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

[Eden]

“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took a cracker, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: TAKE YE AND EAT. THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY BODY. And taking the chalice full of grape juice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: DRINK YE ALL OF THIS. For THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY BLOOD of the new testament, which shall be shed *but not symbolically *for MANY unto remission of sins.” Matthew 26:26-28]

“But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that cracker, and drink of the chalice full of grape juice.” 1 Corinthians 11:28]

 

[TamaraS]

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.

We’re not “cornered”. Some people think they are gonna come up with the “magic bullet”. Read the Scriptures, then back it up with Church History and it overwhelmingly supports the literal belief.
We believe in him and have faith in his words. At the very least, we believe Jesus is spiritually present in ways that protestants believe. But we also believe in him literally in the Eucharist. You are the one who is saying it is “either/or”. That’s how so many non-Catholics interpret scripture. They take passages in scripture, and “it means either only this, or only that”.
Do you think that we’re going to say “Oh wow. No one has ever presented this argument (a rather silly one) in nearly 2, 000 years. You’ve really blown the lid off this!” Well, that’s not going to happen because we don’t agree with you.
The Catholic Church’s view of John 6 is correct. If you think that means that you will not have eternal life, then that is up to you. Everyone here has explained what we believe and how the Church interpret’s it. There’s nothing more we can really tell you.

 

[Kevan]

St.Eric:

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?

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.

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

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.

You still haven’t dealt with the logic of the symbolic understanding of John 6.

 

[Kevan]

TamaraS:

We’re not “cornered”.

Of course you are.

Some people think they are gonna come up with the “magic bullet”.

Not at all. No bullet is beyond dodging. All I’m doing is demonstrating that your position cannot be defended. That doesn’t mean you can’t keep believing it.

Everyone here has explained what we believe and how the Church interpret’s it. There’s nothing more we can really tell you.

Yeah, we’re about done.

 

[TamaraS]

Kevan:

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.

If you are content receiving salvation with the minimum requirements possible, then great.

But this is what it sounds like-
In light of the Catholic interpretation of John 6, I am not going to have eternal life with my understanding, so the Catholic interpretation must be wrong because I don’t do that.

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

(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.

Bob Jones 1978:

Not long after Pope Paul VI died in 1978, Bob Jones, chancellor of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, wrote an ill-tempered article in his school’s magazine, *Faith for the Family *(not to be confused with Dr. James Dobson’s magazine, Focus on the Family). The article was republished by the Fundamentalist organization Mission to Catholics, International (run by an ex-Carmelite priest-turned-Fundamentalist minister) as a tract entitled The Church of Rome in Perspective (cont’d)

Kevan:

“Anticatholic” is hard to define.

No effort is made to be conciliatory, as the first line demonstrates: “Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, like Judas, gone to his own place.” It goes downhill from there. At one point, Jones attempts to raise the level of discussion, if only momentarily, by citing a diary kept by Bernard Berenson, the famous art collector and critic (who was, by the way, an Episcopalian). Here is what Jones says:

“A pope must be an opportunist, a tyrant, a hypocrite, and a deceiver or he cannot be a pope. Bernard Berenson, in his Rumor and Reflection (a sort of notebook which he kept while hiding from the Germans in the hills above Florence during the Second World War), tells about the death of an early twentieth-century pope as described by his personal physician. When they came to give him the last rites, the pope ordered the priest and acolytes from the room, crying, ‘Get out of here. The comedy is over.’”

More here:

catholic.com/library/anti_catholic_whoppers.asp

 

[Kevan]

Eden:

You still haven’t dealt with the logic of the symbolic understanding of John 6.

I never affirmed it, so I never defended it. I just stuck to one theme, answering the question posed by the original post: why don’t I accept the Catholic position on Jn 6?

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

Yeah, we’re about done.

We must be done since you can’t defend the teaching that the Eucharist is symbolic.

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

I never affirmed it, so I never defended it. I just stuck to one theme, answering the question posed by the original post: why don’t I accept the Catholic position on Jn 6?

Your faith believes it is symbolic whether you affirmed it here or not. It is not possible to defend that belief so you have not tried.

 

[Kevan]

TamaraS:

But this is what it sounds like-
In light of the Catholic interpretation of John 6, I am not going to have eternal life with my understanding, so the Catholic interpretation must be wrong because I don’t do that.

You’re close. My actual objection is that the Catholic interpretation is incoherent because it affirms two contradictory things: the Catholic understanding of Jn 6 and the salvation of separated bretheren.

 

[Kevan]

Eden:

Your faith believes it is symbolic whether you affirmed it here or not. It is not possible to defend that belief so you have not tried.

You’ll have to start another thread if you want to discuss another belief.

 

[Eden]

Kevan:

You’ll have to start another thread if you want to discuss another belief.

My pleasure.

For the other posters here, here is an article by a former student at Bob Jones University:

“Young people!” Dr. Bob Jones Jr. called out from the pulpit. “Those Catholics say Peter was the first pope. But nowhere in the Bible does it say Peter ever even went to Rome. There’s not a scrap of historical proof that he did go to Rome! If he was never in Rome, how could he be the first bishop of Rome? And if he wasn’t the first bishop of Rome, how can the pope claim to be his successor? It’s all a load of silly legends and make-believe.” Dr. Bob often spoke colorfully about the Catholic Church being the “whore of Babylon” and the pope being the “spawn of Satan.” I was a student at Bob Jones University at the time, and I believed him.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea4.asp

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

WOW,
what a great question!

The main issue that seperates us from the other 33,000 different Christian denominations is the fact that we are taught the **REAL PRESENCE. **(Even though many Catholics are ignorant about this issue!)

The further you get from the original Church the more they believe that the Eucharist is a symbol.

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[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.

 

[TamaraS]

Kevan:

You’re close. My actual objection is that the Catholic interpretation is incoherent because it affirms two contradictory things: the Catholic understanding of Jn 6 and the salvation of separated bretheren.

I think I understand what you’re saying. That the John 6 says that if you eat his flesh and drink his blood (the catholic belief) you have life in you. And the Catholic Church believes this literally. But the Catholic Church does not say everyone else is not going to be saved.
In John 6 he says “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”. But he also says in Mark 9:38-41 when the apostles tried to stop others that were exercising demons that weren’t his followers, that whoever does mighty deeds in his name (I would think that would mean that those people must believe in him even if they aren’t his apostles) would not lose his reward.
So I guess, are you wondering if attaining salvation and having Jesus’s life within you when receiving the Eucharist are tied together, that you can’t have one without the other? Or are you wondering if you can attain salvation without having his life within you when receiving the eucharist?

 

[TamaraS]

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.

Sorry, I type very slow and when I entered my last post, which was asking this, you already had yours up.

I am not a Catechism expert. But I will tell you that there are several venues through which to receive God’s Grace. We receive graces through partaking in any and/or all of the sacraments (in a worthy manner), but the Eucharist is at the very heart of the Church. It’s not just a *very special * meal. A great book to read that I’m not saying will convert you at all, but it paint’s the picture of what it means to us is “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn.
Look at it this way. Just pretend you are a Catholic for minute. We, as Catholics, just simply believe it John 6 in the way that we have explained, and I know personally, that if one doesn’t believe it that way, then I assume they just don’t understand. Because I think if you understood, then you would be eager for the eucharist. Hope this helps.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

St.Eric:

Your response smacks of relativism. “they both could be true. It may be true for one, no the other. Both are the case…etc., etc.”
Yes, the biblical data could be understood any number of ways. In fact, there are 1000’s of different protestant denoms to support your claim.

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.​

I do beleive there is one truth and not many confusing truths. The prince of the power of the air is the author of confusion and lies. Christ himself tells us the gate is narrow and the path is not easy.

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 ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sir Knight:

EXACTLY! The scripture is very clear that while He spoke to the crowds in parables, He explained everything to the twelve in private. If Jesus meant this in any other way than the way He said, He would have explained it to the apostles and they would have recorded such an important point.

Maybe the text of John 6 is defective at that point.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

I wonder what the percentage of Christian faiths that teach the Eucharist as symbolism would be given that all Catholics, all Orthodox, all Lutherans, all Episcopalian/Anglicans and all Methodists believe in the Real Presence. Does anyone have a percentage on that?

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 ##