD TAKETH AND DRINK IT. I SAY: I BELIEVE JESUS. BUT YOU SAY: I DONT BELIEVE JESUS. How are we going to solve this issue that we have? i would like for you to stop preaching and answer the questions. remember now, i also have authority according to you.

By using CONTEXT, by looking at the whole of Scripture:

What is in question is whether the phrase “eating flesh” is figurative or literal.

context context context

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life.

If both are literal we have a dilemma.
What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?”
This could occur any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as figurative (eating flesh) and one as literal. (believing) .

A very strong case can be made thatinthe CONTEXT of John 6 this is a figurative statement.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6229730#post6229730
**
Please provide a Biblical argument that it is literal.**

 

[wisdomseeker]

once again : how did the Jews manage to read and understand Scripture without the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church has the same set up as Israel. dont you know this? the Church is the continuation of Israel. i know it is hard for you to understand this.

in the same way that the CC did for centuries before the Bible came into existence. remember the Bible is not meant to give anyone authority. the Bible is a Book of instruction, so the Church can teach the people. authority was instituted by Jesus when He said to the Apostles: as My Father sent me, so i send you…
remember, the Church was not born from the Bible, it was sent forth by God Himself.

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**

 

[distracted]

John chapter 6 is a very difficult and controversial section of the gospel of John and has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards.

if talking about things concerning Christ, especially this most important teaching… can make one nauseous… something is not right… (and don’t say its just a saying or whatever… it just doesn’t sound right)

Christ would never tell a group of Jewish people to literally eat His flesh and blood when the book of Leviticus forbids it. Eating the blood of one’s god was a very paganistic practice and point of fact we see the Apostles speaking against this in the book of Acts. The Jerusalem Council dispatches its letter to the Gentiles and mentions that this practice should be refrained from. So your suggestion is that while the Apostles write to the Gentiles forbidding the consumption of blood, they then turn around and teach the Gentiles they are in fact eating the literal blood of Christ during the Lord’s Supper

if Jesus tells me to do soemthing, i am going to do it… the RCC was/is the first / only Church… all others are man-made…

you believe what you want… and i choose to believe truth…

 

[jericho777]

So, now you admit that in the Church there are those in authority. good. that is a start?

now, we are left with the issue how these authorities in the Church are to be appointed. by whom? was the Church to be continued from the time of the Apostles on?

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**

There is definately leadership in the body and they are not above believers in an elevated priesthood. The leadership of the church is not beyond reproach either and are accountable to the body by written scripture. They certainly are not infallible.

 

[aspirant]

Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all affirm, embrace and confess Real Presence. The Catholic Church uniquely and solely holds to Transubstantition.

This is not accurate. As one of the Orthodox members of the forum has pointed out elsewhere:

Orthodox generally do not commit themselves the Aristotelian metaphysic with the distinction between substance and accidents (whence “transubstantiation”).

But some Orthodox have used these terms, and even more have come very close to it.

The Greek equivalent “metaousiosis” is used frequenetly in Greek theological writings.

I’ve seen Latin translations of the Divine Liturgy done by Orthodox which render the Epiclesis “…transubstantiando illus per Spiritu Sancti Tui.”

So you see, the idea is not completely rejected.

Most Orthodox simply content themselves with saying that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

There are any number of proper terminologies to explain this msytery. “Transubstantiation” is just one of them.

There is nothing in bpbasilphx’ post with which a Catholic would disagree, because use of the term among us does not commit the Church to Aristotelianism either. As I’ve mentioned on this thread before, use of the term among Catholics predates the popularization of Aristotelian philosophy among Latins.

the words “converts” “becomes” “transforms” in the Eucharistic texts (although it seems no Catholic has yet noticed that those words are not in any Eucharistic texts).

You’ve already been answered on this point.

If you reject terms like “becomes” and “transforms,” you are also denouncing Orthodox faith regarding the Eucharist, and it is entirely disingenuous for you to keep appealing to their faith.

My point was that Nicodemus thought that Jesus was talking about literal birth. Obviously he was not.

Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking naturally, interpreting Jesus’ words carnally, but Jesus was actually speaking sacramentally. I agree.

He was not talking about literal flesh either. In John 6

He was truly talking about his flesh and blood, but as in the conversation with Nicodemus, his words are not to be understood carnally. He was not speaking naturally, as if people should come take a bite out of his forearm, but sacramentally: they would receive the whole and living Christ in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Yes, it is good to read John 3 and John 6 together, to understand that the audience (Nicodemus, the crowd) is thinking carnally, but we Catholics understand Jesus in the Spirit, sacramentally.

The Eucharistic sacrifice is not a repeated sacrifice; Christ is not sacrificed again. It is the one sacrifice of Calvary, that is made present for us on the altar, in the Mass as time and eternity intersect. That sacrifice. Not another, or a repeated, or an additional, or subsequent one. That one.

Agreed.

 

[RedBert]

The Catholic Church has the same set up as Israel. dont you know this? the Church is the continuation of Israel. i know it is hard for you to understand this.

in the same way that the CC did for centuries before the Bible came into existence. remember the Bible is not meant to give anyone authority. the Bible is a Book of instruction, so the Church can teach the people. authority was instituted by Jesus when He said to the Apostles: as My Father sent me, so i send you…
remember, the Church was not born from the Bible, it was sent forth by God Himself.

The CONTEXT(" i know it is hard for you to understand this.") is the Catholic claim that an Infallible Interpreter is required to understand Scripture…

The Hebrew scripture existed prior to the CC.
" i know it is hard for you to understand this."

So where was the interpreter for Israel.

Can you understand what current Pope means in his statements?

Why to you require an interpreter to understand what the" first" Pope meant.?

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is definately leadership in the body and they are not above believers in an elevated priesthood. The leadership of the church is not beyond reproach either and are accountable to the body by written scripture. They certainly are not infallible.

ok. you say there is leadership in the Church but this leadership has no authority over the the laity, is it what you are saying? and this leadership is worthless because as laity i can just as they enterpret Scriptures accurately, do i understand you correctly?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The CONTEXT(" i know it is hard for you to understand this.") is the Catholic claim that an Infallible Interpreter is required to understand Scripture…

The Hebrew scripture existed prior to the CC.
" i know it is hard for you to understand this."

So where was the interpreter for Israel.

Can you understand what current Pope means in his statements?

Why to you require an interpreter to understand what the" first" Pope meant.?

let’s see. if there is no infallible enterpreter, someone who can teach for sure what Scriptures says, what God really is saying. then, we will have a big problem, because there will be no way to know the Truth. but Jesus, all knowing God, made a provision for us. He promised that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all Truth. therefore, we can rest assure that we have the Truth in His Church.

i never said that the Hebrew people did not have the Word of God, did i?

you might want to ask a Jew who is the enterpret of Scriptures for them.

I am a Catholic and as a Catholic i dont assume an authority that was not given to me. i rely on the great students of the Church to even enterpret what the holy father says. certain things i can understand but there is much i dont claim to understand since he is a much learned man than i am. and he is a man placed in authority by God.

i dont require anything. i cannot take something that was not given to me. i am to obey those whom God Himself placed in authority. so, i am protected from falsehood, since i am under the umbrella of those whom authority was given.

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**

 

[jericho777]

ok. you say there is leadership in the Church but this leadership has no authority over the the laity, is it what you are saying? and this leadership is worthless because as laity i can just as they enterpret Scriptures accurately, do i understand you correctly?

The leadership is charged with being shepards over the flock. Feeding spiritually the sheep. They are to be guardians over the doctrine.

You have created an elitest division between leaders and believers. Leaders are not an elevated priesthood someone that is superior they are co laborers. They are not beyond question if they contradict scripture. Your premise that scripture is unknowable unless some pope interprets in nonsense. No one is infallible except God no one!

 

[wisdomseeker]

The leadership is charged with being shepards over the flock. Feeding spiritually the sheep. They are to be guardians over the doctrine.

You have created an elitest division between leaders and believers. Leaders are not an elevated priesthood someone that is superior they are co laborers. They are not beyond question if they contradict scripture. Your premise that scripture is unknowable unless some pope interprets in nonsense. No one is infallible except God no one!

what doctrines? who determine doctrines?

i never said they are beyond questions. now, who would be the ones to question, the laity?

i never said that the pope is the only one to enterpret Scriptures. i dont think you understand the authority in the CC and the hierarchy of the Church and how it works. perhaps you can dedicate some of your time to understand the hierarchy of the CC.

God is infallible, and He is the One who said: the Holy Spirit will come and teach you all Truth, and I will be with until the end of Times. this is an amazing promise. it is all recorded in the Bible. a promise to His Church. if God is infallible, than we must believe what He says is True.

i think the biggest confusing among us is the fact that Catholics received the promises of God Himself and it is all recorded in teh Bible. but protestants think that because they can read the Bible, they believe that they can just take those promise to themselves.

** Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. AD 107) wrote in his “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” 8.1:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.”**

 

[jericho777]

what doctrines? who determine doctrines?

i never said they are beyond questions. now, who would be the ones to question, the laity?

i never said that the pope is the only one to enterpret Scriptures. i dont think you understand the authority in the CC and the hierarchy of the Church and how it works. perhaps you can dedicate some of your time to understand the hierarchy of the CC.

God is infallible, and He is the One who said: the Holy Spirit will come and teach you all Truth, and I will be with until the end of Times. this is an amazing promise. it is all recorded in the Bible. a promise to His Church. if God is infallible, than we must believe what He says is True.

i think the biggest confusing among us is the fact that Catholics received the promises of God Himself and it is all recorded in teh Bible. but protestants think that because they can read the Bible, they believe that they can just take those promise to themselves.

** Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. AD 107) wrote in his “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” 8.1:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.”**

Two questions. Do we need the CC to interperate the OT scriptures? Can any of the NT be read without the church first telling us what is said?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Two questions. Do we need the CC to interperate the OT scriptures? Can any of the NT be read without the church first telling us what is said?

i dont know the motives for your questions. but whatever they are it is between and God.

before asking me questions, i ask you to also answer mine. thank you.

to the Church was given the promises of Christ. that is all i can tell you.

certainly is something for you to think about it. the CC teach the Truth of the Gospel of our Lord. but it doesnt really matter to you, when i say this since you dont believe.

the Bible says One Church. from the times of the Apostles to this day. this Church to us is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. if you dont believe what she teaches, you cannot be in the Church.

Peace.
:byzsoc:

 

[graceandglory]

.

As a Protestant, I AGREE with The Catholic Church in it’s interpetation of the word “is” in the Eucharistic texts.

.

LOL!!! "It depends on what the meaning of the word “IS” is.

Reminds me of a former president.

 

[RedBert]

the Bible says One Church. from the times of the Apostles to this day. this Church to us is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. ** if you dont believe what she teaches, you cannot be in the Church. **
:

Obviously there are people who do not believe what One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches , so…they are not of the Church?

Who is more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ: A Catholic or Protestant?

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead along with 86% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Catholics also think Jesus was the son of God. That view is shared by 90% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Finally, 87% of Catholics, 95% of Protestants and all Evangelical Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth.

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

The pollsters reported that:
“Despite** the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in the virgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth.”**

read it again it case you missed it.

religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

from a conservative Catholic April 2009

" Church-going Catholics are far more likely that Church-going non-Catholics (almost all Protestant) to accept immoral behavior.
I do not find this surprising. Other polls I have seen over the years reveal similar patterns.
Why?
The failure of catechesis over the past two generations is one of the principal reasons. Making felt banners does not help produce a reverence for God and the moral law. Catechesis may have improved in the schools, but fewer Catholic children are going to Catholics schools or to religious education classes. Instead they are picking up their attitudes from their poorly-catechized parents, among whom are prominent politicians.
But this still does not fully explain the difference. Why are Church-going Protestants better able to resist accepting prevalent secular attitudes to morality? Catholics once submitted to the teaching authority of the Church; many Catholics, even those who regularly attend church, have clearly rejected that, and have nothing to replace it except the standards of American society. Perhaps Protestantism, built upon a veneration of the Bible, has been better able to resist the moral acids of secularism. Catholics claim that the living authority of the magisterium is better able to meet moral challenges, but this does not in fact seem to be the case. Roma locuta est, but very few Catholics are listening.B] When the Bible speaks, (and it does speak clearly on many issues) many Protestants listen.
-lee podles

podles.org/dialogue/183-183.htm

In EVERY survey or poll a protestant is more like to believe in a Biblical truth than a Catholic
look at table 2 here at

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982