''Do this in memory of me''

[emeraldcoast]

Peace Emerald,

Sharing in the Eucharist is a symbol of unity, since we are not united, you can’t share in the Eucharist, and I can’t share in yours.

If you want to share in the Eucharist, return to Holy Mother Church.

Hi TomaszA,

I understand that the Catholic Church tells you that you can’t share in another Christian Church’s Communion. My Church however still welcomes you to the Eucharist at the invitation of our Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that it is correct to deny another Christian to the Lord’s Table. I believe that as Christians, the Eucharist should be used to unify us not divide us. I would not want to belong to a Christian Church that would deny another Christian to the Lord Jesus Christ at Communion–simple.

God Bless!

 

[CWBetts]

Hi TomaszA,

I understand that the Catholic Church tells you that you can’t share in another Christian Church’s Communion. My Church however still welcomes you to the Eucharist at the invitation of our Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that it is correct to deny another Christian to the Lord’s Table. I believe that as Christians, the Eucharist should be used to unify us not divide us. I would not want to belong to a Christian Church that would deny another Christian to the Lord Jesus Christ at Communion–simple.

God Bless!

I am not Anglican, therefore I shoukd not partake of the Communion service at the Anglican Church. Neither Lutheran, neither Baptist. There is no real presence there, so to us a non-Catholic communion is just unleavened bread and wine (or grape juice). Likewise, Protestants do not accept the Eucharist for what it is, therefore we ask them to refrain. We also ask that Catholics refrain if they have knowledge of mortal sin. If we ask that Catholics refrain, then by all means we should ask that those who are not in communion with the Church at all refrain as well.

 

[JonNC]

I am not Anglican, therefore I shoukd not partake of the Communion service at the Anglican Church. Neither Lutheran, neither Baptist. There is no real presence there, so to us a non-Catholic communion is just unleavened bread and wine (or grape juice). Likewise, Protestants do not accept the Eucharist for what it is, therefore we ask them to refrain. We also ask that Catholics refrain if they have knowledge of mortal sin. If we ask that Catholics refrain, then by all means we should ask that those who are not in communion with the Church at all refrain as well.

Anyone attending a Catholic mass who, by their faith community are not in communion with Rome, should by all means show respect by not communing. That said, it is a striking dichotomy that while the Lutheran and Anglican communities recognize the validity of the Catholic clergy and Eucharist, the Catholic Church does not repsond in kind. I know this has been a point of discussion in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue.

Jon

 

[O.S.Luke]

This is a ridiculous argument that can be used against doctrines even you believe. Consider the word “Trinity” or “Homoousious,” philosophical terms that were coined centuries after Jesus.

It is simply the classical argument. You may disagree, but I think to call it “ridiculous” is a little over the top.

As for the Orthodox position, they haven’t had an ecumenical council in over a thousand years, their theology is largely stagnant. Prior to this the Greeks were heavily pursuing theological inquiry. Furthermore, the Greeks hold the Latin understanding of things to be inferior, and even worthy of contempt. Even though they have equivalent terms for “Transubstantiation,” “Substance,” and “Accidents,” and used them to fight Protestant influences, they prefer to distance themselves from it now!

This is now a “we’re right, you’re wrong” argument. Which has nowhere else to go, now.

Those who reject the Transubstantiation are no different than heretics who rejected Trinity.

I suspect the Orthodox would disagree. And so do I.

Blessings to you and yours. Pax vobiscum.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

The fact that previous annulments had been granted was irrelevant. Henry VIII’s break from rome had NOTHING to do with theology, and EVERYTHING to do with greed and lust. To deny this is to deny the facts.

Ok. Facts, please.

This is starting to read like a Jack Chick tract in reverse.

 

[CWBetts]

I’ll get back to you…I have to go to work, then study for finals…but this explanation will be forthcoming (using primary documents and respected historians writings, no less) but like I said, finals coming up so give me time.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’ll get back to you…I have to go to work, then study for finals…but this explanation will be forthcoming (using primary documents and respected historians writings, no less) but like I said, finals coming up so give me time.

School is a heck of a lot more important than this. No worries, CWB.

 

[SIA]

The fact that previous annulments had been granted was irrelevant. Henry VIII’s break from rome had NOTHING to do with theology, and EVERYTHING to do with greed and lust. To deny this is to deny the facts. When it comes down to it there was a grand total of one Tudor whose principles were not for sale: “Bloody” Mary I.

This is an abject lie.

 

[SIA]

I am not Anglican, therefore I shoukd not partake of the Communion service at the Anglican Church. Neither Lutheran, neither Baptist. There is no real presence there, so to us a non-Catholic communion is just unleavened bread and wine (or grape juice). Likewise, Protestants do not accept the Eucharist for what it is, therefore we ask them to refrain. We also ask that Catholics refrain if they have knowledge of mortal sin. If we ask that Catholics refrain, then by all means we should ask that those who are not in communion with the Church at all refrain as well.

This whole idea is utterly ridiculous and in no way admirable in the eyes of our Lord. the Eucharist should bring Christians together, not tear us apart.

 

[CWBetts]

This is an abject lie.

Stay tuned, and after my fianl exams, I will support this with primary source documents and articles written by scholars. You will see that the Tudors were power-hungry and corrupt and that the original break from rome had nothing to do with theology.

 

[CWBetts]

This whole idea is utterly ridiculous and in no way admirable in the eyes of our Lord. the Eucharist should bring Christians together, not tear us apart.

We should not receive unworthily.

 

[SIA]

Stay tuned, and after my fianl exams, I will support this with primary source documents and articles written by scholars. You will see that the Tudors were power-hungry and corrupt and that the original break from rome had nothing to do with theology.

That’s pure baloney man. You can show whatever Catholic biased material you wish, but the facts remain that the English Reformers were well into the deficiences between Scripture and Catholic theology years before the split.

 

[CWBetts]

That’s pure baloney man. You can show whatever Catholic biased material you wish, but the facts remain that the English Reformers were well into the deficiences between Scripture and Catholic theology years before the split.

Actually, I am talking PRIMARY source documents, and secular historians. You will see.

 

[SIA]

Actually, I am talking PRIMARY source documents, and secular historians. You will see.

You can’t even explain simple concepts within the Reformation itself but yet you wish to use your so called PRIMARY documents. Why should anyone take this goose hunt seriously?

 

[CWBetts]

By prymary documents, I mean Decrees by Henry VIII himself

 

[SIA]

By prymary documents, I mean Decrees by Henry VIII himself

Nobody is denying that Henry asked for an annulment which absolutely should have been granted under the doctrines of the Roman church iteself. But, it is a historical fact that the Reformers to be in England were already in serious question of Catholic church theology and practice vs. Scripture. That simply cannot be denied.

 

[CWBetts]

The country follows the monarch

 

[hays1122]

As a life long protestant I do not see what the problem is with the way Catholics take holy communion.
I like the way their service is performed and the fact that it is taken seriously.
Jesus did say,“Take eat this is by body”.
Those are the words that we should be concentrating on when we take the bread. The same thing with the wine or grape juice. “Take drink this is my blood which was shed for you.”
Catholics make this a solemn and worshipful ceremony.
As I believe Jesus wanted us to remember him and what he did for us.
I don’t understand how anyone can ask,“Hey you are eating that bread believing in your heart that you are eating the flesh of Jesus?”
People that ask this as if there is something wrong with that belief,should ask themselves:
What would Jesus do?
I believe Jesus would approve.
I dare say I sometimes feel that Jesus would be ashamed of the way the church I attend performs this ceremony.

 

[SIA]

The country follows the monarch

The first thing I came to realize after I had been gone from the Roman church was that people really do have the desire and the ability to find truth and to know God through reasoning, praying and learning. It isn’t merely dictated by and then sent down to the faithful.

 

[CWBetts]

Our discussion is over. You have no motives to learn. You are motivated by anti-Catholic hatred, as evidenced by our LAST debate. In the sixteenth century, the monarch was much more important than now. I can show this to be true, but you already know everything.