Is belief in communion as a symbol a sin?

[AspiringServant]

hi rc,

from the council of trent :

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

i am astounded that some of the answers are skirting around this. If you deny the real presence, you are committing a sin against faith and are putting yourself outside of the church. Jesus is saying, “will you also leave me?” as he said to his apostles after many disciples left him following his statement on eating his flesh and drinking lhis blood.

We are not expected or obliged to understand all the tenets of our faith, but we are obliged to accept them; this is the submission of our mind to god’s revelation. Many have suffered martyrdom for affirming their belief in the real presence. Don’t be a half-baked believer.

Verbum

ps catholic answers has a good article on the subject : catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

thank you!

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RC,

From the Council of Trent :

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

I am astounded that some of the answers are skirting around this. If you deny the Real Presence, you are committing a sin against faith and are putting yourself outside of the Church. Jesus is saying, “Will you also leave me?” as he said to his apostles after many disciples left him following his statement on eating his flesh and drinking lhis blood.

We are not expected or obliged to understand all the tenets of our faith, but we are obliged to accept them; this is the submission of our mind to God’s revelation. Many have suffered martyrdom for affirming their belief in the Real Presence. Don’t be a half-baked believer.

Verbum

PS Catholic Answers has a good article on the subject : catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Hey Verbum and others defending our most sacred sacrement. I too agree with you that the Lord is made present in body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. I have experienced many blessings and wisdom from our Lord in holding this gift in the center of my heart. I certainly don’t wish to diminish any of the power of Jesus, nor could I if I did wish too. I also feel the Lord has given each Catholic an obligation to give witness of this fullness we have from Him in all our thoughts, fellowship, obedience, prayer, and acts of charity. And I strive for this more and more.
I know and searched many scriptures that give us the knowledge that Jesus’ physical body, in the sacrament and other ways he used His hands, breath, spit, clothes to transfer His Graces to us. One I rediscovered recently is the two disciples on the road to emmaus. Their eyes were kept from recognizing Him. He told them all about Him in scripture and still it wasn’t until He broke the bread, blessed it and gave it to them when their eyes were opened!
I don’t think it was a trick that He tested everyone when He first told them they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Even the worst of the disciples was distinguished at this teaching! To me it is a great sign of the true Church. But I acknowledge a difficulty in the amount of faith it takes to accept this doctine. Is it maybe possible some disciples who remained with Him thought He was speaking metaphorically? Moreover, there are brothers and sisters receiving Him in Word and excecising much faith in their life to do His will.
I believe it is a lack of faith which results in rejecting the Catholic sacrament of His Body and Blood. But is lack of faith always a sin? Does everyone who rejects the true Presents have pride keeping them from it?
I like your defense of our Sacrament. It is not wishy washy. But there are complicated aspects of the “denominations” that I can’t judge accross the board. Perhaps leaders and those who specifically attack our faith, but so many just don’t know.
Does that make sense?

Peace and thanks for your fellowship,
ps. this is my first thread because it is the most important to our faith

 

[TEPO]

Source?.

newadvent.org/cathen/05032a.htm
Discipline of the Secret
*
“…all Christians were taught the whole truth, there was no esoteric doctrine, but they were brought to full knowledge slowly, and precautions were taken, as was very necessary, to prevent heathens from learning anything of which they might make an evil use. A very striking example of the way in which the discipline worked may be found in the writings of St. Chrysostom. He writes to Pope Innocent I to say that in the course of a disturbance at Constantinople an act of irreverence had been committed, and “the blood of Christ had been spilt upon the ground.” In a letter to the pope there was no reason for not speaking plainly. But Palladius, his biographer, speaking of the same incident in a book for general reading, says only, “They overturned the symbols” (Chrys. ad Inn., i, 3 in P.G., LII, 534; cf. Döllinger, “Lehre der Eucharistie”, 15). It is, no doubt, on this account that almost all the early apologists, as Minucius Felix, Athenagoras, Arnobius, Tatian, and Theophilus, are absolutely silent on the Holy Eucharist.”*

 

[TEPO]

After re-reading the article though, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Blood was addressed as “symbols” only in public documents… Within that Church, when that incident took place, those who “overturned” the Blood probably would have known themselves that it was the blood of Christ.

…So I was wrong.
My apologies.

Peace,
TEPO

 

[rcwitness]

After re-reading the article though, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Blood was addressed as “symbols” only in public documents… Within that Church, when that incident took place, those who “overturned” the Blood probably would have known themselves that it was the blood of Christ.

…So I was wrong.
My apologies.

Peace,
TEPO

No harm,
I think this points out that many converts to Christianity who saw or see salvation within the gospels just have trouble making the full assent of Catholic teaching and tradition. They are so afraid they will be giving God’s deserved authority to men and subsequently avoid the powers intrusted to the Church. I at some point in my conversion saw the Lord and His promises in the Sacraments and not any power that men in an of themselves posses.

Michael

 

[rcwitness]

No harm,
I think this points out that many converts to Christianity who saw or see salvation within the gospels just have trouble making the full assent of Catholic teaching and tradition. They are so afraid they will be giving God’s deserved authority to men and subsequently avoid the powers intrusted to the Church. I at some point in my conversion saw the Lord and His promises in the Sacraments and not any power that men in an of themselves posses.

Michael

By this i mean the authority to concecrate the bread and wine, calling down the Holy Spirit to transubstantiation. To the proud, new zealous christian coming from secular doubt, it seems just too much. So in an effort to give the Spirit more glory, the command of Christ and testimony of tradition is compromised.

Michael

 

[TEPO]

No harm,
I think this points out that many converts to Christianity who saw or see salvation within the gospels just have trouble making the full assent of Catholic teaching and tradition. They are so afraid they will be giving God’s deserved authority to men and subsequently avoid the powers intrusted to the Church. I at some point in my conversion saw the Lord and His promises in the Sacraments and not any power that men in an of themselves posses.

Michael

Very true and I agree, but I’d like to clarify that within the article I quoted, the truth about the Eucharist was kept a secret from non-Catholics only and not Catholic Church members who would have been advanced enough in the faith to be given that information…

Whether the Blood was spilled purposely by heathens, carelessly by catecumens unaware, or accidentally by Catholic Church members, I’m still unsure of… But in any case, since that incident was made known, the Church kept the truth about the Sacraments a secret for protection purposes… For a period of time after that.

Not that this pertains to the OP at all anymore… .
…I guess I was just confused about this when I chimed in…

 

[TEPO]

By this i mean the authority to concecrate the bread and wine, calling down the Holy Spirit to transubstantiation. To the proud, new zealous christian coming from secular doubt, it seems just too much. So in an effort to give the Spirit more glory, the command of Christ and testimony of tradition is compromised.

Michael

Aah, thanks for clarifying.
…that’s a good point, I get it now.

 

[rcwitness]

Very true and I agree, but I’d like to clarify that within the article I quoted, the truth about the Eucharist was kept a secret from non-Catholics only and not Catholic catechumens who would have been advanced enough in the faith to be given that information…

Whether the Blood was spilled purposely by heathens, or accidentally by Catholic catechumens I’m still unsure of… But either way, since that incident was made known, the Church kept the truth about the Sacraments a secret for protection purposes… For a period of time after that.

Not that this pertains to the OP at all anymore… .
…I guess I was just confused about this when I chimed in…

Oh, i see. Well i’ve thought before that there seems to be even a secrecy regarding the eucharist within the scriptures. And perhaps because, like you allude, it isnt a tool for evangelism. It is for the Bride who consented her will (cuz were all female in relation to God) in obedience to the faith. The whole point being to strive for our Lord making us worthy to receive, of course knowing we aren’t without His grace.

 

[TEPO]

Oh, i see. Well i’ve thought before that there seems to be even a secrecy regarding the eucharist within the scriptures. And perhaps because, like you allude, it isnt a tool for evangelism. It is for the Bride who consented her will (cuz were all female in relation to God) in obedience to the faith. The whole point being to strive for our Lord making us worthy to receive, of course knowing we aren’t without His grace.

Wow! I never thought of it that way.

…so in a way, the body and blood of Christ creates new life in us… Like ‘fertilization’ of the soul.

 

[WoundedIcon]

The reason why one can only receive Holy Communion at the age of reason is probably to be able to recognize the real presence prior to receiving it. If not, it would be like feeding the body of Christ to a cat which did not know what it ate.

Careful there, the Eastern Catholics give communion to infants and the Church is totally fine with that.

 

[rcwitness]

Wow! I never thought of it that way.

…so in a way, the body and blood of Christ creates new life in us… Like ‘fertilization’ of the soul.

Perhaps
I think we are born of the Spirit, though. But we would not fully know the Spirit without the Son incarnate. The benefit of His flesh has so many misteries to it. But all is built on the faith that God’s Spirit and Jesus’ flesh and blood are equal! The word became flesh.
I am kindof a young Catholic, so I don’t want to get in over my head. But like you, it seems, i’m enjoying learning about the blessings of Mass!

Thanks bro,
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

Careful there, the Eastern Catholics give communion to infants and the Church is totally fine with that.

Does Eastern mean under the Vatican See? Cuz that practice does sound odd.

Sorry, not so privy to all these things.
Thanks,
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

Wow! I never thought of it that way.

…so in a way, the body and blood of Christ creates new life in us… Like ‘fertilization’ of the soul.

So, this is what makes me wonder about the denominations practicing a communion as a symbol! For the symbol theology, they are not receiving anything in the ceramony. It is more like a gesture, or something. They aknowledge the neccesity to receive His Spirit, but not His flesh. Is this separating the Word from His Flesh?
I do think they just don’t see how eating His flesh profits us. But this can never be proven. It is through faith. Not faith alone. Maybe faith first, but obedience must accompany. If we persist in the faith alone doctrine, it leaves us stuck in that point in time. But I don’t think many of these protestants don’t have genuine works of faith. But something is lacking in order for them to realize the unity of God’s Church. And it affects things in their agenda.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Does Eastern mean under the Vatican See? Cuz that practice does sound odd.

Sorry, not so privy to all these things.
Thanks,
Michael

No problem. Yes, they’re fully Catholic and united with the Roman church. They just have their own spirituality, liturgy, and theological style. The Byzantine Catholics these days are actually moving back toward their traditional practice of baptizing, confirming, and communing infants all at once. In the Catholic Church there is one western church – which is the Roman one – and 22 smaller eastern churches.