click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation
by C Michael PattonJune 6th, 2008
162 Comments
Catholic apologetics is more robust today than it has been in the recent past. Since Rome has given more freedom of exploration and discover along with the encouragement for Catholics to study the Scriptures, there have been many Catholic apologists preparing Catholics to defend the faith. Despite our temptation in today’s world to let bygones be bygones, the engagement between Protestants and Catholics must go on for the differences are still relevant.
One of the key differences between Protestants and Catholics through the years is the view of the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist. Catholics, along with the Orthodox Church, have traditionally believed that the Eucharist represents the centerpiece of our worship to God. Catholics call the celebration of the Eucharist “Mass.” They believe that when properly administered, the bread and the wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. This is called “transubstantiation” because the “substance” of the elements “transform” into Christ’s body and blood. Most Protestants rejected this view of the Eucharist opting for either a memorial view or a spiritual view of the Lord’s supper (Lutherans believe in a somewhat mediating position called “consubstantiation”).
Why is this important? Because historic Protestantism has often charged the Catholic church with idolatry, believing that they have turned God into an idol of bread and wine, worshiping the elements without, indeed, contrary to, a scriptural basis. Catholics, on the other hand (and this is important), have elevated the celebration of the Mass and the belief in Transubstantiation to an essential of Christianity. In other words, according to Catholic dogma, if you do not celebrate the Mass as they believe it to be understood, you are in great danger of the fires of Hell, since missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin.
With the recent rise of modern Catholic apologetics, Catholic lay people are being trained to answer some of the more difficult objections to their faith that Protestants bring forward. The two primary areas that Catholic apologetics is centering on are issues with the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. We are focusing on Transubstantiation here. Not only this, but I want to focus on one particular argument that is being put forth more and more in defense of Transubstantiation that comes form John 6.
Here is the passage:
John 6:48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”
The Basic argument is this: If Christ was not speaking literally when He said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” why did they respond by saying: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” If Christ was only speaking symbolically about feeding on His flesh and drinking His blood (as most Protestants believe), then it is not really a “hard saying,” just a misunderstood saying. According to the Catholic apologist, if Christ was speaking symbolically, Christ could have—indeed would have—corrected them and said, “This is not really hard. You must understand I am only speaking symbolically of eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” But He did not. He let them walk away. The Catholic apologist will often emphasis this fact and declare it to be incontestable evidence that Christ was speaking literally about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Thus, this becomes a primary defense of transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in Mass for eternal life.
Karl Keating, a popular Catholic Apologist and President of Catholic Answers, says:
“There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct misunderstanding, for there were none. His listeners understood him quite well. No one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, why no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was confusion, Christ explained what he meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, he repeated what he said” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 233-234).
While I respect and appreciate the attempts of some very fine Catholic apologists to defend difficult positions and believe this to be a good argument on the surface, I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.
Why? For two primary reasons:
1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.
John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says: John 2:24-25 “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” He did not entrust himself to his listeners. Why? I suppose some wanted a king who would provide literal food for them like Moses did in the wilderness and they left when it became clear that He was not going to do the same. Some thought that He was speaking about actually eating his flesh and blood, I violation of the Mosaic Law, and they left. But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples
a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.
b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).
c. The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he?’” (John 4:33).
This time Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the symbolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.
Now we come to John 6. John’s readers should know by now that Christ speaks symbolically in such statements as these. We should understand by now that Christ is always being misunderstood by “outsiders.” They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for the reader to take Christ literally in John 6.
Would Christ have corrected the misunderstanding of unbelievers whose heart he already knew?
“For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).
“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40).
It does not seem so. This was not His modus operandi.
2. Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.
John 20:30-31 “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Why did they walk away? Because, like all other unbelievers, they expected something of Jesus that He did not come to provide and they misunderstood His teachings and intentions. A very common theme in John and a very common mistake today.
In short, before you start paddling across the Tiber, set an anchor and think seriously about the exegetical and theological viability of the Catholic interpretation of John 6.
Similar Posts:
- Why did He let them walk away: John 6 and transubstantiation
- Quick Thought On Transubstantiation
- Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation
- Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?
- Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
162 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
I’m puzzled as I thought Anglicans and Lutherans believe in “Real Presence” though under different forms than us Catholics yet your remarks are directed at the Catholics only.
Like or Dislike:
1
I am an ex roman catholic and now a Presbyterian Protestant. My studies on Kxox and also Zwigli have changed my position on communion. Most students of John Calvin are aware that it was his desire that churches practice weekly communion. Calvin believed that this frequency could be found in both apostolic teaching and example, and that weekly observance was also the practice of the church fathers. Moreover, Calvin saw weekly observance as necessary for uniting the ministry of Word and sacrament.
When I first became a Presbyterian I missed the weekly celebration of the Lords Supper. My congregation and all the Presbyterian congregations I have worshipped with celebrate monthly communion. However I now am of the opinion that the position John Knox advocated in his Order of Geneva (1556) where he proposed monthly communion is a correct practice.
Many of Calvin’s Presbyterian descendants did not adopt Calvin’s desire for weekly celebration. The blame for this is usually placed upon another Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli however suggested quarterly observance: once in the autumn and on Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The Zwiglian practice is more like the way Baptists celebrate the Supper. Modern Presbyterians reject a Zwinglian view of quarterly, and infrequent communion.
I believe now that In the sacrament of the Lords Supper the bread and wine do not embrace the body and blood of Christ, I totally reject the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation. I now believe that there is little urgency for frequent celebration. I think monthly celebration makes it a bit more special and I now believe that weekly celebration could have a tendency to romanize the supper and it can become more like the papist celebration of the mass.
As I read John Knox my position on the Lords Supper and baptism have become more enlightened and my own preference from my roman catholic tradition has now changed in favor of only monthly celebration of communion.
In grace,
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
I said in my previous comment that I am an ex roman catholic and now a Presbyterian Protestant. I believe now as a Protestant that The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal or carnal manner but by faith made partakers of His Body and Blood with all His benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.’However the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, and the command of Christ is: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’ I also believe Christ becomes present in the sacrament to all partakers spiritually because of our common faith in Him.
However how Christ makes himself present in the Lords Supper is a mystery of the infinite and should not be defined by finite men. The council of Trent made official a theory by some Christians up to the 16th century that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus. They call that transubstantiation. I no longer accept that teaching. However I do not condemn those who do accept it.
I think that the irony that is caused by Rome’s Trent teaching divides Christians in the one sacrament which we should share together, The Eucharist of the Lords Supper. Christ also prayed that “They all be one.” as a Roman catholic Protestants were not welcome to receive at a Catholic mass and it was considered a sin for roman Catholics to receive communion in a Protestant church.
When I was a roman catholic I was taught that the Protestants abandoned the true essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and particularly Reformed Protestants, Baptists and Presbyterians. My study of John Calvin opened my eyes that it was the roman catholic church that abandoned and then corrupted the true nature of the sacrament. I was never comfortable with the adoration of the catholic wafer bread even when I was a roman catholic. However as a Protestant I believe all Christians should be welcome at the at the Lords Table, for it really is His Table not ours and does not exclusively belong to Roman Catholics only!
In grace,
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Well said.
1) Note by the way, that even transubstantiation, is a more sophisticated theory than that held by many Catholics; who should know better than to believe – as many do – that the host is often transformed, in miracles, into real, actual, physical flesh. See many accounts of the host being examined … and found to have blood, veins, human DNA, and so forth.
Transubstantiation is more defensible than that.
While 2) as for transubstantiaion itself? It seems Platonic or something; trying to separate the “essence” of a thing, from its appearance. But so radically that, by this standard, anything could be anything. If a piece of bread could be flesh, then a cat could be a dog; an elephant could be a screwdriver.
3) Probably, the real meaning was indeed, more like … the bread and wine are symbols … as many would say, in Protestantism.
4) Remember, Jesus said with regard to the bread and wine, “do this in rememberance of me”; he did not say that the host was him; he did not say, do this “with me,” the host.
5) Apparently too by the way, note that the Eucharist was not always given to all the people by the Church; bread and wine both. In history, it was only priests often. To this day, we get the host … but not the wine, often.
Nor does the Bible stipulate how often this is to happen; no doubt priests say every week, to get you through their doors. But …
6) If God really wanted us to eat his real, actual body, then why didn’t the disciples around Jesus just … start canibalizing him on the spot?
7) It was a “hard saying.” And many left. But who was it that left? Those that took him literally, perhaps? Since taken literally, it is absurd and ugly. Do we have to eat God, like canibals?
Ironically then, those who think they have stayed with Jesus … actually follow those who left.
No doubt it is “hard” for many people to understand metaphors, symbols.
Like or Dislike:
1
Well said Dr. G. I think Michael’s article above on why the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation is a fallacy is excellent. I think you can appreciate it. I of course do. Not all Protestants do. I as a Protestant who was a roman catholic however can appreciate it.
I am now invited to the Lords Supper as a Presbyterian. I now believe in the Presbyterian reformed teaching of The Lord’s Supper. That it was instituted by Jesus the same night he was betrayed, to be only a symbolic remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death and for our spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, and as a bond and pledge of our communion with him, and with each other.
I now believe as Calvin taught “That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfills what he promises.” I am nourished when I commune in the Presbyterian fold, I did not find that nourishment and presence as a RC when I was taught the bread and wine became the body and blood. I am convinced Rome is in error and the Reformed teaching on the Lords Supper is what Christ intended.
I am now certain that the Reformation was a tremendous act of God and the Reformers were true Believers. My study of the Protestant Reformation led me to be convinced that the Reformers were right in Separating from the Church of Rome at the Reformation.
The Reformers realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung. Rome, instead of preaching the Cross, boasted she was repeating the sacrifice of Christ in her service of the Mass, which I now see as an abomination and blasphemy to Christ’s only one time sacrifice on Calvary and the roman catholic belief of transubstantiation and adoration of the rc breadwafer in a monstrance outside the celebration of the Lords Supper not only distorts the sacrament it has lead and continues to lead to gross superstitions. I renounce the roman mass and the roman catholic church and her pope as did the reformers.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches a gospel which sadly is corrupted by the magesterium, the Roman curia and the Papacy. The reformers had to leave Rome; they could not reform her abuses and corruption from within. I left Roman Catholicism for similar reasons.
I searched and found the truth by election and grace, not my merit.
God Bless
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
I also agree with DR G. when he said “Probably, the real meaning was indeed, more like … the bread and wine are symbols … as many would say, in Protestantism.”
They are primarily symbols. I have said on other occasions ‘I decided to become a Presbyterian because I asked myself “Either the Catholic Church is very right, OR if its not, its very wrong?” I discovered and then knew it was wrong and a false teacher of the true Gospel of Christ and there can no in-between on this issue.
Michael also said “Thus, this becomes a primary defense of transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in Mass for eternal life.”
I am now a Protestant and do not of course any longer worship as a roman catholic and go to her mass or eat her Eucharist which they believe is the actual body and blood or Christ. I now worship at service as a Presbyterian and commune as a Presbyterian once a month. However I also believe I and all Christian Protestants will if we are born again in Christ and live by the Bible as the sole and only authority will have eternal life.
I came to believe The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal or carnal manner but by faith made partakers of His Body and Blood with all His benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.’However the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, and the command of Christ is: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’
I agree with Michael totally when he said “While I respect and appreciate the attempts of some very fine Catholic apologists to defend difficult positions and believe this to be a good argument on the surface, I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.”
Michael’s first argument is the most powerful in showing the fallacy of roman catholic teaching 1. “Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.”
I also said in my comment #3 “However how Christ makes himself present in the Lords Supper is a mystery of the infinite and should not be defined by finite men.”
The roman catholic pope is a finite man and we who are Protestants not only renounce papist false teachings we do not and should not try to explain Gods infinite mystery. That is why I am a Presbyterian Protestant and not a Lutheran. Luther did not take the reforms far enough. Calvin, Knox and Zwigli did.
I thought I would paste here a poem sent to me by another ex roman catholic who like me became a reformed Protestant. It speaks for itself on the absurdity of roman catholic belief in transubstantiation. I wrote to another Protestant friend the following when I sent it to her.
Ii wrote her because she was denied communion at a roamn catholic mass
I wrote;
The following is a cute poem, a satire on the ridiculous teaching about the Lords Supper by the roman catholic church. I think you would appreciate this because of your being denied communion in a roman catholic mass. I too would now be treated in the same way because we Protestants renounce as ludicrous and blasphemous the papist teaching of transubstantiation which was really a knee jerk reaction to the reformers position that to adore the bread wafer outside the celebration of the Lords Supper is a total distortion of the sacrament itself.
I can tell you that I now find the celebration of the Lords Supper as a Protestant once a month is more meaningful. I believe now that the bread remains bread and the wine or juice remains wine or juice. In the supper Christ becomes present to us because of our faith and the the elements which are symbols are not changed into Christ actual body and blood. I hope you enjoy the poem, I did after I became a Protestant.
An Interesting Tale of the Eucharist
A PRETTY MAID, A PROTESTANT,
WAS TO A CATHOLIC WED;
TO LOVE ALL BIBLE TRUTHS AND TALES,
QUITE EARLY SHE’D BEEN BRED.
IT SORELY GRIEVED HER HUSBAND’S HEART
THAT SHE WOULD NOT COMPLY,
AND JOIN THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ROME
AND HERETICS DENY.
SO DAY BY DAY HE FLATTERED HER
BUT STILL SHE SAW NO GOOD
WOULD EVER COME FROM BOWING DOWN
TO IDOLS MADE OF WOOD.
THE MASS, THE HOST, THE MIRACLES,
WERE MADE BUT TO DECEIVE;
AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION, TOO,
SHE’D NEVER DARE BELIEVE.
HE WENT TO SEE HIS CLERGYMAN
AND TOLD HIM HIS SAD TALE
“MY WIFE IS AN UNBELIEVER, SIR;
YOU CAN PERHAPS PREVAIL;
FOR ALL YOUR ROMISH MIRACLES
MY WIFE HAS STRONG AVERSION.
TO REALLY WORK A MIRACLE
MAY LEAD TO HER CONVERSION.”
THE PRIEST WENT WITH THE GENTLEMAN
HE THOUGHT TO GAIN A PRIZE.
HE SAID, “I WILL CONVERT HER, SIR,
AND OPEN BOTH HER EYES.”
“THE PRIEST HAS COME TO DINE WITH US!”
“HE’S WELCOME,” SHE REPLIED.
AND WHEN, AT LAST, THE MEAL WAS O’ER,
THE PRIEST AT ONCE BEGAN,
TO TEACH HIS HOSTESS ALL ABOUT
THE SINFUL STATE OF MAN.
THE GREATNESS OF OUR SAVIOUR’S LOVE,
WHICH CHRISTIANS CAN’T DENY.
TO GIVE HIMSELF A SACRIFICE
AND FOR OUR SINS TO DIE.
“I WILL RETURN TOMORROW, LASS,
PREPARE SOME BREAD AND WINE;
THE SACRAMENTAL MIRACLE
WILL STOP YOUR SOUL’S DECLINE.”
“I’LL BAKE THE BREAD,” THE LADY SAID.
“YOU MAY,” HE DID REPLY.
“AND WHEN YOU’VE SEEN THIS MIRACLE,
CONVINCED YOU’LL BE, SAY I.”
THE PRIEST DID COME ACCORDINGLY,
THE BREAD AND WINE DID BLESS.
THE LADY ASKED, “SIR, IS IT CHANGED?”
THE PRIEST ANSWERED, “YES,
IT’S CHANGED FROM COMMON BREAD AND WINE
TO TRULY FLESH AND BLOOD.
BEGORRA LASS, THIS POWER OF MINE
HAS CHANGED IT INTO GOD!”
SO HAVING BLESSED THE BREAD AND WINE,
TO EAT THEY DID PREPARE
THE LADY SAID UNTO THE PRIEST
“I WARN YOU TO TAKE CARE.
FOR HALF AN OUNCE OF ARSENIC
WAS MIXED RIGHT IN THE BATTER,
BUT SINCE YOU HAVE ITS NATURE CHANGED
IT CANNOT REALLY MATTER.”
THE PRIEST WAS STRUCK REAL DUMB,
HE LOOKED AS PALE AS DEATH,
THE BREAD AND WINE FELL FROM HIS HANDS,
AND HE DID GASP FOR BREATH.
“BRING ME MY HORSE!” THE PRIEST CRIED,
“THIS IS A CURSED HOME!”
THE LADY REPLIED, “BEGONE;
TIS YOU WHO SHARES THE CURSE OF ROME!”
THE HUSBAND, TOO, HE SAT SURPRISED,
AND NOT A WORD DID SAY.
AT LENGTH HE SPOKE, “MY DEAR, SAID HE,
“THE PRIEST HAS RUN AWAY.
TO GULP SUCH MUMMERY AND TRIPE,
I’M NOT FOR SURE QUITE ABLE;
I’LL GO WITH YOU AND WE’LL RENOUNCE
THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC FABLE.”
In grace,
Dudley
I too renounced that same roman catholic fable!!!
Like or Dislike:
1
I have one more thought to share tonight on this subject.
Michael also said” Catholics, on the other hand (and this is important), have elevated the celebration of the Mass and the belief in Transubstantiation to an essential of Christianity. In other words, according to Catholic dogma, if you do not celebrate the Mass as they believe it to be understood, you are in great danger of the fires of Hell, since missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin.”
If that were really true than “I am in Mortal sin” I am sure that some roman catholics do now think I am because I have been a Protestant since January 2006 and I miss mass regularly because I worship as a Presbyterian in Sunday services and I receive the Lords Supper monthly as a Protestant.
I have said I renounce roman catholicism and I believe her mass is a blasphemy as well as the way she corrupts the Lords Supper.
I wish to add here that the truth I discovered is that the roman catholic church was really all about money and control. I have found that I without intention have become a bit anti-papist as well as a bit anti-roman catholic as a result of my studies; the reformers felt as I do also. I never thought I would ever convert to Protestantism let alone become a Presbyterian. We were taught as roman catholics that Presbyterians are the furthest from the roman church in sacraments, worship and government, and that really is true. We were taught that Presbyterians through out the mass, 5 of the sacraments and they cast out the ecclesiastical form of church government and renounce the pope as vicar of Christ. They do not believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The irony is that I truly believed Presbyterian Protestants had strayed too far from the truth and the true church of Christ and the apostles, which was the Roman catholic church.
Now I am a convinced and avowed Presbyterian Protestant. I also believe it is Rome that strayed and corrupted he church and its teachings. I ultimately like Calvin had to personally renounce her as well as the pope and its romish and pagan inspired corrupted worship the mass and all her teachings that were contrary to the Gospel.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
The question is this…is it a metaphor when we don’t understand it, and becomes real when we do understand?
It’s real easy to pass things off as symbolic, allegoric, or metaphoric. Notice those “ics”…
Because religions are Calvinist “ic”, Cathol “ic”, Charismat “ic”.
I think the use of the “ic” sometimes makes the religion more viewed as respectable.
But symbols are to be understood simply by the user. Like the schwastika was a symbol of hate, but the Najavo used it long before and so did some groups in Indian. So the symbol was understood by the user. A symbol is a symbol. Nothing more.
Like or Dislike:
2
After two+ decades as a non-denominational Protestant Evangelical/Charismatic, my studies of church history and doctrine and liturgical development (Dix, Bradshaw, et al.), as well as the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers, led me to consider both the Roman Catholic and the [Eastern] Orthodox Church(es), ultimately choosing the latter.
(I also have read Keith Mathison’s Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.)
My reading in these things, as well as my constant re-reading of 1 Corinthians 10-11 and John 6, led me to accept the long-held and ancient view and understanding of the Eucharist as taught and believed by these churches.
But without being polemical toward Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox or even sacramental Protestants, including Lutherans and some Presbyterians, I ended up leaving that communion when I realized that I could no longer affirm the belief in the change of the bread and wine as taught and professed, as well as the other teachings about the Eucharist/communion.
My efforts to reconvince myself, both by prayer and additional and continuing reading and studying, only further supported my present belief that these churches misunderstand what Christ taught and meant, and what the Lord’s Supper is and how it is to be shared.
FWIW, a book that expresses some similar ideas to what I hold is Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper by John Mark Hicks, though Hicks only supported, not formed, some of my conclusions; I had already arrived at most of them before finding his book.
And as I continue to read 1 Corinthians and John 6 and the other Gospels, I do not find myself persuaded back to the Catholic/Orthodox teaching.
YMMV
Like or Dislike:
0
But to be sure, even “just” symbols have some usefulness. The letters of the alphabet are symbols; words are symbols. And words and letters are useful too.
And the words in the Bible are “just” symbols, someone might say. Still, 1) even these mere symbols, the words of the Bible, manage however, to … make themselves useful. To convey thoughts. Some would even say, spirit.
For that matter, 2) Catholics seem happy enough with the Bible, often; and its symbolic/alphabetic communication.
So 3) why would we need more than that? Why would we need anything magic-like? Like hosts/bread wafers, allegedly changing, literally, into flesh?
4) Or for that matter, do we even need, the odd Platonic sophistries of … “transubstantiation”? A tale of inner ghosts secretly transforming objects in their essence or “substance” (whatever that is?); as opposed to the host’s secondary appearance, its incidents and accidents.
The theory of “transubstantiation” many would say, is obviously a rationalization, a fig-leaf, a smokescreen; to disguise the everday failure of a confirmable, literal, physical transformation, of a piece of bread. A miracle.
5) But Catholic-bashing is all too easy on a Protestant blog.
So consider this: if Protestants reject the old Catholic miracle – bread changing literally in flesh – then to be sure, how about Protestant miracles?
6) Many advocate even “Cessationism”; or say, an end, a “cessation,” to expecting them, any longer.
7) Should we all stop believing in all physical miracles? Or for example, just say that there are not (m)any physical miracles today?
8) Are there many Protestants that dare to say that out loud, in a “plain” way, in church? Or argue that, on a Protestant blog? By any other means than by deliberately obscure language; euphemisms and Big Words?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G,
From what I understand of Catholic teaching, protestant objection goes way beyond any miracle spoken of in transubstantiation.
They believe that the Mass is a continued sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, contrary to the Scripural proclamation that He gave Himself once and for all.
One of the commenters here on this site that used to be a Catholic spoke of that fact in at least one of his first comments here.
Therefore, I don’t think it has anything to do with a rejection of miracles per se.
Like or Dislike:
0
No doubt, the literal (as opposed to the “transubstanialist”) account of the Eucharist, could be opposed on many grounds.
Still, it seems clear from the literature, that many individuals – if not all – apparently did reject the literal understanding of the transformation of the host. And they rejected it in part, as they say in the literature, on the grounds of … disbelief in miracles.
There has been much literature on this subject: about early informal and then later scientific tests,on the host, after it touched the mouth. Tests were said to be proving that the bread was not transformed into real material flesh. Saying that it was still, provably, bread.
Many Protestants and rationalists, cited this evidence, these tests, for turning from the Church.
And while it might be that while, as you say, some Protestants might not regard this as a litmus case for belief in miracles in general, others definitely did.
Like or Dislike:
1
Christ has asked us to continue this custom of communion in rememberance of Him, not in place of Him. The believers around Him partook of these things while He was them, after all. Were they literally eating Him then?
If the elements are indeed His real flesh and blood, as some teach, then we would be in a sense performing an act similar to those folks in Mexico who nail themselves to a cross every year in order to feel Christ’s pain, and purify themselves.
Since most Christians accept that Christ died a substitutionary death on the cross for our sin, why go to the trouble of doing it ourself all over again? We accept the symbolism of the cross in faith. In the same way, it seems to me that the taking John 6 literally would in essence mean we would be crucifying Christ all over again, something scripture warns us not to do.
In taking communion, we are simply symbolically remembering His life and death and resurrection in faith as well, and honoring Him the way He asked.
Like or Dislike:
0
“And while it might be that while, as you say, some Protestants might not regard this as a litmus case for belief in miracles in general, others definitely did.”
That was, it seems to me a very strange litmus test! Frankly, I have never heard anyone say that and can’t remember ever reading that it was used that way. I am not arguing with you–just saying that was something I was not aware of.
Like or Dislike:
0
Read especially the early Rationalist philosophers. I can’t remember which; but maybe Volataire? Descartes? Who used this very example. A history of thought on the Eucharist, would uncover this group.
Like or Dislike:
0
If Louis Bouyer of the Oratory is correct in grounding the meaning of the Eucharist in the Jewish liturgy and prayers, then the “remembrance” we make of Christ during communion, as well as the “proclamation” of His death, is not as many of us have supposed or been taught. Read his book Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer, esp. pp. 103-105, The Meaning of the “Memorial”. As he writes: “It in no way means a subjective, human psychological act of returning to the past, but an objective reality destined to make some thing or some one perpetually present before God and for God himself…. Every time Christians celebrate it, as St. Paul says, they ‘announce’ or ‘proclaim’ this death, not first to the world, but to God, and the ‘recalling’ of Christ’s death is for God the pledge of his fidelity in saving them.”
Think of the OT covenant-renewing meals and feasts before and in the presence of YHWH when you think of the Eucharist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Eric. I like this reference. But of course you did not unequivocally endorse this source though. And I can see strengths and weaknesses in it.
1) First, the very word “remembrance” (apparently found in the original text?) implies a mere memory. Something wistful; not quite a full “presence.” We are invoking a memory. Not presenting God up front again, live and in person, before us.
2) This is a useful source though, in suggesting something not quite a full presence, but not quite a wistful memory either; something as strong as an oath of allegiance, say.
Which may not bring the old Lord back to life before us, exactly; but which puts our current, modern bodies – and arms? – at the disposal of that old idea/LORD. Given the old ideas or spirit, a very real modern, physical “arm.”
A strong oath of allegiance? Would that be close to the old ceremonies? Less than a resurrection of Jesus; but more than a wistful memory too?
Like or Dislike:
0
MBaker:
A good summary of the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. Though note Eric’s “Pledge of fidelity”; which refines that a bit perhaps.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G.:
I think your oath of allegiance idea is very much a part of the Eucharist/communion – i.e., we (re)bind ourselves to the Covenant, and God does, too. It is not just a remembrance, but also a reminder to God and to ourselves of what Christ effected between man and God, and what both we and He have pledged to do with respect to our respective parts of that covenant.
(Not that the covenant goes in and out of force and has to be renewed/restarted at each communion, though…. I.e., Christ doesn’t have to be re-offered as if His one/one-time offering wasn’t truly once for all and sufficient.)
IIRC, Catholics and Orthodox assert that in the Eucharist Christ is re-presented before the Father – i.e., His offering is eternally present to the Father, and the Eucharist re-presents (not simply represents) Christ to God and to the communicants. I.e., the Mass/Divine Liturgy presents the one and the same sacrifice that occurred at Calvary, not a new sacrifice or a resacrificing of Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
So it all seemed so metaphorical and vague; but suddenly it finds a very real, physical manifestation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric:
Though it would seem to me that just seeing even a re-presentation of the old sacrifice, even that, would not be as vivid as our emulating it ourselves, in real life?
Indeed, if we did not emulate it in real life, then that re-enactment of the original sacrifice was not real enough for us; or was perceived as a mere show or subtitute.
I would rather see it not as anything self-sufficient in itself; of adequate in itself. Or an end in itself. But as a model for our very real actions in this world.
To over-stress the sacredness of that moment, the Eucharist or host – as God himself – in makes it an end in itself. We have fully experienced God they say … so why ever do anything more than go to communion?
But clearly just going to church, taking communion, should really not be enough; that would create a mere priest, who never gets out of the church (hanging around the sacraments, regarded as sufficient in themselves). It would not – and has not to this very day – recreated, more than priests, another Christ. Someone taking that spirit, even militantly, out into the world. As Jesus did; even in the aim of forming a “kingdom.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke 22:19-20 quotes Christ as saying regarding communion being a remembrance of Him.
“And he took bread, and after giving thanks, he broke it and gave to them saying. “This is my body ,which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant of my blood.” (ESV)
To me that suggests the act of taking communion signifies to Him both an establishment of a new covenant relationship with us, and our physical continuance of it in the church. Not in the literal sense that it actually it becomes real flesh and blood, just because we receive it as physical food and drink, but it is a representation of all that He is/was/ and is yet to come, and all the promises that go with that.
Then there is I Corinthians 11:24 which further explains that as often we do this we proclaim the Lord’s death UNTIL He comes.
Since humans eat flesh every day in the natural, I honestly cannot see how taking holy communion would equate into actually eating the Lord’s body and blood, because then it would only honor Him as merely a mortal man of flesh and blood like us, and not celebrate Him in the fullness of the Godhead. We could just as well remember Him every time we ate bread or meat or drank wine, rather than making communion the act of celebrating the mutual covenant that He established.
It’s not the elements themselves that turn into Christ, but what Christ made of the elements by His death on the cross that turned them into something special.
Like or Dislike:
0
MBAKER
1) That is a good objection to the too-literal understanding of the Catholic Eucharist. That is, that it is actual flesh.
2) Fortuntely, to be sure, some Catholics have themselves moved a step past their earlier, too-literal understanding; to “transubstantiation.” Which holds that it is flesh … but then again it admittedly doesn’t look like it. It is rather still looking like bread, to be sure. It’s just that its invisible essence or “substance” has been changed.
The theory of transubstantiation seems better than the old literal idea; but as a rather Platonist theory, there are anti-Platonic arguments against it. (That are too long for present explication).
3) In any case though, as we ourselves take in the spirit of Jesus in the communion, and devote our lives to him … the spirit takes hold in us.
4) And, here’s a recent addition to the traditions and scholarship on this, by a friend of mine, a scholar on Resurrection: this very moment s in effect, one way Christ has lived on, to be “resurrected” even in the physical world.
That is: a) as the spirit takes hold in us, note, that we have a physical body.
So that b) amazingly, as foretold, the spirit … now finds a physical body again. As we loan it, in effect, ours.
Thus c) the spirit, Christ, is re-incarnated, resurrected; in the world; in the flesh. To the extent that we aa) know the spirit well and truly; and bb) actually act in the physical world, according to it.
A note of caution of course: don’t try to do this at home yourselves. You must be very, very, very sure that you have the right spirit … before you go marching around the neighborhood as the living arm of Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the Lord’s Supper has to be seen in relationship to the Passover Seder and the covenant feasts with YHWH. While the Lord Jesus may have implemented/initiated something new, I don’t think He did what He did out of whole cloth.
What are the OT precedents for the Lord’s Supper? What was the relationship of those at table with both God and with each other at these precedents? What was the place/meaning of the bread, wine and cups? What did the celebrants do at these things? Where in these things did or does the food and drink the celebrants partake of become the flesh and blood of deity so that they consume their God?
Like or Dislike:
0
“What is so special about this day?” As the older Jewish people say at such dinners today?
Here’s my (even original?) understanding:
Originally the passover of course, referred to indeed, another loyalty oath or show of loyalty in effect. Moses had told those who were loyal to him (and thus in effect to Mosaic Judaism), to make bread quickly. And especially, sacrifice an animal. Then put the blood on the lintel of the door to prove it. Those who showed their loyalty in this way … were not killed, when the “angels” of the Lord came by later, killing all those who did not show this sign of loyalty.
Later generations of Jews, to this very day, get together on Passover; to show their continuing loyalty too. I part by putting something on the door? And the dinner too. Which includes quick – unleavened – bread.
Those at table? Were, and are, in the kingdom. Wine? Cups? Who can say where you will be in the kingdom; as events overtake us all. But as an early and prominent and able celebrant?
Once invited to the table of a king, you are already presumed to be a friendly; and the longer at table (at the LORD’s expense), the more you are expected to be loyal to the hand that feeds you. As a member of the messhall; and possibly the very household.
If you eat meat there, you eat the “flesh of the Lord.” Which note, has a double meaning. And might only mean … a) eat the flesh or meat – the steak – he hands you. In contrast, likely the b) wrong understanding: don’t bite the hand that feeds you, like a cannibal indeed. When you eat the Lord’s “flesh” – or better said, “meat” – you are not eating the Lord himself; you are eating his hamburger.
You don’t really quite eat or become the Lord himself; except as follows. By him feeding you, he is putting “flesh” on you (as in Dan. 1.4-15). Which was his, but is now yours. And to the extent that you in turn devote your/his flesh to the service of the Lord? Then you have taken on in fact – consumed and then become – the Lord’s flesh.
I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0
Seems a bit grisly, I’ll admit. But to understand reality, even religion, it helps to be as concrete about it all, as a surgeon sometimes. Jesus told doubting Thomas, to push his very finger into the very wound. Grisly stuff … that we are commanded by the Lord to do, if we doubt.
Like or Dislike:
0
To clarify my last statement, I am not saying or suggesting or implying that in the OT the food and drink they consumed indeed become the flesh and blood of YHWH. In fact, I’m suggesting that it does NOT, and that’s one reason I left the communion of those churches that teach this – i.e., it had no OT precedent, IMO.
I kept asking and praying and looking for some OT precedent for what the Orthodox and the Catholics teach about the Eucharist, and I could find none.
Even the statements in 1 Cor. 10, which seem to support the Catholic/Orthodox belief, seem to fall apart for me if in the analogy Paul makes with the celebrants at the table of demons they did not in fact believe that the food and drink they consumed became the flesh and blood of demons.
So, if you can show me that this is indeed what those who ate at the table of demons believed, I might be persuaded to think again more in line with the Catholic/Orthodox teachings.
But if these pagan celebrations were of food and wine offered to and consumed in the presence of and in communion with their deities/spirits as a covenant-making and -renewing meal, but not or not believed to be an actual eating and drinking of now-changed-into-demons’-flesh-and-blood victuals, then for Paul’s analogy to hold, neither do the bread and wine of the Eucharist change into the Lord’s real body and blood. Nor were the participants supposed to believe that they did.
Or so I think.
Like or Dislike:
0
EricW,
Here is a quote from a very long article in the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. I didn’t read the whole article, just basically skimmed it for pertinent information.
“Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical “giving of the body” (in organic unity of course with the “pouring of blood” in the chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to soma he adds the present participle, didomenon by which he describes the “giving of the body” as something happening in the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future.”
It was found at this site: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
(For some reason I couldn’t get it to copy as a link.)
Anyway, if I read this correctly they believe that there is actually a sacrifice that is made in the Eucharist each time in a mystical way. It seems that they believe there was actually a mystical sacrifice that happened when Jesus instituted the Eucharist the night before His death on the cross and the same thing happens each time the Eucharist is given today.
It would be an interesting read for anyone that has time and wants to understand the Catholic position better.
Like or Dislike:
1
I think we agree. I guess my ideas above are confused, no doubt.
But you are right: we are not literally, eating the Lord’s physical body. As many thought. That would indeed be even more grisly than what I have described: that would be cannibalism. My assertion agrees with you I think: that any Catholics and others who think that … have misunderstood the Bible.
I’m not too familiar with the demon example; I’ll look at it.
Like or Dislike:
0
C:
Be careful of your source: “New Advent” is not entirely reliable.
Though here, fortunately, it seems they are modernizing the Catholic approach; to be more compatible with Protestantism. In the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II.
“Giving of the body” in New Advent, does not specify things as much as earlier Catholic literature did. And leaves open a mystical aspect.
Earlier Catholic literature however, was very much more concrete.
New Advent by the way, I think, is run by an individual person, who perhaps is not even a priest. And I do not believe that site is officially endorsed, by the Church itself.
If you want an authoritative source, the only one is: Vatican.va
And even there, the Church itself says, only when the Pope himself, speaks authoritatively, “infallibly,”"Ex Cathedra.”
Accept no substitutes.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Dr. G. It is a very tehnical article with many quotes from the past. It seemed authentic. Doesn’t mean it is though.
I guess you are maybe saying it is pretty hard to pin down exactly what they believe?
I believe it was Dudley Davis above that said he was an ex Catholic and said they believe in a continued sacrifice in some way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul on eating with demons (1 Corin. 10)?
The context is … Jews have strict food laws about what kind of food they can eat; “Kosher” laws we call them today. But Gentiles, Greeks and others, do not. So they could not eat at the same table.
However, Paul wanted to extend Christ’s teaching not just to Jews, but also to the gentiles, Greeks. Yet Jews and Gentiles in effect, couldn’t even eat at the same table, according to old Jewish (OT?) laws. Because their foods might mix up.
So, to allows Jews and Gentiles to mix, even at dinner (and eventually that special dinner, communion), Paul here tries to drop some of the old food prohibition. Telling us (with Peter) that in fact, we can eat anything put before us, or sold in the market.
Christianity here drops, changing, some of God’s old food laws in the OT, to be sure. Many would say.
The “new” law was: eat with others; whatever they eat.
But there is apparently one exception however: just don’t eat food sacrificed/dedicated to other Gods; demons.
Because the people and their food are … bad. Demonic.
All this doesn’t seem to have a very direct relationship to the Passover seder. Other than not allowing non-Christians into communion.
Or in fact, strictly speaking, it would be hard to violate: since today, it would be very hard to find any food at all, sacrificed to any gods or demons. Therefore there is little chance of eating it.
Though to be sure, just in case: eat with friends, among good people, when you can. Don’t hang out too much with bad people; or eat too often at their house. And especially, don’t eat bad people’s (bad?) food?
Does that answer anything? These are the thoughts off the top of my head. Basically, there’s not much here that is really relevant I think. Except to note that Paul is enlarging the circle of people who can share Judeo Christianity together, at table. To include not just Jews, but also non-Jews; Gentiles.
That enlargement is fortunate. Since in fact, Christianity didn’t catch on among the Jews proper, that much; most Christians today, are not decended from Jews. But were from Gentile nations: Italians; French; Germans; Spainards; etc..
Christianity spread far more among Gentiles than Jews. If Paul had not bent some table rules, f he had not modified Jewish OT food rules to allow Gentiles into the communion with the Jewish/Christian tradition of Jesus, then undoubtedly, Christianity would never have spread as widely as it did, through table fellowship. Early Jewish Christians, would have eaten only with their immediate tribesmen; no non-Jews would have been allowed into the inner circles and family groupings. And thus Christianity would never have spread so widely … until it allowed, attracted, “all nations,” all peoples.
Note however, that this success of Christianity, was done by bending/breaking some Old Testament “laws” however, it seems. Paul (and Peter) dropping warnings from God, against eating pork, shellfish, and so forth.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherly u:
Probably the best source for Catholic belief/teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). An online searchable edition is here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Sections 1362-1372 are relevant to this discussion:
The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.
1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”186
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.”187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”188
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”190
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men.
1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:
Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.191
Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.192
1370 To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.
1371 The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who “have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified,”193 so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ:
Put this body anywhere! Don’t trouble yourselves about it! I simply ask you to remember me at the Lord’s altar wherever you are.194
Then, we pray [in the anaphora] for the holy fathers and bishops who have fallen asleep, and in general for all who have fallen asleep before us, in the belief that it is a great benefit to the souls on whose behalf the supplication is offered, while the holy and tremendous Victim is present. . . . By offering to God our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, if they have sinned, we . . . offer Christ sacrificed for the sins of all, and so render favorable, for them and for us, the God who loves man.195
1372 St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete participation in our Redeemer’s sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist:
This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head. . . . Such is the sacrifice of Christians: “we who are many are one Body in Christ” The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered.196
Like or Dislike:
0
Boy, is there a lot of confusion abounding on that particular subject!
Like or Dislike:
0
Some of the reformers held the view of consubstantation, such as Luther, where Christ’s body and blood are present, in, with, under the form of the bread and wine, which in and of itself still remains bread and wine.
Even Calvin taught a form of this, that by taking the bread and the wine, which remain so in themselves, in a way that the Spirit raises us through faith to share Christ in a way that is both real and mystical.
The Westminister confession (29.1) is generally used by the much of the church as the full statement of the meaning of Lord’s Supper as follows:
(1) the Lord’s supper, as we call it, was instituted by Christ himself as a perpetual sacrament to be observed until the time of His physical return.
(2) It symbolizes the sealing of all benefits accorded to us by His death as true believers
(3) our spiritual nourishment and growth in Him
(4) our further engagement in and to all duties which we owe to Him
(5) and to be a bond and pledge of our communion with Him, and to each other, as members of His mystical body.
The scriptures on which these statements are based are Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20, I Corinthians 10:16-21; and 11:17-34.
The reformed church believes that the sermon in John 6 about our need to feed on Him by eating His body and blood is not literal, but is better understood as being about what it signifies, – continued communion with Christ, by faith in what He has done and who He is, and how he has asked us to honor this, rather than the Supper itself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding frequency? “Continuing sacrifice?” About how many times do we have to take communion to be saved?
In much of Protestantism, I think it could be just once. But Catholics are indeed, having a continued, renewed sacrifice. Priests often say in public, that once is not enough. In fact, they hint that once a week is necessary.
Though their tradition once said something very different.
Regarding the main issue though? Actually eating God? I agree; the Bible was not really literal here. And many Catholics here therefore, make a mistake.
New Advent might be trying to change that.
However note again: there are several “Catholic” media outlets out there, that claim to speak for the Church; but so far as I know, none of them have that much authority; however complex and interesting their theology may seem. Or even if in some cases, their theology is a seeming improvement over Traditional ideas. The Church is extremely authoritarian and hierarchial; and the Church itself therefore, probably does not endorse such sites officially; nor do most Catholics themselves really follow them. The old Catholic Encyclopedia itself might have been reasonably reliable; but then New Advent stepped in, to insert its own two cents.
For that matter? Probably theology and religion are so complicated, that no human source whatsoever is all that authoritative.
Like or Dislike:
0
The key phrase, somewhere in the current Catechism, seems to be asserting a “Real Presence” of Christ in the host.
This phrase lends itself to two or three interpretations. Ordinary Catholics probably once favored this one: 1) when you eat that bread, it really turns into a piece of human flesh. So you are really eating Jesus.
2) Others more plausibly favor this more modern interpretation: that piece of bread is really, really Jesus. In some mysterious way. The bread does not change in its external appearance. But – as in Transubstantiation etc. – changes its essence, or “substance.” A position accepted by many Protestants.
3) Most conservative Catholics will not accept that this could be taken to mean its a “symbol”of God though. It has to be God; really, really, really, a “Real Presence” somehow.
Most Catholics would accept something like many Protestant churches though; some of which also accept in fact, (I believe), Transubstantiation.
This was one of the two or three top things at issue in conflicts bewteen Catholicism and Protestantism, for many years.
To the point that it became immensely boring, c. 1950.
Like or Dislike:
0
I personally am only interested in it today … as a vehicle for some new ideas about the mechanism of the resurrection of the body and so forth.
Many have heard about this over and over and over in Sunday School; and in church; and on Catholic Radio, a million times. And never really caring about it, at any time. Except to be concerned at all the people caught up in it. And to urge them to find another way of thinking.
“It’s symbolic,” seems good enough.
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding frequency, Christ says as many times as we do it. Does that mean salvation is based upon the number of times we observe a sacred ritual that He has asked us to observe? Of course not. If that were the case it would be more about our works than His.
We are merely obeying His command to do it, however frequently, in perpetual remembrance of what He did in establishing a new and better covenant for us through His life, death and resurrection.
Like or Dislike:
0
Note however one important thing:
1) At one time, Catholics were quite literal, and did not believe in transubstantiation.
2) And Protestants did believe in it.
3) And that was a cause of huge and violent conflicts between Protestants and Catholics.
4) However, Catholicism has begun endorsing transubstantiation by name. Which does not quite take eating Jesus, literally.
5) So that, actually, there is far, far less conflict or difference between Catholicism and Protestantism here, on the issue of the literality of it, today.
Indeed, if you are a conservative/traditional protestant who believes in “Transubstantiation”? So does the Church.
6) Though to be sure, many liberal Protestants no longer like that concept; and would just like to say, “its all symbolic.” A position that (most of) the Church itself, would not accept.
7) Though there is a certain amount of fudging going on around the meaning of the “Real Presence.” And God being there in “substance.” Terms which … could have many meanings. a) Conservatives thinking of these as meaning God is really there physically; Liberal intellectual Catholics trying to find authorization to think of these as allowing … symbolism.
8) Indeed, nearly churches deliver ambiguous language, open to many interpretations; so as to be “all things to all people.” So that the language is usually deliberately vague or equivocal; open enough for many theologies.
The Bible itself they say is translated this way; systematically open to more than one interpretation (on issues like Universalism vs. Hellfire for example, perhaps).
To be sure, many might not like such equivocation – some would say, evasiveness – in language. Feeling it is not honest.
Could our Bibles be dishonest? Equivocal? Open to several different understandings? Trying to say two or more things at once?
Many say it does do this.
A shocking thought.
Like or Dislike:
0
G,
In all due respect, you’ve got it turned around. The Roman Catholic church teaches that Christ is present by transubstantiation, as defined by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, not the Bible.
Whereas, all the reformed churches accept that we celebrate communion by giving thanks to Christ for His finished and completed work of atonement, not simply literally recreating the act itself over and over again
The Lord’s supper has both a past significance honoring Christ’s death, and a present and future hope that we will share in His resurrection.
Like or Dislike:
0
I want to ask this…is the flesh and blood of Jesus rather of Him as the Lamb and not man? They were eating the seder meal, the seder meal included lamb and was a throwback to the night of the Passover.
I have eaten the seder before and instantly recognize the acts involved and saw Jesus in every aspect. I posted once on it so I am not going over it again. But I would like to think when we eat the bread it is His flesh because He is the lamb of God. Abraham was referring to him when he said “God will provide a lamb”.
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
The Gospel of John creates a problem for concluding that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. It differs from the synoptics in placing Jesus’ crucifixion during the time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered.
Some argue that it was a Passover meal, but celebrated before the Jews’ Passover, or perhaps according to a sectarian calendar. The lack of mention of the lamb in the Gospels, as well as other missing features from the Seder, has been used to argue that it wasn’t a Passover meal.
The use in the Gospel texts, as well as in 1 Cor 11, of artos (bread) without the word azymê (unleavened) has been used by some, including the Eastern Orthodox, to say that it wasn’t a Passover meal, as well as to support using leavened bread for the Eucharist. But in Hebrew the word lechem is used for the prayer over the bread, whether leavened or unleavened, so this may be a false distinction or invalid argument.
One has to be careful about reading the modern Passover Seder, which is what most Jews and Christians know, back into the first century. Very little in Pesahim and/or Mishnah Pesahim 10 (the Talmud volume on Passover) relates to the first-century feast. There are differences between the Seder today and how it was celebrated in Jesus’ time in terms of the foods eaten and the order/content of the service.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
As I said in a comment above, most of the reformed church takes the position that it is not literal either way, as it was in the passover supper, or in the Roman Catholic belief which came along later, but a new covenant of everlasting life that Christ, as the Lamb of God established through his death once for all who would believe in Him.
That stopped us from having to make sacrifices of any kind to have our sin remitted. If we take this one step further, we can see that Christ could not be immortal if we were constantly being able to literally eat Him, the sacrificial Lamb of God.
The actual sacrifice occurred on the cross, but the Lamb Himself was resurrected. So what we do is symbolize that as well in partaking of communion, not just it eat as a literal sacrifice ourselves, if that makes any sense.
Read Hebrews to get a much better explanation of that.
Like or Dislike:
0
MBAKER:
“Reformed” Churches may have something different; but surely there are many other churches in Protestantism than “reformed”? Last I knew, in my old Presbyterian churches, we were taught “transubstantiation” as a living dogma. Has that changed?
In any case, it was once held by many Protestant churches, denominations.
If they’ve recently – in the last few decades – dropped it, that fine with me. But when did that happen?
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
Was the lamb part of the idea of eating God? Outside John perhaps?
Jesus and the pascal lamb were identified, put together, in the New Testament and/or church dogma. When Jesus was called the “lamb” of God. This was done as one way of explaining how it could be that the son of God could be executed.
Trying to explain how God could come to earth, and be executed, presented early Christians with a problem. To try to explain this, early apologists began looking back into OT literature for some figure or incident that could justify this. Finding among a dozen other possible apologetics, the passover lamb. Suggesting in the NT that Jesus perhaps, could die … rather like the lamb must die in passover. So that his death was not a failure, but part of the usual plan of God somehow. Dieing to “save” – feed – others. The sacrificed lambs fed family … but parts were often given to the poor.
Eric raises good objections to that idea in the Gospel of John. But perhaps in other gospels, and then in church Dogmas, it gained some traction. Seeing Jesus as the lamb, might have been part for a way, to justify, explain, Jesus coming to earth and dying.
And once you identify Jesus with the Passover lamb .. then indeed, the idea of eating God for passover comes up.
Possibly therefore, that is part of the meaning/transfer which created the otherwise strange idea of eating God at passover. And it might make sense in this way: the passover lamb was killed, in part, to feed the priests, family, and the poor. So that eating it served many.
To be sure though, there were also living strands of real cannibalism in the area historically; the belief that eating part of the body of your enemy gives you part of his strength.
It would seem that your suggestion might be one of many contributions, threads, that will form the final overall picture or tapestry of the Eucharistic host and wine.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric W:
The Last Supper might not have to 1) be a Passover meal … for 2) Jesus’ death to still be regarded, as a passover sacrifice.
Indeed, if Jesus dies the same time that passover lambs are being killed … that if anything seems to confirm the relationship?
The John supper would not be a passover supper … but still, Jesus dies at just the right time for the real passover, a day or two later?
Like or Dislike:
0
MBAKER:
To be sure, “transubstantiation” is not explicitly in the Bible itself”; I hope I didn’t say that.
Some might harve argued that transubstantiation is implied in the Bible however. Its Platonic aspect (invisible forms etc.) might – remotely to be sure – be derived from Paul’s Platonistic references to things on earth as mere “shadows” and “copies” of ideal “forms” in “heaven.”
To be sure, I’m not fond of the theory myself; partly because of its overly-Platonic sophistries. And I am happy to reject it. Though it was held not just in the Catholic Church, but also in many Protestant churches as well, if my memory serves.
Certainly I can remember discussing transubstantiation in Protestant Sunday School, as a child.
Like or Dislike:
0
1) Note that Patton’s intro above, said “most” Protestants rejected transubstantiation. That leaves some that accepted it.
2) Certainly in any case, to be sure, most rejected the popular Catholic literal understanding of the Eucharist: the belief (still popular among many, even Catholics) that the host changed even visibly, into actual human flesh when we put it in our mouth.
3) “Transubstantiation” though was a tiny bit more sophisticated than that: it held that the host did not change physically, visibly, at all; but that its (rather Platonic) essence or invisible “substance” was transformed in the body of Jesus somehow.
a) Finally though, Transubstantiation itself, has some logical/conceptual problems of course. Not least of which being … how do we know it really changed in its invisible “substance”? If we can’t see it? And just exactly what is that invisible “substance” anyway?
b) Then too of course, there might be theological objections to the idea as well.
4) Though oddly: the transubstantialist notion of an invisible “substance” changing only, might be very, very close to the “spiritual” transformation, acceptable to many Protestants.
5) Personally in any case, my interest in religion, is not in denominalist “dogmatics” or doctrines as they are called; I like a non-denom, scholarly theological sense of things. That ranges freely over all over Christiandom; without announcing any particular creed or denomination as final truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
In that vein, I might even accept the idea of “eating Jesus” as part of longstanding tradition, that is interesting. Though I would not accept either 1) the literalist, or 2) transubstantialist understanding of that (to be sure, in some ways rather humorous idea).
See 3) my own perhaps origianl reconstruction of a perhaps more plausible understanding of that scenario, above. Where we eat not the Lord himself, but the meat or “flesh” that a lord serves us, at the dinner table.
In my hypothetical reconstruction, the “Lord’s flesh” has been mistranslated or misunderstood; it does not mean exactly the flesh of God, but … the animal meat or flesh that he or his priests served at dinner. Which is “his” in the sense of being in his possession; not being his own muscle tissue.
This is hypothetical of course; and needs a closer look at the original Greek.
But in any case, in my (I think original) reconstruction of the meaning of that event, we are not following the scenario in transubstantiation that many Protestants seem to object to: we are not “eating Jesus” as I myself have lampooned it before. Rather, we are rather, eating the animal food, meat (/”flesh”), that he and/or his representatives give us, at meals, like Passover.
Like or Dislike:
0
All I know is this…Jesus said “this is my body”.
When Jesus was using a parable to teach He would say this is a parable.
If Jesus were talking about a particular person He would say a certain man. He never distinguished symbols or allegory. But often did use description.
He did send one of the disciples to get meat. So there was meat. And the verse does say they “killed the passover”. The Passover season was chosen, certainly by God, but it was the time also when most Jews would be in Jerusalem because it was a national holiday.
No one at the table questioned his meaning when he said it was his body. he never said it was his flesh. so it does not necessarily have to be his flesh. but he said it was broken for many. his body had not been broken yet so very clearly he was establishing what was about to happen.
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
Interestingly (though this may not conclusively prove anything), while the word for bread/loaf (artos) is masculine, Jesus used the neuter for “this” when He said “This is my body.” Was he referring to the Passover meal? The gathering at the table? The action of taking and blessing and breaking bread?
Also, according to Luke and Paul (1 Cor 11), Jesus didn’t say “this wine is my blood” but “This cup is the new covenant by/in (Greek: en) my blood.”
Like or Dislike:
0
No possible relation in the Greek, between “body” and “flesh”? As they are sometimes related – used interchangeably? – in other parts of the Bible?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G,
Not necessarily I do not think because the Bible says “works of the flesh” not meaning the body. The flesh has different meanings in the Bible.
The Bible does say the we are collectively the body of Christ. It has a deep meaning that one must think deeply to understand. I think I will spend the rest of the day asking Jesus just what He meant.
Like or Dislike:
0
My hypothesis: was what Jesus gave us to eat, really his own body (Gk “soma”), or “flesh” (“sarx”)? Or was it the body, “flesh,” of a sacrificed animal, offered in his name?
In John 6 (:32? 52?) it is asked: “How can this man give us his flesh” (Gk.: sarx) “to eat?” Here as possibly everywhere (?), the Greek “sarx” seems to have the meaning of muscle tissue. Meat? And might be applied both to our own muscle, and that of animals?
If my admittedly bad Greek is right, this means that in effect, 1) Jesus did not – here in John at least – offer his own “body” (soma); but his “meat” (sarx). Which 2) could then be taken as either a) his own muscle tissue … or as simply, b) the meat/flesh he served at dinner.
If my admittedly very poor Greek holds up?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr.G,
It’s really hard to understand a transliteration. Jesus was speaking Aramaic. He was not speaking from a Hellenistic mindset.
I don’t speak Greek, I left that up to the people who were Greek speakers and scholars who did translate the Bible. In the English I speak flesh means the meat, the the body, the tendons and sinew. But it also means that part of us that desires sin. The works of of the flesh manifest are these…as it says in Galatians.
But Body I think implies the whole outward. The entire frame that includes all parts that make us function. That reminds me of a phrase farmers used to say “a good judge of horse flesh”. It then implies specificity. Because ranchers or farmers looked at how the body looked.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G.:
Well, since in John 6
a) in response to them being offended, Jesus asks them what if they were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before,
and
b) He goes on to say that the flesh (sarx) profits nothing – rather, it’s His words that are (give/produce) spirit and life
His point was that despite their unbelief and incredulity, He had indeed come directly from heaven with words of true spirit and life.
He contrasts Himself with the manna. Though the ancestors were given manna to show them that man does not live by bread alone, but by all (Gk. “every word/thing” panti rhêmati) that comes from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3), that “bread from God” did not, in fact, give eternal life. Hence it wasn’t the true bread from God. Jesus as the True and Living Bread does give eternal life.
It wasn’t about whether or not He really wanted them to eat His real flesh and drink His real blood. It was about believing in Him, and coming to Him.
Jesus lived by doing His father’s will and work. That was the food He had. He didn’t literally eat His father’s blood and body. 6:57
IMO
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric,
Good point on the differences.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric:
I guess I agree; the Eucharist is not so central as many thought.
Though that apprears to render the Eucharist/communion, all but unnecessary? As a side-show?
Or one path among many?
Since we can come to God by many different means; including especially reading his “word” in the Bible? And accepting the “spirit”?
I think I do agree. Though my interest here is not pastoral counselling; I’m intereted in theology. As another way of finding God; beyond sentiment.
In that vein, thanks for the hard information you often offer.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think making the assumption that the Eucharist is not central from the facts presented here is not a correct one, in all due respect. We are talking about the differences in what the elements represent, not whether the communion, Eucharist, or Lord’s supper, itself is central to the church as a whole.
I believe it is, because Jesus Himself asked us to do this in remebrance of Him, and the new covenant He represents. As followers of Him and the new covenant we observe it, despite our denominational differences, as an ordinance of the church because of that.
At issue is its meaning as defined by God, not a certain branch of the church.
I agree with Michael. We need to stick to that topic, which is the subject of the post. Otherwise it makes it very difficult to follow the thread.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G.:
While I have come to agree/believe that the Eucharist is not the central/essential thing that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have made it – they regard partaking of it is very important to one’s salvation and theosis (though not necessarily mandatorily so) – I don’t know that I’m willing to relegate it to unnecessariness.
As you no doubt know, in some traditions neither baptism nor communion are considered “necessary,” the bottom-line reason for doing them being primarily because “Jesus told us to.” This anti-sacramental anti-”works” view of communion and baptism may be an extreme overreaction to the view that regards them as salvific (and it’s not hard to find verses in the Bible that tie baptism and communion to salvation and forgiveness of sins and having eternal life).
While it may be “unnecessary” for salvation, is communion really an unnecessary part of one’s Christian life? If it’s viewed as being on the level of corporate worship and prayer, then it automatically gains necessariness, or at least great value, as being a means of worshiping and communing with the Body of Christ in the presence of the Lord. I.e., when the church takes communion, it is the family of God seated at table with its Lord as head. Which is why I think separating the elements from the meal can obscure or confuse the symbolism and meaning, and can negatively affect its effectiveness and meaning.
While I know that some benefit from taking individual communion for spiritual growth and benefit, that, too, may not be what Christ or Paul intended when they wrote/spoke about the Lord’s Table. If only one is partaking of the bread and wine, where is the “all” that partake of that one loaf and so constitute one body?
Does communion unite the members with both Christ and one another? Or does it reflect/represent an already-present union? Or both?
Like or Dislike:
0
Communion probably should unite us to 1) God; and 2) to each other.
But 3) in actual practice? Historically, almost nothing has been more divisive, than the issue of communion. That is precisely the issue, that historically gets different Christian denominations fighting among themselves.
So oddly enough? If you want to unite Christians, radically de-emphasizing communion is actually the way to go. Communion has produced the opposite of community, for some time.
4) And if you want to find some common ground, communalism, between the many warring Christian groups? Speak about other aspect of God and the Bible; like the God who “fills all things.”
5) Can this be done according to the Bible?
Like or Dislike:
0
Surely there are many other ways than our – ironically, extremely divisive – “communion,” for joining God. Even in the Bible itself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Who a person will have communion with is indeed a dividing line between/among Christians/churches. I’ve heard/read that’s one reason Quakers and the Salvation Army have dispensed with both baptism and communion.
As mentioned, communion was ultimately one of the reasons I left the EO Church, but not soley because of the transubstantiation issue (i.e., the topic of this thread – the EO view differs from the RC view, but essentially they both teach that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of Christ during the Mass/Liturgy, which is what the communicants believe, affirm and are told they partake of). It was also because I wasn’t willing any longer to affirm the church’s decision on who could and could not partake from the chalice. I.e., I wasn’t willing to say that I wouldn’t or couldn’t commune with (or commune, were I to be the one to offer the bread and wine) non-Niceno-Constantinopolitan, non-Chalcedonian Christians.
Like or Dislike:
0
And so ironically, we are better Christians, if we don’t emphasize – or even go to – communion, it almost seems. Whatever communion is exactly, in actual effect, it has been perhaps the most divisive element in Christianity.
So maybe we should instead, follow God when he tells us that a mere Good “Samaritan” – who was not even in the Judeo-Christian tradition – could be a better person or “neighbor,” than even a priest or a rabbi.
Opening up to other denominations … and even other religions.
Personally I like Quakers, and the Salvation Army, as a matter of fact. I once inadvertantly gave a lot of money to the Salvation Army. (I wrote a song and gave it to a singer I knew; told the artist to give whatever money he got, to the Salvation Army. Turns out it was an awful lot of money. What the heck: I like the Salvation Army. Right after that, the local chapter had enough money to build a whole new facility.)
What the heck.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Does communion unite the members with both Christ and one another? Or does it reflect/represent an already-present union? Or both?”
I would say it seems that it does both in this respect:
(1) It reminds us all that whatever denomination (or not) we represent, we are first and foremost members of Christ’s body, with Him as the both the Head of the church, and us members of both His physical and spiritual church. This is due to His covenant with us first, and while not essential to salvation, certainly a reminder of the price He paid to obtain that for us. We corporately pay homage to the person of Christ, not just observe a church ritual together when we take the bread and wine together. In that respect, we are united in one particular purpose, whether we individually agree on everything or not, or even like one another or not.
(2) Communion is also a reminder that life is Him is continuous, not strictly a one stop shop for eternal life, but what happens afterward, which is whether or not we will submit His lordship over our lives. In that regard, communion also serves still another function, according to scripture, which is to admonish us that before taking it we should examine ourselves to see if we are the faith.
There are, in my view, a great many aspects to consider.
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding the thread: does communion unite the members of Christ and one another? My answer is adamantly, NO. It actual practice, it has proven over and over, to do exactly and precisely the opposite of that.
Whatever the 1) technical arguments might be for this or that concept of the Eucharist, as just discussed, 2) in actual practice, in History, “Communion” has, with supreme irony, divided Christians from each other, and from God, almost more than any other issue.
Disagreements about the nature of the Eucharistic communion, were in fact near the core of the religious differences that sent all of Europe, for example, into a largely religious war between Catholics and Protestants, c. 1618-1648; in the “Thrity Years War.”
And that war has continued; in Northern Ireland until just a few years ago. Indeed, it is seen in the war of words on communion, in this very blog.
So, in answer to the thread there? Does communion unite believers to Christ, and the members to one another? The answer is: adamantly, no.
If we seek union with Christ and one another, I strongly advise another route.
And there are many in the Bible; a community that is “one” with Christ, thanks to Biblical study and the “word,” for example.
Like or Dislike:
0
If 1 Cor chapters 11-14 are all of a piece, then the fact that Paul says “when you come together” in 14:26, as he does in 11:18 and elsewhere in this section, could suggest that unbelievers could be present at the meal, and not just at the “worship service.” (Look up in a Greek concordance all the occurrences of sunerchomai in its various forms in 1 Cor 11-14.) This then could suggest that it was only later that the “elements” of the Eucharist, which had also come to be regarded as sacramental and sacred substances, were only to be administered to those who had been properly initiated into the fellowship and who held the proper (i.e., “orthodox”) beliefs.
From whom would you withhold Christ’s offered and given body and blood? From whom did Christ withhold Himself?
On the other hand, if the Last Supper was indeed a covenant meal between Jesus and His followers, and meant to be so, then it’s reasonable to suppose that the meal in 1 Cor 11 was for covenant members only, and should be so now.
In that case, how would you decide who can partake of the meal and/or the bread and wine?
Or would you just dispense with the ceremony altogether?
It’s easy to see why churches draw lines of inclusion and exclusion re: communion. A covenant requires such things, doesn’t it? Non-Jews could partake of the Passover, but only if they were circumcised. It wasn’t a pot-luck for anyone or everyone. It required covenant fealty to YHWH, or at least the marks/acts denoting such.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi,
I really liked the way you approached this issue, and wanted to respond. I agree with you that not every time Jesus spoke, He was understood by the crowd, and I agree that an attempt to over-literalize Jesus has gotten a lot of people into trouble. I’ve actually used the same example from John 2:18-21 to show that people who brag about how “literally” they take the Bible are making an oft-repeated mistake. Take the Bible seriously, but not always literally – in other words, take it as it was meant to be taken.
That said, I think there are some pretty easy Catholic responses.
The answer to your first point is Mark 4:34: “He did not tell them anything without using a parable, though he explained EVERYTHING to his disciples in private.” So Jesus allowed the crowd to be confused, and then would explain things to the Disciples. The reasons are pretty clear — the crowds weren’t ready for the full Truth yet, and so He revealed it slowly, and according to His own timetable. The Disciples were given more information, and still didn’t really get it at first. So looking at your examples:
1 (a) is the crowd misunderstanding, with a note from John explaining what Jesus meant. How does he know? Because Jesus explained parables to His disciples, and John was a disciple.
1 (b) is the exact same thing, only it’s Nicodemus (and not a whole crowd) misunderstanding. Once again, John is “in the know,” so to speak, so he clues in his readers.
1 (c) has the Disciples initially confused, and then Jesus explaining it.
All of this comports with Mark 4:34. Now look to how Jesus reacts in John 6. The crowd, I think we’d both agree, think that Jesus is speaking literally. They didn’t initially think this: in John 6:42, they think He just means that He’s come down from Heaven (with no hint that they get anything about eating His flesh). After He keeps talking, their initial objection gets replaced with a much bigger one in 6:52, suggesting that NOW they are taking Him literally.
If this was like 1(a)-(c), we would see either a description of Jesus explaining this to His disciples, or a note from John explaining what Jesus meant. Instead, we see in John 6:67, “Jesus then said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also want to leave?’”
So it isn’t even that John omits to include what Jesus really meant, or the fact that He talked to the Twelve afterwards. It’s that Jesus went to the Twelve, and instead of saying, “here’s what that symbol means” like He did for the other examples (and which Mark 4:34 says He would do), He basically says, “Take it or leave it.”
This is pretty unique amongst the teachings of Christ. The only other one can be found in Mark 9:9-10, when Jesus warns them not to say what they’ve seen until “the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” Mark 9:10 says, “So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant.”
So the two times we see Jesus refusing to explain away the “metaphor” are for the Resurrection and the Eucharist. If Mark 4:34 is accurate, this because the Son of Man literally was to rise from the dead, and because Jesus meant the Eucharistic part literally.
–
As for your second point of opposition, it’s true that John doesn’t include the Last Supper. But Paul does, making it one of the only biographical details which he records. To use the standard that “anything not found in John’s Gospel isn’t important” would take out the Virgin Birth as well as the Last Supper.
Remember that John is writing last, perhaps as last as the 90′s A.D. Notice also that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul use almost identical wording for their description of the Last Supper, and that St. Paul claims to have received this “from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23). This suggests two things:
(1) This was important enough for Jesus to tell Paul personally;
(2) the Synoptic writers and Paul seem to have this memorized basically verbatim.
Now notice that the Didache (written before the Gospel of John), was a book intended for new entrants into the Church to explain some of the basics – a sort of “Idiot’s Guide to Christianity.” It includes Eucharist prayers in Chapters 9 and 10, and calls the Eucharist “spiritual food and drink.” Chapter 14 says that you have to confess your sins before you can receive the Eucharist, so that “your sacrifice may be pure,” and says that it’s celebrated on the Lord’s Day.
So given that the people to whom John is delivering this message have already heard of the Last Supper from 4 Apostolic sources, plus the Didache, it’s no wonder that John didn’t feel the need to include that information. Besides that, his Last Supper discourses already run 3 chapters long (as long as the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus all rolled into one). John’s Gospel is radically different than the other three because his goal is to *build off of them.*
Anyways, I like your post. I thought it was thought-provoking, and hopefully, I’ve provided at least some context for why people come out on the other side of those arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dispense with it altogether; until its time for a barbecue.
Suggesting that indeed, and in spite of many arguments to the contrary, the central meaning is … the sense of community, in simply, a shared meal.
Like or Dislike:
0
Which would normally be among people who trust each other; and/or are of the same clan or group.
Like or Dislike:
0
G, please show some restraint. More than 50% of posts are from you. In some cases you appear to be holding a dialogue with yourself, or you completely ignore previous postings and do not interact with them and so fail to advance the discussion. For example, when mbaker discusses how communion unites Christians, you don’t respond to the points she made at all, but merely pronounce an “adamant no” and go on to discuss a unity of peace and lack of conflict, which is different from what mbaker discussed. Introducing a new, but related aspect of the issue is fine, but it should be connected to what has transpired previously.
Furthermore, you often write without bothering to check facts (e.g., protestants, not catholics believed in transubstantiation), or write without substantiating your assumed facts, or merely present vague generalities. For example, you write, “in spite of many arguments to the contrary, the central meaning is … the sense of community, in simply, a shared meal.” What evidence or reasoning do you supply for your assertion? None, despite the fact that your statement indicates that you are aware the the central meaning is disputed. Do any writers of significance agree with you? Does your position find support from the Biblical text? Is there some exegesis or reasoning that would support your position? We don’t know because you don’t provide any.
I have stopped posting anything substantive, because I find your posts hijack the thread and make any sort of sustained discussion between the other bloggers almost impossible. I note, too, that this blog site is down to about 3 or 4 regular posters. Other people seem to be abandoning it as well, unlike other blogs where the moderator is more ruthless.
I’m not saying don’t post. I’m saying post with some restraint. Post only a couple of things on a thread, and then—-even if you have more to say—-wait until others have posted. I would also suggest staying on topic and using actual paragraphs, complete sentences, complete thoughts and proper punctuation.
regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
If it were simply a shared meal, and nothing more, then we could include anyone seated in an entire restaurant with us, Christian or non. It was a Jewish belief that you made a ‘salt’ covenant with those you dined with. That may have been another reason why the Pharisees objected to Jesus dining with sinners and Gentiles. But, as the body of Christ, we share a common meal together under His covenant, in His memory, at His request to do so until He comes back.
There is no real outward way to decide who is ‘worthy’ to take it or who isn’t. We are simply told not to take it lightly because it is considered a sacrament. It is a forerunner of the feast true believers will enjoy with Him someday in heaven.
When we celebrate this, in both obedience and faith, we are to offer the elements when we are gathered in His name, and let each person make the decision whether to partake or not, just as we do in the presentation of the gospel itself. Only the Lord knows who is in real covenant with Him and who isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
Let’s take a broader perspective, on the Eucharist, now and then.
1) Is the Eucharist itself for example, exclusive; for believers only? Whatever it may say elsewhere, at times the Bible seems very inclusive: “for we all partake in that one bread.”
2) Thus we begin to come to a more inclusive sense of the Eucharist. Is it strictly Biblical? Here, in fact, we may be heading more into Anthropological territory; Anthropology telling us that there were many types of common meals in different kinds of groups. This broader definition or approach, might help give it all perspective. And help us see the Eucharist as a friendlier, more open operation.
3) In contrast, to be sure, remaining strictly within traditional denominational “Dogmatics” as they are called in Theology – outlining what is often said in churches, as their doctrine, about say the Eucharist – has its usefulness.
4) Still, many of us have heard our church Dogmatic positions many times before.
5) And so, consider some advantages to stepping back and contextualizing our focus. Indeed, let us now and then step back for a moment to take, say, an historical perspective; stopping to recall here that after all, rigid adherence to dogmas and doctrines, have led to many, many horrible wars.
I submit that it is important to step back and see the larger picture, now and then. And my present step back into History is a case in point: which reminds us that the very adherence to, fascination with Dogma, that we are indulging here, was the cause of many, many wars. Hundreds of wars were fought in defence of dogma; wars that have apparently killed millions.
6) I therefore feel that it is approriate and even necessary, to now and then, pull back from pure Dogma; especially when literally, millions of lives have been lost, thanks to Dogmatic statements.
7) Even especially to, conflicts about the Eucharist.
8) “Staying on track” here would mean in fact, that we are even here and now, in danger of simply repeating the old dogmatic errors.
However fascinating those old tracks are; we know they often end in literally, death.
We would not be good or moral Christians, if we did not pull back a bit, and note the dangers here. No matter how “off track” our remarks might seem.
Let those who want to follow those tracks now however, go ahead.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G,
And what does the Bible say about people who take it unworthily?
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
You made a very good point and I was able to read it. Yes, unity is what the body is called to be in. Reminds me of the verse
one faith, one Lord, one baptism.
and he goes on to ask whose baptism were you baptized under, do some belong to Peter, do some belong to Paul? No, we belong to Christ and it is his baptism.
Like or Dislike:
0
John CT.
I’m with you. This blog is slowly dwindling to one person’s opinions here.
Now doctrine that doesn’t agree with his is simply dogma because he says it is.
CMP,
Again, I must protest that this has become anything but a serious theological discussion. It is increasingly difficult to keep any sort of sense of coherence in this discussion. Like others, I feel as if I’m wasting my time. No matter which thread we try to go to avoid this, he follows us, and takes over.
Respectfully,
MBaker
Like or Dislike:
0
P.S. I should reiterate as I did on another thread that is it not disagreement with what I say that I am opposed to, (God forbid that I be so narrow minded), but deliberately sabotaging a post or a comment so as one person chronically makes themselves seem superior or dismissive to others, simply by virtue of their personal opinion, and/or education- rather than debating on the real doctrinal, or theological, merits of an issue according to the Bible,is simply not fair to the others who do try to make sensible input. Did not the Lord Himself say: “Come, let us reason together?” it seems to me that if we can’t do that, on His terms, we have missed the point entirely.
I think we need to define the difference in the terms here.
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t think the Eucharist is supposed to engender friendliness. It’s not even liberal in it’s function to include all people. We have to view the whole thing as one event and not a singular aspect. First we must recognize what it represents…Christ’s broken body and shed blood.
Judas was a partaker of the first part of the meal, because he was orthodox Jew he would keep the law of the Passover. Then he was released to do what he was going to do. Jesus released him, but he did not partake of the bread and blood, which Peter and the other disciples did. Judas was not made a partaker of the new covenant.
The Passover quest began that day he was still in Ephraim and “set his face as flint” and began the journey. So it is interesting that he sets out through the Jericho route. He healed Bartimaus, the woman with the issue of blood and raised Jairius’ daughter from the dead all in Jericho.
Before he entered Jerusalem he had disciples get a donkey, and then get the room, I think Peter prepared it, I am not sure right now. But that day of entrance was on what we call Palm Sunday…they shouted “Baruch Haba B’Shem Adonai .” so that prophecy would be fulfilled. This was prophesied in Zechariah.
Without understanding the first part, we miss out on other meanings. The eucharist is not remembrance of just one thing Jesus did, but the totality of what he did and was going to do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
There has to be a defining line somewhere between belief and disbelief about what Christ’s sacrifice really meant to mankind. As Christians we accept communion of the Lord’s supper as our sign of signifying the validity of the new covenant He made with all who would believe in Him. While it’s open to all, does it mean that if we partake of it we are saved, in the sense the Lord means it?
I think it’s a matter of first things first. If we believe what the Lord Himself has said about salvation, then it naturally follows that we will believe the whole counsel of God regarding what He says about celebrating communion – and for the right reasons.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
Of course there have been Christians who have decided to include all people in the communion. But it should not be taken lightly as you said earlier. We have many homosexual ministers who are giving the communion to homosexual congregants, saying it is done because God loves them.
But we can agree that according to the Bible that those actions should not happen because it is against the laws of God. The communion is not for salvation per se…it is for the fellowship and unity. The Bible does say there are many weak and sick among us because people take it unworthily. But of course we don’t make the determination on someone else’s walk.
That line does have to be drawn. And you are right, where is it drawn? Many of those priests who were administering the Eucharist were giving to people who had no idea the priest was abusing children. We can’t lay that all at the Catholic’s feet though because it happens in all churches. There is sacredness in the communion, at least there should be. And to reduce it’s sacredness to nothing more than a common act makes it shallow.
The right reasons becomes muddied in this world of political correctness. We are pushed to accept lifestyles we know are against the word of God. I don’t think an innocent person is given the host by a guilty person makes the innocent any less, I think in the guilty it expands the guilt. It should because it is sacred.
Who is to administer? I think Protestants are more comfortable if we did it impromptu…as oft as we do this, do it in remembrance. We don’t need a priest. We must recognize it for the sacredness it holds. But however we do it, recognize the sacredness of it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
I think that is the key – to recognize the sacredness of it, as Christ has defined it- in remembrance of who He is and what He did for mankind.
To do it as rote, as the Catholics do, or not to it as all as some Protestant denominations do, (so as not to offend), amounts to same thing: We are redefining communion on our own terms, rather than upon Christ’s.
That is the real bottom line here.
Like or Dislike:
0
I like this quote by John Calvin “The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life….That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises.”
-John Calvin
I have said in the early part of this blog that I am an ex roman catholic and now a Presbyterian Protestant. I do not accept any longer the rc teaching of transubstantiation. I believe Christ comes to us in communion at his table spiritually by our common faith alone. I believe the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine.
I am now invited to the Lords Supper as a Presbyterian. I now believe in the Presbyterian reformed teaching of The Lord’s Supper. That it was instituted by Jesus the same night he was betrayed, to be only a symbolic remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death and for our spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, and as a bond and pledge of our communion with him, and with each other.
When I was a Roman catholic I use to believe that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ at the mass. They call that Transubstantiation. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine, which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest. I have felt more a presence with Christ when I commune in the Presbyterian church and have confessed my beliefs as a Presbyterian that the Lords Supper is symbolic but Christ makes his presence spiritually. I now believe as Calvin taught “That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises.” I am nourished when I commune in the Presbyterian fold, I did not find that nourishment and presence as a RC when I was taught the bread and wine became the body and blood. I am convinced Rome is in error and the Reformed teaching on the Lords Supper is what Christ intended.
God Bless
Dudley
I think the following that I found this week is very interesting. I and my Presbyterian congregation celebrate the lords Supper on the first Sunday of the month..once a month and I no longer believe the sacrament of the Lords Supper is necessary as Catholics do for salvation but I am nourished when I do take of His Supper.
John Calvin and the Eucharist
Let’s first take a look at the Catechism John Calvin prepared in 1541 for the Church at Geneva:
Q: Do we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord?
A: I understand so. For as our whole reliance for salvation depends on him, in order that the obedience which he yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if it were ours, it is necessary that he be possessed by us; for the only way in which he communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours.
Q: The Supper then was not instituted in order to offer up to God the body of his Son?
A: By no means. He, himself alone, as priest for ever, has this privilege; and so his words express when he says, “Take, eat.” He there commands us not to offer his body, but only to eat it.
And again:
Q: What then have we in the symbol of bread?
A: As the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us to reconcile us to God, so now also is it given to us, that we may certainly know that reconciliation belongs to us.
Q: What in the symbol of wine?
A: That as Christ once shed his blood for the satisfaction of our sins, and as the price of our redemption, so he now also gives it to us to drink, that we may feel the benefit which should thence accrue to us.
And,
Q: Have we in the Supper only a figure of the benefits which you have mentioned, or are they there exhibited to us in reality?
A: Seeing that our Lord Jesus Christ is truth itself, there cannot be a doubt that he at the same time fulfills the promises which he there gives us, and adds the reality to the figures. Wherefore I doubt not that as he testifies by words and signs, so he also makes us partakers of his substance, that thus we may have one life with him.
In a short confession of faith that was written by Calvin about that time we find in a section titled “Of the Real Receiving of the Body and Blood of the Lord” the following:
Wherefore we hold that this doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, viz., that his body is truly meat, and his blood truly drink, is not only represented and ratified in the Supper, but also accomplished in fact. For there under the symbols of bread and wine our Lord presents us with his body and blood, and we are spiritually fed upon them, provided we do not preclude entrance to his grace by our unbelief.
The questions and answers above are all from the hand of Calvin, and were written to instruct the people in the Church at Geneva, this is of the section from his short confession as well. I know many of my Reformed brethren will have difficulty with what Calvin wrote in the catechism, but it is important to know that what he wrote for the catechism was his consistent and often reiterated position on the matter.
Now let’s leave Calvin’s Catechism and look at some of his other writings. In the mid 1500’s Calvin and other Reformed theologians got into a debate with some of their Lutheran counterparts on the issue of Christ presence in the Supper. Joachim Westphal wrote against the Reformed position. Westphal condemned the Reformed Christians and accused them of denying Christ presence in the Eucharist.
Calvin took up his quill to defend the Reformed doctrine on Communion. In his first treatise defending the Reformed position he was still hoping to see unity between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. So he tried to be diplomatic and non-confrontational. Here are segments from that Treatise:
The bread is given us to figure the body of Jesus Christ, with command to eat it, and it is given us of God, who is certain and immutable truth. If God cannot deceive or lie, it follows that it accomplishes all which it signifies. We must then truly receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion of both. Were it otherwise, what could be meant by saying, that we eat the bread and drink the wine as a sign that his body is our meat and his blood our drink? (pg 163)
… we have good cause to be satisfied when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings. (pg. 163)
We all then confess with one mouth, that on receiving the sacrament in faith, according to the
ordinance of the Lord, we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In this first treatise (which is titled “A Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord, In Which Is Shown Its True Institution, Benefit, and Utility”) Calvin takes on Westphal directly, but he does not mention him by name. Calvin writes, “It is not necessary to go far for arguments in our defense, seeing that this foolish man shortly afterwards quotes our own words, in which we openly acknowledge that the body of Jesus Christ is truly communicated to believers in the Supper. I pray you do we leave nothing but empty signs when we affirm that what is figured is at the same time given, and that the effect takes place?” (pg. 195)
There is much more that Calvin wrote on this issue. Over and over again in his writings he makes clear that he believes that we do truly partake of Christ true body and true blood when we, in faith, eat the bread and drink the wine of the Lord’s Supper. He disagrees with both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic explanations of the mode by which we receive Christ, but that is about mode and not about the fact that Christ body and blood are truly given to believers in the Eucharist.
John Calvin was not alone in this view. What he argues for is the same doctrine that we find in the 16th century creeds and catechisms of all the Reformed Churches. Calvin and other Reformed theologians believed that they were standing with the Early Church Fathers and the Bible when they taught and defended the idea that “we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ” when we take part in eating the bread and drinking the wine of communion.
Like or Dislike:
0
One further note another blogger mentioned earlier that Christ said “as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me” He did not say to do it often. I now concur as do many Presbyterian Congregations that monthly celebration of the Lords Supper is sufficient. To do it weekly can become like the roman catholic celebration and very rote. I have also been to the celebration with a Baptist conjuration and joined them for the Lords Supper. They however only commune 4 or 5 times a year.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
DR G said “Is the Eucharist itself for example, exclusive; for believers only? Whatever it may say elsewhere, at times the Bible seems very inclusive: “for we all partake in that one bread.”
I believe that it is for all who except Christ as their savior. My Presbyterian congregation accepts all believers to the table. I have communed with also the Methodists and the Baptists as I have said. I was an Episcopalian for a brief period of time when I first became a Protestant after leaving the roman catholic religion. I am no longer welcome to partake at a roman catholic mass, nor do I wish to, and the roman catholic church sees it as a sin for catholics to receive communion in a Protestant service.
I am happy that I am now a Presbyterian. I initially studied in an OPC congregation and they are more restrictive that is why I am not an Orthodox Presbyterian.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Dudley,
Thank you for an excellent and most informative post.
In my mind the theory, held by RC’s (and I call it that because I believe it is based upon only one verse, which is taken entirely too literally, and out of context) honors the priests and elevates those who give it more credit than the One who is the reason for it.
After much study of it, I think it comes down to one issue: Are we to believe a dogma of one denomination as opposed to what the Bible indicates is more symbolic of the new covenant made by Christ alone?
I think there is a real difference between dogma and essential doctrine. Thus far, I have not seen it adequately defined by those who talk about it, except to present it as either a personal choice versus a denominational belief. It seems to me that it is much more involved in the end, because it seems to boil down to an issue of God’s sovereignty, and what He says as opposed to the personal potluck beliefs of individuals and churches nowadays.
What do you think? Are we moving more toward personal definitions of Christianity nowadays in many ways than what we are told biblically?
And if so, or not, how do you believe that affects our beliefs about taking the Bible literally or not at all? it seems to me there are extremes of both operating in the church today.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl u said “Anyway, if I read this correctly they believe that there is actually a sacrifice that is made in the Eucharist each time in a mystical way. It seems that they believe there was actually a mystical sacrifice that happened when Jesus instituted the Eucharist the night before His death on the cross and the same thing happens each time the Eucharist is given today.”
And Dr.G said “Though here, fortunately, it seems they are modernizing the Catholic approach; to be more compatible with Protestantism. In the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II.
Both statements are true. However the current pope Benedict has made many moves to bring the catholic church back to pre Vatican II mentality. They are reemphasizing the notion of sacrifice which I as a Protestant reject and also returning to the practice of the adoration of the bread wafer outside the Supper which I now see an abomination and blasphemy as well as the rc mass. I first became an Episcopalian because I was no longer in union with the pope and the papacy. However I soon became a Presbyterian and rejected all the same practices that Calvin, Knox and Zwigli did after studying the reformation. I have only been a Protestant since 2006 and a Presbyterian since February 2007.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Dudley,
Think about Catholic priests who administer the host to soldiers about to go into battle. That is a great responsibility to bear, and it makes me wonder if they wish they did not have to do it at that moment.
It is one thing to receive it, but another to administer. I do not envy them at all but respect their duty toward it. The one thing I have noticed, that some Catholic people are extremely full of faith and I would never want to diminish that for them. I would feel more prepared if I received it before I had to fight.
The other one is administering to those who are condemned to die. How do the priests mentally prepare in those cases?
Like or Dislike:
0
Sometimes I feel that no one really knows what or how or why to do the Lord’s Supper. The more I ponder 1 Cor 11 (as well as 1 Cor 10), the more questions it raises. Paul is somewhat confusing in what he writes (as he is about heads and headcoverings, too!), and at times one wonders if he’s just making wordplays with krinô, not to mention the other things he says – or more especially leaves unsaid and/or unexplained and/or unclear. Every church tradition or practice related to this can appeal to the same Scriptures, and can also use the same Scriptures to argue against those who view and do it differently.
Ah, well….
Like or Dislike:
0
EricW
There are things Paul said that were his own opinion and not God commanding it. Those things we must ponder about why he said it, but if it is his own opinion then we are not really obligated to follow. The length of hair is one such issue. Women being silent in church is another example of Paul’s opinion. And he states clearly when he is saying what is God and what is his own opinion.
Too often we take it as gospel truth as though Paul was tantamount to God. Anytime you hear Paul say…not God, but I, he is interjecting his own idea. And when he says I would…meaning not necessarily God either. I think when we read it we need to learn what God is actually saying and consider if it can be held up to other viewpoints from various authors, starting with Jesus.
He said one time…we have no such customs. I am not trying to discourage reading anything Paul wrote, what I am saying is to read carefully and learn what it is Paul is writing about. Paul criticized Peter many times, but we don’t. That is how a great split happened, from an argument Paul started. Paul was just a man with very set ideas of how things should work in his own opinion. So when you see something Paul said, go back to see in what context he was offering it.
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
So, what of Paul’s instructions and comments about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11 is from the Lord, and what is his personal opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
I think we need to keep in mind that II Timothy 3:16-17 declares that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That has to include the parts where Paul says things are his own opinion doesn’t it? Do we just ignore those parts then because Paul says they are his own opinion? In other words, did God in some way not inspire even that opinion also?
Like or Dislike:
0
cheryl u:
The author of 2 Tim 3:16-17 quotes the Septuagint as Scripture, including the Apocrypha. (see the marginal notes in Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 27th edition)
So does the authoritative Scripture for Christians become the Septuagint where it differs from the Hebrew text? And does it include the Apocrypha?
Like or Dislike:
0
It seems to me that I Corinthians 11: 23-26 states clearly the difference in what is from Paul and what is from God on this issue when it says :
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread and when He had given thanks broke it, and said “This my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way He took the cup after supper saying, ” This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and and drink the cup , you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (ESV)
This indicates that Paul was given word for word instructions, thus the direct quote from Christ, as were the apostles who were actually present with Him at the Last Supper the night before He was crucified.
As Kara indicated, Paul was usually clear when it was his opinion on something, and when it was something directly from the Lord. This is a pretty consistent practice of his throughout the epistles. Not to say, of course, that anything that isn’t a direct quote from the Lord doesn’t hold true. But, here we see that Paul reiterated something that was clearly very important to Christ that we do in remembrance of the new covenant He established with us vis a vis the cross.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, it gets sticky. How do we handle it when Paul specifically says (1 Cor 7:25) that he has no command from the Lord, but still offers his opinion? Are we to say that God has no command, but has an opinion? That’s a little weird.
Or 1 Cor 7:7 – Paul says “I wish that all men were as I am.” meaning unmarried. Do we then say that God wishes all men were unmarried?
What are the implications of inspiration in these verses? Assuming we assume verbal plenary.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker wrote:
It seems to me that I Corinthians 11: 23-26 states clearly the difference in what is from Paul and what is from God on this issue
So the other part in 1 Cor 11 about being guilty of the body and blood and examining one’s self and eating and drinking judgment to one’s self and being disciplined by the Lord, and the part in 1 Cor 10 about it being a koinônia of the body and blood of Christ, is Paul’s opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0
No Eric, i didn’t mean to imply that at all. That’s why, if you notice, I put in the caveat:
“Not to say, of course, that anything that isn’t a direct quote from the Lord doesn’t hold true.”
I simply did not quote the rest of what you are referring to. I think the important thing here is to realize what was Paul’s teaching on church practice, from what he knew from the other apostles, and what he received as a direct command of God. Much the same way that we use the Bible as sola scripture, but we may teach it in different ways, just as Paul and Peter did, and John.
In no way am I separating the theology of Paul from that of Christ’s, just pointing out that Paul was very careful to show the difference himself in his own thoughts and what he stated he received from God Himself. I believe it is just a matter of the careful scholarship of Paul that is being pointed out here, to himself indicate the difference, not the inerrancy of the Bible itself that is being brought into question.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric W said “Who a person will have communion with is indeed a dividing line between/among Christians/churches. I’ve heard/read that’s one reason Quakers and the Salvation Army have dispensed with both baptism and communion.
Cheryl u also said referring to me earlier in the blog:”From what I understand of Catholic teaching, Protestant objection goes way beyond any miracle spoken of in transubstantiation.
They believe that the Mass is a continued sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, contrary to the Scriptural proclamation that He gave Himself once and for all.
One of the commenters (Me, Dudley) here on this site that used to be a Catholic spoke of that fact in at least one of his first comments here.
Therefore, I don’t think it has anything to do with a rejection of miracles per se. I agree with Cheryl. The doctrine of transubstantiation was in essence a knee jerk reaction by the Council of Trent to the Protestant Reformation.
I also believe now as an ex roman catholic that it is Rome that strayed and corrupted he church and its teachings. I ultimately like Calvin had to personally renounce her as well as the pope and its romish and pagan inspired corrupted worship the mass and all her teachings that were contrary to the Gospel.
I believe now as a Protestant that The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal or carnal manner but by faith made partakers of His Body and Blood with all His benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.’However the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, and the command of Christ is: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’ I also believe Christ becomes present in the sacrament to all partakers spiritually because of our common faith in Him.
I belong to a reformed Presbyterian congregation who welcome all believers at our monthly celebration of the lords Supper because it is his table, not ours. However I am no longer welcome to receive in the roman catholic church because I am now a Protestant. However I do and have communed with Methodists, and Baptists and other Protestants who welcome all.
I became a Presbyterian and a reformed Protestant because I believe that Calvin Zwigli and Knox returned the church to its biblical foundation in sacrament, worship, and government.
How Christ makes himself present in the Lords Supper is a mystery of the infinite and should not be defined by finite men. The council of Trent made official a theory by some Christians up to the 16th century that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus. They call that transubstantiation. I no longer accept that teaching.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
I think that the irony that is caused by Rome’s Trent teaching divides Christians in the one sacrament which we should share together, The Eucharist of the Lords Supper. Christ also prayed that “They all be one.” as a Roman catholic Protestants were not welcome to receive at a Catholic mass and it was considered a sin for roman Catholics to receive communion in a Protestant church.
When I was a roman catholic I was taught that the Protestants abandoned the true essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and particularly Reformed Protestants, Baptists and Presbyterians. My study of John Calvin opened my eyes that it was the roman catholic church that abandoned and then corrupted the true nature of the sacrament. I was never comfortable with the adoration of the catholic wafer bread even when I was a roman catholic. However as a Protestant I believe all Christians should be welcome at the at the Lords Table, for it really is His Table not ours and does not exclusively belong to Roman Catholics only!
I the opposite of Scott Hahn, a roman catholic until less than 4 years ago and now a staunch defender of the Reformed Faith. I am now a Calvinist Presbyterian Protestant. A series of circumstances led me to leave the roman catholic church in January 2006. Primarily I was no longer a believer in the papacy. At first I became an Episcopalian because they were anti papist and yet I felt at home with its sacramental structure, its governmental system and its liturgy, which is done at an altar and like the roman mass.
After I became an Episcopalian I began doing an extensive study of the Protestant Reformation from the perspective of Protestant writers and Theologians. I centered a lot on the reformers Luther, Calvin and Knox. I studied Luther’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone and I began concentrating on the Reformed Theology of Calvin and Knox. I then read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the short and long catechisms of the Presbyterian Church. I started to attend services at an OPC Presbyterian congregation in February 2007. I joined an inquirers class Westminster study class and then explored the PCA and other Presbyterian congregations. I am now a practicing and confessed Presbyterian in a PCA congregation.
I now believe that The Protestant Reformation was actually an attempt to return the Roman Church back to the Catholic faith. I am a Reformed Presbyterian and Calvinist, sacramentally I now believe there are only 2 sacraments baptism and the Lords Supper. Again the Roman Church refused to listen to a large number of its priests who called for reform. Eventually, the body of reformers, Protestants, (protesters) were forced to separate from the Roman Church by threat of death and continued on with the Catholic faith as it was expressed in the scriptures as outlined by the Creeds of the Catholic faith. ” I am now a Presbyterian Protestant for the same reason.
I see the roman mass as a blasphemy because it continues to repeat the one time only and necessary sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. We all have differences on the meaning of the symbols of Bread and wine of His Supper. However that as I said is a mystery of the infinite and any man made attempt such as the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation also by its nature not only corrupts the sacrament but it denies the “Sovereignty of God” which is also why I made a confession of faith as a reformed Presbyterian Protestant after I was born again.
I renounced the roman catholic church and its sacramental teachings and also her adoration of the bread wafer outside the supper which the current pope is trying to reinvigorate. Vatican II tried to downplay that blasphemous aspect. I renounce Pope Benedict XVI. I renounce the papacy and all the teachings of roman catholicism that are contrary to the Gospel. I am now a reformed Presbyterian Protestant in the same manner as Calvin and the other reformers who also were roman catholics at one time.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
I strongly suggest that all Christians read John Wycliffe’s (1330-84) condemnation of the roman catholic communion called “De Eucharistia” It denied the false orthodox roman catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Wycliff’s lectures at Oxford influenced students, who disseminated his opinions. I also recommend all Protestants read Wycliffe as a Religious reformer, and his writings on this subject as well as the Protestant Reformation.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Dudley,
You said, “I see the roman mass as a blasphemy because it continues to repeat the one time only and necessary sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.”
I am wondering if you, as an ex Catholic, can clear something up for me. As you know, I stated several times in this discussion what I had read many times that the Mass is a continued or repeat sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood.
Several people said their understanding was that it is a re-presenting of the one time, once and for all sacrifice of Jesus body and blood and gave extensive quotes from official Catholic sources to back up their understanding.
Can you clarify to me, and maybe to others reading here that may be confused, how you understand the Mass to be a repeat sacrifice? And if your understanding is that it is indeed a resacrifice each time in the Eucharist, how does that line up with official Catholic doctrine? Are there other official writings maybe that make this other aspect come across ?
Exactly what is happening here has left me totally confused.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dudley:
How can you claim that the doctrine of transsubstantiation was a reaction to the Reformation, the cite a 14th century work? Thy doesn’t even make sense. We see Aquinas calling it transsubstantiation long before there are Protestants to “react against.”. And we see the doctrine held by the Eastern Orthodox, who split off long ago. And we see it in the writings of the early Church. Aquinas said that Jesus held Himself in His hands at the Las Supper. Be serious. A reaction against the Reformation?
Cheryl: the Sacrifice if the Mass is our uniting our contrite hearts to Jesus’ once for all sacrifice, and re-presenting Him to His Father and ours. It’s the ultimate pleading the merits of Christ. Hope that helps.
Like or Dislike:
0
I am a Calvinist Reformed Presbyterian Protestant however my thinking on the Lords Supper I believe is more in line with Ulrich Zwingli. suggesting the “is” in the institution words “This is my body” meant “signifies”. Zwingli denied transubstantiation using John 6:63, “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail”, as support. I also now deny it on the same grounds.
Using other biblical passages and patristic sources, he defended the “signifies” interpretation. In The Eucharist (1525), following the introduction of his communion liturgy, he laid out the details of his theology where he argues against the view that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and that they are eaten bodily.
My theology on the Lords Supper, although I admire Calvin as one of the greatest theologians in Christian history is very much influenced by Zwigli.
Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper differed from Luther’s, as we saw in the Luther lesson. They attempted, but failed, to work out their differences at the Marburg Colloquy. Zwingli rejected not only the doctrine of transubstantiation (Christ’s body and blood replace the substance of bread and wine), but also the Real Presence as held by Luther (Christ’s physical body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine, which remains bread and wine).
Instead, he believed that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial or remembrance of Christ’s death which increased the faith of believers (“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes,” 1 Cor 11:26). When Jesus broke the bread and said, “This is my body,” Zwingli believed it was absurd to believe that his body was present in the bread, since Jesus sat before them alive as he spoke the words. Similarly, Jesus is physically now in heaven, having ascended bodily, and while he fills the earth as God at all times, his body remains a human body and is not omnipresent.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
My studies at first were on the reformation my Journey has led not only to a true Protestant conversion but to a total renunciation of the roman church and her pope and all that is popery. According to Rome I am not only excommunicated and an ex catholic, I might be risking salvation.
I am not at all afraid. The following is interesting from Vatican II
This sacred Synod turns its attention first to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon sacred Scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. For Christ, made present to us in His body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique Way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn. 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.
However I Ieft the roman catholic church, not the catholic church. We Protestants are catholic in the Greek meaning and as in the ancient creeds meaning “universal body of Christ”
Once a roman catholic understands that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in only one comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins,” that the death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung, then the process of converting to faith in Christ alone for salvation is acknowledged and the process of leaving Rome and roman catholicism is the obvious next step. Once a roman catholic also grasps that instead of preaching the Cross, Rome is denying and blaspheming the savior by its repeating the sacrifice of Christ in her service of the mass and her teaching of the Lords Supper. Then belief in Justification by Faith alone is logical and it is impossible after that not to see that it is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope.” I also knew I was no longer a roman catholic when I at first became an Episcopalian.
However once a roman catholic understands and believe in the propitiatory death of Christ on the cross as full and only payment for their sin and thus were saved, he or /she will in essence no longer be roman catholic but I knew I only needed to at that point accept Jesus Christ alone as my savior by faith alone then I experienced as Calvin described ‘A true Protestant conversion I was a true convert to Protestantism.
The following attests to the abomination that is the Roman Catholic mass and why I ultimately totally renounced roman catholicism and became a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant.
John O’Brien, THE FAITH OF MILLIONS, p. 305, “The Mass: A Re-enactment of Calvary; Christ is sacrificed again…Mass…applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the Cross to individual human souls. Its efficacy is derived from the Sacrifice of the Cross, whose infinite merits it applies to us.”
Often referred to as Holy Mass or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the heart of Roman Catholic theology. Its devotional value for individuals cannot be exaggerated and it is the supreme Act of Worship upon which the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls. Attendance at Mass every week and on Holydays of Obligation is a law binding all Roman
Although the Tridentine Mass (from the Council of Trent) has been superseded by the New Mass, that Council’s teaching on the Mass is still validaccordin to Vatican II. Note however this current pope has reintroduced the tridentine mass as well as the adoration of the bread wafer.
It is:
(a) When the words of consecration are spoken, the elements become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. The sacrifice is completed by the priest’s consuming the elements.
(b) This Sacrifice is identical to the Sacrifice of the Cross; Christ is the Victim and Priest in both. The difference is in the manner: bloody on the Cross and bloodless in the Mass.
(c) It is a propitiatory sacrifice, atoning for the sins of the living by whom, and the dead for whom, it is offered.
(d) Its efficacy is derived from the Sacrifice of Calvary, whose super- abundant merits it offers to men.
(e) The Mass may be celebrated in honor and memory of the saints.
(f) Christ instituted the Mass at the Last Supper. The symbols and ceremonies of the Mass were added by the Church,whom God authorized to clothe this ceremony with appropriate decoration. The name “Mass” is derived from the concluding words, “Ite, missa est”: Go, it is the dismissal. POST VATICAN II
One of the main R.C. arguments today concerns the Passover. They say that the Israelites “believed that their annual passover meal did not merely commemorate God’s saving action in the past when they fled out of Egypt. They believed this commemoration made the same saving action of God present to them years later when they ate this meal.” (Knights of Columbus, The Place of the Mass in Catholic Worship, p. 11). The scriptures they use are Ex 13:8, Deut 5:2-3 andDeut 16:1-3. These three scriptures do not even suggest that the saving action of God’s deliverance from Egypt was anything more than merely commemorated by the annual passover. Pope Paul VI, 6/30/68 in CREDO OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD. “We believe that the Mass . . . is the Sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. . . the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ enthroned gloriously inn Heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of our Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is the true, real and substantial presence. . . This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation . . the bread and the wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration.”
I as I said a former roman catholic experienced a true Protestant conversion. I now see the absurdity of the roman mass and eucharist. I believe in the propitiatory death of Christ on the cross as full and only payment for their sin and that I was saved by that sacrifice alone , it is why i renounce the roman mass as ablasphemy as did Calvin, Zwigli and Knox.
I already had begun to see the fallacy of the papacy when I left the roman church and became an Episcopalian. However once I did I was able to also to renounce the papist mass, transubstantiation and the pope. I was on the road to being freed from the bondage of that heretical false church and her heresies that I had thought to be a true Christian church.
At this point it was also easy for me the ex rc to understand the blasphemy of the rc mass and her eucharist, it is at that point I began to be instructed on Calvinist Reformed worship, Sacrament and Theology.
If one continues to have the slightest belief that without the mass, the papist wafer bread that they worship and without that church and its pope he might not be saved, one cannot truly become a Biblical Christian and Protestant. When I was able to see and understand the lunacy of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the abomination of the mass I was able to openly renounce roman catholicism and experience what I call as did Calvin a True Protestant conversion.
the following I I have said is beneficial reading for all especially Protestants.
From Wylies the History of Protestantism Chapter 12:The last part of the paper went deeper. It touched on doctrine, and on that doctrine which occupies a central place in the Romish system — transubstantiation. His own views on the dogma he did not particularly define in this appeal to Parliament, though he did so a little while after before the Convocation; he contented himself with craving liberty to have the true doctrine of the Eucharist, as given by Christ and His apostles, taught throughout England. In his Trialogus, which was composed about this time, he takes a luminous view of the dogma of transubstantiation. Its effects, he believed, were peculiarly mischievous and far-extending. Not only was it an error, it was an error which enfeebled the understanding of the man who embraced it, and shook his confidence in the testimony of his senses, and so prepared the way for any absurdity or error, however much in opposition to reason or even to sense. The doctrine of the “real presence,” understood in a corporeal sense, he declares to be the offspring of Satan, whom he pictures as reasoning thus while inventing it: “Should I once so far beguile the faithful of the Church, by the aid of Antichrist my vicegerent, as to persuade them to deny that this Sacrament is bread, and to induce them to regard it as merely an accident, there will be nothing then which I will not bring them to receive, since there can be nothing more opposite to the Scriptures, or to common discernment. Let the life of a prelate be then what it may, let him be guilty of luxury, simony, or murder, the people may be led to believe that he is really no such man — nay, they may then be persuaded to admit that the Pope is infallible, at least with respect to matters of Christian faith; and that, inasmuch as he is known by the name Most Holy Father, he is of course free from sin.”[3] “It thus appears,” says Dr. Vaughan, commenting on the above, “that the object of Wicliffe was to restore the mind of man to the legitimate guidance of reason and of the senses, in the study of Holy Writ, and in judging of every Christian institute; and that if the doctrine of transubstantiation proved peculiarly obnoxious to him, it was because that dogma was seen as in the most direct opposition to this generous design. To him it appeared that while the authority of the Church was so far submitted to as to involve the adoption of this monstrous tenet, no limit could possibly be assigned to the schemes of clerical imposture and oppression.”
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker also said :”Since most Christians accept that Christ died a substitutionary death on the cross for our sin, why go to the trouble of doing it ourself all over again? We accept the symbolism of the cross in faith. In the same way, it seems to me that the taking John 6 literally would in essence mean we would be crucifying Christ all over again, something scripture warns us not to do……….In taking communion, we are simply symbolically remembering His life and death and resurrection in faith as well, and honoring Him the way He asked.” I also agree with him that” In taking communion, we are simply symbolically remembering His life and death and resurrection in faith as well, and honoring Him the way He asked.”
I agree here also because it is biblically sound not out of any personal opinion as one blloger suggested earlier of me. I will commune with all Christians who accept Jesus Christ as their savior. That is however mostly and not all Protestants. As I said roman catholics still see it as a sin for a roman catholic to commune with Protestants, and we Protestants are denied communion at their altar, where they celebrate the communion.
We who are Presbyterians believe that Jesus makes himself present to us in communion in a real way spiritually. However my Zwiglian beliefs are present in my Presbyterian faith its why I have communed also with Baptists on a few occasions who see it only as an ordinance totally symbolic. How Jesus becomes present to us however is a mystery of the infinite and almighty God, not as a miracle of “magic ‘that roman catholicism teaches.
A while back I removed the last vestige or symbol of my former roman catholicism from my home. I still had a crucifix hanging in my bedroom. I noticed that one night and started to contemplate the symbol as not only idolatry but a symbol of the worst heresies of the roman church, transubstantiation and the mass. I removed the crucifix and replaced it with a simple little wooden cross. I guess also a symbol of my complete conversion to the Protestant Reformed faith.
The roman catholic use of the crucifix is because of the false roman catholic teaching that Jesus is slain again and again and again every mass and the false RC teaching of transubstantiation which is the view that Jesus is slain/killed every time the communion is performed. That is why I also now believe the roman mass is an abomination and a blasphemy to God and Jesus his son. To “enhance” this belief, roman catholics through the centuries have used the symbol of the Lord still on the cross (crucifix). Protestant Christians will have the cross as a reminder of the finished work of Christ on the Cross. That He is not there, and that He needs never again to die on the Cross.
Romans 6:10
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Hebrews 9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Dudley,
I realize for what ever reason of your own you chose to leave the Catholic church, but for those who remain, does it make them all in less understanding? If they hold their faith in the Eucharist as the recognition or continuation of the Body and the Blood, however it occurs for them, would still be holding to a faith that could be deemed not in error?
I don’t hear them say the papacy becomes the Body and Blood, what I do hear from them is that the Catholic Church becomes the only one who is supposed to administer it.
I am not a Calvinist so I probably won’t be reading Calvin, Knox and Zwingli. I understand there may have been disillusionment on your part regarding the Catholic Church but I think the issue of Communion is still a sacred act no matter what church you are sitting in. We are making an issue of the nature of the wafer and the wine…not the act itself.
That’s where we must find our interpretation and I thought transubstantiation referred to the wafer and wine and not the act of communion. We do see that in the very act itself there is such a sacredness that people are moved in emotional response whether the response is joy, seriousness, weeping, or introspection.
We can agree that something does indeed happen at that moment in the heart of the believer and that is the great work of communion, if the wafer and wine become the flesh and blood who is to say. I believe that if God can speak light into existence then He is able to change the wafer and wine. It is in the act that makes the most difference, that’s what is more important. And if a 90 year old Catholic woman receives comfort in believing the wafer and wine is the flesh and blood of her Lord, then I would be foolish to deny her lifelong faith in it because she herself is doing it in remembrance.
Transubstantiation is merely one interpretation of that remembrance. Is it symbolic? I think when Jesus was referring to the snake that Moses had made so that whoever in Israel looked on it would be healed and then applying that same symbol to Himself then it all goes back to Jesus. If the wafer and wine do become the flesh then that is a greater responsibility more so than the symbolic view of it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
From my reading there is more to it than that. From my reading to miss Mass deliberately, is a mortal sin that cuts one off from the life of God until the situation is remedied.
“The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of theVatican Council II asserted, “For it is the liturgy through which, especially in thedivine sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of our redemption is accomplished,’and it is through the liturgy, especially that the faithful are enabled to express intheir lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of thetrue church” (#2)
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DGAs8CY3ym4J:www.holytrinityparish.net/RCIA/The%2520Mass.pdf+miss+mass+mortal+sin&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The remedy for this situation is explained in two quotes from the catechism. I will put them in the next comment to avoid moderation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here are those two quotes from the catechism:
The Catechism states:
“1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us – that is, charity – necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation
and
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:
Quoted from this site:
http://cafetheology.org/2008/08/27/fun-faith-filled-facts-9-missing-sunday-mass-is-a-mortal-sin-and-so-is/
So it sounds to me like to miss Mass deliberately is considered a mortal sin that will send someone to hell if not dealt with.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
Here’s the thing that separates it for me, regarding the bread and the wine not becoming the actual flesh and blood of Christ:
“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God waiting from that time until His enemies should be made a footstool for His feet. For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Hebrews 10:11-14 (ESV)
So, if we are teaching that the bread and the wine are actually Christ Himself we are making it a works gospel, and making our own offering for sins, just like in the OT, instead of celebrating the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of His sacrifice for us.
I believe that is an important distinction. While it might not be the intent of the church to dishonor Christ, teaching folks that the act of taking communion and attending mass every day is more than a symbol, but necessary to keep them from ‘mortal’ sin is not biblical. Then it becomes more like the OT where only priests could administer the sacrifice of atonement.
Scripture tells us Christ made the sacrifice that ended that, and became our High Priest.
I’m sure many Catholics do not realize they are actually doing this, but instead believe they are merely participating in something required by their church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Cheryl’s quote from the Catechism.
The Church definitely likes to 1) hint, above, that frequent attendance at Mass, and weekly Eucharists, are necessary. But technically, it does not quite firmly say so, in the above. Read more closely, the passage says 2) that to repair normal sin, is “normally accomplished” within that setting.
There is a) nothing here that says that the Mass and Eucharist must be attended to every week, say.
While if salvation through the Eucharist is the “normal” route, indeed, b) the “daily prayers of the faithful” might have some good effect on its own?
Then too, 4) if you look at an historical survey of the history of the Eucharist in the Church of the past, it apparently suggests that there were very different practices and doctrines long ago. That for example, a) the Eucharist was not even given to the people, but was given mainly (and even only?) to priests; and that b) it was by no means required weekly.
5) Today the Church likes to emphasize frequent communion, no doubt, to get people through the church doors.
6) Beyond just this issue of communion? We like to think that scripture is very firm and definite. But in general, many theologies, church dogmas, even many scriptures of various religions, are often compromises between many competing opinions, competing theologies. And so when you read them carefully … you will find them deep down, equivocating between many different opinions. And never really, firmly putting their foot down at all. (As Eric’s comments above usefully hint).
No doubt, we wish we could go the Bible, and get messages that are definite and simple. But in fact, the Bible is immensely complicated and equivocal on many issues. So that trying to affirm this or that particular doctrine, by reference to scripture or doctrine, is often a fruitless process; the scripture and doctrines themselves are deeply equivocal.
7) Which is why I myself do not usually engage in such scriptural/ doctrinal disputes. You are trying to determine, the deeply indeterminate.
8) In theological terms, I would say that such indeterminacy in our holiest texts is (almost?) theologically justifiable. In that after all, God himself is infinitely complex. And therefore, all our books about him, or thoughts about his words, will always be … hopeless oversimplifications. Therefore, only a deeply equivocal, polysemic, ambiguous Bible … is a good reflection of the fuller nature of God, some might say.
But in any case, the simple bottom line here regarding the thread of the discussion would be … such discussion will probably always be fruitless. People have argued this for five hundred years … and are still arguing over it. Because indeed, the Bible itself appears deeply equivocal on this subject.
Which is why I personally am often dismissive of attempts to re-hash these old questions, and to resolve them by quoting scripture. Because indeed, they always end up in a welter of conflicting interpretations; and the juxtaposition of different parts of the Bible that in fact, do seem to imply different things.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr G,
I realize I left out some vital info in my comments above.
From the same site quoted above:
The Catechism states that :
2192 “Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).
There is a weekly requirement to participate in the mass.
And here:
Therefore, theCatechism teaches, “Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit gravesin” (#2181), and grave sin is indeed mortal sin. Recently, our Holy Father, PopeJohn Paul II, repeated this precept in his apostolic letter Dies Domini (Observingand Celebrating the Day of the Lord, #47, 1998).
From here:
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DGAs8CY3ym4J:www.holytrinityparish.net/RCIA/The%2520Mass.pdf+miss+mass+mortal+sin&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I read another quote from the catechism on another site that a mortal sin is a grave sin which is committed deliberatly and with full knowledge. So to know the teaching of the church on the Mass and then deliberately not to go would be a mortal sin.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, Cheryl, you are right in your conclusion in #111. I should have qualified that as: Many devout Catholics, however, believe in daily attendance. Many parishes also encourage this as well. Personal sins are confessed to a priest as well, and not to directly to Christ. The priest then dispenses ‘punishment’ in the form of repeating a certain number of Hail Mary’s or Our Father’s, or doing penance by other means such as fasting, or doing without something.
Some advise taking this form of confession and penance first, before the taking of the bread and wine. The difference is scripture tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, and not to take communion in an unworthy manner.
While I have dear Catholic friends and have worked extensively with Catholic Charities in the past, personally, I think transubstantiation and other practices like confession and penance are part of a larger issue too, the actual substitution of church rites for the personal relationship we are to have with Christ as believers.
Notice prayers can be offered through Mary and the saints as well, rather than directly to God. Therefore, we have to look at the whole issue of RC belief as well, to put transubstantiation into real context, as much more than a symbolic ordinance in the Catholic faith.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, these are more definite-looking statements. But just to show how even these remarks are finessed by liberal catholics?
1) Some just note that the Catechism itself, is “normative,” as it notes itself in its first pages … but not absoutely authoritative. Final authority rests only in statemenets made “ex Cathedra” or “from the throne” of St. Peter; that is (some say) statements made firmly, announced as infallible, by the Pope.
2) The direction to go to Mass weekly is “bind”ing; but how binding is binding?
3) Those who “know” how serious this is, are bad; but who really knowls?
4) Likewise the defintion of this as “grave” sin, is from a current Pope .. but is he speaking infallibly, ex Cathedra?
5) His statement was announced as a “precept”; how serious are “precept”s? Are they as strong as say, “dogmas”? Or … “articles of faith”? Or other types of pronouncements?
6) While indeed, past Tradition in the Church apparently did not demand such things. Suggesting this statement is fairly casual.
7) What if we looked at other parts of even just the Catechism? What might they say? Not to mention other authorities of the church.
To be sure, such interpretations at times seem sophistical, legalistic; but so do the original formulations, often. Scripture, Paul himself, is sometimes criticized for “legalism.” But he’s in the Bible. So does the Bible give its approval to such “legal”ist arguments?
To be sure, the indications are (as I mentioned) that currently the church is trying to hard-line attendence at the Mass. But … what if we begin to look at other, earlier documents?
The great problem with citing “authoritative” texts … is that it is all too easy to cherry-pick the ones that support your case. Leaving it up to others, to look around for other, counter texts.
SO that in the end to be sure, the person who is merely the most persistent, seems to win; the one who wants to dig up the most quotes.
Though keep in mind; the folks who did this professionally? When we get two people equally willing to consult text after text? Who have the time for that? In such cases again … you will yourself find equivocality. Even on issues like … church attendance. And’or how many times we must take the Eucharist.
Indeed in fact, regarding looking at other sources: what does the Bible itself say, to cite another source? If the Bible asked for weekly attendance and frequent – even specifically weekly – communion … then most Protestant churches of course would be requiring it right now.
A liberal Catholic, who wanted to make a compromise with “other religions,” like Protestantism, might well in fact simply point to the Bible … as suggesting that surely the Catechism could not really, firmly being saying what we are told or what was implied by many. Surely, weekly attendance must merely be a “precept,” many will say.
And who is right? Do you yourself want to firmly say that the stricter understanding of the Catholic Church, on Mass and the Eucharist, is correct?
At this point though, I have to stop. I’m not really an enthusiast of digging up endless quotes myself; perhaps others would like to take up this task, on this blog. As I’ve explained above, I feel that the very methodology here – throwing one text against another – is flawed. And fruitless.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
You are right in that being symbolic for them, but some do have a deep faith in it. I have never been Catholic myself, the last person in my family who was Catholic was my great-grandfather from Ireland but he converted later. So there were not teachings of Catholicism in my family. But I did grow up in a predominantly Catholic community in Ohio. I think of my entire class it was 95% Catholic.
What bothered me was one evening we were driving home from visiting family and I nearly ran over a priest who was staggering drunk from the bar across the road from the parish house. If you have been in rural Ohio you will know what I mean. I heard Catholics who were drunk and admonishing others that it was a sin to eat hamburgers on the Friday night they were out drinking. Again, if you have ever been in rural Ohio then you know what I mean. And this drunken behavior is not limited to Catholics by no means.
But if you get run over while you are a drunk priest…who gives you last rites? The thing I see is this…some are devout and loves Jesus Christ and accept His suffering atonement whereas some just are Catholic because of tradition in their family. I do believe though it is like any other church who actually transforms doctrine to keep members in it.
People are drawn to the mystical because it is a mystery and as such needs to be discovered. Judaism has Kabbalah. And by mystifying the wafer and wine keeps people drawn to it and some people do want to be included in this discovery of great knowledge. That is what the Catholic church has done effectively, and that was mystified people for so long that it becomes a magic act with participants. I think Puritan society was so against Catholicism because of the mysticism. There would not have been so many witch trials unless there was a great fear generated against people. And this fear has been perpetuated by Catholics for so long.
Imagine having to live in such a climate…on one hand you must be Catholic because it would be a sin not to be, and the other hand you must be Protestant because it would be a sin to be anything else. I don’t believe there is anything mystical about communion, but some people do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Good observations about the magic part of it. I think that fascination with mysticism is evident in parts of the Protestant church as well, unfortunately.
It seems we all have certain beliefs because of our church or denominational affiliations. I just consider this one more disturbing because it goes against a direct command of Christ, that it is in done in remembrance of Him, not literally cannabilizing his body, so to speak, which is precisely what I thought the first time I read that verse!
Until the symbolism was properly explained to me, I wouldn’t take communion at all for that reason.
That’s one reason I enjoy discussions like these.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
That is one of the accusations against Pentecostals. And my friend who is Jewish is always trying to tell me that Jesus Christ was merely a mystic who learned great magical powers in the Yeshiva and was kicked out because he used those powers for his own personal gain.
And where did she get that idea? From people like Dan Brown writing a scathingly blasphemous book taking his ideas from earlier mythology. People think there was some huge conspiracy to hide a secret knowledge. And saying “The Church” takes great pains to cover it up.
I love my friend,we are very close. But until she can see that what she was told was a lie then I have to keep showing her my consistent faith. Her claim is baseless and yet she does not realize it. Then we have an “Illuminati” with ideas of global domination. The White Rose Society (Rosicrucians) and the Templar Knights are all just such groups in history who just happened to try to infuse Christianity with paganism.
There is a global elite who has taken over the world, it is called Satan. And through subtle teachings has turned many people away from truth toward seeking false religions. One such event was in Ancient China during the Han Dynasty. They believed in One God they called in their language ShangDi. And in their writings of ShangDi, they tell the Bible with such accuracy that scholars are astounded by it.
In fact it predates Confucianism and Daoism by more than 500 years. Ancient Chinese texts are so exact in ShangDi worship it completely follows Genesis almost word for word. And where would they get such knowledge 600 hundred years before Buddhism?
The Chin Dynasty overthrew the Hans in instituted the new religions including Buddhism. And it was so evident that ShangDi was the original religion…Confucius hid the ancient texts in the walls of his house. But Satan came in the form of the dragon, just at the Chinese believe, and turned people against believing in ShangDi. I was simply astonished when I read it.
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
If I remember correctly, there are Talmudic statements that attribute Jesus’s powers to him being a magician; it didn’t come just via Dan Brown or people like him, but predates him by more than 1.5 millennia.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric; Regarding “Magic” in the Bible:
1) Moses was compared with the Magicians of Egypt; who as a common trick knew how to make it appear that their staffs had turned into snakes; Moses merely managed to improve on their tricks … by having his own similar snake, eat their snakes.
2) In the New Testament, there was a parallel magician Jesus, “Simon Bar-Jesus,” a magician; perhaps a residual early rejected tradition on Jesus himself, as miracle worker? Jesus at times was accused of being a magician.
3) In fact, the Three Wise Men or “Magi” visited Jesus and gave him “gifts”; “Magi” is roughly the plural form of Persian “Magus”; meaning in ancient days any kind of wise man; but forming the root of our word “magician.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr.G and Eric,
While those may be blanket accusations against Jesus, we must understand some things about magic..or magick as Aleister Crowley called it. Magick is based in pagan folk religion grasped by certain rulers to justify their beliefs. But if you accuse Jesus of being a magician (or witch as most pagans do claim), then you would have to validate his system of magick.
Magick is based in slight of hand…or trickery. Where in any document does it allude that a “good man” and a “prophet” as he is certainly accepted to be in most faith systems, would trickery be an action He would have to fall back on? In other words…has any one proven his trickery or has it merely been baseless claims?
Moses would indeed be familiar with magick of Egyptian priests. But the burning bush is evident there was a power he was unfamiliar with. Joseph married the daughter of an Egyptian priest. But that does not mean he followed the religion as they did. Neither did Moses. In fact the author makes it clear that Moses was so unfamiliar with this power he had to ask who it was.
So we could assume, as the world does, that Jesus practiced magick and confused the world with trickery. Or we would have to accept he worked miracles and then comes responsibility. But no where does it mention that Jesus did one thing for fame. He was obedient to the law and would not have practiced any act of trickery. It was against the law of Moses.
The concept of magick is something else that people are drawn to and it proves that God is very powerful and other forms are merely counterfeits trying to make themselves respectable. Magick as we know it today is based in Druidism, but Aleister Crowley tried to infuse Babylonian Mystery Religions into Druidism. He managed at best to get on a record album by the Beatles.
Either you have to accept Jesus was a trickster (disqualifying him as a good teacher) or he was who the Bible says he is. The Bible makes very clear statements regarding what was acceptable and what was not…and magick is not acceptable. Even the Talmud rabbis would know this as well. They made the blanket accusation against Jesus but not Moses. It proves some people did not want others to believe in Jesus as Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
KK:
Sounds good; but what would you do with, say about, that passage in the New Testament, that had Jesus in fact being visited by magicians … and being given “gifts” by them?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G.:
You say that magus forms the root of our word “magician,” but you also say that in ancient times it meant a “wise man.” So to imply that they were at that time “magicians” and gave Jesus a “magic gift” is to commit an anachronistic fallacy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes and no; in ancient times, the wise men … knew some things that we might still call “wise” … and other things that in fact, we would now say were really belief in magic. Conjuring and sleight of hand included. So that the old language really did connote some of the things still retained in our word from “Magi”: “magician.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr.G,
The word Magi does not occur in the Wycliff or the KJV, it calls them Wise Men from the East. Wise entails a lot more than perhaps being magicians.
The word magi comes from Catholic tradition again. Revamped for modern usage. And let’s discuss those gifts…gold, frankincense, and myrrh, the last two were also used in wrapping dead people. So why would the usage of death spices be given to a baby?
And they were most likely astronomers. But where they were from is debated. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate they might have been Assyrians or Persians. And the reason I say that is because the descriptions of both groups of people were well known to people in Israel. And why would the authors of the Bible merely indicate the direction they came from if they knew by previous understanding what kind of people the men were. No, it says they were from the East.
And being wise men, if the Bible consistently admonishes the believer to be wise, does that mean we now have to learn magic to be wise? The traditional names of these men do not occur in the Bible either. Perhaps it does in the Catholic Bible, I am not sure. But when comparing the wise men to magicians does not explain it because they apparently knew the Jews and knew the prophecies concerning the new king.
These were not magicians. Nothing in the Wycliff or KJV confirms that. And their religious practices were not mentioned at all. And even where they were from, not mentioned. They were Wise men, and they possessed some wealth at least. They were astronomers, that much we know. Magi is Catholic legend.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. G,
Do you also believe in the Holy Grail, Holy Blood? Is Mary Magdeline really the maternal ancestor of the Merovingians?
Seems the direction of this thread could eventually get there and I want to clear that issue before it does.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara, I agree.
Since when, and by whose definition, did the wise men become mere magicians, theologically speaking?
That is, in my opinion, a poor argument (not yours) to excuse the lack of really reliable sources to either prove or disprove the theory of transubstantiation here.
Like or Dislike:
0
We who are Reformed Protestant do not accept the rc teaching of transubstantiation nor the Luterhan teaching of “Consubstantiation.”
One of the points on which Calvin differed from Luther was the nature of the elements in Holy Communion. As I have noted before Luther and his followers held that Christ is “really present” in the bread and wine, in a mystic and miraculous way, although not in the literal sense of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvin felt that Luther’s view was much too close to transubstantiation, and insisted that the consecrated bread and wine must be regarded only as symbols, or “representations,” of the Lord’s body and blood.
I have joined ranks with those who wish to Clearly and Unequivocally Proclaim What It Means To Be Reformed Protestant Christians!!!
I believe the roman catholic teaching of transubsantiation distorts the meaning of the Lords Supper. I am impressed with all the comments in this blog since I responded a few weeks ago.
I am now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant and an ex roman catholic and I believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel.
Leaving the Roman Catholic religion is the natural fruit of coming to Jesus. One does not become a Christian by leaving Rome. I was born again first and no longer a roman catholic in the process I became a Protestant when I left Rome.
When my eyes were opened by being born again by faith alone in Christ alone. When I was born again my allegiance was now only to Jesus Christ, not to a religion, a pope, Mary, or the sacraments.
I believe now as a Protestant that The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal or carnal manner but by faith made partakers of His Body and Blood with all His benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.’However the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, and the command of Christ is: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’ I also believe Christ becomes present in the sacrament to all partakers spiritually because of our common faith in Him.
The roman catholic doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, and it overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of many superstitions and gross idolatries.
However how Christ makes himself present in the Lords Supper is a mystery of the infinite and should not be defined by finite men.
I have also come to believe that the Lords Supper is provision of bread and the cup which are symbolic of Christ’s broken body and shed blood; that the Lords supper is partaken of by saved individuals in commemoration of the suffering and death of their Lord and in anticipation of His soon coming again; that its observance is to be preceded by faith self-examination.
(Luke 22:19,20, 1 Cor 11:23-30).
When I was a roman catholic I was taught that the Protestants abandoned the true essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and particularly Reformed Protestants, Baptists and Presbyterians. My study of John Calvin opened my eyes that it was the roman catholic church that abandoned and then corrupted the true nature of the two sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper.
I am an ex roman catholic and now a Communing and confessed Presbyterian. However I am considering baptism in a Baptist ceremony and congregation. I left the roman catholic church in 2006 and became a Presbyterian in 2007. I now believe that God’s word commands every believer to be baptized by immersion in water. Although I have come to believe that baptism as well as the Lords Supper has no saving merit in themselves, it does show forth in solemn and beautiful symbolism the believer’s faith in the union with the crucified, buried and risen savior. (Acts 8:38, 18:8, Rom 6:3-5) I left the roman catholic church in 2006 and became a Presbyterian in 2007. I now believe that God’s word commands every believer to be baptized by immersion in water.
Profession of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, repentance from sin, and baptism by immersion I now believe that Baptism is an sacrament and ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.
I have been reading a lot about Zwigli and I find I like the following very much because I believe also the same.
I believe like Zwigli that Baptism and the Lords Supper Are Symbols, and not at all the actual body and blood of Christ. I do believe as Calvin taught that Christ comes to us spiritually in communion. Luther was still too roman catholic in his theology, he did not move far enough from the false roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation.
I also believe now that that neither of these two is necessary for a person to be saved. My former roman Catholicism was a sacramental church and you needed the sacraments, the mass, and all the papist traditions to earn and merit salvation. I totally renounce that now and that is why I think it is important for us, reformed Protestants to be authentically Protestant in our teachings on the sacraments.
I believe that that salvation is by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone, not by works or ritual (Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, that baptism and the Lord’s Supper, while very important they are not necessary for salvation.
They are important because of their divine origin. The 2 sacraments we reformed Protestants profess as ordained by Christ and in Scripture are not human creations like the sacraments of the roman catholic church. It is why I became attracted and converted to Calvinist Reformed theology and faith. It is why I am now a Presbyterian and staunch Protestant.
As symbols commanded by the Lord Jesus I think it should be as he did in scripture. I am not a Lutheran or Episcopalian because they serve the Lords Supper as a sacrifice like the catholics. I think it should be a meal at a table, not a pagan altar.
I think that baptism should be as Christ and John the Baptist did it only after one is mature and is born again first. It is why I questioned my rc baptism last summer and wanted to be re baptized as a Presbyterian. I didn’t accept the validity of the roman catholic baptism received as a baby in an apostate and corrupt church like roman catholicism. I believe I became a Christian when I left the catholic church. I am now satisfied that I am saved by Justification and the grace of God and Jesus Christ. However its why I found it necessary to renounce the roman church and her pope and only then was able to born again and made a confession of faith as a Presbyterian.
Since I left the roman catholic church I have explored the Episcopal church, the Lutheran, the Methodist, the Baptist and Presbyterian church. Regarding the Lords Supper I like the simplicity of the service in the reformed Presbyterian churches the most. I also like the Methodist simplicity and the Baptist simplicity. I am now a Presbyterian and my church celebrates the Communion service once a month. I do look forward to sharing the Lords Supper once a month with my Presbyterian Congregation.
I also do not like the service in the Episcopal, Lutheran as well as the Roman Catholic church because instead of a table it is an altar that to me symbolizes a sacrifice not a meal.
In the traditional Roman Catholic understanding the priest re-offers Christ on the altar as a sacrifice to God. I believe like Presbyterians and Reformed Protestants that the sacrifice of Christ has already been offered once for all, it needs no repetition, and the action of a priest cannot make it occur again. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper I believe should take place at a table rather than an altar. I also believe that the table itself holds no particular significance or holiness; it is simply a supper table.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting discussion, though with so very much “reformed protestantism” being tossed around I confess to feeling the impulse to hide my prayer books and icons…you puritan-types have a penchant for setting fire to our “pretty things”…lol.
I think that it is important to point out, since this hasn’t been adequately addressed, that “reformed Protestant” is not the same as “Christian”. Likely this comes as a shock to some, but the two are not necessarily connected, and one may belong to either without being associated with both (that whole “wheat and tares” analogy applying even our little Reformation).
My point, though, is that there are many Protestant denominations, and many Protestant theologians who have soundly rejected the memorialist interpretation of the Supper, based on the teachings of Scripture, the teachings of the undivided Church, and the application of plain reason and hermeneutics (and that even includes the teachings of Calvin, who advocates a position that directly contradicts that of Zwingli and the other memorialists). The reality is that one may absolutely affirm the Real Presence of Christ in His Eucharist and remain Christian, and shockingly enough, it is even possible to affirm the real presence of Christ and remain a committed Reformed Protestant.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have followed with interest the comments on this blog since I posted my comment in early April on why I do not accept and why I rejected the rc catholic teaching of transubstantiation when i became a reformed presbyterian Protestant.
It has created much controversy even among those of you who are Protestants. I have said I am an ex Roman catholic and a recent convert to the reformed Protestant faith. I am now a Presbyterian. The Reformers—to a man—rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and the others had differences on the Lord’s Supper—and some of them were big ones–but they all agreed that the Catholic teaching was heresy.
The Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation ties the Christian to the Church. Since salvation without the sacraments is ordinarily impossible for the Catholic, and because the sacraments are only dispensed by the Church, then it follows that the Christian depends on the Church too much for his salvation, that in itself breeds an unhealthy attachment to the church and her pope and a looking to it instead of to the Savior.
Wen I was born again and then received into the Presbyterian church I made an affirmation of faith which was based on the Westminster Confession of Faith. I affirmed my belief in Jesus Christ alone and only him as head of his church and not a pope.
One of the reasons I became a reformed Protestant is because I believe that the reformed Protestant churches are the restoration of the early church to its uncorrupted nature by the influence of Roman catholic heresies. Go into a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church and what will you see? You’ll see the altar. Why because the Word of God is secondary in the church. And that cannot be pleasing to the Lord! For it was He—not Martin Luther—who “Exalted His Word above all His Name.”
For the most part Roman Catholics even if highly educated, don’t know the Gospel as well as Reformed Protestants and Evangelicals. Because the Word of God is not central to their life. It cannot be for—if they’re devout roman catholics —transubstantiation is in the way! It obscures the object of worship.
At the heart of this is the so-called miracle of transubstantiation is a problem to me as an ex roman catholic who is now a Presbyterian Protestant. It compromises the Word of God.
It is why I also agree with our elders in my Presbyterian congregation that communion is only celebrated once a month.As a Protestant now I believe that, the Lord is at the Table when we gather for communion, but He’s not here physically. Thus, the fellowship He offers comes through our faith, not through your mouth! He affirms the Real Presence of our Lord at the Table, but says that our Lord is here spiritually, not bodily.
In grace,
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
I apologise in advance as I am not trained and have 10 minutes to make a post and will not be able to follow up but here are quick answers to your post:
. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
This is asserted but not borne out by the examples given.
Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers
John 6 is not a parable.
John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).
Nicodemus was not taking him literally, he was pointing out that this could not be literally true in a typical rabbinic type argument to draw out the other person. Jesus did not reply, “Truely, truely…unless a man is born of his mother’s womb again…” He clarified and corrected .
John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
This is clarified in the very text given.
Now we come to John 6. John’s readers should know by now that Christ speaks symbolically in such statements as these. We should understand by now that Christ is always being misunderstood by “outsiders.” They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for the reader to take Christ literally in John 6.
If this is symbolic then symbolic of what? Before you jump the gun answers see the more recent post on this site correctly stating that to understand the Gospel you must place your self in the place of the writer of the Gospel and the people listening to Jesus. If not literal then they could only understand Him to mean that in order to gain eternal life one must reject and condemn Him (this is the common meaning of “eating flesh and drinking blood” as understood by the jews.
2. Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all.
This has been discussed ad nausium at Catholic sites since before the Internet. The short answer is that the central events are already recorded in 3 other Gospels. John provides a theologic discussion of the meaning of the Eucharist assuming the reader has already accepted the fact.
Like or Dislike:
0
I just want to mention as I used to be Catholic, started studing the Bible as a Charismatic, and after studing the Bible and reading and understanding it in my hearth, that according to the O.T. in this last days God was not going to live in temples mad by human hand, and several other verses that express the same meaning, I understood that the Eucharisty was a idol worshiping act, as God could not say that He was en these two products, bread and wine.
I also think that when Jesus broke the bread He was meaning that His body was goig to be broken and that His blood was going to be shed for all, but the ones that believe in this act, which the disciples hartly believe, were going to inherit ethernal life.
I can also tell you that most of Catholics in South America, do not believe that Christ in completely in the host, but believe that He is spritually in it.
I recently read “Eat my flesh and drink my Blood” a book of Ana Mendez, and I believe that the Lord’s Supper has great power to unify the body of Christ and that there is a tremendous power. and that having the Lord’s Supper frecuently can bring more revelation to the Church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Why did Jesus’ desciples leave Him??????????? Why did Jesus ask His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too???????????
Did Jesus once ever say: “Come on I was only talking metaphorically. Come on back. INSTEAD our Lord repeated again: Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you………….
Isn’t it strange how protestants take most of the bible literally but when they turn to John 6, it becomes symbolic.
Like or Dislike:
0
If Jesus can turn water into wine then wine into His blood is incomprehensible????????. He can raise Lazurus from the dead but can’t change bread into His flesh. Did He even ONCE say unless you SYMBOLLLICALLY eat the flesh of the son of man and SYMBOLICALLY drink His BLOOD you have no life in you.
You have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear.
Like or Dislike:
0
The greatest biblical reference that refutes Sola Fide or justification by faith alone is Matthew 25:31-46.
Unless you did it for one of these least of my brethren you didn’t do it for me. Through the grace of God my faith must allow me to see the face of Jesus in every person who is in need of my Christian charity. What does Jesus say to the “goats” on His left?
I was hungry and you gave me no food. Thirsty and you gave me no drink. naked and you did not clothe me…..and on and on………
There is a certain physicallity required every time you or I give food to the homeless. Oh by the way……where does our ord send those who leave Him unattended?????????
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks, this is a very old post. Please don’t expect me (or others) to engage. However, I do appreciate you stopping by the blog. I hope you like it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Alan wrote: Why did Jesus’ desciples leave Him??????????? Why did Jesus ask His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too???????????
Did Jesus once ever say: “Come on I was only talking metaphorically. Come on back. INSTEAD our Lord repeated again: Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you………….
Alan – They left Him because He was claiming that He, like manna, had come down from heaven. The statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood interrupt or simply intensify what He’d been saying and they’d been grumbling about. Note His rejoinder – not “What if you were to see the Son of Man changing into bread and wine?” but “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” The entirety of John 6 is about coming to Jesus (as the Father draws such a person) and believing in Him, receiving eternal life from Him as a consequence and thus being raised by Him in the last day. As Jesus says, it’s the Spirit and His words that give life, not some mystical changing of priest-blessed bread and wine into His actual body and blood and the consequent eating of it. If you can’t see that, or you reject it because you know that to believe this confounds the basis of your Roman Catholic or Orthodox priestly system and worship and means the end of all you have held dear and believed, well…ask the Lord to give you enlightenment.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry EricW If the protestant perception of a symbolic reference to His Body an Blood were true His audience would not have left Him. They were scandalized by Christ’s proclamation:” Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man you have no life” If you go back to the Greek translation of the word ” EAT” Trogo, it means to eat or gnaw on flesh is explicit. It has no other meaning. Jesus specifically said that the bread He would give them was not the manna from heaven. The bread that I give you is my flesh…………
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes protestant apologists hang there heart on ” The flesh is of no avail , it is the spirit that gives life” Jesus is not talking aout His own flesh here, He is simply stating that the physicality of our existence will one day face an ultimate demise. Time , in the end will run out for you and for me. All of our bodies will die. However our immortal souls, our spirit will live on fo all eternity. Yes it is the spirit that gives life. This has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
Protestantism got its genesis from Luther hundreds and hunderds of years after the early church. Go back and read about the early church fathers. To be steeped in church history is to cease to be protestant. There are over 33,000 splintered protestant denominations all claiming to have the most accurate biblical interpretations. Just like your interpretation of the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. I think that figure is now close to 40,000. Creditability is now an important issue. I know countless protestants who have come home to the Catholic faith.
Sorry but I don’t find your interpretation very compelling.
Like or Dislike:
0
Alan – read John 6 in the Greek. In fact, read all of John in the Greek and see how John uses near-synonymous words and interchanges them, with little if any difference in meaning. Look at what word John uses when he uses an aorist for “to eat”; then look at what word he uses when he uses a present for “to eat.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric would you like me to send you a video of one of countless Eucharistic miracles that have occured over the centuries.? My friend was videotaping the monstrance in a church when the consecrated Host turned into flesh and bled. Not only is it human tissue but specific cardiac tissue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Could someone who is a Catholic please explain to me how you believe Jesus actual heart tissue can be present in the Monstrance now after 2000 years? Not ony did he physically rise from the dead, meaning I would assume that He still had His heart, it has been many years and that heart would certainly have had to be multiplied many times over to still be appearing as actual cardiac tissue in the host today.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, with God all things are possible. He is mystery beyond our wildest imagination. How can we, with the strictures of our finite minds, comprehend the omnipotence of God almighty? How did He change water into wine? How did he restore sight to the blind? How did He raise Lazurus from the dead?
Through the centuries there have been Eucharistic miracle after miracle. There are saints that were exhumed from their graves with their bodies incorruptible. How can this be?
Like or Dislike:
0
I am a Presbyterian. I love the sacrament of the Lords Supper but the roman church teaching makes a balsphemy of it.
Dr. Loraine Boettner, in his classic book “Roman Catholicism”, and referring to the rc teaching of trnsubstantiation asks the reader to “Notice that throughout these verses occurs the statement ‘once for all’, which has in it the idea of completeness, or finality, and which precludes repetition. Christ’s work on the cross was perfect and decisive. It constituted one historic event, which need never be repeated, and which in fact cannot be repeated. The language is perfectly clear: ‘He offered one sacrifice for sins for ever’ (10:12). Paul says that ‘Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more’ (Romans 6:9); and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that ‘By one offering he had perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (10:14)…We are told that Christ has sat down as token that His work is finished.
I am a Presbyterian Protestant and was at one time a roman catholic. I now no longer believe that Christ descends from His Father in heavento be a further sacrifice upon Rome’s altars or on any other; for such sacrifice there is no need…. Thank God that we Protestants can look back to what our Lord did on Calvary and know that He completed the sacrifice for sins once for all, and that our salvation is not dependent on the decree of any priest or church. Any pretense at a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, for it is a denial of the efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all that place their faith in Him alone.
In faith,
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Dudley you have it all wrong. Catholics do not repeat the salvific action of Jesus on the cross. God and the trinity exist outside of the strictures of time and space. At the sacrifice of the Mass we enter into Calvary we do not recreate it. There are so many misconceptions by protestants who do not know the Catholic faith.
Protestants can’t even be in agreement with one another. If you are part of nearly 40,000 splintered denominations WHO ALL CLAIM to have authority how dare you judge the one true church that christ instituted over 2000 years ago.
‘
Like or Dislike:
0
Alan,
Please remember Dudley was a Catholic at one time..
Like or Dislike:
0
Also Dudley you and countless splintered protestants, all 40,000 denominations believe that the salvific action of Christ on the cross saves you. invite you to turn your bible to Matthew 25:31-46 and read what Christ tells the “goats” on His left. Sola Fide is repeatedly refuted by these passages. If Dudley is naked and starving, shivering in the snow and I do not give you my jacket and feed you. Take you into my warm home. If I fail to see the face of Jesus in all your suffering then I am leaving Christ unattended.
If I didn’t do it to the least of His brethren then I didn’t do it to Jesus. Dudley where does Jesus send the “goats” on His left?
Like or Dislike:
0
Alan,
If you are still reading here, I want to draw your attention to something. You said:
“If you go back to the Greek translation of the word ” EAT” Trogo, it means to eat or gnaw on flesh is explicit. It has no other meaning. ”
That may be correct. However, there are two different Greek words for “eat” used in the John 6 account. The other one is “esthio”, Strong’s #5315. This particular word is used in the New Testament in a very symbolic way for eating in four places. See: John 4:32, I Corinthians 10:3, James 5:3, and Revelation 17:16.
According to the Thayer’s Lexicon, this word can mean, besides physical eating, “a metaphor, to devour, consume.” That is clearly the way it is used in the verses I listed above.
When the text uses the Greek “esthio”, the King James version translates it “eat”. When the Greek “trogo” is used, the King James translates it “eateth”.
So I am not at all sure that the Greek for “eat” here would exclude the symbolic interpretation of this passage at all.
And by the way, the Greek word used where it says, “drink my blood” is also used in the New Testament symbolically.
You also mentioned that Jesus never corrected the people’s misunderstanding of what He said. That is true. But did you notice that the reason He got into this narrative in the first place was that the people had demanded a sign from Him? I find it interesting that in the other places where unbelievers asked Him for a sign, once He gave them one and once He didn’t. But when He did, He didn’t really bother to explain to them what He meant either. He spoke of the sign of Jonah– as Jonah was in the whale for 3 days and 3 nights, the Son of man would be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. I don’t know if they knew what that meant or not. But the point is, He didn’t explain it.
Like or Dislike:
0
A breif response to Alan:
I am now a reformed Presbyterian Protestant. However I was roman catholic until three years ago. I became a Presbyterian in 2007. I renounced roman catholicism and its teachings as well as their teaching on the sacraments. I now like Zwigli completely deny the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, the roman catholic’s call that transubstantiation. I also while denying that teaching do now believe as a Presbyterian that Christ makes himself present to us in His Supper spiritually because of our faith alone, sola fide. Roman Catholicism’s salvation is by grace but declares that the church alone can dispense that grace and the only real church is the Roman Catholic church. ‘No Salvation Outside Roman Catholicism’ and Roman Catholic salvation is also an installment plan, where one must continue to receive the “sacraments,” go to weekly mass, and continue receiving the Jesus wafer from a priest as well as confessing your sins to the Roman priest.
I found the following piece to be very helpful when I was contemplating becoming a Presbyterian. I have adopted besides the Westminster standards and Confession of faith the teachings on Calvin, Kno\x and Zwigli and those three Protestant reformers had more of a basis on what I now believe as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I was an Episcopalian for a while after leaving the roman catholic church, I also explored other Protestant denominations during my first year as a Protestant after leaving roman catholicism. I did not become a Lutheran for the same reasons Zwigli renounced Luther’s teaching on the sacrament. I did attend services with a Methodist congregation for a brief period while exploring Protestantism. I was invited to the Lords Supper with them on one occasion, they open their table to all believers even if not yet officially a member of the Methodist church. I did like and think their position and teaching while very Protestant theologically on the Lords Supper that it is primarily a memorial, and not a sacrifice anew as roman catholicism teaches, the service of the Lords supper is a re-representation of the one and only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all who accept him in faith. I also believe that is a fine view for Protestants to take even Reformed Protestants, as long as we see it as symbolic of Christs sacrifice and not the sacrifice which Rome claims and which I now and Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians reject. I did decide to become a Presbyterian because I believe like Calvin as well as Knox and Zwigli that the Roman church was so corrupted the only way to return to the truth was to renounce her and her pope and its false teachings and return the Gospel and the Church to its true roots and foundation and teachings. I am a Prebyterian becuse I came to believe the only way to return to the truth was to also renounce roman catholicism and all her apostate teachings.
The following pieces attest to why I believe I…
Like or Dislike:
0
The following pieces attest to why I believe I became a Presbyterian. The early church was Presbyterian…read the following for your self. Rome and popery corrupted the church the bible and the 2 sacraments of the Lords Supper and baptism. Then they added other sacraments not instituted by Christ and even added books to the holy bible.
“The Papists think the Protestant Doctrine is dangerous to Salvation; and the Protestants know the Popish Doctrine to be so.”—Matthew Poole, The Nullity of the Romish Faith. (1666.).
And they overcame (the Devil) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony;
“and they loved not their lives unto the death.-REVELATION 12:11.
Played by the Scots army when it marched into England under Alexander Lesley, Earl of Leven,
in 1640, 26,000 strong.
When to the kirk [church] we come,
We’ll purge it ilka [every] room,
Frae [from] Popish reliques, and a’ [all] sic [such] innovation,
That a’ [all] the world may see,
There’s nane [none] in the right but we,
Of the auld [old] Scottish nation.”
-LESLEY’S MARCH.
The name which the Bible gives to this holy sacrament is “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), and that it speaks of communicants as a band of Christians who gather at “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21). In these verses the Holy Spirit, by the pen of Paul, teaches us that when we come to “the Lord’s table” “to eat the Lord’s Supper”, we “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils”, nor “be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils”. The Lord’s table is not for everybody. Only Christians are to gather there; for while a person may sit at “the Lord’s table” with “the cup of the Lord” in one hand and “the cup of devils” in the other, and be perfectly acceptable to Satan, he cannot do things in that way and be acceptable to Christ. The Holy Spirit makes it clear that the Lord is particular, very particular, about the kind of people who shall sit at His table.
The Lord’s Supper is to be eaten at the Lord’s table, in the Lord’s house, by the Lord’s people, under the direct supervision and watchful oversight of the Lord’s officers, who in every instance are to apply the Lord’s law, without “respect to persons”.
Perhaps you are wondering what Paul meant by the “cup” and “table” of devils. A sentence or so will explain what he refers to. In that age social guilds and labor unions were very numerous—even more numerous, it would seem, than they are today. Each had its god, its sacrifices, its secrets which were called “mysteries”, and its festivals. At their festivals the members sacrificed to the divinity of which they had chosen to be the “patron saints”, and drank to the god of their guild. From this you can see why Paul speaks of the “cup” and “table” of devils, and says that in such institutions the members sacrificed “to devils, and not to God”.
Paul, as every Bible…
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul, as every Bible reader is aware, directed Titus to “ordain elders in every city” in Crete (Titus 1:5), as he himself had been in the habit of doing “in every church” on his missionary tours (Acts 14: 23). Notice that word “elders”, if you will, for in it the whole subject comes to a focus. The Greek word which lies behind it, if we turn it into English letters and Anglicize it, is presbyter, from which, of course, we have the noun and adjective Presbyterian. The elders or presbyters were the teaching and ruling officers of the New Testament church as it came from the hands of Christ and the Apostles. The teaching elders were also called “ministers” (1 Cor. 3:5; 4:1), and “preachers” (1 Tim. 2:7). Ordinarily, therefore, for brevity’s sake, we drop the words “teaching” and “ruling”, and designate these two classes of presbyters more simply as “ministers and elders”. But since they were all of them “elders” or “presbyters”, the whole Apostolic Church was Presbyterian, and nothing else than Presbyterian, in its original organization. Its government was a government by presbyters.
“III. The outward matter thereof, or Signes, are Bread and Wine.
IV. The Supper is lame, without both Signes; and to rob the people of the Cup, is Sacrilege.
V. The inward matter is Christ, with all his satisfaction and merit.
VI. As it is Jewish superstition, to use unleavened Bread; so the Popish Penny-wafers are superstitious reliques.
VII. Its outward form consists in Actions and Words.
VIII. The Actions are the breaking of Bread, and powring out of Wine; the distribution of both Signes, and the receiving thereof with the hand and mouth.
IX. The word is, the whole Institution, containing the Eucharist, the command, and the promise; but the promise chiefly.”—John
In Faith,
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
When I was a Roman catholic I was taught that the Protestants and particularly Reformed Protestants, Baptists and Presbyterians abandoned the true essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist which I now prefer to call “The Lords Supper.” My study of John Calvin opened my eyes that it was the roman catholic church that abandoned and then corrupted the true nature of the sacrament. I was never comfortable with the adoration of the catholic wafer bread even when I was a roman catholic. R C’s believe that the rc wafer becomes the body of Christ. I believe now that the bread and wine or juice of the Lords Supper Are Symbols, and not at all the actual body and blood of Christ.
To adore the bread wafer outside the celebration of the Lords Supper is a total distortion of the sacrament itself. I now think the rc mass is actually an abomination and injury to Christ’s once only sacrifice on Calvary.
Too many cradle Protestants do not understand the blasphemes rc teaching of transubstantiation and the abomination that is the rc mass because it denies the one time only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and it does teach that the bread wafer is transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus which then they reserve in a tabernacle and worship in a golden monstrance in a service outside the celebration of the Lords Supper.
Watch EWTN and watch the abominable benediction of the wafer in a golden monstrance. Christ is not in the bread. We Protestants worship Christ and experience his presence in His Supper, RC are worshiping a piece of bread they believe was turned into Christ by their priest in the Roman mass. John Calvin renounced the teaching and the mass and I also did when I left Roman Catholicism and converted to the reformed Protestant faith.
__________________
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
Alan,
I as a reformed Protestant and Presbyterian believe the following concerning the Lords Supper. I was never comfortable with the adoration aspect of the Eucharist as roman catholics call it. I experienced a “true Protestant conversion as John Calvin also a fromer roman catholic described. I understand your position but please try to understand what I most fervently believe now as a Protestant.
The Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; – for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; – for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; – and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.
In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
The Lord Jesus has, in this sacrament, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.
The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
The outward elements in this sacrament which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.
The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.
Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive…
Like or Dislike:
0
Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.
All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord’s Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves.
In faith.
Dudley
Like or Dislike:
0
I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Protestant. I wrote another roman catholic considering converting to the Reformed Protestant faith the following regarding John 6. I wrote Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally, and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.
The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper
Like or Dislike:
0
You fools: The only figurative translation of “eeat my body and drink my blood,” is “to revile, or slander.” The only way you can interpret it figuratively would be to revile jesus to get to heaven.
Like or Dislike:
0
“πραγματικά, πραγματικά, σας λέω, εκτός εάν εσείς φάνε τη σάρκα του γιου του ανθρώπου και να πίνουν το αίμα του, δεν έχετε κανένα ζωής σε εσάς. 54 όποιος ζωοτροφών από τη δική μου σάρκα και ποτών αίμα μου έχει αιώνια ζωή, και θα θέσω αυτόν
Like or Dislike:
0
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware 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[e] 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.”
This article fails to mention that when the disciples did not understand the teaching (like Protestants), Jesus did not clarify that this is a “symbolic teaching” because its not. It’s literal. See 1 Corinthians 11:27. That’s a pretty big deal if its just a symbol!
Like or Dislike:
0
Was it actually his body at the first Lord’s table? Did he correct the religious leaders when they though he was literally going to break down the temple? Couple of things to think about.
Like or Dislike:
0
Did Jesus ever once say, in John 6 in the Bread of Life Discourse that the Bread is a symbol of His real presence? The answer is no. When His desciples walked away from Him when He talked about His Flesh and Blood did Jesus ever go after them and explain that He was speaking metaphorically? The answer is no. In fact why did they leave Him if they thought He was speaking symboliccally? I have also seen Eucharistic miracles where the host has actually bled.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] did he let them walk away” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the giving of the Lord’s Supper. It [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] completo “¿Por qué los dejó marchar?”. Pero creo que este argumento es débil. hablo de eso aquí . Sin embargo, todavía no responde por qué Juan dejó fuera la institución de la Cena del [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] completo “¿Por qué los dejó marchar?”. Pero creo que este argumento es débil. hablo de eso aquí . Sin embargo, todavía no responde por qué Juan dejó fuera la institución de la Cena del [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I read every post, every word. The differing scriptural interpretations on something as important to salvation as the body and blood of Christ is mind-boggling. This is exactly why I am no longer Protestant. It’s as if each of you were your own Pope. Common sense tells me there must be One authority, one Church.
Still studying, but remaining Catholic.
More Comments: