Please follow the only simple rule:

[greggy53]

Ok, so tell me how this works…apart from the rare anecdotal tale, no RCs are falling sick and dying b/c of partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. So what’s the deal? Is it:.

I guess the reason that people who partake unworthily aren’t “falling asleep” these days is the same reason people aren’t dropping dead from holding back on their tithes and offerings like the Acts of the Apostles records, and I’m sure there is plenty of that going on in RC, and all the Protestant churches. Any ideas?

I recall from my Pentecostal days that the minister would admonish the congregation not to partake in the sharing of bread and grape juice if their heart wasn’t right with God. I used to wonder," if it is just a symbol why the big fuss?" When I asked the pastor he referred me to the scripture you folks are talking about. I then read the entire chapter and came to the conclusion that Paul believed in the holy Eurcharist. No symbolism there…I asked the pastor about it but never got a satisfactory answer. Not from him or any other Protestant for that matter.

 

[jpaul1953]

It would sound odd for Jesus to say that because all of them knew that it was forbidden to eat flesh and blood of a human. Plus, Jesus doesn’t spell out the way it would be done. I can not understand why he let the people who left go like that either. Why wouldn’t he say don’t worry I am not asking you to eat my arm or something. Just bread. Don’t get upset.

Hi Strawberry Jam,

Decent point! But I believe you must read on to Chapter 6:64-65: “But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And He said: “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by my Father.”

Jesus knew many were following him because of the miracles. Please read the Chapter from the beginning. The same people that Jesus had just fed the fish and bread to from just a few fish and loaves of bread walked away because of what he said. The disciples
Jesus is speaking of are not rock solid believers. He shocked them with His remarks and they left, His Apostles still believed and they still stayed.

Jesus wanted to shock newer disciples to show how they were only there for the miracles, not for ’ picking up their crosses to follow Him’.

May God guide us always.

jpaul1953

 

[Radical]

I guess the reason that people who partake unworthily aren’t “falling asleep” these days is the same reason people aren’t dropping dead from holding back on their tithes and offerings like the Acts of the Apostles records, and I’m sure there is plenty of that going on in RC, and all the Protestant churches. Any ideas?

That observation demonstrates exactly my point (I thought of mentioning it, but then was too lazy to look up how to spell Ananias(sp?) and Saphira(sp?)). In one instance it is entirely about God deciding when, where, what, who, why and how to discipline and it is not at all about the existence of a RP. In the other instance it is entirely about God deciding when, where, what, who, why and how to discipline and it is not at all about giving less to the church than one claims to have given to the church.

I recall from my Pentecostal days that the minister would admonish the congregation not to partake in the sharing of bread and grape juice if their heart wasn’t right with God. I used to wonder," if it is just a symbol why the big fuss?" When I asked the pastor he referred me to the scripture you folks are talking about. I then read the entire chapter and came to the conclusion that Paul believed in the holy Eurcharist. No symbolism there…I asked the pastor about it but never got a satisfactory answer. Not from him or any other Protestant for that matter.

God disciplines his children for their benefit when they have acted inappropriately. Inappropriate behavior can involve symbols and most anything else…absolutely no need for a RP. Why the big fuss? We are talking about the approved symbol of the ultimate sacrifice by God…Do you think it is appropriate to suggest that the requirement to treat such a symbol with the dignity it deserves is merely a “big fuss”? I don’t think you do.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Ok, so tell me how this works…apart from the rare anecdotal tale, no RCs are falling sick and dying b/c of partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. So what’s the deal? Is it:

a) RCs are an extremely worthy lot these days;
b) modern medicine has thwarted God’s attempt to discipline;
c) the RP existed at the time of Paul, but ain’t around no more; or
d) God exercises his prerogative as to when he will discipline and that exercise is not dependent on a RP?

I’d go with (d) myself.

The key word is “transform”. In all of your examples an actual and observable transformation occurs…Christ never said anything about a change w/o a change. The efforts of certain ECFs’ and the RCC’s efforts to explain the transformation w/o a transformation only compound the problem.

you need to correct your thinking. The Catholic church is not only “Roman Catholic” although the Vicar of Christ (the Pope) is in the city of Rome, there are also Eastern Catholics who are not referred to as Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics are Latin Rite. That being said…

Disclaimer: I do not recommend those with Celiac disease or allergies to wheat and gluten do this. I also hesitated to post this but you’re so insistent that communion is simply a symbol.

My boyfriend has Celiac disease. He is NOT asymptomatic as others on here have tried to claim. When he has gluten he GETS SICK.

The miracle of the Holy Eucharchist being the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is that when he takes communion (either in “wafer” form from Latin Rite, or a “chunk” of bread in wine in Eastern Rite) he does not get sick. He has no reaction. None.

We noticed this when he received communion this past Christmas eve after 5 years of not having had communion and his diagnosis of Celiac disease. Everyone was braced for the impact of him getting sick. Everyone was amazed that he did not get sick. Even though at my Latin Rite parish there are a few who go up after the congregation for communion in wine form, he’ll go up with the rest of the congregation. He’ll tell you why he doesn’t get sick, “That’s because it is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Yes, Christ does chose who he will strike down or not, who He will heal, or not. I’m not insisting you believe, nor do I really care whether you do. You have your own rationalizations for picking and choosing. It is said it is because of the Holy Eucharist, Christ’s body and blood, that draws people to the Catholic church. And he will continue to do so.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Radical;5427583]Ok, so tell me how this works…apart from the rare anecdotal tale, no RCs are falling sick and dying b/c of partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. So what’s the deal? Is it:

a) RCs are an extremely worthy lot these days;
b) modern medicine has thwarted God’s attempt to discipline;
c) the RP existed at the time of Paul, but ain’t around no more; or
d) God exercises his prerogative as to when he will discipline and that exercise is not dependent on a RP?

I’d go with (d) myself.

I would go with E) I can not judge the worthiness of anyone to receive and am not able to make the judgment on if one is sick or dying as to if that is from them receiving in an unworthy state or not.

I do know that when I do not feel that I am in a state of grace and needing to make sacramental confession, I do not go up to receive the Eucharist until I have done so. Be that because of a Mortal sin or the accumulation of venial sin.

The key word is “transform”. In all of your examples an actual and observable transformation occurs…Christ never said anything about a change w/o a change. The efforts of certain ECFs’ and the RCC’s efforts to explain the transformation w/o a transformation only compound the problem.

The transformation occurs today just as it did in the upper room what Christ gave the apostles was his body and Blood yet still looked as bread and wine. I am not god so I do not know nor does my human perception allow for me to truly grasp and understand how this happens. Just the same as I do not know how to make a Tree.

 

[Radical]

We noticed this when he received communion this past Christmas eve after 5 years of not having had communion and his diagnosis of Celiac disease. Everyone was braced for the impact of him getting sick. Everyone was amazed that he did not get sick. Even though at my Latin Rite parish there are a few who go up after the congregation for communion in wine form, he’ll go up with the rest of the congregation. He’ll tell you why he doesn’t get sick, “That’s because it is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

What shall I say to this? I look at a Catholic site such as this and note that obviously many Catholics with celiac disease must react to the gluten…so if your boyfriend’s lack of a reaction is due to the Real Presence, what is the deal with those who do react and why is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommending that celiacs either try low gluten wafers or partake of the wine and avoid wafers altogether? Is there only a RP when your boyfriend participates? Perhaps God is granting a special protection to your boyfriend…but that would seem to be about God’s prerogative (again) and not about a RP. I can’t help but note that similar stories abound amongst Protestant charismatics…and yet, they don’t claim that a RP is involved.

Yes, Christ does chose who he will strike down or not, who He will heal, or not. I’m not insisting you believe, nor do I really care whether you do. You have your own rationalizations for picking and choosing.

It is really not much of a rationalization…its kinda like asking, "Is that a loaf of bread or a human body sitting over there on the grocery shelf?’’…“Hmm, let’s see. It looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and taste like bread. Without any rationalization, I’ll say its bread.” .

 

[Radical]

Even the Orthodox acknowledge Peter as the First Bishop of Rome. St. Linus was the 2nd.

You say this as if the Orthodox would have something to gain and nothing to lose by challenging the alleged apostolic succession of Peter at Rome that is recorded by some church fathers. Also, what I really would want to know is what modern Orthodox historians have to say about Peter as the first bishop of Rome.

As for Devotion to the BVM not ever being held to be a mater of salvation until it came under attack there was never a need to write about it and it continued in oral Traditions.

How convenient…no need to write about Mary? Her continued importance and active role in the salvation of mankind is second only to the role of Christ himself. Paul, in his epistles urges us to pray, but neglects to urge us to pray to Mary, or remind us to pray to her. Paul discusses salvation from every angle, yet fails to mention Mary’s role as mediatrix and (almost) co-redemptrix. According to modern Catholics, Mary seems to have a part to play in all aspects of salvation, but somehow her vital contribution fails to get mentioned by the authors of the NT and in the extant writings of the first generation of Christians…surely you can see how the average outsider would be highly skeptical of your explanation.

The Church can not teach something that is not true.

Well I know that the CC claims that it can’t (officially) teach error and that, if one asks for a proof of this, the CC offers a circle: The CC can’t teach error b/c the CC says so (or b/c the CC says that these verses say so).

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You say this as if the Orthodox would have something to gain and nothing to lose by challenging the alleged apostolic succession of Peter at Rome that is recorded by some church fathers. Also, what I really would want to know is what modern Orthodox historians have to say about Peter as the first bishop of Rome.

How convenient…no need to write about Mary? Her continued importance and active role in the salvation of mankind is second only to the role of Christ himself. Paul, in his epistles urges us to pray, but neglects to urge us to pray to Mary, or remind us to pray to her. Paul discusses salvation from every angle, yet fails to mention Mary’s role as mediatrix and (almost) co-redemptrix. According to modern Catholics, Mary seems to have a part to play in all aspects of salvation, but somehow her vital contribution fails to get mentioned by the authors of the NT and in the extant writings of the first generation of Christians…surely you can see how the average outsider would be highly skeptical of your explanation.

Well I know that the CC claims that it can’t (officially) teach error and that, if one asks for a proof of this, the CC offers a circle: The CC can’t teach error b/c the CC says so (or b/c the CC says that these verses say so).

I am not really interested in what modern historians say some 2000 years after after the fact, I will go with what has been written since the events occurred. Just going on what some are saying today is an attempt to rewrite history to fit what that person wants. We have people in political power in this country trying to do this now and it only been 200 years. after 2000 years is it now wonder that those that do not wish to give themselves over to what God gave us and Jesus left us with in the Apostolic Church find need to rewrite and through into doubt what has been taught both in oral and written Traditions.

I can do nothing about you or anyone else being skeptical. It is a matter of faith and jsut as with Proving God to the Atheist I can not give you the faith to see what you do not want to see.

So my challenge to us is to prove that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ , that Peter was never in Rome and was not the Pope. that Mary is not mediatrix and (almost) co-redemptrix (and please on those look up what is said by the Church about what that means not for some anti Catholic web site).

 

[greggy53]

That observation demonstrates exactly my point (I thought of mentioning it, but then was too lazy to look up how to spell Ananias(sp?) and Saphira(sp?)). In one instance it is entirely about God deciding when, where, what, who, why and how to discipline and it is not at all about the existence of a RP. In the other instance it is entirely about God deciding when, where, what, who, why and how to discipline and it is not at all about giving less to the church than one claims to have given to the church…

It’s a possible explanation, but not necessarily THE explanation. God is not walking around with a ruler (Like sister Zeda used to) waiting for us to step out of line so he can whack us on the hands. The Protestants I have known all have that skewed notion of God. Like Pat Robertson on TV once saying that God gave the Israeli Prime minister a stroke, or heart attack or something because he was making concessions with the Arabs. I try my best to tell my protestant friends that God doesn’t do that to people, but their preachers have been ramming it down their throats for so long I don 't think they can comprehend a God who is not vengeful.

God disciplines his children for their benefit when they have acted inappropriately. Inappropriate behavior can involve symbols and most anything else…absolutely no need for a RP. Why the big fuss? We are talking about the approved symbol of the ultimate sacrifice by God…Do you think it is appropriate to suggest that the requirement to treat such a symbol with the dignity it deserves is merely a “big fuss”? I don’t think you do.

Well, one should be reverent, and respectful when taking the bread and grape juice, but admonishing us not to take it if we are in sin is something different. It’s ok to be in sin, and be in church. It’s ok to be in sin and sing the hymns, and participate in just about any protestant ceremony that I ever saw, but the only time I ever was admonished not to participate was before their once a month bread and grape juice thing…It’s like they know that something special is happening, or that some thing special **should **be happening, “So we better be a little cautious about how we do this.” It was like they were a little nervous about the whole thing. Perhaps that’s why many Protestant churches only do it once a month. Like an obligation…“He said to do it in memory of him, so we’d better do it even if we don’t believe it’s real, but just in case it is you’d better make sure your heart is right with God, or he’ll zap you.”

 

[GodIsGracious]

What shall I say to this? I look at a Catholic site such as this and note that obviously many Catholics with celiac disease must react to the gluten…so if your boyfriend’s lack of a reaction is due to the Real Presence, what is the deal with those who do react and why is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommending that celiacs either try low gluten wafers or partake of the wine and avoid wafers altogether? Is there only a RP when your boyfriend participates? Perhaps God is granting a special protection to your boyfriend…but that would seem to be about God’s prerogative (again) and not about a RP. I can’t help but note that similar stories abound amongst Protestant charismatics…and yet, they don’t claim that a RP is involved.

Yes, it is recommended by the Catholic church that those with Celiac do not partake in the “bread form” of communion. I said that so you’re not saying anything new.

What can you say? Obviously nothing, really. I was pointing out the fact that God DOES indeed, determine who he strikes down or not. Yes, its IS God’s perogotive.

It is really not much of a rationalization…its kinda like asking, "Is that a loaf of bread or a human body sitting over there on the grocery shelf?’’…“Hmm, let’s see. It looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and taste like bread. Without any rationalization, I’ll say its bread.” .

You’re trying to demean what we have to simply a loaf of bread found off a grocer’s shelf. We don’t just make a grocery run on Sunday morning. This statement is a great insight into how you view the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Liraco]

that’s the oldest one in the book. Sorry, it doesn’t wash with me.

Oldest one in the book? You mean the Bible? (Sorry, I just had to, it made me smile. Not meaning to offend or make fun of you.)

The key word is “transform”. In all of your examples an actual and observable transformation occurs…Christ never said anything about a change w/o a change. The efforts of certain ECFs’ and the RCC’s efforts to explain the transformation w/o a transformation only compound the problem.

You say it yourself, a change DOES happen but it’s one we can’t even begin to understand entirely. We do know that if God says to the bread to become His body, it obeys.

You make a good point on noticing the accidents of the bread and whine staying the same, you could test every single atom of it and you’ll see that it’s merely bread. But since when does anything in our physical world explain that of spiritual nature? Because the body has nothing that you could call a soul, does that invalidate its existence? It’s almost like I’m talking to an Atheist, but I won’t presume that any of our words will change your mind or heart. That’s for Him to decide and so I’ll pray for you to find truth (and hope you’ll do the same). God bless.

 

[Sellers1]

Oldest one in the book? You mean the Bible? (Sorry, I just had to, it made me smile. Not meaning to offend or make fun of you.)

You say it yourself, a change DOES happen but it’s one we can’t even begin to understand entirely. We do know that if God says to the bread to become His body, it obeys.

You make a good point on noticing the accidents of the bread and whine staying the same, you could test every single atom of it and you’ll see that it’s merely bread. But since when does anything in our physical world explain that of spiritual nature? Because the body has nothing that you could call a soul, does that invalidate its existence? It’s almost like I’m talking to an Atheist, but I won’t presume that any of our words will change your mind or heart. That’s for Him to decide and so I’ll pray for you to find truth (and hope you’ll do the same). God bless.

I think that you are badly mistaken about my beliefs. I completly believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. What did I ever say to make you think otherwise? Or are you like most Catholics and wrongfully believe that all Protestants are the same?

 

[GodIsGracious]

I think that you are badly mistaken about my beliefs. I completly believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. What did I ever say to make you think otherwise? Or are you like most Catholics and wrongfully believe that all Protestants are the same?

Well, honestly speaking, it is because in our experience when we run across a Protestant, said Protestant generally doesn’t believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist as Catholics do. Most Protestant worship services, when and if they have communion there, have juice and crackers because the last meal is simply a symbol to them.

It is not that we “wrongly believe all Protestants are the same.” Infact, we KNOW all Protestants are NOT the same. All we have to do is look at the thirty five THOUSAND and counting Protestant denominations to KNOW that they are not all the same. Generally speaking, to “default” to thinking that any particular Protestant does not believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist as Catholics do is not an error with meeting any one particular Protestants. Until that Protestant says otherwise, we’re usually correct.

Contrast that to Catholicism. While you’ll have an individual Catholic who may say some things about what they believe, Catholicism, all over the world is exactly the same. The rites may be different, but if it’s Catholic, it’s the same.

I have learned on this board that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence similar to Catholics so if I hear a Protestant is of one of those faiths then I will most likely, now, default to thinking of that that particular individual will most likely believe in the Real Presence.

You have “Protestant” listed as your religion. So, to accuse a Catholic of “wrongfully believing” is incorrect. We’re generally correct about a Protestant and their views of the Holy Eucharist. To find someone who believes otherwise is usually in the minority.

 

[Radical]

I am not really interested in what modern historians say some 2000 years after after the fact,…

IMHO, you should be.

I will go with what has been written since the events occurred.

well, Peter was allegedly the bishop of Rome around 60 AD,…when is that claim first recorded? Why is that claim valid when it is quite some time after the fact? It is the historians of 2000 years later that analyze that first claim and the other early records to arrive at the likeliest possibility of what actually happened.

Just going on what some are saying today is an attempt to rewrite history to fit what that person wants.

They want accuracy (aka truth) …and that is a good thing.

So my challenge to us is to prove that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ , that Peter was never in Rome and was not the Pope. that Mary is not mediatrix and (almost) co-redemptrix (and please on those look up what is said by the Church about what that means not for some anti Catholic web site).

Proving a negative is often an impossibility…especially to the satisfaction of the adherent. The study of history is often about establishing the “most likely” and so, someone like you who demands proof will always have the “wiggle room” necessary to hold to your chosen faith. I trust God will bless you…(nevertheless)

 

[Radical]

Like Pat Robertson on TV once saying that God gave the Israeli Prime minister a stroke, or heart attack or something because he was making concessions with the Arabs. I try my best to tell my protestant friends that God doesn’t do that to people, …

Please proceed with my blessings

Well, one should be reverent, and respectful when taking the bread and grape juice, but admonishing us not to take it if we are in sin is something different. It’s ok to be in sin, and be in church. It’s ok to be in sin and sing the hymns, and participate in just about any protestant ceremony that I ever saw, but the only time I ever was admonished not to participate was before their once a month bread and grape juice thing…It’s like they know that something special is happening, or that some thing special **should **be happening, “So we better be a little cautious about how we do this.” It was like they were a little nervous about the whole thing. Perhaps that’s why many Protestant churches only do it once a month. Like an obligation…“He said to do it in memory of him, so we’d better do it even if we don’t believe it’s real, but just in case it is you’d better make sure your heart is right with God, or he’ll zap you.”

Perhaps you should be more charitable with your assesment of Protestants. Most view the Bible as the supreme authority. Have you considered that their cautious behaviour exists b/c the bible tells them to examine themselves first?

 

[Radical]

You’re trying to demean what we have to simply a loaf of bread found off a grocer’s shelf.

No, you tried to demean my view as a “rationalization”…and I merely pointed out that (in this case) no rationalization on my part need be involved…it can be as simple as an observation.

We don’t just make a grocery run on Sunday morning.

I know…(I strongly suspect that) you use wafers and not bread…I haven’t seen wafers for sale at the grocers.

This statement is a great insight into how you view the Holy Eucharist.

At this point, how can you have possibly stumbled upon an insight? I view the bread as a symbol. This has been clear from the start. I offered an example of my thought process…it really seems that you try to be offended.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Radical;5434965]IMHO, you should be.

I have no interest in rewriting history. I will stick with what has stood through all to years. Not what modern so called historians with agenda have to says.

well, Peter was allegedly the bishop of Rome around 60 AD,…when is that claim first recorded? Why is that claim valid when it is quite some time after the fact? It is the historians of 2000 years later that analyze that first claim and the other early records to arrive at the likeliest possibility of what actually happened.

I would say that the claim first come into effect in around 60 AD. when Pter was in Rome and continued on with all the Popes

They want accuracy (aka truth) …and that is a good thing.

No they want there " truth" which may or more than likely have little to do with what really took place.

Proving a negative is often an impossibility…especially to the satisfaction of the adherent. The study of history is often about establishing the “most likely” and so, someone like you who demands proof will always have the “wiggle room” necessary to hold to your chosen faith. I trust God will bless you…(nevertheless)

Ok let me restate it then Prove that the Eucharist is bread and wine only. Show that Peter was else were and did not make it to Rome. and did you even bother to look at what the Church teach regarding mediatrix and co-redemptrix? but all the evidence from history points to Peter being in Rome. It seems that it is you that is left with the wiggle room to Doubt. God has blessed ever so much more than I deserve. Praise and Glory to Him always. I pray that the blinders be removed form yours and all those that they may see the Wholeness of the Truth and Faith that Christ Gives us through His Holy Catholic Church.

God Bless you

 

[GodIsGracious]

No, you tried to demean my view as a “rationalization”…and I merely pointed out that (in this case) no rationalization on my part need be involved…it can be as simple as an observation.

I know…(I strongly suspect that) you use wafers and not bread…I haven’t seen wafers for sale at the grocers.

At this point, how can you have possibly stumbled upon an insight? I view the bread as a symbol. This has been clear from the start. I offered an example of my thought process…it really seems that you try to be offended.

LOL! I wasn’t offended. I assure you. Also, it is rationalization on your part.

 

[greggy53]

Perhaps you should be more charitable with your assesment of Protestants. Most view the Bible as the supreme authority. Have you considered that their cautious behaviour exists b/c the bible tells them to examine themselves first?

But why? That is the point. St Paul is telling the Corinthians not to partake unworthily-Why? Because he states emphatically before that, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of our Lord. If I seem uncharitable it’s because I get frustrated when Protestants take the one statement to heart, but ignore the other statement that gives the reason for it! I get frustrated because nearly every Protestant I have talked with does this. It’s like they all walk around with blinders on which only allow them to see the scriptures they were taught to see. The fullness of truth in the scriptures has been revealed to the Church, but their is an obstinacy, and rebellion that I see time and time again when talking with my Protestant brothers. As Jesus prophesied in the Gospel of John: " But some of you believeth not."

 

[Bill_Pick]

Paul writing in 1 Cor 11:23-30

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”