Why do the people that believe the bible word for word not believe in Holy Communion?

Question

Most people that believe the bible is true word for word, and admit this, also use 'cannibalism' against Catholics. Why.... more so- how?

Answer 1

The Fundamentalist Protestants do not take the whole Bible literally but only those passages that their religious oral traditions and teaching authorities tell them to

There is no such thing as Bible Alone

Answer 2

Kait is articulate but, I'm afraid, not presenting the Catholic position fairly. As a long-practicing evangelical in professional ministry who has recently become Catholic, I bring a differerent perspective. First of all, there are really two problems as stated in the question: the question of authority ("believe the Bible word for word") and the question of the validity of sacraments ("Holy Communion"). As to the first issue, fundamentalists who look to support every single belief and practice from the Bible alone and that via a literal reading are out of step with the historic Christian church. I know they gasp at this - I did - but the real authority was given by Christ to the Church and the apostles and their direct successors, the church which established the canon of Scripture in the first place. The Scriptures derive authority from the church which affirms certain books to be inspired, not vice versa. So the first problem, you see, is that the issue can't really be settled from reading the Bible alone, literally or otherwise. Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible itself. But authorty residing in the Church is (and I know this will be a continuing difference between those who hold to the Catholic Faith and protestants). Instead, we must look to the early writings of the canonical Scriptures AND make reference to other earliest writings of the Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, for example, who learned the faith directly from the original 12 - and what you find in their writings is a description of the Mass pretty much as we have it today. This surprised me very much when, as an evangelical, I saw it for the first time. Then John 6 and I Corinthians 11 made a lot more sense. -- Here's the second thing, and it is ironic. Those who take the Bible 'literally' refuse to do do when Jesus says, over the bread and wine, "This IS my body," and "This IS my blood," rather than avoiding any misunderstandings by saying something clearer like "This represents my body" or "This is a symbol of my blood". He meant it literally, and the apostles took it that way, and taught this to their immediate successors, as we see in their writings. The Protestants of the Reformation centuries later argued that this was a rhetorical confusion of sign and signified, but they were, unfortunately, missing the great miracle of Christ's continuing presence in His Church as understood by the earliest Christians. This is why, as you mention, the Romans believed the Christians were cannibals - because they heard Christians talking about actually uniting themselves to Christ by this sacramental meal.

Answer 3

The original bible was revealed in "Hebrew" language, it was translated to "Greek" then to "English".....humans brains have been used to translate it... therefore .... So the message is not that intact... When you read it , you get a feeling that Gods and human words have got mixed up.. .......

If you give a book to ten people to translate it, you will find that they have translated the book according to their ideas..... and emphasised on what they believe the author wants to importance to ....
So you have ten different books with ten different meanings, and concepts......

So how can you rely on such books.... where a third person is involved.........


So God revealed his last book , "The Quran" for the guidance of mankind......

Read it , assess it, and decide whether it is form God or not.

Answer 4

'Most' people do not believe that the bible is true word for word. Even if Christianity is the most practiced religion (about 2.1 billion followers) it only makes up one third of the population- meaning that two thirds are not christian hence do not believe in the bible at all... much less word for word.

Answer 5

For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions).

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: Churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic Canon Law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered "in every place."

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In 1551 A.D., the Counsel of Trent officially stated: "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "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 you."

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.

In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51), and the entire Mosaic system of Law. In the passage from Sirach, it states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more," the language of which is mirrored by Jesus when He says "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

Secondly, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes.

Johnny: Jesus did say this IS my body and this IS my blood.
But Jesus also said:
I am the gate (symbolic)
I am the good Sheppard. (symbolic)
I am the light of the world. (symbolic)
I am the true vine. (symbolic)
I am the bright morning star. (symbolic)
It doesn't seem illogical that Jesus was speaking symbolically about his blood and his body as well.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgement that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.