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"
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?????????
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.
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. 🙂
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…………
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.
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.” 🙂
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
‘
Alan,
Please remember Dudley was a Catholic at one time..
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?
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.
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, Knox 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…
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…
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
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