Why be Protestant? I would like to know

[Church_Militant]

If you yank passages out of context, especially topically, you can make an assertion for most anything, but here’s my take on 1st Cor. 11:23-30.

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? If I make a symbol of a person (like this )and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. ( Like maybe this. http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif ) I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

St. Paul clearly teaches that this is the case and shows that he never taught that the Eucharist was simply a symbol.

 

[Shari]

justcatholic:

                    Some folks want to learn more on just **what** the bible means, rather than just hearing it read to them in parts. So they seek a church which preaches the bible and gives an interpretation of that particular chapter. Either from the pulpit or in an adult Sunday School class. Sad to say, one could spend a life time in a Catholic church and hear the bible read to them in the 1st and 2nd readings, as well as the gospel reading and never really have the texts fully explained as to what it means. This is really sad and priests need to be instructors in the word and not just give 10 minute "feel good" orientations". Also there should be weekly bible study groups where adults should attend..

I know in our area we have many biblestudies offered by the parishes as well as other events that help adults spread the faith and understand it more. So to me that was just an excuse, not on your part but mine, because I used to say the same thing before I converted. The one thing that I do miss is more energetic sermons/homilies.

justcatholic:

                   Evangelical churches are one up on the Catholic churches for reaching the desires of why people seek to come to church. They teach them the bible, even though their interpretation may be lacking. Also the hymns are easier to sing and people actually greet you at the door and within the church. But evangelical churches also "entertain" the audience, rather than just dwelling on the adoration of Christ. They bring in professional gospel singing groups and motivating "revival" speakers, who know how to fire up the crowd.

I personally couldn’t stand the rock groups in church, we tried some non-denominational churchs and this just drove us nuts. We have one parish in town that is like this and I went once not knowing and will never go again. I am going to worship Jesus not be entertained. Plus when you get into that situation to me it felt like all the reverance was gone.

justcatholic:

Like I said, it’s where your personality fits. That’s my two cents worth.

I too thought this way, then I really got to thinking who am I to try and dictate how a church should cater to my beliefs or my likings. I realized that I needed to change my beliefs to what Jesus would want not the other way around. If it truly is a personality thing, try different parishes, or maybe a charismatic parish. Just my opinion.

 

[Shari]

DJgang:

Why be Protestant?

I am going to say what I would like all Catholics to know…not everyone in America is educated about Catholism…bottom line. I for one knew absolutely NO ONE who was Catholic until I decided to seek out a Pro-Life group in which I found at the local Catholic church. Believe it or not Catholics…there are A LOT of Protestants who don’t even know a Catholic personally, much less what the Catholic faith believes. Therefore, they are never going to seek out knowledge about the Catholic faith. So, leads me to a suggestion…don’t you think that if there were MORE Catholic churches around…the faith may just be looked into more. Say, put a Catholic church in every town…here in Alabama…they are few and far between…isn’t that what Protestant’s do…have a church on every corner…now before someone says something to me about that statement, I was Baptist once and I know that Baptist churches “split” for various reasons, but in honesty, people are actually scared to learn about the Catholic faith.

So, why am I protestant…Episcopalian, because I’ve never been “introduced” to the Catholic Faith until recently. I am learning and in honesty, it’s not easy…I plan on visiting the local Catholic church after the birth of my son, I still need to “talk” more to my husband and just today, my Catholic friend in my pro-life group, emailed me to say “HEY, RCIA classes start this fall, you might want to check out” and I just might do that.

Also, It’s very hard for a Protestant to visit a Catholic church and be denied Communion. I know the reason, but to alot of people who might just want to “visit”…it’s hard for them to understand.

Enough of my rant…

Good for you thinking about attending rcia. I know what you mean about not knowing catholics or really about the faith. When I was growing up I didn’t know any catholics and all I knew was the little quips my mom would make about Catholics. When I moved to Wisconsin it seemed like that was all I ran into were Catholics. By this time I already had bad judgment about the catholic faith, thanks to things said when I was younger. But as the HS worked in me, I learned more and grew. Here where I live it does seem like there is a Catholic church on just about every corner. However with the priest shortage some of them are having to be closed. But we can’t let that get us down, remember we need to take the hard road. I feel like if I just look for a feel good church because I don’t like some of the teaching of the Catholic church this would be the easy way out. Remember what Jesus said about the camel and the needle. Any I hope you enjoy RCIA.

 

[Shari]

Reid:

I am a new Catholic convert but grew up Southern Baptist.

Why be Protestant?

I remember my youth group being very active. We would get together for volleyball, basketball, football, basebal … we would invite friends from school to come by and participate in all of these activities. It was so much fun being around a group of friendly people who we had something in common with.

I remember having a banana split party with one huge banana split that covered a large portion of the parking lot. We invited a lot of friends to this, we did all of these activities so that it would be a better offer to a friend that did not go to church to participate with us and before you knew it he was a member a regularly attended all of the events including the bible studies.

As we grew older, we got busy with High School then College, work and the stress of life, many protestants just like any faith stopped showing up and started living their life.

A traditional protestant church hires a preacher, and that preacher is usually a good looking guy, great speaker, can take you in and trully preach his message. They are in competition with the church and preacher down the street, it is their job to pull in people, and with people feeling the church the money always follows. When you have a preacher that has a wife, several children, he is now concerned with things like how am I going to support my wife, my kids, pay the bills…

Today the biggest protestant churches are huge, and pull in lots of money. Yes most of them do a lot of good things with that money, but they build a country club version of God’s house, a place to come and feel good about yourself, a house that appeals to its audience.

Very well said . Thank you

 

[kaycee]

Church Militant:

St. Paul clearly teaches that this is the case and shows that he never taught that the Eucharist was simply a symbol.

St. Paul clearly teaches that is a commemoration, a memorial, a rememberance. St. Paul also called it bread not the literal body. Jesus also says

verse1 cor 11:24 “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup, after supper, and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Purpose = “Do this in remembrance of Me.”… you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Substance = so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

Matt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

• Is Jesus drinking his own blood?
• Will the sacrafice of the mass be continued in Heaven?
• Will Jesus be drinking His own blood in Heaven?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sherlock:

Wow, what a bunch of presumption. I wonder how you managed to attend to what was going on at the altar, what with all of the assessment of your fellow pew-warmers going on.

I didn’t think much about it until the priest brought it up during the homily. The homily was truly inspired, and was on the topic, “Lord send out your spirit and renew me” which was his adaptation of “Lord send out your spirit and renew the face of the earth” that was the responsorial psalm for the Pentecost Mass.

Maybe the priest was wrong about the parish; after all he was being moved out after that day. I suppose I found him to be so dynamic, and I found his charges of this being a dead church so bizarre, that maybe took him too seriously.

Our church also has a fair number of seniors…who assist in the running of the parish; help in charitable events and organizations; offer their prayers. They may not be waving their hands in the air and crying “Amen, brother!!”, and they may be somewhat reserved with expressions of “fellowship”, but they are an asset to our parish. Judging people by how they walk, etc., does not seem to me to be charitable in the least.

I like seniors. I have played the 8:00 am Mass now for about 15 years and it has the highest proportion of seniors I think of the Masses. Some of them stay after Mass and talk to me and ask questions about my children who were singing as cantor sometimes. None of the younger people do that. They are already in the parking lot by the time I quit playing.

No, this was different. This was a terrible feeling. Perhaps it was all in my mind after I heard what the priest said, but I saw no attempts at fellowship whatsoever, no attempts at participating in the parts of the sermon where the priest was trying to get a show of hands to make a point (among young or old), they did not sing in the hymns and the prayers together sounded like stifled mumbling, and after Mass with those few exceptions, people filed out, mostly without so much as greeting each other.

It’s not that it lacked enthusiasm, it was just plain creepy. I’d like to think it was all in my mind.

One common thread running through this is the importance to some of external, emotional expressions of worship and “fellowship”. Though I appreciate these facets of Christian life, they are not a good enough reason to believe in anything. Something is either true or it’s not; and if it’s true, that’s the reason for believing in it. After that determination, it’s up to individuals to quit grousing about how dead certain parishes are, and actually do something about it. Also, there’s simply a matter of people having different tastes: I personally dislike the same external expressions of fellowship that others apparently see as an indication of a parish’s life. I really don’t want someone in my face before or after Mass; and God almighty I dislike those modern, “lively” hymns. I want quiet, peace, respect, and reverence. I am, however, very involved in our parish and volunteer in many areas. None of which is visible, Alan, from watching me at Mass.

If you so much as say “hello” to anyone on your way in and out of Mass, and if you participate in reciting the creed like you weren’t being made to apologize for something you weren’t really sorry for, then you are not in the category I’m talking about.

At a Promise Keepers convention I went into Wichita once, I heard some of the most exciting preaching I’d ever heard, on race relations. The music was loud, but some of it was good and I appreciated their projecting the words on a big screen because I don’t know those songs. There was one speaker I took serious offense too, though, and 95% of what he said about being a father and husband and Christian was wonderful. He did take a stab, though, at this topic. He spoke of the difference between “going to Church” and then played his synthesizer like a pipe organ playing some classic hymn that I loved and had just played at Mass myself recently, and acted all stiff and robotic and miserable. Then he talked about “having some church” and played some loud thing that he and supposedly “everyone” would be totally moved by in comparison. Other than that the program was great. I was so angry that he specifically impugned a hymn I love and I’ve been playing for Mass for nearly 40 years, that I just had to shake my head and try to hear what else he said that might be good.

Now that I look back at it, I know what I wished I could have said, had I any chance of his hearing me in an arena with about 8,000 people. After preaching all this acceptance of other people’s faiths and then right away making fun of my hymns and worship style, I could have yelled any of the following, “you are just a bigot who only cares about your own kind,” or “I thought you were preaching unity, not demonstrating divisiveness” or maybe just something simpler like, “get thee hence, satan.”

Alan

 

[johnpaullover]

kaycee:

St. Paul clearly teaches that is a commemoration, a memorial, a rememberance. St. Paul also called it bread not the literal body. Jesus also says

verse1 cor 11:24 “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup, after supper, and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Purpose = “Do this in remembrance of Me.”… you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Substance = so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

Matt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

• Is Jesus drinking his own blood?
• Will the sacrafice of the mass be continued in Heaven?
• Will Jesus be drinking His own blood in Heaven?

Do you know what “Touto estin to soma mou” means in greek?

It means “this is actually” which is the words said by Jesus in this passage.

What about
1 Cor. 10:16?

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

I have a questions for you.

Does "New Covenent in my bl
ood " mean anything to you?

 

[Scotty_PGH]

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Paul does not say body and blood but bread. He calls it a proclamation of the Lord’s death.

Wow - talk about selective quoting. You should’ve at least included the next few verses. Oh wait - they totally contradict what you posted…

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself

Look at 27: BREAD + CUP = BODY + BLOOD!

 

[Catholic_Heart]

DavidB:

I think the term “Protestant” only really applies to the original protesters or reformers (depending on your perspective). For the majority of folks who grew up in a particular church, they’ve never known anything else. They didn’t protest anything and haven’t even made a deliberate choice . . . they just kept going where they’ve always gone. A few generations in and pretty soon, no one remembers the “protest”.

David

Davidl…I agree that Protestant might not be the best word to use. It seems to me that people generally belong to the church of their birth and upbringing…I know many evangelical Chrsitians, and I know that they have simply never considered the Catholic Church seriously enough to reject her.

I think Catholics leave the Chruch for evangelical churches because they find a fellowship and sense of enthusiasm there that is often lacking in our Cathoilc churches…The open enthusisam of evangelicals, and their genuine sense of fellowshiop is very appealing…And it will grab a Catholic who is not well grounded in his faith. I do lots of things with my evangelical friends at their church…But, I know my Cathoic faith, and they understand that. No one tries to convert me! They know better

 

[Church_Militant]

kaycee:

St. Paul clearly teaches that is a commemoration, a memorial, a rememberance. St. Paul also called it bread not the literal body.

You ignore the plain sense of the text in question as well as the context of it. Answer my post. Explain to us just how one can become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord by unworthily receiving a mere symbol. I mean that’s what St. Paul says…was he messed up on drugs? Drunk? Halucinating?

It is indeed “a commemoration, a memorial, a rememberance” but it is also much much more and the text itself says so. For a guy who is part of a religion that says it values the Word of God as the highest authority, I don’t see how you can justify that mangled interpretation and cherry-picking within a passage of scripture.

Kaycee, all you’ve done is parrot something that you have been taught about this passage, but the passage itself plainly doesn’t support it. Read it again…what does the passage say?
Pax tecum,

 

[kaycee]

johnpaullover:

I have a questions for you.

Does "New Covenent in my bl
ood " mean anything to you?

The blood shed at the Cross offcourse! The sacrafice for our sins. Why, what do you think it means, or how has the Church defined it?

Col 1:20 - and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

1Pe 2:24 - and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (metephor for blood sprinkled on Gods altar, Old Testament style)

 

[WBB]

kaycee:

St. Paul clearly teaches that is a commemoration, a memorial, a rememberance. St. Paul also called it bread not the literal body. Jesus also says

Perhaps the problem is the translation of the Greek word anamnesis which is the word St. Paul is using, which is also the word used in the Divine Liturgy in Greek. In English we have no equivalent. It does not mean to recall as you fondly recall your dead grandmother or the first bicycle you received from Santa Claus. *Anamnesis *means to bring to the present, a concept that the Jews understand with Passover even to this day, because they believe that the events of the first Passover are indeed miraculously brought forward and made present. In each and every Mass, the sacrifice of Christ is brought to the present for each and everyone of us to participate in.

kaycee:

verse1 cor 11:24 “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup, after supper, and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Purpose = “Do this in remembrance of Me.”… you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Substance = so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

First, see the part about anamnesis in my post above.

Second, how do you proclaim his death by merely eating bread and wine? How can you announce clearly and with absolutely no confusion the death of the Lord without sharing in His Body and Blood? Or put in another way, if you were a person who knew absolutely nothing of Christ and his death, but saw people eating bread and wine, and then when that person asked, “What are you doing?” You would say, “We are proclaiming the death of the Lord by eating this bread and drinking this wine.” Now, if that same person came to a Catholic Church and saw us doing the same thing, we would say, “We are proclaiming the death of the Lord by eating His Body and drinking His Blood.” See the difference?

Third, St. Paul says this bread and this cup because he is referring not to ordinary bread and wine, but specifically the Eucharist. And further on in the Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul says, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” He is cautioning the Corinthians to not eat or drink of the Eucharist without knowing the true nature of the Eucharist.

kaycee:

Matt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

That prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus drank from the sponge soaked in wine. At that point, he fulfilled the requirements of the Passover by drinking the fourth cup of wine. Notice, it is after this point that Jesus in St. John’s Gospel says, “It is finished.” and he died. The sacrifice was completed. So indeed, Jesus does drink of it with us in His Father’s kingdom.

kaycee:

• Is Jesus drinking his own blood?
• Will the sacrafice of the mass be continued in Heaven?
• Will Jesus be drinking His own blood in Heaven?

Jesus drank his own blood sacramentally at the last supper. The sacrifice of the Mass is continued in perpetuity because it is one and the same as the sacrifice on Calvary. Jesus’ sacrifice is eternal. Proof of this, John describes Jesus in the Book of Revelation as “a Lamb who appeared slain.” However, we will not be eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ in heaven because there will be no need to eat and drink His Body and Blood there. The point of us eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ on earth is to be united with Him who is in heaven. Once we are in heaven, we are fully united with Him, so there will be no need. All these questions you ask only show that you do not understand sacramental theology as is taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[johnpaullover]

The blood shed at the Cross offcourse! The sacrafice for our sins. Why, what do you think it means, or how has the Church defined it?

Col 1:20 - and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

1Pe 2:24 - and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (metephor for blood sprinkled on Gods altar, Old Testament style)

One little discrepancy in your explination.

Jesus didn’t say “The blood i will shed tommorow afternoon is the new convenant in my blood”, although, in a way it is.
The Church says that a sacrament is an oath, or covenant. This would mean that the eucharist, or, as baptists call it, The Lord’s Supper, is a covenant, according to Church teaching. This is not contradicted in any way by Sacred Scripture, or Holy Writ.

If anything, Jesus was establishing this as a covenant.

Is the eucharist still a symbol?

No. But Is it Christ’s Body and Blood?

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend F14 you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 6:32-59 KJV.

What does this mean to you.

 

[kaycee]

johnpaullover:

John 6:32-59 KJV.

What does this mean to you.

It is a metaphor for belief. John writes about many metaphors that Jesus used. **Jesus is “the light of the world,” (8:12), the Good shephard (10:11) Jesus claimed to be he door of the sheep in John 10, and the “true vine” (15:1) John likes to use metaphors. **
in John 6 we see the crowd who were fed by the feeding of the 5,000 miracle follow Jesus looking for another handout. Jesus knows there true motivation in verse 26

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, **“What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” **

The crowd who wanted another free meal bring up that Moses fed them in the desert and want to know if Jesus can too. The crowd introduces the bread theme and Jesus uses that to explain **Belief ** in those terms as well.

John 6:34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and **he who believes in Me will never thirst. **

**Belief is obiously equated to satisfying hunger and thirst, thus explaining the metaphor. **

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Matt 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.

Will the Lord be drinking his own blood in heaven?

Jesus is not drinking blood but the fruit of the vine.

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this** bread ** and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Paul does not say body and blood but** bread**. He calls it a proclamation of the Lord’s death.

Peace <><

 

[Genesis315]

Kaycee,

There is a reason why Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. There is also a reason why God made the Israelites eat the entire Paschal lamb. Most sacrifices made to God were not eaten. They were usually burned away. The consumption of the Paschal lamb is one thing that seperated it from other sacrifices. The Paschal lamb is a preview of Jesus’ sacrifice–I think even Protestants believe this. Viewing the specific command of God to eat the lamb in light of Jesus’, the Paschal Lamb, command to eat His flesh, you can’t help but see that He is being literal in this case. Plus, by saying His flesh is “true food,” not just “food” also helps to reenforce the literal-ness of this passage.

 

[kaycee]

WBB:

“We are proclaiming the death of the Lord by eating this bread and drinking this wine.” Now, if that same person came to a Catholic Church and saw us doing the same thing, we would say, “We are proclaiming the death of the Lord by eating His Body and drinking His Blood.” See the difference?

Not logical. I would tell them we partake in the Lords sacrafice in a figurative sense. Whats the problem?

Third, St. Paul says this bread and this cup because he is referring not to ordinary bread and wine, but specifically the Eucharist. And further on in the Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul says, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” He is cautioning the Corinthians to not eat or drink of the Eucharist without knowing the true nature of the Eucharist.

This verse was written because the Corinthians were partying and getting drunk and pigging out during the Lords supper. Not because they did not understand transubstantiation. Read the previous verses.

That prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus drank from the sponge soaked in wine. At that point, he fulfilled the requirements of the Passover by drinking the fourth cup of wine. Notice, it is after this point that Jesus in St. John’s Gospel says, “It is finished.” and he died. The sacrifice was completed. So indeed, Jesus does drink of it with us in His Father’s kingdom.

Certainly this is not orthodox Catholic doctrine. It is a view I believe espoused by Scott Hahn. Has the church believed this?

Jesus drank his own blood sacramentally at the last supper.

Ac 21:25 - “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols **and from blood ** and from what is strangled and from fornication.”

The pascal lamb from the passover was commanded to be eaten. No one was commanded to drink the blood.

All these questions you ask only show that you do not understand sacramental theology as is taught by the Catholic Church.

not sure what questions you mean as some are rhetorical. Maybe you should ask me before assuming and accusing me.

Peace <><

 

[Genesis315]

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this** bread **and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Paul does not say body and blood but** bread**. He calls it a proclamation of the Lord’s death.

Peace <><

Let’s not forget the very next line
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

If I desecrate a symbol of you, say a picture, am I guilty of your body and blood?

 

[Sherlock]

“It is a metaphor for belief.”

The disciples that heard him didn’t think so. After he repeats that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they leave because it was a “hard saying”. No one left when Jesus used other metaphors, as they knew he was speaking metaphorically.

“The crowd who wanted another free meal bring up that Moses fed them in the desert and want to know if Jesus can too. The crowd introduces the bread theme and Jesus uses that to explain belief in those terms as well.”

Sure, it starts out that way, but then takes a literal turn—Jesus uses the word that means “gnaw”, or “bite down on”. Also, the metaphorical use at the time of eating someone’s flesh and blood meant to defame and persecute someone. Jesus would hardly say that those desire eternal life should defame and persecute him.

“Belief is obiously equated to satisfying hunger and thirst, thus explaining the metaphor.”

It might work on that level, but only if you ignore the crowd’s reaction—they don’t think he’s speaking metaphorically at all. Nor does this square with the history of Christianity: it was a thousand years before anyone adbvanced the idea that the Eucharist wasn’t the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and the idea didn’t have any legs until the “Reformation” 500 years later. The earliest Christian writers, who studied under the Apostles, don’t support your position. Nor does St. Paul.

"Matt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.
Will the Lord be drinking his own blood in heaven?”

This passage refers to the Passover tradition of four cups. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with this.

“1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
Paul does not say body and blood but bread. He calls it a proclamation of the Lord’s death."

It is a proclamation. And in the early Church, “bread” and “cup” referred to the Eucharist (the Sacrament is referred to by several names in the Church). Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? And he clearly says that if you can’t discern the body, then you are bringing condemnation on yourself.

 

[kaycee]

Sherlock:

The disciples that heard him didn’t think so. After he repeats that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they leave because it was a “hard saying”. No one left when Jesus used other metaphors, as they knew he was speaking metaphorically. It might work on that level, but only if you ignore the crowd’s reaction—they don’t think he’s speaking metaphorically at all.

Yes, certainly they did not understand the metaphor! The saying was meant to be hard because Jesus knew their hearts! "Jesus answered, “I assure you: You are looking for Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled.” Jesus is purposley separating the “goats from the sheep”!

Jesus did it before! John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

This metaphor was not revealed until after the Lord rose from the dead. The reaction to this was also anger and unbelief! Jesus said many things, not all were explained or meant to attract. Jesus spoke in parables so they would not understand!

Nor does this square with the history of Christianity: it was a thousand years before anyone adbvanced the idea that the Eucharist wasn’t the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and the idea didn’t have any legs until the “Reformation” 500 years later. The earliest Christian writers, who studied under the Apostles, don’t support your position. Nor does St. Paul.

It is simply not true that the church “always believed” the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Please study the following quotations which show that some Church Fathers considered the Eucharist as the figure, sign, symbol and likeness of the body and blood of Christ.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4).

Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii).

**For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, ** dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus)

For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before (Theodoret, Dialogue II, Eranistes and Orthodoxus)

For the Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body (Augustine, Against Adimant).

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III).

He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood (Augustine, on Psalm 3).

We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica)

To You we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you, unto the remission of sins” (Anaphora, quoted in Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, II, p 132).

Offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles).

The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, inasmuch as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be (Pope Gelasius, de Duabus Naturis).

"Matt 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.**Will the Lord be drinking his own blood in heaven?”**This passage refers to the Passover tradition of four cups. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with this.

Yes, another Jewish tradition Jesus would not approve of, certainly not scriptural. The four cups being invented by talmudic rabbis. My Jewish wife informs me.

 

[cjaubert]

This is an easy one, and here is my humble opinion:

As for defectors from Catholicisim, it is lifestyle. In life, we are often faced with the dilemma of lifestyle choices that conflict with Church teaching. For example, divorce and contraception come to mind. When a Catholic decides on a lifestyle that does not conform to Church teaching, he is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It is FAR EASIER to find a church that conforms to your lifestyle than to conform your lifestyle to the Church. Thus, Catholics become ex-Catholics.

As for “cradle protestants” (is that even a phrase?), it is, in my view, choosing the path of least resistance. It is far easier to just say the “sinner’s prayer” and “believe” you have a guarantee of salvation than it is to be a Catholic and live the fullness of truth.

It is like Dave Anderson wrote (and I paraphrase slightly), the Catholic position is not well-presented at or in “debates” because it is complex, highly interrelated, and (in its complexity, spiritual profundity, and inner logic) much more a “thinking man’s religion” than Protestantism is. Presenting such an outlook cannot very easily be done in a time or space limited debate; it can, however, be done in a book or a lengthy article, or in a website which deals with all the interrelated topics (or at least links to them), so that the inquirer can learn how they are thoroughly biblical, coherent, and true to history. Put another way, due to the complexity and interrelatedness of the Catholic position, it is difficult to promulgate it in sound-bytes, unlike many brands of evangelicalism. As but one example, in a debate about papal infallibility, for instance, it would be necessary to also have debates on apostolic succession, episcopacy, the nature of the Church, indefectibility, the nature of authority, New Testament teaching on Tradition, development of doctrine, the self-defeating nature of sola Scriptura, etc. I don’t think the average Protestant (even if not anti-Catholic) has any hope of understanding papal infallibility (and “problems” like the Honorius case) without some knowledge of these other presuppositional issues. My point in quoting this is, what’s easier, studying Catholicism or saying a one sentence prayer and getting saved? The answer is self evident.

God bless.