Christians who believe a Priest is not necessary for the Lord's Supper

[Lenten_ashes]

This is a rather unique and over literal interpretation of this passage. It is generally acepted that when “breaking of bread” is spoken of it was more of a common meal than communion.

Hi believer

I’d say it is a unique view to non-Eucharistic Christians, but not to to the apostolic Church throughout the ages.

He first gives them scripture, then blesses the bread just as he does in the last supper.

The Church has been following this order of liturgy for 2,000 years. Word, then Sacrament.

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

St. Augustine

 

[Lenten_ashes]

believerdoc;14566726;:

I just believe differently. I have found Protestants the genuinely love Jesus as well as Roman Catholics, Orthodox, fundamentalists, evangelicals, etc.God Bless!

Amen,

That much we can agree on.

You will find sheep and goats in all branches of Christendom.

 

[MartinJordan]

First of all we are not protesting anything. Protestans have a much different conept of God; more personal but i totally agree that GOD IS LOVE. We do not beleve in Sacrements in the same way you do. We first call them Ordinances and have only two; those directly institutrd by Christ Himself. I would suggest that your current means of worship harken back to the days of Jewish temple worhip which we believe is no longer necessay due to the attoning Sacrifice of Christ. And you may find this hard to accept but I am not anti-catholic in any way; I just believe differently. I have found Protestants the genuinely love Jesus as well as Roman Catholics, Orthodox, fundamentalists, evangelicals, etc.God Bless!

You can take it up with St. Ignatius of Antioch who died for his Faith and Church. I’m not even sure if you belong to any group but I say you need to study more.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians7:1-2 [ca. A.D. 107]).

So we DO NOT do rituals. Without the Ministerial Priesthood by virtue of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (endowed directly from Jesus Christ himself) these practices of blessings by the priest over the Gifts of Bread and Wine and when we partake of it is a Sacrament.

Peace be with you.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

You can take it up with St. Ignatius of Antioch who died for his Faith and Church. I’m not even sure if you belong to any group but I say you need to study more.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians7:1-2 [ca. A.D. 107]).

So we DO NOT do rituals. But with the Ministerial Priesthood by virtue of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (endowed directly from Jesus Christ himself) these practices of blessings by the priest over the Gifts of Bread and Wine and when we partake of it is a Sacrament.

Peace be with you.

MJ

I made an error and the bolded is correct. Sorry about that.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

Speaking in terms of my tradition (Pentecostalism), we do not believe that the bread and wine transform into the actual body and blood of Christ. However, we do believe that an act of faith in partaking leads to a real work of the Spirit in us to strengthen us in the inner man and to heal us in our physical bodies. Christ is present spiritually.

And I don’t really understand what you mean by “just Faith.” Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Faith is the vehicle by which we receive every grace and blessing from Christ.

When you say ‘actual body and blood’, do you mean ‘physical’ or ‘in any form’? If you mean ‘physical’ do you then accept ‘actual but not necessarily physical’?

Sorry if too invasively questioning, just curious as to your thinking. Thanks.

 

[ltwin]

When you say ‘actual body and blood’, do you mean ‘physical’ or ‘in any form’? If you mean ‘physical’ do you then accept ‘actual but not necessarily physical’?

Yes, physical. I reject any attempt to explain the Eucharist as a physical transformation of any kind, whether that be transusbstantiation, transignification, consubstantiation, or impanation.

I do believe Christ is present. Not bodily but by the Spirit, and I do believe that there is a tangible anointing that we receive by faith.

If the anointing of God can be transferred by handkerchiefs (Acts 19:11-12), it would make sense that it also be transferred through the Lord’s Supper.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, physical. I reject any attempt to explain the Eucharist as a physical transformation of any kind, whether that be transusbstantiation, transignification, consubstantiation, or impanation.

I do believe Christ is present. Not bodily but by the Spirit, and I do believe that there is a tangible anointing that we receive by faith.

If the anointing of God can be transferred by handkerchiefs (Acts 19:11-12), it would make sense that it also be transferred through the Lord’s Supper.

Sounds good to me (of course I do assent to transubstantiation).

I also agree that God, through Christ, can and does heal, touch, bless, anoint us through various things. He is not restricted. Yet, His grace ultimately comes to us through His own substance. His substance is found (by sight of faith, not carnal senses) in His Eucharist. His life comes from (proceeds from) His substance. His substance is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In what from did God conceive in Mary? We know through the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit somehow became flesh to fertilize Mary’s egg. This is a mystery.

Jesus performed the miracle of multiplying fish, but those fish were not considered the “substance of God”. When He mutiplies His “body and blood” and becomes bread and wine, that is considered the substance of God. The same substance which became man, suffered and died, rose again from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

It’s a mystery no matter how we look to His Eucharist. The Father Son and Holy Spirit are joined together in ways we cannot fathom.

 

[mattp0625]

First of all we are not protesting anything. Protestans have a much different conept of God; more personal but i totally agree that GOD IS LOVE. We do not beleve in Sacrements in the same way you do. We first call them Ordinances and have only two; those directly institutrd by Christ Himself. I would suggest that your current means of worship harken back to the days of Jewish temple worhip which we believe is no longer necessay due to the attoning Sacrifice of Christ. And you may find this hard to accept but I am not anti-catholic in any way; I just believe differently. I have found Protestants the genuinely love Jesus as well as Roman Catholics, Orthodox, fundamentalists, evangelicals, etc.God Bless!

There is an abundance of evidence indicating the very first Christians celebrated the Eucharist as Catholics do. Additionally, it was celebrated and administered by bishops which most Protestants reject as a requirement…

Acts 11:26 - “…the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.”

Ignatius of Antioch (third Bishop of Antioch) prior to 105 AD:

To the Smyrnaeans:
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

To the Philadelphians:
I have confidence of you in the Lord, that ye will be of no other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.

There are many others who use similar language to indicate that it is sacred, holy, and truly the flesh of the Lord - Irenaeus of Lyon, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, the Didache, etc. They all lived between the first and third centuries.

Even Paul in 1 Cor 11 admonishes the Corinthians for abusing the eucharist by administering it unworthily (e.g. getting drunk) rather than worthily in the church of God. He indicates this brings judgment onto themselves. He also admonishes them for creating divisions in the church:

An Abuse at Corinth. 17 In giving this instruction, I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good. 18 First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; 19 there have to be factions among you in order that [also] those who are approved among you may become known.[j] 20 When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, 21 for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. 22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.[l] 28 A person should examine himself,[m] and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[n] on himself.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ is not to be interpreted through subjective relativism.

Christ spoke in the absolute with concrete bread and wine…and He is the slain Lamb Who stands wounded but glorious before the altar of God and through the Holy Spirit at the Epiclesis in the Mass, the inner form of the bread and wine becomes His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity so that we may be transformed into the likeness of Him…we concrete and absolute as His sons and daughters.

The ancient Temple sacrifices were now fulfilled in the Lamb of God.

 

[jimkhong]

Yes, physical. I reject any attempt to explain the Eucharist as a physical transformation of any kind, whether that be transusbstantiation, transignification, consubstantiation, or impanation.

I do believe Christ is present. Not bodily but by the Spirit, and I do believe that there is a tangible anointing that we receive by faith.

Then your understanding of that part of the Eucharistic doctrine is the same of Catholics. It doesn’t preclude of course differences in understanding in other parts of the doctrine (This last statement is inserted to placate some Catholics who cannot imagine Catholics have anything in common with Evangelicals in the area of liturgy and doctrines).

Catholic teaching on the Real Presence excludes belief in the bread and wine turning into the physical body and blood of Jesus. Which is why the Church does frown on any attempt to prove such a hypothesis - indeed, any attempt to do so is technically desecration. I was informed by a priest once of a medieval heresy condemned by the Church, which held that the Eucharistic elements turn into the physical body and blood of Christ. This priest has been very sober and reliable in matters scholastic.

The Catholic Catechism does not attempt to define the Real Presence other than that the substance of the bread and wine has changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. If I am not mistaken the only other time the word substance was used in Catholic teaching is that Jesus is of the same substance with the Father, as noted in the Creed. It is obvious that the substance here is not physical but spiritual.

Therefore, I have no problem whatsoever with your assertion that the presence of Jesus in the Bread and Wine is as a spiritual Body and Blood. I do indeed teach the children that the Eucharist is spiritual food for our spiritual self to get spiritual strength to do spiritual work just as our physical bodies need physical food to stay physically alive, be physically healthy and gain physical strength to do physical work.

Once we get past the rhetoric, I do not think there is much differences between our understanding of things. Thanks for being on this forum,.

 

[KathleenGee]

The outer form of the Eucharist remains the same, bread and wine.

We go back to Melchizedek who presented ordinary gifts of bread and wine and prophesized the eternal gifts.

The inner form of the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

The Ark of the Covenant is now fulfilled in every tabernacle around the world, the dwelling place of the One True God Who promised He would always remain with us.

 

[Wannano]

Then your understanding of that part of the Eucharistic doctrine is the same of Catholics. It doesn’t preclude of course differences in understanding in other parts of the doctrine (This last statement is inserted to placate some Catholics who cannot imagine Catholics have anything in common with Evangelicals in the area of liturgy and doctrines).

Catholic teaching on the Real Presence excludes belief in the bread and wine turning into the physical body and blood of Jesus. Which is why the Church does frown on any attempt to prove such a hypothesis - indeed, any attempt to do so is technically desecration. I was informed by a priest once of a medieval heresy condemned by the Church, which held that the Eucharistic elements turn into the physical body and blood of Christ. This priest has been very sober and reliable in matters scholastic.

The Catholic Catechism does not attempt to define the Real Presence other than that the substance of the bread and wine has changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. If I am not mistaken the only other time the word substance was used in Catholic teaching is that Jesus is of the same substance with the Father, as noted in the Creed. It is obvious that the substance here is not physical but spiritual.

Therefore, I have no problem whatsoever with your assertion that the presence of Jesus in the Bread and Wine is as a spiritual Body and Blood. I do indeed teach the children that the Eucharist is spiritual food for our spiritual self to get spiritual strength to do spiritual work just as our physical bodies need physical food to stay physically alive, be physically healthy and gain physical strength to do physical work.

Once we get past the rhetoric, I do not think there is much differences between our understanding of things. Thanks for being on this forum,.

I am thankful when I can read of things we agree on.

I am curious how you interpret John 6. Did the folks who departed from Jesus and no longer followed Him understand He was talking of eating His physical body or His Spiritual body?

 

[jimkhong]

I am thankful when I can read of things we agree on.

I am curious how you interpret John 6. Did the folks who departed from Jesus and no longer followed Him understand He was talking of eating His physical body or His Spiritual body?

My Church would just say it is not physical. I would go so far as to say spiritual. It is obvious it is not physical. To say it is physical would be to be in the same position as the Jews in v52.
Jn 6:58:

This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.

The problem we have with the modern world is that there is this equation of physical with real today. Maybe, it is part of the idea that we are a scientific or eveidence-based society where everything must be sensed by the five senses for it to exist. (but please don’t interpret this to mean that we should be non-scientific)

A human has physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspects. One can therefore be real without being necessarily physical. Neither is it meta-physical either, though. That is falling into the same idea that things are real or unreal, physical or non-physical.

Spiritual means (I am not very good at defining this) being part of something greater than oneself. I mean spiritual in that sense, not in the sense of spirits.

 

[Wannano]

[My Church would just say it is not physical. I would go so far as to say spiritual. It is obvious it is not physical. To say it is physical would be to be in the same position as the Jews in v52./QUOTE]

It would be helpful to me if you could present documentation that substantiates that this is the Church’s official position.

 

[Wannano]

My Church would just say it is not physical. I would go so far as to say spiritual. It is obvious it is not physical. To say it is physical would be to be in the same position as the Jews in v52.

It would be helpful to me if you could provide documentation that substantiates this is the official teaching of the Church. Thanks.

 

[rcwitness]

For the symbolic only Communion subscribers, I’m curious how the Bread of Life discourse (in John 6) and the Lord’s Supper are related?

What does the “flesh and blood” symbolize? Does it symbolize His Spirit or His actual body?

 

[jimkhong]

It would be helpful to me if you could provide documentation that substantiates this is the official teaching of the Church. Thanks.

Check out the catechism for a starting position. I am assuming that your intention is to learn and not for argument.

 

[Wannano]

Check out the catechism for a starting position. I am assuming that your intention is to learn and not for argument.

I was hoping you could present me with the Catechism that would substantiate your statements since I am assuming you would have it at your fingertips. I find the Catechism a hard read so I was hoping it would be easy for you.

I am not meaning to be arguementative. I am intrigued that in the Eucharist and in John 6 that reference to flesh and blood is not applicable to Christ’s physical body because I (in my ignorance I guess) always have understood it was. Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?

 

[MartinJordan]

Check out the catechism for a starting position. I am assuming that your intention is to learn and not for argument.

MJ

 

[rcwitness]

I was hoping you could present me with the Catechism that would substantiate your statements since I am assuming you would have it at your fingertips. I find the Catechism a hard read so I was hoping it would be easy for you.

I am not meaning to be arguementative. I am intrigued that in the Eucharist and in John 6 that reference to flesh and blood is not applicable to Christ’s physical body because I (in my ignorance I guess) always have understood it was. Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?

Good question. That’s why I don’t believe we should look at the Bread of Life discourse and the Lord’s Supper as strictly a physical body. Just as we do not regard Jesus as mere flesh and blood. His flesh and blood has been raised to the status of the Spirit, because the Father sent the Spirit of His Son to become obedient unto death in the flesh, so that He might be Lord of the flesh.

You see, the Bread of Life discourse is not about bread and wine. It’s about the Word becoming flesh. The Word is Spirit, and Spirit became flesh and dwelt with us. The Lord’s Supper is not only about Spirit, but what His body and blood suffered. And the Lord’s Supper is not about bread and wine either, but about the Communion of God and man, man and brother, all because Jesus is our sacrificial Lamb!

So the bread and wine of His Eucharist is not common. It is changed by the Spirit, because Jesus becomes that bread and wine that we are nourished by. Just as we are nourished by believing in Him.