Communion and Catholics

[Jake]

This cup contains my blood. This bread is my body. Yes, it is simple, but the Jews of 30 AD and many Christians of the 21st century do not accept those simple words. And it is difficult to explain this lack of belief WHILE struggling to find the extent of how we are brothers in Christ.

it most certainly is a symbol of His blood and Body.

Because of this lack of belief, there cannot be complete union. We are united by our common baptism - all of us are Christians - but as Vatican 2 would say, our unity is incomplete. It doesn't mean that we are better, spiritually speaking, because that level depends upon the individual's use of God's gifts (as the parable of the sower is an example...) But the Eucharist is a wonderful gift that some Christians choose not to benefit from. Rather than pretend there is unity, the Church sees an opportunity to teach the truths of the Bible, since God desires that we come to know the truth.

Regards

francis, it is not a lack of belief as you see it, what the Catholic church has done is taken away from what it really means to eat His flesh and drink His blood, it is not something that is done only on a Sunday. It is the same thing as when Jesus said to "drink the living water". It means we are to live out our lives, with Christ in us and with our every fiber of being be Holy unto the Lord, conforming to the image of Christ, running the race.

How did it get so far away from it's intention?

 

[Jake]

The Eucharist is not a "man-made tradition". If you explore the Bible and the Church Fathers, you will find a simple connection and continuation of the teachings of the Apostles, from the first century to the second and so forth. The "tradition of men" is the elimination of this belief from Christian thought and practice. It would certainly have been very easy to "sweep this teaching under the rug". The Apostles could have very easily toned down the words of Jesus. John didn't have to write those verses in John 6, nor did Paul have to write those words in 1 Cor 10 in the manner that they did. The Synoptic Gospels didn't have to say "THIS IS MY BODY" - if they were intent on the concerns of men and traditions. Men of the second century could have easily explained away this difficult teaching. But the Apostles and the Church are concerned with spreading the Word of God, even if it means it becomes "a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This Eucharistic understanding would be a clear example of that.

And I think we might have to discuss what exactly "traditions of men" means, according to Scriptures. Adding things is not a problem, as Jesus also did "traditions". The problem is when those traditions INTERFERE with the Word of God - and Jesus gave an example in Mark 7 with Korban. The Eucharist CERTAINLY does not interfere with the Word of God. It does not nullify God's Word, it makes Him PRESENT in visible form! What a wonderful gift of God - His entire self given to us!

Regards

Traditions of men are what the Catholic's have done to cause division in the Body.

The sad thing is, francis, is Christ is freedom, yet, the Catholic church has stifled by volumes and volumes of books they must consult to find out what rules to live by, what did this saint say, seriously, you wrote almost a book on communion using not one scripture! when all along Jesus is in you - just ask Him!

 

[Sparkey]

This cup contains my blood.

Seder customs include drinking four cups of wine, eating matza, partaking of symbolic foods placed on the Passover Seder Plate, and reclining in celebration of freedom. The Seder is performed in much the same way by Jews all over the world. Passover was a day of remembrance already -- Jews remembered that as the day that they were delivered from captivity from Egypt that they might go and worship and give thanks to God in freedom.

"This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

The Four Cups
There is an obligation to drink four cups of wine during the Seder. The Mishnah says (Pes. 10:1) that even the poor are obliged to drink the four cups. Each cup is imbibed at a specific point in the Seder. The Four Cups represent the four expressions of deliverance promised by God Exodus 6:6-7: "I will bring out," "I will deliver," "I will redeem," and "I will take."

"Why is this night different than all other nights?"

During the celebration the story of Passover and the change from slavery to freedom is told. "In haste we went out of Egypt [with our] bread of affliction, now we are free people."

 

[Pard]

It's a good thing all the Jews around me walk to and fro because with four cups of wine they'd be over the limit for driving!

 

[Sparkey]

The Passover celebration is rich with symbolism and is centered on teaching one's children about our relationship with God. Children are given questions to ask about the meal and why things are so different on this night from all other nights:

The questions (and answers) have been translated into more than 300 languages:

• 1. We eat only matzah because our ancestors could not wait for their breads to rise when they were fleeing slavery in Egypt, and so they were flat when they came out of the oven.
• 2. We eat only Maror, a bitter herb, to remind us of the bitterness of slavery that our ancestors endured while in Egypt.
• 3. The first dip, green vegetables in salt water, symbolizes the replacing of our tears with gratefulness, and the second dip, Maror in Charoses, symbolizes the sweetening of our burden of bitterness and suffering.
• 4. We recline at the Seder table because in ancient times, a person who reclined at a meal was a free person, while slaves and servants stood.
• 5. We eat only roasted meat because that is how the Pesach/Passover lamb is prepared during sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Passover Seder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sparkey]

It's a good thing all the Jews around me walk to and fro because with four cups of wine they'd be over the limit for driving!

This is from David Sargent (Messianic Jewish Passover) WebCite query result


[A Warning about Wine.]

Five Cups will be celebrated tonight, traditionally with wine. Each cup is completely drunk to symbolize the completeness of our joy.

So please don't completely fill up your cup.

[We know Jesus drank wine, we also know he was never drunk with wine. Scripture says drunks are fools]

(Ephesians 5:17-18)

Grape juice is provided at the table and will be used to celebrate the cup also. Both are from the "FRUIT OF THE VINE", grapes.

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,
I think I've talked to you about this before,

Yes, I recall. Do you recall that I disagreed with the priest's stance? But I am me, a lay person in a different diocese, so I can only offer what I believe is the Church's stance and how this priest is not inline with the Church's teaching on communion.

I am aware of people who feel that ecumenical efforts are more important than truth. Is love based upon people liking us or abiding in God's truth?

When I look at the early church, they had two major identifiers that brought them together. One was Baptism, and the other was Communion, and we see early on at the Church of Corinth where both of these items became a wedge separating the church into almost secular, or even pious sects, and as Paul attests, that isn't what Christ had in mind.

It wasn't by chance that Christ was crucified on Passover, and it's not by chance that the meal before his crucifixion took place on Passover week, and it wasn't by chance that Judas was present. Yet Judas was not denied the meal.

Judas left before Jesus made His incredible claim that the wine was now the blood of the covenant and the bread was His Body...

As you may know, the Agape meal and the Eucharist were not the same thing in the very beginning of the Church. In a relatively short time, the agape meal was dropped - we see problems with it already in James and 1 Corinthians.

By way of example, Jesus had many meals with many people and many of them were lost and as Jesus said, his mission was to seek and save that which was lost. He didn't come for the pious who had all the right answers.

And it's from this perspective in part that I can't view communion as something that is closed and reserved only for the pious so in that regard, I understand how Pard felt as an outcast when he was denied that which was supposed to unite the Brotherhood.

You have closed communion backwards, Jeff. It is closed to you because YOU choose not to believe what WE believe. Whether you agree or not, it is you who are disagreeing with what we believe. We believe "x", you choose not to believe that. This has NOTHING to do with being holier, more pious, better, etc... It is a matter of you believing "y" and we believe "x".

Again, it is false ecumenism to put aside the Truth for the sake of "getting along better". Do you find Jesus fudging on His idea of the Truth because the Pharisees didn't find it platable to their opinions? How about John - calling the Pharisees vipers! Ouch, what was HE thinking about "luv'in his brothers"??!!

Apparently, to Jesus and John the Baptist and Jeremiah and a plethora of prophets, making people feel warm fuzzies was not at the top of the list when they preached the Word of God!!!

Jeff, your points above really do not apply to this situation. Catholics do not exist in a ghetto and associate only with other Catholics who are just as "holy and pious". We go out to the world, live within the world. We eat with "heathens" and YES, even non-Catholic Christians! We aren't speaking of whom we eat with. It is about believing the Words of Jesus Christ. In our minds, you are not.

As a final note, my cousin was brought up in the RCC from Elementary school to college (Gonzaga). It was RCC all the way. Yes, we talk about God a lot and she does not view me as anything less than a brother in Christ. However, it was awkward when she came to Michigan and went to our church and wouldn't take communion. Honestly, that hurt because she calls me brother, but won't partake in something that deeply unites us based on her pious identity with the Roman Catholic Church, and not that of the Church of Christ.

It's not about a "pious identity". Kudos to your cousin, she is TRYING to please God (in her opinion and mine), rather than man, just as St. Paul... Who are you trying to please, Jeff? When you evangelize to non-Christians, Jeff, do you water down the Gospel, maybe tell a woman it's OK to abort children, because it is "hurtful" to speak of her sin and you prefer to make her "feel good" - OR do you tell her your love for her, but how that action is STILL displeasing to God, a sin? If you tell her the later, does that make you 'more pious' and 'holier than thou'?

Of course not.

We as Christians are here to express the truth to the world. Your cousin and my posts are trying to do that. I am trying to not offend you - I am not saying I am holier than anyone here because I believe and receive Jesus, since I cannot judge anyone's spiritual walk from here.

But I do know that I have access to something greater than you because of the gift of Jesus, not because of anything I did or who I am... He is available in that superior form in every Catholic Church. This is why I am calling this a "heirarchy of potential".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

it most certainly is a symbol of His blood and Body.

It most certainly NOT merely a symbol. He tells us it IS His Body. It IS His Blood. He didn't say "it is like my body", nor does he use the word "like" in any of these discourses. The only thing that is certain is that you have been TOLD this by other non-Catholic Christians following the 16th century traditions of the reformers.

francis, it is not a lack of belief as you see it, what the Catholic church has done is taken away from what it really means to eat His flesh and drink His blood,

Again, you are going to have to prove from historical documents that the Church EVER believed such hogwash that takes away the gift of Jesus Christ to His Church, the Bridesgroom giving Himself TOTALLY to the Bride...

You have been told this stuff about "catholic traditions" to keep you in the pews of some non-catholic community, not because of any sort of actual biblical and historical study on the idea of what the Church considered on the subject back 2000 years...

it is not something that is done only on a Sunday.

Catholic Masses are taking place daily throughout the world, and even here in my neck of the woods, is available daily...

It is the same thing as when Jesus said to "drink the living water". It means we are to live out our lives, with Christ in us and with our every fiber of being be Holy unto the Lord, conforming to the image of Christ, running the race.

How did it get so far away from it's intention?

You need to ask yourself that question, since the documents we have of the Church, biblical and Church Fathers, never mention your idea of the Eucharist. Men who sat and heard John teach IN PERSON have the exact same view as we do. Go and read Ignatius of Antioch, who sat and heard John teach, no doubt read John 6 and heard it explained by the writer HIMSELF. We have the correct understanding of the author.

Who is doing the changing here? That would be the traditions of men of the 16th century, Rockie...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Traditions of men are what the Catholic's have done to cause division in the Body.

The sad thing is, francis, is Christ is freedom, yet, the Catholic church has stifled by volumes and volumes of books they must consult to find out what rules to live by, what did this saint say, seriously, you wrote almost a book on communion using not one scripture! when all along Jesus is in you - just ask Him!

My friend, you are confusing the freedom as the world defines it with the freedom as Christ defines it...

Freedom is not "doing whatever I want". Freedom is being able to fulfill the Will of God and His plan for us. Freedom IS INDEED dying to self, being a disciple and SUPPRESSING our worldly will to correspond to God's Will... Such is impossible to consider who thinks "freedom" means "doing what I want to do"...

As to my "lack of using Scriptures", the Bible doesn't address that area of theology as much as you and I would like. But that, in of itself, is inadequate of a response to my post. You should post something that is against the Scriptures' dictates, not just complain about lack of Scripture citations.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

This is from David Sargent (Messianic Jewish Passover) WebCite query result


[A Warning about Wine.]

Five Cups will be celebrated tonight, traditionally with wine. Each cup is completely drunk to symbolize the completeness of our joy.

So please don't completely fill up your cup..

Good advice!

Regards

 

[Jake]

It most certainly NOT merely a symbol. He tells us it IS His Body. It IS His Blood. He didn't say "it is like my body", nor does he use the word "like" in any of these discourses. The only thing that is certain is that you have been TOLD this by other non-Catholic Christians following the 16th century traditions of the reformers.

no, the 16th century is WHEN the Catholic church implemented this practice. probably one of the reasons the protestants fled that church, realizing the heretical error.

Again, you are going to have to prove from historical documents that the Church EVER believed such hogwash that takes away the gift of Jesus Christ to His Church, the Bridesgroom giving Himself TOTALLY to the Bride...

Historical documents? Francis, the only historical document one needs is the Bible, all other is hogwash.

You have been told this stuff about "catholic traditions" to keep you in the pews of some non-catholic community, not because of any sort of actual biblical and historical study on the idea of what the Church considered on the subject back 2000 years...

i don't think so, there are just as many problems with main stream churches, too, that are just as harmful and are just as far away from the real Truth, than the Catholic's man-made doctrine!
None follow the Way, only in the way of destruction.

Catholic Masses are taking place daily throughout the world, and even here in my neck of the woods, is available daily...

2 and you still do not understand.

You need to ask yourself that question, since the documents we have of the Church, biblical and Church Fathers, never mention your idea of the Eucharist. Men who sat and heard John teach IN PERSON have the exact same view as we do. Go and read Ignatius of Antioch, who sat and heard John teach, no doubt read John 6 and heard it explained by the writer HIMSELF. We have the correct understanding of the author.

again here we go with other man written, man implemented and man inspired "historical documents", nothing of God.

Who is doing the changing here? That would be the traditions of men of the 16th century, Rockie...

Regards

do you mean who/what is doing the corruption? that's easy, the Catholic Church, Francis.

 

[Jake]

My friend, you are confusing the freedom as the world defines it with the freedom as Christ defines it...

Freedom is not "doing whatever I want". Freedom is being able to fulfill the Will of God and His plan for us. Freedom IS INDEED dying to self, being a disciple and SUPPRESSING our worldly will to correspond to God's Will... Such is impossible to consider who thinks "freedom" means "doing what I want to do"...

Regards

Right, NOT what the church building tells us what we should be doing - that is not freedom.

 

[francisdesales]

no, the 16th century is WHEN the Catholic church implemented this practice. probably one of the reasons the protestants fled that church, realizing the heretical error.

Oh my. Another clueless person who knows nothing about church history. It's been a few months since I ran into one of you guys. But I am not surprised when I do hear from people like this. Knowledge of history is the first step that leads one out of these non-catholic communities.

Frankly, you would be utterly embarrassed if I started to cite the actual practices of the Church from the second century to the 15th century and find YOU are the one out of synch with what Christians did and continue to do regarding Eucharist. Let me just cite you ONE of NUMEROUS sources that unanimously tell us what the Eucharist is...

They (Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His Goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes...It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them, neither in public nor in private. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, c. 110 AD.

Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom in Rome. He wrote letters to several communities on the way to exhort them to remain faithful to what they had been taught (orally and in written form...) This particular section touches on the idea of "open communion" for those who do not believe. Yea, it sounds politically correct, but it is not something practiced, even in 110 AD, so close to the generation of the Apostles.

Now Rockie, can you cite me even ONE historical source that backs up the Protestant claim of "symbol only" idea held by Christians 100 AD or 500 AD or 1000 AD???

ANYONE OUT THERE???? The silence is deafening, isn't it...

Historical documents? Francis, the only historical document one needs is the Bible, all other is hogwash.

You are joking, right? :biglol

Does the Bible actually say this, or is this another of your "traditions of men" invented to keep you in place and paying for pastor billy bob's camaro, rather than taking part in the Eucharist, the supreme gift of God to mankind???

So how do you know George Washington was the first president of the United States? Which verse is that in the Bible? Really - even things that happened during the first century are not found in the Bible. Hadrian's wall in England was built during the time of the New Testament. I guess Hadrian's wall doesn't exist because the Apostles didn't write about it... 2:o

Nonsense. Pure unadultered nonsense, Rockie. And there's more~!!!

The BIBLE is ITSELF an historical work!!!

This denial of the value of historical records tosses the baby out with the bath water so as to live in a total state of ignorance of reality - that Protestantism did away with 1500 years of universally-held belief of one of the most sacred things of Christianity, held by Eastern Orthodox, Coptics and Roman Catholics. Wow. :help

i don't think so, there are just as many problems with main stream churches, too, that are just as harmful and are just as far away from the real Truth, than the Catholic's man-made doctrine!

I didn't say anything about "problems" in main stream churches! You are changing the subject..

I was speaking of the historical evidence of the existence of these protesters and their "ways" that you follow now. YOU CLAIM that the Catholic Church changed things up. WHEN, Rockie? What year? Where is your evidence? Where do we find "true doctrine" on this subject as related in - gag - historical writings...?



Where are those beliefs that contradict Catholic teaching in the writings of Christian men of the first and second century? Where do we find "our community of 100 AD realizes that the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ"...????

NOWHERE.

QUITE the opposite. Which is why your pastors prefer to keep you in the dark and in their pews.

The Bible was not the only religious work penned during this time. Why this sudden lunatic stance on history? We accept it on every Those non-Biblical writings, while not inspired by God, give an accurate presentation of the beliefs of those communities, ESPECIALLY on currently-divisive issues, such as the Eucharist. If you want to know what the FIRST Christians did, you read what they actually believed as they wrote it. Not your fuzzy wuzzy wishful thinking interpretations from the 16th century based upon a wing and a prayer...

again here we go with other man written, man implemented and man inspired "historical documents", nothing of God.

I could cite the Scriptures all day long and you would try to cite or dismiss them. Frankly, your opinion is inconsequential to the subject. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK TODAY about John 6. It is about what THEY thought about John 6 and those KEY verses - how did THEY interpret them, a generation removed from Paul and John and Peter? What homilies did THEY hear that emboldened them to see the reality of the Eucharistic presence of Christ?

You are confusing your own personal opinion of the Bible with God's INTENT of that same Bible. That is a common problem with some Protestants.
"My opinion = God's intent...

Baloney, get off your high horse. If you want to know what questionable verses mean, you go to the people who first wrote and heard these verses and see if they try to explain them. You develop a sense of what they REALLY mean by looking at the men and women living in those first few centuries. What is amazing, in the case of the Eucharist, is that you have absolutely nothing to stand upon, but your own "infallible wishful thinking". Interestingly, this doctrine on the Eucharist is even MORE certain that "JESUS IS GOD" to those first Christians...

Rockie, verses can be twisted to mean a number of things that completely contradict. In the case of the Eucharist, we have UTTERLY UNANIMOUS writings that tell us about Christ's fleshy presence in the elements of the bread. Quite an embarrassing thing that could easily have been changed to rectify that. If Ignatius above thought as you, or thought John's homilies were insane, he could have EASILY wrote something quite different.

Note how you try to ignore that. Men who sat at the feet of John HEARD John's explanations of "TRULY TRULY, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, YOU SHALL HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN". Cry and complain all you want, but THEY wrote what they heard from the actual writers, not from some protester who wanted to have his own "church".

do you mean who/what is doing the corruption? that's easy, the Catholic Church, Francis.

You are not only clueless about the value of history, you are clueless on how to defend your position, so you must resort to silly second grader comments without ANY commentary or evidence to explain your position.

Sort of like "I know you are but what am I" repeated 20 times...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Right, NOT what the church building tells us what we should be doing - that is not freedom.

Did I say the Church building tells us to do something???

God gave us the Church as a mother - to nourish us and guide us to truth, since she is indwelled with the Holy Spirit - according to the Bible. She is the pillar and foundation of the truth, something possible ONLY because of that Spirit, not because of smart men. So God gave us a guide, just as He has done throughout the ages. One can follow the Will of God or pretend they are obey God's will when it is really their own will.

Regards

 

[Jake]

Oh my. Another clueless person who knows nothing about church history. It's been a few months since I ran into one of you guys. But I am not surprised when I do hear from people like this. Knowledge of history is the first step that leads one out of these non-catholic communities.

Frankly, you would be utterly embarrassed if I started to cite the actual practices of the Church from the second century to the 15th century and find YOU are the one out of synch with what Christians did and continue to do regarding Eucharist. Let me just cite you ONE of NUMEROUS sources that unanimously tell us what the Eucharist is...

They (Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His Goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes...It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them, neither in public nor in private. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, c. 110 AD.

Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom in Rome. He wrote letters to several communities on the way to exhort them to remain faithful to what they had been taught (orally and in written form...) This particular section touches on the idea of "open communion" for those who do not believe. Yea, it sounds politically correct, but it is not something practiced, even in 110 AD, so close to the generation of the Apostles.

Now Rockie, can you cite me even ONE historical source that backs up the Protestant claim of "symbol only" idea held by Christians 100 AD or 500 AD or 1000 AD???

ANYONE OUT THERE???? The silence is deafening, isn't it...



You are joking, right? :biglol

Does the Bible actually say this, or is this another of your "traditions of men" invented to keep you in place and paying for pastor billy bob's camaro, rather than taking part in the Eucharist, the supreme gift of God to mankind???

So how do you know George Washington was the first president of the United States? Which verse is that in the Bible? Really - even things that happened during the first century are not found in the Bible. Hadrian's wall in England was built during the time of the New Testament. I guess Hadrian's wall doesn't exist because the Apostles didn't write about it... 2:o

Nonsense. Pure unadultered nonsense, Rockie. And there's more~!!!

The BIBLE is ITSELF an historical work!!!

This denial of the value of historical records tosses the baby out with the bath water so as to live in a total state of ignorance of reality - that Protestantism did away with 1500 years of universally-held belief of one of the most sacred things of Christianity, held by Eastern Orthodox, Coptics and Roman Catholics. Wow. :help



I didn't say anything about "problems" in main stream churches! You are changing the subject..

I was speaking of the historical evidence of the existence of these protesters and their "ways" that you follow now. YOU CLAIM that the Catholic Church changed things up. WHEN, Rockie? What year? Where is your evidence? Where do we find "true doctrine" on this subject as related in - gag - historical writings...?



Where are those beliefs that contradict Catholic teaching in the writings of Christian men of the first and second century? Where do we find "our community of 100 AD realizes that the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ"...????

NOWHERE.

QUITE the opposite. Which is why your pastors prefer to keep you in the dark and in their pews.

The Bible was not the only religious work penned during this time. Why this sudden lunatic stance on history? We accept it on every Those non-Biblical writings, while not inspired by God, give an accurate presentation of the beliefs of those communities, ESPECIALLY on currently-divisive issues, such as the Eucharist. If you want to know what the FIRST Christians did, you read what they actually believed as they wrote it. Not your fuzzy wuzzy wishful thinking interpretations from the 16th century based upon a wing and a prayer...




I could cite the Scriptures all day long and you would try to cite or dismiss them. Frankly, your opinion is inconsequential to the subject. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK TODAY about John 6. It is about what THEY thought about John 6 and those KEY verses - how did THEY interpret them, a generation removed from Paul and John and Peter? What homilies did THEY hear that emboldened them to see the reality of the Eucharistic presence of Christ?

You are confusing your own personal opinion of the Bible with God's INTENT of that same Bible. That is a common problem with some Protestants.
"My opinion = God's intent...

Baloney, get off your high horse. If you want to know what questionable verses mean, you go to the people who first wrote and heard these verses and see if they try to explain them. You develop a sense of what they REALLY mean by looking at the men and women living in those first few centuries. What is amazing, in the case of the Eucharist, is that you have absolutely nothing to stand upon, but your own "infallible wishful thinking". Interestingly, this doctrine on the Eucharist is even MORE certain that "JESUS IS GOD" to those first Christians...

Rockie, verses can be twisted to mean a number of things that completely contradict. In the case of the Eucharist, we have UTTERLY UNANIMOUS writings that tell us about Christ's fleshy presence in the elements of the bread. Quite an embarrassing thing that could easily have been changed to rectify that. If Ignatius above thought as you, or thought John's homilies were insane, he could have EASILY wrote something quite different.

Note how you try to ignore that. Men who sat at the feet of John HEARD John's explanations of "TRULY TRULY, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, YOU SHALL HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN". Cry and complain all you want, but THEY wrote what they heard from the actual writers, not from some protester who wanted to have his own "church".



You are not only clueless about the value of history, you are clueless on how to defend your position, so you must resort to silly second grader comments without ANY commentary or evidence to explain your position.

Sort of like "I know you are but what am I" repeated 20 times...

Regards

Francis, if your posts weren't so entertaining, I wouldn't debate you. I will properly answer later.

AND I say that with all due respect.

 

[Bonairos]

Oh my. Another clueless person . . .

Interesting choice of words to begin one's rebuttal.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Jake]

Did I say the Church building tells us to do something???

God gave us the Church as a mother - to nourish us and guide us to truth, since she is indwelled with the Holy Spirit - according to the Bible. She is the pillar and foundation of the truth, something possible ONLY because of that Spirit, not because of smart men. So God gave us a guide, just as He has done throughout the ages. One can follow the Will of God or pretend they are obey God's will when it is really their own will.

Regards

Well, brother, with all due respect, I am going to step out of this debate, although your posts are quit amusing, still chuckling, but I feel this is not glorifying the Lord in the least and so with that, I bow out.
Blessings to you!
Jake

 

[westtexas]

Now Rockie, can you cite me even ONE historical source that backs up the Protestant claim of "symbol only" idea held by Christians 100 AD or 500 AD or 1000 AD???

ANYONE OUT THERE???? The silence is deafening, isn't it...




Where are those beliefs that contradict Catholic teaching in the writings of Christian men of the first and second century? Where do we find "our community of 100 AD realizes that the Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ"...????

Hello Joe, I don't believe that the ECF's were quite as unified in their beliefs as your posts suggest.

"We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His body and saving blood according to the laws of the new covenant." Eusebius of Caesarea--Demonstratio Evangelica

The above quote, I believe, would substantiate the Protestant point of view. I am a Baptist who adheres to the Lutheran's views on consubstantiation and can supply numerous citations from the first 5 centuries, which upon a quick glance, you would think came from one of Luther's catechisms. I believe that the early church was as divided as we are today.

It is unfortunate that the focus of Christian debates is always on the bread and wine, and has became so divisive, and that the focus is not on the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which we all are united.

God bless, Westtexas

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Unless you go High Anglican, no, it is permitted to all believers, regardless of their baptism status.

Most Low Anglican churches will say that it is generally something that believers do. Not once while in an Anglican church have I heard any mention of baptism at communion time, and I have attended an Anglican church for my whole life. I have even taken part in a High Anglican communion recently, which was almost Catholic in nature, and nothing about baptism was said.

Having said this, the Anglican church globally is not very consistent. In England (oh the irony) they have strayed, but in Sydney where I live the are as solid Biblcally as they come. Depends where you go.

You hear it pretty much everywhere here in America. It's been a long time, but I think even the ultra low Espicopal Church used to say that but these days I wouldn't be surprised if they served communion to everybody BUT baptised believers, that's how far they have strayed.

 

[WIP]

It most certainly NOT merely a symbol. He tells us it IS His Body. It IS His Blood. He didn't say "it is like my body", nor does he use the word "like" in any of these discourses. The only thing that is certain is that you have been TOLD this by other non-Catholic Christians following the 16th century traditions of the reformers.

Please be careful not to lump all non-Catholics in the same group. Those of us that follow the teachings of Martin Luther do believe that the bread and wine are in fact Jesus' body and blood and not just symbolic representation. A symbol means nothing but the "true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" means everything - forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

I am not able to argue with anyone on a theological level as I am not as learned as others but what I can do is tell you what I feel and believe. When I am kneeling before the altar to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion I take a moment to pray to God, thanking Jesus for His willing and loving sacrifice on my behalf, and remembering the humiliation, scoffing, spitting, mocking, indignation, beating, flogging, torture, separation, and finally the resurrection that he endured for me. I am eating His body and drinking His blood in remembrance of Him with a grateful heart, knowing that I am not worthy to receive it.