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

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Eden:
Your sarcasm
Who, me?
you do not understand the the teaching of the Catechism regarding Protestants.
That I readily admit. I’ve gotten various answers to my questions. I wish there were some authoritative interpreter of the CCC so that I wouldn’t have to weigh the private interpretations of various Catholics regarding what the CCC means.
Protestants who are ignorant of the Catholic faith can no be held accountable for that which they do not know.
That leads naturally to the question, what is it to be ignorant? Is Charles Colson ignorant? Is Billy Graham ignorant? Just who is included here?
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.
Again and again in this passage, Jesus spoke of eternal life for those whom he would raise up at the last day. Do you honestly think that the passage speaks about some other “life” than the life of salvation, eternal life, which characterizes one who has passed from death unto life (John 5:24) and which will result in the resurrection of the just?

Although you spoke of “Protestants who believe the Eucharist is symbolism,” taking Jn 6 literally will entail an opinion about all Protestants, not just those who believe the Eucharist is symbolism. Regardless of how much a Protestant wants to believe in the real presence, the fact remains that the Eucharist he partakes of has not been confected by a validly ordained Catholic priest and, therefore, cannot be considered by a Catholic to be the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. That Protestant, then, does not eat the flesh, etc. according to a literal understanding of John 6.

As Jesus said over and over, the “life” of John 6 is salvation: eternal life. Either we sincere evangelicals have that life or we don’t. If we do have eternal life in us, then John 6 must not refer to the Catholic mass when it tells us that unless one does this he does not have eternal life in him.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
. So in that very literal sense, he did offer up his flesh for us, and his flesh did give us new life. However, it is not an act that needs to be repeated on a weekly basis…
We don’t do it on a weekly basis. It is done thousands of times EACH DAY. Catholics around the globe celebrate the Mass every day of the week all year long. Reminds me a little bit of how the angels and saints in the book of Revelation continually and unceasingly are gathered around the alter and offering prayers, incense, and worship, while the Slain Lamb is PRESENT.
 
40.png
Kevan:
That leads naturally to the question, what is it to be ignorant? Is Charles Colson ignorant? Is Billy Graham ignorant? Just who is included here?
Truthfully - everyone who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. That includes everyone you’ve mentioned, good men though they may be.

(sorry for being a sound-bite here)
 
I believe the Spirit means just what he wants said.
Just like brothers and sisters of Jesus instead of cousins.
Which is pretty plain to me.
Which means the Spriit could have saved us all alot of computer time if He would have not used bread and wine and body and blood and mixed them all up in two or more places where you have to hunt and peck to get it nailed down.
 
LEOSIXTUS XX:
I believe the Spirit means just what he wants said.
Just like brothers and sisters of Jesus instead of cousins.
Which is pretty plain to me.
Which means the Spriit could have saved us all alot of computer time if He would have not used bread and wine and body and blood and mixed them all up in two or more places where you have to hunt and peck to get it nailed down.
Can you expound on your thinking a bit??? Are you denying the teachings of Christ??
 
Originally Posted by Gnosis
. So in that very literal sense, he did offer up his flesh for us, and his flesh did give us new life. However, it is not an act that needs to be repeated on a weekly basis…
You are correct in a sense because no where does the bible give the frequency of requirement of “DO THIS”. But I can equally say that the Bible does not tell us that we must get together every sunday either(or Saturday). It just says we must keep the Sabbath. Traditions of Men say it must be Sunday. And Newer traditions of Protestant men say it must be Sunday Night as well. And some Newer Traditions of Protestant Men requires it also be done during the Middle of the week. All of these Newer Traditions are phariseeic…
 
When Jesus said to Peter: You are the rock and upon this rock I will build my Church…and what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven…" Wasn’t this some kind of authority of organization and leadership that he gave Peter? Weren’t the Apostles the first “priests”, attending to confessions and communions? There is so much ignorance regarding the Roman Catholic Church. People need to dig a little deeper before they ask questions like "what gives the priests the right to…

May God bless all His children, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Buddist, Agnostic, Atheist, etc. and help them understand each other.
 
REF.post no 84
No I am not denying the teachings of Christ,but the Spirit who was writing the New Testament used words He meant to be used.
A person reading the NT should not have to have a hard time trying to figure out the different shades of meaning for words.

Some people read brothers and sisters and some people when they see these three words make it read cousins.

Which is pretty plain to me.
 
LEOSIXTUS XX:
REF.post no 84
No I am not denying the teachings of Christ,but the Spirit who was writing the New Testament used words He meant to be used.
A person reading the NT should not have to have a hard time trying to figure out the different shades of meaning for words.

Some people read brothers and sisters and some people when they see these three words make it read cousins.

Which is pretty plain to me.
Your point would stand up if you read the bible in the original languages. I assume you are not able to do that and have read any number of translations. There in lies the problem- the translations. A lot is “lost in translation” unfortunatley. There is a reason that there are PHD programs in bible history/theology- The subject is far more complex than most people either realize or will admit.

New International Version
Acts 8:30-31 NIV
Code:
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 

31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
 
40.png
Kevan:
Who, me?That I readily admit. I’ve gotten various answers to my questions. I wish there were some authoritative interpreter of the CCC so that I wouldn’t have to weigh the private interpretations of various Catholics regarding what the CCC means.
I would suggest asking your question on the “Ask an apologist” forum. Or else you could contact your local priest or bishop. A bishop has the teaching authority through apostolic succession which I do not have. So, there is your authoritative interpreter.
That leads naturally to the question, what is it to be ignorant?
This would mean “unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge”.
Is Charles Colson ignorant? Is Billy Graham ignorant? Just who is included here?
If they are unfamiliar with the teachings of the Catholic Church and have not willfully rejected the Church, then they are ignorant regarding the True Church.
Again and again in this passage, Jesus spoke of eternal life for those whom he would raise up at the last day. Do you honestly think that the passage speaks about some other “life” than the life of salvation, eternal life, which characterizes one who has passed from death unto life (John 5:24) and which will result in the resurrection of the just?
I believe the “life” in the Eucharist is referring to Christ Himself, not specifically eternal life. I would get again suggest you go to “Ask an Apologist” or ask your local priest or bishop.
Although you spoke of “Protestants who believe the Eucharist is symbolism,” taking Jn 6 literally will entail an opinion about all Protestants, not just those who believe the Eucharist is symbolism.
I fully agree. But the topic is regarding those who believe it is symbolism.
Regardless of how much a Protestant wants to believe in the real presence, the fact remains that the Eucharist he partakes of has not been confected by a validly ordained Catholic priest and, therefore, cannot be considered by a Catholic to be the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. That Protestant, then, does not eat the flesh, etc. according to a literal understanding of John 6.
Again I agree. In fact, if the proper ingredients are not used for the Eucharist (for instance if eggs, vanilla, or other extra ingredients are added in Catholic churches using leavened bread), the Transubstantiation does not take place even if done by a validly ordained priest.
As Jesus said over and over, the “life” of John 6 is salvation: eternal life. Either we sincere evangelicals have that life or we don’t. If we do have eternal life in us, then John 6 must not refer to the Catholic mass when it tells us that unless one does this he does not have eternal life in him.
I am ready for you to convince me that Jesus is saying, “This is a representation of my Body. This is a representation of my Blood”. “If you do not eat crackers and grape juice, which symbolize my Body and Blood, you do not have life in you.”
 
40.png
Eden:
I would suggest asking your question on the “Ask an apologist” forum. Or else you could contact your local priest or bishop. A bishop has the teaching authority through apostolic succession which I do not have. So, there is your authoritative interpreter.
Great. Not only do I find out I’m bound for Catholic Hell, but I find it out from a Catholic who doesn’t even know for sure that it’s true.

Ask a bishop, eh? He can authoritatively tell me what the CCC means? Since it’s authoritative, that means no other bishop can contradict him, right? Sorta like a localized papal infallibility–if the bishop speaks about the CCC, he’s authoritative.

Boy, I’m learning new things about Catholicism all the time around here.
If they are unfamiliar with the teachings of the Catholic Church and have not willfully rejected the Church, then they are ignorant regarding the True Church.
That just rewords the question; it doesn’t answer it. Obviously those men are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic church, and obviously they are Protestant by choice. Is that enough to disqualify them from the “ignorant” loophole, or does the Church pretty much excuse Protestants generally on the theory that, if they don’t believe, then they must not understand?
I am ready for you to convince me that Jesus is saying, “This is a representation of my Body. This is a representation of my Blood”. “If you do not eat crackers and grape juice, which symbolize my Body and Blood, you do not have life in you.”
Pray, why would I want to convince you of that? Are you under the impression that I have contended in some way for such a doctrine? I have done no such thing!

What I did was to show you an objection to your beliefs that really presents a conundrum.

Y’all are pretty much left with one of two choices: either (1) Jn 6 refers to the Catholic mass and Protestants are without eternal life and won’t be raised at the resurrection of the just; or (2) we do have eternal life, Jesus is going to raise us up at the last day, and Jn 6 does not refer to the Catholic mass.

A third choice, I suppose, would be so say that Protestants do somehow partake of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, but we do it in a spiritual way–analogous perhaps to “the baptism of desire.”

You might not like that position, though, because it is the very doctrine of the Eucharist which we ourselves hold.
 
Kevan,

I see you attended Bob Jones University. Correct me if I am wrong but don’t they (the university as a whole) have anti-Catholic tendencies in their philosophy?
 
40.png
Kevan:
Great. Not only do I find out I’m bound for Catholic Hell, but I find it out from a Catholic who doesn’t even know for sure that it’s true.

Ask a bishop, eh? He can authoritatively tell me what the CCC means? Since it’s authoritative, that means no other bishop can contradict him, right? Sorta like a localized papal infallibility–if the bishop speaks about the CCC, he’s authoritative.

Boy, I’m learning new things about Catholicism all the time around here.That just rewords the question; it doesn’t answer it. Obviously those men are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic church, and obviously they are Protestant by choice. Is that enough to disqualify them from the “ignorant” loophole, or does the Church pretty much excuse Protestants generally on the theory that, if they don’t believe, then they must not understand?Pray, why would I want to convince you of that? Are you under the impression that I have contended in some way for such a doctrine? I have done no such thing!

What I did was to show you an objection to your beliefs that really presents a conundrum.

Y’all are pretty much left with one of two choices: either (1) Jn 6 refers to the Catholic mass and Protestants are without eternal life and won’t be raised at the resurrection of the just; or (2) we do have eternal life, Jesus is going to raise us up at the last day, and Jn 6 does not refer to the Catholic mass.

A third choice, I suppose, would be so say that Protestants do somehow partake of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, but we do it in a spiritual way–analogous perhaps to “the baptism of desire.”

You might not like that position, though, because it is the very doctrine of the Eucharist which we ourselves hold.
Here is a quote from the CCC. No, our seperated brethren are not necessarily destined for hell.

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it… This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Perhaps the “life” referred to in John 6 is the fullness of Christ’s truth and revelation as found in his mystical body here on earth- the RCC.
 
40.png
Kevan:
Great. Not only do I find out I’m bound for Catholic Hell, but I find it out from a Catholic who doesn’t even know for sure that it’s true.

Ask a bishop, eh? He can authoritatively tell me what the CCC means? Since it’s authoritative, that means no other bishop can contradict him, right? Sorta like a localized papal infallibility–if the bishop speaks about the CCC, he’s authoritative.

Boy, I’m learning new things about Catholicism all the time around here.That just rewords the question; it doesn’t answer it. Obviously those men are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic church, and obviously they are Protestant by choice. Is that enough to disqualify them from the “ignorant” loophole, or does the Church pretty much excuse Protestants generally on the theory that, if they don’t believe, then they must not understand?Pray, why would I want to convince you of that? Are you under the impression that I have contended in some way for such a doctrine? I have done no such thing!

What I did was to show you an objection to your beliefs that really presents a conundrum.

Y’all are pretty much left with one of two choices: either (1) Jn 6 refers to the Catholic mass and Protestants are without eternal life and won’t be raised at the resurrection of the just; or (2) we do have eternal life, Jesus is going to raise us up at the last day, and Jn 6 does not refer to the Catholic mass.

A third choice, I suppose, would be so say that Protestants do somehow partake of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, but we do it in a spiritual way–analogous perhaps to “the baptism of desire.”

You might not like that position, though, because it is the very doctrine of the Eucharist which we ourselves hold.
Gosh, it sounds like you’ve pretty much made up your mind.
You basically said you wished that there was someone authoritative that could answer your question, and when she suggested that it may be better to ask someone on the “Ask an Apologist” forum, you came back with more sarcasm.

If you decide that you don’t believe in the Eucharist as being our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, then that’s your choice. I can’t say where you will go when you die any more than I can’t say for certain what my fate will be. We all just try to lives the best we can according to our faith because of God’s grace.

Catholics do not say that everyone outside of the Catholic Church is going to hell.

This verse often comes to mind for me, Mark 9:38-41-- John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.”

We, as Catholics, believe that the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Church possesses the Fullness of truth (I’m sure you don’t agree, but that’s another thread, so please bear with me), so even though other Christians may not have come to the Fullness of the Catholic Church and everything that Christ offers us through her, that they can still follow Christ. Christ loves us all!

We would like to believe (at least I would) that if a person says they don’t believe the Eucharist to be what we believe it is, then they just must not understand it. Surely if one believed it to be true, they would do everything humanly possible to recieve it. It takes God’s grace, and I don’t even begin to say why some people come to the truth of the Eucharist, and some never do.

I realize that even just a drop of Jesus’s blood can save us all. But God offers us so much more! He wants to share everything so completely with us that he even shares his very self with us in the most intimate way possible. He doesn’t just offer what we *need * for salvation- if that was the case, he could merely blink his eye and it would be so. He lavishes us with everything He is!
The mass is the marriage feast between Christ and His Bride, and we consummate it when we recieve him into our bodies in the Holy Eucharist!
Sorry if I offended you in any way, sometimes I get carried away when talking about the Eucharist :o . Please forgive me if I did.
-Tamara
 
40.png
Kevan:
Great. Not only do I find out I’m bound for Catholic Hell, but I find it out from a Catholic who doesn’t even know for sure that it’s true.
How would I know if you are going to hell? Not even the Pope would have that knowledge.
Ask a bishop, eh? He can authoritatively tell me what the CCC means? Since it’s authoritative, that means no other bishop can contradict him, right? Sorta like a localized papal infallibility–if the bishop speaks about the CCC, he’s authoritative.
Boy, I’m learning new things about Catholicism all the time around here.That just rewords the question; it doesn’t answer it. Obviously those men are familiar with the teachings of the Catholic church, and obviously they are Protestant by choice. Is that enough to disqualify them from the “ignorant” loophole, or does the Church pretty much excuse Protestants generally on the theory that, if they don’t believe, then they must not understand?Pray, why would I want to convince you of that? Are you under the impression that I have contended in some way for such a doctrine? I have done no such thing!
We have had many new Protestants posters on this site since I have started participating here. They always* think* they know what the Church teaches but I have never found one who actually does. Are you claiming that most Protestants know anything about the Church outside of what they have been taught within their own denominations about it? That is rarely the case.
What I did was to show you an objection to your beliefs that really presents a conundrum.
Where is the conundrum? How in the world would I or anyone else on this forum know if you are going to hell for rejecting the Real Presence or not?
Y’all are pretty much left with one of two choices: either (1) Jn 6 refers to the Catholic mass and Protestants are without eternal life and won’t be raised at the resurrection of the just;
John 6 explicitly refers to the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
or (2) we do have eternal life, Jesus is going to raise us up at the last day, and Jn 6 does not refer to the Catholic mass.
Again you are certain that the “life” referred to in “you have no life in you” is eternal life. Is Christ not life?
A third choice, I suppose, would be so say that Protestants do somehow partake of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, but we do it in a spiritual way–analogous perhaps to “the baptism of desire.”
It’s analogous to this:

“This is a representation of my Body. This is a representation of my Blood”. “If you do not eat crackers and grape juice, which symbolize my Body and Blood, you do not have life in you.”

By the way, I find it interesting that you, Kevan, have turned the conversation away from the obvious fact that Jesus explicitly describes the Real Presence in the Bible. Instead of looking at the teaching of some Protestant denominations that Jesus is creating a symbol and analyzing whether or not that teaching has merit, you choose to distract the discussion into the direction of whether or not you are going to hell. Because as you can see from the changed quote above, the Body and Blood as symbol is clearly ridiculous. No wonder you are trying to change the thread into a discussion about you going to hell or not.
 
To all posters on this forum, we have become sidetracked on the issue of whether or not Kevan is going to hell or whether or not the Church teaches that someone with his beliefs will. That could be another thread. I would (as stated before) encourage you Kevan to “Ask an Apologist” any questions that you have regarding John 6 and your eternal fate.

Now let’s focus again on the topic of this thread which is the Real Presence versus the belief in some Protestant denominations that the Body and Blood are symbolic.
 
Here I have changed some words to make Jesus say that the Eucharist is a symbol:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh ? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat* a cracker which is a symbol of *the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For *a cracker as symbol of *my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh *grape juice as a symbol of *my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
 
Jesus said over and over in John 6 that the life he referred to was eternal life, something that enables man to live forever, and one who has that life will be raised up by Jesus at the last day. It’s not some other, hypothetical, undefined “life” which a Catholic apologist might conjure up in order to get his doctrine off the hook.

You’re cornered.

Either Protestants have that life or they don’t. If they have that life, and they got it without eating the Catholic Eucharist, then your interpretation of Jn 6 is untenable.
 
40.png
Kevan:
Jesus said over and over in John 6 that the life he referred to was eternal life, something that enables man to live forever, and one who has that life will be raised up by Jesus at the last day. It’s not some other, hypothetical, undefined “life” which a Catholic apologist might conjure up in order to get his doctrine off the hook.

You’re cornered.

Either Protestants have that life or they don’t. If they have that life, and they got it without eating the Catholic Eucharist, then your interpretation of Jn 6 is untenable.
Take this to “Ask an Apologist”. I am sure they can help you.

Do you have any comments as to how the Eucharist as symbol is tenable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top