Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[NonCatholic]

Hi Brien, You know I realy usto when I was a child think I was eating Jesus body because thats what we were taught,but it made me sick and I usto be afraid of receiving because of that. Then after I left the faith I never gave it much thought untill just now.If there is scripture to back it up then i believe it,if Jesus said it i beleive it. Any more scripture on it? Nancy,Hi Gramps

Read the actual words of Jesus Himself in Luke 22 and I Corinthians in regards to the Lords Supper, which was not even implemented when Jesus was speaking in John 6, which is what is used out of context to somehow bring into the Lords Supper. If you look at John 6:63; Jesus explains very clearly what the context of what He said is. John 6 is the salvation message and the result of those who do not believe and the remnant that allows understands and follows. this is consistent with the teaching of God.

 

[benedictus2]

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Even though you see; yet you do not believe.

HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO REBUTT THAT FOR YOU BEFORE YOU WILL EVEN READ IT?

I have explained to you in post 698 )and others have done too) about your error of interpretation of that passage. You have not refuted a single point I raised on that post.

That tells me one thing. That you have no come backs against my arguments.

What does that say about you? Either you cannot read or you are incapable of rational argument.

Refute the points we raised because we have already debunked your argument many times over.

 

[MDK]

Have you ever been bombarded from all sides and overlooked something? Sorry I overlooked your post…I will go an d see it right now.

You’ve only been bombarded from the “truth side” and you’ve shielded yourself from the truth quite a great deal, letting none of the truth reach you.

 

[Cinette]

And yet another thing that has been replied to and refuted several times.

You are beginning to sound like you’ve just come into this thread and have started posting without reading what has transpired.

Either you’ve suffered memory loss or you have someone else answering on your behalf.

That is possible. Perhaps there is a bunch of “fundamental evangelicals” comprising NonCatholic. Makes sense! I mean, what other explanation could there be?

 

[benedictus2]

nancy dalrymple;4720308:

*Hi Brien, You know I realy usto when I was a child think I was eating Jesus body because thats what we were taught,but it made me sick and I usto be afraid of receiving because of that. Then after I left the faith I never gave it much thought untill just now.If there is scripture to back it up then i believe it,if Jesus said it i beleive it. Any more scripture on it? Nancy,Hi Gramps *

Read the actual words of Jesus Himself in Luke 22 and I Corinthians in regards to the Lords Supper, which was not even implemented when Jesus was speaking in John 6, which is what is used out of context to somehow bring into the Lords Supper. If you look at John 6:63

And while you’re at it read Matthew 26. And read all the posts in this thread.

Every single point Non Catholic has raised has been refuted, debunked, demolished.

 

[NonCatholic]

It’s interesting that the Pagans persecuted the early Christians and accused them of cannibalism.

So you agree with Pagans…surprising.

So far you have not demonstrated that. This was just one of the reasons I am becoming Catholic, because it’s so obvious that Protestants have their head in the sand on this issue.

So now you put your whole soul in the sand?

No, Truth cannot contradict Truth.

But two things, in the Catholic case, three or more that contradict cannot all be true can it?

Yes we do. Catholics believe Christ died once and for all.

Then why is there an altar, a Tabernacle, and a Priesthood, which were all done away with on the renting of the Holy of Holies upon Christs death and further explained in Hebrews 7,8 and 9. All saints are a royal priesthood according to God. Why does anyone call someone dressed up Father, when Jesus told us not to, then said because you have only one spiritual Father in heaven. I you bring up the silly talk of "don’t you call your dad “father”…doesn’t fly because he is not my spitiual Father that leads to all truth in spirit.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

You do not have a supreme view of scripture. You have what is called bibliolatry.

**
Hi Ben,

Hold on! This thread is running out of control.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ - CS Lewis

Lets pray that God’s will be done, not Non’s! **

 

[NonCatholic]

And while you’re at it read Matthew 26. And read all the posts in this thread.

Every single point Non Catholic has raised has been refuted, debunked, demolished.

Please do read them all, notice who uses Scripture in a historical, grammatical context and who uses “the church teaches this and that and the other” and when they use Scripture; it is almost entirely out of context and many times inconsistent with the whole of Scripture. It is easy when you stick with God’s teaching, but add all the extraneous stuff and it gets so confusing; Catholics themselves can’t come close to comprehending it all. Is God the author of confusion? His answer will…there are 50k protestants (which I don’t know…have to ask one) and all different interpretation…remember there are 1 billion Catholics.

I encourage you to see all posts by NonCatholic, then all posts by Benedictus2; although that might take a lifetime…LOL

 

[joe370]

you might want to get your subject matter correct and your time line in order…these two things might, but won’t, help you get the context and thus the interpretation correct. John 6 has nothing to do with the Lords Supper…who told you that?

**Who should be doing the “telling” --if you don’t mind me asking? Is it sola scriptura via private interpretation --is it me or you–is it one of the bevy of churches in the world today? Who or what was given the authority to interpret scripture? **

Have you ever wondered if it was cannibalism? That was your God-given conscience putting that doubt in there.

**I don’t doubt Jesus when He said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have eternal life. Do I completely grasp this mystery --heck no! But I don’t grasp the Trinity either; I believe it, as you do, because the C.C. defined it --or was that someone else; I could be wrong; I’m quite fallible. **

Did you know the OT prohibits eating of flesh and blood; would Jesus do or say something that was not scriptural? Would something invented by men do that?

Yes, I am aware of that! Which, really brings my point home. This fact, either makes Jesus look like an insane man, who had just performed a mind-blowing miracle, as many of His followers insisted, and walked away, even though they just witnessed said miracle, when He said:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him…

OR

that makes Him God Who can back up His words in a way we will never fully understand until we are with Him. Whom should I follow --the Jewish disciples that walked away, knowing the OT prohibits eating of flesh and blood, or Jesus’ Jewish Apostles and disciples, who also knew the OT prohibits eating of flesh and blood believed --with out question?

If Jesus, as you believe (based on whose authority) --was speaking in metaphor, like he did at other times, why didn’t He stop them from walking away? Why didn’t He explicate further; When cannibalism entered their minds, Jesus said the following:

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him…Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” …It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Yet, they still walked away! Why?

Why would cannibalism enter anyones mind? Jesus is in Heaven?

I chose to believe as the Apostles did --without question!

Thanks for the feedback; I enjoy debating.

 

[benedictus2]

Then why is there an altar, a Tabernacle, and a Priesthood, which were all done away with on the renting of the Holy of Holies upon Christs death and further explained in Hebrews 7,8 and 9.

In the OT only the high priest can enter the Holy of Holies and that he can only do once a year.

When that was rent at the time of Christ’s death, what it means is that it is no longer just the High Priest who can come into the presence of God. Now every one can be before God. Exactly what happens at Mass and even outside Mass. Everyone can adore Christ (Body, Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

Please do read them all, notice who uses Scripture and who uses “the church teaches this and that and the other” and when Scripture is used; it is almost entirely out of context and many times inconsistent with the whole of Scripture.

I encourage you to see all posts by NonCatholic, then all posts by Benedictus2; although that might take a lifetime…LOL

Sarcasm again from someone very quickly losing ground.

All I have to say is that so far you have not been able to refute any of my arguments.

Come to think of it. You have not even tried to refute THAT statement.

Is that why you do not want to her to read my posts?

 

[benedictus2]

Catholics themselves can’t come close to comprehending it all.** Is God the author of confusion?** His answer will…there are 50k protestants (which I don’t know…have to ask one) and all different interpretation…

Most certainly not. Which just proves my point. The only reason protestants are so divided could be because someone else is behind them. As another poster put it. The Holy Spirit unites. The Devil Divides.

remember there are 1 billion Catholics.

All under ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

 

[Matariel]

So you agree with Pagans…surprising.

Did you read what I wrote? It is *you *who agree with the Pagans by calling us “cannibals”. That’s what they said about the early Christians too!

So now you put your whole soul in the sand?

Look, I honestly tried to believe and follow evangelical Christianity, but there was too much division (which is condemned by St. Paul in the Bible) and disagreements on all kinds of important and unimportant doctrines. And the fact that many of thier beliefs were not even believed by any Christians prior to the 1500’s. It broke my heart to leave evangelical Christianity, but I had to. It just wasn’t completely true, and I need the Truth-- pure, complete Truth.

But two things, in the Catholic case, three or more that contradict cannot all be true can it?

Precisely. And all Protestantism is is division and contradictions of doctrines.

Then why is there an altar, a Tabernacle, and a Priesthood, which were all done away with on the renting of the Holy of Holies upon Christs death and further explained in Hebrews 7,8 and 9.

Hebrews was talking about the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices. And later it mentions the Christian altar-- the central holy furnishing found in Catholic churches.

All saints are a royal priesthood according to God.

Yes, the priesthood of believers. But there is also a ministerial priesthood.

Why does anyone call someone dressed up Father, when Jesus told us not to, then said because you have only one spiritual Father in heaven.

Then why did St. Paul call himself the “Father” of those he was writing to? He referred to himself as Timothy’s father. (Gasp!)

He was his spiritual father; and that’s what our presbyters are to us, our spiritual fathers.

And also then, if you interpret that verse that way, you shouldn’t ever refer to anyone as a teacher, and you can’t even call your own father, father.

I you bring up the silly talk of "don’t you call your dad “father”…doesn’t fly because he is not my spitiual Father that leads to all truth in spirit.

“Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father…” (1 Timothy 5:1)

Entreat means, according to the dictionary, “to invoke, to adjure; to request earnestly.”

So this Catholic manner of respect is perfectly fine.

 

[benedictus2]

Did you read what I wrote? It is *you *who agree with the Pagans by calling us “cannibals”. That’s what they said about the early Christians too!

Read what you wrote? Take a number. There’s quite a queue.

 

[Church_Militant]

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Even though you see; yet you do not believe.

Okaaaaay…

Then why does Our Blessed Lord make his literal statement a make or break test for his closest disciples just after He said that?

68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

The fact that this follows on the heels of your cited verse simply reinforces the fact that what Our Lord said He meant literally. Your verse is actually yanked completely out of context and yet in its context makes it clear what Our Lord actually meant.

He reiterates and makes this real at the last supper, something that St. Paul plainly believed and taught in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

This is further reinforced by the earliest of Christian writings when St. Ignatius of Antioch, a close friend and disciple of St. John the apostle, the bishop of the Church at Antioch says in a letter to the church at Smyrna.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.(Link)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Why do you persist in trying to contradict something that the New Testament teaches and that the earliest Christians plainly state that they consider a non-negotiable doctrine?

 

[Church_Militant]

That is possible. Perhaps there is a bunch of “fundamental evangelicals” comprising NonCatholic. Makes sense! I mean, what other explanation could there be?

Not likely… more likely is that he has only this one argument and is more interested in arguing against the Catholic teaching than actually finding and following the truth regardless of where it leads.

This might in a weird sort of way be a form of “vain repetition” (though not in prayer obviously), but with the same intention as Jesus mentions. Matthew 6:7 “… For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.” No offense intended…

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Hi Non,

So you agree with Pagans…surprising.

** Actually you did. You need sleep old buddy. You are getting confused again!**

So now you put your whole soul in the sand?
**
To interpret the scriptures right is to see the catholic church! It wrote the scriptures. The truths are the beliefs of the Catholic Church! **

But two things, in the Catholic case, three or more that contradict cannot all be true can it?

**Nothing the Catholic church teaches contradicts with the Bible’s truths. How could it? Jesus and the HS guides His church! **

Then why is there an altar, a Tabernacle, and a Priesthood, which were all done away with on the renting of the Holy of Holies upon Christs death and further explained in Hebrews 7,8 and 9.

**so a torn curtain told your guys 1,500 years later to stop using an altar? OK **

All saints are a royal priesthood according to God. Why does anyone call someone dressed up Father, when Jesus told us not to, then said because you have only one spiritual Father in heaven. you bring up the silly talk of "don’t you call your dad “father”…doesn’t fly because he is not my spitiual Father that leads to all truth in spirit.

**Well, Non, How about the truth? Any anti-Catholic, should realize that if he quotes it literally and he takes it only in a fashion that he uses it against Catholics, it would make him a hypocrite! How?Because if he calls his own physical Father, ‘Father’ he would automatically violate his stated interpretation of Matthew 23:9. He would also just render saying a commandment "Honor thy Father”, sinful. This is foolish. We are to honor our Fathers and call our Fathers ‘father.’ And of course we honor our Fathers, in order to have a long life (Ex. 20:12).

The general idea that you as an anti-Catholic used is that here Jesus is only condemning the use of the term ‘Father’ in a spiritual fashion. That here Jesus is condemning spiritual Fathers. Correct? Well, buddy, lets be literal if we are going to be literal! There is no distinction at all in Matthew 23, that says anything about ‘well, it is ok, to refer to your mothers husband as ‘Father’ but I really mean it to say no spiritual Fathers’ even though I didn’t say that! Sorry, guy, no such distinction is found anywhere in the text, and is only a position you and others construct in order to use this verse against Catholicism.

Now, in the immediate context of the terms Jesus uses in Matthew 23:9, we also see the same treatment of the term ‘Father’ as the term ‘teacher’ (v. 8), or Master., (v. 10).

When Jesus was teaching about the necessity of being born again to Nicodemus, he affirmed that Nicodemus was a teacher (RSV), or Master (KJV) of Israel (Jn. 3:10).

To even say that a spiritual teacher is impossible would have Jesus contradicting himself in John 3:10 when he acknowledges Nicodemus as a teacher or Master in Israel. Throughout his many parables we would see Jesus refer to the servants of ‘Masters’ (in the following chapters no less, without giving any hint that the term master can not be used of one who is not God, Mt. 24:45-51, 25:1-30), as well as Paul (Rom. 14:4, for example).

This passage says also, don’t call one ‘rabbi’ or teacher (23:8). This is just before Jesus’ use of the term ‘Father‘ in 23:9.

pay attention, this is really easy for you to grasp …If a Protestant church has a pastor and someone terms him a ‘teacher’ of spiritual things, then if the Catholic Church use of the term ‘Father’ is sinful, then so is the Protestant use og the term ‘teacher’.
Do any Protestants you know, go out of their way, to never use the term ‘teacher’ for their Pastor, in the same way that some think that Catholics should not use the term ‘Father’? I don’t think so. After all, their pastors are ‘teachers’ of spiritual things. Remember, Jesus’ condemned the use of the term ‘teacher’ (Matt. 23:8) in the same fashion as in the use of the term ‘Father’ in Matthew 23:9.

There are no Protestants that I am aware of, who say Catholics shouldn’t use the term ‘Father’ for Catholic priests, who at the same time are afraid to use the term ‘teacher’ (which is what rabbi means) of their pastors as stated in Matthew 23:8.

God Bless**

 

[NonCatholic]

Okaaaaay…

Then why does Our Blessed Lord make his literal statement a make or break test for his closest disciples just after He said that?

John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him

68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life Not the FLESH of ETERNAL LIFE. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

The fact that this follows on the heels of your cited verse simply reinforces the fact that what Our Lord said He meant literally. Your verse is actually yanked completely out of context and yet in its context makes it clear what Our Lord actually meant. As I said and you have confirmed; you cannot believe. John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper; unless you take it out of context to fit some agenda. Even when the Lords Supper was instituted, the was no cannibalization of Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus would be violating the levical teaching on eating of flesh and drinking of blood; a common pagan practice that was strictly forbidden by the Jews…do you think Jesus would violate and encourage other to do so?

He reiterates and makes this real at the last supper, something that St. Paul plainly believed and taught in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: (Prediction of His death…nothing more) this do for the commemoration (WHAT - TWIST - remembrance)of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the remembrance of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Why do you persist in trying to contradict something that the New Testament teaches and that the earliest Christians plainly state that they consider a non-negotiable doctrine?

You need to ask yourself that question; it is very clear. Mine is consistent with the whole Scripture; whereas you are consistent with the teaching of the Mass…the difference is night and day, cooked and uncooked, right and wrong etc etc

 

[Church_Militant]

John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him

As I said and you have confirmed; you cannot believe. John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper; unless you take it out of context to fit some agenda. Even when the Lords Supper was instituted, the was no cannibalization of Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus would be violating the levical teaching on eating of flesh and drinking of blood; a common pagan practice that was strictly forbidden by the Jews…do you think Jesus would violate and encourage other to do so?

Jesus would and did show that a great many of the Jewish understandings of their faith were in error. He worked healing on the sabbath and even in the temple itself and showed that his disciples did not sin in harvesting and eating grain they gathered as they walked through a field on a sabbath, so your argument doesn’t hold water. He even chose to die by hanging on a tree in fulfillment of the prophecies, something that was also accused under Jewish understanding.

Furthermore Our Lord makes very plain statements. 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

You need to ask yourself that question; it is very clear. Mine is consistent with the whole Scripture; whereas you are consistent with the teaching of the Mass…the difference is night and day, cooked and uncooked, right and wrong etc etc

No, the opposite is actually the case here.

My beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church are consistent with the teachings of scripture in its context as well as the plainly affirmed teachings of the very earliest of Christian writers, bishops and martyrs while yours are merely consistent with the modern new winds of doctrines of men that have only existed for the last 500 years at best. I have a theory as to why these denials came about.

 

[benedictus2]

Okaaaaay…

Then why does Our Blessed Lord make his literal statementa make or break test for his closest disciples just after He said that?

68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

Very good point!:clapping: