Protestants, please explain

[Roger_Wissinger]

Hehe…

= sarcasm

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

Thank God. But you and I hear it all the time. I just need to be a nice person and treat people nice and I’ll go to heaven. They take only parts of the bible that fit their life style. And I was one of them. I didn’t want to be Catholic. I’ll tell ya, those Protestants have great bible sound bites. Me being a ex-baptist myself. I liked being Baptist but I love being Catholic. Anywho, all’s fun and I love writting to youall. I know with this website I’ve learned somethings.

 

[East_Anglican]

I think it has been demonstrated in a hundred previous threads that this is an unending debate, which makes me loathe to enter into a 101st. But for the sake of any who would like to hear it, I’ll just summarize something I’ve written before:

(1) Catholics say that the Eucharist is the body and blood (& soul & divinity) of Christ, and that Protestants therefore do not partake of the body and blood of Christ.

(2) Jesus said in Jn 6 that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood do not have life in them. Since Protestants do not partake of the Catholic Eucharist, Protestants do not have life in them (according to the words of Christ in Jn 6).

(3) When Jesus said of those who eat his flesh and drink his blood that they have life in them, he was referring to salvation, because he went on to say “and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(4) But Catholics also affirm that sincere Protestants do, indeed, have life in them and will be raised up by Christ (in a state of salvation) at the last day, even though they do not eat and drink the body & blood of Christ.

This internal contradiction (between points 2 and 4) argues that Christ was not referring to the Eucharist in Jn 6.

Interesting points.

The fact that Jesus said it is means it is. This does not mean that transubstantiation takes place. We (R.C’s and Protestants) partake of his body and his blood by faith.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

But you and I hear it all the time. I just need to be a nice person and treat people nice and I’ll go to heaven. They take only parts of the bible that fit their life style.

Hi,
You do realize this is not just a protestant problem but also a catholic one as well. Actually I would say it is a human problem.

The problem isnt not wanting to be catholic, the problem is people dont want to admit that they are sinners and in need of a Savior and that His name is Christ.

It doesnt matter whether you are catholic, protestant, eastern orthodox etc. Being a true christian can be difficult at times. There have been times where standing up for Christ didnt feel good because I was going against the norm but I did it anyway.

Most humans just arent willing to take that stand.

 

[mozart-250]

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

Hi:
Here is an article I read concerning “Walking away”.

This article does not really address the “Real Presence”, but it does raise good questions concerning the Catholic apologist interpretation of John 6. The letting folks “walk away” is not the slam-dunk-killer Catholic apologetic argument that you think it is.

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

Hi,
You do realize this is not just a protestant problem but also a catholic one as well. Actually I would say it is a human problem.

The problem isnt not wanting to be catholic, the problem is people dont want to admit that they are sinners and in need of a Savior and that His name is Christ.

It doesnt matter whether you are catholic, protestant, eastern orthodox etc. Being a true christian can be difficult at times. There have been times where standing up for Christ didnt feel good because I was going against the norm but I did it anyway.

Most humans just arent willing to take that stand.

:yup: :: Your right. I’m wondering how many people in the US don’t believe or just don’t go to church. I feel sorry for people that don’t believe that God loves them and he hung on a Cross for them. Why do people hate Christ when he died for them?

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

Hi:
Here is an article I read concerning “Walking away”.

This article does not really address the “Real Presence”, but it does raise good questions concerning the Catholic apologist interpretation of John 6. The letting folks “walk away” is not the slam-dunk-killer Catholic apologetic argument that you think it is.

I like to hear what you got to say on this matter. My journey back to the church, I discovered the writtings of the early Chruch Fathers. Awesome reading and the first christians talked about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Try it, you might like it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This has probably been discussed numerous times on CAF, but after doing a brief search I did not find a satisfactory explanation.

After reading John, chapter 6,(the whole chapter, not just selected verses), how can the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist be denied? I have read it with both a Catholic lens and a Protestant lens. What am I missing?
How can the words mean other than what they say? How do you explain this?

Thanks in advance.

Hi indyann, in short if you read through the book of John as a whole, Jesus has many “I am the door”, “I am the good shepard” type sayings and each is figurative, thus we take John 6, “i am the bread of life” as figurative too. Thats it in a nutshell.

 

[cheddarsox]

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

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

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

But you know what, Jesus knew all this when he instituted the sacrament, yet he still said “eat and drink”

All persons of the trinity are present in any one person of the trinity, yet the entire trinitarian formula must be used in order for baptism to be valid.

Likewise, people should both eat and drink, because it is what Christ commanded, no matter what theological explanation of presence anyone has come to understand. Christ was clear, “eat and drink”, even when it is not convenient, even if body and blood are present in both species. He still said “eat and drink”.

 

[mozart-250]

I like to hear what you got to say on this matter. My journey back to the church, I discovered the writtings of the early Chruch Fathers. Awesome reading and the first christians talked about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Try it, you might like it.

My opinions are sort of like solid jello…but here goes.

Scripturally I am not totally convinced for the following reasons:

• Normally in the English language if somebody says "This is … " and it is obvious that the left hand side of the verb does not share the same physical and chemical properties as the right hand side of the verb, we understand it be “This represents…”. For example if I open my wallet and point to a dollar bill and say “This is George Washington…”
• John 6 predates the last supper. So whatever understanding his listeners had, it was not the eucharist. The article I posted makes the valid point that often Jesus let his listeners leave misunderstanding what He said. Furthermore, John doesn’t even refer to the eucharist in his gospel…so it is quite unclear that in John’s mind chapter 6 refers to the eucharist.
• A poster here noted that Jesus definitely said “eating his flesh and drinking his blood” as a condition for salvation. If this can only be done in the Catholic eucharist, that does pose a problem for non Catholics attaining eternal life.

Note these comments by no means disprove the eucharist. I personally believe that our Lord made this wonderfully ambiguous in Scripture.

I do think the best argument in favor that I have read comes from history, not the Scripture. Now I am not convinced that the earliest church embraced all of the Catholic distinctives, but they did seem to take the eucharist literally (starting with St. Ignatius writing around 110AD). It does not seem credible to me that 70 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord when the influence of the apostles was still real…and martyrs were being killed in absolutely brutal ways…that God would have at the same time allowed the church to lapse into gross error.

So since Scripture seems ambiguous, I would just assume interpret it the same say St. Ignatious does in this case.

Note…this does not mean the Catholic real presence is correct versus the Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. All of these are covered by St. Ignatius. I’m not even convinced the real presence is not real for those Christians who do not believe in it. Reasoning…Jesus never commanded us to understand it…the only command in the Bible concerning the Eucharist is to observe it.

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

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.

:banghead: Come on. I wrote this yesterday and no one has elaborated. You can to better than “That’s it in a nutshell”
Look outside the box. Remember, the early christians were also accused of cannibalism because of the eucharist.

 

[christcnection1]

I think it has been demonstrated in a hundred previous threads that this is an unending debate, which makes me loathe to enter into a 101st. But for the sake of any who would like to hear it, I’ll just summarize something I’ve written before:

(1) Catholics say that the Eucharist is the body and blood (& soul & divinity) of Christ, and that Protestants therefore do not partake of the body and blood of Christ.

(2) Jesus said in Jn 6 that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood do not have life in them. Since Protestants do not partake of the Catholic Eucharist, Protestants do not have life in them (according to the words of Christ in Jn 6).

(3) When Jesus said of those who eat his flesh and drink his blood that they have life in them, he was referring to salvation, because he went on to say “and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(4) But Catholics also affirm that sincere Protestants do, indeed, have life in them and will be raised up by Christ (in a state of salvation) at the last day, even though they do not eat and drink the body & blood of Christ.

This internal contradiction (between points 2 and 4) argues that Christ was not referring to the Eucharist in Jn 6.

On points (2) and (4) we believe that receiving the Holy Eucharist is the ordinary means to receive life from Jesus Christ. Someone who “through no fault of their own” can receive this life from Christ through other means.

We believe Protestant, who in good conscience reject the Lord’s teaching, but sincerely desire to do His will, fall under the category of “invincible ignorance.”

Catholics believe that there is one life-giving Holy Spirit for all Christians. There is no contradiction; rather, you mistakenly made a false assumption. Had you not been mistaken, your conclusion would have been very reasonable.

God course, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, He would have had no reason to allow His disciples to leave in John 6:66.

Here is a link on the issue that should help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61073&highlight=catholic+protestant+john

God Bless,
JB

 

[christcnection1]

Hi indyann, in short if you read through the book of John as a whole, Jesus has many “I am the door”, “I am the good shepard” type sayings and each is figurative, thus we take John 6, “i am the bread of life” as figurative too. Thats it in a nutshell.

Yep… that Jesus… He was just joking around. I wonder why the gospels never tell us about when He ran out the door after all of the disciples suddenly left.

I can see it now…

“…and Jesus ran out the door to stop those who had left. No, no, wait my beloved sheep. The good shepherd speaketh in parables. See, when you partake of this bread, it will remind you about the day when I’ll die on the cross. This bread is not really my body. I know I am making a big fuss about it, but this has nothing to do with salvation or eternal life.”

(John 6:??) New Revised Terrible Version

Furthermore the Bible says:

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! (John 6:61-62)

Now what’s more miraculous?

(A) God Almighty ascending into Heaven in all His glory

-OR-

(B) A lifeless piece of symbolic bread

If He is talking symbolically, there would have been no reason to compare (and magnify) this Bread over His ascension into heaven.

The Bible, the early Church, and countless Eucharistic mircalces prove this is truly His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

His peace be with you…

JB

 

[Kevan]

you mistakenly made a false assumption. Had you not been mistaken, your conclusion would have been very reasonable…Here is a link on the issue that should help: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61073&highlight=catholic+protestant+john

That’s an interesting thread you linked to. It shows one writer after another struggling for some way of understanding the apparent contradiction. In the end, the Catholic interpretation of the words of Jesus dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

Everyone who is saved is saved the same way: the blood of Jesus takes away his sins and fits him for heaven. Since sincere Protestants are saved, they MUST be partakers of what Jesus spoke of in Jn 6. But they are not partakers of the Catholic eucharist. Therefore we conclude that he was not speaking of the Catholic eucharist.

 

[christcnection1]

That’s an interesting thread you linked to. It shows one writer after another struggling for some way of understanding the apparent contradiction. In the end, the Catholic interpretation of the words of Jesus dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

Everyone who is saved is saved the same way: the blood of Jesus takes away his sins and fits him for heaven. Since sincere Protestants are saved, they MUST be partakers of what Jesus spoke of in Jn 6. But they are not partakers of the Catholic eucharist. Therefore we conclude that he was not speaking of the Catholic eucharist.

You’re right. It is a contradiction if we discount the Church’s teaching.

During the Eucharist prayer Catholics say:

“May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His Church.” (meaning the Mass) See Malachi 1:11

catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp

We believe Protestants are part of His Church, though imperfectly. You only see a contradiction because you want to see one.

This still doesn’t shed any light on John 6:66 (other Bible passages), the ECF’s, and Eucharistic miracles.

Every thread has people struggling to figure things out. That’s the nature of nearly every thread, including this one.​

Here is the link I was looking for!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=161&highlight=John+6+do+Protestants+have+life+in+them

Hello, I have a question.

In John 6 , 53 it basically says that unless we eat/drink of Christ we have no life. What is my reply to protestants etc who state that according to the catholic doctrine , this means that unless one consumes the Eucharist we have no hope of eternal life. It literally seems to say that.

Essentially Christ seems to be saying that eating the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation and those who don’t eat of him(the Eucharist), cannot have eternal life.

I appreciate your response.

thanks

Answer:

The Eucharist unites us with Christ which is necessary for salvation. But, similar to Church teaching on Baptism, one may obtain this union with Christ by desire. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture explains: “That necessity is absolute, in the sense that without the ‘thing’ or grace of the Eucharist there is no salvation, for the Eucharist signifies, effects, and perfects the unity of Christ’s mystic body, outside of which no one can be saved. Total deliberate refusal to eat the flesh of Christ would exclude from supernatural life and entail damnation. But the grace of union can be obtained by desire – personal desire, in the case of adults, and the maternal desire of the Church in the case of baptized infants.”

---

God Bless,
JB

 

[luv_pis]

Hi:
Here is an article I read concerning “Walking away”.

This article does not really address the “Real Presence”, but it does raise good questions concerning the Catholic apologist interpretation of John 6. The letting folks “walk away” is not the slam-dunk-killer Catholic apologetic argument that you think it is.

Mozart, when I read the article you posted, I almost wanted to do this :banghead: . Mr. C Michael Patton’s attempt to adequately explain the Protestants’ view of John 6 were sorely inadequate and even quite dirty, in my opinion.

OK, let me elaborate by bringing up Mr. Patton’s points and the my comments. Mr Patton’s first point is:

1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.

Yas, I have to agree on that, and even when Mr. Patton said

John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says: John 2:24-25

I agree to that.

But in John 6, those who “misunderstood” were not only ordinary people, but also Jesus’ disciples.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" John 6:60-62, my emphasis

And when it comes to his disciples, his attitude is different. Even Mr. Patton said:

Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10)

And then Mr. Patton made examples. His first example, John 2:18-21, I have no problems. But the second one:

b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom ofGod.’ Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?’” Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).

This example REALLY hits my goat. Read on what Jesus said AFTER Mr. Patton cuts him off.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’" John 3:5-7

That is how Mr. Patton knows that what Jesus said is in figurative speech…because Jesus CORRECTED Nicodemus’ misunderstanding!

And look at how Jesus said his correction to Nicodemus: He said in the beginning “Truly, truly, I say to you” (In other versions it’s “Verily, verily…”). Sounds familiar?

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:52-56, emphases mine

 

[luv_pis]

Mr. Patton’s next example:

c. The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he?” (John 4:33). This time Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the symbolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.

So, is Mr. Patton implying that Jesus let his disciples go in John 6 because he was frustrated in them, because “they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke?” Didn’t he just contradict yourself with your statement about Luke 8:10? Is he saying that Jesus was lying when he said:

“and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” John 6:37b

Then there is Mr. Patton’s second argument:

1. Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the events of the Last Supper at all.

And what is John chapters 13-17? John was the Gospel author that gave the longest account of the Last Supper. Like Catholic scholars have pointed out, John omitted the institution of the Eucharist in his narrative because it is found in many other accounts. Yet I have to say that John made the most poetic and heart-wrenching linking of the Last Supper to the institution of the Eucharist. In the end of John 6:

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. John 6:70-71

I’ll let Socrates, the author of the website in my signature, tell the rest:

[In the Last supper,] Having just told the apostles that this bread “is my body” and this wine “is my blood”, Jesus makes yet another stunning announcement:
…
“I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am he…” (John 13:18-19) … "After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, "Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.“The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking… Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him.” (John 13:22-27)
The betrayal was now complete. Judas refused to see that Jesus fulfills the Old Law with the New Law by pronouncing that this is His body, this is His blood. Judas took the bread and received the body of Jesus without believing, thereby murdering Him in his heart. To Judas, this was only bread and wine. Satan then entered into the heart he had conquered with doubt.

In conclusion, Mozart, the apologist you gave in the link was for me not only inadequate in trying to explain away the Catholic interpretation of John chapter 6, but also did it using the quite underhanded tactic, either deliberately or not, of misrepresenting Biblical quotes.

 

[luv_pis]

BTW, here is another thread that discusses a similar topic.

 

[Zooey]

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.

Well, I have to say…and I hope you find some comfort in it…I have to say, that this is where the rubber hits the road for me. I realized that I had to stop contradicting myself. I either believe what the Bible says, or I have to go out and become, I dunno, a Druid or something.
Jesus says, “This is my body, this is my blood”, and I had to admit that if He meant what He said,( and I am seriously NOT going to say He was kidding around here), them this goes with the package.
Mind you, I was predisposed to believe this in the 1st place. But I think that some things just take a while to simmer, before people can absorb them…

 

[HailMary]

What would Jesus have to have said in order for the Eucharist to be a reality for non-Catholics?

Just curious.

 

[christcnection1]

What would Jesus have to have said in order for the Eucharist to be a reality for non-Catholics?

Just curious.

Based on scripture alone, we are led to the conclusion that the individuals in John 6:66 left almost immediately after this “hard teaching.” This is even after witnessing countless miracles, including walking on water.

Supposing these individuals stayed to ask further questions, perhaps the Lord could have shed more light on this glorious truth. However, we know from the Bible that they did not stay very long.

Likewise, many Non-Christians and some of our separated brethren will not stay to truly learn what Christ has spoken through His holy Church. Rather, they ponder the idea for mere moments without giving it true consideration, and leave with a hardened heart.

This reminds me of Pontius Pilate asking Jesus, “what is truth?” Without waiting for an answer from our Lord, he walked away.