Yet Another Protestantism & Communion Thread

[xzereus]

One thing that has always struck me with Protestants is the obsession with taking everything literally - often saying that hermeneutics teaches that “the simplest translation is normally the correct one”. On this basis Protestants often refute Catholic teachings on Mary’s perpetual virginity, stating that the “brothers of Jesus” is translated in the simplest way as Mary’s children. Fair enough.

In that regard, how does a simple translation of the following passage lead to a symbolic teaching of communion:

“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”

Obviously, this post only applies to Protestants who believe in no true presence in communion. At the very least, how can a Protestant interpret this? What is this passage saying is necessary for us to do in order to have life in us? For the more evangelical branches of Protestantism, only “being saved” is necessary to gain eternal life, yet this passage is obviously saying that something else is necessary to fill yourself with life. What simple translation fulfills this?

 

[wmscott]

To admit the truth is to admit that the Catholic Church got it right; if the Catholic Church got it right, then what else did the Catholic Church get right. Then the Protestant now has to admit that their particular denomination got it wrong, now they must then ask what else did their particular denomination get wrong. Before you know it we have a new Catholic.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, what can you say? WMScott has a good point too. I wrote an article for my blog that was one of my first threads here at CAF many years ago. It was called The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Newsy]

John 6 was the chapter that gave the Catholic Church merit during my conversion. I had read this passage before, then I became convinced of the Truth in the CC. I was on a journey to find the absolute truth, God opened my eyes using this passage. The most powerful part of this text is what isn’t said. When the disciples grumble and leave Him, Christ doesn’t run after them shouting “I am being figurative!”. He doesn’t explain it differently to correct any misconceptions. He doesn’t try to stop them. They are leaving because of the reference to His flesh being food, it boggles the mind of a Jew because that is forbidden, then He lets them leave because they cannot accept His presence in the Eucharist.

When I was protestant, it was easier to do mental gymnastics with troubling passages than to face the fact that my church may be wrong. When the time is right, the Lord will open the eyes of all, let’s pray that it happens before its too late!

 

[MarkBrown]

One thing that has always struck me with Protestants is the obsession with taking everything literally -

Let’s qualify this…add that supports their theology to this quote… 7 days of creation is literal, but the Body and Blood a memorial or symbolic. I also was a SBC, a pastor no less. Protestant who claim to be literalist are only such when it suits their theology.

Mark

 

[CopticChristian]

Let’s qualify this…add that supports their theology to this quote… 7 days of creation is literal, but the Body and Blood a memorial or symbolic. I also was a SBC, a pastor no less. Protestant who claim to be literalist are only such when it suits their theology.

Mark

Forgive my ignorance. Help me understand Catholic-Anglican, still wet etc.

 

[xzereus]

Although I appreciate the great and heart-felt catholic responses I’ve received so far, I believe any Protestant - the target of this thread - would be turned off to posting here if not only for the fact that the first five posts of the thread are about how Protestantism is right and Catholicism is wrong.

While I certainly am of the same mind, I hope that this thread can be somewhere to discuss the differences in how Protestants and Catholics interpret this scripture and to possibly try to understand how and why they believe this passage should be interpreted. Being a Protestant for some time myself, this is the one question I couldn’t answer that pushed me toward a denomination with the Real Presence.

 

[xzereus]

John 6 was the chapter that gave the Catholic Church merit during my conversion. I had read this passage before, then I became convinced of the Truth in the CC. I was on a journey to find the absolute truth, God opened my eyes using this passage. The most powerful part of this text is what isn’t said. When the disciples grumble and leave Him, Christ doesn’t run after them shouting “I am being figurative!”. He doesn’t explain it differently to correct any misconceptions. He doesn’t try to stop them. They are leaving because of the reference to His flesh being food, it boggles the mind of a Jew because that is forbidden, then He lets them leave because they cannot accept His presence in the Eucharist.

When I was protestant, it was easier to do mental gymnastics with troubling passages than to face the fact that my church may be wrong. When the time is right, the Lord will open the eyes of all, let’s pray that it happens before its too late!

Being a bit of a devil’s advocate here, can one not argue that these people were not true followers of Christ? When Christ chose followers, he chose people who would get up and follow him as soon as he called them to. Could it not be that the importance of this passage is not who left, but who stayed? Perhaps this was a show of faith on the part of the apostles: regardless of what Jesus said and regardless of how crazy it sounds, they know that he has the words of life; while others may grumble and walk away repulsed, true followers of Christ will understand the importance of trusting every word that Christ says, even if they don’t understand it. So, why WOULD he chase after lesser followers? I don’t recall many times where Christ begged people to follow him.

 

[Radical]

One thing that has always struck me with Protestants is the obsession with taking everything literally - often saying that hermeneutics teaches that “the simplest translation is normally the correct one”.

This is an unfair generalization…in this thread we are all allegedly of the same mind wrt literalism…on the next thread we will be 30,000 warring factions who can’t agree on anything. Don’t let the minority of wooden literalists dictate your view of the rest of Protestantism

Although I appreciate the great and heart-felt catholic responses I’ve received so far, I believe any Protestant - the target of this thread - would be turned off to posting here if not only for the fact that the first five posts of the thread are about how Catholicism is right and Protestantism is wrong.

I have corrected this to say what I believe you meant…in which case you are right, whatever explanation I provide will undoubtedly be attacked by a bunch of less than delightful Catholics.

In that regard, how does a simple translation of the following passage lead to a symbolic teaching of communion:

“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”

At the very least, how can a Protestant interpret this?

easily

we don’t take Christ to be speaking literally when he says that he is living bread…and so we don’t take Christ literally when he said that we must eat his flesh…this is not unique to this passage. One does not have to be literally born again either.

we understand that the giving of his body and blood (for salvation) was done at the cross

the theme the gospel is the need to believe in Christ …and that is the meaning behind this passage as well.

What is this passage saying is necessary for us to do in order to have life in us?

read the whole gospel…at chapter 4 Jesus tells the woman that if she drinks the water that he gives she will live forever and never thirst again. Apparently she didn’t need to eat his flesh or drink his blood. She just needed to drink his water. It would seem to me that either Christ is being inconsistent in his requirements, or these are both figures of speech that mean the same thing

 

[Calgar]

This is an unfair generalization.

That’s all many of them have.

 

[MartinJordan]

read the whole gospel…at chapter 4 Jesus tells the woman that if she drinks the water that he gives she will live forever and never thirst again. Apparently she didn’t need to eat his flesh or drink his blood. She just needed to drink his water. It would seem to me that either Christ is being inconsistent in his requirements, or these are both figures of speech that mean the same thing

Totally different circumstances in 4 and 6?

4 is a figure of speech (that Jesus will give the living water) not that he IS the Living Water but in 6 Jesus says I Am the Bread.

MJ

 

[xzereus]

This is an unfair generalization…in this thread we are all allegedly of the same mind wrt literalism…on the next thread we will be 30,000 warring factions who can’t agree on anything. Don’t let the minority of wooden literalists dictate your view of the rest of Protestantism

That’s all many of them have.

It was not my intention to heap Protestants into a small stack, I only meant to initiate conversation specifically with people from the same groups of the Protestant population from which I have heard such things. While this may not be the majority of Protestants, I find it unfair to say that it’s the minority.

I have corrected this to say what I believe you meant…in which case you are right, whatever explanation I provide will undoubtedly be attacked by a bunch of less than delightful Catholics.

Sorry for my lack of clarity - I was trying to say that loading the thread with negative responses before there is any sort of debate is the perfect way to push people away. I often have said that the only thing that could have kept me from becoming Catholic would have been speaking with some of the Catholics on these forums before my conversion.

we don’t take Christ to be speaking literally when he says that he is living bread…and so we don’t take Christ literally when he said that we must eat his flesh…this is not unique to this passage. One does not have to be literally born again either.

I completely agree - this passage could be taken in other ways. I’m simply curious as to what you interpret it to mean is necessary for life. I did read your post of how this passage describes the need to believe in Christ, but would you mind expanding on this a bit and by perhaps drawing a bit more a parallel to the actual scripture?

we understand that the giving of his body and blood (for salvation) was done at the cross

the theme the gospel is the need to believe in Christ …and that is the meaning behind this passage as well.

read the whole gospel…at chapter 4 Jesus tells the woman that if she drinks the water that he gives she will live forever and never thirst again. Apparently she didn’t need to eat his flesh or drink his blood. She just needed to drink his water. It would seem to me that either Christ is being inconsistent in his requirements, or these are both figures of speech that mean the same thing

Definitely a good point. There is a lot of speculation on what Jesus could have meant here, if water was meant in any sort of literal sense, although it is obviously referencing the Holy Spirit in some part. Scripture makes a lot of references to water, so we know it’s important, but is it just symbolic as you say, or is it something more? Of course, a Catholic understanding of baptism leads one to believe that this and other passages may be referring to baptism, although I don’t remember drinking the baptismal water myself! If we are to believe that the Eucharist is bread and wine which is made into the flesh and blood of Christ for our consumption, we might also believe that this “living water” is the baptismal water through which the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, as Jesus gave us the living water and sent the Holy Spirit. Seems to be some kind of connection

Regardless, it is not impossible to believe that Jesus would expound upon, build upon or even add to something he had previously said. Although Jesus’ requirements may have seemed to change, we cannot assume that new information means changed information. Jesus’ revelation to his followers continued for some time, so to say that his negligence to reveal a doctrine at one point invalidates it any future context is a bit of a stretch. We cannot say that Jesus revealed himself one way up until the Transfiguration, thus the Transfiguration cannot be taken literally, that these both are the same revelation. One revelation - the Transfiguration - is simply a higher revelation which builds upon the other - his Incarnation.

Hopefully my point is easy enough to follow - it’s a bit late here and probably a bit past my nap time.

 

[Church_Militant]

Although I appreciate the great and heart-felt catholic responses I’ve received so far, I believe any Protestant - the target of this thread - would be turned off to posting here if not only for the fact that the first five posts of the thread are about how Protestantism is right and Catholicism is wrong.

Huh? My post is one of those 5 and I don’t see how anyone could get from it that I think Protestantism is right about communion and my linked article makes that very clear.

While I certainly am of the same mind, I hope that this thread can be somewhere to discuss the differences in how Protestants and Catholics interpret this scripture and to possibly try to understand how and why they believe this passage should be interpreted. Being a Protestant for some time myself, this is the one question I couldn’t answer that pushed me toward a denomination with the Real Presence.

Like you, I see the Eucharist as one of the most compelling aspects of the Catholic faith and at the same time a deficiency in Protestantism that cannot be correctly justified by either scripture of Christian history.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have corrected this to say what I believe you meant…in which case you are right, whatever explanation I provide will undoubtedly be attacked by a bunch of less than delightful Catholics.

Hey…I resent that remark. I’m about as “delightful” as I know how to be.

I’m happy to discuss/debate this with you (Hey, I’m from Irish & Polish Catholic stock. We love to talk & argue!). It might help some if you read my position as laid out in my article. Here’s the link again. The Eucharist IS Scriptural so you can show me where I am wrong.
God’s peace,

 

[Radical]

It was not my intention to heap Protestants into a small stack, I only meant to initiate conversation specifically with people from the same groups of the Protestant population from which I have heard such things.

I doubt you’ll find many of them here…the ones that I have met tend to be very literal on creation and the millenium and aren’t more literal on anything else (at least that I can think of)

I completely agree - this passage could be taken in other ways. I’m simply curious as to what you interpret it to mean is necessary for life. I did read your post of how this passage describes the need to believe in Christ, but would you mind expanding on this a bit and by perhaps drawing a bit more a parallel to the actual scripture?

I’ll be happy to expand…though it’ll take a day or two for me to get around to it

Hopefully my point is easy enough to follow - it’s a bit late here and probably a bit past my nap time.

it was easy to follow

 

[Radical]

Hey…I resent that remark. I’m about as “delightful” as I know how to be.

I’m happy to discuss/debate this with you (Hey, I’m from Irish & Polish Catholic stock.

enough said…if you are Irish and Polish you couldn’t help being anything but fully delightful

It might help some if you read my position as laid out in my article. Here’s the link again. The Eucharist IS Scriptural so you can show me where I am wrong.

I’ll be happy to…though, again it’ll take a day or two

God’s peace,

back at you.

 

[xzereus]

Huh? My post is one of those 5 and I don’t see how anyone could get from it that I think Protestantism is right about communion and my linked article makes that very clear.
Like you, I see the Eucharist as one of the most compelling aspects of the Catholic faith and at the same time a deficiency in Protestantism that cannot be correctly justified by either scripture of Christian history.

Sorry, I completely mistyped that sentence - I meant to say they would be pushed away by your posts which are about how Protestantism is NOT right.

 

[Roy5]

** What many CAF posters seem to overlook that fundamentalist Protestantism - the strict literalists - represents but a portion of the 150,000,000+ Americans who are Protestant.** A huge percentage of them, probably the majority, belong to mainline denominations that you hear less about because they are not as aggressive. I mean such groups as the Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, UCC, Presbyterians, etc. Yes, there are some literalists among them, also, as individual interpretation of scripture is permitted, but members of these churches generally are not literalist.

 **There's an interesting op-ed in the NY Times this very day (Oct. 18) on this subject. **

** The fundamentalist Protestants, like fundamentalist Catholics, tend to warp the faith into a severe list of 'believe this or else' doctrines**. As but one example, they both require a belief in the literal Adam and Eve and other stories from Genesis 1-11. Millions of Protestants treat those three main stories - Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, and the Tower of Babel - as folklore, parable, legend, even myth. Surely God created humankind, but taking a rib from Adam to make Eve? Hardly. And God drowning everyone except Noah and his family - and that whole scenario of building an ark to hold all those animals and their food for 150 days - and God punishing humankind with diverse languages because they built a primitive mini-skyscraper???  Give me a break. 

 ** Reverence for the Bible is one thing, but near-worship of scripture is something else. **It is filled with fact and fiction, passages that urge love but others that justify genocide, heroes like King David who seized another man's wife, then had her husband killed, that wise King Solomon with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. Etc.

 ** Protestants and many Catholics simply cannot believe that when a priest consecrates the bread and wine they become the literal body and blood of Jesus**. I read somwhere that 53% of American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation. Jesus also said "I am the door" and "I am the gate" etc. He spoke in figurative language. 

  **One naive question I have. When at Mass I am always somewhat curious as to asking God to accept our sacrifice.** Hm! Does this mean that each Mass is in some sense a repeat of the Crucifixion? If not, why is God asked to accept it? Wasn't this achieved at Calvary already? I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage, but do have trouble with this point (and others). I'm sure the church has a reasonable explanation. I probably should already know it.

  **God bless everyone, of every creed, color, culture and country**. To me, Christianity bids us to make religion a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is an unfair generalization…in this thread we are all allegedly of the same mind wrt literalism…on the next thread we will be 30,000 warring factions who can’t agree on anything. Don’t let the minority of wooden literalists dictate your view of the rest of Protestantism

I have corrected this to say what I believe you meant…in which case you are right, whatever explanation I provide will undoubtedly be attacked by a bunch of less than delightful Catholics.

easily

we don’t take Christ to be speaking literally when he says that he is living bread…and so we don’t take Christ literally when he said that we must eat his flesh…this is not unique to this passage. One does not have to be literally born again either.

we understand that the giving of his body and blood (for salvation) was done at the cross

the theme the gospel is the need to believe in Christ …and that is the meaning behind this passage as well.

read the whole gospel…at chapter 4 Jesus tells the woman that if she drinks the water that he gives she will live forever and never thirst again. Apparently she didn’t need to eat his flesh or drink his blood. She just needed to drink his water. It would seem to me that either Christ is being inconsistent in his requirements, or these are both figures of speech that mean the same thing

Here is a thought. As you know the human body is 70% water. As you know Jesus spoke in parables. Protestants are prone to take one verse and couple it with another here and there to make a point. So let us just take some of Jesus teaching and do the same thing. One thing here another there.

Paul, was a prisoner, he said that many times. A prisoner for Christ. Prisoners as you know have been known to be sustained on bread and water. You cannot be sustained on bread alone or water alone for long. Jesus gives life. In one part of the Bible he says water. In another part he says bread. He says you must consume him, Eucharist, the living Jesus and since the body is 70% water…you get bread and water…

Now the other thought is that if he did not mean you have to drink as in the water it was only figurative and the bread was only symbolic…then since we have no one today that witnessed Jesus and the resurrection…following him for eternal life…maybe he was just speaking figuratively and symbolic so that in this life you can be happy…that might work for your logic.

 

[Adam95]

To admit the truth is to admit that the Catholic Church got it right; if the Catholic Church got it right, then what else did the Catholic Church get right. Then the Protestant now has to admit that their particular denomination got it wrong, now they must then ask what else did their particular denomination get wrong. Before you know it we have a new Catholic.

My conversion story in a nutshell.