Communion In a Protestant Church...

[Semper_Fi_1]

Hi Singinbeauty,

Jesus Christ & St. Paul both affirm for us that the bread & wine do become the Body & Blood of our savior which is proclaimed until He comes again.

1. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then why would He have let so many Jews depart from Him at the Last Supper (and not correct them)? A true and just savior would not let his flock leave Him over a simple misunderstanding at His most important hour.
2. The Truth of the Real Presence is answered very clearly throughout St. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians.

I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the alter?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

St. Paul clearly defends the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Also see:

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

God bless,

 

[ElizabethJoy]

Singinbeauty:

But you have to look at the context of this letter that Paul was writing.

And you have to know what he was talking about.

He was chastizing this particular group about taking part of the Last Supper as if they are eating supper and not concentrating on the act itself.

No - they actually WERE eating supper - the Church was feasting together, and he was telling them that they were hypocritical in their practice of having the rich and the landowners feasting first, leaving little or nothing for the poor of the Church. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter what our station. How could they treat the poor among them so shabbily and then partake of the Eucharist?

They dropped everything to help eachother. Sold anything they had if a brother was in trouble and needed money and they fed each other.

Ideally, this was the case. But, this was exactly what wasn’t happening in the church that Paul chastised. They maintained their social classes at mass - they brought disunity to the very center of Christian life. He told them to wait for each other and dine together, and that to bring shame upon the poor was dividing them and causing them to receive the Eucharist unworthily. They were not loving “the least of these,” their neighbors, as Christ loved them and therefore were sinning against their neighbors at the feasts right before mass! He tells them that that’s why many of them had actually fallen sick and died. They had eaten and drunk condemnation upon themselves - they had demonstrated that they not discerned the body and blood of Christ by the way that they treated their “lesser” brethren.

He said “When you eat this bread and drink this cup, do it in rememberance of me.” When you sit down to eat your sandwich, know that you are to remember Him. When you drink whatever is in your cup, remember the Sacrifice He made for you.

No - Jesus didn’t offer his disciples grape juice or milk or Coca-Cola. He offered them wine - the preserved fruit of the vine - another allusion to “I am the vine, you are the branches” and to the laborers in the vineyard.

He offered them LIVING bread and likened it to the manna that came from heaven to save the tribe of Moses in the famine.

“Unless you gnaw the flesh and drink the blood, you have no life in you.” This is much more than supper. This is much more than mere remembrance. This was revolutionary - and it shocked some people so badly that they left and followed Him no more!

But for those that have ears to hear and eyes to see…

Certainly, for whatever we eat and drink, we should give thanks. But, Christ did not institute the Eucharist ONLY as an occasion of thanks and remembrance.

He gave us the sacrament of the Eucharist as a means of renewing and strengthening us - as supper replenishes our bodies after a hard day’s work, the Eucharist refreshes our spirits and our faith. It’s not merely symbolic - humans can miraculously take Christ, Himself, into their very bodies! This opens a door to tremendous graces, it enables us to live in the world but not be as subject to it. It strengthens us against the condition of sin. He really IS with us, “til the end of the age!”

Christ’s sacrifice happened once for all time - but God is not bound by time.

Christ’s sacrifice began (in our temporal terms) before the Word became man and dwelt among us. He was already the slain Lamb in the beginning, when the Word was with God and the Word was God. And it continues today, every minute. And it will continue until He comes again in glory. Catholics do not re-crucify Christ at every mass - they do not “repeat” the sacrifice - the one sacrifice was sufficient before God created the heavens and the earth and it will continue to suffice until the end of the age.

This is what He intended. No where in the bible does it mention that, unless you get it from a priest the communion is no good. shrug

Actually it does say exactly that. The Bible says that unless you discern the flesh and blood, you are partaking unworthily. But not everyone can consecrate bread and wine and cause them to become the body and blood. You cannot discern what is not there.

As His disciples said, “This is a hard saying!” And it’s difficult to this day. Many Catholics don’t believe that the hosts have become Christ’s body and blood - maybe even most of them. So, it must be even more difficult for those who have been taught differently all their lives. I don’t anticipate that I will ever understand it - I just know that it’s true and I am grateful to God for this faith.

God bless you!

 

[scylla]

It is actually a pretty recent belief that is isn’t the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a new belief which has come up in the last few hundred years, yet the majority of Christians and all Christians prior to the Reformation believed in the real presence of Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Anabaptists were some of the first larger groups to deny the real presence. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists still affirm belief in this. Only a small percentage of Christians have inherited a belief that it is symbolic. (non-denominationals, Baptists, Calvinists and those who have inherited those faith traditions)

Here is a little bit from Ignatius of Antioch about 100AD​

Let us stand aloof from such heretics,
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. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.​

They really took it very seriously as do most Christians, as we confess this is the Body and Blood of Christ.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Singinbeauty]

I am not trying to be facetious or anything… And I am not trying to be frustrating but something is tripping me up. Do you actually believe that when that bread enters your mouth and that wine touches your lips that it IS Christ’s flesh and blood? That it magically becomes His flesh and blood? I have never tasted human flesh… what does it taste like? I mean, Jesus wasn’t made of bread and wine. Or is it more that He is IN the bread and wine so by eating these that are consecrated by a priest you are filled, physically, by Him?

 

[Shiann]

Singinbeauty:

I am not trying to be facetious or anything… And I am not trying to be frustrating but something is tripping me up. Do you actually believe that when that bread enters your mouth and that wine touches your lips that it IS Christ’s flesh and blood? That it magically becomes His flesh and blood? I have never tasted human flesh… what does it taste like? I mean, Jesus wasn’t made of bread and wine. Or is it more that He is IN the bread and wine so by eating these that are consecrated by a priest you are filled, physically, by Him?

To answer this question, you need to know a bit about Aristotle and his way of difining a thing with substance, and with accidents.

Here is an example of an items physicality and substance provided in Wikipedia’s description of Metaphysics. Remember this philosophy follows that line of thinking developed by Aristotle. Just Google “Aristotle Metaphysics” for Aristotles original writings on this subject. It is quite enlightening.:

The apple is an excellent example of a physical object: one can pick it up, throw it around, eat it, and so on. It occupies space and time and has a variety of properties. Suppose we ask: what are physical objects? This might seem like the sort of question to which one cannot give an answer (“What is, what is?”). What could one possibly use to explain what physical objects are? But philosophers actually do try to give some general sorts of accounts of what they are. They ask: Are physical objects just bundles of their properties? Or are they substances which have those properties? That is called the problem of substance or objecthood.

Catholics believe that things are SUBSTANCES which have properties. (accidents).

Continued:

Here is another sort of question. We said that the apple has properties, like being red, being big, being juicy. How are properties different from objects? Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness. But apples and redness are different sorts of items, of things, of entities. One can pick up and touch an apple, but cannot pick up and touch redness, except perhaps in the sense that you can pick up and touch red things. So how can we best think about what properties are? This is called the problem of universals.

Here is where the accidents fit in. Bread has the accidents that which we can quantify, see, touch, taste, etc. DNA would fit into this list.

Continued:

Here is another question about what physical objects are: when in general can we say that physical objects come into being and when they cease to exist? Surely the apple can change in many ways without ceasing to exist. It could get brown and rotten but it would still be that apple. So there are some metaphysical questions to be answered about the notions of identity, or being the same thing over time, and change.

The apple in the above description changes its properties or accidents- and yet does not change its substance.

In the case of our consecrated Hosts and Wine, it is the SUBSTANCE that changes while keeping the properties of bread and wine.

The consecrated hosts are no longer bread and wine, but the whole completeness of the Lord. Body, soul, mind, and divinity- and it is ENTIRELY for us.

Miraculous!​

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Singinbeauty:

I am not trying to be facetious or anything… And I am not trying to be frustrating but something is tripping me up. Do you actually believe that when that bread enters your mouth and that wine touches your lips that it IS Christ’s flesh and blood? That it magically becomes His flesh and blood? I have never tasted human flesh… what does it taste like? I mean, Jesus wasn’t made of bread and wine. Or is it more that He is IN the bread and wine so by eating these that are consecrated by a priest you are filled, physically, by Him?

I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the alter?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

I have not heard your reply to Scripture. Even Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Denial of the Eucharist didn’t happen until Calvin’s predestination doctrine creeped in… Either we accept ALL scripture, or we reject ALL of it. It is not a give and take sort of book…

God bless,

 

[Singinbeauty]

I have not heard your reply to Scripture.

What Scripture are you waiting me to answer to? If it’s what you quoted above please provide a reference point as to what book and which verses these are because I cannot find them.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Singinbeauty:

What Scripture are you waiting me to answer to? If it’s what you quoted above please provide a reference point as to what book and which verses these are because I cannot find them.

1 Cor. 10:15-21

 

[Singinbeauty]

Thank you for the reference!

1 Corinthians 10:15-21 (New Living Translation)

15You are reasonable people. Decide for yourselves if what I am about to say is true. 16When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing in the benefits of the blood of Christ? And when we break the loaf of bread, aren’t we sharing in the benefits of the body of Christ? 17And we all eat from one loaf, showing that we are one body. 18And think about the nation of Israel; all who eat the sacrifices are united by that act.

Ok, so first he talks about the wine, then bread, then ONE loaf…

Here in this passage he says that if we bless the cup at the Lord’s table we share the benefits of the blood of Christ. Now, to me this says that if we bless the cup we hold and partake of it together we ALL receive the blessings of being in the presence of Jesus. It’s the same for the bread. And the last of the passage talks about how we are united by the act of communion.

19What am I trying to say? Am I saying that the idols to whom the pagans bring sacrifices are real gods and that these sacrifices are of some value? 20No, not at all. What I am saying is that these sacrifices are offered to demons, not to God. And I don’t want any of you to be partners with demons. 21You cannot drink from the cup of the Lord and from the cup of demons, too. You cannot eat at the Lord’s Table and at the table of demons, too.

This part of the passage tells me that we cannot be of the world’s culture and christian at the same time. It’s hot or cold and no in between. It doesn’t have a lot to do with communion in the sense we are talking about here unless you are calling Protestant practices in communion ‘pegan’ or ‘demonic’ which, if that is your point, that is really offensive.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Singinbeauty:

Thank you for the reference!

Ok, so first he talks about the wine, then bread, then ONE loaf…

Here in this passage he says that if we bless the cup at the Lord’s table we share the benefits of the blood of Christ. Now, to me this says that if we bless the cup we hold and partake of it together we ALL receive the blessings of being in the presence of Jesus. It’s the same for the bread. And the last of the passage talks about how we are united by the act of communion.

You’re correct. But it isn’t symbolic & nowhere in those passages does it lead one to believe that.

God bless,

 

[RiverRock]

Dead Horse Alert! No use in beating this pony any longer. Singin’s mind is made up. Don’t confuse her with the facts. No matter how eloquently you all have provided her with the simple beauty of Jesus’ words, they won’t penetrate. At least not now. Maybe you’ve planted a seed, though.

God Bless.

 

[John_Mazar]

That stupid insane rule about Catholics not receiving Holy Communion in the Protestant Church I totally disregard. I have received Holy Communion in the Methodist Church when my brother used to be Methodist and then my brother joined a Non Denominational Church and one of these Sundays when my brothers Non Denominational Church has Holy Communion I plan on attending the service and receive Holy Communion at my brothers Non Denominational Church

 

[RiverRock]

Make that TWO dead horses.

 

[Singinbeauty]

RiverRock:

Dead Horse Alert! No use in beating this pony any longer. Singin’s mind is made up. Don’t confuse her with the facts. No matter how eloquently you all have provided her with the simple beauty of Jesus’ words, they won’t penetrate. At least not now. Maybe you’ve planted a seed, though.

God Bless.

Gee, I am so glad someone here knows my thoughts better than I do so that they can make the decision for me about whether my mind is made up or not… Thank you!

Ok, wait, did you hear the sarcasm or do I need to speak more clearly?

Please don’t listen to this person and stop offering your (name removed by moderator)ut… I am learning an awful lot and RiverRock does not speak for me.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

John Mazar:

That stupid insane rule about Catholics not receiving Holy Communion in the Protestant Church I totally disregard. I have received Holy Communion in the Methodist Church when my brother used to be Methodist and then my brother joined a Non Denominational Church and one of these Sundays when my brothers Non Denominational Church has Holy Communion I plan on attending the service and receive Holy Communion at my brothers Non Denominational Church

Hi, you do realize that by accepting ‘communion’ in their churches that you are affirming that you believe what they believe? And that you are committing a mortal sin and not able to receive the Eucharist until you go to confession? That ‘stupid insane rule’ is there because we believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. They don’t. Accepting ‘communion’ in their churches means that you are ‘in communion’ with them. If you are in communion with them you are not in communion with Rome. You should go to confession.

God bless,

 

[Mickey]

St Irenaeus

[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it-men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no “reformation” of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place * (ibid., 4:33:7-8).
*

 

[Singinbeauty]

If you are in communion with them you are not in communion with Rome.

Rome? What does Rome have to do with it? I thought Communion was to be in the presence of Jesus not Rome. Am I missing something here? I do not see where Paul says that you have to be in communion with Rome.

Oh, I am confused now…

 

[Mickey]

St Ignatius of Antioch

Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the Passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons (*Letter to the Philadelphians ***3:3-4:1 [A.D.110]).

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Singinbeauty:

Rome? What does Rome have to do with it? I thought Communion was to be in the presence of Jesus not Rome. Am I missing something here? I do not see where Paul says that you have to be in communion with Rome.

Oh, I am confused now…

It has everything to do about Jesus. It also has to do with the authority that Christ instituded when he left us the priesthood and the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

God bless,

 

[Mickey]

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology **66 [A.D. 151]).