R
Rightlydivide
Guest
What Paul and Christ taught us is not how it is done in some churches. That is the problem.Do you consider the above statement to be respectful of the Catholic faith?
Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Do you consider the statement to be respectful of the Catholic faith? To me it assumes what we need according to your personal interpretation and opinion. I found it offensive and disrespectful.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Sure, I will try. I am reordering.
Pro: Uses the verb is in its most common usage, one of equivalence. Why didn’t Jesus just say represents if this is symbolic
Con: When I point to an object and say this object is … when clearly it is not in the English language we understand is to mean represents.
It truly depends upon what the definition of is is.
Now I also have observed that the only command of Christ in respect to communion is the one “do”. He does not say “understand” or “have the right theology of”. That is why to be honest that the theology of communion is to me of lesser importance.
And in these passages He is not equating “doing” with having eternal life. This is important when you look at John 6.
First the passage predates the actual first communion celebration. Why is this significant?
So I have two logical choices. Either Jesus is saying (1) You have to literally eat His flesh and eat His blood to have eternal life. In other words communion is on par with the gospel or (2) something else.
The problem with (1) is that you then have to ask why the apostes in the book of Acts do not preach that you have to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life (2) when the apostle Paul teaches how one comes to eternal life in Christ he does not mention literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
In other words, the eternal importance that Jesus puts on eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6 works against wanting to relate this to the yet-to-be-introduced communion event.
My one comment is that the Baptists I read there are nowhere near like the Baptists I know in real life. Although I was raised a Methodist, I think of my grandmother and piano teacher (who have gone on to be with the Lord) as well as a pastor friend at a Baptist church where I live.
Now come to think of it, these were,are all American Baptists which I understand to be a relatively moderate version of your Baptist faith. These (are,were) not your fire breathing Independent, Fundamentalist, Separatist, KJV only Baptists that I have heard of elsewhere.
There may not be any Baptists here. I might be as close as you can get having it in my blood.
I: will give you what I consider the strongest pro and con arguments either way.
Pro: Uses the verb is in its most common usage, one of equivalence. Why didn’t Jesus just say represents if this is symbolic
Con: When I point to an object and say this object is … when clearly it is not in the English language we understand is to mean represents.
It truly depends upon what the definition of is is.
Now I also have observed that the only command of Christ in respect to communion is the one “do”. He does not say “understand” or “have the right theology of”. That is why to be honest that the theology of communion is to me of lesser importance.
And in these passages He is not equating “doing” with having eternal life. This is important when you look at John 6.
In my mind it is problematic whether these passages really support the real presence of communion.
First the passage predates the actual first communion celebration. Why is this significant?
- Whatever the audience had in mind when Jesus spoke these words, it would not have been communion.
- If I am reading John from beginning to end, I have not encountered communion. So thus my natural inclination would be to seek an interpretation that fits with the natural flow of the gospel.
So I have two logical choices. Either Jesus is saying (1) You have to literally eat His flesh and eat His blood to have eternal life. In other words communion is on par with the gospel or (2) something else.
The problem with (1) is that you then have to ask why the apostes in the book of Acts do not preach that you have to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life (2) when the apostle Paul teaches how one comes to eternal life in Christ he does not mention literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
In other words, the eternal importance that Jesus puts on eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6 works against wanting to relate this to the yet-to-be-introduced communion event.
This passage really does not tell you any more than the passages in the first section where the first communion was performed. If you believe the verb is has the transitive meaning, you will believe the same here. If you believe the verb is means represents you will believe the same here.
BTW for grins and giggles I lurked a little in that Baptist board provided.
My one comment is that the Baptists I read there are nowhere near like the Baptists I know in real life. Although I was raised a Methodist, I think of my grandmother and piano teacher (who have gone on to be with the Lord) as well as a pastor friend at a Baptist church where I live.
Now come to think of it, these were,are all American Baptists which I understand to be a relatively moderate version of your Baptist faith. These (are,were) not your fire breathing Independent, Fundamentalist, Separatist, KJV only Baptists that I have heard of elsewhere.
There may not be any Baptists here. I might be as close as you can get having it in my blood.
J
jmcrae
Guest
There is no one who actually does a literal re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper - with congregations numbering in hundreds or even thousands of people, this is physically impossible.
Given this, at Mass, we do wait for one another (everyone lines up in an orderly manner), and each one receives the same amount as everyone else.
How is it done in your church? Does everyone sit down at the Communion table with a plate of unleavened bread and a cup of wine before him, and all eat at once, as at a banquet?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Since when do the Catholics have a different Lord then the rest of us?
The wine is a symbol of his blood that was shed for all.
The bread is a symbol of his body, the sacrificial lamb.
I don’t believe that it is meant to be taken literally and his real body and real blood.
The wine is a symbol of his blood that was shed for all.
The bread is a symbol of his body, the sacrificial lamb.
I don’t believe that it is meant to be taken literally and his real body and real blood.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Have you read all the posts up to now rev.? No one has said there is a ‘different’ Lord. There was only one Lord.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
No inlighten me.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It’s not that long a thread rev. Please do not ask us to repeat the posts. Read through and feel free to ask questions as they come to your mind.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Why drink a symbol, rather than the real thing?
Why eat a symbol, rather than the real thing?
to me, it makes a lot more sense to believe that it is actually His body and blood, and eat it in obedience to His commandment to eat His flesh and drink His blood, than to say that it is only a symbol, and then only pretend to be eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, in - some kind of response that isn’t actually obedience, but isn’t quite not obedience - to His commandment.
The first, even if it’s incorrect, is at least consistent within itself, but the second just seems ludicrous, to me. If it’s only a symbol, what are you eating and drinking it for?
To partake of a symbolic Jesus so as to go to a symbolic Heaven?
W
wmscott
Guest
Hi Anna, keep praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance and follow His lead, wherever that may be, Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian … Peace
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Why drink a symbol, rather than the real thing?
Why eat a symbol, rather than the real thing?
to me, it makes a lot more sense to believe that it is actually His body and blood, and eat it in obedience to His commandment to eat His flesh and drink His blood, than to say that it is only a symbol, and then only pretend to be eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, in - some kind of response that isn’t actually obedience, but isn’t quite not obedience - to His commandment.
The first, even if it’s incorrect, is at least consistent within itself, but the second just seems ludicrous, to me. If it’s only a symbol, what are you eating and drinking it for?
To partake of a symbolic Jesus so as to go to a symbolic Heaven?
- What makes you so sure its his real body and real blood. We do it to remember his sacrifice.
2.So how does the wafer change to his body. I see no arms, legs or anything that resembles a body. How does the wine change to his blood. I don’t see thick red blood.
So if it doesn’t change into human flesh it is nothing but a symbol of his body and blood.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Read through the thread rev. I have posted several explanations of how we view it as a literal teaching.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I answered the question I still don’t see any Baptists talking about it. So I being a Baptist thought I would answer the call for Baptists. I also answered another one. I know its not a long thread but I have kids to look after and tend to there needs, which seems to be every second.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Then it’s not fair to question our belief if you don’t have time to read through and see how we arrive at our belief. Wouldn’t you agree?
P
peeteyg
Guest
I saw this mentioned a few times and I know of a site that is pretty good. www.the4thcup.com It is kinda long but it is the most excellent putting together of this info. I would recommend it to catholics and all. Enjoy
ps If anyone goes to it lets start a discussion about it. I look forward to it.
ps If anyone goes to it lets start a discussion about it. I look forward to it.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Google the below if you don’t believe this:
Eucharistic Miracles at Lanciano
Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
Close-up of the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
Code:
* The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
* The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
* The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
* In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
* The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
* The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
* In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
* In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
* The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Because He said that it was.
So do we.
This is a question that Christians have been asking right from the very beginnings of the Church.
The current theory is called “Transubstantiation” which proposes that there are two aspects to any material thing - its “substance” (the real essence of the thing) and it’s “accidents” (its outward appearance). So, to give a simple example, we have the substance “ball.” Individual balls have specific characteristics - roundness (but not all balls are round - footballs are not round); colour; markings, what they are made of (rubber, plastic, animal skins) and so on. These characteristics are called “accidents.” Not every ball has the same “accidents” but they all share the same “substance” - they are all balls.
When Christ comes to us at Mass, He displaces the substances of the bread and wine (without in any way altering their accidents) with His own substance, without (in most cases, other than in the case of Eucharistic miracles, which tend to be quite rare) any of His accidents.
The early Christians recognized Christ in the Eucharist, but they were unable to explain how it was that He was present with or under the appearances of the bread and wine - but even though they couldn’t explain it, they still condemned those who saw it as "only a symbol (such as Arius) and they still required that those who called themselves Christians were to understand that when they received the Eucharist, they were partaking of Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity. It was only later that the explanation of Transubstantiation became available - but they believed it before they understood it, or could explain it.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Your beliefs are your right and we’re wrong. Its how all the threads go. We Catholics are always right because we have been around for 2000 years and we were founded by Jesus and you non-Catholics are wrong because you haven’t been around as long as we have and weren’t founded by Jesus. See I already know how it goes so I don’t have to read through all of them to know how it is.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I believe I have found much more specific and profound theological points posted here. I always like to read through the whole thread before I make posts, in case those points have already been made.
Also, never know what you can learn, I learned a lot on this thread already!
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Rev. Kevin,
That is really unfair. All I did was ask you to read through the scriptures posted, with explanations, so you might understand how we arrive at our interpretation.
I posted scriptures with explanations and a few early Church father’s writings. You posted your opinion and some questions, where the answers can be found in those postings.
I just thought you’d like an equal opportunity to respond to the topic of the thread. It seems you’d want to validate your arguments with scriptures, resources or something besides just an opinion.
- Status