Traditions

[Techno2000]

As a newcomer here, thanks for the forum.

I spent about 15 hours in a vehicle this week listening to Catholic radio in Texas. I really enjoyed the discussions.

I am not a Catholic. I was baptised in the Catholic church as an infant. My Dad was Catholic, my mother, Presbyterian. I spent a ton of time growing up with my Dad’s family, who would tell you they were devoutly Catholic. What that meant to them was faithfully attending Mass, raising four boys in Catholic School, and posting crucifixes and pictures of Mary and the Pope on their walls. They never taught me anything about faith or morality. However, they spent every opportunity-- a daily one-- demeaning my father and mother and uncles and aunts, cursing wildly, abusing other members of the family, and telling me I was doomed because of my father, and that they were saved and we were not unless I reverted to the Catholic Church.

I attended many Catholic masses as a child. In college, I explored becoming Catholic but could not reconcile certain traditions of which I still have found no meaningful basis in scripture. One of my professors was a lay pastor at the Catholic Church, and he welcomed me peacefully and instructively; never with condemnation. I learned from him and others that my experience with my family was not uncommon.

I believe, from my experience, that any Christian religion can get in the way of truth. I have seen it in the Baptist church. The Methodist church. My Catholic grandfather died being probably the meanest, most evil and abusive men I ever knew. My Presbyterian grandfather was just like a different version-- caught up in religion without any faith in the Truth. My father’s life was plagued by his parents, when he left the Catholic church after a priest told him his sin of paying for my aunt’s abortion, compounded by him marrying a non-Catholic, was unforgiveable. To me, the Catholic tradition was wielded and used as a hammer. It ruined many lives in my family. Now, the once proud Catholic family is splintered and broken. There was no grace for the non-Catholic in my long experience. And the divide-- among professing Christians-- was non-sensical to me.

I see and understand, having had the benefit of knowing some dear friends through the years who are probably more representative of the true Catholic tradition than my family, that much of the traditions Catholics hold to are the same as mine as a non-Catholic. I am under no delusions that the evil perpetrated by my family was of Catholic teaching. However, it has made me skeptical of organized religion and tradition. And I’m not alone. Many, many folks I talk to have been raised in a dogmatic Christian tradition, Catholic or otherwise, that left them feeling knowledgeable about ritual and rule, and inept on forgiveness, grace, and the life of Christ. It ended up leaving them empty. Coming to know Christ, however, outside of the tradition has been life-changing. For some, tradition is meaningful and helpful. To others, it rips off scabs of mistrust, abuse, and evil.

Presently, I host a small group in my home, and surprisingly, almost everyone there has a similar story-- maybe four Catholic and four Protestant. I attend a church focused on meeting those people hurt by their church, or having no historical basis in church. That is a lot of people in America, because churches, Catholic and Protestant fail to teach what is in actually in the Bible. I’m not saying every church. But the fact is, church and tradition has failed people over and over. My story is not unique. It is common. Christ does not let us down, though. He broke tradition; He didn’t just re-compute the rules. The veil is torn. Religion to me, and tradition exclusive of Scripture, holds too many variable risks of men’s interpretation becoming dogma. That is the history of every church, every denomination. Even the Catholic Church has spent the better part of 2000 years reformatting its dogma, rules, and teachings. St. Thomas Aquinas would not agree with all of Catholic church teaching today (I am just finishing a reading of Summa Theologica, where the Catholic editors felt compelled to explain his adherence to the teaching of the day versus present-day teaching).

In my own wrestling with being told I was “outside the one true church,” and perhaps subject to some unique cruel judgement because I wasn’t allowed to take Communion, I found so many Catholic traditions that seemed like answers to questions that maybe we could never really know. And if a church, Catholic or Protestant, teaches answers to questions based on tradition, and not Scripture, I just can’t buy in. I’m OK to not know everything. I know Christ. I know Scripture. I trust Him for the answers unknown. And now, I am OK with not having all the answers. I believe religion has done to Christianity what Jesus railed against in Judaism: it misses the Ultimate for adherence to traditions of men. Religion though, is attractive even to me, because I like checklists and tangible progress. Faith is tough and unnatural. Total faith in Christ, though, in my experience, is not religious or traditional at all. Faith is paramount; religion, secondary or even unnecessary. I think the truest form of total faith in Christ would be exclusive of organized religion. Jesus certainly blew a hole in the religion of 2000 years ago, that to me, mirrors today’s organized, institutionalized religion. I prefer to trust in what has been done by Christ, not what I may or may not be able to accomplish on my own.

All that to say I believe religion, and tradition, can blind us from the truth of Christ.

Thanks for the forum, and God Bless!

There are many Paths to Heaven…But the Blessed Virgin Mary is a shortcut.

 

[benburkhart]

Abu, God Bless you. You make my point. Perhaps you genuinely believe I don’t know Christ. There may be others around you who really don’t. Pray for them and me. God knows us. Maybe pointing them to Christ, not Peter, will bring about their salvation and trust in Him. I just think the answer is Jesus Christ crucified as Savior-- that is what scripture tells us. You can read it yourself-- more than the six verses you quote on Peter. There are many more verses on Christ as Savior, that are explicit-- no room for error. The other debates on Peter, Mary, etc., doesn’t matter to me. It is all deception to keep our eyes off Christ. Believe me, I was beat over the head and condemned to hell many times with those same words you use. Thankfully, no power has been granted to you or anyone else over my soul. If you wear your Christianity as a status symbol, I don’t think it is likely you will obey Christ’s command to go and make disciples. Scripture says nothing about believing in Peter as a pre-requisite to salvation. Nothing about Believing in Mary as a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is to be a sinner, and fully trust Christ, not self, for salvation. Abu, whether you agree or not has no affect on my salvation. Thank God. Perhaps we will stand at the judgement together; I hope your answer is not “Peter is the Rock!” Mine will be “I have no answer but Christ.” If tyhat happens, I will remind you of the correct answer God Bless!

 

[Abu]

benburkhart #22
Maybe pointing them to Christ, not Peter, will bring about their salvation and trust in Him. I just think the answer is Jesus Christ crucified as Savior-- that is what scripture tells us. You can read it yourself-- more than the six verses you quote on Peter. There are many more verses on Christ as Savior, that are explicit-- no room for error.

As Jesus the Christ has pointedly pointed everyone to His Catholic Church founded expressly on St Peter as His Chief Vicar and no other, nothing can detract from that except the wiles of Satan confusing and distracting you from that elemental truth.

There are many more verses on Christ as Savior, that are explicit-- no room for error.

No verse can detract from Christ’s Church, as Christ Himself warns everyone “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

I hope your answer is not “Peter is the Rock!” Mine will be “I have no answer but Christ.”

If you truly want to follow Christ you will heed the reality of His explicit foundation of His Church on St Peter, His warnings to listen to His Church, and the fact that you have a Bible to study only because Christ’s Catholic Church collected the writings which She alone declared infallibly, from Christ, to be the Sacred Scriptures, no more nor no less.

Peter is the Rock only because Christ explicitly made Him that foundation of His Church, so if you deny that you are denying Christ whether you realize it at the moment or not.

 

[ignatius777]

I am sorry for the terrible experience you had growing up. I’d love to know what version of the summa you are reading. I have read it and I cant see where it conflicts with catholic doctrine. Sometimes people confuse practices with doctrine and it leads them to make incorrect conclusions. The major problem I see is the protestant insistence on the perspicuity of scripture. If scripture was so easy to interpret we wouldnt have so many different christian denominations.

 

[dronald]

Wasn’t Oral Tradition a repetition of sorts?

For example; Paul says “X”

Person repeats “X”

Person repeats “X”

etc?

Do we still have those repetitions to this day? Did anyone in the 2nd century eventually write down “Paul said ‘x’”?

Do we know exactly what one specific Apostle would have taught and how he or she taught it? I imagine that if Oral Tradition is relaying words accurately, then we should know the root of it.

Thanks.

 

[ignatius777]

Wasn’t Oral Tradition a repetition of sorts?

For example; Paul says “X”

Person repeats “X”

Person repeats “X”

etc?

Do we still have those repetitions to this day? Did anyone in the 2nd century eventually write down “Paul said ‘x’”?

Do we know exactly what one specific Apostle would have taught and how he or she taught it? I imagine that if Oral Tradition is relaying words accurately, then we should know the root of it.

Thanks.

Reading the church fathers will enlighten ones point of view. I highly recommend it.

 

[benburkhart]

Abu, I wonder, have you ever read Matthew 18 in whole, or would you only quote a segment of Scripture that, taken out of context, seems to affirm your position? Your use of Matthew 18 is wholly, completely, totally, shockingly, out of context. That whole teaching from Christ is about resolving differences with a brother who has sinned against us. Abu, or anyone else, please show me where Jesus tells Peter he is the Vicar of Christ. “Rock” is not “Vicar”. Here we are, in a thread on tradition, which I deeply honor and respect, and the only thing you can offer is Peter! Peter! Peter! Perhaps the reason there are so many people out there who have left the Catholic Church is because of folks like you (and my grand-parents) relying on tradition, who are so all-consumed with defending Peter and Mary, that the truth of Christ’s love being taught in other places resonates as truly “Good News.” Abu, keep being right. Drive your point home. I will trust Christ alone, and encourage others to do the same. For that privelege I am grateful to God Almighty. My ONLY hope is in Christ! Thanks for the forum and God Bless!

 

[benburkhart]

Ignatius777: I am reading the Summa Theologica translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. I have read it because I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of Catholic Theology, and a dear Catholic friend referenced it once in a discussion. I understand the notion of scriptural “interpretation” and the ideal that such would be centralized. But I am highly suspicious of any hierarchy of man. I do not see one single institution in the history of mankind that I would trust entirely. The Catholic church, Southern Baptists, Presbyternians…no different to me in terms of my own skepticism. They all have had times of reform and internal evil. I think Satan attacks every good thing. I understand the difference in Protestant (a word rarely used by anyone other than Catholics) and Catholic is tradition AND Scripture vs Scripture alone. I think in the early church, the literate hierarchy was key to deciphering and teaching scripture. Today? I can get every commentary, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, etc., in less than a minute, and I can quickly cross reference and word-study everything. I can get the best minds on Theology in front of me quickly. I don’t find Scripture difficult to interpret-- I find it to be pretty plain, with some exceptions. But I’m OK too with not being sure on some things that are not part of the salvation message. I think God revealed what he has, but like the angels told Daniel, some things are not to be known. To me, that is the miracle of Scripture–making God known to man, and not needing to know everything. I do not hate tradition; I revere and honor it. I see beauty in every Christian tradition, including the Catholic Church. But the real beauty is in Christ. The shine and attraction to me is the idea that a perfect, holy, just, all-powerful, all-knowing triune God loved me so much as to die to make things right for me and Him. And I did nothing to warrant that. That is amazing to me. I cannot hardly fathom it sometimes. In light of that truth, which Catholics and other Christians agree upon, everything else almost seems like noise to me. I want to explore it. But when I pray, I will pray to God, in total fear and honor and humility and gratefulness for just the opportunity to know Him. I explore out of curiosity, not fear or insecurity over my salvation. I’m grateful for this forum for today. But I am probably not here to stay. Thanks for the space!

 

[Techno2000]

I don’t find Scripture difficult to interpret-- I find it to be pretty plain, with some exceptions.

What is your interpretation of this. :

Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

 

[Abu]

benburkhart #27
Your use of Matthew 18 is wholly, completely, totally, shockingly, out of context. That whole teaching from Christ is about resolving differences with a brother who has sinned against us. Abu, or anyone else, please show me where Jesus tells Peter he is the Vicar of Christ. “Rock” is not “Vicar”.

Perhaps you should try that gambit with the Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, who declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

In Matthew 16 Christ establishes and consolidates His Church with St Peter as the Head and in Mt 18 exemplifies the resultant effect of that rock solid fact emphasizing that whoever refuses to listen to the Church is as a heathen and publican.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The reality here is concerning the truths of the Catholic Church which Christ established on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and His Apostles, sending the Holy Spirit as He promised: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16).

St Paul’s epistles have “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

So who can claim to know more than the Son of God when He commissioned St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and on whom He founded His Catholic Church, and no other, to teach the fullness of His Truth and give the world the Sacred Scriptures which some distort to their own destruction? The failure to understand Christ, His Church, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium is highlighted in Sacred Scripture, and solved only by Christ’s Catholic Church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

**2Thess 2:15

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.**

I’d like to hear what non-Catholics think Paul is referring to here and if Catholics have any thoughts I’s love to hear them as well. Thank you in advance

Hey ignatius,

Interesting thread!

For me, this verse is not a problem for me. Paul traveled around and shared the Gospel with many. He would do so by face-to-face or by letter. “Word of mouth” doesn’t have to mean only Tradition as you may understand it. Word of mouth does not eliminated tradition either.

I believe that the by word of mouth or word is talking about Paul’s preaching and letters.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Ignatius777: I am reading the Summa Theologica translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. I have read it because I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of Catholic Theology, and a dear Catholic friend referenced it once in a discussion. I understand the notion of scriptural “interpretation” and the ideal that such would be centralized. But I am highly suspicious of any hierarchy of man. I do not see one single institution in the history of mankind that I would trust entirely. The Catholic church, Southern Baptists, Presbyternians…no different to me in terms of my own skepticism. They all have had times of reform and internal evil. I think Satan attacks every good thing. I understand the difference in Protestant (a word rarely used by anyone other than Catholics) and Catholic is tradition AND Scripture vs Scripture alone. I think in the early church, the literate hierarchy was key to deciphering and teaching scripture. Today? I can get every commentary, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, etc., in less than a minute, and I can quickly cross reference and word-study everything. I can get the best minds on Theology in front of me quickly. I don’t find Scripture difficult to interpret-- I find it to be pretty plain, with some exceptions. But I’m OK too with not being sure on some things that are not part of the salvation message. I think God revealed what he has, but like the angels told Daniel, some things are not to be known. To me, that is the miracle of Scripture–making God known to man, and not needing to know everything. I do not hate tradition; I revere and honor it. I see beauty in every Christian tradition, including the Catholic Church. But the real beauty is in Christ. The shine and attraction to me is the idea that a perfect, holy, just, all-powerful, all-knowing triune God loved me so much as to die to make things right for me and Him. And I did nothing to warrant that. That is amazing to me. I cannot hardly fathom it sometimes. In light of that truth, which Catholics and other Christians agree upon, everything else almost seems like noise to me. I want to explore it. But when I pray, I will pray to God, in total fear and honor and humility and gratefulness for just the opportunity to know Him. I explore out of curiosity, not fear or insecurity over my salvation. I’m grateful for this forum for today. But I am probably not here to stay. Thanks for the space!

Paragraphs are your friend.

 

[Koineman]

I just wanted to say for the record that a sentiment was expressed earlier in this thread that is rampant in evangelicalism, namely, the idea that religion is bad, that Jesus did away with religion, and that all we need is Jesus, not religion.

I have heard this many times, and usually what it ends up being is a false dichotomy between religion and Jesus, as if the two were contradictory. But this can only be accurately discerned if those who say this first define what “religion” is. Do they mean simply ritual? Do they mean man-made traditions that cannot be found in the Bible? Or perhaps something else? The “no religion, just Jesus” idea is thrown around a lot, but the term “religion” is rarely, if ever, defined when this happens.

The Bible never says that Jesus did away with religion. It says He fulfilled the religion of the OT, i.e., the Law. In fact, the epistle of James explicitly uses the word “religion” in a positive way:

“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (James 1:27)

This may sound harsh, but I have to say it: Although the idea of religion vs. Jesus preaches well and sounds very pious, it is not in the Bible. It is a man-made idea.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I just wanted to say for the record that a sentiment was expressed earlier in this thread that is rampant in evangelicalism, namely, the idea that religion is bad, that Jesus did away with religion, and that all we need is Jesus, not religion.

I have heard this many times, and usually what it ends up being is a false dichotomy between religion and Jesus, as if the two were contradictory. But this can only be accurately discerned if those who say this first define what “religion” is. Do they mean simply ritual? Do they mean man-made traditions that cannot be found in the Bible? Or perhaps something else? The “no religion, just Jesus” idea is thrown around a lot, but the term “religion” is rarely, if ever, defined when this happens.

The Bible never says that Jesus did away with religion. It says He fulfilled the religion of the OT, i.e., the Law. In fact, the epistle of James explicitly uses the word “religion” in a positive way:

“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (James 1:27)

This may sound harsh, but I have to say it: Although the idea of religion vs. Jesus preaches well and sounds very pious, it is not in the Bible. It is a man-made idea.

It is not Evangelicalism. An opinion of someone is simply an opinion of that individual. I have heard that argument across all faith traditions. It usually boils down to an individual’s rebellion.

 

[Koineman]

It is not Evangelicalism. An opinion of someone is simply an opinion of that individual. I have heard that argument across all faith traditions. It usually boils down to an individual’s rebellion.

Maybe so. I was speaking from my experience among many different evangelicals. It seems to be predominant among them. You’re far less likely to hear it from someone who attends a liturgical church, such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Maybe so. I was speaking from my experience among many different evangelicals. It seems to be predominant among them. You’re far less likely to hear it from someone who attends a liturgical church, such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.

Yeah I know what you are getting at.

 

[benburkhart]

What is your interpretation of this. :

Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

To take this verse absolutely literally would be to believe Christ said to consume Him physically at that moment. I mean, would not the proper response, if taken absolutely literally, be to just kill Him there and eat him? Hence, the audience saying “what does He mean?”

Christ often used metaphors, though, didn’t He? He for example, said He was the vine and we are the branches. I love that metaphor, but don’t believe Christ actually means he is a vine like the one in my backyard.

He, too, said He is a door. Clearly, a metaphor. He was not actually a door like the one on my office.

He says you and I are salt and light.

He also says, explicitly, that a cup is the new covenant-- not the blood. Now, I think we would agree that the cup is the vessel. But the wording is symbolic and representative.

He also told the Disciples, just verses earlier, before your single verse, that the only thing God asks of us is to believe. He further states it again, saying all who believe have eternal life. And these are not the only verses in Scripture whereby Christ issues some proclamation about who He is, and who we are, and what we must do to have eternal life.

I want to be careful here in saying that I believe the Catholic treatment and teaching on Communion is probably better than most Protestant denominations. I adore the reverence in the Catholic tradition. But I do not believe that to be a Christian, I must believe that Communion is actually flesh and blood. That is why some need gluten free. Nowhere in Scripture, or tradition, can it be argued that Communion with Christ, or flesh and blood, for that matter, causes severe allergic reaction.

Also, to take Christ absolutely literally here would be to say that His flesh and Blood were required for salvation BEFORE his death and resurrection.

The other instance of this, during the actual first Communion, Christ refers to the bread and the wine, and as the ceremony to be a remembrance of Him. His prescription is to do it often, something I think many Christians miss. But in that instance, He does not say “Do this as your route to Heaven” or “Do this to receive my Grace” or “Do this to cleanse yourself from sin.”

I think we can pull a single verse from the Bible to warrant almost any position. That is an error, though, I believe. We are not provided with single verses out of context, but rather, comprehensive testimonies of those closest to Christ while He was on Earth. All of it matters, not just a few verses that seem to indicate a particular teaching.

So, I take that verse, in context with his parallel to the Manna from Heaven provided to the Israelites, and connected to His actual institution of Communion, to be symbolic of His ultimate Sacrifice. Otherwise, Christ instituted the eating of His Flesh and Blood prior to His sacrifice. It is His sacrifice alone, and His Grace in that moment that atones, not our eating of His Flesh and Blood.

Plus, Christ made exception on the Cross to the criminal. He told the Samaritan at the well we would worship in Spirit and Truth, not flesh and blood.

I have no problem with Catholics believing what they believe about the Eucharist in Holy Communion.

I have a problem with Catholics refusing to serve Communion to any who comes, having repented of their sins. Because so far as I know, Christ did not refuse anyone His presence. He didn’t issue a pre-requisite at the First Holy Communion, and even knowingly served Communion to Judas.

In fact His ministry was mostly to wretched sinners like me, those unapproved by tradition, those frowned upon by the Establishment, and social outsiders. He did not refuse them, He welcomed them fully. He actually was pretty harsh to those trusting in Establishment ritual and tradition VERSUS the nature of God. And He did not make himself great in the eyes of others, but came to their level, and ate in their homes, and became their friends, and bore their burdens and sins.

One who desires Communion with Christ desires a good thing, and should never be refused. If one takes Communion in a manner unworthy, I think that judgement is left to Christ alone, who explicitly claimed ALL Authority on Earth and In Heaven, not some delegation of such to any sinful, broken man, in his last statement before ascending to Heaven. To me, there is nothing left to interpret there.

I know, and you know, the Catholic church has probably served more folks Communion who were living in a voluntary, unrepentant lifestyle of sin than they have refused for not being Catholic, or believing flesh and blood versus remembrance. And they should, in my view, because desiring Christ is to be commended, no matter how imperfect. I trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but not necessarily an institution, Catholic or otherwise, that has had it’s share of missteps, like all mankind.

Again, though, in the spirit of this thread, I think this debate over tradition or interpretation can dramatically hinder Christ’s message. He did not come to institute a ritual, He came as the Lamb, because we have no power to save ourselves.

Thanks once again for the space. I appreciate the opportunity. God Bless!

 

[Koineman]

Christ often used metaphors, though, didn’t He. He for example, said He was the vine and we are the branches. I love that metaphor, but don’t believe Christ actually means he is a vine like the one in my backyard.

He, too, said He is a door. Clearly, a metaphor. He was not actually a door like the one on my office.

He used metaphors a lot, but not all the time. For example, as the Last Supper, He said “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” and there is no reason to suppose he was speaking metaphorically. He was alone with his disciples and not speaking in a parable.

If we say that Christ is speaking metaphorically in a given instance, we need to be able to show from the text itself that such is the case.

Incidentally, are you aware that your symbolic view is the result of a tradition started by Zwingli and was not held by the church at all for centuries upon centuries? That should give you good reason to reconsider your view.

Also, to take Christ absolutely literally here would be to say that His flesh and Blood were required for salvation BEFORE his death and resurrection.

So? Can’t Jesus, being God, be outside of time and space?

The other instance of this, during the actual first Communion, Christ refers to the bread and the wine, and as the ceremony to be a remembrance of Him. His prescription is to do it often, something I think many Christians miss.

I agree that Christians should do this often, but I think Christ’s command was “as often as you do this,” not “do this often.”

But in that instance, He does not say “Do this as your route to Heaven” or “Do this to receive my Grace” or “Do this to cleanse yourself from sin.”

If He is speaking literally in those passages, then He can be taken to mean that: It’s His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Plus, Christ made exception on the Cross to the criminal.

Sorry, I think this is not sound reasoning. A single exception does not disprove the norm. I might save a person from drowning, but that does not mean people should avoid having lifeguards at swimming pools.

He told the Samaritan at the well we would worship in Spirit and Truth, not flesh and blood.

He actually never said “not flesh and blood.”

I have a problem with Catholics refusing to serve Communion to any who comes, having repented of their sins. Because so far as I know, Christ did not refuse anyone His presence. He didn’t issue a pre-requisite at the First Holy Communion, and even knowingly served Communion to Judas.

Closed communion is highly advisable, given Paul’s warnings in 1 Cor. 11.

Again, though, in the spirit of this thread, I think this debate over tradition or interpretation can dramatically hinder Christ’s message. He did not come to institute a ritual, He came as the Lamb, because we have no power to save ourselves.

According to your position, he must have come to institute a ritual, since you say that the bread and wine are only symbols and that it should be done often. If those things don’t qualify as ritual, I don’t know what does.

 

[Koineman]

benburkhart, I’m curious how you might answer this question: You claim to avoid all tradition that is exclusive of the Bible. So I’m wondering: What Bible text tells you that the following books belong in the Bible: Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, James, Jude, and Revelation?

 

[aidanbradypop]

To take this verse absolutely literally would be to believe Christ said to consume Him physically at that moment. I mean, would not the proper response, if taken absolutely literally, be to just kill Him there and eat him? Hence, the audience saying “what does He mean?”

Christ often used metaphors, though, didn’t He? He for example, said He was the vine and we are the branches. I love that metaphor, but don’t believe Christ actually means he is a vine like the one in my backyard.

He, too, said He is a door. Clearly, a metaphor. He was not actually a door like the one on my office.

He says you and I are salt and light.

He also says, explicitly, that a cup is the new covenant-- not the blood. Now, I think we would agree that the cup is the vessel. But the wording is symbolic and representative.

He also told the Disciples, just verses earlier, before your single verse, that the only thing God asks of us is to believe. He further states it again, saying all who believe have eternal life. And these are not the only verses in Scripture whereby Christ issues some proclamation about who He is, and who we are, and what we must do to have eternal life.

I want to be careful here in saying that I believe the Catholic treatment and teaching on Communion is probably better than most Protestant denominations. I adore the reverence in the Catholic tradition. But I do not believe that to be a Christian, I must believe that Communion is actually flesh and blood. That is why some need gluten free. Nowhere in Scripture, or tradition, can it be argued that Communion with Christ, or flesh and blood, for that matter, causes severe allergic reaction.

Also, to take Christ absolutely literally here would be to say that His flesh and Blood were required for salvation BEFORE his death and resurrection.

The other instance of this, during the actual first Communion, Christ refers to the bread and the wine, and as the ceremony to be a remembrance of Him. His prescription is to do it often, something I think many Christians miss. But in that instance, He does not say “Do this as your route to Heaven” or “Do this to receive my Grace” or “Do this to cleanse yourself from sin.”

I think we can pull a single verse from the Bible to warrant almost any position. That is an error, though, I believe. We are not provided with single verses out of context, but rather, comprehensive testimonies of those closest to Christ while He was on Earth. All of it matters, not just a few verses that seem to indicate a particular teaching.

So, I take that verse, in context with his parallel to the Manna from Heaven provided to the Israelites, and connected to His actual institution of Communion, to be symbolic of His ultimate Sacrifice. Otherwise, Christ instituted the eating of His Flesh and Blood prior to His sacrifice. It is His sacrifice alone, and His Grace in that moment that atones, not our eating of His Flesh and Blood.

Plus, Christ made exception on the Cross to the criminal. He told the Samaritan at the well we would worship in Spirit and Truth, not flesh and blood.

I have no problem with Catholics believing what they believe about the Eucharist in Holy Communion.

I have a problem with Catholics refusing to serve Communion to any who comes, having repented of their sins. Because so far as I know, Christ did not refuse anyone His presence. He didn’t issue a pre-requisite at the First Holy Communion, and even knowingly served Communion to Judas.

In fact His ministry was mostly to wretched sinners like me, those unapproved by tradition, those frowned upon by the Establishment, and social outsiders. He did not refuse them, He welcomed them fully. He actually was pretty harsh to those trusting in Establishment ritual and tradition VERSUS the nature of God. And He did not make himself great in the eyes of others, but came to their level, and ate in their homes, and became their friends, and bore their burdens and sins.

One who desires Communion with Christ desires a good thing, and should never be refused. If one takes Communion in a manner unworthy, I think that judgement is left to Christ alone, who explicitly claimed ALL Authority on Earth and In Heaven, not some delegation of such to any sinful, broken man, in his last statement before ascending to Heaven. To me, there is nothing left to interpret there.

I know, and you know, the Catholic church has probably served more folks Communion who were living in a voluntary, unrepentant lifestyle of sin than they have refused for not being Catholic, or believing flesh and blood versus remembrance. And they should, in my view, because desiring Christ is to be commended, no matter how imperfect. I trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but not necessarily an institution, Catholic or otherwise, that has had it’s share of missteps, like all mankind.

Again, though, in the spirit of this thread, I think this debate over tradition or interpretation can dramatically hinder Christ’s message. He did not come to institute a ritual, He came as the Lamb, because we have no power to save ourselves.

Thanks once again for the space. I appreciate the opportunity. God Bless!