Lightly stepping around the table of the Lord

[mgrfin]

I just watched this Baptist minister on TBN, and he was preaching about Communion. It was Gregory Dickow.

I have never heard or seen a Baptist talk about the Eucharist, and actually 'receive Communion" on TV.

It was absolutely shocking. Blasphemy to us. He talked about the elements of Bread and Wine. We he showed up what we should do. He was seated at a normal kitchen table. He took, bread, and he said, if we don’t have unleaven bread, get regular bread.

He had a chalice too, and he told his listeners to take grape juice (not wine), and if we didn’t have grape juice, just take plain water.

Now all of a sudden, without ceremony, without words, without fanfare, without blessing, this was the ‘body and blood of Christ’.

Just eat it, and drink it, and it was communion. Tastetee bread and water???

He sold this communion set also, with tapes on his sermon, and maybe some form of cup. All for $35.

I don’t know of anybody who takes some Tastee bread, and water (lacking grape juice), that this is the body and blood of Jesus?

It’s a good gimmick. I haven’t seen Baptists doing this so far. It sure stretches the immagination. Maybe no more than saying OSAS. No more than saying we don’t have to do anything other than faith to get to heaven.

All these things give religion a bad name, and shame Jesus.

mgrfin

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Paul commanded us to discern the Body of the Lord.

If you don’t discern that his body is really there then you bring ondemnation on yourself just like paul said.

In other words if you don’t think his body is there then you don’t believe in Paul, the Bible, and you reject the Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible.

You don’t have a choice to believe His body is there or not–and that isn’t only because of what the Catholic Church teaches but what the Holy Spirit who is God teaches!

 

[Pophead]

All these things give religion a bad name, and shame Jesus.

mgrfin

I am sure they give religion a bad name and really have no part in this discussion which is to delicately consider this topic, as it is central and deeply controversial and brings out the judge in us all. In the end the only feather of judgment in this matter will needs be the Sacred Scripture and the Sweet Spirit of God. ( We are compelled to explore John’s Gospel and John 6, and avoid bringing in that which will deviate us from observing our Master showing us what is true truth.)


Pophead.

…what the Holy Spirit who is God teaches!

Amen!

 

[Pophead]

additional:

I was just knocking around the zoo, and discovered this rather interesting segment from the writings of St. Augustine, regarding the rules for interpreting commands and prohibitions.

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative.** If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative.** “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) *This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. *Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,”(3) one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,”(4) we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”–that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.”(5) The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, “help not a sinner.” Understand, therefore, that “sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

I think I am ready to begin to agree with St. Augustine, a few baby steps closer to seeing what is before us. We are only seeing things a frame at a time in slow motion, and then one day we will see as we are seen.

Salute,
Pophead.

 

[mgrfin]

Thank you so much for you contributions.

I am using a feather as my measure and so far I have not found one thing that will convince me to change my mind. Of course my only sourse of light are the Sacred Scriptures and specifically John’s Gospel, with particular attention to John chapter 6. Nothing like the true truth to keep one up all night.

Love,
Pophead.
:heaven:

I have read lots of feelings on this thread.

As Catholics we constantly wonder how Bible loving Christians arrive at a different view on the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, and the Eucharist - each of which is different.

I wrote a post today about the Baptist minister, Gregory Dickow, who preached on Communion on TBN. If he believes what he actually did on TV relative to receiving communion, then he just doesn’t have the Faith that we Catholics profess.

Taking ordinary Tastee bread (that’s no so far afield), but then he suggested a cup, not of wine, but grape juice, and consummed that. He said if you didn’t have grape juice, just take ordinary water.

Now, there was no ritual, no ceremony, no words of ‘consecration’, no prayer. It was really far out for me. It was something children might do in play, but not adults in worship.

It comes down to Faith. Faith is a gift of God. God has not given him the gift of Faith. Bread and Water around the kitchen table is not the Eucharist, not in reality, nor in any figurative sense. But some Christians actually practice this and call it Communion?

The words of John 6 now strike home more than ever before. We as Catholics should thank God for giving us a Priesthood, (as human as that is) a true and living sacrifice, the Real Presence among us, according to the Order of Melchisedek.(sp)

Luther reaped his reward for his infidelity, He opened the gates to everyone who wanted to believe what they want to believe. Bread and water can never be Coimmunion, or the Real Presence, or the Eucharist. John 6 in no way could be understood as such.
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

To Pophead,

I don’t know whether your post directed at me is sincere, and honest.

Wandering around the zoo, and coming on a obtruse text from St. Augustine is not my way of spending a Sunday afternoon.

You could have quoted Paul about how we now see darkly, as thru a mirror, but later, clearly, face to face.

I really feel it would be a wild goose chase to understand what you are trying to say, and to respond. I don’t mean to sound stand-offish, proud, or rude, but the passage and the assignment is a little beyond my interest. Sorry.

mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

additional:

I was just knocking around the zoo, and discovered this rather interesting segment from the writings of St. Augustine, regarding the rules for interpreting commands and prohibitions.

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.

If you like St. Augustine, how about the following sermon he preached to some who were just baptized:

St Augustine on the Eucharist

Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

Unquote.

Thank God for the one, true, catholic and apostolicl Church, back to its foundation.
mgrfin

 

[Pophead]

If you like St. Augustine,…

mgrifin,

Sure St. Augustine was pretty fine when it came to giving exacting rules of interpretation and applying the rules of grammar accurately and directly. I believe that both Jean Cauvin and Martin Luther who left the RCC for reasons of their own, attended the grand old Saints Monastery…??? I personally take my lead from Jesus Christ who it was who said the words we are attempting to understand…in John’s Gospel. This bread is on the table (John 6) and until someone gives an accurate presentation of the passage following the normative rules of interpretation, I am going to keep on posting passages like this one:

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.

24.** If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.** Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,”(3) one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,”(4) we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”–that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.”(5) The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, “help not a sinner.” Understand, therefore, that “sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

Pophead.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrifin,

Sure St. Augustine was pretty fine when it came to giving exacting rules of interpretation and applying the rules of grammar accurately and directly. I believe that both Jean Cauvin and Martin Luther who left the RCC for reasons of their own, attended the grand old Saints Monastery…??? I personally take my lead from Jesus Christ who it was who said the words we are attempting to understand…in John’s Gospel. This bread is on the table (John 6) and until someone gives an accurate presentation of the passage following the normative rules of interpretation, I am going to keep on posting passages like this one:

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.
Pophead.

Pophead:

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who took vows and was ordained a priest. John Calvin was a lawyer by profession, never was ordained, never took vows, or even stepped inside a Monastery.

Luther got into a game with the Church authorities. But he fixed the game. He changed the rules to his rules: now it was to be ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, and ‘sola gratia’. He was going to win this game. And if those changes didn’t work on the Church, well he just took the Scriptures and changed the text to fit his particular doctrine. So, in Romans 2:28, it became man is justified by faith ONLY. Of course, ‘sola fide’ is in context not in Paul, but in the Epistle you love to hate: St. James.

You quote to me some obscure passage from St. Augustine, the great Doctor of the Church, the Doctor of Grace, as we know him. The beauty of his life and his works is an inspiration to me. Your quote really has nothing to do with the topic and it points nowhere. I don’t really want to follow you down these dark passages that lead to a brick wall.

We were discussing the Eucharist, and I quoted to you, in rebuttal, a passage from Augustine, a simple sermon he gave to newly baptized, relating in very understandable terms that the bread and wine, having been sanctified by the Lord’s word, had become the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet, you still don’t believe in the Real Presence, in the true Eucharist.

Faith is a gift of God, and God has given you a certain measure. I cannot increase your measure. But look at yourself: searching out ‘obscura’, to send these papists scurring off in different directions. I won’t go there. Come back to the point, using your own quote from St. Augustine on interpretation. What is so difficult to understand in his sermon, short and simple as it is?
mgrfin

 

[Pophead]

…the Epistle you love to hate: St. James.

I hate St. James’ epistle ? I love St. James’ Epistle (probably the closest to the teaching of the Son of God.)

You quote to me some obscure passage from St. Augustine, the great Doctor of the Church, the Doctor of Grace, as we know him.

It is not an obscure passage and is part of St. Augustine’s teaching on Christian Doctrine. Book III Chapter 16.

Yet, you still don’t believe in the Real Presence, in the true Eucharist.

I don’t agree with the classical Roman Catholic position on the Eucharist (with particular attention to the literal interpretation of John chapter 6) < The passage quoted from St Augustine’s teaching on Christian Doctrine seems to be useful, though not in any way replacing a proper study of the Gospel of St. John, which is where I think one might need to start.

Faith is a gift of God, and God has given you a certain measure. I cannot increase your measure. But look at yourself: searching out ‘obscura’, to send these papists scurring off in different directions. I won’t go there.

If you are scurrying it is because of the true truth that lies before you in St. John’s Gospel. (specifically John 6)

Take your time, consider the words of the Master and let your heart come back and see what is before you.

Pophead.

 

[mgrfin]

I hate St. James’ epistle ? I love St. James’ Epistle (probably the closest to the teaching of the Son of God.)

It is not an obscure passage and is part of St. Augustine’s teaching on Christian Doctrine. Book III Chapter 16.

I don’t agree with the classical Roman Catholic position on the Eucharist (with particular attention to the literal interpretation of John chapter 6) < The passage quoted from St Augustine’s teaching on Christian Doctrine seems to be useful, though not in any way replacing a proper study of the Gospel of St. John, which is where I think one might need to start.

If you are scurrying it is because of the true truth that lies before you in St. John’s Gospel. (specifically John 6)

Take your time, consider the words of the Master and let your heart come back and see what is before you.

Pophead.

 

[mgrfin]

Pophead

I apologize for painting you with the brush of Luther, and I am glad you love St. James.

As for the literal interpretation of St. John, especially Chapter 6, 54 that is what Jesus wanted: “Amen, Amen I say to you: except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,you shall not have life in you.”.

I won’t quote to the succeeding verses for you already know them. The “amen, amen” is the buzzer warning, the alert signal - Jesus is about to say something important. Listen up!

As for St. Augustine, I am sorry but that is an obcure passage. I don’t have it anywhere in my library, or on the Internet, and I never heard anyone refer to it.

Yet, when I gave you Augustine’s simple, but powerful words on the Real Presence, the Eucharist, you just ignored me.

You are preaching to me to accept a symbolic meaning to John’s words. If you knew me, you would know that is not possible. You might as well ask the Church to drop the ‘anathemas’ of Trent regarding Luther’s heresy on Justification by faith only. It ain’t gonna happen. You might as well ask the Church to change its mind about Transubstantiation, the Real Presence, and the Eucharist. Aint gonna happen. Jesus gave to His Church this Sacrament to preserve til the end of time. No Luther, no Calvin, no Baptist, no Methodist, no unbeliever is going to cause her to alter her teaching.

The Eucharist is not a hard saying for us Catholics. It is our Joy, and our Treasure, and we will preserve it, live it, til the Lord comes again.
mgrfin

 

[Pophead]

:coffeeread:

Well, I guess this is certainly one of those topics where we will always be returning to what the Master has said, and asking for Him to open our hearts and minds by His Spirit to see and hear and understand the depths and the breadth and width and the height of the love of God in Christ Jesus.

I am off to do a little study before turning in. Oh, if only we had more time, too quickly we age and then like the mist are gone to fairer fields.

:bible1:

Pophead.

ps. Not symbolic, figurative as oppossed to literal. I accept you apology, but wonder if you are aware that Luther in his discussions with Erasmus became a lot less hostile on matters insignificant points of doctrine and in the end was only interested in the matter of ‘the will’. It also was apparent to me that Calvin was grappling with tremendous issues and in the end was only focussed on one really important thought, ‘the sovereign grace of God’. We have so much to learn about His mercy and His grace, we are so unworthy of His ever constant and ever faithful love.

Goodnight. Sweet dreams.

 

[mgrfin]

I think not, Pophead.

I am confirmed in my faith. If I have trouble with understanding a doctrine or a scripture, I turn to the Church for guidance, since Jesus has sent his Holy Spirit to be with the Church til He comes again.

mgrfin

 

[Pophead]

I think not, Pophead.

I am confirmed in my faith. If I have trouble with understanding a doctrine or a scripture, I turn to the Church for guidance, since Jesus has sent his Holy Spirit to be with the Church til He comes again.

mgrfin

I used to do this too.

One day I decided to ask the *Lord God *directly, mainly because I had asked everyone and everyone was arguing with everyone else and no-one seemed to reach agreement. It was then that I turned to the One who does not have any problems, and asked Him simply and directly. (early one morning) His answer was most direct and helpful. I have kept quiet about it, but it has been helfpul in understanding that the reason why so many things (sins) divide people is because it is arranged so as to cause us to look to the author and finisher of our faith for the answers.

It is just something He has done, to draw us to Himself, for we have been given all things in Christ.

Rest well, I know it is time for me to sleep now.

:tiphat:
Pophead.

 

[mgrfin]

Pophead,

I have been watching a lot of Evangelists lately. They are always saying that Jesus spoke to them. They have lots of private revelations.

But then again, they also do a lot of faith healing.

I believe the ‘Jesus talking thing’ as much as I do watching Benny Hinn heal someone.

If there’s money in it, Jesus is speaking to them, and they are doing a lot of healing. not!

If you think Jesus is speaking to you, think again. It is not Jesus,

mgrfin

 

[Pophead]

I have been watching a lot of Evangelists lately. They are always saying that Jesus spoke to them. They have lots of private revelations.

The Church History books are filled with terrible things that have been done in the name of Jesus. However, pointing fingers at others is generally not the best way to solve them. I personally do not watch tele-evangelists (cannot stomach it), but I trust that Jesus will open their eyes to the right way of living for Jesus in this life. He is the God of the Impossible, right?

But then again, they also do a lot of faith healing.

Oh, I know the name, ‘faith movement’ - sicknesses (heresies) are easy enough to detect, but a very different thing to understand and to correct. (I suggest you read as many variant Church Histories you can - especially you own) < Heresy entered the Church very early and it has been a problem we deal with with a humble spirit and meekness. ‘Vengeance is mine’, saith the Lord.

I believe the ‘Jesus talking thing’ as much as I do watching Benny Hinn heal someone.

The two are actually connected. My earliest recollections of this are when I was a young man (early twenties). There is genuine healing, and there is a real God who speaks to His children. I go for the latter.

If there’s money in it, Jesus is speaking to them, and they are doing a lot of healing. not!

Jesus taught very directly on this, the rich struggle to enter the Kingdom, and we are not to worship money, but to worship the Lord God in spirit and truth.

If you think Jesus is speaking to you, think again. It is not Jesus,

I am not a tele-evangelist, and do not practice faith healing.



Don’t you believe that the Spirit of God is in you ? Hearing and seeing visions, dreaming dreams are blessings that are not unusual to a genuine believer. Maybe not at first for everyone, but as we learn to live in the Spirit, we certainly will receive of the Lord. Don’t you believe in a spiritual life ?

To discern what is before us on the table of the Lord, requires that one is born of the Spirit. To interpret Scripture requires relative to this requires that we are born of the Spirit. When we approach Him with our carnal/natural minds we will come away confused.

Tread lightly and come to the quiet, He speaks and we are full. His words are spirit and life.

Sing, “Worthy, worthy, worthy…worthy was the Lamb that was slain.”

Pophead.
:knight1:

 

[LilyM]

I used to do this too.

One day I decided to ask the *Lord God *directly, mainly because I had asked everyone and everyone was arguing with everyone else and no-one seemed to reach agreement. It was then that I turned to the One who does not have any problems, and asked Him simply and directly. (early one morning) His answer was most direct and helpful. I have kept quiet about it, but it has been helfpul in understanding that the reason why so many things (sins) divide people is because it is arranged so as to cause us to look to the author and finisher of our faith for the answers.

It is just something He has done, to draw us to Himself, for we have been given all things in Christ.

Rest well, I know it is time for me to sleep now.

:tiphat:
Pophead.

He said plainly ‘eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood’ - and then equally plainly of the bread and wine that they WERE His flesh and blood.

That is how Paul seems to have understood it, certainly none of the Apostles appear to have disagreed with his interpretation. That is DEFINITELY what Augustine told his newly-baptised listeners.

What more do you need to look at?

 

[LilyM]

Don’t you believe that the Spirit of God is in you ? Hearing and seeing visions, dreaming dreams are blessings that are not unusual to a genuine believer.

Nor to a paranoid schizophrenic neither. So many have heard visions and dreamed dreams that were nothing other than the products of delusion - and don’t tell me you know enough to tell the difference between the two, they certainly didn’t!

 

[JimG]

The scriptural evidence for the real presence in the Eucharist is so overwhelming that it seems to me to require a preconceived mind-set to deny it. That evidence, coupled with the evidence of the church fathers and the universal belief of the Church for the next several millenia, would force me to accept that it was the belief of the Church from the beginning, even if I did not accept the idea myself.