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

[Fredricks]

To add to this:
Remember what the Didache, which could be as early as 50 CE says about it as well. No priest, a meal, like the Bible taught

'Now according to the Lord’s day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, after acknowledging your wanderings to one another, so your sacrifice would be a clean one. But each one who has something against his friend, do not let him come together with you until they are reconciled, so that your sacrifice would not be made common. For this is what was declared by the Lord: " In every place and time, carry to me a clean sacrifice. Because I am a great king," says Yahweh, " and my name is a wondrous thing among the nations."

Notice how they confess their sins to one another and not a priest…kind of like what the Bible taught:

Jam 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

I suggest you research the Sacrifice of the Mass (from Catholic sources for accuracy).

Here is one to get started so you can see the connection between the Eucharist and Calvary:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

I would likewise suggest you research what the Apostle Paul says about it. Its right there. Its totally opposite of what you do, but its right there.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

I would likewise suggest you research what the Apostle Paul says about it. Its right there. Its totally opposite of what you do, but its right there.

What’s right there? What’s totally opposite?

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

To add to this:
Remember what the Didache, which could be as early as 50 CE says about it as well. No priest, a meal, like the Bible taught

'Now according to the Lord’s day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, after acknowledging your wanderings to one another, so your sacrifice would be a clean one. But each one who has something against his friend, do not let him come together with you until they are reconciled, so that your sacrifice would not be made common. For this is what was declared by the Lord: " In every place and time, carry to me a clean sacrifice. Because I am a great king," says Yahweh, " and my name is a wondrous thing among the nations."

Notice how they confess their sins to one another and not a priest…kind of like what the Bible taught:

Jam 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

That is really interesting to see. I always wondered about the history of the “kiss of peace” or “sign of peace” before we receive Communion and there it is; this idea of reconciling with those around us before receiving! That is really amazing!

Can you show me the no priest in the quote and the meal? Maybe it’s in the wider quote that you did not provide.

 

[flameburns623]

St.Eric:

I hear over and over again how Catholics beleive and pratice things that are not in the bible. Here is one dogma of the RCC that is in the bible over and over again- We must truly eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have life in us. Yet, with only a couple of exceptions, protestants discount this command either entirely or they discount the literal interpretation and claim it is only symbollical at best. Why? Convince me. Convince us Catholics that we are wrong on this issue. Why do you take the scriptires literally on so many other issues and yet on this most important issue, you calim it is now only symbolic?

Save all of the other debates for other threads. Let’s talk about being cannibals here!

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault

“Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, truly present in the Holy Eucharist, we place our trust in you!”

The most simple and straightforward Protestant response is that John 6 is not referring to the Eucharist. It is a direct parallel to the scene in John 4 where Christ refers to Himself as Living Water to the Samaritans. In both cases, Christ is affirming His Deity, which is why he does not back down from the simile when He is criticised in John 6. To deny the simile would have been to have denied His Deity. What is being illustrated is how Samaritans received the self-revelation of Christ gladly whilst Christ’s own people rejected Him and would not receive Him.

Catholics make an a priori assumption about the centrality of the Eucharist for Christian worship and then superimpose their beliefs about the Eucharist upon a text that had no reference to the doctrine.

 

[Eden]

flameburns623:

Catholics make an a priori assumption about the centrality of the Eucharist for Christian worship and then superimpose their beliefs about the Eucharist upon a text that had no reference to the doctrine.

In fact, all Christians believed in the Real Presence until the Reformation. That’s 1500+ years. The belief imposed upon the text is the later Protestant denominations’ teaching of symbolism. Not the other way around.

 

[flameburns623]

Eden:

In fact, all Christians believed in the Real Presence until the Reformation. That’s 1500+ years. The belief imposed upon the text is the later Protestant denominations’ teaching of symbolism. Not the other way around.

The issue raised in this thread was about the exegesis of a particular passage, not the belief or lack of belief in the Real Presence. Many Protestants believe in a Real Presence in some sense, but do not accept the medieval Catholic notion of transubstantiation as a good explanation thereof. One common understanding is that Christ is really and specially present for Christian believers in the breaking of bread and wine, and that He is really and truly received in the administration thereof, although He does not literally become the bread or the wine. The “how” of the process is left up to God. As Anglicans like to say,

His was the hand the bread did brake
His were the Word that spake it.
*And what that Word did make it, *
This I believe and take it.

But the OP asked specifically that we reserve side issues to other threads.

 

[Kevan]

Eden:

It is unfortunate that the posters on that thread were attempting ecumenism in an instance in which they should not have. They certainly don’t represent the teachings of the Church. It is as it was said and Protestants denying the sacredness of the Eucharist do not have this life within them. If I had been on that forum I would have told you so that you would not have been confused for almost 2 years about it.

Dang! And they were even quoting the CCC. Who can you trust these days?

Lemme get this straight: in that thread, none other than veteran apologist MariaG said:

I think the Pope expressed it best when he said we should not (nor will God) hold it against our separated brethren who through no fault of their own, do not have the fullness of the truth which resides in the teachings of the Catholic Church

Now, are you disagreeing with the position she expressed?

I thought that I got this question settled back in '04 where the final word, even from HLGomez himself, was that sincere Protestants, who do not receive the Catholic eucharist, still have life in them.

 

[joshua_b]

Alright, I feel it necessary to make a correction. The Catholic “notion” of the Real Presence is NOT a mideviel concept…it is Doctrine, and it dates back 2000 years. I once again challenge anyone to find any historical evidence or any Christian writings from the Apostolic age or the period immediately following that suggests otherwise. The notion that the Apostles, or the students of the Apostles somehow “messed this up” is absolute nonsense. If that were true, then the true teachings of the Church established by Christ would have been nonexistent for about 1500 years, and if that were in fact what happened then Christ would have either had to be a liar, or uncapable of fulfilling the promise he gave the Apostles and the world about His Church. And, the Scriptures do not say the ONLY thing we have to do is eat His flesh, it just says that we must, just as we must be baptized (normatively…and thats another thread, if you want to talk about that, then start one), we must keep his commandments, etc. I emplore you, once again, to take God out of YOUR shallow little box.

 

[TamaraS]

Fredricks:

**
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. **
.

This verse in NO WAY proves that he meant it symbolically. For one thing, he says “THE flesh”, in a very general sense. Or would you like to say he was referring to HIS flesh? His flesh would profit nothing? I think we all know the answer to that one.

 

[Tonks40]

Kevan:

I thought that I got this question settled back in '04 where the final word, even from HLGomez himself, was that sincere Protestants, who do not receive the Catholic eucharist, still have life in them.

And I can see you are banking on that!!

The problem…you’re here in a Catholic forum. You see what the Church has taught us for 2000 years. You, in a sense, cannot be included amongst those that, through no fault of their own, do not know or understand the teachings of the Real Presence in the Eucharist or the teachings of the True Christian Faith and still gain salvation. Once you at least know the Truth, and you truely want to follow Christ, you at least owe yourself some more deeper contemplation and investigation, and not let the matter be settled 2 years ago. Compelling…possibly; settled…not in the least!

 

[St.Eric]

admiral:

Just out of curiousity, has anyone thought thru what the Eucharist is???

concidered this from the Catechism of the CC…

Romans 3:28 (New American Standard Bible)

28 we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a discreptancy here???

It must be just you. I don’t see the discrepency here:

Jam 2:24 - a man is justified by works and not by faith alone
Jam 2:26 - faith without works is dead
Gal 5:6 - only thing that counts is faith working in love
1 Cor 13;2 - faith without love is nothing
Jn 14:15 - if you love me, keep my commandments
Mt 19:16-17 - if you wish to enter into life, keep commandments
1Tim 5:8 he who doesn’t provide for family worse than unbeliever

 

[onesimplemind]

TamaraS:

This verse in NO WAY proves that he meant it symbolically. For one thing, he says “THE flesh”, in a very general sense. Or would you like to say he was referring to HIS flesh? His flesh would profit nothing? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Here is in easier way to look at it.

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. John 6:66

Notice how those “disciples” walked away after Jesus supposedly said eating His flesh was symbolic.

 

[Sir_Knight]

onesimplemind:

Here is in easier way to look at it.

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. John 6:66

Notice how those “disciples” walked away after Jesus supposedly said eating His flesh was symbolic.

This is true. If Jesus meant if symbolicly, the Great Teacher would have pointed that out when they questioned how He could give them His flesh to eat. He didn’t. Obviously because HE didn’t mean it symbolicly.

 

[TamaraS]

Fredricks:

Catholic apologists using John 6 again. Wavering Protestants thinking, What if they ARE right?

John 8:23: And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Does Catholicism really teach that heaven is literally some location above us?
**
John 8:12**: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Does Catholicism really think Jesus is literally a light?

John 10:9: "I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."
Does Catholicism think Jesus is literally a door?

John 10:11: *"I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.*Does Catholicism think we are literally sheep?

John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
Does Catholicism literally think Jesus is a vine?

John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"
Does Catholicism literally think Christ is bread?
YES YES YES. The other ones are figurative BUT THIS ONE IS LITERAL.

Okay, please look at every single verse you quoted. Now looke at Matthew or Luke- “He says THIS IS my Body.” He doesn’t say “This bread is my body”, or “this wine is my blood.” The way that he is speaking is completely different. I would think that anyone here could see the difference.

 

[TamaraS]

JESUS SPEAKS 6:29-58
They take it literally. He knows they will. He speaks it literally BUT EXPLAINS IT SPIRITUALLY LATER ON. You have to read the WHOLE THING.

DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS, JESUS EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS, JESUS EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS

The flesh profiteth NOTHING. THE WORDS I SPEAK ARE SPIRIT
You cannot get around this. Of course the first part of his discourse was taken literally. He spoke it literally, just like when he said you must be “born again” and then he explained it. They did not get it. They almost never get it. Thats why he explained what he means. The flesh profiteth NOTHING. The WORDS I speak to you are SPIRIT and they mean eternal life.
Jhn 6:68 *Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. *
PETER GETS IT. His words are eternal life, nothing about his flesh. Why do you ignore Peter when he disagrees with your theology?

Jhn 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Amen Peter.

We do not need to skip around this verse. It lends great support to the literal belief. Jesus’ sayings ARE hard for them to accept because they DO take his words literally. We as humans tend to think that this seems ridiculous or incomprehensible. Our human logic prohibits us from being able to grasp supernatural realities (we are “living in the flesh”), but that doesn’t mean that supernatural realities are not real or possible. Jesus does many things that seem to defy logic and possibilty (raising the dead, raising Himself from the dead, God becoming a mere human!) in our human rationality, but if we look at things with eyes of faith, we can accept them as true, even if they defy human logic.

Non-Christians ask ALL of us Christians “Do you guys really think that some man named Jesus is actually God?” or “Do you really think that this guy rose from the dead?” Our human understanding would say this is completely ridiculous. But we believe because Jesus says so, and his words are spirit and life. Faith in His words enable us to grasp these supernatural realities. They set us free from a life in the flesh and open us up to the supernatural reality.
Non-Catholics say “Do you really believe that piece of bread is really Jesus flesh?” We don’t understand how, but Jesus said so. He suffered and died on the cross for us, and then brought life back in that body when he rose from the dead. We believe that he will do the same with our bodies. I think that the flesh is important in this sense- God made that flesh.
When will people stop thinking that the spirit is not literal?

 

[TamaraS]

Gnosis:

However, it is not an act that needs to be repeated on a weekly basis. The eucharist, or consumption of bread is to commemorate or remember the actual physical sacrifice Jesus made that gave us life.

What is wrong with on a weekly basis, or even daily for that matter (the Catholic Church actually invites us to recieve eveyday)? In 1Corinthians, Chapter 11, verse 26 it says’ “for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” Sounds like you can do it as often as you want, and it doesn’t seem to imply that he is being “resacrificed” everytime. Malachi chapter 1, verses 10& 11 are a prefigurment of the Eucharist:
“Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire upon my altar in vain!
I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts;
neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands,
For from the rising of the sun, even to it’s setting,
my name is great among the nations;
And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering;
For great is my name among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

Dang! And they were even quoting the CCC. Who can you trust these days?

Lemme get this straight: in that thread, none other than veteran apologist MariaG said:Now, are you disagreeing with the position she expressed?

I thought that I got this question settled back in '04 where the final word, even from HLGomez himself, was that sincere Protestants, who do not receive the Catholic eucharist, still have life in them.

I think the Pope expressed it best when he said we should not (nor will God) hold it against our separated brethren who through no fault of their own, do not have the fullness of the truth which resides in the teachings of the Catholic Church

Your sarcasm does not disguise the fact that you do not understand the the teaching of the Catechism regarding Protestants. Protestants who are ignorant of the Catholic faith can no be held accountable for that which they do not know.

Protestants who believe the Eucharist is symbolism, still have a relationship with Jesus, they pray and have a great enthusiasm for the Lord. That does not mean that they have the “life” in them spoken about in this passage. There is a special grace that comes with receiving the Eucharist (in the proper way).

That is why it is possible to receive the Eucharist daily, if one so desires. It is a source of “life” and is central to the faith. Do you experience Him in the fullness that Christ offers us? No. You only have “life” in you if you have received the Eucharist - Christ’s Body and Blood.

Without this special grace, we can become prey to error and lies.

Here is a quote again from my post about Sunday Mass:

“Most people in our world have rejected God’s commandments and rejected His Body and Blood, and as a result their minds have been darkened. Thus, they have no life in them and are easy targets of the Enemy and his prideful and deceitful influence.”

Now I understand that your belief that the Eucharist is symbolism heavily colors the way you read these responses as to whether or not you have “life” in you. If you can suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that the Eucharist really is His Body and Blood (I know you think it’s illogical but please try), can you see how just eating bread/crackers and grape juice would not be “life” in you?

Now I have a question for all of those who believe the Eucharist is symbolic and who believe the Real Presence is illogical.Can you please explain to me why Jesus would offer us His Body and Blood symbolically in the Eucharist? The shedding of His Blood and the Death of His Body were not symbolic. Why in the world would He have instituted a symbol? Imagine “When you remember my suffering and death - eat crackers and grape juice - those things will symbolize my Body and Blood. Unless you eat crackers and grape juice which symbolize my Body and Blood, you have no life in you.”

If the Real Presence is illogical, so is God incarnate, the virgin birth, the Resurrection and the Trinity. If something is illogical in the human mind, does that mean it is not possible with God?

 

[ElenaM]

Well said. I once attended a Seventh Day Adventist service where the preacher began to mock our Catholic belief in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The congregation roared with laughter. I felt sad for all of them. Where was their faith? Did they not believe that Christ could achieve such a feat or that he didn’t love us enough to give us this precious gift. It’s too bad the preacher didn’t make better use of his sermon to worship and praise God and spread good will toward men. Faith is everything folks.

And yes, to answer another message, our Holy Catholic Church has had some bad fruit, antipopes, child molesters, who knows what else. Are we alone in sin? Will you cast the first stone? Remember, Jesus said, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”…and after 2000 years, Jesus is still looking after His Holy Catholic Church.

WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

 

[JoeyWarren]

ElenaM:

Well said. I once attended a Seventh Day Adventist service where the preacher began to mock our Catholic belief in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The congregation roared with laughter. I felt sad for all of them. Where was their faith? Did they not believe that Christ could achieve such a feat or that he didn’t love us enough to give us this precious gift. It’s too bad the preacher didn’t make better use of his sermon to worship and praise God and spread good will toward men. Faith is everything folks.

And yes, to answer another message, our Holy Catholic Church has had some bad fruit, antipopes, child molesters, who knows what else. Are we alone in sin? Will you cast the first stone? Remember, Jesus said, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”…and after 2000 years, Jesus is still looking after His Holy Catholic Church.

WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

So say we all.