Common Questions from Protestants

You know how we always say not to pile all of your objections to the Catholic Church in one long comment? Well, Dave Armstrong has answered one of those sorts of comments on his blog. His reply is extremely long, and it is full to other articles he was written with material backing up his response. I'll excerpt a few bits here, but it's worth wandering over with a drink and a good amount of time for reading.

The protestant words are in green, and Dave's words are in black.

Peter was a leader, yes, but I don't see him being a "pope" in Scripture, let alone infallible.

Papal infallibility is exercised in conjunction with the Church as a whole: bishops and councils. Scripture expressly states that a council of the early Church was infallible:

Acts 15:29-30: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity."

It is not implausible, then, to hold to papal infallibility, in light of the virtual infallibility of both prophets and apostles, that is manifest in Scripture. The great authority of the papacy is seen in how Scripture presents Peter:

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)

The Bible teaches us that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Sinfulness has no direct relation to infallibility. If it did, then we couldn't have inspired Scripture, since sinners wrote all of it (Moses, David, Paul, Peter). If a sinner can write Scripture that is divinely inspired, then he can be protected from error (infallibility) because the latter (a negative protection) is a lot less of a miracle than the former, which is a positive attribute.

. . .

When the early believer "broke bread," it was a simple memorial and wasn't regarded as His literal body and blood.

All the evidence of early Church belief that we have mitigates against this. Don't take my word for it. You can consult any reputable Protestant historian of that period: History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist: Nine Protestant Scholarly Sources.

This is a fact. I'm not trying to argue it. It is simply factual information.

With all due respect, I don't think you can demonstrate historically that it was a fact. I think what we find is the exact opposite. Since I cited all Protestant scholars in the above survey, it can't be said that they had a Catholic bias and were merely looking to confirm what they already believed (i.e., special pleading).

We have no reason whatsoever (no factual information) to think that the apostles ever turned bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.

Again, I must disagree. That's not, I submit, what the Apostle Paul thought, as we saw in 1 Corinthians 10:16 above. In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Paul states that partaking of Communion "in an unworthy manner" causes one to be guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord." That is Real Presence. He's not just saying one is "abusing the memory of the Lord" or some such, as we would say if someone spit on a grave or something. No; it is profaning His actual body and blood, because that is what Paul believes was present in the Eucharist.

Martin Luther thought both of these texts were absolutely clear and compelling. He wrote about 1 Corinthians 10:16:

Even if we had no other passage than this we could sufficiently strengthen all consciences and sufficiently overcome all adversaries . . . He could not have spoken more clearly and strongly . . . The bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken bread he takes therewith the body of Christ . . .

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; Luther's Works, Vol. 40: 177, 181, 178)

And about 1 Corinthians 11:27-30:

It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, “Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,” but “Who unworthily eats and drinks.”

(Ibid., 183-184)

If Jesus wanted to teach what Catholics teach on this question, He would have made it very6 clear so there would be no confusion. And the Last Supper was not regarded as an ongoing ritual.

He was absolutely clear at the Last Supper ("This is My Body"). And He was so clear in the discourse in John 6 that it is the only known record of disciples ceasing to follow Jesus, because they couldn't handle the teaching of Real Presence:

John 6:52-66: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

. . .

In other words, the transubstantiation wasn't even a twinkle in anybody's eye back then. That whole transubstantiation idea came wayyyy later, my friend. Truly it did.

So what? It's a development of an earlier doctrine that had always been held, just like the Trinity.

ME: The Apostle Paul refers to the "table of the Lord" an "altars" in the context of Christian worship. That only meant one thing: sacrifice, and since there were no more sacrifices of lambs and goats, it referred to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and the Eucharist: