EPH289

Articles Posted: 32 Links Seeded: 15

Member Since: 6/2007 Last Seen: 10/01/2011

Protestant and Catholic Views of the Lord's Supper

Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:01 PM EDT

religion, catholic, protestant, communion, lords-supper

By EPH289

Advertise | AdChoices

This article is designed as a response to an article titled:

Understanding the Protestant and Catholic Views of the Eucharist (Holy Communion), by Charlie Courtois (4/24/10).

Contrary to the title of Charlie’s article, it doesn’t really address the views of Protestant believers. Rather, it prevents a defense of Catholic views of the Eucharist. Because a response would be as long (or longer as it turns out) as Charlie’s article, I felt it would be more appropriate to provide an article to present both Protestant and Catholic views. It should be understood that I am a member of an independent protestant church.

I would like to begin by commending Charlie for using scripture as his source for understanding. I would agree that this is the foundation for belief and that it should override any other sources. If other sources contradict the teaching of scripture, I believe they are incorrect.

THE LORD’S SUPPER: Church Ordinance (or sacrament)

We should begin by recognizing that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself instituted two ordinances that are to be kept by the church. They are baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist/Communion).

The Lord’s Supper was begun by Jesus in the following way:

Matthew 26:26-29 26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." NASB

The Apostle Paul added to this from what he had received from the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 11:25 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." NASB

It should be noted that the meal that Jesus was sharing with His disciples in the Matthew passage was a traditional Passover meal. The celebration remembering God’s mercy when the angel of death (the tenth plague upon Egypt) passed over those who had painted the door frames of their homes with lamb’s blood in obedience to God’s command.

The word Eucharist itself comes from this Matthew passage. The word that is translated “gave thanks” is the Greek word ‘eucharisteo’.

Within the Passover meal, breaking and sharing bread and serving diluted wine are part of the formalized meal. There are four cups served and shared during the Passover. Most believe this was the third cup, the cup of blessing. Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 10:16 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? NASB

It is from this passage from the letter to the Corinthians that the term “Communion” comes. In the King James, it is rendered as follows:

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? KJV

THE LORD’S SUPPER: Meaning

There are a number of things that are symbolized and affirmed in the Lord’s supper.

Jesus’ Death: When the bread is broken, it symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body (although no bones (PS 34:20)) just like no bones were broken in the Passover lamb (Ex 12:46). It is for this reason that participation in the Lord’s Supper is a type of proclamation.

1 Corinthians 11:26 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. NASB

Claiming the Benefits of Christ’s Death: As we individually take the cup and bread for ourselves; we are proclaiming that “I am benefitting from Christ’s death”.

Spiritual Nourishment. We get spiritual nourishment from the Lord’s Supper just as we get physical nourishment from the meals we eat. In Charlie’s defense of the Roman church’s position on the Eucharist, he points to the passage in John 6 (53-59) and says that they must be false unless it is understood that the communion actually becomes the actual blood and body of Christ.

This passage:

John 6:53-59 53 Jesus therefore 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 yourselves. 54 "He who eats 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 "He who eats 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 he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum. NASB

is better understood in my opinion as symbolic and that He did not have the Lord’s Supper in mind at all in this passage.

First of all, this John 6 passage was part of a teaching being given to a large group of unbelievers. He had not yet even shared this truth yet with His disciples which came much later in the upper room. This would be equivalent to casting a precious pearl before swine.

Secondly, in context, Jesus made it clear that He was giving a spiritual teaching and was not speaking literally.

John 6:63 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. NASB

Third, Jesus made it clear that this eating and drinking were essential for eternal life. There are no exceptions enumerated in the passage. That would say anyone not doing this would be spiritually dead; that is going to hell. This would include many people including the Old Testament saints, those who have trusted in Christ on their death bed, etc.

We should also consider that the tense of the Greek verbs in 50-51 and in 53 are the aorist tense which signifies a once-for-all action. The Communion service or the Eucharist if you prefer, is a repeated thing.

It is also significant that the word “flesh” is never used in any of the passages identified with the Lord’s Supper. The word used is “body”.

In further response to Charlie, I would point to the fact that frequently in His teachings Christ uses spiritual symbolic language when speaking of Himself. For instance, He says “I am the true vine” and goes on to say we must bear fruit as a branch of the vine (John 15:1-6). Obviously, this is symbolic. In John 10, Jesus says that “I am the door, if anyone enters by me he will be saved”. Again, this is obviously symbolic. The teaching in John 6 is also best understood in the same manner. The hearers would clearly have understood that the bread and wine he spoke about were not literally His body and blood.

To suggest as Charlie has that the passage in John 6 is negated without a literal understanding is clearly not true.

UNITY OF BELIEVERS. Our participation in Communion is a symbol of the unity of the church. Paul says:

1 Corinthians 10:17 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. NASB

CHRIST IN THE LORD’S SUPPER

In Charlie’s article, he suggests that there are only two views, that of the Roman church and that of Protestants. This isn’t quite true. All Protestants do not view the Lord’s Supper in the same way.

CATHOLIC VIEW: Transubstantiation

This view as Charlie indicates teaches that the bread and wine actually become the body and the blood of Christ. This occurs when the priest says “This is my body” during the mass. He raises the bread and it is adored. This action is only to be performed by a priest.

Grace is then imparted to those present ‘ex opere operato’ or “by the work performed”. The amount of grace dispensed is in proportion the disposition of the recipient of grace. For further information, I suggest Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is a well regarded theology textbook for Catholic’s.

What this view does not recognize in my opinion is the clear teaching in the New Testament on the completeness and finality of Christ’s sacrifice once for all for sins. A study of the book of Hebrews would find this enumerated multiple times. For instance:

Hebrews 9:25-28 25 nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. NASB

As a Bible believing Christian, the idea that the repetition of the death of Christ is reminiscent of the repeated sacrifices required in the Old Testament. This is contrary to the assurance of complete forgiveness we see in the sacrifice of Christ.

Hebrews 10:12 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, NASB

The idea that only ordained priests can officiate at the Lord’s Supper is found nowhere in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament teaches that we are all priests and members of a “royal priesthood”

1 Peter 2:9 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; NASB

Lutheran View: Consubstantiation. Luther rejected the Catholic view of the Lord’s supper and yet he insisted that the phrase “This is my body” must be taken literally.

His view, and that of the Lutheran Church, is that the bread does not actually become the body of Christ but rather that Christ is present “in, with and under” the bread of the Lord’s Supper. The church uses the analogy of a sponge to help with understanding. They would say that like water is in a sponge, it is not actually the sponge itself but it is definitely present.

A fuller source for further understanding of this view is; Christian Dogmatics, Francis Pieper, a Lutheran textbook. In that text, he quotes Luther’s Small Catechism: “What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself”.

A weakness of this view is how can Christ’s human body be present everywhere? Christ said that He was going to the Father and would no longer be in the world (John 16:28-17:11). Luther answered this objection by saying that Christ’s human nature was present everywhere after his ascension. This teaching is not in the bible. Once again, I believe Luther was missing the spiritual nature of the teaching. Why would we take literally “This is my body” in Luke 22:19 but not literally say that the cup is literally the new covenant in Luke 22:20?

Predominant Protestant View: Symbolic and Spiritual Presence. The remainder of Protestants teach that the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ and that it gives a sign that Christ Himself is spiritually present.

Jesus promised to be present whenever Christians gather together to worship.

Matthew 18:20 20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst." NASB

I view the communion as a special time when I feast upon the presence of Christ in my heart. I am careful to examine myself each time I take communion especially in light of the teaching about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. NASB

I suggest a number of commentaries and systematic theology textbooks for additional study. Much of what I have presented here is from MacArthur's New Testament Commentary, Weirsbe's Commentary Series, and Grudem's systematic theology text.

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

EPH289's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: none

Public Discussion (26)

EPH289

Here is a link to Charlie's original article:

http://cbcourtois.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/24/4200973-understanding-the-protestant-and-catholic-views-of-the-eucharist-holy-communion?threadId=851197&commentId=13827787#c13827787

2 votes

#1 - Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:07 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

Spiritual Nourishment. We get spiritual nourishment from the Lord's Supper just as we get physical nourishment from the meals we eat. In Charlie's defense of the Roman church's position on the Eucharist, he points to the passage in John 6 (53-59) and says that they must be false unless it is understood that the communion actually becomes the actual blood and body of Christ.

Nicely presented EPH289,

When one reads the Chapter VI in John's Gospel, I would like you to indicate a single reference to His body and blood being a symbol. And, if Jesus meant His words to be a metaphor, He would not let the disciples walk away, leaving on Simon Peter, who spoke up and recognized Him the Lord and Savior.

I wonder why no Christian or follower of Christ or Catholic, never called the Eucharist, or the Last Supper Meal or Sader, a metaphor until after the Protestant Reformation, 1500+ years after Christ instituted the church in Matthew 16:16-19?

Can you answer that?

2 votes

#2 - Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:30 PM EDT

3kyw4law

And, if Jesus meant His words to be a metaphor, He would not let the disciples walk away, leaving on Simon Peter, who spoke up and recognized Him the Lord and Savior.

Charlie, Jesus never stopped his followers from walking away. Even back then it was a free will choice to follow Jesus.

2 votes

#2.1 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:44 AM EDT

EPH289

I wonder why no Christian or follower of Christ or Catholic, never called the Eucharist, or the Last Supper Meal or Sader, a metaphor until after the Protestant Reformation, 1500+ years after Christ instituted the church in Matthew 16:16-19?

Can you answer that?

I can't really answer you specifically. First, I'm not totally sure that no one ever challenged that thinking until the Protestant Reformation.

I do know that the priesthood within the church had kept the scriptures from the church as a whole claiming exclusive ability to interpret and understand. With the coming of the printing press and the ability of all believers to read and study the scriptures on there own, things began to change. The church in much of its history up to that point did control access to the word and used threats of excommunication to keep open dissent silent. During that part of history, excommunication had real negative impact on peoples lives.

2 votes

#2.2 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:22 AM EDT

Charlie Courtois

Kay,

I did not say that Jesus stopped His disciples. That is the point! If He had, that would be an indication that He wanted to tell them that His words were not meant literally. He let His words stand, and let them walk away. Simon Peter was the only one who spoke up.

Peace be with you.

1 vote

#2.3 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:19 AM EDT

Charlie Courtois

(#2.2)

EPH,

I do know that the priesthood within the church had kept the scriptures from the church as a whole claiming exclusive ability to interpret and understand.

This statement is partially true. The church felt that there were so many people who could not read and write that it was the priests job to teach the Gospel. Scrolls in those days were not household possessions. This teaching has been used as a weapon against the Church for a long time.

Just like you and I seem to interpret John VI differently. Jesus repeated over and over, at least six times in John: "This is my body and this is my blood" in the passages I mentioned.

Naturally, as you say, after the invention of the printing press, things changed. But, up to that time there are no writings of the early fathers denying the Real Presence, and there are hundreds of books containing these writings that challenged the early church's doctrine and dogma from the various councils, even the heretics. But the Eucharist was never in question, nor was the Mass as a celebration of the Last Supper even questioned.

The Old Testament and the New Testament confirm the Old and the New. It is as simple as that.

Peace,

Charlie

2 votes

#2.4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:32 AM EDT

3kyw4law

If He had, that would be an indication that He wanted to tell them that His words were not meant literally.

Considering how many times he let the parables go unexplained to the masses - explaining only to the twelve - I doubt it. I think if any of them had stopped and asked what he meant by his words Jesus would have explained; however none did which leaves us to interpret the meaning the best that we can.

1 vote

#2.5 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:28 PM EDT

JoTigerlily

EPH,

Very clearly presented, and I agree with what you have written here.

It is interesting that when we compare John 6:54 ("He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.")
with 6:47 ("Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes has eternal life.")
"we see that to eat the Lord's flesh and drink His blood is to believe in Him."

That is a quote from a footnote in the Recovery Version, which is my main study Bible. It is available to read free online. (It has many footnotes, cross references, and outlines of each book.) There are a few interesting statements in the notes on John chapter 6.

Here is the note referenced above in its entirety:

54² Here flesh and blood are mentioned separately. The separation of blood and flesh indicates death. Here the Lord clearly indicated His death, that is, His being slain. He gave His body and shed His blood for us that we may have eternal life. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He did in giving His body for us; and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat His flesh and drink His blood is to receive Him, in His redemption, as life and the life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. By comparing this verse with v. 47, we see that to eat the Lord's flesh and drink His blood is to believe in Him, because to believe or to believe into is to receive (1:12).

1 vote

#3 - Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:34 PM EDT

3kyw4law

EPH - a very well done article. Thank you for presenting the differing viewpoints.

In reference to John 6:53-59, I think verses 48-52 would give some light to the meaning of verses 53-59.

⁴⁸I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (NIV)

In my opinion, this entire passage (John 6:25-59) is talking about his sacrifice and death on the cross.

1 vote

#4 - Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:03 AM EDT

lisaed

EPH---does your church celebrate the eucharist each Sunday or I've also read unlike RCC some protestant denominations do so only one Sunday a month? Celebration of the eucharist is central to a Catholic mass so I'm wondering if you understand why this difference among some other denominations?

2 votes

#5 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:52 AM EDT

EPH289

lisaed,

We in our church only have communion once per quarter. The church I was at before moving here had communion once per month.

I do understand the centrality of the Eucharist as part of the Catholic Mass and understand fairly well the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, baptism etc. Unlike the Catholic church, we do not believe that communion is a means of receiving God's grace. In the article above, I tried to provide a biblical understanding of why we believe as we do and to address the differences in our understanding.

Just as Charlie illumined in his article for himself, our church looks to the bible as our authority. We don't see it teaching what the Catholic church indicates it teaches in this area. We believe that the bible stands alone as the source for understanding not the church or tradition as the Catholic church would believe.

2 votes

#5.1 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:22 PM EDT

lisaed

Unlike the Catholic church, we do not believe that communion is a means of receiving God's grace

EPH--so does this mean given eucharist is done just once per quarter that eucharist is less important in your church than it is to Catholics? Not trying to be combative....really just trying to understand the rationale for doing it at all.

2 votes

#5.2 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:28 PM EDT

EPH289

so does this mean given eucharist is done just once per quarter that eucharist is less important in your church than it is to Catholics? Not trying to be combative....really just trying to understand the rationale for doing it at all.

Didn't see your question as combative at all.

Different doesn't mean more or less important in my perspective. The reason we have communion like many of the things we do is because the bible tells us to do it. Jesus said "if you love me you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

Paul's presentation of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians included the statement "do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11:25). That is what we do.

No where in scripture does it prescribe the frequency of doing it in remembrance. On some levels, I believe Catholics would argue that because of what they believe about it, it is more important to them. I don't think the argument correct but understand why they might feel that way.

3 votes

#5.3 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:41 PM EDT

lisaed

EPH--thanks for your response....I find the differences between Christian denominations fascinating and I like to understand them rather than debate which is right or wrong. That said, I just couldn't imagine going to church without communion--so central is it to our celebration of the mass.

2 votes

#5.4 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:13 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

No where in scripture does it prescribe the frequency of doing it in remembrance

Hi EPH,

Back again.

I believe that there is one key place in the Bible that frequency of Communion and Church attendance come together. Exodus 20: 8-11 "Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it Holy. Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. 11. For in six the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everyting in them; then he rested on the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as Holy."

So, we go to church, at least once a week, by virtue of God's Commandments. We Catholics have Mass everyday day of the week as an option, but one day a week, the Sabbath, is always required. We celebrate with Christ by taking Communion every time we go to Mass, if we are in a state of grace, and the whole point of Mass is to remember the Last Supper, and thank Christ for His suffering and sacrifice for us, one and all.

Blessings,

Charlie

2 votes

#5.5 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:13 PM EDT

lisaed

Charlie---that kinda gets back to the question I raised to EPH about the lesser frequency of eucharist in some protestant denominations.....who decided I wonder that quarterly or something less than minimum weekly is sufficient? That's all I was wondering....and if less frequent would imply less important.

2 votes

#5.6 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:21 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

Hi Lisaed,

Although, EPH, wrote an answer to the question, I didn't read where he addressed the degree of importance vis-a-vie taking Communion less, especially as a reflection on their dedication to the wishes of God and our Lord.

Thorny issues! But, important and relevant, I believe.

2 votes

#5.7 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:34 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

Just as Charlie illumined in his article for himself, our church looks to the bible as our authority.

EPH,

You know, I wrote only passages from scripture in my article. The theological debate about the "Real Presence" in Communion is central to the Catholic faith. Apostolic succession from Peter onward is verifiable for 2,000 years. The laying-on of hands throughout the centuries is documented, and that establishes the priesthood clearly as coming from Jesus Christ and previously from Malchezidek before Leviticus.

Since, the love of our Lord, and the teaching of His Word are what we Christians are supposed to do to further the Kingdom of God, I don't want to belittle your beliefs. The use of the words: Kingdom of God are used 119 times specifically in the four Gospels; so I take that to be of great import.

I am interested to hear your view about celebrating Communion in Protestant denominations, and of course your personal views.

Thank you for engaging in this discourse.

Charlie

Oooops I see you posted your views, thanks.

2 votes

#6 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:52 PM EDT

EPH289

Apostolic succession from Peter onward is verifiable for 2,000 years.

This would be another area where we would disagree. The Eastern Orthodox Church for instance has disagreed with the Roman church and they claim apostolic authority of 2000 years as well and trace their origins back to the first Church founded by Paul. They make the same claims of being the only true church that the Catholic church makes.

I believe that the Catholic church's claim to apostolic authority on the basis of the Matthew 18:16 passage is less than compelling. In that passage, the Lord uses a play on words. Peter or "petros" is a word that meant "a piece of rock" or a "stone" if you will and was frequently used for smaller rocks, stones or pebbles. The word that he used for "rock" in the passage is "petra". In the secular Greek of its day, this word meant a large rock also it meant "a cliff" or even "rocky mountain chain". If Peter and the other disciples had equated this response from the Lord as making him preeminent, it is highly unlikely they would have asked who is the greatest (Matthew 20) and if indeed Christ were naming Peter as such He would have responded differently telling them that it was Peter.

Another compelling scriptural insight is that Peter never claimed this superiority for himself. Rather, in his letters he called himself a "fellow elder and a bond servant of Christ"

Indeed, Peter took the lead of the Church in Jerusalem. Although in my opinion Peter was much more the apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13).

I fully understand the Catholic understanding of the Matthew passage. I believe that a better understanding of the "rocky mountain chain" that Christ was speaking to was Peter's statement the Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God of verse 16. It perhaps is equally possible that Jesus was addressing Peter as a representative of the twelve; especially in light of Ephesians 2:19-20 where Paul said:

Eph 2:19-21
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, NASB

This passage points to Christ Himself as the primary foundation of what the church is built upon and the apostles (including Peter) and prophets as part of its foundation but not indicating one with special authority.

Indeed Peter was the most visible Apostle in Acts (up through chapter 10). But we also see where Paul had to come in and confront him for hypocrisy.

Gal 2:11-15 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? NASB

"Cephas" being Peter in the above passage. Cephas is the Aramaic of the Petros in Greek.

Like you Charlie I want to not belittle anyone's beliefs. I respect your understanding of scripture but don't necessarily agree with your or your churches understanding. I always try to understand scripture in the context of the rest of scripture attempting to put aside my own prejudices.

Likewise, I am not convinced by pointing to tradition as support. Clearly, doing that led to Christ's confronting of the Pharisee's as hypocrits who made their own traditions equal to or above the scripture such as the rules they had built around the sabbath and the way they avoided the directive to honor their parents through the giving of Corban instead.

This has been a real interesting interchange for me. It challenges me to search the scriptures in hopes of finding the capital T truth. I hope it is equally edifying for you.

God Bless

2 votes

#7 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:13 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

n that passage, the Lord uses a play on words. Peter or "petros" is a word that meant "a piece of rock" or a "stone" if you will and was frequently used for smaller rocks, stones or pebbles. The word that he used for "rock" in the passage is "petra". In the secular Greek of its day, this word meant a large rock also it meant "a cliff" or even "rocky mountain chain".

Please, EPH

There are no theological scholars who believe what you just wrote. There is no basis in language, nor in statement of fact. I prefer not to try and debunk it again and again. Matthew 16:16-19 is very clear and it has proven itself true by virtue or time and the spread of Jesus' Word to more than 20% of the whole world.

I am multilingual and playing games with parsing gender in Aramaic, that has no gender, and Greek is completely disingenuous. Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek, so the words you are discrediting are not even relevant. Return to the Hebrew or Aramaic and see what you come up with for a translation.

Charlie

1 vote

#7.1 - Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:59 PM EDT

EPH289

There are no theological scholars who believe what you just wrote.

You couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. If you had said there are no "Catholic" theological scholars I might agree but wouldn't know. There are many "theological scholars" who agree with this interpretation. There are others who lean to the understanding that Jesus was speaking to Peter as a representative of the apostles as also written in my comment above.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

The Fourth Gospel is written in Greek

You can if you want discount any of Jesus' sayings in the New Testament that were written in Greek because Jesus spoke "Aramaic" but that basically says we can not trust the gospels as written.

John chose two different words in writing what he did. Those words were not only gender differences but also were used in different ways with different meaning in the culture of the time. If Jesus as you suggest had used the same word twice in Aramaic, why would John have written them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as different words?

Nothing has been debunked here in the Matthew 16 passage. You keep referring to time as the primary support for some of your interpretations. This is unreasonable. The bible was kept from the people and controlled by the Catholic church and its leadership until the advent of the printing press in the 15-16th centuries.

The Catholic church interpretation of the Matthew passage is a possible interpretation not the only possible and certainly not indisputable as you suggest. In my opinion it is less likely than others based upon other scripture and you obviously disagree. It doesn't make either of us right. One day, we will both know for sure.

2 votes

#7.2 - Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:36 AM EDT

Charlie Courtois

EPH,

FYI, last night I listened to a former Protestant Minister, scholar, and now a Catholic talk about "the little rock and the pebble" as I shared with him the colloquy I was having about Matthew 16:16-19.

If you read the Aramic language, there are no noun genders. Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek; it was supposed that Jesus did study some Greek but it is not documented.

You can believe what you wish, but if the versus in Matthew are not true and literal, than Christianity is not true either. That verse established Christ's Church on this earth.

Henry the VIII founded his Church, Anglicanism, on Luther and Calvin, and even at that, they never came up with a heresy about Peter not being the first Pope. Henry the VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope refused, so he founded his own Church. That was not God's will, that was arrogance, and egocentricity.

Peace, I quit.

1 vote

#7.3 - Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:22 PM EDT

EPH289

You can believe what you wish, but if the versus in Matthew are not true and literal, than Christianity is not true either. That verse established Christ's Church on this earth.

Sorry Charlie, this can't be left as the last word. It just isn't dogmatically true as you want it to be.

2 votes

#7.4 - Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:15 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

EPH,

Listed below are the verses which are the basis for Christianity and the catholic (universal church) until the reformation:

CHURCH

Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build me church
Mt 18:17-18 - if he refuses to listen even to Church...
Mt 28:18-20 - go baptize and teach all nations
Mk 16:15-16 - go to the whole world and proclaim the gospel
Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me, reject you, rejects me
Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit w/you always, teach/remind everything
Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth
1 Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth

CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST - five New Testament verses

THE CHURCH MUST BE ONE - 12 New Testament verses

APOSTOLIC CHURCH - 9 New Testament verses

AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH - 6 New Testament verses

INFALLIBLE CHURCH - 7 New Testament verses

PERPETUAL CHURCH - 7 New Testament verses

PRIMACY OF PETER - 16 New Testament verses and One verse that Protestants use to challenge Catholic doctrine: Galatians 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION - 13 New Testament verses

REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST - 10 verses in the Old Testament and the New Testament

EPH, I just don't have time to type them all out. You chose to ignore the scripture I quoted in my article, and put forth the "old Peter canard" which never held water from the first time it was used. The Protestant theologians do not use Matthew 16: 18-19 to dispute Peter's primacy and papal authority or any other truth about the universal, catholic church.

If you are truly interested in the verses I mentioned in the categories above, I will take the time to quote them. Arguments against our faith over the years are noted in about 7 passages of the complete Bible in the OT and the NT. I know every one of them. And, if I were debating I would be prepared to argue them; but, this dialog is not getting us anywhere, and actually I am sorry I have lost my patience.

Many Protestant denominations are living and preaching secular principles like, abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, gay ordination, etc. The Catholic Church has never and will never change what Christ taught. In my Methodist experiences, before returning home to Rome, I was befuddled by the Book of Disciplines there, and what it lacked was the authority that John Wesley founded the church. For better or worse a 2,000 year history is much more evidence than 500 years by itself.

Peace,

Charlie

1 vote

#7.5 - Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:13 PM EDT

Charlie Courtois

Finally, you quote the fourth Gospel of John in your comment (#7.2), when we are discussing the first Gospel of Matthew.

It makes no sense at all.

Matthew was written for the Jews by Levi; John was written, maybe by John, Jesus' most beloved.

The canons were all approved by the Councils of Trent and they are not in dispute. Only after the Protestant Reformation did these questions arise.

1 vote

#7.6 - Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:22 PM EDT

EPH289

Charlie,

You and I would agree upon much. For instance, I would strongly agree that the church is "apostolic" in the sense that we all follow the teachings that the Lord used the Apostles to communicate through scripture. I would agree that the Church is the Body of Christ and that the Body of Christ is the Church. We would agree there is one God, revealed in three persons. We would agree that Jesus was fully God and fully man, etc.

We would also disagree on quite a few things. My beliefs that you would not agree with; the only foundation the church is built upon is Christ Himself. Salvation is by faith alone. Baptism is not salvific in nature but rather a response to salvation, the only priesthood is the priesthood of believers etc.. I would reject teachings that depend upon tradition rather than the revealed Word.

All of these topics would require detailed bible studies and we would probably still disagree.

Finally, you quote the fourth Gospel of John in your comment (#7.2), when we are discussing the first Gospel of Matthew.

It makes no sense at all

Forgive me for this error. Regarding Matthew, there is quite a bit of debate about whether Matthew's original text was Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. No significant extant evidence exists for a Hebrew language original. Some even argue that the language of the Jews in the first century Palastine was Aramaic and that when Hebrew was stated it actually meant Aramaic.

The manuscripts available are Greek. Arguing that they don't accurately reflect the language of Jesus and therefore another interpretation based upon a different language is preferred when that language documents do not exist seems rather specious to me.

I offered two different understandings of the Matthew passage that others believe that are contrary to the Catholic Church interpretation. I actually ascribe to the understanding that the rock is Peter's confession.

By the way, the Catholic church also agrees with that interpretation, from the catechism:

“Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424)

2 votes

#7.7 - Mon May 3, 2010 7:59 AM EDT

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
Newsvine is a property of

New Users:

Existing Users:

EPH289

Protestant and Catholic Views of the Lord's Supper

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: