Communion

[Newbie2]

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

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

Yeah, but he wrote “if” not “because”. That to me is a discussion.

 

[ralphinal]

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.

And how does any of that disprove the Real Presence?

And, so that you may know the Truth, Catholics do not hold that Mary HAD to be sinless to be Jesus’s mother. We hold that she was sinless because of God’s wisdom and mercy.

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?

Now we might be getting somewhere. Jesus did not explain that, and it was about his death. Communion is about his death and his resurrection, both.

Why does it trouble you that we hold Jesus is truly present? Why does it offend you so?

 

[JonNC]

ralphinal:
Ralph,
You’re another whose opinion I value. 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

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,
You’re another whose opinion I value. What you think about this line from the ecumenical document between Lutheran and Catholic leaders:

Jon

On the face, I have no issue with it. I am sure that I have told you that my first wife was a Lutheran, and I did study with her pastor for a while. I never was convienced that the Lutheran position was correct, so I never crossed over. From what I can recall, and please correct me if I am wrong, the Lutheran position on this part of it was that Catholics went too far into the metaphysical. Luther did not hold to transubstantiation, nor did he hold to consubstantiation.

I would be interested in if it answers some of my other issues that I see with the Lutheran understanding

 

[JonNC]

On the face, I have no issue with it. I am sure that I have told you that my first wife was a Lutheran, and I did study with her pastor for a while. I never was convienced that the Lutheran position was correct, so I never crossed over. From what I can recall, and please correct me if I am wrong, the Lutheran position on this part of it was that Catholics went too far into the metaphysical. Luther did not hold to transubstantiation, nor did he hold to consubstantiation.

I would be interested in if it answers some of my other issues that I see with the Lutheran understanding

Yes, that is exactly correct. The metaphysical and Aristotilean aspects of Transub is what Lutherans object to (well, it also seems a bit out of place for us to attempt to explain the hows of it). And, you are correct that Lutherans (and Luther) do not accept consubstantiation, either, though it is sometimes used to describe sacramental union.

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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:

Jon

I have read *The Eucharist: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement * and have no problems with it. I try not to get caught up with the arguments of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation (realizing that this is not the Lutheran belief of course) for one because the particulars are far over my head and secondly, admittedly, I am less concerned about those distinctions. I am more concerned that Christ is truly present. Blood, Body, Soul and Divinity. Are the elements annihilated? Changed? Well it appears that current Catholic theologians maintain that they arn’t.

GKC (is he around here anymore?) offered me a great quote from C.S. Lewis which kind of sums up my beliefs in the matter perfectly:

“The command after all, was ‘Take, eat’ not 'Take, understand”

We should, as Christians, continue dialog and come to a deeper understanding of the Lord’s Supper of course. I am just more concerned with the conversation between those Christians who deny the Real Presence and those who affirm it than I am between those Christians who both affirm it.

I am going to re-read the document. Here it is if anyone else is interested:

usccb.org/seia/luthrc_eucharist_1968.shtml

God bless

 

[JonNC]

I have read *The Eucharist: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement * and have no problems with it. I try not to get caught up with the arguments of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation (realizing that this is not the Lutheran belief of course) for one because the particulars are far over my head and secondly, admittedly, I am less concerned about those distinctions. I am more concerned that Christ is truly present. Blood, Body, Soul and Divinity. Are the elements annihilated? Changed? Well it appears that current Catholic theologians maintain that they arn’t.

GKC (is he around here anymore?) offered me a great quote from C.S. Lewis which kind of sums up my beliefs in the matter perfectly:

“The command after all, was ‘Take, eat’ not 'Take, understand”

We should, as Christians, continue dialog and come to a deeper understanding of the Lord’s Supper of course. I am just more concerned with the conversation between those Christians who deny the Real Presence and those who affirm it than I am between those Christians who both affirm it.

I am going to re-read the document. Here it is if anyone else is interested:

usccb.org/seia/luthrc_eucharist_1968.shtml

God bless

Thanks. I totally agree. In another document I lifted this quote from John of Damascus:

“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

Pretty much explains my view.

Jon

 

[Dokimas]

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: The point that some protestants believe as you do isn’t important unless you accept all they teach as true. I never said their churches are always correct; mine is not always correct, I’m not always correct and neither is the CC.

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. I don’t think it is a correct teaching taking all the Bible in context.

God bless you

 

[Dokimas]

Yeah, but he wrote “if” not “because”. That to me is a discussion.

I don’t understand. You’ll have to do better for me to understand.

 

[JonNC]

=Dokimas;6117079]
The point that some protestants believe as you do isn’t important unless you accept all they teach as true. I never said their churches are always correct; mine is not always correct, I’m not always correct and neither is the CC.

I don’t know that I would agree. I celebrate with joy when there is agreement between Lutherans and other communions.

I don’t think it is a correct teaching taking all the Bible in context.

I wouldn’t even go that far on transubstantiation. It certainly is not explicitly taught in scripture, and it is on that point that I disagree with the Catholic Church binding the conscience of the believer to that particular human expression of the mystery.
The real presence, on the other hand, is explicit in scripture, in Christ’s own words, and supported by St. Paul.

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The point that some protestants believe as you do isn’t important unless you accept all they teach as true. I never said their churches are always correct; mine is not always correct, I’m not always correct and neither is the CC.

It is important in trying to determine your motivation in this thread which was the point (and context) of my original post. I was pointing out how ignoring the Protestant beliefs on the Real Presence to focus on the Catholic beliefs appeared. The fact that there are Protestants who affirm that Christ is present in the Bread and Wine makes this much less of a Catholic v. Protestant issue like you seem to want to make it out to be.

Your original post indicated that you wanted to discuss “arguments” on communion. This thread then quickly turned into your arguments against Transubstantiation to a point to where you now tell us that the fact that there are Protestants who affirm the Real Presence is not, “important”. You do understand that belief in the Real Presence of Christ does not necessarily mean belief in Transubstantiation? And, this being so, that proving Transubstantiation wrong does not prove the Real Presence wrong. Ask any Lutheran or Anglican.

And to be fair, “some” would not be the word I would use to describe the amount of Protestants who affirm the Real Presence. There are “some” people who still think that the world is flat. There is, however, an abundance (I love my thesaurus ) of Protestants who affirm the Real Presence.

I don’t think it is a correct teaching taking all the Bible in context.

Yes you have made that more than clear.

God bless you

 

[Dokimas]

It is important in trying to determine your motivation in this thread which was the point (and context) of my original post. I was pointing out how ignoring the Protestant beliefs on the Real Presence to focus on the Catholic beliefs appeared. The fact that there are Protestants who affirm that Christ is present in the Bread and Wine makes this much less of a Catholic v. Protestant issue like you seem to want to make it out to be.

Your original post indicated that you wanted to discuss “arguments” on communion. This thread then quickly turned into your arguments against Transubstantiation to a point to where you now tell us that the fact that there are Protestants who affirm the Real Presence is not, “important”. You do understand that belief in the Real Presence of Christ does not necessarily mean belief in Transubstantiation? And, this being so, that proving Transubstantiation wrong does not prove the Real Presence wrong. Ask any Lutheran or Anglican.

And to be fair, “some” would not be the word I would use to describe the amount of Protestants who affirm the Real Presence. There are “some” people who still think that the world is flat. There is, however, an abundance (I love my thesaurus ) of Protestants who affirm the Real Presence.

Yes you have made that more than clear.

God bless you

You may have not noticed I try not to use the term protestant. It’s not a protestant vs catholic issue. Please show me where I said that or implied that. I’d like to clarify the statement or retract it.​

It’s an understanding the Bible issue.​

If you want to distinguish between Presence and Transubstantiation that’s fine with me. I’ve been discussing Transubstantiation if there is a difference.​

Oh ye, my motivation is simple and I thought I aready shared it. My motivation is to give this topic its own thread because it creeps into other threads. Besides, someone challenged opening new threads for specific topics. Quite straight forward.​

And, if I made my point more than clear, did you accuse me of making it a p vs c issue?

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t understand. You’ll have to do better for me to understand.

I was saying, D, that I thought you were discussing rather than arguing, and that was based on one of your responses to me.

 

[Dokimas]

I was saying, D, that I thought you were discussing rather than arguing, and that was based on one of your responses to me.

Where I come form, making an argument is what they do in a court of law making their points for each side of the issue. They aren’t actually arguing. I would rather this doesn’t degenerate into an actual agrument; I’m not sure that would glorify Jesus.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You may have not noticed I try not to use the term protestant. It’s not a protestant vs catholic issue. Please show me where I said that or implied that. I’d like to clarify the statement or retract it.

I apologize for my use of Protestant. I will try to use the terms ‘non-Catholic Christian’ (NCC) with you.

I didn’t say that you made the claim. I said that it is much less of a NCC v Catholic issue that you “seem” to want to make it out to be. By ignoring that Protestants also believe in the Real Presence and focusing on Catholicism’s belief on it it seemed that you wanted this to be a NCC v Catholic issue. As I said; by ignoring the fact that there are Protestants who also believe in the Real Presence (you even said that this wasn’t “important” ) and focusing on Catholicism that this, “suggests” that your problem is not with the Real Presence but with Catholicism. If you go back to the context of my post, Bill had accused you of being anti-Catholic in your threads. You denied this and asked a “Catholic brother” to help him out. I was showing you how, in this thread, it appeared.

If you want to distinguish between Presence and Transubstantiation that’s fine with me. I’ve been discussing Transubstantiation if there is a difference.

Which is exactly my point. You have been discussing Transubstantiation to the complete avoidance of Protestant beliefs in the Real Presence. If you wanted a thread about Transubstantiation, why didn’t you create a thread about Transubstantiation? And yes there is a difference. Anyone who believes in Transubstantiation believes in the Real Presence but not everyone who believes in the Real Presence believes in Transubstantiation.

And, if I made my point more than clear, did you accuse me of making it a p vs c issue

No, your position is clear. Yours points are much less so.

God bless

 

[Newbie2]

Where I come form, making an argument is what they do in a court of law making their points for each side of the issue. They aren’t actually arguing. I would rather this doesn’t degenerate into an actual agrument; I’m not sure that would glorify Jesus.

That’s my point; I do think you’re making what you believe to be valid points in this discussion, even though others may disagree.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread on Communion…

 

[Dokimas]

I apologize for my use of Protestant. I will try to use the terms ‘non-Catholic Christian’ (NCC) with you.

I didn’t say that you made the claim. I said that it is much less of a NCC v Catholic issue that you “seem” to want to make it out to be. By ignoring that Protestants also believe in the Real Presence and focusing on Catholicism’s belief on it it seemed that you wanted this to be a NCC v Catholic issue. As I said; by ignoring the fact that there are Protestants who also believe in the Real Presence (you even said that this wasn’t “important” ) and focusing on Catholicism that this, “suggests” that your problem is not with the Real Presence but with Catholicism. If you go back to the context of my post, Bill had accused you of being anti-Catholic in your threads. You denied this and asked a “Catholic brother” to help him out. I was showing you how, in this thread, it appeared.

Which is exactly my point. You have been discussing Transubstantiation to the complete avoidance of Protestant beliefs in the Real Presence. If you wanted a thread about Transubstantiation, why didn’t you create a thread about Transubstantiation? And yes there is a difference. Anyone who believes in Transubstantiation believes in the Real Presence but not everyone who believes in the Real Presence believes in Transubstantiation.

No, your position is clear. Yours points are much less so.

God bless

Look I don’t care what you call non-catholic Christians. That wasn’t my point. Use what ever name you want to.​

I guess we don’t need a new thread. I just clarified what I meant to discuss. Correct?

 

[Libertarian_FL]

It may seem metaphorical, but it is also predictive, in that it points to the actual eating and drinking of His true body and blood, as He calls us to do in His sacrament.

John 6:51 - “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
This is a clear command that if we eat this bread, we shall live forever. Then He describes the bread as His flesh.
This command is not contradicted by Paul, but rather supported: 1 Cor. 10:16 “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?”

In the accounts of the Last Supper, He tells us to “do this(do what? eat His flesh, drink His blood!), in remembrance of me”. Again, a clear command.

Jon

“do this(do what? eat His flesh, drink His blood!), in remembrance of me”. Again, a clear command.

Do this (eat the bread) in REMEMBRANCE of me. It is a command to undertake the rememberance of Jesus our Lord through the sharing of the bread and wine. As for the earlier passage in the Gospel of John its clear to me that its symbolic that if one doesn’t have Jesus within him they cannot enter heaven using common metaphores they would understand - food and drink. Bread the staple food and wine the staple drink. Added proof the wording above is not in the same Gospel as the Lord’s Supper since that is inconsistant with the intended importance you and others place on it. If it was a formal supper that is continuous the formal wording would be in the Gospel of John. All that is mentioned is about the betrayal of Judas where he dipped His bread and gave it to Judas. That doesn’t imply the Lord’s Supper just a meal at Passover as observant Jews.

The supper is covered in other gospels naturally such as Luke but since the wording of John is not in Luke I treat that meal apart. And its a rememberance there a symbolic meal to honor Him, not a sacrament. As I read the text.

 

[JonNC]

=Libertarian_FL;6118000
Do this (eat the bread) in REMEMBRANCE of me. It is a command to undertake the rememberance of Jesus our Lord through the sharing of the bread and wine.

But He does not call it bread and wine. He calls it His body, and His blood. He says, “take and eat. This is my body.” … “Do this in remembrance of me.”

As for the earlier passage in the Gospel of John its clear to me that its symbolic that if one doesn’t have Jesus within him they cannot enter heaven using common metaphores they would understand - food and drink. Bread the staple food and wine the staple drink. Added proof the wording above is not in the same Gospel as the Lord’s Supper since that is inconsistant with the intended importance you and others place on it. If it was a formal supper that is continuous the formal wording would be in the Gospel of John. All that is mentioned is about the betrayal of Judas where he dipped His bread and gave it to Judas. That doesn’t imply the Lord’s Supper just a meal at Passover as observant Jews.

The supper is covered in other gospels naturally such as Luke but since the wording of John is not in Luke I treat that meal apart. And its a rememberance there a symbolic meal to honor Him, not a sacrament. As I read the text.

And, therefore, the difference in thinking about communion, of which we will not convince each other.

Jon

 

[Teneas]

fbl9;6112807:

What is the purpose of communion as far as Paul is concerned?
1 Corinthians 11:
23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

You are missing a HUGE part of Paul’s thoughts on the Eucharist/communion. Hopefully not on purpose:

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an un-worthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
- 1 Cor 11:27

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
-1 Cor 11:28

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
- 1 Corinthians 11:29

Doesn’t sound like simple symbolism to me. Hopefully you can explain this instead of look over it. If it were a simple symbol…why would one have to examine yourself? Couldn’t you just eat a symbol that meant nothing more than a symbol? I think you could…if that is all it was. Not to mention the very fact that Christ’s own disciples left him due to his teaching on the Eucharist/communion. some of them at least They were appalled that he would say such a thing. Yet, Christ did not explain himself further, he stuck by what he said, it was not a parable it was meant as he said it was.

See John 6. 60: "Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

John 6. 66: “As a result of this many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him”