Does John 6 explain the origins of Protestantism?

Catholics see the Scriptures written about the Eucharist as literal teaching by Jesus and have interpreted Jesus’ words as literal since before the NT Scriptures were written as recorded in Scripture. Catholics find no reason to interpret Jesus’ teaching to be anything but literal from a hermeneutical, historical or theological perspective.

Some Protestants, on the other hand, are very much like the proto-Protestants who were former disciples and left Jesus after His teaching in John 6, about the commandment to eat His Body and drink His Blood. They remain in the carnal sense and deny the miracle of the Eucharist. They believe that instead of being present at the one sacrifice of Christ, that what Jesus instituted is a symbolic ordinance instead.

So, what we are speaking of is two totally different practices. The first identical to what the apostles taught and put into practice which is the real presence and the second a modernist interpretation of a man Ulrich Zwingli which is a symbolic ordinance. The first is actually Christ on the Cross where the worshippers are at the foot of the cross; the second is just a remembering of what Christ did as recorded in the Bible. When a Catholic Christian remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is from being there, when a Protestant remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is recalling what is written in Scriptures about the event. Certainly, one should be able to understand the level of passion one would have after being at the foot of the cross compared to the level of one just remembering what is written in a book. So even though some do not take it lightly, even though they do not believe, it cannot be the same passion for an exercise or ordinance in supposed obedience, as the Protestant act can be described; to the Catholic practice of being present with the living corporeal Christ at the cross and eating His real body and Blood as He commanded.

It must be noted for understanding that for many of the Reformers that this approach by Zwingli was necessary to give some credibility to the new Protestant movement which denied the successive apostolic leadership of the Church established by Christ. These reformers knew full well that they had no true legitimacy and no authority from Christ. They also knew that without a legitimate episcopacy that they could not continue Holy Orders, the Sacraments nor do they have the authority to confect the Eucharist which authority can only be given by Christ through the Church. Therefore, they could not continue the Eucharist even if they desired without a valid priesthood.

So, I am not saying that I do not believe that Protestant communion service is not special or a sign of unity but it is to me a sign of unity for a false, heretical belief outside of historical, Traditional and orthodox Christianity and is a doctrine of men warned about in the Gospels.

(Mat 15:7 DRB) Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:(Mat 15:8 DRB) This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.(Mat 15:9 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

(Mar 7:5 DRB) And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?

(Mar 7:6 DRB) But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

(Mar 7:7 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.

(Mar 7:8 DRB) For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.(Mar 7:9 DRB) And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

(Luk 6:46 DRB) And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

Bruce, good point! I never thought about that, but you are right. It was the spirit of protestantism that was at work in John 6. Those who decided that they knew God better than God himself.

Oh my gosh...St. Preachy you are the one who has taken a leap.

Those who left when they heard the words of Christ were those who could not accept this truth. Those who did accept it stayed, followed Christ, and became the first Christians and Catholics.

St. Paul says "he who eats and drinks unworthily calls judgment down on himself." Why would he say that for something that is done "in memory of" Christ? No, he said that because the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and should be received in a pure state. This statement certainly shows the weight of the Eucharist and it's importance.

Rome does not arbitrarily pick which ancient traditions to follow. They've been part of the faith since the beginning...before they were ancient traditions. As a matter of fact at that time they were new and unheard of.

What do you mean our "modern theology"? The Catholic Church is constantly accused of living in the dark ages. We are the only Church that continues to hold fast to the beliefs and practices of the early Christians. The ones who knew Christ and knew the Apostles.

well psalms 118:5-6 God answers our prayers John 14:14- If you ask anything in my name i will do it. Whenever we in trouble,we cry to the Lord.and 'The Lord is with me'we also believed that the Lord is always with us,guiding us,protecting us wherever we go.We should not be afraid because we believe that he's there with us. To add up- Jesus says 'He has taken the path. If you follow him, This will what happen ,you will come across difficulties,hardships etc but he says he will be there for you . In front of you,beside you or even behind you,,protecting you always because he has walked on that path and he knows what your needs to complete your journey. John 16:33 He said this to set us free(salvation) so we may have peace.True peace and happiness comes from Jesus Christ.Tribulation-what is happening as you can see,if you have been watching news but he has ovecome all this like i mentioned above.

It is a perfect example. Protestants have a difficult time in accepting the miraculous things of God. Another example is the fact that Baptism cleanses us of original sin. Non- Catholics want everything to be explained in real world terms. The miracles of Christ's Gospel is beyond their comprehension.

It explains transubstantiation and Catholicism. If I'm reading correctly, it explains why not to be protestant.

I would say that ask 12 people what a protestant is and get 12 or more answers from 12 people.

relax bruce, these protesters dont have a problem with the catholic church, they have a problem with Jesus himself because it was the Lord who said "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you".

It happened to Jesus reported in Jn 6 v 66. Hmm, is that the essence of 666? interesting isnt it?

Bit of a leap you've taken here, don'tcha think? The people who thought Jesus was being crassly literal in this passage "no longer followed him", but Protestant Christians do. This is another case of a Roman Catholic taking his modern theology and smashing it into the bible. In response to the anticipated retort that the Church fathers believed in transubstantiation, that is debatable. The early fathers believed many different things, some true, some not. Why does Rome think that she can arbitrarily pick and choose which "ancient traditions" are to be kept and which ones aren't?

Edit: Real presence possibly, transubstantiation, no. That developed over time.

Edit: Misty, the very first example of a church father claiming that something was "apostolic tradition" is from Irenaeus. He put forth something called the recapitulation theory, which, in short, said that Jesus lived through all the stages of life (infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and finally, old age) and claimed that it was Tradition that Jesus lived to be more than fifty years old. Now I realize that Irenaeus gave us some very valuable material, but on what basis do we accept his claim that Mary is the new Eve, and then reject the idea of Jesus being more than fifty after having to recapitulate through the entire human experience? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

"Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood"...

To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind.

Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.

Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Gospel According to Saint John

Chapter 6

63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

"If then you shall see"... Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

"The flesh profiteth nothing"... Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

"Are spirit and life"... By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

Of course, it does *not* explain the origins of Protestantism. As I suspect you are already aware, it was Martin Luther's reaction to certain policies of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), particularly the selling of indulgences. This was not only permitted but promoted, for the 1st time, by the pope in office at that time.

It is a matter of historic record that the pope at the time actually sent out special representatives (a "sales force") to encourage and collect funds received from the selling of indulgences - literally selling salvation not only for the living, but also for the dead.

Although 50 years after this practice began another pope outlawed the selling of indulgences, it was already too late. Martin Luther quite possibly would never have "bolted" from the RCC and started a religious "revolution" if it were not for the selling of indulgences. Most of the other issues that he had were minor by comparison, and not instigated by the then-current and *very* corrupt pope.

In other words, the only thing that explains the origins of Protestantism is the Roman Catholic Church or, more specifically, the policies of that particular pope.

For your final question:

"Isn't a Protestant someone who takes issue with a difficult teaching of Christ and joins others who prefer a different gospel?"

There are Protestants and there are Protestants, but I will assume that you are speaking generally of those sects who are not part of the RCC or the Eastern Orthodox churches. The simple answer is "no", as can be seen by the above abbreviated account of the impetus for Lutheranism. The selling of indulgences was not a "hard teaching", but rather a sinfully easy one: salvation for money. Most other sects which broke away from the RCC broke away with less religiously justifiable reasons, but *generally* speaking it was *not* because of any of the "hard teachings" (trinity being the hardest). Transubstantiation is certainly a teaching not widely held among Protestant sects (although the Lutherans and Anglicans, I believe, teach it), but it is also (as far as I know) not the primary reason for the formation of any Protestant sect. For this reason, I would say that this is a poor example for a "hard teaching" inducing the rise of Protestantism.

Indeed, I think you will find that most of the Protestant sects which actually splintered from the RCC did not do so *primarily* because of any of the so-called "mysteries". They either had more fundamental disagreements with the then-existing doctrines of the RCC, or (in some cases) individual charismatic orators simply wanted to run things (as they saw fit).

Jim, http://www.jimpettis./ com/wheel/

I think it does. If the Eucharist is denied, then everything else falls afterward - the priesthood, confession, the authority of the Church, everything.