# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

PJM, you said: Google “Eucharistic Miracles” for further evidence! I found these “Eucharistic Miracles” to be quite compelling and convincing; I hope Soc checks them out.

 

[PJM]

=Socrates4Jesus;5828501]Charlie Brown, have you been with me for so long and still do not know? I’m no longer a Protestant, and not yet a Catholic. I’m a follower of Christ without a religion. So there’s no pretending about it; i honestly don’t know where to go. For i can only go where the truth leads me, and the only truth i know is that i don’t know, at least not yet.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lolznv8QL...AAAM/x0hNDdI6iiY/s320/linus-charlie-brown.jpg

Dear “Soc”

I suspect that there is more that you’re not sharing? With nearly 5000 post for which we are most grateful, you have been exposes to a great deal of truth.

If in truth you have failed to recogonize this fact, the base issue is an signifiant lack of Faith. Therefore praying for Wisdom. Understanding and Faith ought prudently be at the top of your prayer request.

You “can’t find” if your not seeking correctly:thumbsup:

Love and prayers friend.

Pat

 

[pneuma07]

I’d say to those that tell me it is a sound approach that if what they say is true, then the problem must lie not with the Holy Spirit’s inability to communicate, but with our inability to listen. The disagreement among Protestants–and indeed, the disagreement among many a Church Father–must be due to (1) an imperfect ability to hear the will of God with the soul’s ear; or perhaps (2) God choosing to speak to some, but not to others; or (3) God choosing to speak part–but not all–of the truth to some, and part–but not all–of the truth to others.

Which of the three do you think is the case?
.)

Dear Soc,

from what we see about the different views in the modern, as well as in ancient time, what clearly appears is that God did not choose to preserve individual believers from speaking errors. There is no general infusion of the same degree of knowledge of truth, or any infallibility of the individual believer.

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

Spreading and guarding the Gospel was entrusted to a group of men, a structured group. And this group was one, not many. Isn’t this the essential original model ?
And the Spirit can be expected to assist this process.

BTW the ECFs appear in overall harmony with each other within the Church, and in strong contrast with all the forms of heresies of their times.

 

[pneuma07]

If by successors, you mean merely those priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and Popes of the Catholic Church, then yes, i believe many Protestants–Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, especially, teach this. If by successors, you mean all Christians everywhere, then no. The only group that apparently believes such is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For Mormons, there was a Restoration of the Church. For Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and others, there was a Reformation of the Church. The remnant of faithful believers never ceased to be, so the true Church never ceased to be, even after the authorities of the Catholic Church abandoned the truth for a lie. Protestants reformed, rather than restored the Church, they say.

Evangelicals, for one, would say that they are the true successors of the original Apostles, as they believe what the original apostles have taught. For them, the true Church is not a religious authority, but a body of believers who have a common faith. .)

I Cannot see protestantisms as able to offer a single vision on Church History.
For some, serious derailment began in the very sub-apostolic church, for others things were not so bad into the sixth century, with many choosing Constantine as the founder or promoter of the birth of the Cathloic Church, and so on…

What lie the Church abandoned the truth for, is a matter of just mirroring the tenets of the single denominations or non-denominations, of course.
Hence the tales are many.

You know Mormons are not the only ones speaking about a Restoration. Their radical steps did not come out of a vacuum. Early 19th century US, with the Second Awakening, saw a much more general movement of Restaurationism, several branches of which you see operating in our days. So restaurationism, as a whole, is also a subdivision within modern protestantisms.

And the faithful remnants are far from being the object of a single narrative.
Were they in visible communities of their own? And in this case where, with what organization ? or rather single catholics of pure hearth and secretly believing differently than what the Church would teach on some points ? In this case, what would they believe on which points ? Or just sincere good guys, without any distinctive beliefs ?

---

The other point I ‘d like to make here is that there were IMHO successors of the apostles in a strict sense, rather than just a general succession of the whole of the believers.
To this effect I ask you: did St Paul consider St. Timothy as just any of the sheep he was opening to the Gospel, or were Timothy and Titus given peculiar positions and peculiar tasks ?
In case they were, was the existence of such a role limited to them and their generation, in relation to a special spiritual parenthood of the Apostle, or was the model supposed to go on for the following generations ?

 

[pneuma07]

Evangelicals, for one, would say that they are the true successors of the original Apostles, as they believe what the original apostles have taught. For them, the true Church is not a religious authority, but a body of believers who have a common faith. They say Catholics have fallen into the same sin of the Jewish religious authorities, and Jesus’ criticism of them applies to the authorities of the Catholic Church, as well:Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

(Matthew 15:6)

(Fascinating how so many passages applicable to our discussion are found in Matthew’s gospel. It’s not my favorite, really. I’m much more fond of John’s. I wonder why i’m led back to Matthew again and again during this dialog.)

This answer strongly backs my impression that Evangelicals play on subjective claims. Whether having the Spirit, or having the true faith, the correct teachings of the apostles.

Which is very far IMHO from the early Church, where apostolic succession was considered as on objective mark of orthodoxy, rather than being predicated about subjective claims.

The term tradition can of course be used as you know in several meanings.
While obviously concurring on not elevating traditions of men against the word of God, catholics see the deposit of the faith delivered by the Apostles as what is handed down to us . In the most general way this delivery, or paradosis a la Greek, traditio a la Latin, and the delivered deposit itself is what we can see as Sacred Tradition.

I guess no evangelical would object to the existence the deposit of the faith, and to it having being delivered by the Apostles.
They quite obviously teach they know this was mishandled.

How they know about this mishandling and its natue, is because of their ability to correctly and unambiguously read Scripture, we can suppose.

The tenet according to which I can build Christianity and the deposit of the faith by just reading Scriptures, outside the CONtext of the Apostolic Church, and even against her, correcting her, teaching her, is IMHO a tradition of men.

---

As for Matthew, this is maybe cause you’re dealing about the Church and her authority mainly in this period. And MATTHEW, some scholars tell us, is The Gospel of the Church.
And for sure the only one where Jesus mentions His Church.

 

[pneuma07]

Whether one calls himself a priest, or a pastor-teacher, either name holds much of the same meaning. The difference, i think, is in the understanding of the purpose and importance of the Sacraments.

Yes, i’m good with returning to Petie and the other pupils in Ms Church’s classroom. I’m prepared to admit that Peter deserved the gold star as much, and maybe even more so, than the other Apostolic students. Now, please help me remember. What were the other three reasons to believe Petie is the head of the class? And which one do you want to consider first?

For what I have been saying in the present set of posts, I was rather thinking of focusing on Apostolic Succession now.

We can go back, if you agree, to :
2 tim 13-1413What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

“The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2).

The apostolic church is the guardian of the deposit of the faith, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

How is legitimate authority transmitted ? in 1 Timothy we read

4 14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
5 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

The general picture is described by Clement:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry… Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44

Apostolic succession is …an apostolic decision. *

Bless you
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am not a lawyer. I have no interest in defending or prosecuting you. I am merely trying to give you Catholic Answers to your questions and to point you in the right direction. I can do no more. I’m sorry if you think I am badgering you. Frankly, there are many times where I think you are more interested in playing debating games than actually searching for the truth, but perhaps that is uncharitable and doesn’t take into account your unique personality.

After several hundred posts and one person after another raising the same objections, things can get a little monotonous. Using my imagination helps me, at least, keep it a little more interesting and fun. Jesus often repeated the same things to different audiences. I wonder if this is why Jesus was fond of using outrageous metaphors?

You’ve made almost 5000 post on this forum. Do you think you are making any real progress toward finding the truth?

I imagine that discovering a lie always brings one closer to the truth. The lie i discovered in my conversations here is that the Bible has only one possible meaning for it’s main tenets. One dialog after another has shown me that this is not the case. Where Catholics and Evangelicals disagree on major doctrines, both truths can be seen in the pages of Sacred Scripture. The truth i’ve discovered is that the truth i once knew as the truth might not be true. The truth i’ve yet to discover is that the truth i once knew as a lie is actually the truth. If the final verdict is going to be that i’m guilty of being a Catholic, then i’d say i’m half way there.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Adding the word “like” to the scripture changes its meaning. It takes it from describing the real presence in the eucharist to making it something much less. It’s not an honest mistake in my view. Its a deliberate attempt to change the clear meaning given to us by the Son of God. This is not how St. Paul understands it. Nor is it how the disgruntled disciples in John 6 understood it either, otherwise, why would they have left. In fact, I’ll bet you can’t find a single reference that sees it as “like” in the first 1600 years of Christianity. In fact, I’ll ask you the question, Where is the first reference to Matthew 26 that substitutes “like” into the text?

PROTESTANT PROSECUTOR: Socrates, please tell the good ladies and gentlemen of the jury if you actually believe this lie that God is a loaf of bread baked by human hands!

SOCRATES4JESUS: Well, i believe Catholics would not refer to the Eucharist in those terms, and would even find them offensive. And i would not say i believe the Catholic conception with any certainty, nor have i put any trust in such a concept. However, if by *believe *you mean that i think it might be true, then i’d say yes, i do.

PP: And please tell the esteemed members of the jury when you first doubted the truth and considered exchanging it for a lie.

SOC: Well, if my legal counsel had not walked out on me, i’d object. It’s not clear to me that the Real Presence is not real.

PP: It’s clear to millions of Christians who know their Bibles much better than the average Catholic, isn’t it?

SOC: Many Protestants tell me so. But many Catholics tell me the opposite.

PP: Isn’t it true that you never considered the lie of the Eucharist might be true until you discussed it with Catholics?

SOC: Yes, but i would not say–

PP: Then you’ve been deceived by them!

SOC: Whether i’m deceived or not, i don’t know. That’s what–

PP: So tell us, Soc: On what lie is this deception based? It cannot possibly be the Bible! Can it?

SOC: This doctrine (and i’d like to make it clear that i do not know whether it is a deception or the truth) is based on a their interpretations of specific passages of the Bible .

PP: And what misinterpretations are these? What Scriptures have they so maliciously twisted?

SOC: Luke, chapter 22, for example: “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’”

PP: What can our Lord’s words possibly mean but that partaking of the bread is a way of remembering the precious sacrifice He made for you and me and the members of the jury? (Well, perhaps not you if you embrace this Catholic deception.)

SOC: Yes, they say He meant that, and more.

PP: What more? There’s NOTHING more!

SOC: They tell me that when he said, “This is my body given up for you,” He was speaking of the Eucharist.

PP: Oh really? Did our Lord ever us the word Eucharist?

SOC: No, i don’t think so.

PP: How about the Apostles? Did they use the word?

SOC: Not that i’m aware.

PP: Then how can they possibly think Christ was speaking of this imaginary Eucharist?

SOC: They say that is what He meant when He said, “This is my body given up for you.”

PP: Let me get this straight: Jesus holds up the bread and says that this ritual of the Jewish people should continue as a memorial to Him. Right?

SOC: Right.

PP: And this bread was symbolic of His body, which would be given up for them. Right?

SOC: Right.

PP: Then where in God’s green earth did they come up with the crazy idea that a loaf of bread was their God?

SOC: It’s in how they look at their Redeemer’s words. Yes, they believe the partaking of the Eucharist is done in solemn remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. Yes they believe the Eucharist is also symbolic of that sacrifice–for how else could it be a memorial to His Passion? But–

PP: But what, Soc? We’re dying to hear the punchline so we can all have a good laugh!

SOC: But they believe the Eucharist was also His body.

PP: (Laughing out loud.) They CAN’T be serious! Can they? Jesus was in His body, right?

SOC: Yes.

PP: And at the same time He held His body in His hands, right?

SOC: Yes. And also His resurrected body was, at the same moment, in eternity.

PP: (LOL!) THAT’S INSANE!

SOC: That’s what they believe.

PP: That’s not what Christ said!

SOC: They believe it is.

PP: Show the jury how, Soc, if you can. Show them how the very words of the Word of God could possibly be distorted beyond recognition.

SOC: When Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, they believe He meant this: “This is my [actual] body given up for you.”

PP: So by adding one word, they completely distorted the meaning our Lord intended! Is that what you intend to do, Soc? Twist Scripture and exchange the truth for a lie? You know what that will get you don’t you?

SOC: What?

PP: That will get you hell! Eternal separation from God!

SOC: But i’m not trying to twist the truth! I’m–

PP: (Shaking his head.) No further questions, Your Honor.

 

[paul_c]

After several hundred posts and one person after another raising the same objections, things can get a little monotonous. Using my imagination helps me, at least, keep it a little more interesting and fun. Jesus often repeated the same things to different audiences. I wonder if this is why Jesus was fond of using outrageous metaphors?

Fair enough. I think the reason Jesus used parables were that they drew on common experiences that different audiences over time could relate to, even after translations

I imagine that discovering a lie always brings one closer to the truth. The lie i discovered in my conversations here is that the Bible has only one possible meaning for it’s main tenets. One dialog after another has shown me that this is not the case. Where Catholics and Evangelicals disagree on major doctrines, both truths can be seen in the pages of Sacred Scripture. The truth i’ve discovered is that the truth i once knew as the truth might not be true. The truth i’ve yet to discover is that the truth i once knew as a lie is actually the truth. If the final verdict is going to be that i’m guilty of being a Catholic, then i’d say i’m half way there.

Well, in the final analysis, this second question comes down to " who do I trust." Jesus demonstrated his trustworthiness by working great miracles, culminating with his resurrection. He also spoke the truth. The apostles also demonstrated their trustworthiness through the miracles they did and through their lives and through the truths that they taught. That was what separated them from the other religious teachers of the day and why Catholicism gained so much traction in the face of . While there are still modern day miracles, ( the healing stream at Lourdes, the dancing of the Sun at Fatima, the stigmata of Padre Pio), the Catholic Church does not emphasize these, pointing instead to its continuity with Christ and the Apostles as the basis of its trustworthiness.

So, in comparison, how do the Protestants demonstrate the trustworthiness of their message?

 

[fhansen]

SOC: This doctrine (and i’d like to make it clear that i do not know whether it is a deception or the truth) is based on a their interpretations of specific passages of the Bible

The Reformers were individuals who came along some 1500 years after the fact and then deigned to assume they could pick up a book on historical events concerning spiritual matters which they happened upon and expertly pontificate on it’s meaning. The doctrine of the Real Presence is *not *based on interpretations of specific passages of the Bible, as if this were some sort of competition-may the best exegete win. The doctrine of the Real Presence is based on the Church’s real experience from her own real presence at the origins of Christianity.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Well, in the final analysis, this second question comes down to " who do I trust." Jesus demonstrated his trustworthiness by working great miracles, culminating with his resurrection. He also spoke the truth. The apostles also demonstrated their trustworthiness through the miracles they did and through their lives and through the truths that they taught. That was what separated them from the other religious teachers of the day and why Catholicism gained so much traction in the face of .

Agreed!

While there are still modern day miracles, ( the healing stream at Lourdes, the dancing of the Sun at Fatima, the stigmata of Padre Pio), the Catholic Church does not emphasize these, pointing instead to its continuity with Christ and the Apostles as the basis of its trustworthiness.

So, in comparison, how do the Protestants demonstrate the trustworthiness of their message?

Yes, and many Protestants say many Catholic teachings do not have continuity with Christ and the Apostles. And the way they demonstrate the trustworthiness of their message is they use Scripture to show their message is the same as that of Christ and the Apostles. Where there is a Scripture that is unclear, they attempt to find one more clear. By comparing the clear passage with the unclear one, they attempt to make the meaning of the unclear more clear. It works well for many doctrines which they have in common with Catholics. It’s lacking, however, when it comes to finding the true meaning of Jesus’ words regarding the Eucharist, and other doctrines Catholics hold and Evangelicals do not.

Which brings us to the passage you quoted. Perhaps Evangelicals are correct, and using Scripture to interpret Scripture will yield good results. Let’s see how Paul’s words help us understand Jesus’ words at the Last Supper:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

(1Corinthians 11: 23-30)

Please explain why you believe Paul is speaking of the Real Presence.

 

[paul_c]

okay. I’ll play your defense attorney on this, just for kicks.

PROTESTANT PROSECUTOR: Socrates, please tell the good ladies and gentlemen of the jury if you actually believe this lie that God is a loaf of bread baked by human hands!

I object. First of all, you are stating that the real presence is a lie, something that you haven’t proven and you are certainly leading the witness. Second of all, the Catholic Church certainly does not teach that God is a loaf of bread. This is a gross mistatement of the actual teaching. What the Catholic Church actually teaches is that with the proper blessings from an ordained priest, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord, just as he said in John 6. If we partake of this holy food, Christ becomes part of us and we therefore attain his graces

PP: And please tell the esteemed members of the jury when you first doubted the truth and considered exchanging it for a lie.

SOC: Well, if my legal counsel had not walked out on me, i’d object. It’s not clear to me that the Real Presence is not real.

Your counsel has stepped back in and objects to the statement that the real presence is a lie. Isn’t that what the prosecutor must prove? Instead he just makes an unsupported statement, disguised as a question.

PP: It’s clear to millions of Christians who know their Bibles much better than the average Catholic, isn’t it?

SOC: Many Protestants tell me so. But many Catholics tell me the opposite.

This statement, stated as a question, is entirely without merit. First of all, where is your proof that nonCatholic Christians know their bible much better than the average Catholic.?
Its not even a guarantee that the non-Catholic Christians READ their bibles more than the average Catholic. But if they don’t beleive that the real presence exists in the Eucharist, it is clear that they don’t UNDERSTAND the bible anywhere near as well as the Catholics, because as Christ said in John 6: 52-58:
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

PP: Isn’t it true that you never considered the lie of the Eucharist might be true until you discussed it with Catholics?

SOC: Yes, but i would not say–

PP: Then you’ve been deceived by them!

SOC: Whether i’m deceived or not, i don’t know. That’s what–

This is not a question, but a false condemnation. You have not proved your point that the teaching on the real presence is a deception. In fact, you have made no effort at all to defend your statement. You have only said it loudly and forcefully, which does not make it true. In fact, the clear scriptural support and the continuity of doctrine from the time of the apostles as demonstrated by clear reading of every generation of the ECFs supports the fact that the doctrine of the real presence of the eucharist went largely unquestioned until recent times. In fact, it was supported by the major figures of the Protestant reformation and only came into question as the Protestants became more fractured.

 

[paul_c]

PP: So tell us, Soc: On what lie is this deception based? It cannot possibly be the Bible! Can it?
SOC: This doctrine (and i’d like to make it clear that i do not know whether it is a deception or the truth) is based on a their interpretations of specific passages of the Bible

Objection, you are bullying my client into non-commital. The fact is, this is not a lie and the real presence is clearly brought out in scripture. As discussed in John 6, and in the last supper discourses of all three synoptic gospels and in Pauls letters to the Corinthians, chapters 10-11.

PP: And what misinterpretations are these? What Scriptures have they so maliciously twisted?

Objection, how is this not a leading statement? Where is your proof of any misinterpretation? And how dare you imply any maliciousness on the part of Catholics?

SOC: Luke, chapter 22, for example: “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’”

PP: What can our Lord’s words possibly mean but that partaking of the bread is a way of remembering the precious sacrifice He made for you and me and the members of the jury? (Well, perhaps not you if you embrace this Catholic deception.)

SOC: Yes, they say He meant that, and more.

It means exactly what it says. This bread is his body.

PP: What more? There’s NOTHING more!

SOC: They tell me that when he said, “This is my body given up for you,” He was speaking of the Eucharist.

PP: Oh really? Did our Lord ever us the word Eucharist?

SOC: No, i don’t think so.

PP: How about the Apostles? Did they use the word?

SOC: Not that i’m aware.

PP: Then how can they possibly think Christ was speaking of this imaginary Eucharist?SOC: They say that is what He meant when He said, “This is my body given up for you.”

Objection. This is a ridiculous line of questioning: Eucharist is simply a term . The word comes from the Greek “eukaristos,” which means “grateful” and is now usually translated as “thanksgiving.” It now refers to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, in which bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. Eucharist has become essentially synonymous with “Communion” or “Holy Communion.” It is used to refer to the sacrament as a whole or to the elements (bread and wine) themselves. The word “Eucharist” has been used to refer to the act of the “breaking of the bread” at least since the late first century. It came about because the words of institution are contained in a longer recitation, the “Eucharistic prayer” or prayer of thanksgiving. The earliest written account of the institution of the Eucharist is contained in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, written in the spring of the year 55 AD. The Didache, a church document from the end of the first century refers to the Eucharist by name, gives explicit instructions for the form of the prayers, and cautions, “Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord.” The earliest complete Eucharistic prayer is in a document from 225 AD identified with Hippolytus. It is identical (almost word for word) to the Eucharistic prayer used today by nearly all catholic and orthodox churches rmbowman.com/catholic/def-euch.htm

PP: Let me get this straight: Jesus holds up the bread and says that this ritual of the Jewish people should continue as a memorial to Him. Right?

SOC: Right.

Wrong. He was developing a new convenant.

PP: And this bread was symbolic of His body, which would be given up for them. Right?

SOC: Right.

Wrong. He did not say it was symbolic of his body. He said it WAS his body. Who are your to put words into the mount of the Son of God?

PP: Then where in God’s green earth did they come up with the crazy idea that a loaf of bread was their God?

SOC: It’s in how they look at their Redeemer’s words. Yes, they believe the partaking of the Eucharist is done in solemn remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. Yes they believe the Eucharist is also symbolic of that sacrifice–for how else could it be a memorial to His Passion? But–

PP: But what, Soc? We’re dying to hear the punchline so we can all have a good laugh!

SOC: But they believe the Eucharist was also His body.

PP: (Laughing out loud.) They can’t be serious! Can they? Jesus was in His body, right?

SOC: Yes.

PP: And at the same time He held His body in His hands, right?

SOC: Yes. And also His resurrected body was, at the same moment, in eternity.

PP: (LOL!) THAT’S INSANE!

SOC: That’s what they believe.

Mr. Prosecutor, Do you ever substantiate any statement you make? You mock Jesus and the Church he founded. Do you have any doubt that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you have any doubt that Jesus is omnipotent and not subject to the same laws of time and space that we normal humans are? Why do you say that it is impossible for Jesus to be present in the host at the same time he was consecrating it?

 

[paul_c]

PP: That’s not what Christ said!

SOC: They believe it is?

PP: Show the jury how, Soc, if you can. Show them how the very words of the Word of God could possibly be distorted beyond recognition.

SOC: When Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, they believe He meant this: “This is my [actual] body given up for you.”
PP: So by adding one word, they completely distorted the meaning our Lord intended! Is that what you intend to do, Soc? Twist Scripture and exchange the truth for a lie? You know what that will get you don’t you?
SOC: What?

Objection!
No, there is no need to add a word. He meant what he said. This IS my body, which will be given up for you. It is you Protestants that change the meaning of what he said by implying that he meant the eucharist was simply symbolic, when that is not what he said. In fact, it is clear that the disciples did not think he meant it symbolicly either, because most of them left rather than accept this teaching (John 6:66) and in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (chapter 12), he tells them they are sick and dying because they accepted the eucharist unworthily. If it was only symbolic bread and not the body of Christ, then why would there be any ramifications or requirements for partaking it.

PP: That will get you hell! Eternal separation from God!

SOC: But i’m not trying to twist the truth! I’m–

PP: (Shaking his head.) No further questions, Your Honor.

Objection. the prosecutor is making himself judge. Who is he to condemn anyone? What makes him think he can see the heart of any man. That is for God alone.

 

[paul_c]

Agreed!

Yes, and many Protestants say many Catholic teachings do not have continuity with Christ and the Apostles. And the way they demonstrate the trustworthiness of their message is they use Scripture to show their message is the same as that of Christ and the Apostles. Where there is a Scripture that is unclear, they attempt to find one more clear. By comparing the clear passage with the unclear one, they attempt to make the meaning of the unclear more clear. It works well for many doctrines which they have in common with Catholics. It’s lacking, however, when it comes to finding the true meaning of Jesus’ words regarding the Eucharist, and other doctrines Catholics hold and Evangelicals do not.

They (and you if you subscribe to it), fall into the trap of thinking that Catholics lack continuity with scripture, based on a false interpretation of scripture. They read into Scripture what they want it to say. For instance, they don’t want to believe in the real presence, so they read (at least intellectually) “This IS my body” as This is SYMBOLIC of my body". Then they claim the Catholics don’t have it right because Catholics don’t recognize the word “symbolic” that they added (at least intellectually) into the text.
And try as they might, they can not reconcile all of scripture to their views. Inevitably, they must ignore or explain away the contradictions. This is because The bible was written by Catholic, for Catholics, according to the Catholic traditions. Protestants then try to take this most Catholic of books to use against Catholics. This can only be done through creative reading.

Which brings us to the passage you quoted. Perhaps Evangelicals are correct, and using Scripture to interpret Scripture will yield good results. Let’s see how Paul’s words help us understand Jesus’ words at the Last Supper:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

(1Corinthians 11: 23-30)

Please explain why you believe Paul is speaking of the Real Presence.

A. He says : The IS my Body. and This IS my blood.

B. He says there are real ramifications for eating this holy food unworthily. If it was just bread and just a memorial servce, why would there be any requirements to be worthy to ead it and why would there be any ramifications to unworthy consumption.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

okay. I’ll play your defense attorney on this, just for kicks.
… Its not even a guarantee that the non-Catholic Christians READ their bibles more than the average Catholic. But if they don’t beleive that the real presence exists in the Eucharist, it is clear that they don’t UNDERSTAND the bible anywhere near as well as the Catholics, because as Christ said in John 6: 52-58:
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” …

Thank you for coming to my defense, PC! (I didn’t know you cared.) And yes, i know the prosecutor was making some unfounded claims. It’s an old lawyer’s trick i’ve picked up from watching so many TV dramas with my wife.



We can consider John 6: 52-58 outside of the courtroom, if you like–not that i’m asking you to coach this witness, but it would help to think things through before i’m put back on the hot seat of the witness stand.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Objection, how is this not a leading statement? Where is your proof of any misinterpretation? And how dare you imply any maliciousness on the part of Catholics?

It means exactly what it says. This bread is his body. …

But that’s just it; don’t you see, PC? Perhaps it comes from you having years of hearing only one interpretation of Jesus’ words from the Last Supper. I cannot blame you for having a hard time seeing His words any other way. But i’ve spent years as an Evangelical hearing the opposite interpretation of His words. I’m willing to meet you half way and say His words at the Last Supper are worded in such a way as to allow two interpretations. I’m willing to admit that–even though there are two opposing views of what Christ meant–only one interpretation is correct.

Please tell me, PC. Will you at least agree with me on this one point? Will you say that it’s understandable how Evangelicals can get the wrong idea? Will you admit that it’s not unreasonable to think He was speaking symbolically when He held up the bread and said it was His body which would be broken for you and me? Will you concede that they are reasonably sincere, only sincerely wrong?

 

[paul_c]

But that’s just it; don’t you see, PC? Perhaps it comes from you having years of hearing only one interpretation of Jesus’ words from the Last Supper. I cannot blame you for having a hard time seeing His words any other way. But i’ve spent years as an Evangelical hearing the opposite interpretation of His words. I’m willing to meet you half way and say His words at the Last Supper are worded in such a way as to allow two interpretations. I’m willing to admit that–even though there are two opposing views of what Christ meant–only one interpretation is correct.

Please tell me, PC. Will you at least agree with me on this one point? Will you say that it’s understandable how Evangelicals can get the wrong idea? Will you admit that it’s not unreasonable to think He was speaking symbolically when He held up the bread and said it was His body which would be broken for you and me? Will you concede that they are reasonably sincere, only sincerely wrong?

Are you seriously asking me whether I will agree that you could interpret " This IS my body" as " This is symbolic of my body?" Please. You can add words to the text if you want, but don’t ask me to make excuses for the Evangelicals. They can make them for themselves.

Frankly, I don’t understand Evangelical theology very well at all. To me its nonsensical. First of all, they co-opt a Catholic book, misread it and then try to use it to prove the Catholics wrong. They try to read it in a very literal sense sometimes (like saying the world is 6000 years old) yet when confronted with “This IS my body’, they describe that as a metaphor and symbolic only. I just don’t get it. And the OSAS concept is completely foreign to me. How can a Christian expect to be saved if he doesn’t follow the Lords example and Love God and Neighbor. How can the only thing expected of man be to proclaim, " Jesus is Lord” once? That makes a mockery of all moral and social teaching. Sure, its great to give Jesus all the credit. But its wrong to assume that we as indviduals have no responsibility at all.

To me, while I like the Christian fervor of some Evangelicals, I think the theology itself is damanging to the soul. First of all, it drives people away from the Sacraments, which denies them the associated grace. Then by saying that sin doesn’t matter for salvation and that Christ has already paid for your sins, it demotivates people from staying in the state of grace and from following the example of Jesus in seeking out personal holiness.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Objection!
No, there is no need to add a word. He meant what he said. This IS my body, which will be given up for you. It is you Protestants that change the meaning of what he said by implying that he meant the eucharist was simply symbolic, when that is not what he said.

Yes, what you say might be true. However, this example makes me wonder whether it is: Years ago i took my wife and kids to see the Disney movie Shrek. During the movie the ogre holds up an onion and tells the Donkey, “This onion is me!” The ogre, you see, was using a physical object as a symbolic representation of himself to demonstrate a truth about himself. So i wonder whether Protestants are correct in saying Jesus was doing the same.

In fact, it is clear that the disciples did not think he meant it symbolicly either, because most of them left rather than accept this teaching (John 6:66) and in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (chapter 12), he tells them they are sick and dying because they accepted the eucharist unworthily. If it was only symbolic bread and not the body of Christ, then why would there be any ramifications or requirements for partaking it. …

I’d very much like to know how John 6 or 1 Corinthians 12 demonstrates that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively at the Last Supper. When you have the time, please let me know.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Are you seriously asking me whether I will agree that you could interpret " This IS my body" as " This is symbolic of my body?" Please. You can add words to the text if you want, but don’t ask me to make excuses for the Evangelicals. They can make them for themselves.

Frankly, I don’t understand Evangelical theology very well at all. To me its nonsensical. First of all, they co-opt a Catholic book, misread it and then try to use it to prove the Catholics wrong. They try to read it in a very literal sense sometimes (like saying the world is 6000 years old) yet when confronted with “This IS my body’, they describe that as a metaphor and symbolic only. I just don’t get it. And the OSAS concept is completely foreign to me. How can a Christian expect to be saved if he doesn’t follow the Lords example and Love God and Neighbor. How can the only thing expected of man be to proclaim, " Jesus is Lord” once? That makes a mockery of all moral and social teaching. Sure, its great to give Jesus all the credit. But its wrong to assume that we as indviduals have no responsibility at all.

To me, while I like the Christian fervor of some Evangelicals, I think the theology itself is damanging to the soul. First of all, it drives people away from the Sacraments, which denies them the associated grace. Then by saying that sin doesn’t matter for salvation and that Christ has already paid for your sins, it demotivates people from staying in the state of grace and from following the example of Jesus in seeking out personal holiness.

I see. Please let me ask you this: Do you think it’s damaging to believe that Christ’s words are NOT ambiguous?