A serious question for our non-catholic friends please

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crazydays08 said:
alright so im not 100 percent on my feelings on this issue. I grew up assemblies of God and I felt the importance and divinity of communion. in regard to whether it is literal flesh like I said im not completely sold on the catholic stance. the argument being, Jesus spoke in many parables so why couldn’t he be speaking symbolicly however this doesn’t diminish the importance. also many people take the creation in Genesis literally when much of it is symbolic poetry. sorry about my grammar im on my cell phone
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF. 🙂

Wold you be willing to look at the Lutheran stance?

This from Martin Luther
Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? … Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Click to expand...
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.
Click to expand...
Jon
 
Thanks SteveVH, you make a very good point about the 5000 walking away from him. That would make him a poor teacher like you said.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
JonNC said:
Welcome to CAF. 🙂

Wold you be willing to look at the Lutheran stance?

This from Martin Luther
Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? … Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, Jon. I think very few are aware of what Luther wished to retain. 👍
Click to expand...
 
To sum up my position, a poem:

He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it!
 
Indifferently said:
To sum up my position, a poem:

He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it!
Click to expand...
Or as John of Damascus said;
“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

Jon
 
SteveVH said:
Which still makes the Eucharist a “thing” rather than a “Who”. Calvin was dead wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes I certainly agree!

But some distant protestants have even lost what Calvin was incorrectly saying - in that they are really just having a remembrance meal in the middle of their service.

Poor buggers!

😦
 
benjohnson said:
Yes I certainly agree!

But some distant protestants have even lost what Calvin was incorrectly saying - in that they are really just having a remembrance meal in the middle of their service.

Poor buggers!

😦
Click to expand...
Yep. Do you wonder what various denominations will believe 25, 50, 100 years from now?
 
40.png
benjohnson:
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveVH

Which still makes the Eucharist a “thing” rather than a “Who”. Calvin was dead wrong.

Yes I certainly agree!

But some distant protestants have even lost what Calvin was incorrectly saying - in that they are really just having a remembrance meal in the middle of their service.

Poor buggers!
Click to expand...
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
40.png
crazydays08:
Quote:

Originally Posted by benjohnson

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveVH

Which still makes the Eucharist a “thing” rather than a “Who”. Calvin was dead wrong.

Yes I certainly agree!

But some distant protestants have even lost what Calvin was incorrectly saying - in that they are really just having a remembrance meal in the middle of their service.

Poor buggers!

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
sorry about that last post, I don’t know how to cancel on droid

so once you have taken communion nd made the choice to follow Jesus, isn’t communion a remembrance, didn’t Jesus say to do this in remembrance of me? what more are you speaking of and is it in the catholic beliefs or personal?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
crazydays08 said:
sorry about that last post, I don’t know how to cancel on droid

so once you have taken communion nd made the choice to follow Jesus, isn’t communion a remembrance, didn’t Jesus say to do this in remembrance of me? what more are you speaking of and is it in the catholic beliefs or personal?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation. That is, the literal body and blood of Christ in the communion elements with only the appearance of bread and wine.

This is partially based on John 6 where Jesus says “my body is real food and my blood is real drink” also early church Christians were persecuted for being cannibals due to this belief taken out of context.

Also Luke 24 says the disciples did not recognize Jesus post Resurrection until after taking communion (Eucharist) with Jesus. 😃 Cant wait for my first!
 
crazydays08 said:
alright so im not 100 percent on my feelings on this issue. I grew up assemblies of God and I felt the importance and divinity of communion. in regard to whether it is literal flesh like I said im not completely sold on the catholic stance. the argument being, Jesus spoke in many parables so why couldn’t he be speaking symbolicly however this doesn’t diminish the importance. also many people take the creation in Genesis literally when much of it is symbolic poetry. sorry about my grammar im on my cell phone

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
I would say there are two main reasons we know Jesus wasn’t talking symbolically.
  1. Previously when Jesus was talking symbolically and others misunderstood, he corrected their misunderstanding. In this instance a Jewish man was telling Jewish men that they must eat His flesh and blood. I am sure you are aware of the prohibition against consumming animal blood throughout the Old Testament, so not only were they confronted with Him telling them they were to eat Him, which is odd in itself, but they were to consume blood which is strictly prohibited.
They were murmuring now and instead of correcting their misunderstanding He intensifies the lanuage. The greek word used for ‘eat’ changes from the word meaning ‘chew’ to a word meaning ‘gnaw’, the way animals eat. Finally all but the twelve leave, and Jesus lets them goes, which would not make sense if it were just a misunderstanding.
  1. If you study the Church Fathers and Church history up until the time of the Reformation you will see that the Real Presence was the teaching in both the east and the west. A symbolic meaning is a post Reformation novelty.
 
PJM said:
A serious question for our non-catholic friends please.

How might it be possible to believe in Manna for Moses AND not believe in Christ for US in the Eucharist? I’d really like to understand your position on this.
Click to expand...
Good question. I would like to understand them too
 
crazydays08 said:
sorry about that last post, I don’t know how to cancel on droid

so once you have taken communion nd made the choice to follow Jesus, isn’t communion a remembrance, didn’t Jesus say to do this in remembrance of me? what more are you speaking of and is it in the catholic beliefs or personal?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
From the Catholic standpoint, we apply the same meaning to “remembrance” as the Jews did. It does not mean to simply recollect an event, but rather that the event is “made present” to us. When we, as Catholics, “remember” by participating in the Eucharist, Christ’s sacrifice is made present to us just as literally as if we were standing under the cross with Christ’s blood dripping on us. We don’t just remember, we consume Christ’s glorified body and blood as we were commanded, and so become living tabernacles with Christ, quite literally, dwelling within every fiber of our being. There is no more intimate relationship with Christ than this. We become one with Him.

Many non-Catholics accuse us of “re-sacrificing” Christ at each Mass. Christ died once, for all, but his sacrifice is eternal and it is this one, eternal sacrifice that is offered to the Father each and every day in every Catholic Church in the world. It is “made present”, now, in this time, and is not just some event that happened 2000 years ago that we are obligated to recollect by eating a little bread and drinking a little wine.
 
40.png
SteveVH:
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazydays08

sorry about that last post, I don’t know how to cancel on droid

so once you have taken communion nd made the choice to follow Jesus, isn’t communion a remembrance, didn’t Jesus say to do this in remembrance of me? what more are you speaking of and is it in the catholic beliefs or personal?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

From the Catholic standpoint, we apply the same meaning to “remembrance” as the Jews did. It does not mean to simply recollect an event, but rather that the event is “made present” to us. When we, as Catholics, “remember” by participating in the Eucharist, Christ’s sacrifice is made present to us just as literally as if we were standing under the cross with Christ’s blood dripping on us. We don’t just remember, we consume Christ’s glorified body and blood as we were commanded, and so become living tabernacles with Christ, quite literally, dwelling within every fiber of our being. There is no more intimate relationship with Christ than this. We become one with Him.

Many non-Catholics accuse us of “re-sacrificing” Christ at each Mass. Christ died once, for all, but his sacrifice is eternal and it is this one, eternal sacrifice that is offered to the Father each and every day in every Catholic Church in the world. It is “made present”, now, in this time, and is not just some event that happened 2000 years ago that we are obligated to recollect by eating a little bread and drinking a little wine.
Click to expand...
SteveVH, that was beautiful, that was exactly the answer I was looking for. Thank you for that. I really believe that it should be taken that literally, and I have struggled to make more meaning of it everytime I take communion. I tried to not become complacent so I really agree with the church on this. thanks steve vh

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
crazydays08 said:
SteveVH, that was beautiful, that was exactly the answer I was looking for. Thank you for that. I really believe that it should be taken that literally, and I have struggled to make more meaning of it everytime I take communion. I tried to not become complacent so I really agree with the church on this. thanks steve vh

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
You are quite welcome. Where, may I ask, are you receiving communion?
 
crazydays08 said:
so once you have taken communion nd made the choice to follow Jesus, isn’t communion a remembrance, didn’t Jesus say to do this in remembrance of me? what more are you speaking of and is it in the catholic beliefs or personal?
Click to expand...
Lutherans (and Catholics) say that the bread and wine are actually Christ’s true body and true blood from his sacrifice on the cross - not just a recollection, but the true substance of our Lord’s sacrifice. It is the same true body and true blood that the disciples partook of at the Last Supper, and the same true body and true blood at every Eucharist meal for the last 2000 years.

If you’re not used to this way of thinking it can sound really odd - like we’re a bunch of weirdos that eat the flesh of God. But this is infinitely more profound that that that. This is a mystery of our faith that we can never truly describe in full in human terms as we reverently and joyously obey Christ’s command.

If I had anything to offer you, the most precious thing I could give to, would be to take you to our alter (after you’ve confessed and truly believe) and show you the Lord so that you too may join in this foretaste of the feast to come in heaven.

I tell you, this is life!
 
=benjohnson;10229462]Not to defend Calvin too much, but to be fair, he didn’t think that the sacrament was a mere snack of remembrance in the middle of service. He felt, as I understood it poorly, that they were representations of the what the Holy Spirit was doing for the elect. That the outward form represented what what happening on this inside - a union with Christ.
Click to expand...
Hi Ben:)

Speaking only for ME here…

I never took lighly the position of Calvin and others.

Yet it’s amazing to ME how John 6 can NOT be rightly understood. YES, I KNOW its an issue of GRACE and God’s doing::o

John 6:51-59
"51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever"

Certainly the language is SHOCKING:eek: BUT take note: anot everyone failed to understand the truth; not everyone choose to leave him, INCLUDING THE APOSTLES. VERSES 67-69:shrug:

Matthew 7:21 “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven”

But considering this IS GODS own teaching [first person]; and the precise and expressive language chosen by Christ; combined withthe historical evidence of manna, the multiplication of the Loafs and Fishes; and Cana changing water into wine… and tied into **Mt. 28:20… **cf… “I’LL BE WITH YOU FOREVER!”

I can’t comprehend how anyone; no matter how sincere, can claim its only a “sign, symbol or reminder of.”🤷

Still confused:rolleyes:

God Bless,
pat/PJM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top