Why wouldn't a Protestant want to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist

[tonyh12]

It’s because they don’t believe in the authority of the church to teach the truth of the Eucharist. The best catholigic apologist is merely explaining what the church teaches, We Catholics happen to believe 1) in the authority of the church and 2) if we go deep into scripture ourselves we find the teachings have good reasoning. We also have 2000 years of history and the early church fathers seem to back up everything - the icing on the cake, though of course protestants will probably disagree with this too, though I think sometimes protestants avoid history or are selective.

 

[ArchStanton]

• allowing His disciples to leave over something symbolic
• repeating with stronger language
• doubling down on the disbelief several times

 

[steve-b]

Indeed, I agree…my words sometimes get in the way

No problem, I thought all along, your thought didn’t come out as you wrote it.

 

[Johan]

allowing His disciples to leave over something symbolic

But He was teaching in parables because the mysteries of the Kingdom of God were not revealed to the “outsiders”. Besides, if they left in unbelief, it only goes to show that they did not belong to Him (1 John 2:19) and that God had not enabled them to believe (John 6:65).

doubling down on the disbelief several times

Well, that was a constant problem.

“In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’” (Matt. 13:14–15)

 

[HopkinsReb]

But He was teaching in parables because the mysteries of the Kingdom of God were not revealed to the “outsiders”. Besides, if they left in unbelief, it only goes to show that they did not belong to Him (1 John 2:19) and that God had not enabled them to believe (John 6:65).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) ArchStanton:

If you want to take this line of argument, you’re going to have to spill a lot more digital ink convincing us that Calvin’s God who enjoys torture just for the fun of it is the true God. Because I don’t buy the notion that God stopped those people from believing.

 

[Wannano]

It’s because they don’t believe in the authority of the church to teach the truth of the Eucharist. The best catholigic apologist is merely explaining what the church teaches, We Catholics happen to believe 1) in the authority of the church and 2) if we go deep into scripture ourselves we find the teachings have good reasoning. We also have 2000 years of history and the early church fathers seem to back up everything - the icing on the cake, though of course protestants will probably disagree with this too, though I think sometimes protestants avoid history or are selective.

To be honest, unless there is something I am not seeing properly, I have no problem agreeing with your first statements.

 

[Johan]

If you want to take this line of argument, you’re going to have to spill a lot more digital ink convincing us that Calvin’s God who enjoys torture just for the fun of it is the true God. Because I don’t buy the notion that God stopped those people from believing.

That is, of course, a caricature of the biblical teaching of predestination. So what is your take on Jesus’ words:

This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them. (John 6:65)

Why does He say “This is why” unless He relates it to the fact that some disciples lacked faith?

 

[HopkinsReb]

That is, of course, a caricature of the biblical teaching of predestination. So what is your take on Jesus’ words:

It’s the logical conclusion of the misguided interpretation of the Bible, not a caricature of it.

Why does He say “This is why” unless He relates it to the fact that some disciples lacked faith?

Everybody is enabled. Nobody can do it on his own. Otherwise, we’re back to the God of Torture.

In the event that I am somehow convinced that Christianity was suddenly figured out after 1500 years by that lawyer, I will become an atheist.

 

[tonyh12]

I thought so this is something we can agree on, other things are what we have in common through catholicsm, but not sadly the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Though I expect there are many Christians, Catholics and non Catholics who don’t really know what their respective church teaches, or have no fixed teaching so again then though it boils down to, if you are seeking truth and knowledge, who do you believe on this important aspect of Christianity, it comes down to authority to interpret scripture, (and also not being fixed in the present but looking to early church history that for me has been helpful).

 

[Johan]

Everybody is enabled. Nobody can do it on his own. Otherwise, we’re back to the God of Torture.

That makes no sense in the context. Why would He point out that everyone is enabled by the Father as a comment to the fact that some disciples left in unbelief? It seems to me that you are basing your interpretation on what you want the text to say, rather than interacting with it exegetically.

In the event that I am somehow convinced that Christianity was suddenly figured out after 1500 years by that lawyer, I will become an atheist.

So if Christianity is not the way you wish it to be, you would rather be an atheist? I have not quoted Calvin even once, nor have I read much of his writings at all (basically just some of his Bible commentaries); yet you keep characterizing my beliefs as those of “that lawyer”.

 

[HopkinsReb]

So if Christianity is not the way you wish it to be, you would rather be an atheist?

I won’t worship a God who creates beings with eternal souls, tells them “do this to avoid being tortured for all eternity,” then says to most of them, “lol no you’re not allowed, have fun being tortured for all eternity.”

 

[Thom18]

I think it is a logical reaction to the use of the phrase “ultimate intimate and physical experience.” I have heard Catholics here before using that expression to describe the Eucharist but at all of the Catholic Eucharists I have observed I do not remember a priest ever saying anything like " come up now and experience the most ultimate intimate physical experience you will ever have." I am sure if that was said there would be reactions of all kinds.

• I see I used the word ultimate instead of most.

If you know the teaching of the Eucharist, then it’s already assumed. You don’t get upset with us for not explaining, “Hey, when we say Lamb of God, this is a direct quote from the book of Revelation and describes Jesus as the fulfillment of the Passover”, do you?

 

[Johan]

I won’t worship a God who creates beings with eternal souls, tells them “do this to avoid being tortured for all eternity,” then says to most of them, “lol no you’re not allowed, have fun being tortured for all eternity.”

Well, if the teaching of eternal suffering in hell bothers you so much, why do you find it palatable if it is preceded by a free-will choice? Nevermind, this is off topic.

 

[ArchStanton]

Christ’s disciples were not outsiders…they became outsiders though, after their lack of faith…not sure if this is my last post today [got a message saying I have had the maximum amount of posts – wait 35 minutes]

 

[Wannano]

Christ’s disciples were not outsiders…they became outsiders though, after their lack of faith…not sure if this is my last post today [got a message saying I have had the maximum amount of posts – wait 35 minutes]

I have not thought this through but it occurs to me that if Jesus would have had a video of a Mass in 2019 to show the crowd what consuming His body was to mean, would anybody have walked away? Or would they say, ohhh, I can live with that!.

 

[ArchStanton]

interesting…ahhh the narrow gate

 

[ArchStanton]

Another interesting tidbit on powerful food…

1 Kings 19:5-8 He [ Elijah ] lay down and fell asleep under the solitary broom tree, but suddenly a messenger touched him and said, “ Get up and eat! ” He looked and there at his head was a hearth cake and a jug of water. After he ate and drank, he lay down again, but the angel of the LORD came back a second time, touched him, and said, “ Get up and eat or the journey will be too much for you! ” He got up, ate, and drank; then strengthened by that food , he walked forty days and forty nights to the mountain of God, Horeb .

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wannano:

AtheistNoMore:

Hi everyone,

This question has been nagging me for a while about some Protestants’ attitudes toward the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As many of us know, many Protestants believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol of Jesus, and not his actual body. Of course, us Catholics understand the Eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Jesus.

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

How have you determined that we don’t want to? My understanding is that we can’t partake in your Eucharist if we really don’t believe the wafer has become Jesus. Shouldn’t we rather be respected for admitting we don’t have that belief? I read that only a small percentage of Catholics really believe yet they partake…which they can do because they have been baptized Catholic. Are they better off than a Protestant who admits he has not come to that belief?

Georgetown Univ , A Jesuit University, did a survey, and found 79% of Catholics don’t attend Mass faithfully on Sunday. They might be (C& E) Christmas and/or Easter Catholics, or they stopped going to mass altogether but still call themselves Catholic.

Meaning 21% of Catholics faithfully go to mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

SO​

Depending on which group one asks faith questions to, one would expect to get different answers to those faith questions… agreed?

I would think it logical but at the same time I have had the pleasure of conversing with numerous priests and find I get quite different answers to the same questions from time to time.

by different answers, do they contradict?

 

[DeniseNY]

I"m late to this thread and I admit I haven’t read all the responses, but I find the premise a little odd. Why should they want to receive in a Catholic Church? They don’t believe the Eucharist truly is the body and blood of Christ.

 

[steve-b]

if they left in unbelief, it only goes to show that they did not belong to Him (1 John 2:19) and that God had not enabled them to believe (John 6:65).

As I posted earlier, from scripture

God​

desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth HERE . anyone left out of ALL? Nope!

IOW, if God has that desire for ALL, Then He’s given that desire to everyone to want it in return. Everyone has been given the desire to want to know Him and to be saved. That doesn’t mean He forces Himself on anyone, to believe, or be saved, but He gives naturally, the ability and desire fto want that. WE otoh, have to cooperate, say yes, to the Grace God gives us for that purpose.

As it turns out​

most people don’t choose to cooperate. They choose sin. And as a result, in the end, few are saved

Reason being​

as Jesus explained

In the end, people don’t choose His way, they choose their way. They get their hierarchy of love all screwed up. Instead of loving God over all, THEN love neighbor as ourselves, most people love the creature and creation, over the creator.