The Biblical Basis of Catholic Distinctives

[Deadworm]

I am Evangelical, not Catholic and indeed successfully sued Catholics. Yes, I believe nothing is worse than Catholicism at its worst. By the same token no spirituality is better than Catholic spirituality at its best. As an Evangelical, I am ashamed of the ignorance and bigoted bias of much of evangelical arguments against Catholic distinctives, This thread is intended to set the record straight by examining the biblical grounds for these distinctives. So, as informed Catholic apologists would say, "Let's get into the Word!"

[1] REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN HOLY COMMUNION

"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them...Whoever eats me will live because of me (John 6;55-57)."

The distinction between transubstantiation and Real Presence will be ignored for purposes of discussion of John 6.
Here are 6 Catholic grounds for reading Real Presence into the explanation of the significance of Holy Communion in John 6:
(1) As noted in commentaries, John shockingly omits the establishment of Holy Communion at the Last Supper (John 13) because he wants to discuss the meaning of Holy Communion here in John 6:53-58.

(2) John uses the crude verb "trogo" ("munch on") to refer to eating Jesus and eating His flesh to indicate that He is speaking literally, not symbolically, in his implication that Christ is truly present in the sacramental act of eating Communion bread.

(3) Other than Holy Communion, there is no biblical precedent for the image of munching on Jesus as a reference to anything but Communion bread.

(4) Jesus is deserted by "many of His disciples" for this cannibalistic-sounding language (6:66). To prevent this mass desertion, all Jesus needs to do is to explain that partaking the bread and wine are merely symbolic actions. But He does not do so precisely because He teaches His Real Presence in this sacramental act.

(5) Most importantly, He teaches that, because of His Real Presence in this sacramental act, Holy Communion is a vehicle by which participants "abide in Me, and I in them (7;56)." Thus, Ignatius, 1st and early 2nd century bishop of Antioch, can call the Communion elements "the medicine of immortality" and is an important witness to first-century belief in Real Presence.

Ignatius is the first century bishop of the Antioch church which is the NT mother church for the Gentile mission. He is the first to label the church "Catholic" and thus grounds the Catholic belief in Real Presence in the early NT church.

 

[Alan Gross]

Ignatius

was infinitely off on all that conjecture.

"except ye eat the flesh of the son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you:"

"by "the son of man", Christ means himself; under which title he often speaks of himself; because it was a title of the Messiah under the Old Testament; and was expressive of the truth of his human nature, though as attended with weakness and infirmities.

"The "flesh" and "blood" of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it:

"and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten:

"but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord's supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; and some, without participating of this, have spiritual life in them now, and will enjoy eternal life hereafter;

"and all that partake of that ordinance have not the one, nor shall have the other:

"and besides, having a principle of spiritual life in the soul, is previously necessary to a right eating of the supper of the Lord.

"These words, understood in this sense, once introduced infants to the Lord's supper; as misinterpretation of ( John 3:5 ) brought in the baptism of them.

"But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith.

To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man;

"that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves:

"it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them:

"without this there, is no evidence of life in them; not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness;

"only such that believe in Christ are living souls; and without this there is nothing to support life; everything else that a man eats tends to death; but this is what will maintain and preserve a spiritual life; and without this there is no just expectation of eternal life;

"but where there is this, there is good reason to expect it, and such shall enjoy it: some copies and versions read, "ye shall not have life in you"; eternal life.

"Now, though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold, and feeds upon;

"yet it is by faith the right is claimed;

"and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection."

John 6:53 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

 

[Cathode]

was infinitely off on all that conjecture.

"except ye eat the flesh of the son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you:"

"by "the son of man", Christ means himself; under which title he often speaks of himself; because it was a title of the Messiah under the Old Testament; and was expressive of the truth of his human nature, though as attended with weakness and infirmities.

"The "flesh" and "blood" of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it:

"and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten:

"but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord's supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; and some, without participating of this, have spiritual life in them now, and will enjoy eternal life hereafter;

"and all that partake of that ordinance have not the one, nor shall have the other:

"and besides, having a principle of spiritual life in the soul, is previously necessary to a right eating of the supper of the Lord.

"These words, understood in this sense, once introduced infants to the Lord's supper; as misinterpretation of ( John 3:5 ) brought in the baptism of them.

"But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith.

To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man;

"that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves:

"it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them:

"without this there, is no evidence of life in them; not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness;

"only such that believe in Christ are living souls; and without this there is nothing to support life; everything else that a man eats tends to death; but this is what will maintain and preserve a spiritual life; and without this there is no just expectation of eternal life;

"but where there is this, there is good reason to expect it, and such shall enjoy it: some copies and versions read, "ye shall not have life in you"; eternal life.

"Now, though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold, and feeds upon;

"yet it is by faith the right is claimed;

"and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection."

John 6:53 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

Ignatius wasn’t wrong at all, He was Apostolicaly appointed bishop of Antioch, knew John himself, who wrote those inspired words.

The Eucharist is Jesus Himself, source of all life and grace to the whole Church.

If people believe in Jesus, they believe His words, which tell us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Most believers do as Jesus asked, but as among the original disciples, many refused to believe, and among them was the one who would betray Him.

Jesus is the new Manna come down from Heaven as our daily bread, in Covenant Communion.

Real Communion isn’t eating bread and drinking wine, it’s is eating and drinking Flesh and Blood Jesus, that is Communion with Jesus which unites us with God.

The Life is in the Son.

Jesus is the life sustaining daily Manna for the Church, The Holy Eucharist is Jesus our daily bread.

 

[Marooncat79]

It’s a metaphor

we do not literally eat His body

His body is in heaven where He resides.


Early pagans took it literally and called Christian’s cannibals IIRC

 

[Alan Gross]

Real Communion isn’t eating bread and drinking wine, it’s is eating and drinking Flesh and Blood Jesus, that is Communion with Jesus which unites us with God.

Too cheap to talk about.

 

[canadyjd]

There is really no reason to speculate on what Jesus meant concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He tells us in John 6.

After asking His disciples if they were going to leave Him, He said “the Spirit quickens” and “the flesh profits nothing” and “the words I have spoken are Spirit and they are life”.

Jesus clearly states His words are not to be taken literally, but spiritually

Additionally, the Apostle Paul specifically addresses the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11. He refers to instructions directly by Jesus, which mirrors the upper room discourse not John 6.

Paul uses the term “remembrance” 3 times, which also mirrors Jesus’s statement the supper is done to remember His sacrifice.

The Lord’s Supper is a solemn memorial of our Lord’s death on the cross.

Concerning the OP, I agree that Catholics have scripture to support their beliefs. For instance, there is a passage in Revelation that says the saints take the prayers of Christians to the throne of God. That passage is used to support prayers to the saints. Now, I disagree with that interpretation, but I cannot deny they have a biblical basis for it.

peace to you

 

[37818]

Ignatius wasn’t wrong at all, . . .

From what I understand, we do not have any of Ignatius' writings.

 

[37818]

I am Evangelical, not Catholic and indeed successfully sued Catholics. Yes, I believe nothing is worse than Catholicism at its worst. By the same token no spirituality is better than Catholic spirituality at its best. As an Evangelical, I am ashamed of the ignorance and bigoted bias of much of evangelical arguments against Catholic distinctives, This thread is intended to set the record straight by examining the biblical grounds for these distinctives. So, as informed Catholic apologists would say, "Let's get into the Word!"

[1] REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN HOLY COMMUNION

"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them...Whoever eats me will live because of me (John 6;55-57)."

The distinction between transubstantiation and Real Presence will be ignored for purposes of discussion of John 6.
Here are 6 Catholic grounds for reading Real Presence into the explanation of the significance of Holy Communion in John 6:
(1) As noted in commentaries, John shockingly omits the establishment of Holy Communion at the Last Supper (John 13) because he wants to discuss the meaning of Holy Communion here in John 6:53-58.

(2) John uses the crude verb "trogo" ("munch on") to refer to eating Jesus and eating His flesh to indicate that He is speaking literally, not symbolically, in his implication that Christ is truly present in the sacramental act of eating Communion bread.

(3) Other than Holy Communion, there is no biblical precedent for the image of munching on Jesus as a reference to anything but Communion bread.

(4) Jesus is deserted by "many of His disciples" for this cannibalistic-sounding language (6:66). To prevent this mass desertion, all Jesus needs to do is to explain that partaking the bread and wine are merely symbolic actions. But He does not do so precisely because He teaches His Real Presence in this sacramental act.

(5) Most importantly, He teaches that, because of His Real Presence in this sacramental act, Holy Communion is a vehicle by which participants "abide in Me, and I in them (7;56)." Thus, Ignatius, 1st and early 2nd century bishop of Antioch, can call the Communion elements "the medicine of immortality" and is an important witness to first-century belief in Real Presence.

Ignatius is the first century bishop of the Antioch church which is the NT mother church for the Gentile mission. He is the first to label the church "Catholic" and thus grounds the Catholic belief in Real Presence in the early NT church.

@Deadworm,
Two issues.
One, John 6 is about Him being the true Manna from Heaven, not Passover.
And it is my understanding, the seven writings attributed to Ignatius are all third century forgeries.

 

[Alan Gross]

Jesus clearly states His words are not to be taken literally, but spiritually

The only thing literal about the subject is the attempt at using hocus-pocus, literally.

Concerning the OP, I agree that Catholics have scripture to support their beliefs.

They don't have support for Peter offering up Jesus as a priest, or something of that nature, because God had Peter out of the picture and denying Jesus, or they might have.

 

[Walter]

It’s a metaphor

we do not literally eat His body

His body is in heaven where He resides.


Early pagans took it literally and called Christian’s cannibals IIRC

Not written in the language of metaphor. Nor did the early Christians believe it was a metaphor. Ignatius, who sat at John's feet and was given apostolic teaching did not believe it was only a metaphor. How big is your God? Is He not able to feed us with His Body and Blood through the elements of communion any way He wishes?? Again, how big is your God???

 

[Marooncat79]

Again. It’s is a figure of speech used to demonstrate that He is the manna in the wilderness and the one who sustains us

 

[Alan Gross]

It’s a metaphor

we do not literally eat His body

The only thing literal about the subject is the attempt at using hocus-pocus, literally.

the language of metaphor

Again. It’s is a figure of speech used to demonstrate that He is the manna in the wilderness and the one who sustains us

"Metaphors are a form of figurative language, which refers to words or expressions that mean something different from their literal definition. In the case of metaphors, the literal interpretation would often be pretty silly."

What Is a Metaphor? Definition and Examples.

 

[canadyjd]

….How big is your God? Is He not able to feed us with His Body and Blood through the elements of communion any way He wishes?? Again, how big is your God???

My God is so big He only had to give His body and blood ONCE, and then ascended to the right hand of the Father.

My God is so big, He is pleased to allow each and every believer direct access through Jesus Christ, no need for Mary or the Saints, or a priest to intervene on my behalf.

My God is so big, I can directly ask for, and receive forgiveness of my sins. No need for a priest. No need to say “hail Mary’s”. No need to do penitence. I ask, God gives me grace directly.

We disagree in this issue. I’m glad to discuss it.

But…. Don’t get snarky about how big “my” God is, as if you have a different God that is bigger than my God

peace to you

 

[Marooncat79]

Btw. How big is my God?

I believe that God truly made EVERYTHING in 6 literal 24 hr periods of time (He could have done so instantaneously had He chosen to do so), but He was teaching us a lot in Creation

something your church officially denies (at least that is how I understand the official position now). If I am wrong, please correct me

and Yes, God controls the Earthly governments and the will of man

as I have stated plainly and openly on this board many times:

I believe in a Holy, Omnipotent, Sovereign, Glorious Eternal God.

I am unsure how to state it more plainly

 

[Marooncat79]

Oh, and by the way (God has already determined the outcome of the 2024 election), he just uses Election Day as a means to bring about His eternal purposes!

and, it is for His glory

that’s how big my God is

 

[Cathode]

There is really no reason to speculate on what Jesus meant concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He tells us in John 6.

After asking His disciples if they were going to leave Him, He said “the Spirit quickens” and “the flesh profits nothing” and “the words I have spoken are Spirit and they are life”.

Jesus clearly states His words are not to be taken literally, but spiritually

Additionally, the Apostle Paul specifically addresses the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11. He refers to instructions directly by Jesus, which mirrors the upper room discourse not John 6.

Paul uses the term “remembrance” 3 times, which also mirrors Jesus’s statement the supper is done to remember His sacrifice.

The Lord’s Supper is a solemn memorial of our Lord’s death on the cross.

Concerning the OP, I agree that Catholics have scripture to support their beliefs. For instance, there is a passage in Revelation that says the saints take the prayers of Christians to the throne of God. That passage is used to support prayers to the saints. Now, I disagree with that interpretation, but I cannot deny they have a biblical basis for it.

peace to you

Jesus clearly meant His words to be taken literally, but believed by faith.

A large number of disciples left Him over this literal and very hard teaching.

Jesus turned to the 12 asking if they also were going to leave Him. That’s how hard this teaching was.

It took Peter a supernatural act of Faith in Jesus words.

“Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life, We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.”

There is no other place to go, human reason profits nothing, only by spiritual Faith granted by The Father will you believe.

Jesus repeated Himself strenuously in this teaching, as Catholics do today in explaining it.

Jesus was asking them to believe, not understand, and He knew who did not believe.

Only later at the Last Supper did they begin to understand how His Body and Blood were to eaten and drank.
The disciples that left Jesus were not in attendance, the disciple that did not believe was possessed and destroyed after eating Jesus Body.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.”

Can you believe Jesus words in Faith, without human rationalising or running away.
Can you stand and believe, because Jesus said it, and not because you understand.

This is Faith granted by The Father.

Is The Father still holding your garment for this feast, or will you take it and believe and take your place.

Only in the Son is Life, Jesus our Paschal Lamb that must be eaten, Jesus the New Manna come down from Heaven to feed us as our daily bread.

“ You search the scriptures thinking that in them you will have life, the scriptures bear witness to me, yet you refuse to come to me that might live. “

“He who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood, has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the Last day.”

 

[Cathode]

It’s a metaphor

we do not literally eat His body

His body is in heaven where He resides.

Early pagans took it literally and called Christian’s cannibals IIRC

The early pagans called early Christians cannibals because the Christians told them that they were literally eating the Body of Christ. That’s Right.

Jesus is the bread which comes down daily as The New Manna from Heaven.

 

[Cathode]

"Metaphors are a form of figurative language, which refers to words or expressions that mean something different from their literal definition. In the case of metaphors, the literal interpretation would often be pretty silly."

What Is a Metaphor? Definition and Examples.

No, the literal interpretation doesn’t just sound silly, it sounds impossible and insane to human reasoning, this is the departure lounge for two different flights, one to First Class Faith Airlines, the other to Budget Disbelief Airlines.
Costs nothing to receive Jesus words metaphorically, no faith required.

If Jesus was speaking metaphorically, no disciples would have deserted Him.

This was such a hard literal teaching that Jesus even turned to His own chosen 12 asking if they were going to leave Him.

Many disciples could not stand and face the literal reality of Jesus words, many disciples can not stand and face His words today.

Easy and cheap is the metaphorical interpretation, the literal interpretation requires a gold boarding pass granted by The Father.

 

[Cathode]

@Deadworm,
Two issues.
One, John 6 is about Him being the true Manna from Heaven, not Passover.
And it is my understanding, the seven writings attributed to Ignatius are all third century forgeries.

Calvin called them forgeries, but he had to reject them, because he was in opposition to the whole church and church history to found his new beliefs.

 

[canadyjd]

Jesus clearly meant His words to be taken literally, but believed by faith.

A large number of disciples left Him over this literal and very hard teaching.

Jesus turned to the 12 asking if they also were going to leave Him. That’s how hard this teaching was.

It took Peter a supernatural act of Faith in Jesus words.

“Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life, We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.”

There is no other place to go, human reason profits nothing, only by spiritual Faith granted by The Father will you believe.

Jesus repeated Himself strenuously in this teaching, as Catholics do today in explaining it.

Jesus was asking them to believe, not understand, and He knew who did not believe.

Only later at the Last Supper did they begin to understand how His Body and Blood were to eaten and drank.
The disciples that left Jesus were not in attendance, the disciple that did not believe was possessed and destroyed after eating Jesus Body.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.”

Can you believe Jesus words in Faith, without human rationalising or running away.
Can you stand and believe, because Jesus said it, and not because you understand.

This is Faith granted by The Father.

Is The Father still holding your garment for this feast, or will you take it and believe and take your place.

Only in the Son is Life, Jesus our Paschal Lamb that must be eaten, Jesus the New Manna come down from Heaven to feed us as our daily bread.

“ You search the scriptures thinking that in them you will have life, the scriptures bear witness to me, yet you refuse to come to me that might live. “

“He who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood, has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the Last day.”

I believe what Jesus said specifically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said His words were spirit and life. Clearly, it was not to be taken literally.

I believe what the Apostle Paul said about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. He referred to the Supper as a memorial to remind believers of the sacrifice of our Lord.

It is not “faith granted by the Father” to believe something contrary to the teaching of scripture.

peace to you