Protestants and Holy Communion

[PoorKnight]

I know the thread is off the OP but I had a thought on it…

John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Ok, I’m a boomerang (born / raised Catholic, drifted to protestantism in young adult hood, came back with a vengence last year).

This was the quote that really started me back. Protestants are HUGE on “Christ died for you” i.e. gave his body (flesh) for the forgiveness of sins or stated another way, gave us life through his death and resurection.

If that’s the case then the bold part above either means one of two things 1) We must eat his flesh

-or-

1. That is bread nailed to a cross.

The Greek supports this view.

Also… “This IS my Body”. In the Presb chuch I was in, they were HUGE Calvinists / Westminster Confessionalists. They used - what they told me were - Calvin’s rules for interpretation of the Bible: One could interpret a passage to have a dual meaning but that secondary meaning COULD NEVER contradict the origional passage. For example, “Thou shalt not steal” could NEVER mean: in general it’s ok to steal.

I tried asking how “This is My Body” could then be interpreted as “This is NOT My Body”. I didn’t get an answer.

This is the Central Mystery of the Chirstian Faith and through study I found only the Catholic Church to take it seriously: That Christ is present in the Eucharist BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY

PRAISE GOD!!

 

[Cinette]

I know the thread is off the OP but I had a thought on it…

John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

…

This is the Central Mystery of the Chirstian Faith and through study I found only the Catholic Church to take it seriously: That Christ is present in the Eucharist BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY

PRAISE GOD!!

*Amen to that! The Eucharist is also a mystery and I believe Jesus’ words in John 6 are literal and I trust and love Him so I believe without understanding. It is as he said.

*

 

[JonNC]

=Abu;9167181]That’s where you deny Christ who gave His authority to Peter and His successors (post #126).

Where did Christ give Peter universal jurisdiction? And if He did, why is He seemingly contradicted by Nicea, canon 6?

Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)
St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

But Christ is not enough; St Paul’s clear understanding is not enough for the new oracle JonNC.

Aside from personal jab, which I shall ignore except to ask where in my entire record here at CAF have I treated Catholics in such a manner, which patriarch of the early Church should I believe regarding this matter?

When all of those who compiled the Bible and wrote the early councils agree on this most important point, I will submit.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Cinette;9168412]

Yes I firmly believe that Luther is responsible for a HUGE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE to Christianity and it continues to this day. One sees thousands of Protestant denominations which continue to increase to this day, all as a consequence of Luther’s actions. He attacked the scriptures denying James’ epistles which is part of the Canon. He thought he was more powerful than the Pope - in fact, he was his own “pope”.
Source please, where he said James was not part of the canon.

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

He preached from James his entire life.

I think you are misguided. I do not believe you are shallow. You love the Lord, I believe that - I believe that you care very much about your beliefs (although some are erroneous). I cannot call you shallow in any way. You are absolutely wrong in many of your statements - yes!

Well, this is better than being charged with being anti-catholic, or “a new oracle”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

As you know, Catholics believe two things about the Eucharist that are really critical to a genuine understanding of this Mystery of Faith:

1.) Only a duly ordained priest acting within his competence can consecrate ordinary bread and wine, to be both valid and licit.

2.) The Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

There was no Apostolic Succession through Luther or via any 16th Century followers of Luther or any of the others who revolted from the Catholic Church - except initially for the Anglicans, but this did not last long because of the desire to totally break with the Catholic Church.

And, that appears to be where the disagreement lies (at least for this specific thread )… well, at least as I see it. Lutherans (and a few others) have developed their own traditions and customs specific to what they call communion. But, lacking Apostolic Succession - and this would be through the consecration by a bishop of a man to be an ordained priest, there is no valid minister of the Sacrament. And, lacking a valid minister, all that is taking place is (hopefully) an edifying experience.

Now, I would be curious as to why you claim to believe the seven early church councils and three creeds - and stop there. Now, I can only guess that you are including the very first council, the Council of Jerusalem (c. 66AD) and then from there I think the order is:

1st Council of Nicaea 325AD
1st Council of Constantinople 381AD
Council of Ephesus 431AD
Council of Chalcedon 453AD
2nd Council of Constantinople 553
3rd Council of Constantinople 680AD and if the Council of Jerusalem is not counted, then
2nd Council of Nicaea 787

So, why stop there?

God bless

Those are the seven accepted by the undivided early Church. That’s not to say that there aren’t things in other councils I accept.

Jon

 

[Courtney134]

JonNC - I don’t have a specific source, but I have read several apologetics in my search of the truth. (Quick back story - baptized Catholic and received First Communion, my mom switched to the First Christian Church, and now I’m thinking about returning to Catholicism). During the course of my reading, I’ve learned that Luther doubted the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation in the New Testament. However, it wasn’t very popular with the masses, so he ditched that idea. His reasoning for rejecting James was because it conflicted with his belief of being saved through faith ALONE, while James stresses the important role of works as being a part of salvation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

You really need to provide some detail … and some citations if you please

So, exactly what do you mean by the ‘undivided early Church’ with the 7th Council in 787AD. The Great East-West Schism is usually identified as having begun in 1057AD - is this what you are talking about?

And, not to put too fine a point on it - just who are you to determine which items from a Council you accept and which you reject?

God bless

Those are the seven accepted by the undivided early Church. That’s not to say that there aren’t things in other councils I accept.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

You really need to provide some detail … and some citations if you please

So, exactly what do you mean by the ‘undivided early Church’ with the 7th Council in 787AD. The Great East-West Schism is usually identified as having begun in 1057AD - is this what you are talking about?

And, not to put too fine a point on it - just who are you to determine which items from a Council you accept and which you reject?

God bless

Tom,
Without sounding argumentative, which councils are accepted by Orthodoxy?

I am a Lutheran. These are the ones Lutherans accept.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

JonNC - I don’t have a specific source, but I have read several apologetics in my search of the truth. (Quick back story - baptized Catholic and received First Communion, my mom switched to the First Christian Church, and now I’m thinking about returning to Catholicism). During the course of my reading, I’ve learned that Luther doubted the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation in the New Testament. However, it wasn’t very popular with the masses, so he ditched that idea. His reasoning for rejecting James was because it conflicted with his belief of being saved through faith ALONE, while James stresses the important role of works as being a part of salvation.

Luther recognized the disputed nature of the Antilegomena, which dates back to Eusebius.
With James, the issue was, primarily, the question of authorship, again a historic question long before Luther. Luther did have trouble James’ message, but not in the way Catholic apologists sometimes present it.

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men **but vigorously promulgates the law of God. **However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

Regarding sola fide, James does not contradict it. It is law oriented, sure. And it properly reminds us that a faith without works is a dead, not a living faith.

Jon

 

[jcrichton]

I know the thread is off the OP but I had a thought on it…

John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Ok, I’m a boomerang (born / raised Catholic, drifted to protestantism in young adult hood, came back with a vengence last year).

This was the quote that really started me back. Protestants are HUGE on “Christ died for you” i.e. gave his body (flesh) for the forgiveness of sins or stated another way, gave us life through his death and resurection.

If that’s the case then the bold part above either means one of two things 1) We must eat his flesh

-or-

1. That is bread nailed to a cross.

The Greek supports this view.

Also… “This IS my Body”. In the Presb chuch I was in, they were HUGE Calvinists / Westminster Confessionalists. They used - what they told me were - Calvin’s rules for interpretation of the Bible: One could interpret a passage to have a dual meaning but that secondary meaning COULD NEVER contradict the origional passage. For example, “Thou shalt not steal” could NEVER mean: in general it’s ok to steal.

I tried asking how “This is My Body” could then be interpreted as “This is NOT My Body”. I didn’t get an answer.

This is the Central Mystery of the Chirstian Faith and through study I found only the Catholic Church to take it seriously: That Christ is present in the Eucharist BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY

PRAISE GOD!!

Welcome Home!

…what I truly find interesting is how non-Catholic Christians define Jesus’ Word as symbolic/figurative in every instance that their theology/descent conflicts with the Teaching of the Church–even when Jesus clearly and adamantly states that we must Eat and Drink His Body and Blood… even when Scriptures include the reaction of Jesus’ audience to His Command and Jesus’ refusal to tone down His so called “hyperboles” and “allegories.” :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Cinette]

Irreparable? That seems a rather low opinion of the power of the Holy Spirit. That said, he had an huge amount of help from some folks in Rome at the time.
*Look at the fruits! There is no central authority, there is discord, the churches keep splitting each time there is a disagreement (literally scores of denominations - in fact hundreds of scores!!) the churches have watered down beliefs. If you compare the beliefs of the denominations today to what Luther believed you will see how the beliefs have changed. Even Luther must be turning in his grave! *

So, what teachings of the historic Church am I aloud to agree with then. The Doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the Church founded by Jesus himself.

Alas, your belief that I am sincere doesn’t answer the question as to whether you think I am shallow.

You are misguided but not shallow
I only question that they have universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.
*The Deposit of Faith, the Authority given to Peter by Jesus - it would not make sense to found a Church without Authority. The Holy Spirit is there guiding the Church despite the weakness of humans within the Church. Without the H Spirit there would be no Church. You can’t tell me that the H Spirit is there guiding all the denominations! Surely!
*
Cinette
Jon

 

[jcrichton]

Source please, where he said James was not part of the canon.

He preached from James his entire life.

Well, this is better than being charged with being anti-catholic, or “a new oracle”.

Jon

Hi, Jon!

…Luther may not have said that it was not part of the Canon but he spoke very uncharitable about James, Hebrews and Apocalypse… he even decided that he had the authority to add to the actual Biblical text as he plummeted the simple and dissenters into that ominously treacherous trek against Christ’s Church:

Luther added the word “alone” (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[8] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[9] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.[10]

…Luther places himself above even the Sacred Scriptures as he makes himself sole and complete authority of the Word of God.

Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[11] In his translation of the New Testament Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered “the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”[12] His views on some of these books changed in later years.

…again, the mighty falls on his sword as he makes himself complete authority over the Word of God, defining and redefining things on his ego trip.

It is completely surprising to me that you claim to seek enlightenment while deriding the Church as you embrace Protestanism with sheer delight (translation: Catholic Church errs vs. you and Luther and his supporters and followers who are all fully inspired).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Tom,
Without sounding argumentative, which councils are accepted by Orthodoxy?

I am a Lutheran. These are the ones Lutherans accept.

Jon

Could you define Orthodoxy?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Luther recognized the disputed nature of the Antilegomena, which dates back to Eusebius.
With James, the issue was, primarily, the question of authorship, again a historic question long before Luther. Luther did have trouble James’ message, but not in the way Catholic apologists sometimes present it.

Regarding sola fide, James does not contradict it. It is law oriented, sure. And it properly reminds us that a faith without works is a dead, not a living faith.

Jon

…yet sola fide does not exist!

…the closest Scriptures get is “not by faith alone!”

How do you account for Luther’s adding to Scriptures?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

You are not being argumentative … I honestly do not know. I am guessing that they go up to 1057 - but, I am not sure. This would take in the 4th Council of Constantinopel in 869AD but not the 1st Lateran Council in 1183. Do you know? A reference would be appreciated. Thanks

I think that the Orthodox have had their own Councils, do the Lutherans believe these? At some point the Lutherans abandoned the Pope and never signed on to the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy.

God bless

Tom,
Without sounding argumentative, which councils are accepted by Orthodoxy?

I am a Lutheran. These are the ones Lutherans accept.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Indeed! Without the Holy Spirit we would have all sunk to the bottom of the sea!

Seriously, I think one of the real issues deals with how closely do today’s Churches adhere to the Founders of their Churches. I think Luther would truly be amazed that those who claim to follow him today - have no special devotion to Mary as he did, have allowed homosexual unions (the Evangelical Lutherans, not the Missouri Synod group - but all of the Lutheran Churches in Germany). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Other Protestant groups are ordaining women, ordaining homosexuals, ordaining women, do not condemn abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

Contrast this with the Catholic Church following Christ. Marriage is a Sacrament and can only be between a man and woman, same sex unions are condemned, abortions and embryonic stem cells research is condemned becaue life is respected, the ordinatin of practicing homosexuals is also condemned.

In brief, there are many differences on what is taught today and what is taurht from the an.
boat going up and down the river.

God bless

Tom

You are misguided but not shallow
I only question that they have universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.
*The Deposit of Faith, the Authority given to Peter by Jesus - it would not make sense to found a Church without Authority. The Holy Spirit is there guiding the Church despite the weakness of humans within the Church. Without the H Spirit there would be no Church. You can’t tell me that the H Spirit is there guiding all the denominations! Surely!
*
Cinette
Jon

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Cinette,

Indeed! Without the Holy Spirit we would have all sunk to the bottom of the sea!

Seriously, I think one of the real issues deals with how closely do today’s Churches adhere to the Founders of their Churches. I think Luther would truly be amazed that those who claim to follow him today - have no special devotion to Mary as he did, have allowed homosexual unions (the Evangelical Lutherans, not the Missouri Synod group - but all of the Lutheran Churches in Germany). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Other Protestant groups are ordaining women, ordaining homosexuals, ordaining women, do not condemn abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

Contrast this with the Catholic Church following Christ. Marriage is a Sacrament and can only be between a man and woman, same sex unions are condemned, abortions and embryonic stem cells research is condemned becaue life is respected, the ordinatin of practicing homosexuals is also condemned.

In brief, there are many differences on what is taught today and what is taurht from the an.
boat going up and down the river.

God bless

Tom

*Look at the fruits and you will find the Church Jesus founded. Just arrived home and in time for our rosary novena. Will try to contact tomorrow.

God Bless
Cinette*

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Cinette,

Indeed! Without the Holy Spirit we would have all sunk to the bottom of the sea!

Seriously, I think one of the real issues deals with how closely do today’s Churches adhere to the Founders of their Churches. I think Luther would truly be amazed that those who claim to follow him today - have no special devotion to Mary as he did, have allowed homosexual unions (the Evangelical Lutherans, not the Missouri Synod group - but all of the Lutheran Churches in Germany). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Other Protestant groups are ordaining women, ordaining homosexuals, ordaining women, do not condemn abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

Contrast this with the Catholic Church following Christ. Marriage is a Sacrament and can only be between a man and woman, same sex unions are condemned, abortions and embryonic stem cells research is condemned becaue life is respected, the ordinatin of practicing homosexuals is also condemned.

In brief, there are many differences on what is taught today and what is taurht from the an.
boat going up and down the river.

God bless

Tom

Hi, Tom!

I cuncur with you, the liberties taken by non-Catholic Christians go from troublesome to fully anti-Biblical and anti-Christian.

But I caution that devoted Catholics should not fall asleep as Satan continues to make strides into the Body of Christ… just this Sunday I’ve learned of a “Catholic” parish where the new motto seems to be “everything goes as long as people feel good and seem happy.”

They are making great strides in ecumenism:

nytimes.com/2012/04/08/nyregion/oratory-church-of-st-boniface-draws-congregants-from-outside-the-parish.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=%20the%20new%20york%20times,%20Sunday,%20April%208,%202012,%20Parish%20Without%20Borders&st=cse

The church’s high ritual and its open and inclusive approach appeal to people born to the faith, converts, Christians of other denominations and, particularly, young families. The priests have also made a special point of welcoming Catholics who have been distressed by some of the church’s politics or its sometimes rigid hierarchy.

St. Boniface is an example of an intentional parish, a phrase some members of the clergy use to describe a destination church that attracts people from beyond its geographic boundaries.

…Catholics no longer live in a Catholic world, explained David Gibson, author of “The Coming Catholic Church: How the Faithful Are Shaping a New American Catholicism,” and a St. Boniface parishioner.

“Catholicism now is more about making choices,” he said, and for some, that means traveling to parishes where they feel affirmed.

“MEETING them where they are” is a mantra among St. Boniface’s five priests and a lay brother, who make it a point to invite new faces to monthly home-cooked lunches in the rectory.

…When a lesbian couple approached one of the priests, the Rev. Mark Lane, about baptizing their child, they were afraid he would turn them away, he said. But they were welcomed. For Father Lane, 55, the parish’s openness simply reflected Christ’s teachings to love everyone. Even if that could be taken as an implicit critique of the church’s position on homosexuality, the parish did not make the family occasion into a cause.

“The danger is, you turn that into a platform and forget about the persons involved, and I think that’s wrong,” Father Lane said. The two mothers stood at the font with their child along with everyone else. “The symbol is visually powerful, but that’s enough.”

The priests prefer to address controversial issues like same-sex marriage and the death penalty outside of Mass, and while anti-abortion marches are listed in the church bulletin, they are not announced after services. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, head of the Diocese of Brooklyn, recently wrote a letter condemning the Obama administration’s mandate that health insurance cover birth control; the letter was distributed in the church, but the priests have preferred to address the debate one on one with parishioners.

…Satan is winning souls… and too often “Catholics” are not only following the crowds but leading them… even as they profess to being Catholic Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Tom!

I cuncur with you, the liberties taken by non-Catholic Christians go from troublesome to fully anti-Biblical and anti-Christian.

But I caution that devoted Catholics should not fall asleep as Satan continues to make strides into the Body of Christ… just this Sunday I’ve learned of a “Catholic” parish where the new motto seems to be “everything goes as long as people feel good and seem happy.”

They are making great strides in ecumenism:

…Satan is winning souls… and too often “Catholics” are not only following the crowds but leading them… even as they profess to being Catholic Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel

Some years ago my husband and I left a parish for which we considered to be anti-Catholic practices. The Eucharist was consecrated from pizza bread which made crumbs which would be swept up and scattered in the garden for the birds!. The inclusive language and many other things disturbed us so we left. I must say that at the same time the priest had been instrumental in my husband’s conversion but ultimately he was “overtaken” as we got to learn more about the faith. So I went from holding him in high regard (because he did have many views which coincided with ours) to shaking my head in disbelief at his liberal attitudes!!:nope::nope::nope::nope:

 

[jcrichton]

Some years ago my husband and I left a parish for which we considered to be anti-Catholic practices. The Eucharist was consecrated from pizza bread which made crumbs which would be swept up and scattered in the garden for the birds!. The inclusive language and many other things disturbed us so we left. I must say that at the same time the priest had been instrumental in my husband’s conversion but ultimately he was “overtaken” as we got to learn more about the faith. So I went from holding him in high regard (because he did have many views which coincided with ours) to shaking my head in disbelief at his liberal attitudes!!:nope::nope::nope::nope:

Sadly, this is becoming far too common… as if the world did not have enough red-hot coals burning a path to hell, our Catholic Priests and Religious are becoming so ennamoured with the world that they consciously choose the world over God even though they have full knowledge that to be friends with the world means to have enmity against God!

…hey but as long as everything is politically correct… let lose the gates of hell! :bigyikes::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel