On Holy Communion

[SteveVH]

But what have YOU done, Steve? YOU are charged with spreading the Kingdom?

Not that I have to prove anything to you but just so you know I am a youth minister teaching teenagers about our Lord and have been doing that for 12 years now. I help with RCIA in teaching the faith to those interested in joining our Church. I am a music minister. I personally send enough money to Haitti to build two houses each year and I help at “Loaves and Fishes” feeding the hungry in our community. What do you do?

I have stated nothing in this instance, Steve…I only gave scripture. Which one of us is providing interpretation of that scripture and which is merely providing the passage - verbatim - in context and in order?

And for what purpose did you provide those quotes?

I shouldn’t need to tell His sheep “these are the words of the Lord (praise be to God)”, because His sheep should recognized His words whenever spoken, correct?

You were using the words of Christ as if they were your words. No quotation marks, no “Jesus said”. Of course I recognize the words or I wouldn’t have called you on it to begin with.

By the way, I’m 55 years old, not 5 years old. Please stop the condescending attitude.

Did they? Are you sure? Regardless, if - like you claim - the Kingdom is present in the Eucharist, how many new people have you brought to eat it…or do you selfishly eat your portion every Sunday or Feast rather than sharing it with someone who hasn’t had it?

Well let me just say this. I’d put my money on those who were at the scene, rather than your interpretation 2000 years later. I’d put my money on theologians such as Augustine, Thomas Acquinas and a slew of other Catholic theologians rather than you.
And yes, I act like a huge pig during Eucharist selfishly eating all the hosts and drinking all the wine so that no one else can have any. Give me a break. Your arrogance and your ignorance are getting tiresome.

But they had two different wills, Steve. Also, Christ doesn’t know everything the Father knows, does he?

Please give me your source showing that the Father and the Son have two different wills.

 

[Lapey]

What about this one? Is it ok?

You will not hear that from a Catholic who understands the meaning of the Eucharist. Nor will you hear a priest say it either, not if he truly believes the doctrine.

See its not an intelectual thing to understand the real presence, it is a spiritual thing. I can’t say that I always believed this matter, bread and wine, truly became Jesus’ Body and blood. But i do now, by the Grace of God I know. My mind still doesn’y understand it fully but I know.

Someone who knows and believes will not call Jesus a “wafer”, simply because It is now Him! We are not going to understand everything, thus the verse from John’s Gospel Jn 6:63.

The flesh will not understand, but spiritually we can know if we are open. Yes this is a paraphrase, not a quote.

 

[Lapey]

I find this offensive coming from a “Catholic.”

Me too…but the phrase dead horse comes to mind.

 

[SteveVH]

But they had two different wills, Steve. Also, Christ doesn’t know everything the Father knows, does he?

While in the garden at Gethsemani Jesus prayed “if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Not my will but yours be done.” Jesus is fully human and fully divine. In his human nature He is horrified at what is about to happen to Him. It would have been very strange indeed for Him to feel any different. He was human in every respect except sin and therefore felt a natural repulsion to suffering and death. Especially since He was free from sin which is the cause of death. He submits His human will to the Father’s will. In one sense you could say “see they have two different wills”. But Jesus is unique in all the universe. He is fully human, but He is also fully divine. In His human nature, He subordinates His will in complete obedience to His Father’s will. In His divine nature, His will is the Father’s will. Remember, there is only one God, not three. The three Persons of the Trinity act in complete unity, never independently of each other. As far as Jesus not knowing everything the Father knows, it is for the same reason. In His human nature, He only revealed what the Father wanted Him to reveal.

The Trinity is a deep mystery, beyond human comprehension. There are some who cannot accept a mystery and so reduce it to something they think can understand completely. They are trying to pour the ocean into a bucket. If they don’t “get it” then it can’t be true. The Trinity is a revealed truth, not something discovered or invented by man. God has revealed what He wants us to know at this point in our journey. You can accept it or reject it. I choose to accept it.

 

[larkin31]

You will not hear that from a Catholic who understands the meaning of the Eucharist. Nor will you hear a priest say it either, not if he truly believes the doctrine.

I did not ask who would say it, and now you are simply stating only that a Catholic who said such isn’t a Catholic who understands. But that is simply changing the definition to fit your point of view.

I typed “communion wafer” into google and got 36,000 hits. None of them understand, huh?

Here is one that “doesn’t understand”, apparently: christian-communion-supplies.com/Communion_Wafers_p/rcwcw.htm&Click=1686?gclid=CKj0oJyg_Z8CFd1L5Qod82yInA

You should write them to explain their insults to Christians.

 

[kempo1]

I take the wafer at Communion but I have been known to pass on the wine because I really don’t like the taste of wine all that much. I would much rather the priest used grape juice. I like the taste of grape juice and then I wonder sometimes about people who have had problems with alcohol and how one sip could trigger a desire for more. And I’m not so sure about drinking after hundreds of people from the same cup. I’d like to see grape juice in paper cups. I’ve had Catholics refuse to offer me their hand in the sign of peace because they did not want to touch my hand I’m guessing because of germs.
Anyway, because I have the capacity to understand both beliefs, a literal physical RP and a symbolic and spiritual presence, let me try to explain the non literal view to my fellow Catholics since we Catholics already understand the Catholic view.

ECFs don’t necessarily carry a lot of weight with some. And just as some Catholics do not take the 6 day, 24 hr evening and morning was a day Creation literally or a whole host of other things in the Bible literally, then some Christians do not take "This is my body, eat and drink my body and blood literally.

They may believe because Christ had not died yet at the Last Supper the supper was symbolic and they emphasize the “do this in remembrance of me” part.

Jn 6 they may take to be symbolic because Christ is talking alot about believing in Him. Eat, chew, knaw, all of that symbolic for “eat”. Chew on this. Knaw at it. Really really believe in it. It being Christ came down from heaven to sacrifice His life on the cross for us all. Those walking away walked away from that belief. The belief of Jesus being sent from heaven to save us all. In Jn 6:63 Christ says what gives life is God’s Spirit. And hopefully God’s spirit is with us all as we celebrate.

And some people do have trouble with the idea of eating flesh and blood even with the Catholic teaching of glorified flesh and blood.

So anyway no need for my fellow Catholics to come bashing me. In the spirit of the forum we are on and the thread, I post only in hope this helps us to understand each other better. Catholics understanding other beliefs and visa versa. It’s all a matter of faith, interpretation, and belief for all. And in unity with all who believe in what He did for us on the cross, I pray may His Peace shine upon us all.

for 38 years i have been Catholic and have received holy communion. I sit near the back of the church and drink after hundreds of people and have never gotten sick not one time why? because it is truely Christs body and blood. Someone please explain why i have never ever gotten sick not one time if you believe it is not true.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

“He that believes in me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life”[John 6:47-48]

“Your fathers ate mana [real bread] in the wilderness and yet still died. This bread comes from heaven, that a man may eat and not die.” [John 6:49-50]

Then comes John 6:51…

But verse 51 specifies even more.
*
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”*

The flesh that Jesus gave is certainly not symbolic, but quite literal, lest our belief be in vain, which leads me to believe he is speaking of actual flesh, his body. Additionally, he also specifies here what the bread actually is - IE, his flesh. When he says “I am the living bread” or “I am the door…” etc, it is symbolic. It should also be noted that in the points where Jesus calls himself “the door” he explains rather clearly what he’s talking about.

1. Then Jesus explains what he means that “His Words are Spirit”; emphasis found on “they” [His words] are life that feed.
2. Then…only then…do they leave.

NOTE: They DID NOT leave upon disgust - but AFTER Jesus explained that “the words that [HE] speaks to [them] are Spirit” [John 6:63].

I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. After the Jews question “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” he doesn’t say immediately “Carnal men, how can you not be understanding what I’m telling you? I’m being symbolic!” he says “Amen, my body is true food and my blood is true drink.”

That’s not offering an explanation, this is increasing their concerns about what they think is cannibalism. Indeed then he confirms “THIS is the bread that came down from heaven” - the bread and wine of Communion, his body and blood.

Also, I know they leave after verse 63 - but they still walk off seeming disgusted, not disillusioned, because they still didn’t understand what he was talking about. Not even the disciples did .

It wasn’t difficult…Ultimately, they left in dissapointment because they received nothing this time.

John 6:66 says “From that time [emphasis not mine] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

Note: From this verse “time” is emphasized in scripture, meaning ‘from that moment further’ AFTER explanation of his words

I still don’t see it. Depending on John 6:63 seems to be stretching it to depend on this to affirm a symbolic Communion. And indeed the disciples’ response seem to be one of confusion. They didn’t seem to understand the teaching either.

Plus, how can Jesus’ flesh and blood be “true food and true drink” and “Spirit and life” at the same time?

Incorrect, Fabius. God said, “and lest man [who had just previously sinned] take of the tree of life and live forever”, and then God removed access to the tree of life [Gen 3:22] to cause physical dealth.

Physical death was not tied to Spiritual dealth, but an action of God to temporary fix the problem so that Spiritual death [true corruption] does not become “forever”.

It’s not incorrect because God initially told Adam not to touch the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge lest he die. Therefore Adam clearly would not have died had he not consumed the fruit. The Tree of Life was an additional tree which, had he eaten from that, would have restored his immortality.

What if I say that I am a direct decendant from Peter, who’s words and history was exclusively passed down through my family to me? You have no choice but to believe me [or not], correct?

No, because the Gnostics made similar assertions, and the Church responded to this by offering its documentation proving its Apostolic Succession. If you read the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, they both mention this. You only have a claim of descent from Peter, these early Fathers actually corresponded either with the apostles or with students of those apostles (who were themselves Fathers of the Church) and unanimously affirm the apostolicity of the churches in particular cities.

Yes. But note that John explains when Jesus does not. John does not explain when Jesus has given an explanation like in John 11:14 for Lazarus.

Prior to this, Jesus Speaks of Lazarus “sleeping” in John 11:11. If Jesus left his words here (and if explanation was needed) John would’ve chimed in, but he didn’t because Jesus gave explanation himself [Lazarus is “Dead”].

The case of Lazarus was surely less complex than that of John 6.

If we can only claim a symbolic presence in Holy Communion because of a vaguely interpretable John 6:63, it doesn’t seem that solid to me.

 

[Adonia]

for 38 years i have been Catholic and have received holy communion. I sit near the back of the church and drink after hundreds of people and have never gotten sick not one time why? because it is truely Christs body and blood. Someone please explain why i have never ever gotten sick not one time if you believe it is not true.

Exactly! And what about the Eucharistic miracles that have happened through the ages?

 

[CMatt25]

I see you’re still discussing this.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. **Under the consecrated species of bread **and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present

Someone should probably correct the catechism. Christ is consecrated BREAD, ie WAFER.

 

[Joshua27]

Not that I have to prove anything to you but just so you know I am a youth minister teaching teenagers about our Lord and have been doing that for 12 years now. I help with RCIA in teaching the faith to those interested in joining our Church. I am a music minister. I personally send enough money to Haitti to build two houses each year and I help at “Loaves and Fishes” feeding the hungry in our community. What do you do?

I have been charged to reunited our Father’s house. There are so many who have only a portion of the Truth, and they hold so tightly onto their specific piece that they fail to see the big picture or realize that their potion is slipping through their fingers…and I will be held responsible if I don’t share what I know; to make sure “those who’re supposed to hear this” hear it.

I go around to those who are not interested in joining any church and I do exactly as I said a few post ago: share Holy Communion - who is God’s Spirit - with them; I am also minister in music [small world huh]; And I also correct those who have missed the mark, even after years of misunderstanding…Although I haven’t given as much money to Haitti to “build two houses” [even though I’d wonder if your specific description was a bit self-aggrandizing, (as I’m sure you know that it’s not about the amount, right)].

And for what purpose did you provide those quotes?

For you to read them, Steve…to read the words of the man/God you follow. Now interpretation followed that prayer [as when we pray today, it’s pretty straightforward]. He prayed this prayer, speaking the exact words he needed to speak to convey the exact meaning He wanted. He was talking to his Father about something very simple and yet very profound. You interpreted his prayer as if it needed interpretation, and yet claim that I am trading dangerous ground.

You were using the words of Christ as if they were your words. No quotation marks, no “Jesus said”. Of course I recognize the words or I wouldn’t have called you on it to begin with.

By the way, I’m 55 years old, not 5 years old. Please stop the condescending attitude.

Are you sure, Steve? “Try as I might, I cannot make sense out of this statement”, were your words. What did you call me on? If anything, you’ve shown that you didn’t recognize the words given…which is fine…this is what the body does; correct ourselves and grow further.

Speaking of growth. With all respect, do you think your earthly age matters to me as it concerns your spiritual growth? The youngest Joseph commanded his older brothers. Today, you follow a man[from divinity] who’s earthly age was only (approx) 30 years old…younger than you. So does age matter? Did it matter back then? Of course it mattered to the Pharisees as they were older and probably felt as you now do with me, upon being corrected on scripture they believed they knew. The Spirit knows no age, and the Kingdom of God is akin to little children. Be as little children for theirs is the Kingdom. How do you think the father will speak to you when you meet him? He will not speak to you as Sir or Youth Minister or father, but as child, because all are babes in Christ. And it is written that “He will return the same way He left”, which means He will return at the height of his ministry (at approx. 30yrs old)…but we know his spirit is much older, so what’s it matter?

The question is ‘can you humble yourself enough to take correction from someone my age’? Do you believe you know the full truth yet? Are you so proud - as you tout your “Haitti house” money and living past half a human lifetime (and possibly having children my age) - that you can not consider the possiblility that maybe you’ve missed the mark on a few things?

Well let me just say this. I’d put my money on those who were at the scene, rather than your interpretation 2000 years later. I’d put my money on theologians such as Augustine, Thomas Acquinas and a slew of other Catholic theologians rather than you.
And yes, I act like a huge pig during Eucharist selfishly eating all the hosts and drinking all the wine so that no one else can have any. Give me a break. Your arrogance and your ignorance are getting tiresome.

All of those whom you’ve cited were not around when Jesus shared this supper, so their interpretation is the same as mine: based on something they never experienced first hand. But your last snippet really saddens me. Now who is arrogant? No one suggested that you gobble up all of the host and wine…but I challenged you to think about who has not received it and offer it to them. In fact, it would be better if everyone practiced giving their piece to another during the ceremony, as this would be a better representation of Holy Communion.

Please give me your source showing that the Father and the Son have two different wills.

I see that you provided your own source and gave an explanation. But often its said "Jesus has two nature: human and divine, but now can he have his divine nature is so many - across all Christianity - say that “He emptied himself of his divinity”. “Empty” means “gone”; not present, doesn’t it…unless we’re also redefining terms like “empty”?

Be as a child, Steven, because “you’re right”; “The Trinity” is not simple. What’s a simpler explanation, Steve? What is the real truth? Which least resistant path does the life-giving water flow?

 

[larkin31]

I see you’re still discussing this.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. **Under the consecrated species of bread **and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present

Someone should probably correct the catechism. Christ is consecrated BREAD, ie WAFER.

Very interesting.

Thanks.

And it says that “Christ is present” through the “consecration”. Now that is a different kind of claim.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see you’re still discussing this.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. **Under the consecrated species of bread **and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present

Someone should probably correct the catechism. Christ is consecrated BREAD, ie WAFER.

The Catechism is correct. It’s some individual views that are skewed, because of misintpretations, or other misunderstandings, sometimes purposefully and sometimes for other reasons.

 

[Lapey]

I did not ask who would say it, and now you are simply stating only that a Catholic who said such isn’t a Catholic who understands. But that is simply changing the definition to fit your point of view.

I typed “communion wafer” into google and got 36,000 hits. None of them understand, huh?

Here is one that “doesn’t understand”, apparently: christian-communion-supplies.com/Communion_Wafers_p/rcwcw.htm&Click=1686?gclid=CKj0oJyg_Z8CFd1L5Qod82yInA

You should write them to explain their insults to Christians.

Larkin-
“I did not ask who would say it, and now you are simply stating only that a Catholic who said such isn’t a Catholic who understands. But that is simply changing the definition to fit your point of view.”

Lapey-
I don’t care what you asked, this debate was not between you and I, and it was between Cmatt and me. I gave my reason and my explanation as simply as I could;

Communion wafer = unconsecrated host

Eucharist = Jesus

And no that is not changing the definition to suit anything more than to say what the Catholic Church teaches. BTW, you are by your label as agnostic, one who doesn’t really know, telling me a devout Catholic what the Eucharist should be called???

Larkin-
“I typed “communion wafer” into google and got 36,000 hits. None of them understand, huh?”

Lapey-
No, they understand but you on the other hand I’m not so sure. I asked you to google “wafer god”, not communion wafer (big difference).

Here is one example of the evil that the devil works through others to persecute Jesus’ Church;
hol.com/~mikesch/monstr.htm

Lapey-
The wafer to be used in the mass for the celebration of the Eucharist is a wafer. This is not and never was what we were discussing. To say it was would be insincere. Go back and read the original post in which our friend used the term, “when I go up to receive the wafer…”

If one is going up to receive communion, he is going to receive the Eucharist, not a wafer and wine. That is fact and being a person who admittedly doesn’t know if there even is a God, who are you to question me on this one? It’s pretty simple; you don’t know what you are talking about here so drop it. I gave you opportunities to get out of this but you want me to speak incorrectly and I will not. Now please move on.

Larkin-
“You should write them to explain their insults to Christians”

Lapey-
No, I shouldn’t…we should just move on, unless you care to learn the truth.

 

[Lapey]

I see you’re still discussing this.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. **Under the consecrated species of bread **and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present

Someone should probably correct the catechism. Christ is consecrated BREAD, ie WAFER.

Read the whole thing, the accidents of the elements of bread and wine remain.

The Eucharist is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity, and the accidents of the elements such as taste, smell, feel etc, remain This is called transubstantiation, not it’s still a wafer! Now please move on, this is getting redundant!

 

[Lapey]

Very interesting.

Thanks.

And it says that “Christ is present” through the “consecration”. Now that is a different kind of claim.

Claim???

 

[Lapey]

I see you’re still discussing this.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. **Under the consecrated species of bread **and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present

Someone should probably correct the catechism. Christ is consecrated BREAD, ie WAFER.

This would be CCC 1413 in its entirety, not fragmented.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

There is plenty more if you want to read the teachings and beliefs in its entirety.

Christ is truly present in the “species” of bread and wine, the accidents of the elements remain. “there takes place a change in the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ…and the wine into the substance of His blood.”

I may not fully understand this mystery either, but I believe it whole heartedly. This Eucharistic bread you say can be referred to as a wafer is Jesus and He is no wafer, He is my God!

Now can we move on???

 

[CMatt25]

Read the whole thing, the accidents of the elements of bread and wine remain.

The Eucharist is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity, and the accidents of the elements such as taste, smell, feel etc, remain This is called transubstantiation, not it’s still a wafer! Now please move on, this is getting redundant!

Who said 2 days ago he was going to back off and since then has said he is moving on and we’re beating a dead horse? And yet here you’re still at it. Lapey, if you can not understand that the consecrated wafer is the body of Christ and consecrated is an adjective and the WAFER is the noun, then I can do no more. And you can have the last word since you seem to think you know everything. God bless.

 

[Lapey]

Who said 2 days ago he was going to back off and since then has said he is moving on and we’re beating a dead horse? And yet here you’re still at it. Lapey, if you can not understand that the consecrated wafer is the body of Christ and consecrated is an adjective and the WAFER is the noun, then I can do no more. And you can have the last word since you seem to think you know everything. God bless.

not sure what to say, just sad is all…

 

[larkin31]

Larkin-
“I did not ask who would say it, and now you are simply stating only that a Catholic who said such isn’t a Catholic who understands. But that is simply changing the definition to fit your point of view.”

Lapey-
I don’t care what you asked, this debate was not between you and I, and it was between Cmatt and me. I gave my reason and my explanation as simply as I could;

Communion wafer = unconsecrated host

Eucharist = Jesus

And no that is not changing the definition to suit anything more than to say what the Catholic Church teaches. BTW, you are by your label as agnostic, one who doesn’t really know, telling me a devout Catholic what the Eucharist should be called???

This began by YOU telling another poster that it was sacrilege to refer to the item that is consecrated as a communion “wafer.” I have NEVER told you what YOU should call it. I don’t care WHAT you call it, including “unleavened bread” or “chip” or “host.” I am simply rejecting YOUR criticism of a very widely practiced terminology by many many Christians and Catholics to refer to the material item as a “communion wafer.”

Secondly, I did not google “wafer god” since it is clearly a pejorative term and I agree that that is a rude thing to say or write (although I take no great offense). Why should I google THAT term just to find out how many rude jerks there are out there? Your claim was that refering to the item in the Eucharist as a wafer was sacriligious and offensive. CMatt certainly did not call God a “wafer God,” nor would he (or even I) EVER do that.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Pending review by moderator Rachel Malloy.