Communion

[ralphinal]

Abraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac. God let him believe it until the last second. Why does God do things the way He does? Will just have to ask Him when we’re in Heaven. However, God expects us to exercise faith. Romans 4 (I think it was there), tells us that Abraham thought that God was going to raise Isaac from the dead after he killed him. God wants us to trust Him even when we don’t understand. The disciples didn’t understand Jesus in John 6, I’m quite sure, but they knew that what He said was LIFE.​

Calling one’s self a door, a rock or a lamb is no big deal. An onlooker may thing the person a little crazy, but no big deal.​

Telling others to eat human flesh and drink human blood was against the Jewish religion (which belongs to Jesus). Jesus often didn’t correct misunderstanding on the spot. He cleared it up when He instituted it, ‘do this in remembrance of Me.’

For discussion’s sake, show me another example of the Apostles or others not understanding him and he NOT telling them what he meant. Almost every one that I can think of, he explained it, at least to them. The only other examples are about his death.

Any time he was discussing the faith itself, he explained it

 

[Dokimas]

For discussion’s sake, show me another example of the Apostles or others not understanding him and he NOT telling them what he meant. Almost every one that I can think of, he explained it, at least to them. The only other examples are about his death.

Any time he was discussing the faith itself, he explained it

He did explain it; He said take communion ‘in remembrance of Me.’​

Paul went on to explain that communion proclaims His death until He returns.​

I find it interesting that catholics believe Mary had to be sinless to have Jesus in her womb, but they believe Jesus enters us sinners in the bread and wine.

 

[Dokimas]

For discussion’s sake, show me another example of the Apostles or others not understanding him and he NOT telling them what he meant. Almost every one that I can think of, he explained it, at least to them. The only other examples are about his death.

Any time he was discussing the faith itself, he explained it

When Jesus said, ‘destroy this temple and I will build it again in three days,’ Jesus did not explain it. It was understood later.​

BTW, isn’t communion about His death?

 

[Dokimas]

a-hem.

“other demoninations”

Catholicism is NOT a denomination. The trunk of the tree is not a branch

a-hem, the CC is not the trunk, Jesus is.

 

[JonNC]

He did explain it; He said take communion ‘in remembrance of Me.’

Paul went on to explain that communion proclaims His death until He returns.

.

Yes, take communion - which is His true and substantial body and blood - in remembrance of Him.

I find it interesting that catholics believe Mary had to be sinless to have Jesus in her womb, but they believe Jesus enters us sinners in the bread and wine

Not just Catholics. But it is not just “bread and wine”. Upon consecration, it is His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

I find it interesting that catholics believe Mary had to be sinless to have Jesus in her womb, but they believe Jesus enters us sinners in the bread and wine.

Yeah, pretty cool, isn’t it?

 

[Dokimas]

Yeah, pretty cool, isn’t it?

i’d call it inconsistent if it’s not God’s intent.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Yeah, pretty cool, isn’t it?

Newbie, You have your hands full with Dokimas he is one of the most anti-cathloic that come to this board,he does not come to debate he come to argue

 

[fbl9]

fbl9;6113766:

I do use the term ‘silly’; you flatter me by using back at me. BTW, I was just being silly right back at you. Didn’t you notice my lighthearted way about my comment?

my apologies that i didn’t notice that way,but you did take my using silly bunny as light hearted which was my intent.

As for the rest of your question, and if I understand them, they’re not worth commenting on; they don’t even rise to the level of calling them silly.

Why not, is it because it would make you look silly telling people that a cracker or bread is a symbol of Christ.

According to your belief one needs not to take communion,because one can remember Christ’s sacrifice any time.So what is the point of having communion?

Dokimas is the orginal poster not fbl9

 

[Dokimas]

Newbie, You have your hands full with Dokimas he is one of the most anti-cathloic that come to this board,he does not come to debate he come to argue

Bill, it’s looking more like you’re not spreading misunderstandings but untruths. I doesn’t put you in a good light. So be it. It’s your choice to gossip. Why not look up what the Bible says about gossiping?

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas;6114005:

my apologies that i didn’t notice that way,but you did take my using silly bunny as light hearted which was my intent.

Why not, is it because it would make you look silly telling people that a cracker or bread is a symbol of Christ. ** I can’t find a way to answer an absurd statement with another absurd statement so I’ll call your questions in question silly.**

According to your belief one needs not to take communion,because one can remember Christ’s sacrifice any time.So what is the point of having communion? Where did I say that communion is not important?
Dokimas is the orginal poster not fbl9​

I was thinking about your view of communion. You think the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus didn’t say it turned into His Body and Blood, He said it was. I’ll go with it being metaphorical.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill, it’s looking more like you’re not spreading misunderstandings but untruths. I doesn’t put you in a good light. So be it. It’s your choice to gossip. Why not look up what the Bible says about gossiping?

The truth is NOT gossping Please tell me what untruths you are talking about

 

[Dokimas]

The truth is NOT gossping Please tell me what untruths you are talking about

Could a catholic brother please come to the aid of Bill?

 

[fbl9]

fbl9;6116105:

I was thinking about your view of communion. You think the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus didn’t say it turned into His Body and Blood, He said it was. I’ll go with it being metaphorical.

You have given no evidence that my question is absurd,tell me why/how the question is absurd?

I am saying tht your communion is pointless cause one can remember Christ’s sacrifice anytime and anywhere…There is no need to have it as part of worship service.

At what point in time does the cracker/bread in your comunion become a symbol of Christ?

That’s where you are wrong Dokimas i do not think rather i know when,how,why the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of the Lord

 

[fbl9]

Bill, it’s looking more like you’re not spreading misunderstandings but untruths. I doesn’t put you in a good light. So be it. It’s your choice to gossip. Why not look up what the Bible says about gossiping?

Let’s look at the facts here Dokimas: every thread you have started contains the elements of anti-catholicism. This thread in fact shows your unwillingness to discuss your beleifs about communion rather you want to discussion how the cathilic view is wrong according to your falliable beleif.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas;6116323:

You have given no evidence that my question is absurd,tell me why/how the question is absurd?

I am saying tht your communion is pointless cause one can remember Christ’s sacrifice anytime and anywhere…There is no need to have it as part of worship service.

At what point in time does the cracker/bread in your comunion become a symbol of Christ?

That’s where you are wrong Dokimas i do not think rather i know when,how,why the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of the Lord

Seeing that we’re not getting anywhere, shall be agree to disagree?

 

[fbl9]

might as well,you are stuck on your own falliable beliefs and there is nothing i can do personally about it.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Could a catholic brother please come to the aid of Bill?

IDK Dokimas I haven’t had any conversations with you in other threads so I cannot say one way or the other as to whether Bill is correct or incorrect. However in this thread it has been brought up, to your complete avoidance, that belief in the Real Presence is something that can be found amongst Protestants. Yet we see responses such as:

Dokimas:

find it interesting that catholics believe Mary had to be sinless to have Jesus in her womb, but they believe Jesus enters us sinners in the bread and wine.

The fact that you are unwilling to discuss Protestants who also hold to a belief in the Real Presence suggests that your problem is not so much with the belief in the Real Presence but with Catholicism. Your thread quickly turned from “arguments” (poor choice of words BTW if you are truly looking for constructive discussion) on communion to why you believe Transubstantiation is wrong.

God bless you

 

[Bill_Pick]

Could a catholic brother please come to the aid of Bill?

Did you anwer the question, I,M sorry i may have missed it

 

[JonNC]

The fact that you are unwilling to discuss Protestants who also hold to a belief in the Real Presence suggests that your problem is not so much with the belief in the Real Presence but with Catholicism. Your thread quickly turned from “arguments” (poor choice of words BTW if you are truly looking for constructive discussion) on communion to why you believe Transubstantiation is wrong.

God bless you

Hey, R_C,
I’m glad you are here. 1st, I noticed the same thing, but I’m willing to hear Domikas out on this, as I am sure you are, now that attention has been brought to it.

But I’d really like to hear what you think about this line from the ecumenical document between Lutheran and Catholic leaders:

Catholic theologians emphasize today that the substantial change of bread and wine is a sacramental change which involves no change in “the chemical, physical or botanical reality of bread and wine” (E. Schillebeeckx, “Transubstantiation, Transfinalization, Transignification,” Worship 40 [1966] 337). Further, on the basis of Ap X, 2, which cites with approval the Greek tradition that the bread is truly changed into the body of Christ (“mutato pane”; “panem…vere mutari”), there is a certain sense in which "one can stand on Lutheran ground and talk about a transformation of the elements (Verwandlung der Elemente). Cf. Fr. Brunstaed, Theologie der lutherischen Bekenntnisschrifien (Guetersloh, 1951) p. 156.

Jon