D
Dhugz
Guest
You’re right and its also a way to convert them into the Catholic Faith, since they are interested to our faith.
- Status
H
holyghost
Guest
There are many ways to convert to the faith, such as prayer, studying scripture/CCC, attending Mass, RCIA, or some other priestly guided formation process.
However the Eucharist should never be received prematurely. Personally for me, having to wait to receive the Eucharist deepened my conversion and faith. Let’s respect and follow the Church’s teaching on this.
po18guy
Well-known member
Luke 9:23 and Matthew 16:24 say it perfectly: “If a man would follow me, let him first deny himself, take up his cross (daily), then come, follow me”
D
Dhugz
Guest
Most practice here in the Philippines, many protestants attended a burial mass they usually follow the gestures of the catholics and they received communion.
But I agree that we should follow and obey the teachings of the Church, but the truth is it hard to tell that them.
H
holyghost
Guest
I actually wish that priests/laity would be more diligent during “general assemblies” such as burial or wedding masses, where there is a higher likelihood of non-Catholic attendance, by making a charitable disclaimer before the mass begins.
D
Dhugz
Guest
I hope so.
P
PJM
Guest
***My dear friend in Christ;
It may be your “humble opinion” BUT DID YOU KNOW it is a hersesy you are recommending?***
Other Christians and Communion
catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion
“The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).
"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "
Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30).”
THIS IS A GRAVE MATTER AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY:thumbsup:
T
Taestron
Guest
I never understood if a belief in the Spiritual Presence of Christ or even consubstantiation satisfied the requirement for belief in the Real Presence of Christ. But if it must be full blown transubstantiation, why? I guess John 6: 51-59 might be seen to rule out the doctrine of spiritual presence, but as Zwingli was overfond of quoting “the flesh is no help at all” a few verses later (v. 63). So if we pretended the unity issue didn’t exist, could I “safely” receive Communion if I believed in the Spiritual Presence of Christ or consubstantiation?
D
Dhugz
Guest
I agree, but in the real practice, Catholic Priest allow all who attend the Holy Mass to partake the Real Body of Christ, whether those catholics who is under in grave sin or a protestant specially in burial mass.
But honestly, before i am very strict to tell to anyone that only catholics will receive the Communion, but you know that some protestant churches also allowing their members to attend Catholic Mass because they said that its the same. In many cases, most catholics do not confess, even they are in the state of grave sin they will always receive the communion. If the Catholic Priest allowing them to receive Christ in the form of Host then we dont have the right to forbid anybody to partake the communion.
Again our Church is not that much strict as protestant cults, in the end the Church will also agree that those who incidentally unconsciously dishonoring Christ By receiving him, as to whether they are protestants and did not confess, still they will be judge according to their conscience and Knowledge. We, who read the Catholic Catechism are oblige to follow or all what we read regarding the rules of the Church. Since we all know that we should confess before receive the communion then we must do it. We are educated much in Catholic Teachings, it should strictly applied to us, God knows what are doing, He knows what is in our hearts and mind. God is merciful right?
po18guy
Well-known member
If the flesh is of no avail, then Christ’s death on the cross did not save us! Clearly Herr Zwingli was guilty of private interpretation on this one. Is there a difference between Christ’s flesh and our own? There had better be, as neither you nor I can save anything - on the cross or off.
P
PJM
Guest
NO! Because it is as Christ Himself and FIVE authors of the NT Testify: Really and truly the Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus! here’s the rest of the story.
Here friends is the ‘Rest of the Story:”
The Protestant position as I understand it is anchored on verse 63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [RSV]
Rebuttal:
This very passage is explained by Jesus as being a reference NOT to cardinal flesh; but His soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body.
#1. Understood correctly Jesus Himself [who is Spirit and truth] Jn. 4:23-24. So He speaks of Himself; and His soon to be Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity.
#1. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” [Obviously thinking cardinal-body]
[43] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; [48] I am the bread of life. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [obtain Grace] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [Again cardinal body]
#2. Notice Jesus does not recant His Teaching: rather He explains it again.
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man [who is GOD!] and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
#3. Admittedly the Apostles have a distinct advantage of understanding. Both from participation in the “Last Supper” where they were appointed “Priest” [Do this in memory of Me] and a three year education of life with the Son of God.
55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
#4. Christ could not be more clear or more specific.
[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
#5. Jesus Lets them go having discerned there lack of Faith and understanding. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
#6. Jesus goes to tell them that they have a wrong and only human understanding. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
#7. Jesus then ask the Apostles: Do you wish to leave me too? No further explanation; only a challenge to there Faith and correct understanding. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
And the response confirms Christ words as Literally True; and affirms a high degree of faith in His Spoken Word…. [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
#8. This is immediately a Chief Dogma of Christ. Accepted, lived and Faithfully practiced and TAUGHT: Mt.26-28; Mk.14:22-24; Lk.22:19-21; John Six; Paul 1st. Cor. 11:22-29.…
#9. Ist. Cor. 11: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
Notice not [any] “bread” BUT “THE BREAD”, not [any] “wine” “BUT THE WINE”
#10. And take note of the final statement: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Meaning beings God’s judgment upon themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!
T
Taestron
Guest
Forgive me for not setting up quotations, this would be much too much work for this. So allow me to briefly respond to your very thorough argument, PJM.
It would seem that your argument did not answer my question but rather was intended to target a remembrance view of the Eucharist. I believe that Zwingli was misled in his mere remembrance view but sadly this view has come to dominate Protestant views. Yet, Consubstantiation and Spiritual Presence are not the same as the remembrance view. If both can be believed as they are structured, they both state believers are really consuming Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. First, Consubstantiation because the actual body and blood of Christ are present with, under, and through the bread and the wine. Second, Spiritual Presence in its more mystical presentations states that believers are transported into heaven where they feed on the “Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body” of Christ. I would like to know why these views (so structured) are not considered really and truly the presence of Christ? As your argument is written I do not see why these views do not satisfy your argument. Is there any defects within these views of which I am not aware which would explain why Catholic doctrine rejects them?
It would seem that your argument did not answer my question but rather was intended to target a remembrance view of the Eucharist. I believe that Zwingli was misled in his mere remembrance view but sadly this view has come to dominate Protestant views. Yet, Consubstantiation and Spiritual Presence are not the same as the remembrance view. If both can be believed as they are structured, they both state believers are really consuming Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. First, Consubstantiation because the actual body and blood of Christ are present with, under, and through the bread and the wine. Second, Spiritual Presence in its more mystical presentations states that believers are transported into heaven where they feed on the “Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body” of Christ. I would like to know why these views (so structured) are not considered really and truly the presence of Christ? As your argument is written I do not see why these views do not satisfy your argument. Is there any defects within these views of which I am not aware which would explain why Catholic doctrine rejects them?
P
Peter_J
Guest
That would also be true, however, if you attended a liturgy at an Orthodox church, or even certain Protestant churches.
P
PJM
Guest
OK; maybe I can help?
FROM Father John A. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:
CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.
The REALITY is not “co-existance”; NO; the REALITY is The Catholic-Consecrated HOST REALLY is [by itself] the REAL Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ:thumbsup:
Your second option of being transported to heaven is simply fictional and the result of an active immagnation; W/O and biblical or theological foundation:blush:
**Isa.55: 8 -9 **“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.”
2.[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
The “Last Supper” took place at a SADER meal: Passover… the Bread and Wine in a real sense become the very Body of Christ; the same Body that died on the Cross. Which is why the Eucharist is a “RE-Presentation” of the same and idential sacrifice Christ made for us> It present time and time again the same ONE Sacrifiece of Christ; who too could only die one time.
Isa.29: 16 ” You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
**Isa.64: 8 **“Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand.” AMEN!
Hope this clearifes it for you?
God Bless,
pat/PJM
The Eucharist and the Trinity are two inexplicitable Mysteries that manifest the Love of Our God for there Created Humanity/
Isa.43 Verses 7and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.” AMEN!
The practice of ones religion is called 'Faith" because NOT everyting can be understood by human minds; but because Faith; Hope and Love are ALL possibilities of humanity; we can CHOOSE to believe and reap the rewards of doing so.
T
Taestron
Guest
OK, but what is the rationale for saying this. If it is just because the Church says so, that is fine, but this line of reasoning should only be used as a last resort, especially in apologetics.
Calvin’s Institutes IV.17, you might be surprised at how careful and scriptural his rational is for the spiritual presence. Of course that doesn’t mean it is less “fictional” but again I would suppose that the Church has some official reasoning for stating that this view is false.
I understand that there are mysteries. But sometimes Christians are too quick to pull out that paradox and mystery cards when then are viable avenues of explanation to explore. If consubstantiation or spiritual presence arguably explain the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist just as well as transubstantiation, then there should be some rationale to rejecting them other than flat out stating they are false.The practice of ones religion is called 'Faith" because NOT everyting can be understood by human minds; but because Faith; Hope and Love are ALL possibilities of humanity; we can CHOOSE to believe and reap the rewards of doing so.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
This is not the thread to bring this up. We have someone who is not converting at present and does respect our Eucharist enough NOT to partake, and here you are, reassuring him that it’s just FINE to partake! Please stop repeating the heresy. If your priests are doing this on a widespread scale, then they are doing the people a great disservice to say the least.I agree, but in the real practice, Catholic Priest allow all who attend the Holy Mass to partake the Real Body of Christ, whether those catholics who is under in grave sin or a protestant specially in burial mass.
But honestly, before i am very strict to tell to anyone that only catholics will receive the Communion, but you know that some protestant churches also allowing their members to attend Catholic Mass because they said that its the same. In many cases, most catholics do not confess, even they are in the state of grave sin they will always receive the communion. If the Catholic Priest allowing them to receive Christ in the form of Host then we dont have the right to forbid anybody to partake the communion.
Again our Church is not that much strict as protestant cults, in the end the Church will also agree that those who incidentally unconsciously dishonoring Christ By receiving him, as to whether they are protestants and did not confess, still they will be judge according to their conscience and Knowledge. We, who read the Catholic Catechism are oblige to follow or all what we read regarding the rules of the Church. Since we all know that we should confess before receive the communion then we must do it. We are educated much in Catholic Teachings, it should strictly applied to us, God knows what are doing, He knows what is in our hearts and mind. God is merciful right?
po18guy
Well-known member
Since the Christian faith is a matter of obedience, what other rationale is needed? What other method do you suggest? Science can neither prove nor disprove matters of faith. We are speaking of the supernatural realm here, not the natural. Christ Himself confirmed to me that He is present in the Holy Eucharist. Yet, that serves as proof of nothing to you. In my case, the Church teaches it, Saints have died for it, and Christ Himself has confirmed it to me. Why do you think I suggest that you go into the true presence of Christ and seek your answer?
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli et al, despite their advanced intelligence, education and experience, all violated a core biblical principle: private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20. This cannot be overcome, if you believe and follow the bible. Neither can 2 Peter 3:16. Peter, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also teaches a crucial lesson in 2 Peter 3:17. His second letter is short, but extremely powerful. And inspired. 495 years ago, someone ignored that, ignored God’s word to man, and we have had division and error upon error ever since. A tragedy for Christ, and a victory given to the evil one.
The fact is that consubstantiation or spiritual presence do not. Both are novel, recent, innovative approaches which attempt to explain a supernatural phenomenon which conveniently disagrees with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. And the Catholic, too.
T
Taestron
Guest
Well, it is precisely because I am Protestant that I desire some sort of rational defense of transubstantiation as the only proper way to view the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I have heard apologists from Catholic Answers state explicitly that the authority issue is the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. Well, at the moment I think like a Protestant in this regard. Right now I am exploring whether or not the CC’s teachings are trustworthy or not, so I want reasons for why the Church rejects something that seems (at least on the surface) just as plausible and supported by Scripture. I know that sounds like an arrogant Protestant, but at the moment, it is the only way I know how to explore spiritual matters. But you do raise a good point. This discussion has gone far afield in my search. Sorry for making it a philosophical discussion.
I do intend to take up your suggestion about adoration.P.S. For anybody who is interested. I found this calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/ that offers a good explanation for the support of transubstantiation in the Church fathers.
- Status