Why I adopt anybody's communion belief? Why does it matter?

[JRKH]

Hi Diane:
The whole eucharist adoration thing sort of makes me a little uncomfortable, so I can’t go there. But I don’t believe in judging other organizations whose practices of worship differ from mine. I am sure there is a lot in our worship that other equally sincere Christians feel uncomfortable with too. So there you go.

Ineresting. It seems like this should not be a big deal for you since you, “approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ”. So Eucharistic Adoration would be nothing more than adoration Of God present in the Eucharist.

I wonder if your hesitancy with this and with statues is connected. Probably is I suppose with your background.

Truly though, given your posts I believe God is calling you into The Catholic Church. It will just take time. His time and not ours.

Peace
James

 

[AmateurPianist]

His way is revealed through the traditions and teachings of Holy Mother Church - tracable to the most ancient of times in both the Roman Rite and the Eastern Orthodox Rite of the Church.

This is what I was driving at in my first post.

The question of the proper way to understand the Eucharist, which is the subject of this thread, is just one of many things where Christian communities differ. Others include Justification, baptism, predestination, osas etc.
Looking only at the Bible is sufficient to support any number of different, and sometimes opposing, views depending on how one interprets certain passages. So how does one determine which is “His way”, not just on one matter but on all?

By seeking That community which has preserved His teachings down through the ages, from the earliest, “pre-bible canon” days to today. The community that has authority and history that demonstrates that the “gates of hell” have pounded it hard, but never prevailed against it. The community that is big enough to hold many different spiritualities - from deeply traditional and contemplative to highly contemporary and “alleluia” style charismatics, without splitting apart.

And, believe it or not, the one thing that ties all of this together for us IS, in fact, the Eucharist. Not just the bread and wine but the actual Body and Blood of our dear Lord Jesus Christ - The Real Presence - validly instituted by a validly ordained Priest.
Not just that some person mumbles some words of memorial over some bread and wine (or juice), but that the person saying such words has a direct link through valid ordination to the first apostles and to Christ Himself.

Now whether your minister (or any non-catholic minister), from God’s view, has some validity in saying the words over the bread and wine I cannot know. As you an I agree, intent has a lot to do with it.
What I can know is that the Oldest Christian Church, the Catholic Church, for nearly 2000 years has interpreted and believed and done it this way without change which gives me great confidence that our way is his way.

Peace
James

As I have said all along, this assumes that there is one and only one organization of all the organizations we see today that Jesus views as “His church” and that there are special graces and benefits that Jesus confers to this one organization that He will not confer to other organizations.

If this is true, I do not see where God has revealed it. Therefore, I will continue to believe that God is not a respecter of organizations and that there is not one Christian organization that is intrinsically superior to other Christian organizations.

As I have said all along, this is my fundamental disagreement with Catholicism. I have also discussed this in other threads and do not care to discuss it at this time in this thread,.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It seems like this should not be a big deal for you since you, “approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ”. So Eucharistic Adoration would be nothing more than adoration Of God present in the Eucharist.

I wonder if your hesitancy with this and with statues is connected. Probably is I suppose with your background.

Truly though, given your posts I believe God is calling you into The Catholic Church. It will just take time. His time and not ours.

Peace
James

Yeah…I understand the logic of it. There is a difference between me not being comfortable with something and me assuming the role of judge and jury and stating it is wrong.

As far as “being called into the Catholic Church” I hope that I have been honest in my time here in stating that I am perfectly comfortable where I am in my little neck of the woods and have no interest in changing churches. From where I sit and have observed, Christians much to easily hop churches from A to B to C and lack a sense of loyalty to where God has planted them.

That is not to say that we are perfect or are superior. I have seen too much to be that stupid to make those claims.

However in the future should we ever move who knows. I don’t like the idea of closing my heart to any organization. However, “coming home” to me would be returning to the United Methodist church of my youth.

 

[JRKH]

As I have said all along, this assumes that there is one and only one organization of all the organizations we see today that Jesus views as “His church” and that there are special graces and benefits that Jesus confers to this one organization that He will not confer to other organizations.

If this is true, I do not see where God has revealed it. Therefore, I will continue to believe that God is not a respecter of organizations and that there is not one Christian organization that is intrinsically superior to other Christian organizations.

Maybe this is a fundemental difference in our “biblical world view”. I see clearly where God has revealed this.

As I have said all along, this is my fundamental disagreement with Catholicism. I have also discussed this in other threads and do not care to discuss it at this time in this thread,.

No problem.
My post is in response to your OP question about why you (should) accept anybody’s communion belief. I hope you can understand how your original question easily leads into the type of discussion you now say you don’t wish to pursue on this thread.

Peace
James

 

[AmateurPianist]

Maybe this is a fundemental difference in our “biblical world view”. I see clearly where God has revealed this.

Maybe sometime I start another thread on this. I started one about 3 months ago. It was exhausting. So I am not in a mood for getting exhausted today.

No problem.
My post is in response to your OP question about why you (should) accept anybody’s communion belief. I hope you can understand how your original question easily leads into the type of discussion you now say you don’t wish to pursue on this thread.

Peace
James

I understand the logic “We are the exclusive church of Jesus Christ. Therefore you should accept it on that basis.” And it makes sense. If in fact there is one organization that is exclusively (from God’s perspective) “His church”, it just makes sense that you can trust what it teaches above what other organization that are not of equivalent stature believe and teach. I get that.

 

[Jean_1958]

For the record…
So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?

Because it’s about unity. People who receive communion somewhere generally WANT to feel connected through common beliefs. They WANT to belong.

I don’t know what if anything happens during communion. I believe that it is altogether possible, and perhaps probable, that something with respect to a Real Presence does occur. Thus I am not a memorialist. Yet I can not totally convince myself that absolutely is the case.

It all comes down to a person’s FAITH and just how much he or she believes something happens and if it happens at all.

I have been in Catholic churches and respect their wish for their communion be reserved for Catholics.

It’s not just Catholics that have closed communion. It’s on the Protestant side as well.

I have read the Bible on this matter. The closest I find that can be a theological statement om communion would be 1 Cor 10:16 (in context 14-21) and 1 Cor 11:17-34.

Eucharist is promised:
John 6:35-71 (Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
1 Corinthians 2:14 to 3:4 (St. Paul explains what Jesus means by “the flesh”)

Instituted by Christ:
Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20 (Eucharist is actully instituted by Jesus)
1 Corinthians 5:7 (Jesus is called the paschal lamb who has been sacrificed)
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 - (St. Paul pens the earliest written account of the institution of the Eucharist)
John 1:29 (Jesus is called “the lamb of God”)

Celebrated by the Apostles:
Acts 2:42 (“devoted themselves to the … breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”)
Acts 20:7 (“first day of the week when we gathered to break bread”)
1 Corinthians 10:16-22 (Eucharist is our participation in Christ’s Body and Blood)

Christ is truly present in the Eucharist:
Matthew 26:26 (“Take and eat, this is my body.”)
Mark 14:22, 24 (“This is my body … This is my blood of the covenant.”)
Luke 22:19-20 (“This is my body, which will be given for you … new covenant in my blood”)
John 6:50-69 says: {This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” {See note} But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”}
1 Corinthians 10:16 (In the Eucharist, we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ)
1 Corinthians 11:24 (“This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”)

Peace,

Jean

 

[AmateurPianist]

Oh…one reason why I started this thread was I was curious about the perspective on the other side of this issue.

Now I can understand not being convinced about anything happening during communion. When I read the various arguments in the various threads on this, that to me is what is being said…your argument does not convince me (for whatever reason).

However, there is a big difference between not being convinced something is true, and being convinced something is not true and I am sort of curious how that leap is meant. And then there is another leap of believing something is not true and it is very important that you not believe this is true either. So I was sort of curious how both of these leaps are made if you know what I mean.

 

[JRKH]

Oh…one reason why I started this thread was I was curious about the perspective on the other side of this issue.

Now I can understand not being convinced about anything happening during communion. When I read the various arguments in the various threads on this, that to me is what is being said…your argument does not convince me (for whatever reason).

However, there is a big difference between not being convinced something is true, and being convinced something is not true and I am sort of curious how that leap is meant. And then there is another leap of believing something is not true and it is very important that you not believe this is true either. So I was sort of curious how both of these leaps are made if you know what I mean.

I think I do understand what you are saying.
This is something that I try to get others to see as well. That one can accept something without full understanding.
Much depends on the person’s natural tendancy. Say you present the same “fact” to three friends who have never heard it before. They each react in the way you expect them to because of “who they are”

• Friend one says - OK - and accepts the fact, because he trusts you and your research or source.
• Friend two says - Interesting - neither accepting or rejecting the fact, and then asks further questions not to trip you up but to learn and understand more about this fact you have presented.
• Friend three says - That’s horsepuckey - Thus rejecting the fact out of hand, and proceeds to question and to explain why the “fact is wrong”

Friend One trusts you and so accepts what you say simply and based upon that trust.
Friend Two trusts you and so accepts what you say, but is also curious and wants to know more about this thing you’ve presented.
Friend Three does not trust anything until he is comlpletely convinced.
Friend Two works from an open mind while friend three does not.

Gee now I’m having trouble trying to explain what I mean…

Anyhoooo
Once I was convinced of the Truth and Authority of The Church, my perspective shifted somewhat on the “sticky” issues. I now could accept them because I accept the Authority of the Church Christ has placed over me. I no longer had to thrash out evey doctrine and dogma in my head until I either “agreed and accepted” or “disagreed and rejected”.
This had a wonderful freeing effect. With that load lifted from my shoulders I was free to just “be” christian. To pursue a journey into Holiness without concern of getting off track, for The Church had already done, and is still doing, the “tough work” of defining these difficult issues.

I think to an extent, you enjoy that same freedom.

Peace
James