Protestants, please explain

[mozart-250]

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.

Obviously I am not going to take either you or Mr. Pattons word for it.

So that involves sitting down with my Bible, reading the assorted apologetic arguments carefully, asking stupid questions, looking for holes, and seeing what is proved and what remains unproved.

Which is a time consuming task.

At any rate, since Scripture is at best ambiguous on the issue, I find the more compelling argument to be based on history.

I would love to see the argument that either

• The very earliest Christians did not believe in a type of real presence
• They did, and God allowed them to slip into gross error 70 years after the death of Christ.
• The Bible clearly teaches the Real Presence is false.

Unless one of these arguments can be convincingly made, I would think that taking the side of Ignatius where the Bible is at best ambiguous is safe.

Now this does not mean that I believe your explanation of the Real Presence. Sheesh, I am not convinced this is an understanding that we are commanded to hold. But for me…taking communion with the mindset I am somehow partaking of the body and blood of our Lord has been a blessing to me (I know you think I am not…but I disagree).

 

[I_Leatherman]

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.

I wonder about the disciples and the crowds who walked away from Jesus because it was too hard to believe they had to eat bread to have Life - I wonder if those people who walked away from Him and this teaching were saved after all.
But, the Apostles trusted Him and said; you have the words of eternal life, where else would we go. Their understanding at that point was not much better than the disciples who left Him but still they did not reject what He said - and so You can conclude that they did eat His flesh and they did expect to eat His flesh and they did receive Life from Him.

…Since sincere Protestants are saved…

I’m afraid this is an assumption on your part as there were no protestants among the Apostles or disciples - they all believed the same thing - to a man, or they were thrown out of the Church, or given over to satan - however you want to put it. It is impossible to ‘say’ that protestants are ‘saved’, there were no protestants around until 1,500 years after the Church was founded. And protestantism by definition is a protest or movement in opposition against that Church.
That is at the root of the problem of protestantism - just how far can a person reject Christs teachings before his rejection constitutes a forfeiture of life.
I don’t think anyone can honestly and definitively say that they Know what exactly happens to protestants who die - simply because we don’t Know, we were not told, because none existed until 1,500 years after the death of Christ and 1,500 years after the establishment of His church. But we can hope I suppose.

 

[Kaia132]

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

Just curious.

The Eucharist IS a reality for many folks who are not Catholic, myself included. Transubstantiation is not the only way to believe in the Real Presence. It wasn’t spelled out for us in the Bible. It wasn’t even spelled out in Church Tradition until it became dogma, fifteen hundred years later. What did the disciples mean when they believed that they were eating the Body and Blood of Christ? They did not explain it to one another, they did not go into detail writing it down. The way that the Catholic Church’s Catechism today explains it is unique to modern day. It was considered a mystery. And still is.

The first time that “transubstantiation” is used to describe what happens when the bread and wine become Jesus in faith, is one thousand years after Jesus lived, died, and rose again. Five hundred years after this in the Council of Trent, it was declared dogma. Before the first Catholic theologian termed it as “transubstantiation” back in the 1000’s, what was going on with the bread and wine was a mystery–folks knew it became the Body and Blood, but how was not something that they were arrogant enough to assume knowledge of.

Many churches (yes-- churches, not “faith communities”) believe in the Real Presence, but explain it in another way rather than by the Catholic term “transubstantiation”.

So perhaps this thread should have been aimed at “those who do not believe in the Real Presence” rather than at “Protestants.”

 

[East_Anglican]

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.

Amen!

.
Most humans just arent willing to take that stand.

Amen. People like their sin to much.

Also, I long for the day all Christians stand up for Christ and speak to the world instead of chatting amongst themselves on trivialities.

 

[HailMary]

The Eucharist IS a reality for many folks who are not Catholic, myself included. Transubstantiation is not the only way to believe in the Real Presence. It wasn’t spelled out for us in the Bible. It wasn’t even spelled out in Church Tradition until it became dogma, fifteen hundred years later. What did the disciples mean when they believed that they were eating the Body and Blood of Christ? They did not explain it to one another, they did not go into detail writing it down. The way that the Catholic Church’s Catechism today explains it is unique to modern day. It was considered a mystery. And still is.

The first time that “transubstantiation” is used to describe what happens when the bread and wine become Jesus in faith, is one thousand years after Jesus lived, died, and rose again. Five hundred years after this in the Council of Trent, it was declared dogma. Before the first Catholic theologian termed it as “transubstantiation” back in the 1000’s, what was going on with the bread and wine was a mystery–folks knew it became the Body and Blood, but how was not something that they were arrogant enough to assume knowledge of.

Many churches (yes-- churches, not “faith communities”) believe in the Real Presence, but explain it in another way rather than by the Catholic term “transubstantiation”.

So perhaps this thread should have been aimed at “those who do not believe in the Real Presence” rather than at “Protestants.”

I understand what you are saying but those who do not believe in the Real Presence, what would Jesus have to have said in order for them to be convicted?

 

[cheddarsox]

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”.

bump

someone…please?

 

[Kevan]

I’m afraid this is an assumption on your part.

And I am afraid you are contradicting the CCC. It was in these very forums that I got the straight skinny on Protestants and the near-universal opinion was that we are in like Flynn. Better get with the program or you’ll wind up looking like Pius IX.

 

[I_Leatherman]

And I am afraid you are contradicting the CCC. It was in these very forums that I got the straight skinny on Protestants and the near-universal opinion was that we are in like Flynn. Better get with the program or you’ll wind up looking like Pius IX.

Nobody Knows what happens to protestants.
As I said we can Hope for the best, but nobody Knows.

 

[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.

mozart-250,

peace and all-good!

“He has blinded their eyes,
and numbed their hearts,
lest they see
or comprehend,
or have a change of heart -
and I should heal them.”- John 12: 40

The article you referred to be read is the one that is out of context, though it was scholarly written.

Let us re-read the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on John 6:

“He who feeds on my flesh
and drinks my blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v 54)

“For my flesh is real food
and my blood real drink.” (v 55)

“Yet among you there are some who do not believe.” (v 64)

“From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer.” (v 66)

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (who was a disciple of Saint John and was appointed as bishop in Antioch by Saint Peter) wrote, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…” (Ignatius, *Epistula ad Smyrnaeos *6, 2).

But as I wrote earlier, the Holy Eucharist is not a subject for debate. It is a matter of faith.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[christcnection1]

Also, I long for the day all Christians stand up for Christ and speak to the world instead of chatting amongst themselves on trivialities.

Amen - We all agree that all Christians need to stand up for our Lord in this dark world.

However, please help us to understand what the trivialities are? Where does the Bible mention trivial issues?

While you are at it, where does the Bible mention essential and non-essential issues of faith?

Thought there is much we can gladly united on, when it comes to issues of eternity, I personally don’t find any of our differences as trivial. Ideas have consequences.

God Bless,
JB

 

[cheddarsox]

bump

someone…please?

nevermind, some folks on another thread and through PM have provided explanations for my questions.

 

[O.S.Luke]

And I am afraid you are contradicting the CCC. It was in these very forums that I got the straight skinny on Protestants and the near-universal opinion was that we are in like Flynn. Better get with the program or you’ll wind up looking like Pius IX.

I think this is out of bounds. What bigotry. I don’t want to hear any complaints about anti-Catholicism when some Catholics are guity of the same re: their Protestant brothers and sisters.

Pax,

O+

 

[jpaul]

I think this is out of bounds. What bigotry. I don’t want to hear any complaints about anti-Catholicism when some Catholics are guity of the same re: their Protestant brothers and sisters.

Pax,

O+

Peace and all-good!

While it may be true that there are emotional Catholics, there are much more Protestants who make Anti-Catholicism their profession.

Saint Paul said,* "Have nothing to do with senseless, ignorant disputations. As you well know, they only breed quarrels… " *(2 Tim. 2: 23).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[O.S.Luke]

Peace and all-good!

While it may be true that there are emotional Catholics, there are much more Protestants who make Anti-Catholicism their profession.

Saint Paul said,* "Have nothing to do with senseless, ignorant disputations. As you well know, they only breed quarrels… " *(2 Tim. 2: 23).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

I wish I could agree with you, jpaul, but I fear that hasn’t been my experience here or in real life… It has just about stopped me altogether from going to Catholic funerals and weddings. I guess payback can be rough.

 

[Trinity1984]

I am a Lutheran who affirms the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. I don’t feel a need to argue for the truth of that being citing the scripture you did though. I don’t believe Jesus Christ was speaking about the sacrament of Holy Communion. It had not even been instituted yet.

 

[Kevan]

I think this is out of bounds.

You quoted me, but your complaint was against anti-Protestant bigotry. Did you mean to quote a Catholic?

I certainly don’t mind a Catholic thinking that I am a damned Protestant because I have plainly heard Catholic doctrine and rejected it. To me, it sounds like a reasonable enough position that doesn’t necessarily entail bigotry at all. Truth, by definition, is narrow.

What gets interesting, however, is this post-Vatican-Two ecumenism that embraces us as separated brethren. It kind of mushy-izes the old anathemas of Trent and leaves today’s Catholics shrugging and saying “What’s the difference?”

 

[jpaul]

I wish I could agree with you, jpaul, but I fear that hasn’t been my experience here or in real life… It has just about stopped me altogether from going to Catholic funerals and weddings. I guess payback can be rough.

Peace and all-good!

Thanks! I know there are good people like you. I hope your fellow Protestant brothers imitate the goodness in you.

But you can’t deny the obvious. Anti-Catholicism has been a good profession to a many Protestant fundamentalists.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[O.S.Luke]

But you can’t deny the obvious. Anti-Catholicism has been a good profession to a many Protestant fundamentalists.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

Most of the same Protestant Fundamentalists that are anti-Catholic are also anti-Lutheran, anti-Methodist, and anti-Anglican, jpaul. Please don’t lump us all together.

O+

 

[jpaul]

Most of the same Protestant Fundamentalists that are anti-Catholic are also anti-Lutheran, anti-Methodist, and anti-Anglican, jpaul. Please don’t lump us all together.

O+

Rev. O.S. Luke,

Peace and all-good!

I am praying on how to answer you. I fear that any words from me is not only inadequate, but could also be misunderstood.

The Catholic Church acknowledged good Protestants as “separated brethren” in Christ. Your openness for dialogue and understanding is highly appreciated.

There is however one thing I want to state:. If a churchman looks at his ministry as his “profession” instead of as his “vocation”, man’s interest prevail first, rather than God’s will.

Let us pray for true ecumenicism.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[StealthGoblin]

I have not had the time to read all the posts since the initial post, but I would like to comment (if nobody has already) that not all Protestants reject the Real Presence. Many Lutherans (especially confessional Lutherans, and if one considers them Protestant) believe in the Real Presence: they believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. I’ve also read that Calvin held to some sort of Real Presence, although he did not believe the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ the same way Luther did. I don’t know if Reformed folk follow Calvin in his interpretations on the Eucharist.