Protestant Communion

[AlegreFe]

…Cont

50 This is the bread which comes down from
heaven, that a man may eat of it 1 and
not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from
heaven; if any one eats of this bread, 2
he will live for ever; and the bread which
I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The people started disputing right away after Jesus told them that they had to eat of His flesh. They were shocked and wondered how “this man” could give them “His flesh to eat.” They knew that Jesus meant that they should “eat His flesh” so of course they would be shocked. When they started disputing, Jesus right away repeated Himself several more times so that they could get that this was not symbolic in any way shape or form;
53 … “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh 3 of the Son of man
and drink his blood, you have no life in
you;
54 he who eats my flesh 4 and drinks
my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
him up at the last day. *****
55 For my flesh is food indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh 5 and drinks
my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who eats me 6
will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from
heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died;
he who eats 7 this bread will live
for ever.”
Jesus knew that many of the disciples could not listen to such talk because they were shocked at it. Why? Because they knew that Jesus did not mean anything symbolic. Why would they be shocked at something like this if it was just symbolic? Think about it, really. If this was merely a symbol, these disciples would not be this shocked at Jesus saying to eat His flesh. Knowing this about His disciples, Jesus went on saying;
61 …“Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son
of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh
is of no avail; the words that I have spoken
to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not
believe.”

Jesus told them that He would be ascending so that they know that they weren’t going to be eating “dead” flesh but His flesh with the Holy Spirit making that possible. We know that our flesh is only alive because we have the Holy Spirit. We are body & soul. And we are not to “eat of His flesh” as if we were cannibals. Only cannibals eat “dead” flesh. That would also explain the part where Jesus tells them that “the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” The human dead flesh is of no use to us. But only that of Christ’s flesh made possible by the Holy Spirit at the consecration at the Holy Mass. We are partaking of the one Loaf that has the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinty of our Lord Jesus Christ. Dead flesh does not have a Soul and certainly not any Divinity.

This statement also means that our own human mind/brain without the Holy Spirit will never be able to believe that we could eat of the flesh of Jesus Christ and have eternal life because of that.

I can assure you that there is no symbolism here when it comes to eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

*****see my next post for another time that Jesus says this.

 

[AlegreFe]

…Cont

I can take that one step further by saying there was another time where Jesus made clear that His “food” was not what they thought. Now this is very symbolic and Jesus makes that clear here.
31 Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying,
“Rabbi, eat.”
32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which
you do not know.”
33 So the disciples said to one another, “Has any
one brought him food?”
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the
will of him who sent me, and to
accomplish his work.
35 Do you not say, 'There are yet four months,
then comes the harvest? I tell you, lift up your
eyes, and see how the fields are already white
for harvest.
36 He who reaps receives wages, and gathers
fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may
rejoice together.
37 For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and
another reaps.’
38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor;
others have labored, and you have entered into their
labor."
Think… if Jesus wanted us to know that eating His flesh was merely symbolic He would’ve made that clear in just the same way He makes clear the symbolism in these verses.

I pray that God’s Grace touch each of your souls
so that you can believe.
Come Holy Spirit and touch our souls so as to increase our Faith
so that we come to believe these words of Jesus Christ. Amen.

This is what Jesus said right before He explained to them about eating His flesh. This is so that we believe that eating His flesh will give us eternal life. You have to keep in mind that “believing” here is to believe that He is our Bread of Life that we should eat. This is all in the full context of this chapter of St. John.
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the
work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
30 So they said to him, "What sign can you do,
that we may see and believe in you? What can
you do?

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life;
whoever comes to me will never hunger, and
whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36 But I told you that although you have seen (me),
you do not believe.
Now remember that this is so that we believe that He is our Bread of Life and Jesus will raise us on the last day if we eat of His flesh; as Jesus states in verse 54 which you can read again in my previous post.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone
who sees the Son and believes in him may have
eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” *****

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes
has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness,
and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven,
that a man may eat of it and not die.

Peace and God Bless

 

[AlegreFe]

That’s short version of the story. I am currently writing the long version for Patrick Madrid.

Joey, would you ever consider being on the “Journey Home” show on EWTN? You can write to Marcus Grodi on his website; The Coming Home Network. Marcus has a page with conversion stories. How about putting your story on DVD for us? My mom and I love to watch these conversion stories on DVD and then pass them on to some Protestant friends & family. I’ve gotten many of these conversion DVDs from St. Joseph Communications and Ignatius Press and some others. Since my mom’s first language is Spanish, she would rather watch these stories on DVD. She completely understands English and speaks it also (with an accent however). But as far as reading something in the Engish language, it would take her a wee bit longer to read.
So it would be great to see your story on DVD! It’s also nice to see facial expressions and jesters that you cannot get from reading a book or listening to an audio CD. :yup: I particularly love to watch Father Corapi on DVD. He can be so funny sometimes; not to make light of his strict stance on our Catholic Faith, that is what I love most about Father Corapi.

 

[JohnWilliams]

First, this is not some magic trick.

Indeed. Few things are more deadly serious in Scripture.
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Clearly we each must understand the filthy sinful messes that we are, and temper our approach to communion accordingly. This is something that no Priest or Pastor can do for us.

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.

Healing is a very physical, and seeable or recognizable miracle, performed by Christians of all stripes. This would not seem to help with the literal (but non-physical and unseeable) blood and body argument.

 

[AlegreFe]

Healing is a very physical, and seeable or recognizable miracle, performed by Christians of all stripes. This would not seem to help with the literal (but non-physical and unseeable) blood and body argument.

I would beg to differ on some point here. If a miracle is indeed performed such as a cancer healing or other physical healing, we would be able to see a person who is healed, but we will not be able to actually see the healing that happened. We would not be able to see the actual cure that occurred, only the outcome of the healed person. Just the same way that we are not able to see the actual change that happens at every Holy Catholic Mass when the Priest, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, changes the substance of the bread & wine into the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[AlegreFe]

To JohnWilliams; Just open your heart to the Graces that God gives you so that you can believe.

Have you read any of my posts or any other posts that are in this thread that explain the defense of this real presence of Jesus Christ? Open your mind and your heart and be open to reading some of the posts in this thread again.

 

[O.S.Luke]

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.

Sounds awfully tongue-and-cheek to me. And you have pigeonholed a lot of Protestants in one sweep with your comments. The sacraments are much more than symbols to me and my tradition. And I could care less whether or not you think they’re valid.

Pax,

O+

 

[JohnWilliams]

To JohnWilliams; Just open your heart to the Graces that God gives you so that you can believe.

Have you read any of my posts or any other posts that are in this thread that explain the defense of this real presence of Jesus Christ? Open your mind and your heart and be open to reading some of the posts in this thread again.

I do believe, and I am open (moreso than you might imagine). Just as Jesus presence is in me, and just as Jesus is present when 2 or more are gathered in His name, so I believe that Jesus is present in the eucharist. In regard to open hearts, what I find in Christian chat rooms of all stripes is hearts that are seared by doctrine, as opposed to hearts that are open to the truth of God’s Holy Word. I believe that this is what all of the "overcommeth"ing of Revelation Chapter 2 is about. I also believe that the larger a Church becomes the more prone to nicolaitionism it is, which is the only thing in Scripture that God expresses a hatred of.

But here is something that I also believe. I believe that if a Catholic shuffles up to the rail, and takes communion while he is thinking about going fishing that afternoon, there is no amount of anything the Priest can have done to the bread and wine beforehand, that will not make that parishoner guilty under the verses that I quoted above. Nor do I believe a Protestant that was taking communion the same way would fare any better.

In other words I think the focus of this thread seems to be directed in a less important place, that increasingly seems to be a technical word battle, when the discussion that might be more important would seem to be the required serious introspection - that is recognizing the sinful wretches that we are while taking communion - rather than about what a Priest can do for us in this regard.

 

[AlegreFe]

Sounds awfully tongue-and-cheek to me. And you have pigeonholed a lot of Protestants in one sweep with your comments. The sacraments are much more than symbols to me and my tradition.

I never said that all Protestants do not believe in the real presence. Notice “some” in any and all of my posts.
O.S. Luke:

And I could care less whether or not you think they’re valid.

I don’t “think” anything. It is what Catholics believe and it is just an objective truth.

We’ve been down this road before O.S. and I won’t “argue” with you any longer. It is what it is.

Peace and God bless.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Point taken. But an objective truth? Hmmm.

Nice charity, tho. Thanks for making me feel welcome. I guess you have the last word.

 

[LadyFlynt]

On the assurance of Bishops and the Pope…someone stated that only they are assured of having the Holy Ghost…however, one that is saved has the Holy Ghost and no one can have the Holy Ghost without being saved…therefore unless you don’t believe this, you were saying they are the only ones assured of their salvation.

A few posts back it was mentioned that “if you’ve been to a devout mass”, “there are many Holy Priests”, etc. Are you agreeing that there are unholy priests and non-devout parishes and masses? If so, then what is happening with Catholic oversight and is the communion there legit then? I can’t see Christ being involved in that.

 

[AlegreFe]

I also believe that the larger a Church becomes the more prone to nicolaitionism it is, which is the only thing in Scripture that God expresses a hatred of.

The only thing that I can say is that the clerics have no “rule” over Catholics as you might think. We obey the Pope because we believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when it comes to Faith & Morals. This is scriptural as Jesus says in Matthew 16.

But here is something that I also believe. I believe that if a Catholic shuffles up to the rail, and takes communion while he is thinking about going fishing that afternoon, there is no amount of anything the Priest can have done to the bread and wine beforehand, that will not make that parishoner guilty under the verses that I quoted above. Nor do I believe a Protestant that was taking communion the same way would fare any better.

I agree with you here that if a person is in sin, mortal sin to be specific, that he/she cannot take communion. And it’s a shame that many Catholics take Jesus Christ while in a state of sin. But only God knows their hearts so I can’t say for sure. All I know is that I’ve known people that haven’t been to Mass in months or years and have not gone to Confession, but then have actually received Jesus after going back to Mass. I hope the case is that they have no idea that not going to Mass is a mortal sin. If they don’t know this, then it really wouldn’t be considered a mortal sin. But they should still get to Confession as soon as possible and explain to the Priest that this is what happened. God will surely forgive because He is merciful.

Now I don’t agree that thinking of going fishing is a sin. But that doesn’t mean that one should be thinking about anything but Jesus Christ and how they will be thanking Him after receiving Him in Holy Communion; and how they should take the time to be praying as the ones who take Him worthily are in a state of Grace.

… that is recognizing the sinful wretches that we are while taking communion - rather than about what a Priest can do for us in this regard.

You are right. We are sinful wretches.

I just have to defend those of us Catholics who do take Jesus in a worthily manner. That is why we have the Sacrament of Confession. After someone makes a good examination of conscience, (meaning of examination as per Catholic Encyclopedia) is truly sorry for their sins and sincerely says an Act of Contrition and wants to amend their life & avoids occasions of sin and makes a good Confession, (good Confession) then and only then, should a person receive Jesus in Holy Communion.

The beauty of the Sacrament (of Confession)
This, of all the Sacraments, is the most personal and
intimate. Baptism, although it is conferred on an individual,
is a community event. It is the initiation of the individual into
the Body of Christ, the Church. The Eucharist, although it is
an intimate union between Christ Himself and the
communicant, is also a sign of the communion and unity of
the whole Church. Marriage is a Sacrament for the couple in
the presence of their families and the whole Church. But,
Penance is a Sacrament that we attend alone, particularly
when we are in a state of mortal sin, when we are alone
directly with our loving Father. We are like the Prodigal Son
who returns to his father and is received joyfully, a huge
banquet being thrown in our honour. But, we do not have the
jealous elder brother who has not strayed resenting our return,
we have only Christ who consoles us and brings us the joy of
forgiveness.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

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.

Catholic Charasmatic? I’ve heard you exist…but thought it more of a myth like bigfoot.

Having been raised non-denominational/AOG/Charismatic and now joining with the Catholic faith, we may have a bit in common. Although these days, I am perfectly happy in a mainstream Catholic church without too many charisms.

The non-denominational church I spent most of my time in accepted the statement of faith from the worldwide council of churches concerning real presence. They even split from the AOG church (kicked out) because the AOG would not recognize what they called a “five-fold” ministry (non-denominational speak for Apostolic authority). Eventually, they did find a rather small group of non-denominational churches to be in fellowship with that did have their own version of Apostolic succession and function. Unfortunately when I left and joined the Air Force, they took several wrong turns. I hope no one flames this for being sacrilege or they had no authority to institute such a thing apart from the Catholic church. Certainly what happened to them indicates not only how easy it is to lose sight but also how beneficial it is to have a council of many thousands of churches instead of twenty or so.

Legalism can exist in any organization with rules. Since the Catholic church has lots of rules, there is definite potential for legalism to rear its ugly head. Christ definitely did have problems with established traditions, hypocrisy, legalism apart from grace, and keeping the letter of the law while violating the spirit in which it was given. His reactions were always holy and just. Throwing the merchants out the temple was a good idea by the way.

Honestly, I can say I have yet to run into strict legalism in Catholicism. My wife tells me I need to meet some of her family who are part of an excommunicated church in St. Mary’s Kansas…but that would probably be another thread.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Now I don’t agree that thinking of going fishing is a sin.

Agree with whom, or what?

 

[JohnWilliams]

The only thing that I can say is that the clerics have no “rule” over Catholics as you might think. We obey the Pope because we believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when it comes to Faith & Morals.

Do you believe that you are guided by the Holy Ghost, when it comes to Faith & Morals?

 

[AlegreFe]

On the assurance of Bishops and the Pope…someone stated that only they are assured of having the Holy Ghost…however, one that is saved has the Holy Ghost and no one can have the Holy Ghost without being saved…therefore unless you don’t believe this, you were saying they are the only ones assured of their salvation.

If I may make myself clear; Our Pope and Bishops have the guarentee of the Holy Spirit when it comes to teaching the Faith and speaking about Faith & Morals. Only they can interpret the Word of God the way that it should be as Scripture is not open to personal interpretation. The Pope and the Bishops are “moved by the Holy Spirit” and speak “under the influence of God.”

20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy
of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but
rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke
under the influence of God. 2 Pet 1:20-21

I do believe that when I read scripture, God will “speak to me” and that I can pray the Gospels. So the Holy Spirit is with me when I pray and/or read Scripture. I just can’t go “changing interpretations” and make up new Doctrine as already stated by the Church. I have to read Scripture through the Heart of the Church. Besides that is the only way that it makes common sense to me. I have the Holy Spirit, therefore I can see the Truths of the Bible as the Holy Spirit has guided the Church just as Jesus told Peter that only God has revealed to him the Truth of who Jesus Christ is.

As far as having the assurance of salvation… NONE of us have this assurance; not even Popes and Bishops. Even the Pope goes to Confession, believe it or not. I don’t see how my saying that the Pope has the guarentee of the Holy Spirit when it comes to faith & morals can mean that he has assurance of salvation. That doesn’t make sense to me.

A few posts back it was mentioned that “if you’ve been to a devout mass”, “there are many Holy Priests”, etc. Are you agreeing that there are unholy priests and non-devout parishes and masses? If so, then what is happening with Catholic oversight and is the communion there legit then? I can’t see Christ being involved in that.

Yes, unfortunately there are liturgical abuses. I will not deny that nor try to hide the fact. However in certain cases the Mass is still valid and the Host is still validly transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ; this would have to be in some cases as it is not the poor parishoner’s fault for such an atrocity. But, if I’m not mistaken, I think I’ve heard of some Masses not being valid for illicit liturgical abuses. But I’m not sure under what circumstances this would be. I would have to do some research on that. I’m just glad that so far I have never been to an illicit Mass where there are liturgical abuses.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

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.

Sandy,

We’re going to have to “agree to disagree” on this one. I do not deny real presence of communion. See my previous posts for proof. What I believe to be as truth concerning the passages in which Christ implemented communion is the cup of wine was symbolic (think dual meaning) AND SUBSTANCE. The disciples would drink of the same martyrdom he was about to experience. Something real and symbolic.

The wine also represented a covenant being entered into by the community of disciples (think Church today) while uniting them physically.

The cup also represented the shedding of his blood for the forgiveness of sins, and represented the new life. These became physical in Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

The bread also had symbol and substance. Bread represented life and consuming of his word (also symbolic of Christ’s broken body).

There are more if you dig through scripture. These symbols are clearly visible, biblical, and do not really have much to do with transubstantiation or better stated the real and present presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist celebration.

Many of Christ’s teachings had both real and symbolic elements intertwined. This mystery allows the simplest man to understand the covenant, and gives theologians (and forum junkies) years worth of fodder. I don’t understand how one can be separated from the other. Christ surely didn’t do so!

 

[AlegreFe]

Agree with whom, or what?

You made this statement in your post.

JohnWilliams:

I believe that if a Catholic shuffles up to the rail, and takes communion while he is thinking about going fishing that afternoon, there is no amount of anything the Priest can have done to the bread and wine beforehand, that will not make that parishoner guilty under the verses that I quoted above.

I don’t see how thinking of fishing before going up to communion can make that person receive Jesus unworthily. I would call being in a state of mortal sin and receiving Jesus in that state is receiving Him in an unworthy manner.

I’m not condoning thinking of anything else other than receiving Jesus. But we are all human and we all have different thoughts running through our minds throughout any part of any given day. I can say one thing in my own defense though, I don’t ever remember thinking of anything other than Jesus while going up to communion to receive Him. And if I have, then I don’t remember doing it. But since I’m not perfect, I’m not sure that I can say for sure that I have never thought of anything else other than Jesus. Still, I don’t remember such occasions. I am just too happy to receive Jesus that all I can think of is going to the altar, genuflecting before I receive, then taking our Lord Jesus on my tongue. I would never receive Jesus in my hand. I don’t think it’s wrong for other people to receive Jesus in that way. It’s just not the way that I choose to receive Jesus. I’d rather receive Him on the tongue.

 

[JohnWilliams]

You made this statement in your post.

You’ve compounded your error.

 

[AlegreFe]

Sandy,

We’re going to have to “agree to disagree” on this one.

Agreed

FromTheCrossroa:

I do not deny real presence of communion. See my previous posts for proof. What I believe to be as truth concerning the passages in which Christ implemented communion is the cup of wine was symbolic (think dual meaning) AND SUBSTANCE. The disciples would drink of the same martyrdom he was about to experience. Something real and symbolic.

I don’t disagree with you here about being both when you put it in this manner.

What I was talking about was the fact that when we eat His flesh and drink His blood there is nothing symbolic about it. We can’t say, “oh this is ‘real food’ but it is only ‘symbolic’ when I eat it.” When we partake of the One Loaf, it can only be one, either “real” or “symbolic,” it’s not “both and”

FromTheCrossroa:

The wine also represented a covenant being entered into by the community of disciples (think Church today) while uniting them physically.

The cup also represented the shedding of his blood for the forgiveness of sins, and represented the new life. These became physical in Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

I understand quite well and don’t disagree with you here.

FromTheCrossroa:

The bread also had symbol and substance. Bread represented life and consuming of his word (also symbolic of Christ’s broken body).

Okay, this is where I can say that Jesus’ body was not ever ‘broken’ if you mean that his bones were broken. I think you know that though.

FromTheCrossroa:

There are more if you dig through scripture. These symbols are clearly visible, biblical, and do not really have much to do with transubstantiation or better stated the real and present presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist celebration.

I can see what you’re saying but I can never say that our meal when we are at the Lord’s Supper is merely symbolic.

FromTheCrossroa:

Many of Christ’s teachings had both real and symbolic elements intertwined. This mystery allows the simplest man to understand the covenant, and gives theologians (and forum junkies) years worth of fodder. I don’t understand how one can be separated from the other. Christ surely didn’t do so!

I think you are misunderstanding what we are trying to say here with this thread. No matter how much symbolism you might see in “another” meaning when it comes to the bread, there is only one meaning when it comes to the Bread of Life that we actually eat at the Lord’s Supper at Mass. There is nothing symbolic about it. Now if you see some “other symbol” in the “bread” that is fine. I also see our “bread” as being the Word of God in Scripture. I have never denied this.