Eucharist; Communion; Lord's Supper

[2nd_Adam]

I’m sorry I overlooked this post, but I will give my best to answer your question.
The word “sacrament” is derived from the Latin word “sacramentum” which can be translated as “obligation” or “oath of allegiance” in the military sense. Other than that it might be “devotion”, “dedication”, “consecration”.

The word “ordinance” is derived from the Latin as well meaning an authoritative decree (order), a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony.

The difference in terminology is only marginal, but the wide implications go further than that. The implications combined with the word sacrament, especially in a RC context, are that the act itself has power attached to it.

An ordinance however implies more that it is an order, but not the actual grace giving institution.

I do not believe that pouring of water itself does have any further results than an infant with a wet head. The actual change is not done with a sacrament. We cannot make God do something for us by practicing a ritual. God however does change hearts and minds and the ordinance therefore is the result and outward sign of something that happened prior to the ordinance. As we fulfill our obligation to partake in an ordinance we obey Christ and show publicly what has happened inwardly. The believer’s baptism is an outward expression that is symbolic of the inward cleansing or remission of sins that has already taken place.
The Lord’s Supper is done in remembrance and participants communally eat the bread and drink the cup that are symbolically representative of the body and blood of Jesus.

I am aware that you might disagree with me. My intent is not to diminish your view of these things, I just point out the differences in theology.

Thank you for the wonderful and kind post. I try to disagree agreeably on issues that Christians have honest differences. I just wanted to share with my Catholic siblings that Protestant have vary different views on the sacraments. Here is a contrasting view from the Westminster Confession.

 

[izoid]

I never said that John Calvin beileved the Catholic view. However, his views are quite different than other Reformers. Do you mind posting Luther’s view on the subject of communion?

I am not aware of the details of Luther’s teaching, I was never a Lutheran. I do know, however, that his teaching is closer to the Catholic teaching than that of Calvin and Reformed theology.

 

[izoid]

I try hard to see a remnant church beyond the various branches of Christianity. I’m not sure what hateful speech your are talking about?

You just posted it in #81. Did you forget already? Do you agree with Calvin on the issues in post #81?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Thank you for the wonderful and kind post. I try to disagree agreeably on issues that Christians have honest differences. I just wanted to share with my Catholic siblings that Protestant have vary different views on the sacraments. Here is a contrasting view from the Westminster Confession.

CHAP. XXVII. - Of the Sacraments.

1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.
2. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
5. The sacraments of the old testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism.

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.
7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

 

[2nd_Adam]

CHAP. XXIX. - Of the Lord’s Supper.

1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.
2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

 

[greggy53]

… We don’t have to adhere to everything that John Calvin believed. The standard for Reformed Theology is the Scriptures and not John Calvin. The Reformers had some very essential diffrences in their views of the sacraments.

Bingo! You get to pick and choose what you want to believe and what you don’t. So, confusion abounds, and churches split like amoeba’s every time someone disagrees with what the preacher says. Hopelessly divided, this is the lasting result of the so-called reformation.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I am not aware of the details of Luther’s teaching, I was never a Lutheran. I do know, however, that his teaching is closer to the Catholic teaching than that of Calvin and Reformed theology.

I think I need to take a break for the rest of the day. Since you came from a Protestant Baptist background, I think you might be quite surprised how different Reformed and Lutheran views on communion are as compared to your Baptist background.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Bingo! You get to pick and choose what you want to believe and what you don’t. So, confusion abounds, and churches split like amoeba’s every time someone disagrees with what the preacher says. Hopelessly divided, this is the lasting result of the so-called reformation.

That’s a cheap shot since there is quite a bit of variance in what Catholic Christians posted on the subject on the Eucharist on this thread alone.

 

[joshua1]

Other than the fact that this is in no way traditional, the main reason is the risk of spilling the Precious Blood is too great. The more times you pour, the more chances to spill

Generally, no. They have stations set up so that more than one cup is used

Another thing to keep in mind, is that catholics believe that the wine is the actual blood of christ. At the end of Mass, all the vessels has to be purified by the priest. All those “Little cups” would have to be purified by an ordained priest or deacon, or an instituted acolyte. So not practical. Not to mention the chance of possible profanation of his body and blood.

 

[izoid]

I think I need to take a break for the rest of the day. Since you came from a Protestant Baptist background, I think you might be quite surprised how different Reformed and Lutheran views on communion are as compared to your Baptist background.

I find your comments to be very sarcastic and disingenuous. You are the one that attends the Baptist church, where my background was heavily Calvinistic. You misrepresent, lie, about this and you do so knowingly. Once you false ecumenism is exposed you retreat to your pattern of personal misstatements.

You make claims, I post quotes from Calvin himself. You post the Wesmister Confession, which supports everything I have said, but deny my claims to be true.

You can muddy the water all you want. THe fact remains that protestants do not believe the same as Catholics regarding the Eucharist. It is irrelevant how you do think as it is vastly different than Catholics. Your favorite thologians attack the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and I find that unacceptable. By doing so you are attacking the very heart of Catholic worship and are attacking Christ Himself. I for one will not sit back and be silent when you do.

 

[izoid]

That’s a cheap shot since there is quite a bit of variance in what Catholic Christians posted on the subject on the Eucharist on this thread alone.

It is not a cheap shot, it is the truth and it is the legacy that the reformers have left.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I think I need to take a break for the rest of the day. Since you came from a Protestant Baptist background, I think you might be quite surprised how different Reformed and Lutheran views on communion are as compared to your Baptist background.

What are your beliefs about in regards to communion?

 

[greggy53]

That’s a cheap shot since there is quite a bit of variance in what Catholic Christians posted on the subject on the Eucharist on this thread alone.

Really like what? We all believe and adhere to what the Church teaches about the nature of the Eucharist. There is no division there. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches ijn that respect then you are not Catholic. Opinions on the technical application and distribution are open for discussion, and can change with the times and Diocese But not the sacrament itself.

 

[izoid]

CHAP. XXIX. - Of the Lord’s Supper.

1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.
2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
4. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

Adam----You are aware of the Heidelburg Cathechism correct. Since it contains the teachings of the Reformed Church I was pretty sure you were.

According to it the Catholic Mass is “condemnable idolotry”. Were you aware of that? What is it, do you think, that makes the mass such? How do you feel about it?

 

[izoid]

Hey Adam----I don’t think you are reformed at all. I think you have some deep seated presbyterian beliefs. Are you aware of the differences between the Reformed Church and the Presbyterians?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Really like what? We all believe and adhere to what the Church teaches about the nature of the Eucharist. There is no division there. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches ijn that respect then you are not Catholic. Opinions on the technical application and distribution are open for discussion, and can change with the times and Diocese But not the sacrament itself.

What percentage of 1 billion Catholics believe the official Catholic view of the Eucharist?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Hey Adam----I don’t think you are reformed at all. I think you have some deep seated presbyterian beliefs. Are you aware of the differences between the Reformed Church and the Presbyterians?

LOL… you got me… please tell me.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

What percentage of 1 billion Catholics believe the official Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Truth isn’t determined by vote. If it were 1%, the Eucharist would be still be true because it’s an objective reality.

So what are your views?

 

[izoid]

LOL… you got me… please tell me.

Westminster…Heidelburg…i am not so sure, there are so many of you Protestant sects to keep track of. It is sooooo confusing.

I was hoping you could tell me. Since protestantism is cafeteria Christianity, would it be possible to hold to free will and assurance of salvation?

 

[izoid]

What percentage of 1 billion Catholics believe the official Catholic view of the Eucharist?

It would have to be 1 billion.

Since I had to make up a number I thought I might as well aim high.