Protestant Communion Vs. Catholic Eucharist

[Good Friday]

Per Kilroy's request, I started a new thread for discussion on the differences between Protestant communion and the Catholic Eucharist. The debate originally began in another thread.

Referring to John 6, Larry (AKA "Truth") writes:

Once again, that was not a parable it was a metaphor.

You originally said it was a parable. Which is it, a parable or a metaphor? And do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Very key words here are; do this in remembrance of me and verse 25) For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

We sing that same verse as one of our Memorial Acclamations at Mass. So what? The Eucharist has many purposes. One of them is to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. But can you explain to me, based on the whole of Scripture, why that should be the only aspect of the Eucharist, when Jesus specifically said: "This is my Body"?

[willguy]

If it was a parable then there has to be symbolism. Explain the symbolism in the following:

32 So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." 35 17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day." 41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven," 42 and they said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Saying it is a metaphor helps the Catholic position, not yours. Metaphor literally means:

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

So yes, it is a metaphor, there is a likeness between Jesus' body and blood and bread, for they are both food which we are to eat.

[MJS]

Protestant communion comes in two differnt forms.

1. Consubstantiation- the bread and wine take on the essence of Christ, but not the physical form

2. Remembrance- consumption of bread and wine as a re-enactment of the last supper and to remember Christ's sacrifice for sin

Of course.. you all know what Catholic Eucharist entails, and it is called transubstantiation.

[willguy]

Good point MJS. Consubstantiation (which I believe is the belief among Lutherans and some other denominations) is obviously much closer to transubstantiation than remembrance.

Technically, from a Catholic perspective, a "re-enactment of the Last supper" would require transubstantiation too, because that's what happened at the Last Supper. Christ held Himself in His hands. That, my friends, is wicked amesome!

[Sojourner]

Even in remeberance, though, there are different levels. Some churches see it solely as a symbol of Christ's sacrifice and a means through which they remember him, while others say that in partaking of the elements they receive a measure of grace.

[phatcatholic]

If it was a parable then there has to be symbolism. Explain the symbolism in the following:

(vs. 32-56)

Saying it is a metaphor helps the Catholic position, not yours. Metaphor literally means:

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

So yes, it is a metaphor, there is a likeness between Jesus' body and blood and bread, for they are both food which we are to eat.

i realize ur intent here. but, u also have to remember--and when catholics fight for the literal interpretation, they often forget--that the Eucharist is both literal AND symbolic. it is a remembrance of the last supper. it is symbolic if his death on the cross. it is an acceptance of the Word. so, there is no need to fight against these claims made by non-catholics.

of course, the point of contention is raised when the interpretation stops there. but anyway, when a non-catholic begins to insist on the symbolic interpretation, go ahead and hear them out. when they're finallly finished, just say "i agree." it will probably shock them. then, plead ur case. now, instead of fighting FOR symbolism, they have to fight AGAINST literalism, which is much more difficult to do, considering the wealth of information both from scripture and from Early Christian Testimony and supports the REAL presence in the Eucharist.

that's my strategy anyway....

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

also, regarding participating in communion in protestant services, i found this Q&A from the Catholic Exchange Truth Facts section which says that it is not even up to us. we are not allowed to! read for yourself:

http://css.catholicexchange.com/truthtract.asp?qid=639

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[God Conquers]

There is no more profound way of Proclaiming Christ's death and resurection than consuming His glorified body.

[phatcatholic]

There is no more profound way of Proclaiming Christ's death and resurection than consuming His glorified body.

amen brother

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='MJS' date='Jan 29 2004, 05:35 PM'] Protestant communion comes in two differnt forms.
1.  Consubstantiation- the bread and wine take on the essence of Christ, but not the physical form
2.  Remembrance- consumption of bread and wine as a re-enactment of the last supper and to remember Christ's sacrifice for sin

Of course.. you all know what Catholic Eucharist entails, and it is called transubstantiation. [/quote]
First post on the board, hello people

(try to go easy )

First off, to wrap up all non-Catholic denominations up as "protestant" may be one thing but to say they all believe one particular thing is a bit iffy, as it's a large net. I'm Anglican (Old school, non-Evangelical) and personally, I believe in transubstantiation, so there

Also to note, communion is just the word we use instead of "mass", the Eucharist is still the Eucharist for us.

Bear in mind, part of the Reformation was to show that the person had freedom of belief, that you could believe what you wanted without persecution, so not all (in fact, not the majority) of Protestants believe what I do on this issue, and I respect that belief.

Edited March 25, 2004 by RandomProddy

[Ellenita]

[b]Welcome RandomProddy[/b]!

You are of course absolutely right to suggest that it's difficult to condense protestant thought about communion into one or two statements. Even the Anglican church is a broad church - I was raised 'high anglican' but my understanding of the Eucharist was not transubstantiation, and in fact I've had to grapple with this understanding considerably as I journey towards becoming Catholic at Easter!

One of the joys of catholic understanding of the Eucharist to me is that it is so universal throughout the church, whereas protestant understanding appears to be very fragmented. Although painful not to in some circumstances, if I participate in communion in a protestant church, how can I be sure what the congregation/church believes?



[quote]Part of the reformation was to show that the person had freedom of belief, that you could believe what you wanted without persecution[/quote]

If that was an aim of the reformation, it certainly didn't achieve it did it?!

[DojoGrant]

You guys are wrong on consubstantiation, both in its meaning and who practices it.

Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation. This is rejected in the Lutheran Confessions.

Furthermore, consubstantiation is not a believe that Christ is present "in essence," but that Christ is equally and physically present with the Body and Blood in a mystical union. It exists WITH (con) the bread and wine.

Lutherans believe in a Real Presence different than this; they believe it is present "In, with, and under the bread and wine," in the sense that it is physically present in a way beyond comprehension or understanding, but does not remain after communion.

You also left out the Spriritual Presence believed by Calvinists, that Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine.

[MC Just]

I dont think I could receive from their tables. I believe in the Real Presence. I believe in the actuall body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, I believe it's very real in our "Heaven on Earth".

Edited March 25, 2004 by MC Just

[Hananiah]

And I believe Canon law forbids us from participating in Protestant communion services.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Welcome RandomProddy!