Yet Another Protestantism & Communion Thread

[Adam95]

Jesus also said “I am the door” and “I am the gate” etc. He spoke in figurative language.

We should also be mature enough to know the difference. None of Jesus’ followers ever left him because he claimed to be a door. If I offered to be a doorway in a conversation today, most people would understand I was offering them a connection to an organization, business, etc. If I told someone they should eat my body and drink my blood, most people would freak out, because there aren’t too many ways to interpret that. Not much has changed in 2000 years regarding this. If Jesus meant it any other way wouldn’t have he explained himself? Or would he let them walk away simply because the misunderstood a figurative teaching that wasn’t a clear metaphor?

For myself, it wasn’t a simple literal reading of John 6 that convinced me that Jesus meant it literally, but the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. If the men who were taught by the very Apostles themselves got it wrong, what hope would we have?

 

[Newsy]

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.

The common word for “eat” in Aramaic translates to “take in or consume”, the word used in this passage translates “to gnaw or chew”. If the whole point of John 6 is to highlight who stayed, then why go into detail about the bread? The context of this passage is after the feeding of the 5000, Jesus is building off of that event. The crowd ate the bread, they didn’t “accept the bread” or “believe the bread”, they chewed and swallowed and were nourished. The Israelites didn’t “accept the manna”, they ate it and were nourished. The protestant idea that “eat the bread” means “accept Jesus into your heart” doesn’t make sense in this situation. If we look at the context of John 6, rather than carving out verses, we see that there is a common thread running through the chapter. The fact remains, many disciples left Him after this incident. It shows the faith of the 12, but there are better examples of this than John 6.

John 4 needs to be looked at in proper context as well.(Pardon the pun, unintentional!)
When Jesus refers to “Living water”, in the early centuries, moving water was considered “living water”. Water from a well would be still and probably stagnant. So the Samaritan woman is doubly confused, she wants to know how Jesus can draw “living water” from a well when He has “nothing to draw it with”. Through verse 15, the Samaritan woman still thinks He is talking about water from a well. So, Christ chooses to guide the conversation in a different direction and teach her.

The comparison between John 4 and 6 is a bit of a stretch.

 

[bz5]

I think Patrick Madrid had a really good way of looking at it. Look at this statement: “I never said you stole money.” There is a simple statement, easy to understand. But now, try emphasizing the word “I” and you get a different shade of meaning.(It was my husband or brother…) Then emphasize the word “said” and you get a different meaning (I wrote, I hired a skywriter, but I didn’t ‘say’ you stole money). And so on. The people with Jesus at the Bread of Life discourse were his followers, they had all the context clues, and they all took him literally. Some walked away in disgust. He just repeated Himself. Finally, there were only his disciples, and did he give them the ‘real’ teaching? No, he only asked if they would also leave. Peter doesn’t appear to fully understand such a mystery either, but he trusts that Jesus has the words of everlasting life.
And of course, there are the early Fathers who are so very clear that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord. Where was there a different Christian interpretation until the Reformation?

 

[Miriam1947]

This was originally posted by Cat, a convert. This is how her teenage daughter describes the Eucharist.

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself–He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

(Thank you Cat)

Of course hosts will look the same and have the same characteristics. It’s called a mystery.

 

[xzereus]

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.

Roy,

You’ve got some great things to say here, and I appreciate the fact that you brought this article to our attention! To clarify, there are a few very similar ways to take the line “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands”, although none of them should be that the sacrifice is again occurring.

One way to take this is that the sacrifice of Calvary is present in the church and is located at the hands of the priest. Similarly, you can take this line in the context of the Catechism, according to paragraph #1366, that the sacrifice is made re-present, made present once more, at the Mass. A final way to take this is through the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas who taught that the sacrifice of the Mass is not a recreation of the sacrifice of Calvary - it is, quite literally, the same sacrifice of Calvary. As you can see, all three of these are similar concepts.

The common word for “eat” in Aramaic translates to “take in or consume”, the word used in this passage translates “to gnaw or chew”. If the whole point of John 6 is to highlight who stayed, then why go into detail about the bread? The context of this passage is after the feeding of the 5000, Jesus is building off of that event. The crowd ate the bread, they didn’t “accept the bread” or “believe the bread”, they chewed and swallowed and were nourished. The Israelites didn’t “accept the manna”, they ate it and were nourished. The protestant idea that “eat the bread” means “accept Jesus into your heart” doesn’t make sense in this situation. If we look at the context of John 6, rather than carving out verses, we see that there is a common thread running through the chapter. The fact remains, many disciples left Him after this incident. It shows the faith of the 12, but there are better examples of this than John 6.

John 4 needs to be looked at in proper context as well.(Pardon the pun, unintentional!)
When Jesus refers to “Living water”, in the early centuries, moving water was considered “living water”. Water from a well would be still and probably stagnant. So the Samaritan woman is doubly confused, she wants to know how Jesus can draw “living water” from a well when He has “nothing to draw it with”. Through verse 15, the Samaritan woman still thinks He is talking about water from a well. So, Christ chooses to guide the conversation in a different direction and teach her.

The comparison between John 4 and 6 is a bit of a stretch.

Devil’s Advocate:
Nice points. Still, the translation “to gnaw or to chew” could underlie another deep meaning; perhaps Christ was making a point to his close disciples: it is not enough to merely take in the words that I say. You must chew on them and dwell upon them. Perhaps the contrast between the feeding of the 5000 and the manna given to the Jews is not proof of Jesus’ literal meaning, but rather shows something very important: Jesus can feed us physically, but his true followers will be more concerned with how he can feed them spiritually. Maybe context shows how many of his followers were willing to accept the easy food he gave them - bread and fish - but few were able to accept the true importance of his teaching - spiritual food.

Xzereus

 

[Miriam1947]

Roy,

You’ve got some great things to say here, and I appreciate the fact that you brought this article to our attention! To clarify, there are a few very similar ways to take the line “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands”, although none of them should be that the sacrifice is again occurring.

One way to take this is that the sacrifice of Calvary is present in the church and is located at the hands of the priest. Similarly, you can take this line in the context of the Catechism, according to paragraph #1366, that the sacrifice is made re-present, made present once more, at the Mass. A final way to take this is through the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas who taught that the sacrifice of the Mass is not a recreation of the sacrifice of Calvary - it is, quite literally, the same sacrifice of Calvary. As you can see, all three of these are similar concepts.

Devil’s Advocate:
Nice points. Still, the translation “to gnaw or to chew” could underlie another deep meaning; perhaps Christ was making a point to his close disciples: it is not enough to merely take in the words that I say. You must chew on them and dwell upon them. Perhaps the contrast between the feeding of the 5000 and the manna given to the Jews is not proof of Jesus’ literal meaning, but rather shows something very important: Jesus can feed us physically, but his true followers will be more concerned with how he can feed them spiritually. Maybe context shows how many of his followers were willing to accept the easy food he gave them - bread and fish - but few were able to accept the true importance of his teaching - spiritual food.

Xzereus

Glad you are just playing Devil’s Advocate here. And not rejecting transubstantiation.

 

[xzereus]

Glad you are just playing Devil’s Advocate here. And not rejecting transubstantiation.

I find it very interesting to discuss point and counter-point of the Eucharist, regardless of the side I’m on. Obviously, since I’m a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation. Still, I think that until some, such as Radical, are able to respond a bit more, I might as well keep the thread going a bit.

 

[Miriam1947]

I find it very interesting to discuss point and counter-point of the Eucharist, regardless of the side I’m on. Obviously, since I’m a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation. Still, I think that until some, such as Radical, are able to respond a bit more, I might as well keep the thread going a bit.

What occasionally amuses me (and I admit I am easily amused) is when I am on a particular forum (not here) and they’re screaming, transubstantiation is not in the Bible!

Why yes you’re right. The word transubstantiation appears nowhere in the Bible.

Just when they think they have one over on us, I explain that the word was created to explain the Eucharist since no such word existed at the time.

Of course those same people don’t quite get the loaves and fishes either.

 

[Roy5]

xzereus

Hm! I read your response to my question - and thanks - but I remain confused. Is there one definitive interpretation of the priest’s words re the sacrifice of the Mass being acceptable? Or, can the worshiper choose?

I confess that I have a problem thinking of each and every Mass as a repeated sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in itself. If it is seen as a symbolic representation, fine, but somehow I thought substantiation went well beyond symbolism. Protestants, of course,  generally treat it as a symbol of Christ's sacrifice but not the sacrifice (repeated) itself.

One of my fears over the years is that Christianity may have incorporated certain pagans concepts that were popular in the ancient Middle East. That is one of my personal stumbling-blocks when it comes to Catholicism. I have similar problems with fundamentalist Protestantism, too, but I do find that mainline Protestantism attractive. It seems to permit a wide variation when it comes to interpretation of scripture. I guess you would say that I am 'selective' when it comes to certain passages in the Bible. For example, I tend to think of Genesis 1-11 as more legend, folklore, parable and even myth rather than actual history. Those chapters contain many spiritual lessons but as for they being valid history - no, I can't believe that.

  God bless everybody.

 

[Newsy]

Devil’s Advocate:
Nice points. Still, the translation “to gnaw or to chew” could underlie another deep meaning; perhaps Christ was making a point to his close disciples: it is not enough to merely take in the words that I say. You must chew on them and dwell upon them. Perhaps the contrast between the feeding of the 5000 and the manna given to the Jews is not proof of Jesus’ literal meaning, but rather shows something very important: Jesus can feed us physically, but his true followers will be more concerned with how he can feed them spiritually. Maybe context shows how many of his followers were willing to accept the easy food he gave them - bread and fish - but few were able to accept the true importance of his teaching - spiritual food.

Xzereus

Interesting… So the point of the conversation is to weed out the majority of His disciples by using references to food, but not meaning food? This seems strange to think that Christ would confuse followers and then not correct them. Other times, when the disciples were misinterpreting His message, He corrected them. We can draw many deeper meanings from this passage, but the reason some of His followers left is clear. They thought He was referring to actually eating His flesh and drinking His blood, their comments make this very plain. If Jesus wasn’t talking about eating His flesh in a literal sense, then why didn’t He correct their error? If He meant this lesson to be figurative, then why didn’t He explain it to the 12? From Peter’s response, we see that He didn’t fully understand what taking place in this conversation. It makes no sense for Christ to allow confusion among His followers turn some away from Him. He prayed that we may be one as He and the Father are one, so unity is important.

Another common refute to the Devil’s Advocate, why didn’t this idea gain real credibility until after the reformation?

 

[xzereus]

Interesting… So the point of the conversation is to weed out the majority of His disciples by using references to food, but not meaning food? This seems strange to think that Christ would confuse followers and then not correct them. Other times, when the disciples were misinterpreting His message, He corrected them. We can draw many deeper meanings from this passage, but the reason some of His followers left is clear. They thought He was referring to actually eating His flesh and drinking His blood, their comments make this very plain. If Jesus wasn’t talking about eating His flesh in a literal sense, then why didn’t He correct their error? If He meant this lesson to be figurative, then why didn’t He explain it to the 12? From Peter’s response, we see that He didn’t fully understand what taking place in this conversation. It makes no sense for Christ to allow confusion among His followers turn some away from Him. He prayed that we may be one as He and the Father are one, so unity is important.

Another common refute to the Devil’s Advocate, why didn’t this idea gain real credibility until after the reformation?

Devil’s Advocate:

John 6:
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

Verse 63 could certainly imply that his words had more of a spiritual meaning than a physical meaning. He DID correct things with his apostles - he spoke to them about his words and how their meaning was spiritual

Although it does not prove existence of symbolic belief before the Reformation, we can clearly see that the understanding of the Trinity was not fully developed or dogmatically formed until around the 4th century. One might ask why we believe in the Trinity if the doctrine was not as clearly believed from the beginning.

 

[bz5]

If he’s referring to His own flesh in verse63, what does that say about his sacrifice on the cross?

To Roy’s comment on the resacrificing of the mass, it’s not another sacrifice. We believe in the once for all, eternal sacrifice of Jesus. The mass is a re - presentation of the same sacrifice. How is that possible? God is not bound in time as we are. I believe the loaves and fishes miracle you’ll read shortly before this discourse is a hint of how it’s possible for His body to be shared with all for all time. But please read the catechism for a better, fuller explanation than mine

 

[CompSciGuy]

To answer your question, most Protestants believe that to “eat Jesus’ flesh” and “drink Jesus’ blood” means to believe in Him, have faith in Him. I think there is another scripture reference that is used to support this claim, but I can’t remember what it is. I grew up Calvinist and this was the way I understood it; although at the time I never knew anything about the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation so that idea never would have occurred to me. Thus I always assumed that Jesus was speaking in metaphors. Somehow I never even made the obvious connection between the language used here and the language used at the Last Supper. I remember seeing an enactment of the Bread of Life discourse in a movie collection that basically enacts the entire of the gospel of Matthew; I remember having a bad feeling when watching that film because I remember in that scene many of the people in the temple were very angry when Jesus said this, and many left him. I didn’t understand why it had created such a controversy.

 

[CompSciGuy]

** 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.

I have heard you say this before and I have to say again you are wrong about this. I have been in many places in the United States and I have seen the opposite of what you are describing. What you are saying is true of many Episocpaleans, some ELCA Lutherans, and some PCUSA Presbyterians. Most Protestants however believe in the inerrancy of scripture, especially those in the United States.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

I love your post, smiled the whole way through reading it.

For me, it was verse 55.

For my flesh is true food…

I had been studying with Baptists and Evangelicals but backed off when they started telling me that Baptism didn’t do anything and all sorts of other doctrines counter to what I was taught in the Catholic Church as a boy. Like you (though having been raised a marginal Catholic) I just wanted to know the truth, and began reading as much as I could get my hands on. I took two weeks off from work just to read books and study scripture, which I did all day long. I think I read 30 books in the space of two months.

Then I read John 6 for the first time in earnest, slowly, looking for loopholes. I read it again, a second time, searching dilligently for loopholes. Then I read it very slowly, word by word. I had no idea that I was doing lectio - had never heard of lectio. I got to verse 53 and God literaly knocked me out of my chair. It was that exact point where I realized that the Catholic Church is everything she claims to be and that my love for the Church is inseperable from my love for God; that if I should stop loving the Church I would stop loving God as well.

I remember getting off the floor crying, thinking how much my sins were hurting Jesus, and then the horror of what I had to do struck me… If the Catholic Church is everything she claims to be, then I HAVE TO GO TO CONFESSION!!!

The next day I made a confession of 37 years. That’s a whole nother story for a whole nother thread. Suffice to say that it was the best day ever.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Devil’s Advocate:

John 6:
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

Verse 63 could certainly imply that his words had more of a spiritual meaning than a physical meaning. He DID correct things with his apostles - he spoke to them about his words and how their meaning was spiritual

This is an absolutely incorrect reading of scripture, that verse 63 means spiritual or symbolic can easily be disproven just by reading the Bible and looking at how the word spirit is used throughout.

The word spirit comes the Latin word “Spiritus” which means breath. In Greek it is pneuma and in Hebrew it is ruah. All through the Bible, God’s spirit is portrayed as the life giving force, signified by moving air. From the spirit/mighty wind which blows over the waters in Genesis 1:1 to God blowing life into the nostrils of the the first man in Genesis 2, to the wind from the four corners of the earth blowing life into the dry bones in the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, to Jesus breathing on the disciples in the upper room and giving them the ability to bring people back to spiritual life by forgiving their sins - all through the Bible, the “Spirit” is portrayed as moving air, as a life giving force which comes from God.

timhollingworth.blogspot.com/2011/01/spirit-and-life-symbolic-communion-or.html

Jesus tells us not that his words are symbolic or spiritual, but that his words are “Spirit and life”; that which breathes a new spiritual life - the very life of God - into his followers. Jesus tells us that our “flesh is of no avail”, that our eyes see only bread and that our tounges will taste only wine, that our sense of reason and intellect will not be able to fully grasp what he is telling us.

Verse 63 can only imply a spiritual, symbolic or metaphorical meaning to somone who does not have sufficient knowledge of the Bible, and it all hinges on “Spirit and life”, the very words that non-Catholics use to deny a literal interpetation.

I cover the subject in a blog post at timhollingworth.blogspot.com/2011/01/spirit-and-life-symbolic-communion-or.html

-Tim-

 

[Roy5]

CompSciGuy

 Sorry to take issue with you, but I am well-acquainted with Protestantism, too. You will find some but not much Biblical fundamentalism among Methodists, the United Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ - and even within American Baptist Convention churches. These in addition to Episcopalian, Presbyterian and many ELCA Lutheran churches - and even others.

 These make up the main groups within mainline Protestantism. The Bible is central to their theology and worship, but members in such denominations exercise enormous freedom when it comes to scripture. I suggest that the large majority would not - for example - believe that woman (Eve) was made when God took a rib out of Adam to make her. Nor would they believe - another example - that God made separate languages as a punishment for the building the Tower of Babel. Etc.

  Bible study groups in such churches take the scriptures very seriously but also permit a wide range of views when it comes to their interpretation. This freedom to interpret scripture individually is an important factor in the Protestant mindset. The concept of 'think and let think' is strong. 

   Of course, among Catholics there are many differences, too. As I recall, the latest issue of *Our **Sunday Visitor* indicates that about half of US Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation, certainly a central doctrine of the faith??? The difference is that Catholics are obliged to believe such dogmas while Protestants have much greater latitude.

 

[ndismyhome]

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

Speak for yourself. We Lutherans, the original Protestants, are proud adherents to the doctrine of the Real Presence.

 

[CompSciGuy]

CompSciGuy

 Sorry to take issue with you, but I am well-acquainted with Protestantism, too. You will find some but not much Biblical fundamentalism among Methodists, the United Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ - and even within American Baptist Convention churches. These in addition to Episcopalian, Presbyterian and many ELCA Lutheran churches - and even others.

 These make up the main groups within mainline Protestantism. The Bible is central to their theology and worship, but members in such denominations exercise enormous freedom when it comes to scripture. I suggest that the large majority would not - for example - believe that woman (Eve) was made when God took a rib out of Adam to make her. Nor would they believe - another example - that God made separate languages as a punishment for the building the Tower of Babel. Etc.

  Bible study groups in such churches take the scriptures very seriously but also permit a wide range of views when it comes to their interpretation. This freedom to interpret scripture individually is an important factor in the Protestant mindset. The concept of 'think and let think' is strong. 

   Of course, among Catholics there are many differences, too. As I recall, the latest issue of *Our **Sunday Visitor* indicates that about half of US Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation, certainly a central doctrine of the faith??? The difference is that Catholics are obliged to believe such dogmas while Protestants have much greater latitude.

You are probably right about the Adam and Eve thing, but the last time you posted you said that many in these denominations give freedom to question things like the Virgin Birth, the literal resurrection of Jesus, etc. which are absolutely central to the faith. This is what is wrong.

 

[Newsy]

I love your post, smiled the whole way through reading it.

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement, Tim.

My conversion came through 4 months of intense study while I was without work. It’s always cool to hear about other people’s “search for the Truth”.

xzereus,
We must be careful when we look at verse 63. If it is taken out of context, it can be used to further heresy. I think it was the Gnostic heresy that denied the flesh, then completely misused scripture to lead souls down the wrong path.

A useful tool in reading scripture is to read what the Early Church Fathers have to say about it. They lived much closer in time to the authors of scripture, some even studied under the Apostles. While these insights may not cover all our questions, they shed a lot of light onto the Scriptures in the early centuries. Many sites have search functions that can be used to find references to particular subjects, like the Eucharist.