Protestant Communion

[MariaG]

I believe when God makes reference to deadly sin He means it.

Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Yes, Catholics also believe that there is such a thing as deadly sin.

But this does NOT support your belief that sin is sin is sin. Not all sin merits death.

Scripture also clearly tells us that there is sin that is NOT deadly.

All sin is not equal in the eyes of God. There is sin that is deadly and will cut you off from the Grace of God bringing death. And there is sin that is not deadly. All wrongdoing is sin. But not all wrongdoing is a deadly sin.

:bible1: 1John 5:16-17 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

 

[deborahssong]

Greetings in the Lord. I believe it is a fair assumption that every single denomination has some sort of abuse of the WORD of God. I have been in just about every one and it appears to be so. The word of God is so clear to me about what to do in all situations of life. I have applied Gods word to my own life and I am far better off than I was doing my own thing. Then you have to say, well thats not relevent for today? If the bible changes from century to century then my dear brothers and sisters in Christ we are alll in big trouble!!! God is absolute and His ways are as well. YES YES YES there is mercy and grace in abundance when we mess up!!! and desire to change.
To my understanding the catholic church backs up the word of God! They would never tell you to do other than what it says. The bible states clear that the Corinthinas were abusing the Eucharist AND because of that some were sick and yes even died. And this was after the resurrection of Jesus folks! Not Old testament but new. Hebrews 13;8 says that “Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever”. NO man or denomination can change that whether we beleive it or not! To God be the glory. The next time you take communion take it with reverance and a clean heart and soul. That is the proper way! God Bless.

 

[AlegreFe]

JohnWilliams:

You quote me and then go wander off on your own unrelated tangent.

What is self-centeredness?
I can quote you or anyone for that matter and still post my own views. You’re not the only one on this forum. I post so that ALL can read. If I just wanted to post something that I would only want you to read then I would send you a PM. And I don’t see anything “unrelated” in my post.

JohnWilliams:

If you review the related posts you will probably see why I am not inclined to continue to spend my time posting with you.

Your choice. No one’s forcing you to post here, much less with me. I thought we were doing a nice job of communicating. I guess I was wrong. It’s not the first time nor will it be the last. I’m not perfect.

JohnWilliams:

Generally an atheist knows what is right and wrong.

My point exactly. You asked the question, I answered it. What happened to your wanting me not to go off on my “own unrelated tangent?”

JohnWilliams:

When we repent and try as best as we can to live our lives in Jesus and with Jesus as our model.

You are trying as best as you can**??** I rely on Jesus to do that for me when I am at my weakest. I decrease so that He may increase. That is why I have to go to Confession. So that I can receive His mercy, love, forgiveness and absolution. Then I can receive Jesus in Holy Communion so that I can abide in Him and He in me.

20 … no longer I, but Christ lives in me;
insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith
in the Son of God who has loved me and given
himself up for me. Gal 2:20

JohnWilliams:

When we recognize that our bodies are the temple of God

Are you in a state of Grace right now or ever? If so, how can you tell? How do you know for sure and do you know beyond any shadow of any doubt with absolute certainty that you are in a State of Grace? Do you partake of the One Loaf that is Jesus Christ that would make you part of me, and part of Jesus Christ and His whole Church who also partake of His Body & Blood… His Real Presence of His Body & Blood and not just a piece of bread/cracker and grape juice that is actually just a symbol?

JohnWilliams:

When we love not our lives unto death, and the things of this world become irrelevant. When we are in constant relationship. That’s what being guided by the Holy Spirit is to me.

Sounds good to me. But are the things of this world really irrelevant to you? Did you sell all you have and give it to the poor then follow Jesus in carrying your own crosses of this life? Are you really in constant relationship with God… 24/7? So you think of God first thing when you wake up and you constantly think of God all day long until and including when you go to bed? You don’t offend God in any way, ever? You never sin?

17 “… If you wish to enter into life,
keep the commandments.”

21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be
perfect, go, sell what you have and give to
(the) poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mat 19:17, 21

 

[AlegreFe]

…Cont

JohnWilliams:

… I would be reluctant to make a claim of an unbroken chain of succession. Sometimes I judge things in part by the fruit.

You are in no place to judge anyone or anything that happens in the Church. Neither was Luther. It was only his job to be obedient to the Church and he refused. He was given the chance to recant but he didn’t. The people in the Church are not impecable but the Church is perfect and Holy. You wouldn’t understand completely of what I speak unless you were Catholic. Someone once said that the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners. Jesse Romero said that but I’m not sure if he got that from someone else. (uh oh, I better not go off on my “own unrelated tangent”).

Keep in mind Jesus is talking to his disciples as Bishops of the Church. We need more Priests in the Church and from what I read in the second verse we needed more since the beginning.
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy (-two)
others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to
every town and place he intended to visit.
2 He said to them, "The harvest is abundant
but the laborers are few; so ask the master of
the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.
3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you
like lambs among wolves.

16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever
rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me
rejects the one who sent me." Luke 10:1-3, 16

You nor anyone else should say anything against Jesus just because of Judas.

13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light
from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round
me and those who journeyed with me.
14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I
heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language,
‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It
hurts you to kick against the goads.’
15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord
said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Acts 26:13-15

JohnWilliams:

Starting a Church is something that a person should be qualified and called to do, not decide to do.

That is right. Peter did not decide to be the “earthly shepherd” of Jesus Christ’s Church. Peter was called to do it by Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus did not call anyone else to do the honors, NO ONE else but Peter.

You speak of having to be “qualified?” Peter wasn’t even “qualified” as the Pharisees were. He was only “qualified” by God Himself who gave him the guarentee of the Holy Spirit to preach and teach the Word of God and faith & morals. Peter’s earthly leadership was handed down to each of his successors. The Catholic Church can trace all of the Popes all the way back to Peter. None of the Popes were perfect and impeccable. Just as you nor I are perfect and impeccable. But when it comes to TEACHING the Word of God, only the Pope has the guarentee of the Holy Spirit not to make any mistakes. That is not to say that he can’t make mistakes in any other area besides preaching about Faith and Morals.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1700841&postcount=272

I’m a complete ignoramous. What is your point? Did you think that post was just me going off on my own unrelated tangent? I believe my posts are relevant whether you think so or not. I don’t just post for you here.

 

[AlegreFe]

Categorizing sin is a doctrinal concept that we will not be able to find common ground on. In scripture sometimes shopping lists of sins are lumped together.

The Catholic Church does not give a “list of mortal sins” that we are to confess. Mortal sin is different for everyone as not all are aware of which things could be of “grave matter.” If someone has full knowledge that what they are doing is of grave matter and they do it with full consent of the will, then they have committed a mortal sin. That’s it. There is no “list of mortal sins.” The Church does however, define which things or activities are of “grave matter.”

26 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge
of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins
27 but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming
fire that is going to consume the adversaries.
28 Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to
death without pity on the testimony of two or three
witnesses. Heb 10:26-28

JohnWilliams:

I don’t believe God makes a distinction. Sin is sin.

I do believe God makes a distinction and sin is not sin. There is mortal sin and venial sin.

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin
is not deadly, he should pray to God and he
will give him life. This is only for those whose
sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as
deadly sin, about which I do not say that
you should pray.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin
that is not deadly. John 5:16-17

Don’t think that this sin of which Paul speaks is only that sin which is against the Holy Spirit. Yes, that sin is deadly/mortal but that is not the only sin which is mortal. The only difference is that any mortal sin can be forgiven except for the deadly sin against the Holy Spirit. If you don’t trust and believe that God’s mercy and love is greater than your mortal sin, then you will not be forgiven. That is the sin of despair.

JohnWilliams:

Nor is my salvation and relationship with Jesus in jeopardy.

It’s nice that you feel you have that assurance of salvation. But no one has that assurance.
Even Paul said he doesn’t have that kind of assurance.
12 It is not that I have already taken hold of it
or have already attained perfect maturity, but
I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess
it, since I have indeed been taken possession
of by Christ (Jesus).
13 Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself
to have taken possession. Just one thing:
forgetting what lies behind but straining forward
to what lies ahead,
14 I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize
of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus.
Phil 3:12-14

12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have
always been, not only when I am present but all
the more now when I am absent, work out your
salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For God is the one who, for his good purpose,
works in you both to desire and to work.
14 Do everything without grumbling or questioning
Phil 2:12-14

Cont…

 

[AlegreFe]

…Cont
"JohnWilliams:

It hurts me to the bone when I sin and I can feel it pull me away from that relationship.

I know how you feel.

JohnWilliams:

Thus I sin less and less as that relationship continues.

That’s great. But how do you know that you have been absolved of your past sins. Is there still this “pulling feeling” sometimes from things you have done before? I only ask for you to answer to yourself and not to me here in this forum, unless you want to.

Can you pray directly to Jesus and ask Him to forgive you of your sins and get absolution?

Of course. That is what happens when I am in Confession. The priest is just there standing in persona Christi. But I understand your question. Yes, I pray to Jesus and beg for His mercy and forgiveness when I sin. I even cry sometimes. But then I go as soon as I possibly can to Confession. That is the only way that I can be absolved and know for sure that I have that absolution for my sins is if I confess them to Jesus in the Sacrament of Confession. Only a Catholic priest can forgive sins and give absolution as Jesus Christ gave that authority to Priests when He showed Himself to all the disciples after His resurrection.

13 Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and
said, “I do will it. Be made clean.” And the leprosy
left him immediately.
14 Then he ordered him not to tell anyone, but “Go,
show yourself to the priest and offer for
your cleansing what Moses prescribed; that will
be proof for them.”
Luke 5:13-14

9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your
sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, pick up your
mat and walk’?
10 But that you may know that the Son of Man
has authority to forgive sins on earth"–
11 he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise,
pick up your mat, and go home.” Mk 2:9-11

19 On the evening of that first day of the week,
when the doors were locked, where the disciples
were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood
in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands
and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw
the Lord.
21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you.
As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them
and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and
whose sins you retain are retained.” John 20:19-23

In Persona Christi
By virtue of sacramental consecration, the ordained priest
does not simply become a functionary. This consecration
does not set him apart to simply perform certain tasks in the
Church. No, by virtue of the sacramental consecration which
the priest receives, he is ontologically changed. He is
configured to the Person of Jesus Christ, Head and Shepherd,
in a new way in his very being. “The relation of the priest to
Jesus Christ, and in him to his Church, is found in the very
being of the priest by virtue of his sacramental
consecration/anointing and in his activity, that is, in his
mission and ministry.” Just as at Baptism and Confirmation
the Christian is sacramentally marked on the soul, so is the
man who is ordained a priest marked sacramentally and
configured to Christ the Priest.

 

[East_Anglican]

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.

I believe it is spiritually, not physically. As the spiritual is as real as the natural then because it is spritually, it is! I don’t believe it changes but it is to us his flesh and blood. As we agree it is (and that’s the important part) the argument is on semantics. I hate semantics!

 

[O.S.Luke]

It is semantics… Thomism and Rationalism are simply the wrong disciplines for a sacrament/mysterion. You can’t explain away a mystery of Christ being Really Present with substance and accidents. In short… using rationalism to explain a miracle?

I just don’t see how.

It’s Christ’s body and blood. Period. Westerners have to explain EVERYTHING. Eastern Christians have never felt the need to coin transubstantiation or metabole. It has always seemed to me the greatest mistake the Church ever made was to explain away the greatest mystery of faith with a Western philosophy.

 

[East_Anglican]

It is semantics… Thomism and Rationalism are simply the wrong disciplines for a sacrament/mysterion. You can’t explain away a mystery of Christ being Really Present with substance and accidents. In short… using rationalism to explain a miracle?

I just don’t see how.

It’s Christ’s body and blood. Period. Westerners have to explain EVERYTHING. Eastern Christians have never felt the need to coin transubstantiation or metabole. It has always seemed to me the greatest mistake the Church ever made was to explain away the greatest mystery of faith with a Western philosophy.

Plato is the father of Western thought. the western church is more influenced by him than the Eastern Church. A lot of what plato saoid was outragous. Another thing is that what “This is my body” may mean to Westerners might not be what it meant to first century Jews.

 

[Catholic_Heart]

**I would like to say that the evangelical church I spoke of earlier has communion each and every Sunday, and they do take it very seriously…That was why I was so surprised to see the communion “elements” neatly packaged and waiting in large bowls.

Altars in Protestant Churches…Most DO have altars, and many have altar rails. Depends on the church.

I grew up in Protestant churches…Methosist…and remember that communion was a quarterly thing there, but it was done with reverence. I think it is unfair to assume that because Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence that they are therefore irreverent in their reception of communion…

CH
**

 

[jmcrae]

I grew up in Protestant churches…Methosist…and remember that communion was a quarterly thing there, but it was done with reverence. I think it is unfair to assume that because Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence that they are therefore irreverent in their reception of communion.

The services themselves can be very, very reverent, but their belief that it is merely symbolic can lead to some bizarre things happening to the remaining elements afterwards, such as the Body of Christ being used as turkey stuffing, the Blood being poured down an ordinary kitchen sink along with day-old coffee and skunge from dirty dishes, etc.

It’s probably a mercy that they don’t have valid Holy Orders, because if Jesus could really come to them in Holy Communion, He would suffer a lot of abuse at their hands, I think - not so much in Church, but after the service is over.

 

[AlegreFe]

The services themselves can be very, very reverent, but their belief that it is merely symbolic can lead to some bizarre things happening to the remaining elements afterwards, such as the Body of Christ being used as turkey stuffing, the Blood being poured down an ordinary kitchen sink along with day-old coffee and skunge from dirty dishes, etc.

It’s probably a mercy that they don’t have valid Holy Orders, because if Jesus could really come to them in Holy Communion, He would suffer a lot of abuse at their hands, I think - not so much in Church, but after the service is over.

You’re so right. I agree. If some Protestants knew how the Catholic Church treats what remains then they would know just how reverant the Church is when it comes to Christ’s Body & Blood.

I posted a new thread on this subject matter.

 

[believers]

I grew up protestant and but I never really realized how little significance the Eucharist could be to them until now. My sister went to a Baptist church last week and she said that the communion was pre-packaged. The bread and juice were packaged together in individual servings and she had to just take the plastic off of the top of it to get the wafer and then there was another layer of plastic under it to get the juice. She didn’t even have to get out of her seat. The ushers delivered it to everyone. She was suprised and hesitated. The usher asked if she was saved. She said yes and took one and that was the end of it. I was shocked. What is the significance when the Sacrament is reduced to a pre-packaged snack?

Oladare

Jhn 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)
Work of God = “believe on Him he hath sent.” (John 6:28)
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

 

[AlegreFe]

Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meatis to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
…
Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)

That passage in John chapter 4 does not pertain to the Body and Blood substantially real food that He gives us every day at Mass, which is the Holy Eucharist.

That passage in the John chapter 4 was was about the disciples urging Jesus to eat, and Jesus replying to them that He has food of which they do not know. You cannot put that passage together with John chapter 6 when it comes to the Eucharist.

You could however, put it along with our spiritual “food” that we should have everyday when reading scripture, praying and/or going to Mass. But Catholics do have a substantial real meal that we eat every single day if one attends daily Mass; as in the “Our Father” that says, “… give us this day our daily bread…”

The real food of which Jesus speaks later in John chapter 6 is His actual & substantial Body & Blood that He tells us to eat and says, "… whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." He gave us His flesh to eat so that we can live forever. That is the Catholic Holy Eucharist.

Here are some passages from John chapter 4 so that you can see more in context. Don’t try to put passages here and try to pass them off for something they are not. You have to read more than what you just put in your quote. Somehow, however, I’m sure you knew that.
30 They went out of the town and came to him.
31 Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, "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, "Could
someone have brought him something to eat?"
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will
of the one who sent me and to finish his work.

 

[MariaG]

Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

I will have to say that I can see where this verse is compelling to you.

But since we both have scripture that we believe we are interpreting with the leading of the Holy Spirit, I would need to ask you to provide a source other than yourself that interprets communion as only symbolic.

A source from the first 300 years of Christians since we both say that scripture supports our view. I have read the ECF in which it is quite clear that there is BOTH a spiritual and literal aspect to communion. So while I can see when one is stuck in the modern interpretation of ONLY symbolic the above bible verse would seem to be a slam dunk, it ignores the rest of Scripture and the very literal aspect to it. It ignores the “figurative” use of what eat my flesh and drink my blood means.

Until you can support your interpretation of scripture of ONLY a symbolic nature with something other than your own words, the words of your pastor or anybody born later than the 1500’s, I’ll stick to with the Holy Spirit and where the Spirit led me. I’ll stick with those who claim the same thing you do (led by the Spirit) but can also show that you are in fact the one who “has come along with false teachings” as scripture warns us about.

It is intellectually dishonest and completely against faith and reason to accuse the Catholic Church of being the Church that “came along” with false teachings when historically that is completely unsupported.

But, if you do think you are right, again, show me the writings of the Early Christians who believe in ONLY the symbolic nature of communion and the roots of your historical Church.

May God Bless you and keep you safe,
Maria

 

[believers]

I will have to say that I can see where this verse is compelling to you.

But since we both have scripture that we believe we are interpreting with the leading of the Holy Spirit, I would need to ask you to provide a source other than yourself that interprets communion as only symbolic.

A source from the first 300 years of Christians since we both say that scripture supports our view. I have read the ECF in which it is quite clear that there is BOTH a spiritual and literal aspect to communion. So while I can see when one is stuck in the modern interpretation of ONLY symbolic the above bible verse would seem to be a slam dunk, it ignores the rest of Scripture and the very literal aspect to it. It ignores the “figurative” use of what eat my flesh and drink my blood means.

Until you can support your interpretation of scripture of ONLY a symbolic nature with something other than your own words, the words of your pastor or anybody born later than the 1500’s, I’ll stick to with the Holy Spirit and where the Spirit led me. I’ll stick with those who claim the same thing you do (led by the Spirit) but can also show that you are in fact the one who “has come along with false teachings” as scripture warns us about.

It is intellectually dishonest and completely against faith and reason to accuse the Catholic Church of being the Church that “came along” with false teachings when historically that is completely unsupported.

But, if you do think you are right, again, show me the writings of the Early Christians who believe in ONLY the symbolic nature of communion and the roots of your historical Church.

May God Bless you and keep you safe,
Maria

Hi Maria, Nice to see you here too! Did you notice in my post that I used NONE of my own words. It’s ALL in the Word of God. Why did you not post all of the scriptures. They all go together. Jesus gave us clues as to what He was referring to when He said eat my flesh.

I’ll pass on the wafer and eat the meat. BELIEVE ON HIM, Maria. This goes back to the preaching of the cross.

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

[believers]

That passage in John chapter 4 does not pertain to the Body and Blood substantially real food that He gives us every day at Mass, which is the Holy Eucharist.

That passage in the John chapter 4 was was about the disciples urging Jesus to eat, and Jesus replying to them that He has food of which they do not know. You cannot put that passage together with John chapter 6 when it comes to the Eucharist.

You could however, put it along with our spiritual “food” that we should have everyday when reading scripture, praying and/or going to Mass. But Catholics do have a substantial real meal that we eat every single day if one attends daily Mass; as in the “Our Father” that says, “… give us this day our daily bread…”

The real food of which Jesus speaks later in John chapter 6 is His actual & substantial Body & Blood that He tells us to eat and says, "… whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." He gave us His flesh to eat so that we can live forever. That is the Catholic Holy Eucharist.

Here are some passages from John chapter 4 so that you can see more in context. Don’t try to put passages here and try to pass them off for something they are not. You have to read more than what you just put in your quote. Somehow, however, I’m sure you knew that.
30 They went out of the town and came to him.
31 Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, "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, "Could
someone have brought him something to eat?"
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will
of the one who sent me and to finish his work.

Why did you cut out the other verses? They’re just as important.

I think these verses are great!

Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)
Work of God = “believe on Him whom He hath sent.” (John 6:28-29)
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

 

[believers]

Just out of curiosity… Do you guys even question why the Eucharist is whole, round, and unbroken?

Jesus BROKE the bread because it represented His body which was to be broken.

1Cr 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me

 

[MariaG]

Hi Maria, Nice to see you here too! Did you notice in my post that I used NONE of my own words. It’s ALL in the Word of God. Why did you not post all of the scriptures. They all go together. Jesus gave us clues as to what He was referring to when He said eat my flesh.

I’ll pass on the wafer and eat the meat. BELIEVE ON HIM, Maria. This goes back to the preaching of the cross.

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Hi believers

Yes, I too can do the same thing. I could post none of my own words, only Scripture and do the same thing.

So what we see is two people who both firmly believe they are led by the Holy Spirit and the other is being misled.

Scripture does warn us that there will be those who come along teaching falsely so both of us would need to be wary of someone who teaches differently than what we believe scripture “plainly” teaches.

So I ask you again, where in the writings of Early Christians does it tell us that communion is ONLY symbolic? We know Christians of all sorts write gobs and gobs on He whom we love. Where are the writings about the teachings of Christ that tell us communion is only Symbolic? I see lots AFTER the reformation. None before.

That is a huge red flag to me that someone “came along”.

You are NOT just posting scripture, you did in fact place your interpretation of that scripture at the bottom. This is a good thing. Jesus too did not just spout OT to His people. He tried to enlighten them.

I just disagree with your interpretation of scripture that seems to ignore the many other places where Christ speaks very literally and in fact, would make His words nonsense if one took it figuratively.

The Eucarist is BOTH spiritual and literal. Scripture speaks to both aspects of this miracle.

But I am always willing to listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Please show me the writings of Early Christians who INTERPRET scripture in the manner you do. Show me the writings that show that the literal AND sybolic nature of the Eucharitst is the interpretation and the teaching that has “come along” and not the symbolic only teaching.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Just out of curiosity… Do you guys even question why the Eucharist is whole, round, and unbroken?

Jesus BROKE the bread because it represented His body which was to be broken.

1Cr 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me

Actually believers, if you go to a Mass, you will see if you watch carefully that the large round Eucharist that is held up IS broken. Some priests will place it back together so it is “round” again, but it is in fact “blessed and broken”.

God Bless,
Maria