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

[joe370]

Cooterhein, you are wrong and we are done…Take care…

Again, I know very well that it’s not a sincere question. You do not hope to find a consensus among Protestants; you hope to demonstrate that Protestantism is worthless and the Catholic Church is far superior.

So go ahead; state the premise of your argument and make your conclusions. Out with it. If you do that, I’ll give it some serious consideration and see if the argument is at least valid.

 

[Todd520]

Joe,
why would you think we can agree on who has authority, unless we are in the same church?

why do you debate this topic, since you’ve admitted it is beyond you and requires a higher authority? The most you can contribute is “my higher authority said so”

didn’t Jesus frequently teach in parables without explicitly stating so - he didn’t qualify his lessons as 'this one’s straight up’ or 'this ones an allegory’

Kevin, I think the first thing we need to do is establish who has the authority to decide whether or not the bread is a symbol of Jesus’ Body or Jesus’ Body. It is not 't me or you, so who is it???

You said: So is Jesus present or not in the bread? The bread transforms into Jesus’ Body as per the bible.

Where does the bible say: this is a symbol of my body???

 

[cooterhein]

Cooterhein, you are wrong and we are done…Take care…

I disagree. I believe you when you say this was a question that led you to become a Catholic, but I don’t believe you when you say these recent threads are based on sincere and honest questions.

So please, start being honest. Let’s get some full disclosure. What was the precise answer that you became convinced of when you were on your way to becoming a Catholic, and in what way did it help form the basis for your conversion?

I’d guess that the final couple of steps looked something like this: There is no acceptable basis for determining truth in Protestantism; therefore, I must consider Orthodoxy or Catholicism and eventually decide on Catholicism for reasons that don’t pertain to this thread.

I think I’m pretty close to the truth on the final couple of steps. But what were the other steps that helped get you from this kind of starting point to that kind of conclusion?

 

[joe370]

Todd, so we don’t need to establish who has the authority to decide whether or not the bread is a symbol of Jesus’ Body or Jesus’ Body? I’ll give it some thought.

Joe,
why would you think we can agree on who has authority, unless we are in the same church?

why do you debate this topic, since you’ve admitted it is beyond you and requires a higher authority? The most you can contribute is “my higher authority said so”

didn’t Jesus frequently teach in parables without explicitly stating so - he didn’t qualify his lessons as 'this one’s straight up’ or 'this ones an allegory’

 

[joe370]

=cooterhein;7201066]I disagree. I believe you when you say this was a question that led you to become a Catholic, but I don’t believe you when you say these recent threads are based on sincere and honest questions.

It was a combination of questions…I respect your right not to believe me but you are wrong.

So please, start being honest. Let’s get some full disclosure. What was the precise answer that you became convinced of when you were on your way to becoming a Catholic, and in what way did it help form the basis for your conversion?

PM me and I will answer your question. Nobody else cares, plus it has nothing to do with the thread.

I’d guess that the final couple of steps looked something like this: There is no acceptable basis for determining truth in Protestantism; therefore, I must consider Orthodoxy or Catholicism and eventually decide on Catholicism for reasons that don’t pertain to this thread.

Nope…I wanted to find the historical church founded by Jesus as opposed to a church founded by a mere man. That was key to my conversion.

 

[Todd520]

No joe
we can agree to disagree
we can never jointly establish who has authority
you are allowed to continue with your vatican direction, and me without it.

Todd, so we don’t need to establish who has the authority to decide whether or not the bread is a symbol of Jesus’ Body or Jesus’ Body? I’ll give it some thought.

 

[joe370]

I respect your decision brother.

No joe
we can agree to disagree
we can never jointly establish who has authority
you are allowed to continue with your vatican direction, and me without it.

 

[JonNC]

Hey JonNC…

Jon, thanks for your feedback friend. It seems to me that each protestant church simply defers to their respective church leadership for the answer to the question just as Christians belonging to the CC do. I was just hoping to establish some sort of consensus in the non-Catholic sphere regarding the OP but I guess the question is considered ridiculous to a few non-Catholics. Oh well…I had a few other questions on my mind for non-Catholics but I think I am going to hold off; they seem to evoke hostility to a few.

Take care Jon…

Hi Joe,
In the swirling of the debate over the legitimacy of your question, and your motives, which I BTW did not take offense to, you seemed to miss the thrust of my post, and that is the Lutheran confessions looked not inward to their own interpretation, but to scripture, the Church (east and west), and the ECF’s.

Jon

 

[cooterhein]

It was a combination of questions…I respect your right not to believe me but you are wrong.

Based on the recent threads you’ve started, I can see what those questions are. Almost all of them have to do with authority, though. Even when the authority has to do with determining what Jesus meant when He talked about the bread and the cup, your question isn’t really about the method by which non-Catholics determine Jesus’ intended meaning. It’s about who you defer to in order to find out what the truth is. At least two or three of your other recent threads were basically all about authority and ways of knowing some part of God’s truth, but in different settings.

PM me and I will answer your question. Nobody else cares, plus it has nothing to do with the thread.

I will think about PMing you, I think it works out better for you when no one else cares b/c it’s hard enough to respond to five different people on each of five different threads without two or three more people jumping in the middle, and I think it has a lot to do with the thread. If you insist on asking authority-related questions of Protestants which invite answers that you have already rejected with a good deal of finality, it seems both reasonable and relevant to ask what it was that you initially rejected and why. We both know why you want this kind of information. So let’s see what you’re planning on doing with it.

Nope…I wanted to find the historical church founded by Jesus as opposed to a church founded by a mere man. That was key to my conversion.

Mmmkay. I’ll withhold my comments on that.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Hi Joe,
In the swirling of the debate over the legitimacy of your question, and your motives, which I BTW did not take offense to, you seemed to miss the thrust of my post, and that is the Lutheran confessions looked not inward to their own interpretation, but to scripture, the Church (east and west), and the ECF’s.
Jon

Sorry about that…The Lutheran Confessions (which defers to scripture as well as the EC both east and west) - is a guideline for ascertaining the truths found in scripture and it is the Lutheran church leaders that use that guideline to teach - right?

 

[rev_kevin]

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

Scott
Very good points but when Jesus said “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” He is talking about his word. About why he came here. Who ever eats my flesh, whoever accepts him as Lord and Savior.

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. If you don’t accept Christ as Lord and Savior you will not have the spiritual life in you, but if you accept Christ as Lord and Savior you will have spiritual life in you.

For my flesh is true food, his word is true food.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him, if you accept Christ you will be with him and he is with you.

In a nut shell it all has to do with accepting Christ.

 

[rev_kevin]

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.

Ya hard to swallow. Like, Mary being a ever virgin. Jesus had no brothers and sisters. Jesus is present in the host. Just to name a few.
I was a Catholic for about 40 years and always found these things hard to swollow or accept. Thats why I gave up on being a priest.

 

[rev_kevin]

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

Ok lets say the Ancient Church believed the Real presence. Are they right? Back then didn’t everyone also believe the world was flat including the church father? They were wrong its round. My point is they wrote what they believed but could what they believed be wrong.

 

[Cruxis117]

Ok lets say the Ancient Church believed the Real presence. Are they right? Back then didn’t everyone also believe the world was flat including the church father? They were wrong its round. My point is they wrote what they believed but could what they believed be wrong.

So, they could also have believed that Christ was the Son of God and be wrong. You see what I mean? The Church was promised that “the gates of hell would never prevail against them”. In Faith and Morals, the Church is infallible. The Real Presence is a part of that.

So, yes, they are right.

 

[rev_kevin]

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

Instead of answering or debating this you compare me to these disciples, good one.
Now lets put things into prespective. Jesus was someone who was going against the traditions and the Mosiac laws taught by the religious leaders. Jesus was considered radical in his teachings back then by using parables that even his 12 sometimes did not understand what he was talking about. Jesus was a new comer, people did not know him the way we do now. Some believed what he was saying and some didn’t. Remember this was all new to them. All their lives they have been taught one way and now here comes Jesus teaching something different. So ya some would depart from him.
If you were there back then and didn’t know who Jesus was what would you do? I know the answer, you would stay. But thats because you know about Jesus and what he did and stood for, why he came to earth. But what if you didn’t know all this about Jesus?

 

[rev_kevin]

So, they could also have believed that Christ was the Son of God and be wrong. You see what I mean? The Church was promised that “the gates of hell would never prevail against them”. In Faith and Morals, the Church is infallible. The Real Presence is a part of that.

So, yes, they are right.

No Christ proved he was the Son of God by his miracles, death on the cross. The roman solder said, Surely this man is the Son of God. The voice of God at Jesus’ baptism, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. So no they could not be wrong about this.
Christ is the church and yes the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ.
Now I don’t believe the CC is infallible.

 

[JRKH]

rev kevin
Lets look at how you have responded and what it says about where you are coming from…

Ok lets say the Ancient Church believed the Real presence. Are they right?

Clear evidence of the belief in the Real Presence is spelled out by both the Gospel writers and St Paul. This is recorded in the Canon of Scripture and I was careful to quote only scripture to you since Iknow how much you love the Scriptures. So - Do you believe that the Bible is “The Word of God”, and contains no error?
If you believe this (and I know you do) and the Holy Spirit caused this belief to be included in the Holy Scriptures, then - to turn your question around, Are they wrong?

Back then didn’t everyone also believe the world was flat including the church father? They were wrong its round.

Actually no, most people, in the mediteranian area at least, held to a round (spherical) earth. See this Article And this one

My point is they wrote what they believed but could what they believed be wrong.

I agree that they wrote what they believed, and yes the could concievably have been wrong but then, if it was wrong would it have been included in the “Inerrant Word of God”?

Christ says "This IS My body - This IS My blood.
Paul says that to partake unworthily, without discerning the body, is to profane the body and blood of the Lord and such a one will eat and drink “judgement” on ones self…
This is clear testimony from The Ancient Church, recorded in the Holy Word of God that the Eucharist is NOT a mere symbol but the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Do you really wish to suggest that St Paul might be wrong??

What does this say about your faith if you are willing to call into question the words of Holy Scripture and suggest that those who wrote it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, might be wrong…

Peace
James

 

[rev_kevin]

rev kevin
Lets look at how you have responded and what it says about where you are coming from…

Clear evidence of the belief in the Real Presence is spelled out by both the Gospel writers and St Paul. This is recorded in the Canon of Scripture and I was careful to quote only scripture to you since Iknow how much you love the Scriptures. So - Do you believe that the Bible is “The Word of God”, and contains no error?
If you believe this (and I know you do) and the Holy Spirit caused this belief to be included in the Holy Scriptures, then - to turn your question around, Are they wrong?

Actually no, most people, in the mediteranian area at least, held to a round (spherical) earth. See this Article And this one

I agree that they wrote what they believed, and yes the could concievably have been wrong but then, if it was wrong would it have been included in the “Inerrant Word of God”?

Christ says "This IS My body - This IS My blood.
Paul says that to partake unworthily, without discerning the body, is to profane the body and blood of the Lord and such a one will eat and drink “judgement” on ones self…
This is clear testimony from The Ancient Church, recorded in the Holy Word of God that the Eucharist is NOT a mere symbol but the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Do you really wish to suggest that St Paul might be wrong??

What does this say about your faith if you are willing to call into question the words of Holy Scripture and suggest that those who wrote it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, might be wrong…

Peace
James

No its not clear. If it was we would not be having this discussion about it.

The interpretation of Scripture could be wrong on their part, not the writings.

Now I have not attacked you about your faith but you seem to want to question mine because it don’t go along with what you believe. Now I will not question your faith because I am a better person than that. Good day sir.

 

[JHow]

…Paul says that to partake unworthily, without discerning the body, is to profane the body and blood of the Lord and such a one will eat and drink “judgement” on ones self…
This is clear testimony from The Ancient Church, recorded in the Holy Word of God that the Eucharist is NOT a mere symbol but the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Do you really wish to suggest that St Paul might be wrong??

I might add that Paul also tells us that this is teaching that he received “from the Lord”.

 

[JRKH]

Instead of answering or debating this you compare me to these disciples, good one.

And yet by what you said, it sounded strikingly similar…Sorry if I offended.

Now lets put things into prespective. Jesus was someone who was going against the traditions and the Mosiac laws taught by the religious leaders. Jesus was considered radical in his teachings back then by using parables that even his 12 sometimes did not understand what he was talking about. Jesus was a new comer, people did not know him the way we do now. Some believed what he was saying and some didn’t. Remember this was all new to them. All their lives they have been taught one way and now here comes Jesus teaching something different. So ya some would depart from him.

I’m sure you are right and I am equally sure that this was an ongoing thing. People coming and going, listening, following and leaving etc. I mean if Jesus preached for 3 years, and went all up and down Judea and the surrounding country, surely people came ans went all the time. So this makes one ask the question, why did the Gospel writer feel the need to mention this here? What made this different?

**If you were there back then and didn’t know who Jesus was what would you do? I know the answer, you would stay. **But thats because you know about Jesus and what he did and stood for, why he came to earth. But what if you didn’t know all this about Jesus?

You know I’ve asked myself that question and I am sorry to say, being as conservative as I am, I would likely not have followed Him. Such a realization humbles me immensely.

Peace
James