A Tale of Two Last Suppers

[spockrates]

You are correct. Please be aware that the Orthodox, Episcopalian and Roman Catholic churches, and I think the Lutheran as well, all accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Roman Catholicism states how this happens, the others accept it as more of a mystery, but no less real.

Therefore, any apostolic church is open to you, should you choose to investigate further.

I wish you well in your search.

Thank you for the words of encouragement, Catherine.



That for which I'm hoping is some confirmation that I'd be making the right decision by becoming Catholic, or if I'm not making the right decision, then I hope to realize this, instead. Wherever the truth leads me, that's where I must God, for Jesus said He is the Truth. It seems to me that if the bread and wine of the Eucharist really are the real body and blood of Christ, then that helps me narrow down my search, for much of Protestant Christianity rejects the Real Presence. As you mentioned, that would leave me with Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Episcopalian, the Church of England, or Lutheran.

Personally, I have a strong conviction (based on evidence) that the Bible is Divine, rather than human, in origin. That being said, I find it fascinating that important passages regarding the bread and wine of the Eucharist are ambiguous, and I wonder if God intentionally intended them to be so.

Take the words of Christ at the Last Supper, for example:

22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”


(Mark 14)


​

Evangelicals tell me that when Jesus said,

"Take it; this is my body."


​

what He really meant was,

"Take it; this is [a symbol of] my body."


​

Catholics, on the other hand, tell me that what He actually meant was,

"Take it; this is my [actual] body."


​

Me, I'm not sure what to believe. What I do know is that the context of the passage (Mark 14) does not show, either way, which interpretation of Jesus' words is the truth.

​

 

[dcyates]

So I'm an Evangelical thinking of becoming Catholic. Some might be surprised to hear the reason--the Bible. Specifically, what changed my mind was John, chapter 6, where Jesus says this:

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

(John 6)

​

These words give new meaning to His words at the Last Supper, where He said, "This is my body, which will be given up for you." You see, it's as though there are two tales of Jesus' words in John's gospel--the tale of His saying the bread and wine are symbols of His sacrifice, and the tale of His saying the bread and wine are the real presence of Himself. I can see how the Catholic interpretation (which is the later) makes sense.

But I'm not sure I'm understanding the passage correctly or making the right decision. I mean, Socrates said:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible!

(Cratylus, 428)

​

If I'm deceived, I hope someone will take the time to show me how, that I might prayerfully consider what she or he has to say.

Personally, when it comes to an issue such as this, I think it's whatever floats your boat. I'm with C.S. Lewis, no matter which tradition one chooses -- Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant -- the more fervently we pursue and worship God within it, the closer we'll all be spiritually than if we remain merely on the fringes of it. In the end, Christians of either stripe all worship the same God, and just as a million different pianos all tuned to the same tuning fork are automatically all tuned to one another, so it goes with us.

 

[spockrates]

Personally, when it comes to an issue such as this, I think it's whatever floats your boat. I'm with C.S. Lewis, no matter which tradition one chooses -- Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant -- the more fervently we pursue and worship God within it, the closer we'll all be spiritually than if we remain merely on the fringes of it. In the end, Christians of either stripe all worship the same God, and just as a million different pianos all tuned to the same tuning fork are automatically all tuned to one another, so it goes with us.

Thanks for replying, Dcyates. I wonder if what you say is true. If God is the piano teacher, and church doctrine is the tuning fork, then many Protestants use a different tuning fork than Catholics, and so one group or the other is playing off key!



I like what Saint Augustine said:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.
​

So I see that if the different piano players improvise on the non-essentials, the end result (like a good jazz performance) is beautiful music. I see that no matter what the different musicians prefer to play, they should treat each other with love and respect. But I don't yet see how failing to cooperate on the essentials will result in anything but non-harmonious noise.

For example, both Evangelicals and Catholics believe that the essential doctrines are those that people must believe to escape Hell. Evangelicals believe repenting of their sin and putting faith in Christ is what must be done to be saved from Hell. Catholics believe these should be done, but also teach that the Sacraments of Baptism, Confession and the Eucharist (eating the bread and drinking the wine) must be done to escape Hell. It is possible for those Christians outside the Catholic Church to be saved, they say, but they are still saved the same way--through the Sacraments, as well as through repentance and faith.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, tell me that putting my faith in anything or anyone besides Christ will get me a one-way ticket to Hell, no matter how beautifully I stroke the piano keys.

 

[Catherineanne]

Thank you for the words of encouragement, Catherine.



That for which I'm hoping is some confirmation that I'd be making the right decision by becoming Catholic, or if I'm not making the right decision, then I hope to realize this, instead. Wherever the truth leads me, that's where I must God, for Jesus said He is the Truth. It seems to me that if the bread and wine of the Eucharist really are the real body and blood of Christ, then that helps me narrow down my search, for much of Protestant Christianity rejects the Real Presence. As you mentioned, that would leave me with Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Episcopalian, the Church of England, or Lutheran.

It looks to me as if you are on the right track. After that, perhaps look at the churches around you. A lot has to do with geography, I would say. Find your nearest apostolic, and start there. If it is not right (and we are certainly not all the same) then try another. Eventually you will know yourself to be at home.

Me, I'm not sure what to believe. What I do know is that the context of the passage (Mark 14) does not show, either way, which interpretation of Jesus' words is the truth.

That is the problem with relying on the Bible alone; it does not interpret itself, so you are left deciding whose interpretation to accept for yourself. God did not design a faith that consists of any one person plus a Bible. We all need a church and we all need ministers to help to interpret the Scriptures for us.

Until you become a Roman Catholic you can't properly commune with them, so I suggest finding an Episcopalian church, just for now, and attending it to participate in the Eucharist. Any baptised Christian in good standing with his own church is welcome to commune with Episcopalians. If you were to become Roman or Orthodox they would not approve of this, but at present there is nothing to stop you.

Then ask the Lord himself to explain it, when he is before you. Set the Bible aside, just for a while, because you already know what that says. Let the Lord speak directly to your heart; is his presence real to you, or is it just a symbol?

After that, if you still want to explore Roman Catholicism, then find a priest and talk to him; it will be far better than talking here.

 

[Catherineanne]

Evangelicals believe repenting of their sin and putting faith in Christ is what must be done to be saved from Hell. Catholics believe these should be done, but also teach that the Sacraments of Baptism, Confession and the Eucharist (eating the bread and drinking the wine) must be done to escape Hell.

Well, I am Anglo Catholic rather than Roman Catholic, but the reason I attend Mass as often as I can is nothing to do with escaping hell. It is more to do with having access to the most immense privilege.

The same is true of confession. If you once experience the wonder of entering once more into the Garden of Eden, just for a short time, you will want to experience it every week. Sadly for me, Anglicans tend not to confess as often as Romans, so it has to be every few months, but it is the most wonderful thing to do. Even better than the Mass, and that is truly lovely.

You might as well suggest that children at a party eat ice cream and jelly to escape being told off by their parents. That really isn't the reason at all!

 

[dcyates]

Thanks for replying, Dcyates. I wonder if what you say is true. If God is the piano teacher, and church doctrine is the tuning fork, then many Protestants use a different tuning fork than Catholics, and so one group or the other is playing off key!



I like what Saint Augustine said:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.
​

So I see that if the different piano players improvise on the non-essentials, the end result (like a good jazz performance) is beautiful music. I see that no matter what the different musicians prefer to play, they should treat each other with love and respect. But I don't yet see how failing to cooperate on the essentials will result in anything but non-harmonious noise.

For example, both Evangelicals and Catholics believe that the essential doctrines are those that people must believe to escape Hell. Evangelicals believe repenting of their sin and putting faith in Christ is what must be done to be saved from Hell. Catholics believe these should be done, but also teach that the Sacraments of Baptism, Confession and the Eucharist (eating the bread and drinking the wine) must be done to escape Hell. It is possible for those Christians outside the Catholic Church to be saved, they say, but they are still saved the same way--through the Sacraments, as well as through repentance and faith.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, tell me that putting my faith in anything or anyone besides Christ will get me a one-way ticket to Hell, no matter how beautifully I stroke the piano keys.

I appreciate what you're saying, spockrates, but in my analogy it's God who is the tuning fork, not doctrine. He can never be off-key, whereas Church doctrine has changed throughout the centuries. The earliest Church used to teach that a believer should be baptised upon confession of belief. Later, with the subsequent development of doctrine, it was taught that catechumens shouldn't be baptised until the very end of their instruction -- as a kind of graduation ceremony. Later still, by the time of Constantine, it was taught that because baptism washed away and thus cleansed the Christian of all their sins, they should hold off on baptism until the last possible moment prior to death.
We both agree with St. Augustine's sentiment, as far as it goes, but what exactly constitutes an "essential"? Obviously, I think believing in the existence of God would be an essential. Most likely we agree that holding to the deity of Christ would be an essential. But what about believing in the virgin birth? Or the perpetual virginity of Mary? What about her alleged sinlessness?
I used to think that it was generally agreed upon that Jesus' bodily resurrection was a definite essential. Yet, a few years ago when it was claimed that his tomb was found, I was genuinely stunned by how many otherwise believing Christians so quickly showed themselves perfectly willing to drop Jesus' resurrection as an essential tenet of our faith.
You mention above that "Evangelicals believe repenting of their sin and putting faith in Christ is what must be done to be saved from Hell." Again, this is true, as far as it goes. But what is "repenting of your sins"? Is it simply feeling bad about what you've done and so saying sorry and asking for forgiveness? It didn't used to be; it used to be that true repentance meant making right whatever it was that you had done wrong. For example, if you stole somebody's bike, feeling bad and saying sorry till you're blue in the face would still leave your victim without their bike. Rather, genuine repentance entailed either giving it back or replacing it with a new one.
But what if your sin was such that you couldn't make full amends? Like lying? Or gossiping? Or murder? Or what about sins you're not otherwise aware of?
Even as far as putting one's faith in Christ is concerned, while obviously this is important for our spiritual health, is it essential for salvation? If so, how much faith? How is it measured to begin with? There's strong scriptural evidence to suggest that it's rather Christ's faithfulness* that has made salvation available to all.
*(In other words, when Paul speaks of "pisteos Iesou Christou," should it be translated as an objective genitive, and thus "faith in Jesus Christ"? Or should it rendered as an subjective genitive, thus yielding "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ"? Either option is as grammatically legitimate as the other, and in light of the emphasis on Israel's faithfulness to God's covenant -- in order for God to fulfill his covenant promises to them -- as the new Israel, wouldn't it also be important that Christ be faithful to the covenant -- thus enabling God to finally fulfill his covenant promises to all of his people?)
Anyway, I could go on and on. St. Augustine also once said that the absolute bottom foundation and sine qua non of genuine Christian spirituality was that we, "Love God, and do what you want."

 

[spockrates]

I appreciate what you're saying, spockrates, but in my analogy it's God who is the tuning fork, not doctrine. He can never be off-key, whereas Church doctrine has changed throughout the centuries. The earliest Church used to teach that a believer should be baptised upon confession of belief. Later, with the subsequent development of doctrine, it was taught that catechumens shouldn't be baptised until the very end of their instruction -- as a kind of graduation ceremony. Later still, by the time of Constantine, it was taught that because baptism washed away and thus cleansed the Christian of all their sins, they should hold off on baptism until the last possible moment prior to death.

Agreed. There have been changes in method, and changes in non-essentials, but perhaps not in essential doctrines. Who Jesus is, and what He has done, and what we must do to be with Him forever has been the same since the beginning of Christianity. For example, when and how one should be baptized has changed. That one must be baptized and that this baptism is essential for salvation has never changed in the Catholic Church, and Catholics believe this belief has been the same since the time of the book of Acts.

We both agree with St. Augustine's sentiment, as far as it goes, but what exactly constitutes an "essential"? Obviously, I think believing in the existence of God would be an essential. Most likely we agree that holding to the deity of Christ would be an essential. But what about believing in the virgin birth? Or the perpetual virginity of Mary? What about her alleged sinlessness?

I'd say essential doctrine is (at the very least) anything that one must believe and obey in order to escape Hell and arrive in Heaven. If it results in living forever in a state of satisfaction and joy, it is essential. Don't you agree?

I used to think that it was generally agreed upon that Jesus' bodily resurrection was a definite essential. Yet, a few years ago when it was claimed that his tomb was found, I was genuinely stunned by how many otherwise believing Christians so quickly showed themselves perfectly willing to drop Jesus' resurrection as an essential tenet of our faith.

Mark Twain once wrote after reading his own obituary, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated!" He wrote this because there were many people who believed the report, since it appeared in a prestigious newspaper. I'd say the reports of Jesus' death without resurrection are the same. But if you have some evidence that supports the rumor, I'd like to take a serious look at it. Please give me a link.

You mention above that "

Evangelicals believe repenting of their sin and putting faith in Christ is what must be done to be saved from Hell." Again, this is true, as far as it goes. But what is "repenting of your sins"? Is it simply feeling bad about what you've done and so saying sorry and asking for forgiveness?

No.

It didn't used to be;

Is it today?

it used to be that true repentance meant making right whatever it was that you had done wrong. For example, if you stole somebody's bike, feeling bad and saying sorry till you're blue in the face would still leave your victim without their bike. Rather, genuine repentance entailed either giving it back or replacing it with a new one.

I think even an Evangelical would agree with that. Repentance, she would say, is a real change of mind, and a real change of mind always results in a real change of action. A Catholic would agree with this, but would say the act of repentance is in fact penance.

But what if your sin was such that you couldn't make full amends? Like lying? Or gossiping? Or murder? Or what about sins you're not otherwise aware of?

One might not be able to undo a mortal sin like murder, but one will likely be able to change her attitude and actions and never murder again. One might also have the opportunity to pay for her crime (by turning herself in to law enforcement), and apologize to the family of the one murdered, and encourage others in prison to not make the same mistakes she made, so so forth. I think there is often something one might do to show she has really had a change of heart and mind. Don't you?

Even as far as putting one's faith in Christ is concerned, while obviously this is important for our spiritual health, is it essential for salvation?

Jesus said it is.

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”

(John 8:24)
​

If so, how much faith? How is it measured to begin with? There's strong scriptural evidence to suggest that it's rather Christ's faithfulness* that has made salvation available to all.

*(In other words, when Paul speaks of "pisteos Iesou Christou," should it be translated as an objective genitive, and thus "faith in Jesus Christ"? Or should it rendered as an subjective genitive, thus yielding "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ"? Either option is as grammatically legitimate as the other, and in light of the emphasis on Israel's faithfulness to God's covenant -- in order for God to fulfill his covenant promises to them -- as the new Israel, wouldn't it also be important that Christ be faithful to the covenant -- thus enabling God to finally fulfill his covenant promises to all of his people?)
Anyway, I could go on and on. St. Augustine also once said that the absolute bottom foundation and sine qua non of genuine Christian spirituality was that we, "Love God, and do what you want."

Good questions, those! I think they are worthy of exploration, and have the potential to do an eternity of good for both of us! You see, truth (it seems to me) is not an either-or thing, nor a black-or-white thing, but a more-or-less thing. That is, truth is a matter of degrees. You might have more truth than I have, but if I ask questions of you, and seriously think your answers through, I might then have more of the truth than I used to have. Jesus said:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

(John 16:13)
​

That is, He said the God would guide us into the truth, NOT give us the truth. There is a difference between being given something, and being shown where to find it. It's like Socrates said:

It's as though we do not yet have the truth we seek, but have be given its address.

​

The Holy Spirit gives us truth's address; it's up to you and me to take it seriously and make the journey to find Him, for Jesus said, "I am the way, and the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Don't you agree the journey to find Him is worth taking?

 

[spockrates]

It looks to me as if you are on the right track. After that, perhaps look at the churches around you. A lot has to do with geography, I would say. Find your nearest apostolic, and start there. If it is not right (and we are certainly not all the same) then try another. Eventually you will know yourself to be at home.

Yes, thanks. Not sure if I am on the right track, or have been diverted down a track that will end in a train wreck! I do know that the question of the Real Presence of the Eucharist is one to which I must find the answer at this junction. If it is not real, then I need to put on the breaks and put the train in reverse to avert a catastrophe. If it is real, then I'll through more coals on the fire and speed ahead.

That is the problem with relying on the Bible alone; it does not interpret itself, so you are left deciding whose interpretation to accept for yourself. God did not design a faith that consists of any one person plus a Bible. We all need a church and we all need ministers to help to interpret the Scriptures for us.

And the idea that a book cannot interpret itself is an ancient one. For Socrates said:

I cannot help feeling ... that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)
​

The thing is that non-Catholics tell me the Holy Spirit will interpret the Bible for me, but what I see as evidence contrary to this is that those Christians outside the Catholic Church often contradict one another. Calvinists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Baptists, and the like are often at odds with one another, even regarding essential doctrine. So I wonder whether the Holy Spirit is enough to discern the truth. It's not that I doubt God's ability to convey the truth; it's that the evidence causes me to doubt our ability to understand what He is trying to say.

Until you become a Roman Catholic you can't properly commune with them, so I suggest finding an Episcopalian church, just for now, and attending it to participate in the Eucharist. Any baptised Christian in good standing with his own church is welcome to commune with Episcopalians. If you were to become Roman or Orthodox they would not approve of this, but at present there is nothing to stop you.

Thanks.

Then ask the Lord himself to explain it, when he is before you. Set the Bible aside, just for a while, because you already know what that says. Let the Lord speak directly to your heart; is his presence real to you, or is it just a symbol?

After that, if you still want to explore Roman Catholicism, then find a priest and talk to him; it will be far better than talking here.

Yes, I do pray often for wisdom, and His presence seems real enough. I do believe the words of Saint James in the Bible:

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

​

But I've found that much wisdom I receive not directly from God, but through those through whom He chooses to speak. People like yourself, for example, often answer my questions in a way that opens my eyes to something I'd never seen before. That's one reason why I enjoy forums like these, and engaging in respectful and thoughtful Socratic Dialog (i.e., asking questions and considering the answers).

 

[Catherineanne]

But I've found that much wisdom I receive not directly from God, but through those through whom He chooses to speak. People like yourself, for example, often answer my questions in a way that opens my eyes to something I'd never seen before. That's one reason why I enjoy forums like these, and engaging in respectful and thoughtful Socratic Dialog (i.e., asking questions and considering the answers).

Me too. I learn a lot from being here.

When I am confused I will generally go and ask my priest. I don't have to accept what he says (although I try to as far as I can), but it certainly helps to get a clearer pov than I am capable of on my own. I can trust God to speak to me through my priest rather more certainly than through my own interpretation, which will be very likely indeed to reflect only my own wishes. The Holy Spirit is certainly enough, if I were only capable of putting aside my own opinion enough to hear him; sadly, that is asking quite a lot.

That is why when people ask for help on here I will usually say to them, find a minister/priest and talk to them. There is really no better alternative.

 

[spockrates]

Me too. I learn a lot from being here.

When I am confused I will generally go and ask my priest. I don't have to accept what he says (although I try to as far as I can), but it certainly helps to get a clearer pov than I am capable of on my own. I can trust God to speak to me through my priest rather more certainly than through my own interpretation, which will be very likely indeed to reflect only my own wishes. The Holy Spirit is certainly enough, if I were only capable of putting aside my own opinion enough to hear him; sadly, that is asking quite a lot.

That is why when people ask for help on here I will usually say to them, find a minister/priest and talk to them. There is really no better alternative.

Yes, but I think there are a lot of knowledgeable Catholics and other Christians out there who have good answers. If you're looking for a forum for Catholics, this one is popular:


forums.catholic.com

This one is good for Christians of different denominations:

forums.carm.org/vbb/forum.php