Protestants and Holy Communion

[Cinette]

Obviously it is not a matter of my personal opinion, at least no moreso than yours. If the Catholic Catechism says:

This speaks of one body of Christ - the Church Catholic! And that our division, for which both sides are to blame (yes! your side and mine), ruptures the unity of the one holy catholic and Apostolic Church.
*No Jon - Luther was right to speak out in regard to certain abuses but not to rupture the Church. The Church had already initiated certain changes. In fact the Church is constantly being renewed. We need to work on renewal always.
*
And,

If I am accepted as a brother, am I not part of the family? *You definitely are accepted Jon but you are not in full communion with the Church. Please excuse me - I do not mean to offend but you remind me of a fan. Like in football, some fans are faithful to Manchester United, others to Chelsea or Real Madrid etc! They go mad for their clubs! That is what I am reminded of when I read your postings. You know your brand of Christianity and you love it and are faithful but you are not a Catholic. The Catholic Church is One!
*

And,

If my “ecclesial community” is used by His Spirit as a means of salvation (no salvation outside the Catholic Church), then,
*I believe that there is hope for salvation outside the Catholic Church for those who are faithful to their conscious. God is merciful and understands. *
the simplistic claim that I am not Catholic, though not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is, in your words, fraudulent.

But let’s be clear here, my profile claims to be evangelical Catholic, and if that moniker bothers triumpalists on either side, so be it.
I think you are a good man Jon and you believe you are right.
Jon

Jon

 

[jcrichton]

God forbid! (Although he isn’t a part of any host, rather he holds it in existence by his presence, whereas normally simple bread is held in existence not by a person and presence – but by the power of God from the foundation of the world.)

A friend of mine is saying as we discuss this, “The Eucharist is not nullified by someone taking it and desecrating it; What it boils down to is that the consequences of desecrating it will be owned by the desecration. It is said up front somewhere in scripture, many of you are sick and dead because you receive the Eucharist wrongly.”
(I think he means 1Cor 11:30)

…I am referring not to taking the host in an unworthy manner but rather those who practice Satanic cults who believe that they can hold Christ hostage in the Host–I’ve heard of cases where there would be urination and defacation and trampling on/of the Eucharist…

RSV: Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have **tasted the Goodness of the Word of God **and the powers of the world to come, if they commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Again, referring back to an earlier post of mine – Man does not live by bread alone, but by every WORD that falls from the mouth of God. It is the Spirit which gives the bread and the body and the flesh and the blood – Life.

…yes, but I think this deals with more than just the consumption of the Eucharist in an unworthily manner…

As far as I go, I think that’s achieved by sacramental baptism in the case of the OP protestants.

…in that case then even Hitler, and those as he, would be partakers of Christ Jesus… Sacramental Baptism is the innitiation into the Body not the dwelling and indwelling in/of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thought provoking, Angel; look at a closer scripture: In John 6:63-65, it is specifically Judas who does not believe; and that is in opposition to the very sentence of Jesus’ regarding “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail”

Continuing:
“'He said ‘The words that I have spoken to you are spirit AND life. But there are some of YOU THAT DO NOT **BELIEVE’, **[he said this] because he knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him and he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’”

…I see it as cosequential (not so much as opposition); we must understand that Scriptures does not reveal the Word of God in a specific order (chronologically); Faith is not attained but through the Holy Spirit (Judas was never to receive that much Grace since he had to betray Jesus); the Father calls us to Jesus (through the Holy Spirit) so those of us who are engrossed in temporal values have placed blinders on our spiritual beings… limiting our capacity to surrender our self (ego) in humble obedience… Judas is but one of many key players that could not but completely misunderstand the Purpose of the Messiah!

Knowledge of this kind is Jewish idiom for an experiential encounter; not “cerebreal” fore-knowledge.

…you are referring to Scriptures referencing that “Jesus knew,” correct?

…I am not versed with Jewish anthropology… but if by “experiential encounter” they mean that Jesus got to know Judas intimately… would this reasoning not be an attempt to explain away Jesus’ Divinity (ie: Jesus knows Judas better than the others so He picked up on Judas’ betrayal before it happened only through sheer human abilities)?

(SIDE NOTE: Bread=flesh, Jesus did not say Wine (spirit) as “worthless” eh??!, even if one symbolized the Bread, John 6 doesn’t allow it of the Wine… )

…yeah… when we take Scriptures out of context the house of cards usually falls down prety quickly…

Though not a historian… the Romans (not Christians) proved beyond resonable doubt that the early Church Believed in the Real Presence in the Bread and Blood as they circulated the rummors that Christians were cannibals (eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Jesus); this is an extra-Biblical fact that cannot be put away by simply claiming “not in Scriptures!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

*While public revelation ended with the death of the Apostles more truths were revealed to us through the Church scholars who developed doctrines. For example while the truth of the Trinity was contained in Sacred Tradition/Scripture it was not perceived as such until Church scholars defined and explained it to us.

*

I concur. But breaking down of theological understandings and setting Doctrinal Law is not Revelation… as in the past men of God are Guided by the Holy Spirit to both Teach and Defend the deposit of Faith (“not even the gates of hell/hades/underworld can overpower” her).

…coincidentally, (as I understand it) most of those difficult Doctrines have developed as response to the various heresies against the Faith …and, as in Biblical times, the Holy Spirit inspired the Defenders of the Faith an fought along side them to keep Christ Church from being destroyed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’m a convert from the Lutheran “church” too…14 years this Saturday is my Catholic anniversary…I LOVE holy Saturday as it just takes me back to that day, in the big beautiful old church in Philly. I still cry when everyone is received into the church…But you are right. We would have communion once a months, and then special occasions. Jesus said “do this as often as you eat…as often as you drink” that is saying do it DAILY as we eat and drink daily. People are so naive to say Lutheran’s are “practically the same” right…I never even knew what eucharist meant or that the entire Chapter of John 6 repeats 6 times that this is my body! Not a symbol, and the gospel of John did NOT speak in parables, hence it being a gnostic gospel. sayng the same clarification after question after question, and repeating the answer is clear to me. we know he was literal in this statement as when his dicsiples were leaving who could not handle it…he would have said something to bring them back…He knew what was to happen. He didn’t say…“I’m speaking in parables for you simple people” he just said…OK…if you want to leave too, go ahead, but I’m not changing what I just told you six times straight! It is a mystery…a further faith exercise to test true belief. When protestants use the Catholic Canon from the 4th century to try and “stump” us somehow, is just hilarious and sad at the same time. If the protestants came along and took all of the books that weren’t part of the Catholic canon, then there could be an argument…“who is right” but they chose to keep our bible (minus the books catholics "added 300 years before Christ in the septugent)…this means they have enough faith to follow our compilation as 100% fact, when even the Bible says that everything is NOT in there ie) last chapter in the gospel of John…and 2Thesseloinians:2,15. I don’t need to explain to you how different it is. I love to talk with converts…I feel really connected, and overjoyed at the amount of people becoming Catholic each year. the pope just opened the doors to the Anglicans…there were many who were sick of the way thier church was accepting the secular world with gay bishops and woman clergy, abortion, etc. I actually saw an Anglican Catholic Church and the pope is giving special dispensation for men who were Anglican priests to beome Catholic priests, of course with some further studies…so we are going to have a little confusion when we have many married priests. The Pope is truly ecumenical. they keep their traditions, but have true consecration and are in line with rome…it’s a beautiful thing for sure. People think we Catholics need to get with the times, but people are asking for it to be the other way around, and this new “Anglican Catholicism” is a prime example. I think in the beginning of the year it was a welcoming of 2000 Anglicans?! that’s really amazing. I love the RCIA process, and am considering taking diococene classes, so pray for a vocation in that department. I know it’s hard for protestants to not go to communion, like we’re a secret society…it’s just they are not in communion with the church and therefore should not act as if…for their own good. Well, I’ve gone on, just super excited during holy week, and saw you were originally Lutheran as i was. Have a great Holy Week…and God Bless!

…I get fired up like that… it amazes me how not all Believers can be humble enough to Listen and Obey Christ’s Word: ‘you must eat/chew and drink ME–otherwise you cannot have any part in ME!’

…the Romans knew that Christians were singularly different than the Jews because not only did they Worship One God, but they Believe that they could Consume their God, Christ Jesus, and become part of Him! (St. John 6:53-58).

Keep prayer for the Unity of the Body!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Also, topics that were just universally accepted with no question, began having “issues” Like the Immaculate conception…no one ever questioned it, but when a stink was made with people trying to see what THEY wanted to see etc…the popes and other early Church Fathers, had to go and actually do something that has done much fewer times than people think…and that is for the pope to call something “dogma” Ex Cathedra. Protestants will have you thinking the Church is constantly in the process of making new “man made” laws up (as if the pope has a bunch of free time to be doing this)

…interestingly enough, non-Catholics Christians have been prolific in creating laws and credos in order to legitimize their denominational entities, while, simultaneously, rejecting Christ only-founded Church. :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

*It makes me very sad to read the critics of the Catholic Church in the Media. The Catholic Church threatens no-one. On the contrary it is the largest Charity organization in the world and opens its arms to one and all. You do not have to be Catholic to benefit.

The Catholic Church does not belong to Catholics alone - it belongs to everyone on the planet who wishes to embrace it. No-one is excluded. Hospitals, Clinics, Universities, Schools, and so on and on - the list is immense. So many priests and religious have given their lives to serve - so many have lost their lives and suffered for humanity. The Church is there to service everybody.

If the Church was to cease tomorrow the world would be a sad place and people would suffer tremendously.

*

…actually, the Catholic Church threatens everybody:

• Believers because they must put self (ego) aside and submit to Christ as taught by His Church
• Non-Believers because they are left out in the cold (check out hollowood’s propaganda in the various films/tv shows: a god that kills/hates/controls/lies/betrays not only those who reject him but his own followers)
• Non-Christians because the Church professes that Salvation is only through Christ Jesus

…personally, I am bemused by the atheists who are so bent on eradicating God that they learn not only the Bible but Catholic Doctrine in an effort to convince the Believers that God does not exists! :juggle:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Obviously it is not a matter of my personal opinion, at least no moreso than yours. If the Catholic Catechism says:

This speaks of one body of Christ - the Church Catholic! And that our division, for which both sides are to blame (yes! your side and mine), ruptures the unity of the one holy catholic and Apostolic Church.

And,

If I am accepted as a brother, am I not part of the family?

And,

If my “ecclesial community” is used by His Spirit as a means of salvation (no salvation outside the Catholic Church), then,

the simplistic claim that I am not Catholic, though not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is, in your words, fraudulent.

But let’s be clear here, my profile claims to be evangelical Catholic, and if that moniker bothers triumpalists on either side, so be it.

Jon

Jon

…it does not bother me what you call yourself since your definition will be put aside when you express your faith base… what bothers me is that now you are creating new words (unless its a mispelling) where you tap onto past hatred of the Pope… why engage in loathing of a people when you visit their home?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

*I understand Jesus to mean true flesh and true blood. Spiritual food to me would be grace. I cannot recall the name of the place in Italy but many years ago a priest doubted that the bread and wine turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus. At the consecration he couldn’t believe his eyes when, as he raised the Host, it turned to flesh in his hands!. The wine in the cup turned to blood! The flesh and the blood still exists today and is preserved in a special glass display.

I think the place is called Lancerno and if you google you will find the story with pictures I am sure.

*

…there’s a fellow that has been investigating those claims and he has come accross several others (about 9, I think).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body

Hi, Jon!

…actually this speaks of the schism of the Eastern Church not of Luther’s Protestant movement that created several myriads of further raptures in the Body!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[bmonk]

As a RC I do not believe John 6 has anything to do with the Last Supper, I do love that chapter as Jesus spells out clearly what we must do to have eternal life.

Believe is the majic word.

I believe in the Real Presence but substantial , not physical.

Ah, but consider that chapter. It is set at Passover (John 6:4), Jesus “takes, blesses, (breaks), and gives” the bread to the assembly (6:11), and the disciples gather up the “fragments” left over (6:12, 13–the very same word used for the fragments of the Eucharist). After the meal, the disciples, and then Jesus cross over the sea (another Passover reference). He then speaks extensively on the Bread of Life (6:26-58). All of these point to the Last Supper. More, when we get to the Last Supper in Chapter 13, there is no reference to the bread as body (or wine as blood)–unlike the other three Gospels, and even Paul in 1 Cor 11, that all happens here. If this is not some sort of reflection or commentary on the Last Supper, I don’t know what it is.

And this is not a minor point. If it does refer to the Last Supper, the sort of language Jesus uses: eat and drink, plus a different form of eat: munch or chew or gnaw, the substantial presence does reach the physical human experience. It is more than symbolic. We are totally involved, not just mind or spirit, but body also.

God does not just save us as spirits or minds, he saves us a whole human persons, body and soul and spirit. And, therefore, human realities, such as the divisions we have caused in our churches, do matter.

 

[inkaneer]

Obviously it is not a matter of my personal opinion, at least no moreso than yours. If the Catholic Catechism says:

This speaks of one body of Christ - the Church Catholic! And that our division, for which both sides are to blame (yes! your side and mine), ruptures the unity of the one holy catholic and Apostolic Church.

And,

Quote:
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

If I am accepted as a brother, am I not part of the family?

You are a separated brother. If you want to participate in the family then end your separation. Remember, Luther left us not vice versa. You follow Luther not the church established by Jesus Christ.

And,

Quote:
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

If my “ecclesial community” is used by His Spirit as a means of salvation (no salvation outside the Catholic Church), then,

the simplistic claim that I am not Catholic, though not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is, in your words, fraudulent.

But let’s be clear here, my profile claims to be evangelical Catholic, and if that moniker bothers on either side, so be it.

Jon

Jon

So we are triumpalists now. Tell me did this slur replace “romists” in your denomenation? Or was it “papists”? Your true colors are showing. You do a nice job of cherry picking from the Catechism those parts of paragraphs that suit you. What you attempt is obvious. You attempt to say I do not need to become Catholic because my denomenation is just as good as your Church. So let 's get to the bottom line. Yes, you are considered a brother as you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and worthy of worship. But you are a separated brother. Your denomenation possesses a portion of the deposit of faith but it is only a portion and not a full measure. The full measure is contained in the Catholic Church. You are among the non christians in only having a portion of the faith. Yes, even non christians have a portion. And while your portion maybe larger than the others it still does not approach the full deposit contained in the Catholic Church. And one more thing, notice that in the parable of the prodigal son the prodigal son, while he left and was away from his family he was still a part of the family even though separated. But he did not enjoy the life of the family while separated. To do that he had to come back.

 

[JonNC]

So we are triumpalists now. Tell me did this slur replace “romists” in your denomenation? Or was it “papists”? Your true colors are showing.

If you read my post, I said triumphalists on both sides. That includes lutherans.

So, I’ll tell you what. You find in my almost 9000 posts on this site, where I have ever, EVER, slurred or in any way been disrespectful to the Catholic Church or her members. I’ve been nothing but respectful.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

If you read my post, I said triumphalists on both sides. That includes lutherans.

So, I’ll tell you what. You find in my almost 9000 posts on this site, where I have ever, EVER, slurred or in any way been disrespectful to the Catholic Church or her members. I’ve been nothing but respectful.

Jon

You are still a separated brother.

 

[JonNC]

You are still a separated brother.

And so are you. Sadly, we are separated from each other. I pray for the day when this is not so.

The irony of your personal attack on me is that it is we who consider oursleves evangelical Catholic, which in Lutheran-speak is, essentially, high church, are criticized by other Lutherans of being too Catholic, of being “romanized”. We are the ones who cheer when LCMS president Harrison sits before a congrssional committee and blasts the administration for its unvieled attack on, as he said, “our Catholic friends”. We are the ones who seek to return American Lutheranism to its roots incatholicity, and oppose the Reformed influence. We are the Lutherans who speak highly of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul before him.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You are still a separated brother.

And so are you. Sadly, we are separated from each other. I pray for the day when this is not so.

The irony of your personal attack on me is that it is we who consider oursleves evangelical Catholic, which in Lutheran-speak is, essentially, high church, are criticized by other Lutherans of being too Catholic, of being “romanized”. We are the ones who cheer when LCMS president Harrison sits before a congrssional committee and blasts the administration for its unvieled attack on, as he said, “our Catholic friends”. We are the ones who seek to return American Lutheranism to its roots incatholicity, and oppose the Reformed influence. We are the Lutherans who speak highly of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul before him.

Jon

There is a difference, a big difference. The brother of the prodigal son, although separated from his brother, was still in his father’s house. The prodigal son was not. The LCMS is not in the fathers house. There is no valid reason to remain separated from the father’s house. The idea that the church somehow lost its way or taught error or whatever the reason given for being separated is totally without merit for it is unscriptural. Jesus said tthe Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth. Jesus said He would remain with His church till the end of the age. With the Holy Spirit guiding it and with Jesus abiding in it how could the church teach error or lose its way or any of the other allegations made by non Catholic christians. Luther established his brand of christianity in the 16th century as did the other so called "reformers’. At that time there was in existence a christian church with over 1500 years of history. A church that gave us the understanding of the Trinity that you share with us. A church who defined the two natures of Christ which you also share with us. It also gave us Theotokos instead of Christotokos which Luther allso taught but some of his so called ‘followers’ today do not. It also gave us ‘Transsubstantiation’ instead of ‘Consubstantiation’. When it did these things was it in error? Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit decide to take a coffee break during some of those times and the church went off willy nilly? Do you see the self imposed dilemma that non catholic place themselves? You can’t say scripture is totally inerrant and then formulate a teaching that contradicts scripture without that teaching being in error. How does one rationalize that without it dawning on one that you can’t have it both ways?

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;9152597]Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You are still a separated brother.

Dear brother in Christ,

I do not wish to extend this, because I see no good coming from our conversation at this point, but I wish to correct some of your imsconceptions you posted here
There is a difference, a big difference. The brother of the prodigal son, although separated from his brother, was still in his father’s house. The prodigal son was not. The LCMS is not in the fathers house. There is no valid reason to remain separated from the father’s house. The idea that the church somehow lost its way or taught error or whatever the reason given for being separated is totally without merit for it is unscriptural. Jesus said tthe Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth. Jesus said He would remain with His church till the end of the age

We very much consider ourselves part of Our Father’s house, and we consider Catholics in His house, as well. And we agree He will be with us until the end of the age.

With the Holy Spirit guiding it and with Jesus abiding in it how could the church teach error or lose its way or any of the other allegations made by non Catholic christians.

Human sin.

A church that gave us the understanding of the Trinity that you share with us. A church who defined the two natures of Christ which you also share with us

Agreed.

It also gave us Theotokos instead of Christotokos which Luther allso taught but some of his so called ‘followers’ today do not.

None of us who confess the Augsburg Confession teach Christotokos.

It also gave us ‘Transsubstantiation’ instead of ‘Consubstantiation’.

We also do not teach consubstantiation. In fact, I’m not aware of any other communion that does, though there may be some.

When it did these things was it in error?

For those who do teach Christotokos and consubstantiation, that would be error.

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit decide to take a coffee break during some of those times and the church went off willy nilly? Do you see the self imposed dilemma that non catholic place themselves? You can’t say scripture is totally inerrant and then formulate a teaching that contradicts scripture without that teaching being in error. How does one rationalize that without it dawning on one that you can’t have it both ways?

The idea that the Holy Spirit is not with the Church is ridiculous. What is not ridiculous, though very sad, is that human sin often interferes unity in His Church. Certainly, scripture is innerant, but human understanding can be. It is my fervent prayer that He will agree reunite us here in the Church Militant. It is also my certain belief that He will in the Church Triumphant.

In closing, to the extent that my tone has not been charitable, I apologize to you, and pray His blessings on you in word and sacrament.

Peace,
Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Dear brother in Christ,

We very much consider ourselves part of Our Father’s house, and we consider Catholics in His house, as well. And we agree He will be with us until the end of the age.

We also do not teach consubstantiation. In fact, I’m not aware of any other communion that does, though there may be some.

Maybe its because Luther never used the term ‘consubstantiation’. But he believed that the Lord’s Supper was one of the central mysteries of the faith and that the body of Christ was physically present in the communion offering because Christ said, “This is my body.” Therefore, Christ’s body must be “with, in, and under” the elements of the offering. The bread and wine, however, do not change their substance, and, for Luther, there was no miracle of the mass in which the priest was thought to alter the substance of the sacrifice. Call it what you will but Luther’s ideas, as well intentioned as they may have been, were wrong and were rejected by the church that Jesus said would be guided by the Holy Spirit. So who do we go with here? Do we go with a church with a 2,000 year history and which Jesus said would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit and one He would remain with until the end of the age or do we go with a man who was a child abuse victim and who ran from parental authority as well as church authorrity?

The idea that the Holy Spirit is not with the Church is ridiculous. What is not ridiculous, though very sad, is that human sin often interferes unity in His Church. Certainly, scripture is innerant, but human understanding can be. It is my fervent prayer that He will agree reunite us here in the Church Militant. It is also my certain belief that He will in the Church Triumphant.

Peace,
Jon

You can come back any time. Nothing is stopping you but you.

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;9155561]Maybe its because Luther never used the term ‘consubstantiation’. But he believed that the Lord’s Supper was one of the central mysteries of the faith and that the body of Christ was physically present in the communion offering because Christ said, “This is my body.” Therefore, Christ’s body must be “with, in, and under” the elements of the offering. The bread and wine, however, do not change their substance, and, for Luther, there was no miracle of the mass in which the priest was thought to alter the substance of the sacrifice.

You don’t understand it because you come from a reference of a metaphysical description. That’s understandable. Sacramental Union is not a metaphysical construct. We understand the mystery as just that, a mystery. Christ said, "this [bread] is my body. And so it is.

Call it what you will but Luther’s ideas, as well intentioned as they may have been, were wrong and were rejected by the church that Jesus said would be guided by the Holy Spirit. So who do we go with here? Do we go with a church with a 2,000 year history and which Jesus said would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit and one He would remain with until the end of the age or do we go with a man who was a child abuse victim and who ran from parental authority as well as church authorrity?

The argument you provide here is not convincing. Certainly, Holy Orthodoxy has a 2,000 year history, and they do not describe the mystery in metaphysical terms.

You can come back any time. Nothing is stopping you but you.

Come back to where?

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

It appears that only Protestants make the claim it is ‘…figurative language…’ the Jews listening to Christ clearly understood - and rejected - Christ’s teaching as we see in John 6:53

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Can you provide any referenced in either OT or NT where people walked away from the speaker for using ‘…figurative language…’ such as we find in in John 6:67

“After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.”

In all of the examples of ‘…figurative language…’ that Christ used, such as comparing Himself to a vine, the sheepgate, the good shepherd, etc - everyone stayed where they were and did not walk out as a group. But, the section of John 6:22-70 (the Eucharistic Discourse) Christ requires us to eat His Flesh if we are to live. But, of course, we must believe Christ’s words, that He has given us a way to actually eat His physical Flesh.

You are right about one item, Roy5 - it is a Mystery.

God bless

Jesus spoke in figurative language regularly. He said he was a door, a gate, the Good Shepherd. He called us the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth.

 Protestants I know believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is always with us, as he promised. The idea that through a priestly prayer bread and wine miraculously become the flesh and blood of Christ can seem very pagan to them. It smacks of mystery religions and the belief in some ancient and even cannibalistic societies that by consuming the body and blood of a sacrificed victim a person can take on greater power etc himself. They may regard it as a remaining vestige of the primitive need for human sacrifice to mollify god/gods. They see influences from Mithraism and other cults that focused on blood sacrifice.

 Hesitate to say this, but it's important to know why Protestants generally look upon communion in other ways. They regard the words as symbolic. Some emphasize communion as a simple memorial. Others stress the 'family meal' aspect - that as fellow Christians we gather around the Lord's Table to break bread together and declare our fellowship one with another. Others focus on the way in which the sacrament/ordinance is an opportunity for repentance and rededication. Still others regard it as a reminder that the spirit of Christ is with us now and always. Etc. 

 Among many Protestants, there is a willingness to permit different individuals to view communion as they feel led. It can be a joyous celebration of Christ's presence and/or his/our victory over death. It can be a time for remorseful confession and absolution. Its meaning can vary with the state of mind and/or the need of the communicant. 

 The difference between much of Protestantism (generalizations are risky) and Catholicism is that mainline Protestantism in particular lays less emphasis upon strict adherence to doctrine. It permits individual freedom of interpretation. This has great appeal to many, while it also has led over the centuries to numerous splits and resultant sects.