Why do Protestants think that the Eucharist is only a symbol?

[Razanir]

Spiritually, I believe I am never hungry nor thirsty when I eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood.

And to some extent, physically as well. The Eucharist was the only food I had on Ash Wednesday until a breakfast-y snack at about 2 in the afternoon. (Not trying for not eating. I just had class from 8:30 when Mass got out until 1:45)

 

[rfournier103]

This one stems from differing understandings of salvation. From a Catholic perspective, while we do profess Jesus as the Way to eternal life, we also don’t automatically condemn people who don’t. (Not saying that any path to Heaven is equally valid. Just that we aren’t God, and therefore can’t judge people for eternity) So with that sort of understanding, it makes sense that one could not receive the Eucharist through no fault of their own and still make it into Heaven.

But if he was speaking figuratively, then why didn’t he call everyone back when people started to leave?

No, it’s a strawman. It’s presented in a way to make us sound crazy ("…when they consume the lifeless wafer"). And it’s not theologically correct. The priest does not have the power himself to consecrate the Host, as this passage purports. He also does not have the power himself to forgive sins in Confession. In both cases, God acts through the priest and the sacraments to bestow grace.

Okay. Stop eating pork. “Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” (Mt 15:10-11, RSVCE)

Nope. I will give you that the New Testament frequently states that we are saved by faith. In that regard, Catholicism agrees with you. However, the Bible also says in James, that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” (Jas 2:17, RSVCE) And indeed, later that very chapter, we see the only time “faith alone” actually appears: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jas 2:24, RSVCE)

"No!!! Wait!!! Stop!!! Come back!!! I was just kidding!!! I was only speaking metaphorically!!! Aww… c’mon, guys!!! #ThingsJesusNeverSaid

 

[SPH1]

I think that the subject line should read “some Protestants”, since even though not with transubstantiation they are a long way off from symbolic only.

Actually (and although I’d have to look into this again), I’d say that true Protestants ascribe some kind of real presence to the Eucharist. I’m thinking that only those of the later, radical reformation (Anabaptists, etc) would ascribe to a symbolic only view…and I wonder if these can really be called “Protestants.”

Perhaps a better subject line would be: "Why do Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants hold to some kind of real presence in the Eucharist; and others do not.?

 

[AlexanderC]

Well, since I can’t edit again let me rephrase.

Why do some Protestants think the Eucharist is only a symbol?

 

[SPH1]

Here are a few reasons why Protestants believe John 6 is figurative. Please don’t respond with putting down the author! I realize a lot of people here don’t like Mike G. But he states why Protestants don’t believe in Transubstantiation.

John 6 and Transubstantiation

Written by Mike Gendron.

On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then the Eucharist becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground.

Very dramatic, but not true. Even if the Real Presence of Catholics, Orthodox and true Protestants were shown to be false on Judgment Day, Christ’s words “this is my body; this is the cup of my blood” would constitute an absolute defense to any charge of idolatry, blasphemy or whatever you want. We are protected by Christ’s words; by His words we are protected from acting and believing as if the Eucharist really were his body and blood.

I’ll also say that I don’t think that the symbolic only crowd even sees the bread and wine (juice) as being truly symbolic of Christ’s body and blood. That would be symbolic cannibalism and eating of blood.

Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation to drink blood would mean Jesus was teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause for them to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)

Christ upset Jews on many things. In any event, any forbidding of blood does not apply to Christ’s blood. (Watch out for those rare steaks!)

I also think that the OT references to blood and the life being in the blood were actually a prophesy of Christ and his blood.

Biblical Disharmony
If John 6:53 is interpreted literally, it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ for eternal life adds another requirement to the Gospel of grace.

Here again one sees the difference in thinking between Catholics, Orthodox and true Protestants and those of the radical reformation. The former see God as being in the sacrament and an active participant. The latter take God out of the sacrament to where God is, at best, a mere observer, with the sacrament becoming a mere human work.

Furthermore, it gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who does not consume the body and blood of Christ.

A complete falsehood. The only sacrament absolutely required for salvation is Baptism (in some form.) But using the analogy with real food and our bodies, during one’s Christian life one may wither and die without the Eucharist.

A literal translation of this verse would oppose hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by grace through faith alone in Christ.

Nope. See above where those of the radical reformation take Christ/God out of the sacrament, having no real part other than, at best, a mere observer.

Furthermore, while some talk loudly about “faith in Christ”, in actuality they don’t have any faith at all…except perhaps faith in faith.

 

[chero23]

Do Catholics literally get hungry and thirsty sometimes?

It’s incredible how people like you think that the Eucharist is a symbol. Don’t you remember at theend of Luke, when Jesus appears to the apostles after he died, they recognized him because of one thing, the breaking of the bread. That doesn’t seem like a symbol to me.vwhat about what the first Christians did. They were more Christian than we are, and they taught, not only believed but taught that it was the real presence.

 

[chero23]

Spiritually, I believe I am never hungry nor thirsty when I eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood.

You need todo more studying,you need to go over the our father.

 

[GangGreen]

What’s also funny is that many of the Church fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd century also make reference the Eucharist. How do these deniers think they know more than even those guys?

 

[chero23]

What’s also funny is that many of the Church fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd century also make reference the Eucharist. How do these deniers think they know more than even those guys?

Thank you, couldn’t have saint better myself.

 

[AlexanderC]

WOW.

These are some AWESOME arguments for the Real Presence! Thank you all SO much! I thought my faith in the Eucharist couldn’t get any stronger, but now I feel like it’s stronger than ever! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

But by all means, don’t stop here if anyone has more to say! Defend the Eucharist!!! Or attempt to disprove, I guess…

Anyway, thank you again!

 

[rfournier103]

What’s also funny is that many of the Church fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd century also make reference the Eucharist. How do these deniers think they know more than even those guys?

 

[JonNC]

Unexplainable Dilemma
Since the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life we have an unexplainable dilemma if both are taken literally. What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?” This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Eating and Drinking Can Be Figurative
The Jews were familiar with the use of the figurative language of “eating and drinking” in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being. It was God’s way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)

Jesus Confirmed His Use of Figurative Language
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively to impart spiritual truths (John 16:25). He often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself – “the bread of life” (6:48), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door” (10:9), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, the truth and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19). When speaking to a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers, Jesus used parables (figurative language) so that unbelievers could not understand the mysteries of heaven which were not granted to them (Mat. 13:10-17). The reason the multitude were seeking after Jesus was because they wanted more physical food (John 6:26). Jesus was offering them spiritual food (John 6:32-33). As believers partake of Jesus, He will abide in them (John 6:53). They will never hunger or thirst. Clearly this is in a figurative sense (John 6:35). As the good shepherd, He feeds His people knowledge and understanding of Himself (Jer. 3:15).

His Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing “the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

A Counterfeit Miracle?
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

Conclusion
The 6th chapter of John took place three years before the Last Supper. If the Words of Christ were taken literally, why didn’t people start gnawing on His flesh after this teaching? The ones who departed from Jesus were unbelievers (6:36) who had followed him to Capernaum for another free lunch (6:26). When Jesus offered Himself as “spiritual” food they were not interested (6:63). Those who ate of the spiritual food for eternal life were believers (6:40) and remained with Jesus. He had the words [not the flesh] of eternal life (6:68). Catholics need to know that when Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach. Anyone who believes they are literally eating Jesus is absurd and cannibalistic.
At the Last Supper Jesus asked believers to remember Him until He comes again. Why do Catholics remember Him if they believe He has come again the Eucharist. “For I [Paul] received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, 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 Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). If transubstantiation were true and Jesus is indeed physically present, why would He ask us to remember Him. Furthermore, God does not dwell in Catholic tabernacles made with human hands (Acts 7:48).

The only way to receive Jesus is spiritually by faith John 1:12-13).

Even though I, as a Lutheran, completely disagree with Gendron’s assessment, thanks for posting it. Your post actually provides a detailed response to the OP’s question.

Jon

 

[AlexanderC]

Unexplainable Dilemma
Since the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life we have an unexplainable dilemma if both are taken literally. What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?” This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Eating and Drinking Can Be Figurative
The Jews were familiar with the use of the figurative language of “eating and drinking” in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being. It was God’s way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)

Jesus Confirmed His Use of Figurative Language
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively to impart spiritual truths (John 16:25). He often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself – “the bread of life” (6:48), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door” (10:9), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, the truth and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19). When speaking to a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers, Jesus used parables (figurative language) so that unbelievers could not understand the mysteries of heaven which were not granted to them (Mat. 13:10-17). The reason the multitude were seeking after Jesus was because they wanted more physical food (John 6:26). Jesus was offering them spiritual food (John 6:32-33). As believers partake of Jesus, He will abide in them (John 6:53). They will never hunger or thirst. Clearly this is in a figurative sense (John 6:35). As the good shepherd, He feeds His people knowledge and understanding of Himself (Jer. 3:15).

His Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing “the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

A Counterfeit Miracle?
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

Conclusion
The 6th chapter of John took place three years before the Last Supper. If the Words of Christ were taken literally, why didn’t people start gnawing on His flesh after this teaching? The ones who departed from Jesus were unbelievers (6:36) who had followed him to Capernaum for another free lunch (6:26). When Jesus offered Himself as “spiritual” food they were not interested (6:63). Those who ate of the spiritual food for eternal life were believers (6:40) and remained with Jesus. He had the words [not the flesh] of eternal life (6:68). Catholics need to know that when Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach. Anyone who believes they are literally eating Jesus is absurd and cannibalistic.
At the Last Supper Jesus asked believers to remember Him until He comes again. Why do Catholics remember Him if they believe He has come again the Eucharist. “For I [Paul] received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, 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 Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). If transubstantiation were true and Jesus is indeed physically present, why would He ask us to remember Him. Furthermore, God does not dwell in Catholic tabernacles made with human hands (Acts 7:48).

The only way to receive Jesus is spiritually by faith John 1:12-13).

Thanks for helping me realize something JonNC. I neglected to acknowledge the fact that, while I don’t agree with him, cguerber did answer my question.

And for that, cguerber, I do thank you. You presented your views in a polite and organized manor, something I myself could learn to do from time to time. So again, thank you!

And one more time, thanks to everyone who responded! It was amazing seeing the different sides and rebuttles. Now my faith in the Eucharist is greater than it ever has been! Thank you SOOOOO much! God bless you all!!!

 

[glorifyhisname]

I’m non-denominational, by which I mean I follow God with all my heart, but I do so as I hope is biblically as possible, not adding anything that the first apostles didn’t do or that Jesus didn’t directly instruct. I believe, to begin with, that priests are no different than anyone else. Matthew 23:8-11 says: 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.

I understand this as: if you are physically a human, none of you is more holy or greater than another. You are all sinful. Do not exalt yourself as better than anyone else.

**I think the reasons Protestants don’t think that the Eucharist actually involves the physical body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, he says to take the bread and wine “in remembrance of me.” As Protestants, we interpret this as instruction to take communion as a way of remember and filling ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice. But we think it is unnecessary to be sanctified by a priest or a pastor because it is an act of thanksgiving and humbling ourselves before him. **

I hope this helps understand our position to some extent. I respect the Catholic view of the Eucharist. My grandmother is a devout Catholic and one of the most godly women I know. Also, I am 15. I haven’t delved into many theology books yet; I’ve read the Bible eagerly.

God bless you all as we search for the truth in the Bible!

 

[Darryl_B]

Unexplainable Dilemma
Since the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life we have an unexplainable dilemma if both are taken literally. What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?” This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Eating and Drinking Can Be Figurative
The Jews were familiar with the use of the figurative language of “eating and drinking” in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being. It was God’s way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)

Jesus Confirmed His Use of Figurative Language
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively to impart spiritual truths (John 16:25). He often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself – “the bread of life” (6:48), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door” (10:9), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, the truth and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19). When speaking to a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers, Jesus used parables (figurative language) so that unbelievers could not understand the mysteries of heaven which were not granted to them (Mat. 13:10-17). The reason the multitude were seeking after Jesus was because they wanted more physical food (John 6:26). Jesus was offering them spiritual food (John 6:32-33). As believers partake of Jesus, He will abide in them (John 6:53). They will never hunger or thirst. Clearly this is in a figurative sense (John 6:35). As the good shepherd, He feeds His people knowledge and understanding of Himself (Jer. 3:15).

His Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing “the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

A Counterfeit Miracle?
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

Conclusion
The 6th chapter of John took place three years before the Last Supper. If the Words of Christ were taken literally, why didn’t people start gnawing on His flesh after this teaching? The ones who departed from Jesus were unbelievers (6:36) who had followed him to Capernaum for another free lunch (6:26). When Jesus offered Himself as “spiritual” food they were not interested (6:63). Those who ate of the spiritual food for eternal life were believers (6:40) and remained with Jesus. He had the words [not the flesh] of eternal life (6:68). Catholics need to know that when Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach. Anyone who believes they are literally eating Jesus is absurd and cannibalistic.
At the Last Supper Jesus asked believers to remember Him until He comes again. Why do Catholics remember Him if they believe He has come again the Eucharist. “For I [Paul] received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, 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 Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). If transubstantiation were true and Jesus is indeed physically present, why would He ask us to remember Him. Furthermore, God does not dwell in Catholic tabernacles made with human hands (Acts 7:48).

The only way to receive Jesus is spiritually by faith John 1:12-13).

Wouldn’t the logical conclusion from this approach be that since it is “symbolic” it is therefore an act of no intrinsic worth, and therefore superfluous to salvation, and therefore essentially redundant to Christianity.

This has become the norm in some modern protestant churches where communion is almost regarded too much of an interruption to the service.

I guess the same can be said for baptism too when it is regarded as just an external witness (ie symbol) of an internal experience.

 

[YADA]

Welcome - It is wonderful to have young people on fire for Christ. You should spend time with your grandmother

I’m non-denominational, by which I mean I follow God with all my heart, but I do so as I hope is biblically as possible, not adding anything that the first apostles didn’t do or that Jesus didn’t directly instruct. I believe, to begin with, that priests are no different than anyone else. Matthew 23:8-11 says: 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.

What do you call the husband of your mother and the person whom you obtained half your DNA from? … Why does St Paul tell us in Romans Chapter 4:17 that Abraham is

is our father in the sight of God

and in 1 Corinthians 4:15 Paul refers to himself as a Father

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

… in fact Paul makes reference to not having ‘many’ which implies that there are at least a few … of which he is one.

I understand this as: if you are physically a human, none of you is more holy or greater than another. You are all sinful. Do not exalt yourself as better than anyone else.

Priests do not exalt themselves … even the Pope is not exalted … the Pope is “the servant of the servants of God” Priests are people who dedicate their lives in service to Jesus … just as you and I do … only they do so with a singular purpose - forsaking marriage and family to do so … as do religious [sisters, brothers, monks and nuns in addition to priests]

**

I think the reasons Protestants don’t think that the Eucharist actually involves the physical body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, he says to take the bread and wine “in remembrance of me.” As Protestants, we interpret this as instruction to take communion as a way of remember and filling ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice. But we think it is unnecessary to be sanctified by a priest or a pastor because it is an act of thanksgiving and humbling ourselves before him.

**You should do some study of the Jewish understanding of ‘remembrance’ … the Passover is done in remembrance … Jews believe that they are made present at a once in a lifetime event that happened in Egypt at the original Passover … just as we are present … The priest does not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus … Jesus does through the Holy Spirit … the priest is God’s instrument … You seem to think we Catholics are making God irrelevant or small and elevating the man … but I hope you can see that denying the Word of Christ [and His actions] the reverse is true …

I hope this helps understand our position to some extent. I respect the Catholic view of the Eucharist. My grandmother is a devout Catholic and one of the most godly women I know. Also, I am 15. I haven’t delved into many theology books yet; I’ve read the Bible eagerly.God bless you all as we search for the truth in the Bible!

Please keep reading and studying your bible … but don’t take one passage out of context to proof text a position … Because as in the passage on calling “no one on earth your father” - you have an earthly father [biological] and many fathers in faith … and fathers that illustrate the moral life … AND God the Father …

Also, I would encourage you to read Isaiah 22 …

[On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. **He shall be a father to the inhabitants

of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key* of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open. I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house; the passage Jesus quotes when he speaks to Peter about building His [Christ’s] Church and gives Peter the keys to Heaven …

 

[Filioque]

As a reply to some of Mr. Gendron’s comments, and his whole anti-Catholic “Ministry” he simply re-presents (pun intended) the same arguments lifted from L. Bottiner and Hyslop. Most which have been proved to be either fabrications or outright lies about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

While it is true that the Church teaches that a priest has the authority by the virtue of his ordination to consecrate the bread and wine, they are not his personal actions, but that of Christ’s priesthood which He shares with the Church. Every Sacrament is the Action of Christ, It is the Graces directly from Christ Jesus, through the means He established, when he laid hands upon and breathed on the Apostles which give the Sacraments the character they have.

It is true that a Catholic Bishop in the 1800’s wrote that the priest has the power to bring down from heaven Christ upon the altar. If that was the sole extent of the teaching of the Catholic Church, we may have a valid argument. However the “Gospels” of the Anti-Catholic like Those mentioned above, which are taken with a greater degree of infallibility than the Catholic Church claims for the Petrine Office, fails in doing their homework. Taking one or two statements as the whole of Catholic Doctrine distorts the true teaching of the Church and disregards the Biblical Command to not bare false witness against one’s neighbor.

This is the reason why many former anti-Catholics have after they have studied the issues from Catholic sources, and in depth, become Catholics, and uniformed Catholics, or those who don’t want to accept the moral teachings of the Church find or found religious sects that have a system which does not require Faith.

Added to the very good replies already posted, I would also point out the mistranslation into the English of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. Most of us have read that He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me”. However there are two things about what He said and did that night which contradict the Protestant view. First He said “When you do this make anmensis of Me.” Anmensis is a Greek term which is not a simple calling to mind, but a calling ourselves into participation of an event which occurred in the past. It is important that we remember He was also an observant Jew, and had gathered the Apostles, our Lady and others to the Seder, or ritual meal of the Passover. In the Seder ritual there are several things that must be observed and must be mentioned to consider one has properly observed the Passover as commanded by God. One important thing that must be brought up in the Seder for it to be considered as done in a valid form is to instruct those present that by observing the Seder (which means the Order of Service) one must understand that they are not commemorating what God had done for their forefathers, but what God has done for them. Not leaving it there, they are admonished that anyone who participates in the Seder must consider that He to has been part of the Exodus from Egypt. It was not an event which happened to someone else, but which they participated in. Even today any observant Jew who participates in the Seder considers that by participating in the Seder, he participates in the Exodus. The Seder is an Anmensis, a participation in the Exodus. From the time of the Apostles, Christians believed that the participation in the Mass/Liturgy was a participation in the Last Supper and Calvary, an active participation in the Sacrifice of Christ. An Anmensis. Like the sacrifies of the OT, the victim consumed by the priest and people is the Lamb of God, but now not a provisional Lamb, rather the true Lamb of God.

---

Sorry Yada, your post did not show up on my screen until after I had composed mine.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I’m non-denominational, by which I mean I follow God with all my heart, but I do so as I hope is biblically as possible, not adding anything that the first apostles didn’t do or that Jesus didn’t directly instruct. I believe, to begin with, that priests are no different than anyone else. Matthew 23:8-11 says: 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.

I understand this as: if you are physically a human, none of you is more holy or greater than another. You are all sinful. Do not exalt yourself as better than anyone else.

**I think the reasons Protestants don’t think that the Eucharist actually involves the physical body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, he says to take the bread and wine “in remembrance of me.” As Protestants, we interpret this as instruction to take communion as a way of remember and filling ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice. But we think it is unnecessary to be sanctified by a priest or a pastor because it is an act of thanksgiving and humbling ourselves before him. **

I hope this helps understand our position to some extent. I respect the Catholic view of the Eucharist. My grandmother is a devout Catholic and one of the most godly women I know. Also, I am 15. I haven’t delved into many theology books yet; I’ve read the Bible eagerly.

God bless you all as we search for the truth in the Bible!

To me, the “remembrance” part is a stumbling block for protestants to understand the true nature of the Eucharist. You have to remember that the Eucharist was established by Christ at a Passover meal. That is the key to understanding the word “remembrance”. What is meant is that during a Passover the people in attendance enter into the reality of the Exodus from Egypt. It is not just using their memory but like an actual placement of themselves into the event. That is the meaning of the Passover and it is the same with the Eucharist. We enter into the reality of the event by receiving Christ directly. That is how remembrance should be understood.

BTW, if you don’t have a faith that grows the acorn will not grow into a large tree. This is why I worry about those who say they don’t want to add anything to their understanding of scripture and Christ’s Church. Scripture is a very complex and holy writing. It is God’s word which is a living dynamic thing. That is why we can read something more than once and get more understandings and others may get different ones. God is speaking to us and we will grow as long as we keep true to His revelation to His Church.

Just say’n. Peace to you.

 

[Mike_SoCal]

The argument whether the Eucharist is symbolic or literal can be honestly debated and how you come out can be defended with scripture.

The Basic Symbolic argument is that the bread at the last supper was a remembrance ceremony. Jesus certainly does say that bread is his body and you must eat of it to take part in his Salvation, however, Jesus also says in various places in scripture that he is Meat, Water, Light, Bread, the morning star, the good Sheppard, etc.

My own opinion is that the Bread is really Christ’s body in the Spiritual sense. It is not physically flesh because eating it would be cannibalism and the bread does not literally resemble flesh. It is not merely a remembrance because Jesus is so specific about it being part of him.

Consider this; Christ set up two ordinances Baptism and Communion. The Bible is clear that only a believer should take part in these ordinances. My participation in these ordinances identifies me as a Christian. They are evidence to any accuser that I am guilty of practicing Christianity. I am of the Body of Christ. Both ordinances call us to examine ourselves and repent. They are also public displays of our Universal faith.

Someday we will understand these mysteries. Until then this debate will continue.

 

[Filioque]

The argument whether the Eucharist is symbolic or literal can be honestly debated and how you come out can be defended with scripture.

The Basic Symbolic argument is that the bread at the last supper was a remembrance ceremony. Jesus certainly does say that bread is his body and you must eat of it to take part in his Salvation, however, Jesus also says in various places in scripture that he is Meat, Water, Light, Bread, the morning star, the good Sheppard, etc.

My own opinion is that the Bread is really Christ’s body in the Spiritual sense. It is not physically flesh because eating it would be cannibalism and the bread does not literally resemble flesh. It is not merely a remembrance because Jesus is so specific about it being part of him.

Consider this; Christ set up two ordinances Baptism and Communion. The Bible is clear that only a believer should take part in these ordinances. My participation in these ordinances identifies me as a Christian. They are evidence to any accuser that I am guilty of practicing Christianity. I am of the Body of Christ. Both ordinances call us to examine ourselves and repent. They are also public displays of our Universal faith.

Someday we will understand these mysteries. Until then this debate will continue.

It’s one thing to compare yourself to light, or bread or something else. However, when those who complained that his words were too hard, and walked away, We read that Jesus repeated himself, and did not just say you must eat my body and drink my blood or you will not have life within you, the Greek says, You must chew on my body, and drink my blood. Those who rejected His command to eat His real Body walked away.