Protestants, please explain

[AnubistheJackal]

I’m no biblical scholar but when Christ offers his blood and flesh to the apostles at the Last Supper it seems very clear he is speaking symbolically.

Jesus spoke in parables constantly. I don’t understand why Catholics chose to take this part so literally.

 

[Indyann]

I’m no biblical scholar but when Christ offers his blood and flesh to the apostles at the Last Supper it seems very clear he is speaking symbolically.

Jesus spoke in parables constantly. I don’t understand why Catholics chose to take this part so literally.

Did you read “believers test” linked in post 17? Explains thoroughly why Jesus was NOT speaking in parables. What makes you think that he was?

 

[AnubistheJackal]

What makes me think he wasn’t speaking symbolically?

Well, the fact the apostles were not cannibals for one.

But no, I haven’t read your test. I’ll have a gander at it when I get more time.

 

[Indyann]

What makes me think he wasn’t speaking symbolically?

Well, the fact the apostles were not cannibals for one.

But no, I haven’t read your test. I’ll have a gander at it when I get more time.

cannibals

Best you can come up with? After you have read the thorough commentary on John 6, please come back and tell me why you don’t believe.

 

[luv_pis]

cannibals

Best you can come up with? After you have read the thorough commentary on John 6, please come back and tell me why you don’t believe.

Especially, Anubis, when you understand the consequences of not believing, as you can read from the website I posted.

 

[kedera]

Sincere Protestants who have “invincible ignorance” may be saved. However, after reading John 6, how can you claim ignorance of the message?

I mean no offense, honestly, but the problem with this is that if someone reads John 6, and DOES interpret it differently (however we, and yes I am Protestant and am coming to believe in the real presence) that Catholics do, it doesn’t mean that they are being outright defiant. Many Protestants believe whole heartedly, what it is they believe, and this makes people see what lines up with their already, deep rooted feelings on the matter. Prayer and desire for truth, and God’s will, is the only thing that can change a heart that belives so much. You can lead a horse to water…

 

[jpaul]

Well I’m “Protestant”, but probably not the best one to answer this.

You see, I’m sort of sitting on the fence on the “real presence thing”. I have in my head the best argument I can come up with for and against, and have not totally commited myself either way.

If you had to ask me which way I lean, it would probably be on the “for real presence” at least in some form. But then there are all the different real presence flavours out there, and at this point I get really confused with big words like “transubstantiation” and “consubstantiation”. I sort of like the Wesley version that doesn’t seek to understand it further.

I do have some issues however with relating John 6 to the real presence. I can understand how in the Catholic mindset it fits perfectly, but to me…there are a couple details in this chapter I have trouble fitting in…

But its getting late and this is a topic I really don’t like debating for a number of reasons.

mozart-250,

peace and all-good!

the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ (body, blood, soul and divinity) is not a topic for debate. it is a matter of faith.

our Lord Jesus Christ did not argue with the un-believers, but let them go away (john 6: 66).

after the un-believers left, our Lord Jesus Christ asked the faithful: “do you want to leave me too?” (john 6: 67).

peter, the first pope, answered: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (john 6: 68).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[luv_pis]

I mean no offense, honestly, but the problem with this is that if someone reads John 6, and DOES interpret it differently (however we, and yes I am Protestant and am coming to believe in the real presence) that Catholics do, it doesn’t mean that they are being outright defiant. Many Protestants believe whole heartedly, what it is they believe, and this makes people see what lines up with their already, deep rooted feelings on the matter. Prayer and desire for truth, and God’s will, is the only thing that can change a heart that belives so much. You can lead a horse to water…

True, true…which is why we as Catholics have the holy Duty to explain to them the best as we can what we know, as we can be the answer to the prayers of the searchers of Truth…

 

[Indyann]

I mean no offense, honestly, but the problem with this is that if someone reads John 6, and DOES interpret it differently (however we, and yes I am Protestant and am coming to believe in the real presence) that Catholics do, it doesn’t mean that they are being outright defiant. Many Protestants believe whole heartedly, what it is they believe, and this makes people see what lines up with their already, deep rooted feelings on the matter. Prayer and desire for truth, and God’s will, is the only thing that can change a heart that belives so much. You can lead a horse to water…

Yes, I understand that many Protestants are quite sincere in their beliefs. What is so frustrating to me is that (some in my own family) have no problem believing in a six day creation, global flood, etc. But when asked why they do not believe in the Real Presence,
“Oh, that’s just symbolic”

My questions as to why they think it is symbolic has never been answered logically.
A logical answer is all I am looking for. Then maybe I could see where they are coming from.

 

[jpaul]

I mean no offense, honestly, but the problem with this is that if someone reads John 6, and DOES interpret it differently (however we, and yes I am Protestant and am coming to believe in the real presence) that Catholics do, it doesn’t mean that they are being outright defiant. Many Protestants believe whole heartedly, what it is they believe, and this makes people see what lines up with their already, deep rooted feelings on the matter. Prayer and desire for truth, and God’s will, is the only thing that can change a heart that belives so much. You can lead a horse to water…

dear kedera,

peace and all-good!

i am happy to know you and i believe in your sincerity for truth.

if you read and reflect on the emmaus story (luke 24: 13-35), you will know that the two disciples were able to know our Lord Jesus Christ (this happened after the resurrection) in the Holy Eucharist: “…he (Jesus) took bread, pronounced the blessing, then broke the bread and began to distribute it to them (v30). with that their eyes were opend and they recognized him, whereupon, he vanished from their sight (v31)… then they recounted what had happened… and how they had come to know him in the breaking of bread.” (v35).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[jpaul]

I’m no biblical scholar but when Christ offers his blood and flesh to the apostles at the Last Supper it seems very clear he is speaking symbolically.

Jesus spoke in parables constantly. I don’t understand why Catholics chose to take this part so literally.

brother,

peace and all-good!

Our Lord Jesus Christ was not giving a parable at the Last Supper. Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of the Hoy Eucharist (Mt. 26: 26-28).

Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted this sacrament of his selfless love and total offering of himself for our salvation.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

I’m no biblical scholar but when Christ offers his blood and flesh to the apostles at the Last Supper it seems very clear he is speaking symbolically.

Jesus spoke in parables constantly. I don’t understand why Catholics chose to take this part so literally.

Ok. I’ll make it simple. What were Jesus and the disciples doing during the last supper? It was the Passover meal. In that time how did the jews celebrate passover. By the sacrifice of a lamb and to eat it. Where was the lamb during the last supper? The lamb was Christ Jesus. Also you need to read the early church fathers. These first christians wrote about the eucharist and the presents of Christ in the bread and wine. Also, when Jesus spoke about eating(gnawing/chewing) his body and drinking his blood, some of followers walked away saying he was crazy. They left him. Did he say “Hey guys, come back, I was just talking symbolically.” No, he let them go.

 

[cheddarsox]

Ok. I’ll make it simple. What were Jesus and the disciples doing during the last supper? It was the Passover meal. In that time how did the jews celebrate passover. By the sacrifice of a lamb and to eat it. Where was the lamb during the last supper? The lamb was Christ Jesus. Also you need to read the early church fathers. These first christians wrote about the eucharist and the presents of Christ in the bread and wine. Also, when Jesus spoke about eating(gnawing/chewing) his body and drinking his blood, some of followers walked away saying he was crazy. They left him. Did he say “Hey guys, come back, I was just talking symbolically.” No, he let them go.

If he was speaking literally…why don’t all Catholics receive in both species, since he literally said “Eat, drink”, not eat, or drink, not eat and dip, not sometimes eat and sometimes drink.

I know all about the heresy and the philosophical explanation that all of Jesus is contained in either species, but even if that is true…he still commanded his followers to eat and drink.

I don’t see any loopholes there.

just something that has always bothered me about Eucharist in the Catholic church. On the one hand they are very literal, reverent, etc, on the other…they explain away a very clear commandment of Christ himself. I’ve never understood how this is justified.

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

If he was speaking literally…why don’t all Catholics receive in both species, since he literally said “Eat, drink”, not eat, or drink, not eat and dip, not sometimes eat and sometimes drink.

I know all about the heresy and the philosophical explanation that all of Jesus is contained in either species, but even if that is true…he still commanded his followers to eat and drink.

I don’t see any loopholes there.

just something that has always bothered me about Eucharist in the Catholic church. On the one hand they are very literal, reverent, etc, on the other…they explain away a very clear commandment of Christ himself. I’ve never understood how this is justified.

I’ll get with later on that. I’m sure someone else can explain better than I can. I’m sure i can find it in the Catechism.

 

[luv_pis]

If he was speaking literally…why don’t all Catholics receive in both species, since he literally said “Eat, drink”, not eat, or drink, not eat and dip, not sometimes eat and sometimes drink.

I know all about the heresy and the philosophical explanation that all of Jesus is contained in either species, but even if that is true…he still commanded his followers to eat and drink.

I don’t see any loopholes there.

just something that has always bothered me about Eucharist in the Catholic church. On the one hand they are very literal, reverent, etc, on the other…they explain away a very clear commandment of Christ himself. I’ve never understood how this is justified.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains thus (my emphasis added):

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. *But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” *This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Now why was this started in the first place? The answer lies in Catholic Answer’s “Catholic ‘Inventions’” (my emphasis added):

Item: “The cup forbidden to the people at Communion by Council of Constance [A.D.] 1414.”

The implication here is that bishops and priests were trying to keep from laymen something they should have had by rights. But the real situation is not hard to understand. The Catholic position has always been that, after the consecration of the elements, the entire body and blood of Christ are contained in the smallest particle from the host and in the tiniest drop from the cup. One does not receive only the body in the host and only the blood from the cup. If that were so, then for a complete Communion one indeed would need to partake of both. But if the entire body and blood are contained in both, then the communicant needs to receive only one—if there are good reasons for such a restriction, and in 1414 there certainly seemed to be.

The first reason was that many people misunderstood the Eucharist and thought it had to be received under both forms for the Communion to be complete. By restricting communicants to the host only, the Church would emphasize the true doctrine. The other reason was a practical one. In giving the cup to the laity, there was a chance the contents would be spilled, so out of respect for Christ, the restriction was imposed.

Another consideration would be to reduce the transmission of communicable disease, which of course was not apparent in 1414, but now is.

 

[christcnection1]

Easy.

The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith.

There is no higher authority to infallibly determine what the Bible means.

Therefore, interpret the Bible for yourself. If anyone tells you that you’re wrong, that’s merely their opinion. God didn’t make them the final arbiter to tell you the Bible’s objective meaning.

It’s up to every individual to decide for themselves.

 

[luv_pis]

Easy.

The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith.

There is no higher authority to infallibly determine what the Bible means.

Therefore, interpret the Bible for yourself. If anyone tells you that you’re wrong, that’s merely their opinion. God didn’t make them the final arbiter to tell you the Bible’s objective meaning.

It’s up to every individual to decide for themselves.

Rrrrriiiggghttt

 

[Indyann]

Easy.

The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith.

There is no higher authority to infallibly determine what the Bible means.

Therefore, interpret the Bible for yourself. If anyone tells you that you’re wrong, that’s merely their opinion. God didn’t make them the final arbiter to tell you the Bible’s objective meaning.

It’s up to every individual to decide for themselves.

Oh, but the gate would be so much wider if that were true!

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

Easy.

The Bible is the final and sole rule of faith.

There is no higher authority to infallibly determine what the Bible means.

Therefore, interpret the Bible for yourself. If anyone tells you that you’re wrong, that’s merely their opinion. God didn’t make them the final arbiter to tell you the Bible’s objective meaning.

It’s up to every individual to decide for themselves.

Personal interpretation is very dangerous. Look at David Koresh(Waco). And yes, Jesus did give man(His Church) the authority of the teachings of Christ. And again, this is moral relativism your espousing to. :

 

[christcnection1]

Personal interpretation is very dangerous. Look at David Koresh(Waco). And yes, Jesus did give man(His Church) the authority of the teachings of Christ. And again, this is moral relativism your espousing to. :

Hehe…

= sarcasm

Yes Roger I know. Fortunately, most of our separated brethren are nothing like David Koresh.