P
PeteZaHut
Guest
How do Protestant denominations back up their disbelief in the true presence of the Eucharist?
What do they say about the trogo/phago argument?
What do they say about the trogo/phago argument?
- Status
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Could you summarize the trogo/phago argument?
P
PeteZaHut
Guest
If I am remembering right, when Christ said to eat of his flesh in John’s gospel, the word he used was trogo, which is always used in a literal sense and means to eat or gnaw. The figurative word that would have been used is phago, but it was not.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Why, Jesus was only speaking symbolically. Don’t you know anything?
As prooftext, they’ll go to John 6:63 (same scene) -*** 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**.
3
3Sanctus
Guest
As someone who grew up Southern Baptist (yes, I spent the first nearly 18 years of my life hating the Catholic Church for doing things it in fact has never done) I feel comfortable giving a very blunt, though honest, appraisal of much popular Protestant theology.
For the most part, Protestants (at least the laity) base their theological dispositions on uninformed opinion. They’ll read a bit of the Bible or hear one sermon from someone and determine their new-found opinion is gospel. Plus, anything Catholics say must be wrong, because their going to Hell, so no one wants to agree with the Catholics. Ergo, clearly the (Catholic) idea of the Real Presence is simply wrong.
To be fair, this obviously doesn’t explain all Protestant theology, as not all protestants are nutjobs, though some are (same with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or anything else). However, during my time spent in the Southern Baptist Convention, this seemed to be the norm (even if it wasn’t militantly declared). This was also similarly followed in the Presbyterian church I attended in elementary school.
I know I’ll have people hating me for posting this, but this is a clear, straight-forward, and honest explanation of my experience prior to deciding to move over to Catholicism.
Dominus vobiscum.
For the most part, Protestants (at least the laity) base their theological dispositions on uninformed opinion. They’ll read a bit of the Bible or hear one sermon from someone and determine their new-found opinion is gospel. Plus, anything Catholics say must be wrong, because their going to Hell, so no one wants to agree with the Catholics. Ergo, clearly the (Catholic) idea of the Real Presence is simply wrong.
To be fair, this obviously doesn’t explain all Protestant theology, as not all protestants are nutjobs, though some are (same with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or anything else). However, during my time spent in the Southern Baptist Convention, this seemed to be the norm (even if it wasn’t militantly declared). This was also similarly followed in the Presbyterian church I attended in elementary school.
I know I’ll have people hating me for posting this, but this is a clear, straight-forward, and honest explanation of my experience prior to deciding to move over to Catholicism.
Dominus vobiscum.
S
Sabda
Guest
I think they either don’t know or try to ignore it. Most likely don’t know.
When I first started studying this I bought a Strong’s Concordance. Well I had heard enough Catholic converts, Scott Hahn et al., discussing this very thing, so I looked it up. Under the word eat trogo is no where listed. Phago is the word that Strong’s leads you to. I went looking though the Greek section in Strong’s to find trogo and sure enough it’s in there just not listed under the list of English words in the beginning of the book. Someone who did not know about this would never know about the word changing to trogo by looking at this particular book. I know that Strong’s is very popular in Protestant circles. I made a note in mine about this.
After that find I then went online looking for another source and found the Interlinear Bible which is a wonderful resource. Unfortunately it does not include the Deutrocanonical books.
When I first started studying this I bought a Strong’s Concordance. Well I had heard enough Catholic converts, Scott Hahn et al., discussing this very thing, so I looked it up. Under the word eat trogo is no where listed. Phago is the word that Strong’s leads you to. I went looking though the Greek section in Strong’s to find trogo and sure enough it’s in there just not listed under the list of English words in the beginning of the book. Someone who did not know about this would never know about the word changing to trogo by looking at this particular book. I know that Strong’s is very popular in Protestant circles. I made a note in mine about this.
After that find I then went online looking for another source and found the Interlinear Bible which is a wonderful resource. Unfortunately it does not include the Deutrocanonical books.
J
jimmyjames
Guest
I don’t know much about the Trogo/Phago argument, but i can tell you what my former pastor taught about the real presence.
It’s simply a matter of the meaning of the word is.When Jesus said this is my body and blood, He didn’t say this will become or has become my body and blood. He said this is, or represents my body and blood.
Reformed Protestants generally try to focus on destroying the understanding of transubstantiation. They try to claim that it’s an archetype of witchcraft or voodoo.
Other than that, the only other argument i’ve heard from Protestants is that Jesus is in a physical form now and cannot possibly be in more than one place at one time.
It’s simply a matter of the meaning of the word is.When Jesus said this is my body and blood, He didn’t say this will become or has become my body and blood. He said this is, or represents my body and blood.
Reformed Protestants generally try to focus on destroying the understanding of transubstantiation. They try to claim that it’s an archetype of witchcraft or voodoo.
Other than that, the only other argument i’ve heard from Protestants is that Jesus is in a physical form now and cannot possibly be in more than one place at one time.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I imagine your pastor had to change this wording after President Clinton used this phrase to defend himself, eh?
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
John Chapter 6 is not speaking of the Eucharist, it is figurative speech.
That is not of coure to deny the real presence. We see for example the words which are not figurative where Jesus says this is my body and this is my blood.
One can see that that is not intended to be figurative when Paul in 1 Corinthians uses rhetorical questions that demand the answer “yes”.
(1Co 10:16 NET) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
People get screwed up over John 6. They think because that is figurative that all passages that mention Christ’s body and blood must be figurative, though that isn’t actually the origin of the problem.
The Catholics took their dogma of transubstantiation from the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. That is actually the same source for the disbelief of many Protestants in the real presence. Philosophy teaches that a physical body can only be one place at a time, since Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, his body cannot be other than there, therefore, the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood is denied.
Lutherans and Orthodox are in such close agreement that you really can’t tell any differences in their understanding which comes from scripture. Catholics and Protestants who deny the real presence both agree to turn to philosophy to understand scripture, they just disagree on which part of philosophy to take.
That is not of coure to deny the real presence. We see for example the words which are not figurative where Jesus says this is my body and this is my blood.
One can see that that is not intended to be figurative when Paul in 1 Corinthians uses rhetorical questions that demand the answer “yes”.
(1Co 10:16 NET) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
People get screwed up over John 6. They think because that is figurative that all passages that mention Christ’s body and blood must be figurative, though that isn’t actually the origin of the problem.
The Catholics took their dogma of transubstantiation from the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. That is actually the same source for the disbelief of many Protestants in the real presence. Philosophy teaches that a physical body can only be one place at a time, since Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, his body cannot be other than there, therefore, the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood is denied.
Lutherans and Orthodox are in such close agreement that you really can’t tell any differences in their understanding which comes from scripture. Catholics and Protestants who deny the real presence both agree to turn to philosophy to understand scripture, they just disagree on which part of philosophy to take.
P
PeteZaHut
Guest
I’m not really sure what you are saying here. If John 6 is not talking about the Eucharist, what is it talking about?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Truly, Truly, I tell you, my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (paraphrasing)
Sure, how much more “figurative” can you get?
Sure, how much more “figurative” can you get?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Are you willing to assert infallibility on this interpretation of yours which is against the likes of:
Augustine who tied it in with Paul’s connection to 1 Cor 11:29 in which Paul said of the Eucharist: “He that eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." (ca 390 AD)
And Cyril of Alexandria made the same Pauline connection as Augustine. (ca 410 AD)
John Chrysostom who said of John 6:55: “that they might not suppose the words to be a mere enigma or parable, but might know that it is by all means needful to eat the Body.” And of John 6:63: “His meaning is, ‘Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited’.” (ca 380 AD)
Or Cyprian who said: “He Himself predicts, and warns, “I am the bread of life which came down from heaven.”… those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living." (ca 270 AD)
Etc… Which the Church echoes today.
Also, were these men corrupted by Plato and Aristotle as you espoused earlier?
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Please!
Distinguendum est inter “protestants”!
I would be classified as “protestant”, and of course I believe that the Lord is truly present in Holy Communion.
Although it is true that many “protestants” do not believe this, it is not true of all. The Lutheran and Anglican churches, first and foremost, hold to the Biblical teaching on Holy Communion: That it is the body and blood of the Lord.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
LutheranDK,
I thought Lutherans believed in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation with regard to the Eucharist?
Can you please help me out on this?
~RSF
I thought Lutherans believed in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation with regard to the Eucharist?
Can you please help me out on this?
~RSF
N
NotWorthy
Guest
That’s wonderful! Now, can you just convince the other “X” 1000 denominations of this fact?
J
jimmyjames
Guest
haha, notworthy, but actually, i’m pretty sure he still uses that sermon.
Jolly Joe, where do you get this idea that philosophies of aristotle and plato should be used to help understand Scripture? Sure many Church Fathers were influenced by aristotilian ideas, however if you’ve ever read what they had to say on the matter you would find that they knew they couldn’t reach a complete understanding of God using aristotle or plato. It was in realizing this that they came to know Christ through the Church!
Jolly Joe, where do you get this idea that philosophies of aristotle and plato should be used to help understand Scripture? Sure many Church Fathers were influenced by aristotilian ideas, however if you’ve ever read what they had to say on the matter you would find that they knew they couldn’t reach a complete understanding of God using aristotle or plato. It was in realizing this that they came to know Christ through the Church!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It is about the Eucharist, & it is about eating the body of Jesus - but in more than one sense; including a figurative one. Both sides make arguments that miss things out of the text IMO. 
The meaning of “flesh” in verses 51-56 is dependent on what Jesus means by “eating [His] flesh”. “To eat the flesh of” someone is an expression familiar from the OT - it is a metaphorical way of saying “to destroy someone”:- Psa 14.4 - compare Psa. 53
- Psa 27:2 When the wicked, [even] mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
- Eze 36:13 Thus says the Lord GOD: Because men say to you, 'You devour men, and you bereave your nation of children,'
- **Mic 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron. **
In the NT we have: - John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
- **Gal. 5.15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. **
**Was Jesus using this metaphor ? ISTM those who say He was, are right. But, that’s not the end of it. He was saying that what the metaphor meant, what it pointed to, would happen to Him: He would be killed. And this might well be very offensive to His disciples: for those were his hearers. For the part of reason why, see v. 15. There is a great deal more here than we sometimes realise. **
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
I don’t use them to understand scripture. Catholics who believe in transubstantiation and Protestants who deny the real presence both do.
You’ll have to ask them.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
Consubstantiation is often used by people to say this is what Lutherans believe and it has been used at times but it’s a term that is prone to say more than is meant.
Lutherans actually have a term that is used in their confession, it’s a sacramental union. If you want to say what to Lutherans believe, they believe in a sacramental union.
It’s not precisely defined because scripture doesn’t precisely define it. You also will hear Lutherans speaking of the Lord’s body and blood being in, under and with, and again you need to be careful not to try and read those is a precise way but they are to be taken as general terms for something not precisely revealed by God.
Consubstantiation has a problem in that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. Or Lutherans woudl say Christ’s humanity and deity are consubstantial. If you take either of those, they are much more precise in their meaning. If you took the way Christ is both human and God and said since both natures are consubstantial then you look at the bread and the body and say they are consubstantial so they must be united the same way, well you just went way too far.
We do not know how the union is or it’s characteristics, we only know it is Jesus’s body and blood and is still referred to as bread and wine, so it is all those things. How they are united or related we are not told, and so we submit to God’s decision not to reveal it and leave it as it is revealed.
If you understood consubstantiation as just that the body and blood, bread and wine are all present, it wouldn’t be a big problem, but it’s the other usages of the term that leads to problems because for some reason, people seem to have a real desire to have a very precise meaning attached to it and that cannot be done concerning the sacramental union.
J
jimmyjames
Guest
Ok, Jolly Joe, maybe my question wasn’t worded correctly then. Where do you get the idea that Catholic Church uses philosophy rather than the words of Christ as a basis for anything it teaches?
- Status