Ask a Question - or - Return to the Defending the Faith Forum Index

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
The Early Christian belief in the Eucharist	Karl	Friday, June 15, 2012
Question: Dear Brother For the life of me I have not been able to understand the following and hope you can clarify some things. I have asked this of several Protestants who were supposed to get back to me and never did, and the silence in some other forums is deafening. I know you were once a Baptist Minister so maybe you can answer the question: How do Protestants deal with the Early Christian belief in the Eucharist? This was way, way before the bible was compiled. Protestants accuse the Catholics of misinterpreting John 6 on “This is my body….This is my blood”. They claim Jesus was only speaking symbolically yet the Early Fathers, who didn’t have a KJV, to go by unanimously held to the belief of the Real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. How did you as a Protestant reconciled the Early Fathers’ belief vs. the “modern” (as in sometime after 1500) that Jesus was only speaking symbolically? Did that ever bother you, or did you just ignore it like they do now?
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r) Dear Karl: This is a very interesting question. I was talking to my Luthern mother about this just past weekend. I am not surprised you are not getting any response. The reason for no responses from these "Bible-Christians" (who are the most ignorant of the Bible from my experience) is that there is ZERO Biblical evidence for their view. Essentially, Baptists are hypocrites. Baptist, and other fundamentalists, pride themselves on interpreting the Bible literally, but when it comes to John 6, was well as Matthew 16, the literal approach goes out the window and a symbolic interpretation replaces it utterly contrary to the Biblical facts. The fact is that John 6 does not have a single shred of evidence to show that Jesus was taking metaphorically. Jesus always tells us he speaks in parables or metaphorically, or it is made clear by the context. None this exists for John 6, in fact, the opposite is true. When Jesus made his proclamation about his Body and Blood, that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life, most of the disciples listening to him could not take the teaching and they left. Jesus did not say, "hey guys, I was only kidding it is just symbolic." No. Instead, Jesus stood his ground, unwavering in his teaching, and thus risked losing his beloved Twelve Apostles. He asked them, "Are you going to leave me too? "Peter replied, "Lord, where would we go? For you have the words of eternal life." It is absolutely clear to anyone who will see that Jesus was talking literally. He said "my flesh is real meat." He made no inclination at all that any of this was symbolic. One has to go through quite a few intellectual hoops, rationalizations, and delusions to interpret John 6 as a symbolic teaching. Because John 6 so clearly demonstrates and proves from the Bible and the Bible alone, which is important for the Baptist, that the Catholic Church was correct in her teaching of the Eucharist, all that is left for them to do is to become delusional. The "plain sense of Scripture," which is the test Baptists use in interpretation, is clearly in favor of the Catholic Church's interpretation. Thus, Baptist, and other non-Catholic fellowships who deny the Real Presence, must violate their own interpretive beliefs in order to avoid saying the Catholic Church is right about something. In my own case, I presumed John 6 to be symbolic; that was what I was taught. But, it was John 6, along with Matthew 16, backed up by Isaiah 22, that converted me from a Baptist minister to a Catholic. See the short essay, Why Do I Want to Be Catholic? God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary

Question Title

Posted By

Question Date

The Early Christian belief in the Eucharist

Karl

Friday, June 15, 2012

Question:

Dear Brother
For the life of me I have not been able to understand the following and hope you can clarify some things. I have asked this of several Protestants who were supposed to get back to me and never did, and the silence in some other forums is deafening.

I know you were once a Baptist Minister so maybe you can answer the question:

How do Protestants deal with the Early Christian belief in the Eucharist?

This was way, way before the bible was compiled. Protestants accuse the Catholics of misinterpreting John 6 on “This is my body….This is my blood”. They claim Jesus was only speaking symbolically yet the Early Fathers, who didn’t have a KJV, to go by unanimously held to the belief of the Real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

How did you as a Protestant reconciled the Early Fathers’ belief vs. the “modern” (as in sometime after 1500) that Jesus was only speaking symbolically? Did that ever bother you, or did you just ignore it like they do now?

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r)

Dear Karl:

This is a very interesting question. I was talking to my Luthern mother about this just past weekend. I am not surprised you are not getting any response. The reason for no responses from these "Bible-Christians" (who are the most ignorant of the Bible from my experience) is that there is ZERO Biblical evidence for their view.

Essentially, Baptists are hypocrites. Baptist, and other fundamentalists, pride themselves on interpreting the Bible literally, but when it comes to John 6, was well as Matthew 16, the literal approach goes out the window and a symbolic interpretation replaces it utterly contrary to the Biblical facts.

The fact is that John 6 does not have a single shred of evidence to show that Jesus was taking metaphorically. Jesus always tells us he speaks in parables or metaphorically, or it is made clear by the context. None this exists for John 6, in fact, the opposite is true.

When Jesus made his proclamation about his Body and Blood, that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life, most of the disciples listening to him could not take the teaching and they left. Jesus did not say, "hey guys, I was only kidding it is just symbolic." No. Instead, Jesus stood his ground, unwavering in his teaching, and thus risked losing his beloved Twelve Apostles. He asked them, "Are you going to leave me too? "Peter replied, "Lord, where would we go? For you have the words of eternal life."

It is absolutely clear to anyone who will see that Jesus was talking literally. He said "my flesh is real meat." He made no inclination at all that any of this was symbolic. One has to go through quite a few intellectual hoops, rationalizations, and delusions to interpret John 6 as a symbolic teaching.

Because John 6 so clearly demonstrates and proves from the Bible and the Bible alone, which is important for the Baptist, that the Catholic Church was correct in her teaching of the Eucharist, all that is left for them to do is to become delusional. The "plain sense of Scripture," which is the test Baptists use in interpretation, is clearly in favor of the Catholic Church's interpretation. Thus, Baptist, and other non-Catholic fellowships who deny the Real Presence, must violate their own interpretive beliefs in order to avoid saying the Catholic Church is right about something.

In my own case, I presumed John 6 to be symbolic; that was what I was taught.

But, it was John 6, along with Matthew 16, backed up by Isaiah 22, that converted me from a Baptist minister to a Catholic. See the short essay, Why Do I Want to Be Catholic?

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary