Protestant Communion

[AlegreFe]

"FromTheCrossroa:

Thats not true. If it were, there would have never been councils like Vatican II that brought Protestant and Catholic churches much closer together. Most of the reforms Luther suggested were later adopted after the fact.

HUH? What are you talking about? The Council of Trent was done because there needed to be discipline in the fact that the priest was selling indulgences and there were some other issues that were taken care of. But you make it sound like there are so many issues that Martin Luther “improved on” for the Catholic Church, and that is not true.

FromTheCrossroa:

The Catholic church has been and continues to be a living breathing church that does from time to time change traditions, customs and secondary doctrines as the Holy Spirit leads us. But, the message of the gospel that Protestant and Catholic Christians profess is timeless and unchanging.

I am merely talking about the TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ as given in our Deposit of Faith. I am not talking about “disciplines” that the Church gives.

The Bible when written was not divided into chapter and verse. The divisions we know of didn’t happen until the middle 1500’s and first introduced to English Bibles in the Geneva Bible of 1560. `

True. I know this, but what does this have to do with my statement. The fact that chapter & verse numbers and even punctuation was not put in right at the beginning does not mean that it did not happen by the Grace of God. The Whole Bible including the separation of chapter, verse were only possible by God’s Grace.

 

[JohnWilliams]

I wish I had a better answer for you. John 6 has to be read as a whole not just bits and pieces. Even then it never proposed a problem for me. It just made plain sense as we understand it. Second logic comes into play. I am a programmer/analyst by profession. It is illogical for Jesus to say that we must eat his flesh and comeback and tell us that his flesh avails nothing. Logic dictates that he is not talking about his own flesh in the latter, more so when he does not specifiy explicitly his own flesh, but flesh in general.

Jesus was responding to their unability to know understand and comprehend what he was saying. Their shallow pharisee brain-washed minds could not comprehend the reality of the proclamation to actually eat his flesh.

666: and they no longer walked with the lord…

Revelations says that 666 is the number of a man, but when you look at the greek behind the word man, you find that the greek word is anthropos which actually means mankind or human beings.

So the verse should actually say 666 is the number of mankind.

Perhaps to suit a doctrine.

One related verse states:

Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

I believe the number marks “a man” the prophet Mohammed.

The “Submission” Islamic sect consider’s 666 to be the number of perfection of the Quran and the proof that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. Here is a relatedYahoo search:
search.yahoo.com/search?p=quran+666&fr=FP-tab-web-t400&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

The “beast” that is marked 666 is the leopard-bear-lion beast of the same chapter. The successive kingdom beasts in Daniel 7, of lion (Babylon), bear (Medo-Pursia), and leopard (ancient Greece) are today geographically occupied by Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Thus the kingdom of Islam seated in the Middle East, is a good candidate for the LBL “beast” of Revelation 13. The LBL is a composite beast in Relevation because although these countries have different governments, and Islam different sects, all who follow Islam are united by the spirit of antichrist, as well as all following the false prophet Mohammed. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118140

Daniel defines the term “beast” for us when he discusses these 3 beasts along with the 4th “terrible” beast (generally understood to be the Roman Empire).

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
blueletterbible.org/kjv/Dan/Dan007.html#23

More on this subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=119004

what does this number mean? I can only speculate that it means John 6:66. Some people say that is impossible since the chapter and verse combination did not exist. That is true, but the fail to realize that John was seeing the future and the whole of Revelations is symbolic in nature. 666 could be nothing but the future reference to those that deny the literal teaching of John 6 and the subsequent consequence of not walking with Christ because they don’t partake of his flesh.
There no such thing as coincidences in the Bible. The hand and mind of God steers destiny to his ultimate goal.

God bless.

 

[JohnWilliams]

olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
Strong’s def.
** of a man**
New Testament Greek Definition:
444 anthropos {anth’-ro-pos}
from 435 and ops (the countenance, from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a
human being; TDNT - 1:364,59; n m
AV - man 552, not tr 4, misc 3; 559

1. a human being, whether male or female
   1a) generically, to include all human individuals
   1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
   1b1) of animals and plants
   1b2) of from God and Christ
   1b3) of the angels
   1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led
   into a mistake or prompted to sin
   1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
   1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
   1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt
   and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
   1g) with reference to sex, a male
2. indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3. in the plural, people
4. joined with other words, merchantman

 

[Catherine_S]

By the same respect, we believe the Catholics are doing it “wrong” (in their thinking) as well.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is really, not just symbolically, present in the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:23-29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32-71).
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists don’t view these verses as proof that the Eucharist is a biblical doctrine and argue against it by quoting Jesus’ words in John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, while the **flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."They seize on the word “spirit” and interpret it as"symbolic,”**arguing that Jesus’ use of “spirit” meant he was speaking symbolically, not literally.

Several questions should be asked **at this point: **
**Where else **in the Bible is **“spirit”**ever interpreted as “symbolic”? The answer No where.
Since there’s no other instance of “spirit” meaning “symbolic,” by what criteria do Protestants insist on applying that meaning in John 6:63?

Since God, human souls, angels, and Satan are spirits, does that mean they too are merely symbolic and if not, why interpret “spirit” in John 6:63 as meaning"symbolic"?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp
.

 

[Catherine_S]

.
Many of the disciples who followed Christ-**like many people of today-**had this to say about the Eucharist: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” When they left Christ, did he try to correct their thinking? It is unlikely that he would have allowed them to remain in error.
Next, he challenged the Twelve Apostles on the issue: “Do you also wish to go away?” He did not correct the “misconception” of his audience or the Twelve. Why? Because their understanding was true. They had not heard him wrong. There was no misunderstanding; the teaching was true and to be accepted. The disciples responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:67-69). They were saying in essence, "Yes, this is a hard teaching, but we will take it on faith, for you are the Christ."

The merely symbolic reading** wasn’t left open to them**, and **it isn’t left open to us. **

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea3.asp

 

[LadyFlynt]

I am not considered “evangelical” or “fundamentalist”.

I believe the Spirit is with us when we take communion and it is considered a means of Grace. However, I do not believe the nature of the bread and wine is changed. (there’s an old protestant poem in fact where the catholic is trying to convert his wife, she makes the bread and provides the wine, the priest blesses it, and she informs him that he may partake first to see if it’s nature is truely changed as she added poison to the bread).

 

[Catherine_S]

.
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is concluded as an event, but through the Holy Spirit it continues in time sacramentally and in eternity mystically. This insight provides the key to understanding John’s heavenly visionof the resurrected Jesus, who appeared as “a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” (Rev. 5:6). While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom. 8:32) continues** eternally** in Love—that is, the Holy Spirit.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea2.asp
catholic.com/library/ecc…eucharistia.asp
.

 

[LadyFlynt]

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is in wafers and wine?

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

CathrineS,

The Bible is full of symbolism. The Holy Spirit is represented by water in John, by wind in Song of Solomon, by oil in Psalms, by fire in Matthew…etc and most importantly a dove. The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at baptism in the symbol of a dove. The event was both symbolic and substance as I understand communion to be. Would you disagree?

 

[RCCDefender]

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is in wafers and wine?

The bread and wine becomes Christ’s flesh and blood.

What does that “poem” have to do with anything?

 

[LadyFlynt]

It has to do with the logic of it.

In the poem the priest ran away. If I made bread for communion and poisoned it, a priest blesses it, is it’s nature so changed that it would be edible? Or is the “presence” of Christ only spiritual during the event not the actual changing of the objects?

 

[Catherine_S]

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is in wafers and wine?

.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea5.asp
In the face of such a swarm of merely natural mysteries, the Creator of these wonders steps into our world.
While on earth he showed his power over physical substance by changing water into wine at Cana (John 2:1-11) and by twice multiplying loaves and fishes (Matt. 14:14-21 and 15:32-39). First in his own person and then through the lips of those he empowered as his successors, he assures us that he has displaced all such hidden mysteries with his glorified body by the words of consecration:
"This is my body. . . . This is my blood. . . . Do this!"
Can we doubt?
Indeed, the Eucharist is not on trial.
**We are.
.

 

[LadyFlynt]

AlgreFe, I just noticed your earlier comments…my apologies, I was not intentionally ignoring you.

Yes, I’m aware of the direction of history (ie., we agreed with Ausgustine, etc). Luther did not set out to begin a new church…the RCC booted him. He wanted to see the church reform back to what it had been (ppl understanding what was being taught by having it in their tongue, the priests being permitted to marry, the abuse of indulgences to be done away with, etc). This is why we are called the Reformed. We do have certain very catholic views…just different. What we believe to be reformed BACK to the way it was supposed to be (and in some ways still reforming as man is not perfect). One the issue of the Pope and Bishops being guarenteed assurance of salvation…I don’t find that in scripture. (and do we want to discuss the questionable figures that have obtained those positions in history?)

 

[gadfly]

Correct me if I am wrong. I think that the communion in non-catholic church seems to be so insignificant because they do not believe the real presence of our Jesus. They only do it just to remember the Passover.

Thanks!

I just finished supplying for an Anglican organist, 3 Sunday Eucharists, and believe me, the people were very reverent. I wish some Catholic assemblies were that devout. The Anglicans in our area (Niagara) used to alternate Eucharist with Morning Prayer. Now they celebrate Eucharist twice each Sunday morning. The times they are a-changing.

 

[VociMike]

…My brother called me a cannibal…

You might point out to your brother that by making that charge he is denying both the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ. For he knows full well that Catholics claim it is Christ that we eat and drink in the Eucharist. But since cannibalism is the eating of the dead flesh of a human being, his argument means that He considers Christ to be a human being, not a Divine Being, and that He considers Christ to be dead, not risen.

There is a word for eating the living flesh of God, but it is not cannibalism. It is Eucharist.

 

[RCCDefender]

It has to do with the logic of it.

In the poem the priest ran away. If I made bread for communion and poisoned it, a priest blesses it, is it’s nature so changed that it would be edible? Or is the “presence” of Christ only spiritual during the event not the actual changing of the objects?

It would not be a valid Eucharist as the only elements allow in the bread are water and wheat. (In the Eastern Churches yeast is allowed) Any thing else added would render it void.

The substance changes but the accidents remain.

 

[VociMike]

(there’s an old protestant poem in fact where the catholic is trying to convert his wife, she makes the bread and provides the wine, the priest blesses it, and she informs him that he may partake first to see if it’s nature is truely changed as she added poison to the bread).

Yes, I’ve seen this poem. Besides being really infantile, it is also false. For bread with poison added is not valid matter for confecting the Eucharist, so it would just remain bread with poison. So even in their foolish little poem they got it wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I’m aware of the direction of history (ie., we agreed with Ausgustine, etc). Luther did not set out to begin a new church…the RCC booted him.

For heresy. His mind and heart had departed from the teachings of the Catholic Church long before he was excommunicated. He was given many chances to recant his heresies (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.), and refused them all.

He wanted to see the church reform back to what it had been (ppl understanding what was being taught by having it in their tongue, the priests being permitted to marry, the abuse of indulgences to be done away with, etc).

The teachings of the Church were always made available to the people, through retreats, missions, mystery plays, and Catechism classes. The Mass is not a “teaching opportunity;” it is a time of worship. They were taught the meaning of the Mass in their Catechism classes.

Priests have never been permitted to marry. Even married men who came into the priesthood in the Apostolic times had to become celibate, and could not marry again if their spouses died. And married men are still (rarely) ordained as priests, today - and still can’t remarry if their spouses die.

The abuses surrounding the “selling” of Indulgences were dealt with without Luther’s help - he didn’t actually do anything to stop this practice. It was the Bishops of Trent who did that, and Luther was not in attendance there (although he had been invited, as a gesture of reconciliation).

Luther could quote Scripture to support his arguments because the common people knew the Scriptures. If they had not known the Scriptures, none of his arguments would have made any sense to them, and they would not have followed him.

This is why we are called the Reformed. We do have certain very catholic views…just different. What we believe to be reformed BACK to the way it was supposed to be (and in some ways still reforming as man is not perfect).

How will they know when they are “back to the way it was supposed to be,” if they continue to reject the Apostolic Tradition?

One the issue of the Pope and Bishops being guarenteed assurance of salvation…I don’t find that in scripture.

And nor does anyone believe that, anyway. We have a saying - “The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bad Bishops.” We do not believe that all Bishops are Saints in Heaven. Some are, yes, but we (more so than anybody, I think) are fully well aware of the ability of our leaders to commit sin.

I don’t know where anyone would get the idea that they don’t, or that we think they don’t.

 

[Catherine_S]

CathrineS,

The Bible is full of symbolism. The Holy Spirit is represented by water in John, by wind in Song of Solomon, by oil in Psalms, by fire in Matthew…etc and most importantly a dove. The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at baptism in the symbol of a dove. The event was both symbolic and **substance **as I understand communion to be.
**Would you disagree? **

Yep :yup: !

Who spoke the words " thou art my beloved; with thee I am well pleased" the Dove**?**
Whose Presence was there along with John the Baptist and** Jesus Christ?**

 

[Damascus]

Yes, I’ve seen this poem. Besides being really infantile, it is also false. For bread with poison added is not valid matter for confecting the Eucharist, so it would just remain bread with poison. So even in their foolish little poem they got it wrong.

What kind of a so called Christian would have the IDEA in their head to even do such a horrid sick thing? Did we overlook the simple fact that she could not have been a CHRISTIAN to do such a thing, let alone think it.

THe only one who takes pleasure in mocking the sacred is the EVIL one!