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.
194 replies to "Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation"
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.
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.”
No possible relation in the Greek, between “body” and “flesh”? As they are sometimes related – used interchangeably? – in other parts of the Bible?
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.
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?
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.
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 🙂
Eric,
Good point on the differences.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Surely there are many other ways than our – ironically, extremely divisive – “communion,” for joining God. Even in the Bible itself.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which would normally be among people who trust each other; and/or are of the same clan or group.
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
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.
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.
Dr. G,
And what does the Bible say about people who take it unworthily?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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….
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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