Catholics Taking Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter sandmountainsli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well said, Gen315!

We have a Catholic duty and obligtion to impart the Truth. To not tackle error when we see it, is failing in that duty and obligation.

So again, well said! 🙂
 
Walking_Home said:
I believe you are mistaken.
Click to expand...
Catholic teachings are that the power to change bread and wine, into the actual flesh and blood of our Lord was passed on by the apostles, bishops and priest and “only” to those, by the power of the Holy Spirit, following the unbroken line of the apostles, bishops and priest, through ordination, and consecration of the Eucharist during the Mass, has this authority or power.

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, rejected this teaching of the Catholic Church.

Luther teachings were; although the bread is still bread and the wine still is wine, Jesus does become present along with the substance of the bread and wine; but Jesus is present only at the moment the bread and wine are received; not before or after.

AS you can see, Catholic’s and Protestant teaching are different and one of the grave matters that prevent our sharing Communion at weddings and funerals. this post is not intended to offend, just state the differences in beliefs. God Bless.
 
CRW said:
Catholic teachings are that the power to change bread and wine, into the actual flesh and blood of our Lord was passed on by the apostles, bishops and priest and “only” to those, by the power of the Holy Spirit, following the unbroken line of the apostles, bishops and priest, through ordination, and consecration of the Eucharist during the Mass, has this authority or power.

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, rejected this teaching of the Catholic Church.

Luther teachings were; although the bread is still bread and the wine still is wine, Jesus does become present along with the substance of the bread and wine; but Jesus is present only at the moment the bread and wine are received; not before or after.

AS you can see, Catholic’s and Protestant teaching are different and one of the grave matters that prevent our sharing Communion at weddings and funerals. this post is not intended to offend, just state the differences in beliefs. God Bless.
Click to expand...
I know the differences—I don’t understand what you are getting at.

It comes down to whether they have a valid priesthood in the eyes of the Church.
 
sandmountainsli said:
Any Methodist minister is just as valid as your priest.
All ordinations are by bishops who can trace their line back to Father Wesley and thru Wesley back to Augustine. All “Invalid Orders” elitism aside.
WP
Click to expand...
Validity depends upon intent as much as upon tracing lineage. There is no way on earth that Methodists intend to do what the Catholic Church does when it ordains priests to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass and receive the Confessions of penitents for the remission/retention of sins, for anointing the sick, and sealing her people with the Holy Spirit in Confirmaton.

As a former Anglican, this is something with which I am painfully familiar.

And Charles Wesley wrote some 3000 hymns – many of them among the best ever known in Christendom.

When Catholics speak of the Real Presence, we do not mean the real spiritual presence of Christ, we mean the Real, substantial, presence of Our Lord: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
 
Catholic90 said:
Goodness! Is God aware of this? How are we mere humans just so sure of this?

Someone might want to tell Jesus He isn’t there! He just might be surprised!
Click to expand...
God is most certainly aware of this- according to Matthew 16:18 - 20.

It is Jesus who is telling YOU He is not there for He speaks through His Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

We mere humans are absolutely sure of this because the Church of God has said it and if we do not believe it we are to be considered a heathen or tax collector! (Matt. 18:17)
 
Walking_Home said:
I know the differences—I don’t understand what you are getting at.

It comes down to whether they have a valid priesthood in the eyes of the Church.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant to post this to Sandmountainsli, Post number 17. Please forgive me…
 
CRW said:
Catholic teachings are that the power to change bread and wine, into the actual flesh and blood of our Lord was passed on by the apostles, bishops and priest and “only” to those, by the power of the Holy Spirit, following the unbroken line of the apostles, bishops and priest, through ordination, and consecration of the Eucharist during the Mass, has this authority or power.

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, rejected this teaching of the Catholic Church.

Luther teachings were; although the bread is still bread and the wine still is wine, Jesus does become present along with the substance of the bread and wine; but Jesus is present only at the moment the bread and wine are received; not before or after.

AS you can see, Catholic’s and Protestant teaching are different and one of the grave matters that prevent our sharing Communion at weddings and funerals. this post is not intended to offend, just state the differences in beliefs. God Bless.
Click to expand...
No offense taken.
Here is a brief summary of the Methodist Eucharist beliefs from wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theologies_contrasted#Methodist

Because of historical roots, much Methodist Eucharistic thought is similar to “Broad Church” Anglican thought; some elements of “High Church” and “Low Church” Anglicanism can be found among Methodists, with United Methodists tending to be more “High” in theology if not in practice.​

Eucharist commonly celebrated on Sundays and Holy Days, like Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, but never without a congregation. While monthly observance was once the most commonly found experience, since the 1980s weekly celebration has become more common, and not just on Sundays.​

Eucharistic theology: “Jesus Christ…is truly present in Holy Communion…The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only.” (from This Holy Mystery), i.e., Real Presence.​

 
Today is the anniversary of when Catholics began believing in
transubstantiation.

November 11, 1215 - The Fourth Lateran Council meets, adopting the doctrine of transubstantiation, meaning that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
 
sandmountainsli said:
Today is the anniversary of when Catholics began believing in
transubstantiation.

November 11, 1215 - The Fourth Lateran Council meets, adopting the doctrine of transubstantiation, meaning that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
That is not to say, of course, that the Church did not believe in the real, substantial presence of Jesus in the Sacrament before the council of Florence.

The definition was needed because of philosophical struggles concerning the nature of the Real Presence. The fact that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament was not invented at that time but rather formally promulgated to put an end to the confusion.

Belief in the Real Presence is shared by the Orthodox, who do not define how that happens but believe it with no less certainty. References to it appear in the Early Church Fathers as far back as Justin Martyr.
 
mercygate said:
That is not to say, of course, that the Church did not believe in the real, substantial presence of Jesus in the Sacrament before the council of Florence.

The definition was needed because of philosophical struggles concerning the nature of the Real Presence. The fact that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament was not invented at that time but rather formally promulgated to put an end to the confusion.

Belief in the Real Presence is shared by the Orthodox, who do not define how that happens but believe it with no less certainty. References to it appear in the Early Church Fathers as far back as Justin Martyr.
Click to expand...
Before Florence the CC believed the way Methodists believe today.
Christ is really present in the elements but not in a way which we can understand.
WP
 
Why do you say that Catholics believed differently? That would mean that no Christian was saved as truth was different at different points in time just because of definitions.

If they didn’t believe the same then the Church changed belief and therefore everyone beforehand believed in truth differently from what is believed now, so Jesus wasn’t truthful when He said the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against His Church.

Now since it is the same that means Jesus did fullfill His promise and that people in the past believe the same faith that Jesus taught.

All the definiton of transubstantiation did was guard against new ideas of the real presence. Just like supposedly defining that Jesus was fully man in the flesh and not a robot, like on Futurama. If there ever was a heresy which started believing that which attacked truth it might need to be defined.

In Christ
Scylla
 
sandmountainsli said:
Before Florence the CC believed the way Methodists believe today.
Christ is really present in the elements but not in a way which we can understand.
WP
Click to expand...
What Methodists believe today is one thing (and to my experience a far cry from what they believed 100 or even 30 years ago) but you are stretching your bet when you say that Catholics believed in anything other than the substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist before the Council of Florence.

Moreover, even if you believe the presence is real, a developed Sacramental theology requires that the elements be those used by Jesus when he instituted the Sacrament. Grape juice would not be valid matter, nor is bread made of anything other than wheat flour and water. So even if you were to BELIEVE in the Real Presence, your Anglican forbears (never mind Catholics) would claim that you cannot have the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper because of the defect of matter.
 
sandmountainsli said:
Are you trying to tell me that you are over 100 years of age:confused:
WP
Click to expand...
No but I was an Anglican for 40 years, educated as a Priest, and in seminary studied the history of the Methodism in England and America. I am quite the fan of John Wesley.

Moreover, I AM old enough to have known people (now long dead) who were old enough in 1906 to know what was what.
 
mercygate said:
No but I was an Anglican for 40 years, educated as a Priest, and in seminary studied the history of the Methodism in England and America. I am quite the fan of John Wesley.

Moreover, I AM old enough to have known people (now long dead) who were old enough in 1906 to know what was what.
Click to expand...
I was just jokin with you;)
Of course you know that I believe the Methodist Episcopal Church and it’s modern incarnation to be the senior branch of Anglicanism in the USA being founded prior to the PECUSA, thanks to God and Father Wesley.
I also believe that our ministers and bishops have authority which is equal to the PECUSA or CoE clergy as far as legitimacy is concerned (heirs of Augustine). I also believe (know) that Christ is present in our Eucharist.
WP
 
sandmountainsli said:
I was just jokin with you;)
Of course you know that I believe the Methodist Episcopal Church and it’s modern incarnation to be the senior branch of Anglicanism in the USA being founded prior to the PECUSA, thanks to God and Father Wesley.
I also believe that our ministers and bishops have authority which is equal to the PECUSA or CoE clergy as far as legitimacy is concerned (heirs of Augustine). I also believe (know) that Christ is present in our Eucharist.
WP
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that Methodist ministers have authority equal to that of ECUSA or the CofE. In the words of Leo XIII, “absolutely null and utterly void.” Not exactly politically correct, but at least there was no mincing about.

Someone to whom God has given the grace of craving the Real, substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and not just the theological romance of it, must face up to the reality of the situation. As a former Anglican, I agonized over this for decades, trying to convince myself of the validity of Anglican Orders. In the end, it just wouldn’t wash. Of course, it cost me my career.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top