Name: Randall
Subject: Protestant vs. Catholic perspectives
Question: Protestant vs. Catholic perspectives How can Protestant churches say they believe the Bible literally most of the time (Jesus walking on water, multiplication of loaves, healing people) and then when Jesus says in no uncertain terms "This is my body" it isn't considered literal any more? The Catholics say it is His Body and they have been saying that exact same thing for 2,000 years.
Answer: Great question Randall!
As you say, this has been a point of contention since the days of Martin Luther and the other Reformers.First a short answer:
Those Protestant denominations that believe the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God (not all do), do not believe it should be taken literally in every instance. For instance, Revelation 19:15 says, "And out of his [Jesus'] mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Protestants do not believe Jesus will return with a long sword sticking out of his mouth, that he will break winepresses with his feet, nor that he will be riding a flying white horse with a name tattooed on his person that "no man knoweth but he himself". These are obvious metaphors
The basic Protestant understanding is that when a literal reading makes sense contextually, it is best understood in that way. For instance, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus had brothers and so Protestants accept this (Catholics do not).
When a literal reading does not make sense, as with Rev. 19:15, the text is understood "spiritually" or metaphorically. Jesus was, after all, a master of parables and similes (Matt. 13:34).
The Reformers felt the doctrine of transubstantiation had entered into the Church from Pagan sources, like several other beliefs and traditions of the Roman Church, and hence rejected the teaching, understanding the "eating of my flesh" and "drinking of my blood" to be a metaphor for accepting his teachings and taking part vicariously in his sufferings.
A longer answer:
As you doubtless know, during his battle for Rome against Maxentius in 312 CE, Constantine claimed to have had a vision of Christ. He reported that Jesus had ordered him to "fight and conquer" under the sign of the cross (the Chi-Rho). This presumably being the same Jesus who had ordered his followers to turn the other cheek when struck; who ordered Peter to put away his sword 'because those who live by the sword will die by it', who declined repeated requests to take up the sword and lead Israel as a Warrior Messiah, and who said 'My kingdom is not of this world.' This same Jesus was now said to order a Pagan warlord to fight in his name? Despite the obvious absurdity of this claim and the fact that Constantine was a faithful worshiper of the Roman sun god until his death, many Church leaders accept his account as a sign that God wanted to raise the Church to political power.
With the Roman Church established by Constantine and his underlings, the emperor sought to establish a Universal (i.e. "Catholic") Church under which all of Rome could unite. To this end, the Roman fathers incorporated Pagan and Christian beliefs into a new religious system that left biblical Christianity on several key points. From this we get holidays such as Christmas (Pagan Yule) Easter with its bunnies and eggs (Pagan Eaostar), the rosary (Pagan japa mala) and so on. By the time the Reformers arose, countless anti-biblical traditions were firmly rooted and today remain in place within Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant traditions.
Among the significant traditional Pagan religious rites was the ritual "consuming of the Host" or deity in the form of wafers/bread and wine (often called the feast of cakes and ale by Pagans). Nothing like this rite exists anywhere in the Bible, but it does exist in many Pagan traditions and in Roman Catholicism.
According to the Bible, what Jesus and his followers were observing was the traditional Passover feast. Jesus used the opportunity to explain his upcoming death. For Protestants, this master or parables simply utilized the matzo and wine at hand to illustrate his point. 'Henceforth when you observe the passover, remember me as well.' It is clear from the documents that Constantine, who claimed he had converted to Christianity, was more concerned about political unity and expediency than doctrinal purity. It's said that on one occasion he bowed to an idol of the sun god (Sol Invictus) presumably thinking it was a statue of Jesus. When his "error" was pointed out he replied, "What's the difference?" and continued worshiping the idol. The truth was that Constantine's conversion was a matter of political expediency rather than Christian conviction. Sol Invictus was the god he worshiped his entire life. On his deathbed, Constantine ordered the forging of new coins depicting his god. He never converted to Christianity.
For more information consider:
- this Wikipedia article.
Or my Noahide study on the Universal Church
Hope this answers your question.
peace,
-
~John of AllFaith
You are visitor number...
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
 |
Or visit other AllFaith.com web sites |
| | |
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |