Some of you may have noticed the commercials on TV, pictures of family as a voice reads off values many Americans value and then the credentials for the Roman Catholic Church, some of which are plainly wrong. I went to their website, 'catholicscomehome.org' to see what it was all about to discover that the Catholics are now taking televangelism a step further by trying to 'evangelize' via the internet. Under the title 'teachings of the church' I clicked on 'the Eucharist' to see what the 'holy' Roman Catholic Church teaches on the Euchatist. Underneath that heading there were commonly asked questions to which some unknown catholic, assumably with the full authority of the 'holy' Roman Catholic Church had answered. One of these questions was "Why do protestants not believe John 6 when it says that Jesus' flesh was real food and that His blood was real drink?" I want to take a moment to examine the answer and justification given by 'Catholics Come Home"
The answer I believe speaks volumes more than the justification given, being simply: "I don't know." Amazing that they can tell us we are wrong but not why. Having stated thus I will show why the justification given by the Catholics and their current understanding on the Eucharist are incorrect. In their opening statement they refer to the places in the gospel where the Eucharist is first obserbeved / instated, Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22. In these Christ very clearly does state that "This is my body" and "This is my blood". Obviously he did not just cut off a part of his body to feed them, nor did he cut himself and bleed into the cup that they might drink his blood so Christ is clearly not making an indicitive statement as to what it is, unless of course, he is NOT speaking literally as the Catholics claim him to be. Here is the root of their error, that they cannot discern what is literal and what is not literal. A statement does not need to say that it is not literal for us to know that it is not literal. Indeed, lets look at Matthew 26 a little closer. After the cup is passed around and all drink of 'blood' according to Catholics, he says "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine..." clearly refering to the contents of the cup. Thus the church, seeing it's error states that it is equal to scripture (even though it's not) and proceeds to introduce contradictory doctrines to explain away the inconsistency, such as that the bread isn't actually flesh (even though they must if Christ's statements are to be taken literally) and that it's 'substance' changes though it's physical existence does not. Scripture does not say anything of the sort, thus the church should not either.
But on to their second argument, that in John 6 Jesus repeats himself stating that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. To this I must say that the person writing this is clearly doing so in a buble with utter disregard for all other doctrines and ultimately relying on the Church's self proclamation to always be right, rather than searching for truth itself. Why do I say such a thing? Let's think about this statement for a second...this means they (unless they are to blatantly admit to hypocracy and being wrong) believe that Jesus Christ was actually bread. That is the literall meaning of "I am the bread" is it not? This is exactly what they argue here, that he was literal. Just think, that Chirst was not only fully man, and fully God, but fully bread and fully wine as well! That he lived for decades and never molded! I should formally put forth to the Roman Catholic Church that this be formally added to the list of miracles performed by God. But what would they say, they'd of course say that Jesus wasn't bread. (And would thus be hypocrites) No one in their right mind would take this literally, but instead understand it to be more like a metaphor where Christ tells us truly that he will make ammends for sins, that his body will be the sacrifice and that he is utterly right in his comparison to the bread sent from heaven in the time of Moses, which was his original point. In the same thread we can understand Christ to be present in the Eucharist, not by it physically being flesh, but metaphorically, by doing it in remembrance of him. (Luke 22:17)
Now on to some of their 'facts' to prove their point. Their first fact was that in John 6, the Jews took Christ's claim to be bread and wine literally. This is true, absolutely and undeniably. What the Catholics fail to realize is that these Jews were not saved, many were not his disciples and absolutely none of them understood what Jesus meant by telling them that he was bread from heaven (very similar to the 'holy' Roman Catholic Church). Their second fact was that the disciples took him seriously. This one is more tenous, what they said was "This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?" Even granting the Catholics the benefit of the doubt that the disciples doubts were actually belief (although doubt and belief are in fact quite opposite) many of the disciples abandoned Jesus (vs 66). Thier final 'fact' is not even a fact. They claim that the apostles took him seriously siting verses 67-69 which actually say "'You do not want to leave too, do you?' Juses asked the twelve. Simon Peter aswered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.'" Please not that they are affirming belief in the fact that he is the saviour, the Messiah, the Holy One of God, but not that he is made of bread, nor that a piece of bread placed into the mouth of a believer by a priest is Christ's body.
Now for the trickiest lie in the apologetic document of the Catholics. They use verse 51, where Christ says "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", and then say (truthfuly) that Christ's sacrifice was on the cross and then attempt to say that if you believe (as I do) that the body is not actually bread, you must believe that it wasn't Jesus' body on the cross but ssymbolic flesh and symbolic blood, and that his entire death was nothing but symbolic. This makes me want to punch someone, and I will show you why. First I do not at all miss the irony of the Catholics daring to call someone else for being inconsitent, and they have it backwards. If you literally believe that Christ was made of bread (as the Catholics must) then it wasn't Christ on the cross, but physical bread! The truth, however is contained in scripture: "The bread is my body". In this statement Christ makes the metaphor compleat! He stops speaking in metaphor and plainly tells them it's meaning, he does not merely restate a falsehood. Christ himself is telling them that the bread is representative of his body in the coming sacrifice, and indeed I would even argue that 'eats' is metaphoric. Clearly eating Christ's body does not save you, belief in his atonement on the cross does. To believe in Christ's sacrifice of his real body (made of muscle, sinew and fat, not bread) is to 'eat of the bread of heaven which is his flesh'. It's all a beautiful metaphor which we remember in communion, not magic performed by a priest to turn bread into flesh. That is why I, and other Protestants, believe that the bread of communion is not actually the body of Jesus nor that the wine of communion is actually the blood of Christ either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Matt! Hope you're doing well!
ReplyDeleteI had some time so I thought I'd comment....
I'm not the best at apologetics but I thought that I could at east give you a better idea of why we believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The doctrine of the Eucharist is one that is much misunderstood by non-catholics and even many Catholics. First off, "Real" presence means in the fullest sense of the word. It doesn't negate other types of spiritual presence.
Christians can either take Christ's words in John 6 as represenative or literal(obviously).
Catholic Christians understand Jesus's words as literal, in light of the commentary given in John 6, in Paul's letters and of the early Christians.
(You mentioned Jesus not calling the people back when they left because of the teaching) Surely Jesus would not condemn people to eternal punishment(John 6:53) for the neglect of something that they never even comprehended in the first place. Rather it's the rejection of a divine revelation due to it's difficulty that was the cause of the loss of eternal life( John6:57-58)
Furthermore, according to the Greek in John's account, Jesus, after the skeptical query by the Jews(6:53) actually switches terms for "eat"
At first, John's Greek word is "phago" a generic term for eat(used accrdingly throughout the New Testament) But, in John 6:54-58, the word used is the more graphic and particular "trogo." This word only occurs in this passage and in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18. In these two verses, it conveys literal eating and there are strong reasons to believe it means the same in John 6.
Therefore, instead of Jesus softening His rhetoric, which would have been expected if His intent was misunderstood, He spoke in even more physical and descriptive terms, to clarify/remove any doubts.
Also, nothing in Luke 22:19-20(the account of the Lord's Supper) supports a metaphorical interpretation either. If you know of anything that does, I'd love to see.....
And then...we have the commentary in 1 Corinthians:
10:16
" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?"( for context read 10:14-22)
And then in 1 Cor. 11: 27-30:
" Whoever therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the LOrd.....For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment on Himself..."
And besides Scripture, you have the Early Church writings....Nearly every notable writing of the Early Church that mentions the Eucharist either implies or directly states that the bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.
There is more I could add but I didn't want to bombard you. As for some of your comments:
"Just think, that Crist was not only fully man and fully God , but fully bread and fully wine as well! He lived for decades and never molded!"
To put your mind at ease Matt, Christ was actually not made of bread afterall. I'm surprised that someone as educated as yourself would be fooled into believing such a thing! ;)
If you would sincerely like to know more about what Catholics really believe, I'd love to talk about it. And I'm pretty sure we'll both be able to do that without any Catholic or Protestant "bashing"...
btw, how is all the pro life work at USC going? :) Have a Merry Christmas!
Wow! Thanks for commenting! I love it when someone actually posts something in response. I don't recall mentioning anything about Christ not calling back the disciples who left, but I would agree with you that it was their unsaved state which cause them to reject Christ rather than a rejection of Christ causing their unsaved state. Any statement I've made to the contrary is a typing error and please disregard and forgive!
ReplyDeleteYou know Greek?! You have NO idea how excited I was to actually have to go to my new testament greek to respond properly...wow...I'm not too familiar with τρογω but in my lexicon it says it is very similar to 'masticating' or 'chewing'. I see your point here, but must say that just because it is more visceral / specific etc etc, I can't say that it is literal. Check out John 13:18 in Greek (This one took me a while because my english bible butchered this verse in translation changing ό τρογων to 'sharing', can you believe that?) The verse reads "ό τρογων μου τον αρτον". My personal rendition would be "The one chewing of my bread" thus the literal / visceral / specific τρογων is referring to bread here not flesh. You must certainly see how this not only negates your usage as to referring to literally 'chewing' Christ's flesh, but works against such strict interpretation as a literal transubstantiation elsewhere in scriptures that τρογων is used? Also check out vs 63 where he says that the flesh counts for nothing. He says this after spending a considerable amount of time literally telling them they must literally eat his flesh? No, but instead is trying to communicate that it's a metaphor. How else then would you take the meaning of "the flesh counts for nothing"?
please see part 2...
oops...sorry! I just notice that I signed in under the SFL account! The above an below are in no way the views of USC SFL, but are my own! Sorry for the blooper!
ReplyDeletePlease please please please please, go back and revisit Luke 22:19 again!! He take the bread and breaking it says "Do this in remembrance of me". The verb here being ποιειτε a present active imperative, meaning "Do and keep on doing" then εις την εμην αναμνεσιν "toward the of my remembrance". I would argue that instead of toward, we use "In goal of" or "for the purpose of" thus creating a very reasonable argument that Communion is not in goal of eating God so as to not burn in Hell, but is in remembrance of Christ as clearly stated. Do you see what I'm saying? This interpretation also agrees with my view that John 6 is a metaphor.
Yes, I have given great thought to the passages in 1 Corinthians in my personal life seeing as that is what led me to leave the ELCA, but that is a different story. Does it not say 'participate'? Not literally 'eat' or 'chew' as would be evidenced by the gospel passages if a literal understanding is to be had? In my lexicon it gives the following english words as equivalent to 'participate': "Participation", "Intercourse", "Benefaction". Clearly intercourse is not to be taken literally or even at all, but benefaction may indeed be taken spiritually as could participate could it not?
Please let me take a moment to introduce a new thought. Here it is complicated because I must confess that I no better understand the mystery that is communion any better than I (or anyone else) understands the trinity. I've got a good grasp, if I say so myself, but don't understand every little detail. The way I see communion, and believe that the early believers in Corinthians were being encouraged to see communion is that it is spiritual, not physical; thus metaphorical and not literal. When he talks about eating of the one bread and being one body, does he mean that all believers eat of the same loaf in a literal sense? Or could he be referring to what is now known as 'communion partnerships'? I am not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church because I do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches ditto for the ELCA. When I commune, Christ is truly there, not in flesh and blood within me, but in spirit and in truth. Thus I am in communion with Christ and do not drink the cup of demons (see the 1 Corinthians passage).
please see part three...
dang it...technology hates me...I just spent an hour responding in full and now google tells me that there is too much information to process and deleted the rest of my response...
ReplyDeleteI promise I will re-write the response and face book it to you soon, but for now I need sleep!
Hey Matt! OK, so...once again, I'm kinda new at this but I'm gonna give it another shot. Feel free to correct me if need be :)
ReplyDeleteAs for "the flesh counts for nothing," this is how I see it:
Here I think Christ is using the word "flesh" in a sense in which it is being contrasted with the spirit. The contrast between unaided nature and nature helped by grace. Christ saw that some of His listeners were viewing His words with an unsupernatural attitude, looking for earthly rewards...So, when He say "the flesh is of no avail", He would be meaning "my flesh." That wouldn't make sense to me because it would contradict His immediately prior remarks. Besides, that would be pretty much the same as saying Christ's flesh is worthless to us, when of course, that's obviously not true.
vs. 51 "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Obviously, we could not be saved without Christ's flesh, which He gave on the cross for the life of the world! So, instead of seeing that as Christ talking about His own flesh, I think He is speaking of how the people are interpreting it. They had a fleshly(carnal) understanding of what He was saying(that is why they could not understand what He truly meant) instead of being able to understand it in Spirit.
I hope I'm at least making some sense. I wish a Catholic who knew more would jump in to this convo :) Here's an excerpt from a book that might help some:
"The words flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, never meant literal and figurative, but always the corrupted dispositions of human nature(flesh contrasted with human nature enriched by the grace of God(spirit)...Christ's meaning, therefore is clear: My words are such as the mere carnal man cannot recieve, but only the man endowed with grace. St. Chrysostom says: "Why therefore did He say: the flesh profitheth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense.....You see, there is a question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing."
Hope it helps! God Bless, Matthew!
Okay, so I've done some serious reading both into the Catholic and protestant understandings of the Eucharist. Going back to verse 63 (the flesh counts for nothing), your response was insuficient. You pointed out that my answer was invalid because it contradicted Christ's earier words and then said besides the point is obvious when that very point is the point in debate! If you re read my post you'll see that vs 63 does not contradict the rest of John 6 if you consistently realize He's using a metaphor and not talking about actually eating his physical flesh. Seeing as you did not leave your own interpretation of the verse I can't say definitively that it contradicts you, but I can say that to make it not contradict you, you have to suddenly use the protestant idea of translating the flesh in that verse in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that in the paragraph starting "Obviously we could not be saved without his flesh" you almost argue my point (not that Christ's flesh saves you so much as the sacrifice thereof (small semantic difference)) but in that "They could not understand it in spirit". Of course I know you are not arguing my point, but it sure sounds like it. Indeed would not the fleshly way of hearing it be the same of the unsaved Jews of the time? In that they understood Christ to be speaking literally? Just as the Catholics do?
I'm gonna go on and post this before it gets too long, but please keep reading as I will address 1 Corinthians in light of my readings.
1 Corinthians 11...lets back up to 1 Corinthians 10:17 "Because there is one loaf, we who are many are of one body." And Romans 12:5 "So in Christ we who are many form one body." And Colossians 1:18 "And He is head of the body, the church". Okay, now let's note that in all of these Pauline texts talk about the body of Christ and all use the same greek word 'σωμα' not 'σαρξ' as in John 6 and the gospel accounts of the last supper. Paul is not talking about recognizing the flesh of Christ in communion like you would know as transubstantiation (or consubstantiaton for you Lutherans whom I also disagree with on this topic), but the body of Christ, the collective whole of all believers! Indeed, look back to verse 2 "When you come together there are divisions among you". He is criticizing them for not being united as they ought. When he says if they eat and drink in an unworthy mannar he is reffering back to "one remains hungry and the other gets drunk". This is in no way a proof text for transubsantiation, where the bread becomes the body, which is what the Church used to believe and therefore still must since the Church cannot be wrong.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as you are irrefutably wrong on the Corinthians passage, why not consider that the presence Christ speaks of is spiritual (metaphorical) rather than physical (literal)?
Please continue on for my last point on the matter.
John 6:53 "Jesus said to them; 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you'." Please from this point out understand that my knowledge is at least 5 years old at best and things may have changed, and that I am Catholic bashing, but intend nothing personal to you by it, instead intending this as a rebuke of the RCC leaders.
ReplyDeleteWhen is the last time you had wine at Communion? To my knowledge, for centuries (and still currently) only Priests are allowed wine for fear of spilling the blood of Christ. yet does John not say that if you do not drink his blood you have no life in you? If you take it literally (which you have already admited you do, you must drink the wine at communion or you are not saved (according to your own hermeneutics). Even if you do now drink communion then your ancestors for centuries had no life in them because of not drinking the wine/blood. How ridiculous is this?
Now to the most serious offenses in Catholic Communion. The Catholic Church teaches that the Priests effect the turning of bread into the body of Christ, yet who are they to be so arrogant as to think they can bring Christ down or to create him who was never created?! How dare they consider the Eucharist a sacrifice for sins when Christ made it very clear that "It is FINISHED"!?! (John 19:30) Where do Catholics find liscense to hold this erroneous belief in face of Hebrews 9:12 "He entered the Most Holy Place ONCE for all by his own blood"? Is there yet doubt in the mind of anyone? Then hear Hebrews 9:24-28 and know that the Catholic Priests are doing the same thing as the High Priests of old. "For Christ did not enter a man made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered into heaven itself now to appear for us in Christ's prescense. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the High Priests enters the Most Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world but now he has appeared once for at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people and he will appear a second time not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting on him."