Protestants: Why don't you follow his command? "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

[Eden]

## The Eucharistic Presence can perfectly well be both real and symbolic - no contradiction is involved.

One cannot be blind and sharp-sighted at the same time - blindness excludes all sight in the eyes, sharp or otherwise.

One can be black-haired and sharp-sighted or blind - because hair colour is not a feature of sight. So here - hair-colour does not affect the eyes at all. And being a symbol, does not affect the reality of the Eucharistic Presence; even a “merely” symbolic Presence does not exclude ithe reality of that Presence: though it would exclude a substantial Presence ##

I’m directing my question to someone who does not believe that the Eucharist is real. Thanks Gottle.

 

[Eden]

Gnosis:

I think Kevan’s point is rather unavoidable. Would someone please explain this to the best of their ability:

Jesus’ discourse about his flesh and blood is clearly alluding to salvation, that only those who eat of his flesh will have eternal life. Here is point 1. If you disagree, please argue this.

The Catholic Church holds that this discourse alludes to the holy sacrament of the Eucharist in which Catholics literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood. Protestant’s don’t do this.

The logical conclusion is that: Protestants do not partake in the consuming of Christ’s flesh which is essential to salvation therefore they are not saved.

However, Catholics do not say that Protestants are not saved by Christ. This is point 2. If you disagree, please argue differently.

I believe this has already been addressed by the fact that if a Protestant is ignorant of the Church and does not realize that they are rejecting Christ in the Eucharist, they can still be saved.

Someone who willfully rejects the Church and Christ in the Eucharist would be like the disciples who said, “That is a hard saying” and walk away from Christ. What the final judgment on someone like that would be after death is not something I would be capable of knowing. The Church can only teach us what will jeopardize our salvation. It does not make the final judgment.

The teaching that Protestants who are ignorant may still be saved is a reflection of the knowledge that God is merciful.

The obvious question that arises is this: Is the Eucharist, that is consecrated bread blessed by a priest which turns into Christ’s flesh, the venue through which God’s grace is provided?

There are many ways through which grace comes from God. One would be the sacrament of the Eucharist, yes. All sacraments provide us with grace. Are you asking if the Eucharist is the* only* way in which we are infused with God’s grace? The answer to that is no.

 

[TamaraS]

Eden:

I believe this has already been addressed by the fact that if a Protestant is ignorant of the Church and does not realize that they are rejecting Christ in the Eucharist, they can still be saved.

Someone who willfully rejects the Church and Christ in the Eucharist would be like the disciples who said, “That is a hard saying” and walk away from Christ. What the final judgment on someone like that would be after death is not something I would be capable of knowing. The Church can only teach us what will jeopardize our salvation. It does not make the final judgment.

The teaching that Protestants who are ignorant may still be saved is a reflection of the knowledge that God is merciful.

There are many ways through which grace comes from God. One would be the sacrament of the Eucharist, yes. All sacraments provide us with grace. Are you asking if the Eucharist is the* only* way in which we are infused with God’s grace? The answer to that is no.

I think you summed that up very well!

 

[St.Eric]

Gnosis:

I think Kevan’s point is rather unavoidable. Would someone please explain this to the best of their ability:

Jesus’ discourse about his flesh and blood is clearly alluding to salvation, that only those who eat of his flesh will have eternal life. Here is point 1. If you disagree, please argue this.

The Catholic Church holds that this discourse alludes to the holy sacrament of the Eucharist in which Catholics literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood. Protestant’s don’t do this.

The logical conclusion is that: Protestants do not partake in the consuming of Christ’s flesh which is essential to salvation therefore they are not saved.

However, Catholics do not say that Protestants are not saved by Christ. This is point 2. If you disagree, please argue differently.

The obvious question that arises is this: Is the Eucharist, that is consecrated bread blessed by a priest which turns into Christ’s flesh, the venue through which God’s grace is provided?

Please explain.

just a point of correction: Most protestants don’t believe in the true presence. Several denominations do such as the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and a couple of others that I can’t name off the top of my head.

the Eucharist is but one venue through which Christ’s grace is provided. The other sacrements are venues for the grace as well, such as baptism.

We can’t rightly say who is saved and who is not saved, for to do so would be the sin of presumption. God is the final judge of a soul at the moment of death.

 

[St.Eric]

##
The CC is just another such body, if one is looking from an Orthodox perspective at all those non-Orthodox Eucharistic doctrines. Protestants only seem to be remarkably confused, if the Catholics remarking on the confusion of Protestants fail to notice that they are themselves members of confused group number 1000+n. We are no more, and no less, at a loss doctrinally than they are; they have as much and as little reason to be confused, as we do. #### There is no more relativism in what was in that post, than there is relativism in saying that the signs 1 and 0 taken together, can be read as meaning ten - or two. Both are correct values for that pair of signs, depending on the means by which those signs are interpreted.

There are equally valid ways of joining the dots between the pieces of Biblical data - one person begins with the words of St. Paul, another with those of Christ. Or, some Catholics will argue from the NT alone, others from both testaments, others will add liturgical usage and history to the argument. There are thousands of different starting-points in theological or doctrinal discussions of a topic: no single one of them is the “right” one. And the variety of methods is as varied among other Christians.

You seem to think I’m saying this: “10 can be read “ten” in binary, if I want it to read that way - and if I want it to read as “two”, that depends on whether it suits me that it should”.

I’m not saying that at all. I am saying this - depending on whether those signs are read in base ten or base two, the value for that pair of signs will vary. And, depending on which base is used, one value will be correct, and another will be wrong; and it will be wrong, because the signs are being given what is the wrong value for that system.

So there is relativism there - of a sort. Of a perfectly legitimate sort: the sort that leads one to take Jan as a boy’s name in Dutch, but as a girl’s name in English. I don’t think that a “non-relativist” would get any thanks for reasoning that, because Jan is a girl’s name in English, it must, always, be a girl’s name in all other languages too.

Yet this unqualified, undiscriminating “non-relativism” seems to be taken as self-evidently right and proper and essential in theology - which makes very little sense. None would roast a joint of meat and then roast babyfood or cereal - roasting is fine for some foods, but out of place for others. So obvious a point hardly needs underlining.

Relativism of this kind is not only permissible - the most vigorous of objectivists are relativist in this way, if in no other. Only when they take up the cudgels in theological or other controversies does this very obvious and essential idea desert people.

As for there being “one truth” - that might mean anything. The Deity of Christ is one truth - as there is one truth, are others not true ? There are many truths - and there are many ways of understanding and of studying them. That’s why there is more than one worthwhile theology. Some people seem to want to all theological study to stop, all understanding of beliefs to be confined to parroting what comes out of Rome, all understanding of other Christianities to be rejected. If anyone does want that: how is the Church to commend the faith that is in her ? All she will be equipped to understand, is a few fragments of her own faith - much good that will do her mission in the world. Yet that mission is why she was founded: she was not created so that she could contemplate her own navel, but so that she could share with others what she has been given ##

What, apart from the relativism you complain of, are you objecting to ? Anything ? ##

Thank you. Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[St.Eric]

Kevan:

Y’all kill me.

St. Eric, are you really wanting to know something about what’s going on at BJU these days? Or are you just trying the ancient debating trick called “poisoning the well”?

Let me address this in an orderly fashion, just to cover the bases.

(1) “Anticatholic” is hard to define. I’ve discussed it here before and it seems that, when cooler heads prevail, the distinguishing characteristic of “anticatholic” is impoliteness. One may differ, one may err, but so long as he is polite and honest, he should not be called anticatholic. By that definition, BJU has been guilty of anticatholicism because some leaders have been impolite in their public disagreements with Catholicism.

(2) I graduated from BJU in 1977. I am not current on what the mood around there is these days. When I was there, we seldom heard much about Catholicism. Certainly the school opposed Catholic doctrines and practices and occasionally a leader would say something mean (which we students did not oppose), but generally it was a remote issue to us.

(3) If you care about my own opinions, attitude, or demeanor, I’ve got 300 posts here spanning two years; my web site is linked to my signature, and my home address and phone number are on my web site. I’m an open book, dealing with an open hand and undisguised speech. There will be no justification for interpreting me in light of what any of my friends have said or done.

One of my best friends is an atheistic Communist Jew. I have a chair named in my honor at a homosexual church. (Don’t ask why, I just do.) I have taught the Church Fathers several terms at a Catholic college. And I have been barred from teaching or preaching at a fundamentalist Baptist church because of my beliefs.

You’ll think the most clearly about me if you forget about who my friends are or how many schools I’ve graduated from. Trust me on this.

Clearly, that is, if you find it necessary to think about me at all, rather than to deal with the logic of my objection to the Catholic understanding of John 6.

Nope. I am not poisoning the well. Just trying to find out what filters you are viewing theology with. I have checked out your website, that is why I know you went to BJU There is no logical flaw with John 6 and salvation. See the previous posts on this.

 

[Kevan]

TamaraS and Eden, what you are saying is kind, reasonable, and it conforms fully to what I was told on this forum two years ago. The problem in it lies with Jesus’ actual words in John 6:53-54:

“Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

If some honest and devout evangelical is, indeed, participating in God’s saving grace as a real Christian and a brother, albeit a separated brother, then he must be doing what Jesus requires here. Therefore I conclude that these words cannot refer to the Catholic Eucharist.

Your position is clear, my objection is clear, we all understand one another, so maybe it’s time to start a new thread on the advisability of bingo or something.

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

If some honest and devout evangelical is, indeed, participating in God’s saving grace as a real Christian and a brother, albeit a separated brother, then he must be doing what Jesus requires here. Therefore I conclude that these words cannot refer to the Catholic Eucharist.

There is just one problem with your conclusion. There was no such thing as evangelicalism during the time of Christ.

 

[St.Eric]

Speaking of “having life in you” or “no life in you” in regard to the eucharist, I find it interesting that after the protestant split and denominations starting discounting the real presence, that is when we see the splintering of protestantism. The average “life” of a denom seems to be limited, in that, they simply cannot stay together. Now it is even splintering further into “home churches”. seems Like what St. Ignatius of Antioch said has really played out in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

CHAPTER 6
6:1 Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly things, and the glory of the angels, and the principalities, both visible and invisible, if they believe not on the blood of Christ, for them also is there condemnation. Let him who receiveth it, receive it in reality. Let not high place puff up any man. For the whole matter is faith and love, to which there is nothing preferable.

6:2 Consider those who hold heretical opinions with regard to the grace of Jesus Christ which hath come unto us, how opposite they are to the mind of God. They have no care for love, nor concerning the widow, nor concerning the orphan, nor concerning the afflicted, nor concerning him who is bound or loosed, nor concerning him who is hungry or thirsty. They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up.

CHAPTER 7
7:1 They, therefore, who speak against the gift of God, die disputing. But it were better for them to love, that they might also rise again.
7:2 It is, therefore, proper to abstain from such, and not to speak concerning them, either in private or in public; but to attend to the prophets, and especially to the gospel, in which the passion hath been revealed unto us, and the resurrection hath been perfected.

Protestant churches are “dying in their disputes” slpintering off in ever greater factions, constantly disputing not only against the RCC but against themselves.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Steadfast:

Well, since I’m Lutheran, I will go ahead and assume you’re not talking to me.

steadfast you should be careful in thinking that what lutherans believe is the same as transubstantiation, in that by faith you believe you are accepting the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ, and Catholics correct me if I’m wrong, believe that the priest is turning the bread and wine into Christ’s actual body and blood, which to this protestant would seem they are resacrificing Christ, usurping when he said it is finished that it really wasn’t.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Eden:

There is just one problem with your conclusion. There was no such thing as evangelicalism during the time of Christ.

One problem with your statement… it isn’t true.

??? (evangelion) is a Greek New Testament word; literally, “good message.” To be evangelical is to be Christian, if we take the Great Commission seriously.

Evangelical, catholic, charismatic, sacramental, liturgical - all are words and aspects about the balance of New Testament, Christian character when looked upon as a whole. They aren’t dirty words, nor are they words that Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox should claim a monopoly upon (or distort!).

St.Eric:

just a point of correction: Most protestants don’t believe in the true presence. Several denominations do such as the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and a couple of others that I can’t name off the top of my head.

Another point of correction: it should probably read “Some Protestants…” in re: to Real Presence if you’re going to look at Protestantism as a whole and in sheer numbers. You also need to add Methodists to your list, since their doctrine differs little from Anglicans and their official statements on the matter confirm so.

O+

(sorry… the Greek font won’t come through)

 

[St.Eric]

myfavoritmartin:

steadfast you should be careful in thinking that what lutherans believe is the same as transubstantiation, in that by faith you believe you are accepting the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ, and Catholics correct me if I’m wrong, believe that the priest is turning the bread and wine into Christ’s actual body and blood, which to this protestant would seem they are resacrificing Christ, usurping when he said it is finished that it really wasn’t.

Actually Christ turned the bread and wine into his body and blood at the last supper and thus instituted the Eucharist. No, we do not usurp Christ when he said it is finished. “it is finished” equals: the sacrifice has been completed, my job here on earth is done. Yes, the sacrifice happend once and for all. It is a singular sacrifice that happend one time and is present in time and space until he comes again in glory.

Revelation 5:6 NIV
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits Or the sevenfold Spirit] of God sent out into all the earth.

In this passage from Revelation, why does John not see Christ at the altar in his glorified state? Because he is seeing the sacrifice of Christ- Still, even after the resurection the Lamb appears as if he had been slain. And so it will be until the second coming so we can participate in the sacrifice that wrought our salvation. At the Mass the priest is making the sacrifice present at the altar- it is being re-presented as was stated in the scriptures:

1 Corinthians 11:26
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

We are to always proclaim his death until he comes because the sacrifice is present until that time.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Uncle Martin ,
Jesus (in Luke 22:19) said “Do this (partake of the eucharist) in memory of me”. When we celebrate the mass, the Savior is not sacrificed again. Rather, the one sacrifice on Calvary is made present once again so that the faithful may unite ourselves with his infinite sacrifice.

Remember that every moment in time is eternally present to God. In the mass, we bring those moments of the last supper and Jesus’ atonement into our present, and contemplate the atonement in communion with God, the angels and the saints.

The idea that we “crucify him to ourselves anew” at each mass is just a ludicrous lie spread by nut jobs like Jimmy Swaggart.

Here’s a good article about it:
catholic.com/library/institution_of_the_mass.asp

Grace to you,
Paul

 

[St.Eric]

O.S. Luke:

Another point of correction: it should probably read “Some Protestants…” in re: to Real Presence if you’re going to look at Protestantism as a whole and in sheer numbers. You also need to add Methodists to your list, since their doctrine differs little from Anglicans and their official statements on the matter confirm so.

O+

(sorry… the Greek font won’t come through)

The OP concedes the fact that some protestant denoms believe in the real presence.

 

[Eden]

O.S. Luke:

One problem with your statement… it isn’t true.

??? (evangelion) is a Greek New Testament word; literally, “good message.” To be evangelical is to be Christian, if we take the Great Commission seriously.

Evangelical, catholic, charismatic, sacramental, liturgical - all are words and aspects about the balance of New Testament, Christian character when looked upon as a whole. They aren’t dirty words, nor are they words that Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox should claim a monopoly upon (or distort!).

I clearly was referring to the Evangelical movement which is a 20th century American invention. Evangelicalism clearly was not in existence in biblical times.

Many Protestant movements take biblical words and attach them to their illegitmate theologies: Apostolic, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Adventist, Baptist, etc.

I think you knew what I meant.

 

[St.Eric]

Eden:

I clearly was referring to the Evangelical movement which is a 20th century American invention. Evangelicalism clearly was not in existence in biblical times.

Many Protestant movements take biblical words and attach them to their illegitmate theologies: Apostolic, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Adventist, Baptist, etc.

I think you knew what I meant.

Of course he knew what you meant.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think words should be used in their truest and more accurate form. All Christians should be evangelical… and I’d argue that the first Christians practiced evangelicalism (in its true and faithful form) with great fervor - hence, its exponential growth despite the threat of death of those who spread the faith.

I’ll bow out of this discussion. One of these days I’ll realize that any thread here with the word “Protestant” in it in the form of a question is a set-up to be bashed if one is foolish enough to take the bait.

One thing’s for sure - Protestants don’t have a monopoly on Christian bigotry. I’ve always spoken against Protestants who would bash Catholics and spread Jack Chick tracts. Seems like there are some Catholics, though, who are guilty of the same to their “separated brethren.” I guess I was naive to think otherwise.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[Eden]

O.S. Luke:

I think words should be used in their truest and more accurate form. All Christians should be evangelical… and I’d argue that the first Christians practiced evangelicalism (in its true and faithful form) with great fervor - hence, its exponential growth despite the threat of death of those who spread the faith.

There is a difference between evangelism and being an Evangelical. Why are you insisting that it is bigotry to state and historic fact?

 

[St.Eric]

O.S. Luke:

I think words should be used in their truest and more accurate form. All Christians should be evangelical… and I’d argue that the first Christians practiced evangelicalism (in its true and faithful form) with great fervor - hence, its exponential growth despite the threat of death of those who spread the faith.

I’ll bow out of this discussion. One of these days I’ll realize that any thread here with the word “Protestant” in it in the form of a question is a set-up to be bashed if one is foolish enough to take the bait.

One thing’s for sure - Protestants don’t have a monopoly on Christian bigotry. I’ve always spoken against Protestants who would bash Catholics and spread Jack Chick tracts. Seems like there are some Catholics, though, who are guilty of the same to their “separated brethren.” I guess I was naive to think otherwise.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

Taking the victim role will not do you any good O.S… No one here has remotely bashed you or anyone else on this thread. The problem is that the protestant view cannot be defended long before the walls start crumbling (that’s why I am a convert) and that is uncomfortable, I understand. But you are not being victimized. Growth hurts, so does the truth at times. A fine piece of China does not get that way without much pain in the kiln.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

As far as I can “remember” the Pastor would say

This is my body broken for you, eat and remember
This is my blood, drink and remember

I went over this on another thread, the prayers are the same, the thoughts are the same, the reasons are the same, no one eats or drinks unworthy, the same.

Difference is juice/wine bread/ wafers and symbol / actual flesh

Even when the Pastor says this is My Body, Im thinking Body, on cross death suffering, blood spilling after being whipped. How much more literal do I need to be?

Envision its blood in the glass? Or chunks of flesh broken off?

Everytime someone explains this I cannot see where this arguement is. Is it envisioning a chunk of the body in your hand? Or is it as I see it, I looking at the bread and thinking of Christs Body, and thinking of what Hes about to go through.

any thoughts, regarding this specifically?