Protestant Communion

[AlegreFe]

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 is known by some Catholics that there was once a very devout Catholic woman who had a non-believing husband. She would go to Mass and also pray the rosary at home. This husband did not like the fact that his wife was so devout. He set out to poison the Priest so he got some poison and pored it into the wine bottles. The wife asked her husband as she always did to go to Mass with her. He finally went to Mass just to see the Priest drop after drinking the blood of Jesus Christ. When it came time, the Priest drank from the Chalice and low 'n behold, the Crucifix behind the alter was “filling up” with “black” as the priest drank. The priest did not “drop” as the man expected. He could not believe his eyes. I don’t have a website for this referrance as I did not read this. I heard this from another fellow Catholic. And I do believe this because God can make this happen. It is said in Scripture that poisons will not harm the priests in any way. Perhaps I shall do some research on the internet for this. Has anyone else heard this story?

 

[Damascus]

I believe it wholehartedly. WHY? do you think he is the only murderous sicko that has tried to “get away with murder”???

It will not work because JESUS CHRIST will not let it happen! Simple.

And anyone who tries to kill another in his HOUSE will be doomed to eternal DAMNATION.

ANATHAMA MARANATHA

It is known by some Catholics that there was once a very devout Catholic woman who had a non-believing husband. She would go to Mass and also pray the rosary at home. This husband did not like the fact that his wife was so devout. He set out to poison the Priest so he got some poison and pored it into the wine bottles. The wife asked her husband as she always did to go to Mass with her. He finally went to Mass just to see the Priest drop after drinking the blood of Jesus Christ. When it came time, the Priest drank from the Chalice and low 'n behold, the Crucifix behind the alter was “filling up” with “black” as the priest drank. The priest did not “drop” as the man expected. He could not believe his eyes. I don’t have a website for this referrance as I did not read this. I heard this from another fellow Catholic. And I do believe this because God can make this happen. It is said in Scripture that poisons will not harm the priests in any way. Perhaps I shall do some research on the internet for this. Has anyone else heard this story?

 

[Exporter2]

One of the first posts on this thread said,". So, I think judging protestants for having communion once a month is wrong. There are no restrictions on how often to take communion,whether it is daily,weekly,monthly or yearly, it is all ok as long as you are a believer in Christ"

It is pointless to “judge” or even talk about a Protestant Communion if we Catholics retain our Catholic Dogma of transubstantiation, i.e., an ordained priest having Holy Orders causes ( by the graces of God) the changes in the bread and wine into the Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ. We Catholics know that Jesus is truly in the bread and wine at our Communion during Mass.

First, the Protestants do not have a valid priesthood. Not one can trace their spiritual linage thru’ the Bishops back to St. Peter. Therefore no matter how fervent the Prot. Preacher he cannot facilitate transubstantiation. Protestants cannot have a valid Communion.

Secondly, the bread, crackers and grape juice left over after their ceremony is not the Body and Blood of Jesus so they can toss it away to the trash or the dogs, it is of no consequence.

 

[Damascus]

SUNDAY IS AN OBLIGATION (JOY IMHO) OF THE COMMANDMENT!!!

Its NOT optional unless you want to rack up sins to go to HELL

One of the first posts on this thread said,". So, I think judging protestants for having communion once a month is wrong. There are no restrictions on how often to take communion,whether it is daily,weekly,monthly or yearly, it is all ok as long as you are a believer in Christ"

It is pointless to “judge” or even talk about a Protestant Communion if we Catholics retain our Catholic Dogma of transubstantiation, i.e., an ordained priest having Holy Orders causes ( by the graces of God) the changes in the bread and wine into the Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ. We Catholics know that Jesus is truly in the bread and wine at our Communion during Mass.

First, the Protestants do not have a valid priesthood. Not one can trace their spiritual linage thru’ the Bishops back to St. Peter. Therefore no matter how fervent the Prot. Preacher he cannot facilitate transubstantiation. Protestants cannot have a valid Communion.

Secondly, the bread, crackers and grape juice left over after their ceremony is not the Body and Blood of Jesus so they can toss it away to the trash or the dogs, it is of no consequence.

 

[valient_Lucy]

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?)

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that bishops and Popes are gauranteed assurance of salvation. NO ONE is given such assurance, pope or not. As another poster pointed out, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.” I believe St. John Crystosom (sp?) said that, but I could be wrong. Popes and bishops are not given any assurance of their salvation. If anything, their sins could be much more damning, since they are in a postion of leadership!
Whoever told you that bishops and popes are guaranteed salvation has no understanding of Catholic teaching. I’m not saying he was a bad person. He just didn’t know what he was talking about.

 

[East_Anglican]

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).

Very good.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

From my growing but limited understanding on the “requirement” of communion is only that you partake once a year at the easter vigil. Participation in the Eucharist in every Sunday’s mass is highly encouraged provided you are not “in a state of sin”.

The central arguments are not how many times but if a non-Catholic priest in instituting communion is authorized or able to do so and the understanding of what communion is. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[East_Anglican]

OK Jeus siad it is so it must be. But it caouldn’t of literally been his body and blood, becuase he was standing there and hadn’t died yet. I presume most Roman Catholics have heard people say this before, so me saying it again is pointless. I don’t know about the baptists, but I know us Anglicans believe it is. It is spiritual. We do not believe it physically changes.

I will add that the arguments for both Consustatiation and Transubstatiation are arguments about semantics. I hate arguments about semantics passionately.

It is OK.

Baptists may say they don’t believe it is ,but have you observed some of them taking it? They wear nice suits for it and creep around in a kind of reverance, that indicate they believe it is.

500 years and we’re still arguing as if we can finish the argument.

 

[East_Anglican]

From my growing but limited understanding on the “requirement” of communion is only that you partake once a year at the easter vigil. Participation in the Eucharist in every Sunday’s mass is highly encouraged provided you are not “in a state of sin”.

The central arguments are not how many times but if a non-Catholic priest in instituting communion is authorized or able to do so and the understanding of what communion is. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Jesus said "Do this as often as you eat/drink it in rememberance of me.

The best thing about Jesus instituting the eucharist is that he instituted it before the event it was in rememberance of as Moses instituted the passover to celebrate Israels deliverance before it happned. Pretty neat! This is because Jesus is The Prophet like Moses.

 

[VociMike]

OK Jeus siad it is so it must be. But it caouldn’t of literally been his body and blood, becuase he was standing there and hadn’t died yet. I presume most Roman Catholics have heard people say this before, so me saying it again is pointless.

Yes, we certainly have.

The contradiction you perceive is no contradiction at all, because, whether at the Last Supper or in the Mass, the Eucharist is not Christ’s dead flesh and blood. It is His living, eternal flesh and blood.

 

[MariaG]

Jesus said "Do this as often as you eat/drink it in rememberance of me.

The best thing about Jesus instituting the eucharist is that he instituted it before the event it was in rememberance of as Moses instituted the passover to celebrate Israels deliverance before it happned. Pretty neat! This is because Jesus is The Prophet like Moses.

Jesus also said four times that they would have to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. To say this is just figurative runs into some serious problems.

From CA Library Christ in the Eucharist
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

One needs to be careful when one just focus’s on one verse. The bible must be taken as a whole. There is no doubt we are to do it in remembrance of Him. But it is also true that scripture states and the early Church also understood that there was a very literal aspect to this also.

God bless,
Maria

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Isn’t amazing how most of us actually agree (semantics aside) yet get so bent out of shape about the words used and the meaning of the word “is”? I’m getting Clinton flashbacks.

Creepy Baptists…now, THAT creeps me out!

 

[JohnWilliams]

My body is the temple of God. My body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. While I haven’t physically seen them they are physically with me constantly. A presence in my life. I was saved from my sins by the shed blood of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There seems to be something I’m not getting about this literal blood and body business. The Holy Spirit is a very real presence, not figurative. And I am to reverently take communion as often as I will, in rememberence of Jesus perfect sacrifice, until His return.

BUT the part I don’t get is, that if the blood and body are made literal, that is a Priest literally changes the wine and bread, wouldn’t they taste like blood instead of wine, and raw meat instead of bread? Wouldn’t a chemical analysis demonstrate the change if they were literally transformed?

What am I misunderstanding?

 

[MariaG]

My body is the temple of God. My body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. While I haven’t physically seen them they are physically with me constantly. A presence in my life. I was saved from my sins by the shed blood of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There seems to be something I’m not getting about this literal blood and body business. The Holy Spirit is a very real presence, not figurative. And I am to reverently take communion as often as I will, in rememberence of Jesus perfect sacrifice, until His return.

BUT the part I don’t get is, that if the blood and body are made literal, that is a Priest literally changes the wine and bread, wouldn’t they taste like blood instead of wine, and raw meat instead of bread? Wouldn’t a chemical analysis demonstrate the change if they were literally transformed?

What am I misunderstanding?

First, this is not some magic trick. God is the one from whom the power comes for this miracle to occur. Just as God heals people through others, God can perform this miracle through a priest.

There is a large word, Transubstantiation with a complicated explanation. The “accidents” of the bread and wine remain what we “see” is bread and wine, but through a miracle that is hard to understand (kind of like the teaching in which people walked away) it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.

There actually have been several Eucharistic miracles throughout the centuries. My favorite is the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy in the Eigth century.

This site here has a the Eucharistic miracles.

A host was changed into real flesh and the consecrated wine into real blood.

They are still preserved today. Tests were run on them in the 1970’s. The flesh is real human flesh. The blood is real human blood. The flesh is a muscular tissue from a human heart.

 

[AlegreFe]

SUNDAY IS AN OBLIGATION (JOY IMHO) OF THE COMMANDMENT!!!

Its NOT optional unless you want to rack up sins to go to HELL

Exporter2:

One of the first posts on this thread said,". So, I think judging protestants for having communion once a month is wrong. There are no restrictions on how often to take communion,whether it is daily,weekly,monthly or yearly, it is all ok as long as you are a believer in Christ"

It is pointless to “judge” or even talk about a Protestant Communion if we Catholics retain our Catholic Dogma of transubstantiation, i.e., an ordained priest having Holy Orders causes ( by the graces of God) the changes in the bread and wine into the Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ. We Catholics know that Jesus is truly in the bread and wine at our Communion during Mass.

First, the Protestants do not have a valid priesthood. Not one can trace their spiritual linage thru’ the Bishops back to St. Peter. Therefore no matter how fervent the Prot. Preacher he cannot facilitate transubstantiation. Protestants cannot have a valid Communion.

Secondly, the bread, crackers and grape juice left over after their ceremony is not the Body and Blood of Jesus so they can toss it away to the trash or the dogs, it is of no consequence.

I don’t think Exporter2 was saying that they shouldn’t go to church on Sundays. He was quoting someone else, a Protestant, who was saying that we shouldn’t judge on how often they should be taking communion.

I agree with Exporter2 here. Protestants don’t even have a valid communion; that is the true real presence of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that they should have a service without the “Lord’s Supper” (or whatever they call it). I think they should have it every week but that’s not up to me either.

I have heard that when some denominations have this communion service they are told that taking the “bread” does not make one bit of difference in their salvation. Now that is bad. Jesus said Himself that if they eat His flesh and drink His blood that He will raise them on the last day. What part of that is confusing? It is very clear to me that we are to “take and eat” His flesh in order to have life and abide in Jesus Christ and for Him to abide in us. If it doesn’t make a difference to Protestants, and if it’s just a symbol to them, they why do it at all? But they do anyway. That should say something about those who do.

Even if a Protestant pastor did tell them that it does matter to their salvation, I don’t see it having any difference anyway. Why? Because Jesus is not really substantially present in the Protestant communion anyway.

If a protestant goes to church and has the respect towards communion that he/she should have because of the demand that Jesus put on us, then I say more power to them. I know one thing though, I can say that they do not have the real presence that we Catholics have in our Holy Eucharist.

With that said, if a Protestant does believe in the real presence, that is one reason for them to take it upon themselves to find out more about Catholicism and maybe think of converting to the Catholic Faith. If they do, they will have Jesus Christ every day in Holy Communion. They will have the opportunity to have Jesus every week if they only go to Mass on Sundays. Of course they can have Jesus every single day if they choose to go to daily Mass. After all, Jesus did tell us to pray, “… give us this day our daily bread…” Now I know that the “daily bread” could be our every day meals but it would also be the daily readings that we have in our daily Mass and of course most importantly it is our daily Holy Communion.

 

[deborahssong]

Hello brothers and sisters in the Lord!

What an awesome topic.  I have been studying this one myself.  I, among other things write for the charismatic connection, a spiritfilled catholic newsletter.  Let me address this like so......In First Crointhians, St Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for abusing the Communion.  According to the study, they were drinking the wine and getting drunk, and eating the bread as a meal. HMMMMMM....what is wrong with that picture?  Total disrespect of the Eucharist!  Then he goes one step farther and tells them that there were some among them that were sick and even dead because of this disrespect!  To me that is pretty plain about the seriousness of this ceremony.   Too many leaders and teachers are trying to explain this, improperly by the way, and it is so simple.  As children of God we are to obey what He says. Not legalism folks, but a privelage thru mercy and grace given to us at  the cross have we been given this ability!  Mercy and grace provides repentance and forgiveness.  It is "not" for us to do whatever we chooose to do. Liberty is the freedom to choose and follow Christ! Liberty In Christ that is.
  On that note isnt it just possible that we are doing the same thing today?  I grew up in the catholic church, then for 22 years was active in ministry in a protestant church.  The reverance for communion is something I have admired about the catholic church. Now that I am part of the charismatic renewal I still admire the sacred ceremony, even greater!. When we realize in our hearts what Jesus did for us, how can we take anything about following Him so lightly> I believe it has everything to do with teaching!  Our church, not catholic, was very respectful of the communion!  I loved the way we did this.  If there is such disrecpect in the church anywhere that it is done so flippedly in the way that the one lady explained, shame on the leaders, who teach the meaning and the practice.  I am a firm beleiver that what we do and what we practice  in chuch has everything to do with leadership.  In both denominations I was taught absolute respect. In catholcisim we believe its the body anbd blood of our Savior Jesus!  What an awesome awesome privelage!  God loves us this much, to share His Son, His life with us in such awesome oneness!  That is why ST paul was so upset about what the corinthians were doing, and he  corrected them.  Believe we must begin to correct wrong practices, church!  I hope this doesnt offend anyone only meant to teach truth. HIS!!!  There is no other.  
 Truth is  point blank,  folks that if we disregard this respect, we could yes become sick and die out of disobedience.   Not Gods fault, scripture is plain.  Oh absolutely God loves us  and has proven so----Jesus. However He has a narrow road-----His words,  and that is the way!  But oh His way has so much life and it is abundant(Jesus' own words) John; 10;10.  Anyway God bless all.  Hope this helps.....my only desire to lift up His most Holy name, the Name above every Name.

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

First of all, we do not have Catholic “assemblies.” Second, you have no idea how devout some Catholic Masses are. We really have the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. And we have Him EVERY SINGLE DAY of the week. Usually there are two Masses daily and we have Holy Communion in each and every Mass and we usually have 3 or 4 Masses on Sundays and Holy Communion is celebrated in each of those Masses too.

There are still many Holy Priests out there, I thank God for that. There are still many Parishes that hold very devout and orthodox Masses. That’s not to say that there are liturgical abuses going on but that is also improving.

I can say there are several Catholic Churches that I have been to that celebrate a very Holy and devout Mass. One of them being St. Thomas More Parish here in Chicago with Father Charles Fanelli. If any one you have ever listened to Relevant Radio you might have heard Fr. Fanelli. He has been on as a guest with Drew Mariani several times already and he will be on again. I love the Tridintine Mass that St. Thomas More has on Sundays.

I found this when I did some research on Fr. Fanelli and low & behold I found something from this very forum. Now mind you it is from a few years back. But now I can say that this person who posted this was absolutely right about Fr. Fanelli.
Ham1 (Jun 22:

Just to be clear, Fr. Brankin is not being “forced” out by the Archdiocese. He is at the end of his term as pastor. He is going to be on a sabbatical to Rome to work on his artwork (he is an amazing artist). He is being succeeded by his close good friend and extremely orthodox priest, Fr. Charles Fannelli. Fr. Fanelli was most recently pastor at St. John Vianney where he created much the same faithful atmosphere as St. Thomas More. Be assured that St. Thomas More will remain a wonderful, strong, orthodox parish in Fr. Fanelli’s hands. You will still have wonderful sermons and beautiful liturgies. Don’t expect any changes.

The Archdiocese is still filled with many employee’s with axes to grind. But Cardinal George is a good man and a faithful bishop.

Welcome your new pastor, you will not be dissappointed!

Unless you have never been to a very devout Catholic Mass you cannot say anything. I’m sure there are people out there that have never experienced a truly orthodox Mass but I don’t see them saying that they just don’t exist.

Okay, I’ve calmed down now. I just can’t stand when people attack our Holy Mass.

Peace and God bless.

 

[santaro75]

I believe holy communion to be the new passover meal. as the jewish eat the lamb to commemorate the passover we eat the lords supper to commemorate the moment that God’s judgement passes over all of us for eternity.

I don’t know, but do Jewish still eat this meal? is it considered a rememberence?

 

[AlegreFe]

I believe holy communion to be the new passover meal. as the jewish eat the lamb to commemorate the passover we eat the lords supper to commemorate the moment that God’s judgement passes over all of us for eternity.

I agree!
Jesus said that He does not come to destroy but to FULFILL!

The Jews had to eat the lamb after they slautered it and spread the blood on the door posts and lintels. So we too are to eat the lamb, the Lamb of God that is Jesus Christ!

 

[AlegreFe]

FromTheCrossroa:

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?

True, the bible is full of “symbols” as you put it. But I disagree that Holy Communion is symbolic. Not one time (in John chapter 6 starting with verse 50), did Jesus mention “symoblism” in eating His Flesh, not one time. As a matter of fact He mentions eating His flesh 7 times. That number 7 has a lot of significance to Catholics. I’m not sure of the significance here in St. John’s book but I’m sure there is one because there are no coincidences in the Bible or anywhere for that matter. I just don’t believe in coincidences at all.

Please read the following verses in my next post and see how many times Jesus mentions about eating His flesh.