Who can I defer to in the protestant sphere for the correct answer?

[joe370]

[ev kevin;7198149]Let me guess, the CC. Am I right? Am I, am I? PPPPPlllllllllleeeeeeessssssse tell me.

Perhaps you should take a moment and cool down dude. The question is directed to the protestant churches.

Give me a book and verse in the bible where it say that the bread “transforms” into the body of Jesus? Jesus never said that the bread “transforms” into his body. So it only leaves one thing, can you guess what I’m going to say? Hold on, wait for it, here it comes, ready, a Symbol.

I don’t deal with sarcasm; take care…

 

[pablope]

I know what Catholics believe, heck I was one. Where does it say 2000 years ago that he is in the bread?
Where is this knowledge you speak? Can you give me a book and verse where this can be found?
This is my body don’t mean he is in the bread. Where does it say he is in the bread?

Start with John 6: the whole chapter. Then go read on the writings of the Church fathers…and learn from what they understood the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[rev_kevin]

Start with John 6: the whole chapter. Then go read on the writings of the Church fathers…and learn from what they understood the teachings of the Apostles.

I have read John 6 many many many times. Now you want me to go read what the CC church fathers wrote and learn from what THEY understood the teachings of the Apostles. Ya know what I’ll find there, what the CC understands the writings to be.

 

[rev_kevin]

Perhaps you should take a moment and cool down dude. The question is directed to the protestant churches.

I don’t deal with sarcasm; take care…

Lighten up man, I was just having some fun. But I quess I can’t with you. Sorry

 

[pablope]

I have read John 6 many many many times. Now you want me to go read what the CC church fathers wrote and learn from what THEY understood the teachings of the Apostles. Ya know what I’ll find there, what the CC understands the writings to be.

Then I suggest you start with Scott Hahn’s conversion story…the trouble he had with John 6, and how what he was discovering had indeed been written by the early Church fathers.

But who else to go to…the early church fathers learned directly from the Apostles themselves and were their successors. Don’t you want to go back to the earliest time as much as possible? When it was first taught and understood?

 

[Nine_Two]

Hey brother, I respect your opinion even if I don’t agree with it. Do you believe that Jesus left us with a way to know the truth regarding the Eucharist? Yes, no, maybe…

Of course he did, he established his church, but that’s not what I was talking about.

 

[joe370]

I don’t deal with sarcasm; take care…

Lighten up man, I was just having some fun. But I quess I can’t with you. Sorry

Cool…

 

[joe370]

Okay, maybe we are getting somewhere. Which church? Let’s leave the RCC out of it since you do not believe that Jesus entrust that church with authority to know, with certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist.

;7198175]Of course he did, he established his church, but that’s not what I was talking about.

 

[rev_kevin]

Then I suggest you start with Scott Hahn’s conversion story…the trouble he had with John 6, and how what he was discovering had indeed been written by the early Church fathers.

But who else to go to…the early church fathers learned directly from the Apostles themselves and were their successors. Don’t you want to go back to the earliest time as much as possible? When it was first taught and understood?

Thanks for the advice but I have done a lot of Catholic research and found much of it hard to, for a lack of a better word, swallow.

 

[joe370]

Kevin, to what authority to you defer (church wise) - for the correct interpretation of the Eucharist?

 

[pablope]

Thanks for the advice but I have done a lot of Catholic research and found much of it hard to, for a lack of a better word, swallow.

Why is it hard to swallow? Because it is the Truth? Scott Hahn’s books, as reactions I have heard from those who read them, are easy to understand. So, I reiterate my suggestion that you start with him.

 

[JRKH]

Let me guess, the CC. Am I right? Am I, am I? PPPPPlllllllllleeeeeeessssssse tell me.
Give me a book and verse in the bible where it say that the bread “transforms” into the body of Jesus? Jesus never said that the bread “transforms” into his body. So it only leaves one thing, can you guess what I’m going to say? Hold on, wait for it, here it comes, ready, a Symbol.

Rev kevin,
You and I do agree on one thing. When you have the Lords supper at your church, it is indeed a symbol and not the real presence.

BUT – lets’ cut through the “rabbit trail” of where is this or that “word” in the Bible (transform – symbol – or whatever). We’ve all been down this trail before.

Books and verses –
Jesus Clearly states that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us. This is in John 6, and the evangelist makes a point of saying that many who heard it could not accept it and withdrew, just as many of our Christian Brothers cannot accept this and have withdrawn, preferring to read this as somehow “symbolic” even though the “real presence” was an accepted doctrine for the first 1500 years of The Church, both East and West.
Jesus later confirms the eating and drinking of His flesh and Blood at the Last supper.
The Bread is Jesus Body - Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lu 22:19
The Wine is His Blood – Mt 26:27-28, Mk 14:23-24, Lu 22:20.

St Paul confirms the great emphasis and belief in the real presence when he admonishes the Corinthians for their lack of reverence in receiving the Eucharist.
In 1 Cor 11:27 the very clear statement is made.
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
This is amplified in verse 29
“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
He then continues in this vein by declaring That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (vs 30) It is because they have not properly discerned the “bread of Life”, which IS Christ’s Body and Blood.

Split hairs over single words if you wish, argue over how this mystery is enacted if you wish, but there is no doubt that St Paul believed in the Real Presence. Those who wrote the Gospels believed in the Real Presence. Those who were taught by the Apostles, and wrote about it, believed in the Real Presence. The Eastern Orthodox believe in the Real Presence and even Luther, “The Father of Protestantism” believed in the “Real Presence”.

The Teaching of the Real presence has the full backing and Authority of the Ancient Church, both East and West from the earliest times and is recorded in both biblical and extra-biblical writings.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the advice but I have done a lot of Catholic research and found much of it hard to, for a lack of a better word, swallow.

Which sounds remarkably like those disciples who John speaks of in Chapter 6 who murmmered "60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Peace
James

 

[wmscott]

I know what Catholics believe, heck I was one. Where does it say 2000 years ago that he is in the bread?
Where is this knowledge you speak? Can you give me a book and verse where this can be found?
This is my body don’t mean he is in the bread. Where does it say he is in the bread?

Jn 6:53-56
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

Belief in the real presence demands faith–the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation–appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John’s gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

Jn 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Jn 6:53
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.

Jn 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

Jn 6:55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Jn 6:56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

For a full read on this go here see the attached

 

[JonNC]

=Nine_Two;7197972]Given that Protestants don’t claim to be united under one leader the question is moot. Protestantism is a movement not a creed. If you want to know what a particular denomination believes you ask that denomination.

Hi Nine,
I would even debate if “Protestantism” is a movement, because even that assumes some sort of unity at its founding, which there was not, but I understand and appreciate your point.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Is the bread at the Lord’s table only bread, or is it the Body of Christ? Zwingli will tell you one thing; Luther, another, and these were the very first leaders of the reformed church that spearhead the reformation. To whom can I defer in the protestant sphere for the correct answer?

This is interesting, Joe, because even Lutherans do not defer to some leader in the “Protestant sphere”. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon defers to three sources: Christ’s own words, the teachings of the early Church, both east and west, and the ECF’s.

So, to answer your question regarding Lutherans, simply turn to the likes of Vulgarius and Cyril, and the canon of the Mass, as Melanchthon did.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And may I add…that answer is different depending on which protestant denomination. For Lutherans…its Jesus in there with the bread and wine (consubstantiation) and some of the denominations I was in…it’s just a symbol. There is no ONE answer for all of the protestant sphere.

Annabelle,

Lutherans, at least confessional Lutherans, reject consubstantiation, on essentially the same grounds that we do not confess transubstantiation, as both speak of the change in metpshysical terms (accidents, substance, etc). Lutherans believe, literally, that, when consecrated, the bread and wine **are **the body and blood of Christ, as He said at the Last Supper. While Sacramental Union intends to reflect the truth of the Hypostic Union, it is not its intent to describe the disposition of the substance of the bread and wine. We leave that as the mystery that it is.

Originally posted by Rev Kevin
Where does Jesus say he is in the bread?

Reverend,
He doesn’t say He’s “in the bread”, and therefore Lutherans do not believe this, anymore than we believe that Hypostic Union claims that Christ was “in the human form”.
He also didn’t say, “This represents my body”, and therefore Lutherans don’t believe this either.
What did Christ say was, “This IS my body.” And therefore, Lutherans believe that, literally, once consecrated, the bread IS His body, as He clearly said.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Annabelle,

Lutherans, at least confessional Lutherans, reject consubstantiation, on essentially the same grounds that we do not confess transubstantiation, as both speak of the change in metpshysical terms (accidents, substance, etc). Lutherans believe, literally, that, when consecrated, the bread and wine **are **the body and blood of Christ, as He said at the Last Supper. While Sacramental Union intends to reflect the truth of the Hypostic Union, it is not its intent to describe the disposition of the substance of the bread and wine. We leave that as the mystery that it is.

Reverend,
He doesn’t say He’s “in the bread”, and therefore Lutherans do not believe this, anymore than we believe that Hypostic Union claims that Christ was “in the human form”.
He also didn’t say, “This represents my body”, and therefore Lutherans don’t believe this either.
What did Christ say was, “This IS my body.” And therefore, Lutherans believe that, literally, once consecrated, the bread IS His body, as He clearly said.

Jon

Jon,
Very well put. As regards the issues of describing or explaining the mystery, I think that in this case, the efforts to “explain” have really served more to confuse. I do not mean that the efforts were not pure in their intent, or that the explanations are in error, only that, in trying to clarify so great a mystery to the inquisitive mind, one can open up many more questions than one answers…
And as regards the biblical sources - Yes. He said “This IS my body”…Short, sweet, and clear… Just like so many of His teachings. Yet difficult for us to take in and accept…

Peace
James

 

[Pregustator]

You know, folks, when a poster is obviously an inept baiter trying to play a game he doesn’t know how to play, why give him the satisfaction of hitting the ball back in his court even once? This thread is ridiculous.

I appeal to the “Head Protestant”… honestly …to instruct his followers not to judge all Catholics by this forum…and not to play ball with Catholics who are in left field playing volleyball with a hockey puck.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
Very well put. As regards the issues of describing or explaining the mystery, I think that in this case, the efforts to “explain” have really served more to confuse. I do not mean that the efforts were not pure in their intent, or that the explanations are in error, only that, in trying to clarify so great a mystery to the inquisitive mind, one can open up many more questions than one answers…
And as regards the biblical sources - Yes. He said “This IS my body”…Short, sweet, and clear… Just like so many of His teachings. Yet difficult for us to take in and accept…

Peace
James

Hi James,
It is so good to converse with you again. I hope your family is doing well.
I absolutely agree with your point,here. ISTM that in regards the real presence, Lutherans and Catholics are divided by our agreement on this truth. :whacky:
By this I mean that I believe the distinctions between Transub. and Sacramental Union, in the end, lack any true difference. We agree that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, when the words of institution are spoken, there is a real change in mere bread and wine, that they truly are His body and His blood.

Jon