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

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw it much the same way you do now when I was converting. This verse of Paul’s was explained to me this way; a picture of me is not me, you could say that it is a symbol of me but you could not say that it was literally me. Therefore if someone tore up my picture (the symbol) you could not say that they were guilty of an offense against my body, unless it was my body.

God bless
I am not convinced this Scripture is the magic prooftext that will sink the nail into the other guys coffin so deeply that the corpse can’t escape.

But I will take it as confirmation that I have heard from God in my approach.👍
 
If you care to, Amateur, I provided an exegesis of those passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457570
Yeah I saw that thread. I went back and read the opening posts very carefully about three times.

Remember I have zero theological training much less any training in Greek or Hebrew. Although I think I understand what you are saying, it is obvious that you are about 56 grade levels ahead of me in this stuff.👍

Good grief. In looking at the thread title again, it is obvious that I can’t even write a cohesive title without omitting the verb “should”.
 
Yeah I saw that thread. I went back and read the opening posts very carefully about three times.

Remember I have zero theological training much less any training in Greek or Hebrew. Although I think I understand what you are saying, it is obvious that you are about 56 grade levels ahead of me in this stuff.👍
Bah…that isn’t important. Including the Greek is important only in understanding why the English translations we have are worded the way they are. More important are the arguments and theology that flow from the Greek, which I am sure you are just fine at!
 
So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?
If Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is true, then it is of greatest importance. We believe that the Eucharist is really, truly, substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, worthy of adoration, the highest form of worship reserved for God Himself.

If we’re right, then the reverence with which we (should) treat the Eucharist is of utmost importance because it is Jesus Himself.

If we’re wrong, then we Catholics are guilty of idolatry for worshipping the inanimate objects of bread and wine.

So it certainly matters what our communion belief is.

When I was Protestant, for a while I felt like you do. It takes a whole cognitive shift (and act of faith) to accept the Eucharist for what it is.
 
If Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is true, then it is of greatest importance. We believe that the Eucharist is really, truly, substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, worthy of adoration, the highest form of worship reserved for God Himself.

If we’re right, then the reverence with which we (should) treat the Eucharist is of utmost importance because it is Jesus Himself.

If we’re wrong, then we Catholics are guilty of idolatry for worshipping the inanimate objects of bread and wine.

So it certainly matters what our communion belief is.

When I was Protestant, for a while I felt like you do. It takes a whole cognitive shift (and act of faith) to accept the Eucharist for what it is.
Equally important is the reverse situation. If the Real Presence IS true, then Protestants took a critical dogma held for over 1500 years and simply threw it away. If they’re wrong on something this big, then surely many other of their claims and interpretations have to become suspect as well.
 
If Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is true, then it is of greatest importance. We believe that the Eucharist is really, truly, substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, worthy of adoration, the highest form of worship reserved for God Himself.
Understood.
If we’re right, then the reverence with which we (should) treat the Eucharist is of utmost importance because it is Jesus Himself.
OK. But with simply an approach of it as the body and blood of Jesus, you should have the same reverence. At least I would think.
If we’re wrong, then we Catholics are guilty of idolatry for worshipping the inanimate objects of bread and wine.
I don’t think this follows. I would never presume to speak for God to assume how He would view it in the event you are wrong.

If God looks upon the heart, then certainly He sees the intent of heart as worshipping Jesus. And He would see y’all approaching it as His body and blood. And it is not as though God has clearly revealed to man that the elements only represent His body and blood and absolutely nothing more (if He has clearly revealed that…please show me where). The worst case in my opinion would be that your heart is in the right place but your understanding is a little off in a matter that God has not revealed to man the whole story.

But maybe I am more merciful that God is on these matters.
 
For the record…

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.

So I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. Because those are Jesus’s words. Jesus did not say represents, so I do not feel I have the license to do so. At the same time I do realize that in many common English and Scriptural uses is does not mean is. So with apologies to Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is** why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter**?
When you review the bread of Life discourse, (Jn 6) and the Last supper narritivesin the Gospels, and In the sense we’re using communion, we only do this because it’s a direct command of Jesus to the Church He established. And particularly to the apostles who Jesus annoints for this purpose of celebrating and consecrating the Eucharist. “do this” and not something else, nor in anyother way, in memory of me. And we do it His way.

That’s why we do it at all, and why it matters how we believe and who we believe.
 
’Twas God the word that spake it, He took the bread and brake it, And what the word did make it, That I believe and take it. - Elizabeth I
 
Equally important is the reverse situation. If the Real Presence IS true, then Protestants took a critical dogma held for over 1500 years and simply threw it away. If they’re wrong on something this big, then surely many other of their claims and interpretations have to become suspect as well.
This is off topic, but I have often wondered on many issues that divide us whether you are a little over the top in one direction while we are over the top in another direction. And the truth is somewhere in the middle.

What if God never intended anybody to dogmatize communion? What if His intent was just for us to observe it with the mind set that (as Paul says) we are partaking of the blood and body of our Lord.

Just me wondering…
 
This is off topic, but I have often wondered on many issues that divide us whether you are a little over the top in one direction while we are over the top in another direction. And the truth is somewhere in the middle.

What if God never intended anybody to dogmatize communion? What if His intent was just for us to observe it with the mind set that (as Paul says) we are partaking of the blood and body of our Lord.

Just me wondering…
Keep in mind that in most circumstances, the Catholic Church will not dogmatize a position unless it is something critical to the faith and held since the earliest days of the church that comes under attack. That is why you see a huge amount of dogmas arising during the Protestant Reformation. There was simply no NEED to dogmatize it before then, because virtually EVERYONE held to that opinion. In the case of Communion, ALL the historical evidence suggests that the Real Presence was taught in an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles. Most of the early heresies attacked this belief, and the whole of Christendom felt strongly enough to call councils deriding this idea as utterly unchristian. Now, most of these people were only one or two generations from the Apostles. If I’m struggling on how to interpret a particular position of the Church, the surviving accounts of the Early Church Fathers would be a very good source for indicating what the original intent was.

Keep in mind that even the Orthodox Church, which rarely dogmatizes ANYTHING, considers this an absolute essential element of the faith.
 
For the record…

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.

So I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. Because those are Jesus’s words. Jesus did not say represents, so I do not feel I have the license to do so. At the same time I do realize that in many common English and Scriptural uses is does not mean is. So with apologies to Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?
I, too, like your approach because we must trust Jesus’s words even when we don’t understand how it happens.

However, I think it matters because it is a matter of faith. We believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ even if we don’t understand how it happens, because Christ told us so, and he would not try to mislead us. However, many people come to God with an approach like yours, and that is their starting point. They don’t know the means or if they can prove it, but they leave it all up to God.

I think with many Protestants, however, the real reason what the Catholic Church teaches matters is because they see the Catholic teaching as idolatry. They see it as worshiping plain bread and wine. Besides Communion, we have Exposition, Eucharist Adoration, and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. At these times especially, there is great reverence given to the Eucharist: procession, prayers, special attire for the priest, songs, and long periods of silence with people on their knees before the elaborate decorated monstrance, which houses and displays the Body of Christ. In many churches, there is 24 hour adoration with people praying before the Eucharist night and day, without Christ ever left alone. There are quite a few rules of canon law regarding how the Eucharist should be kept and adored, emphasizing the fact that it truly is Jesus. This reverence is quite special, beautiful, and important to many Catholics; this love for the Eucharist could not be there without people knowing in their heart that it truly is Jesus.

To many non-Catholics, this is seen as idolatry, fruitless rituals and “traditions of men” that lead people away from Christian prayer. Some see it as silly superstition and even cult-ish.

I have never seen reverence like I have when I’ve been to large gatherings for Eucharistic Adoration. Just spending an hour with Jesus in Adoration at the chapel in town is certainly important to me, and it’s one of the reasons I love my faith. It’s not just about Communion, it’s about Christ being physically here, present on Earth for us to visit. I don’t know how it happens but I know He’s there.

So I went kind of off the topic of Communion and I hope I didn’t confuse you with crazy Catholic lingo… 🙂
 
If God looks upon the heart, then certainly He sees the intent of heart as worshipping Jesus. And He would see y’all approaching it as His body and blood. And it is not as though God has clearly revealed to man that the elements only represent His body and blood and absolutely nothing more (if He has clearly revealed that…please show me where). The worst case in my opinion would be that your heart is in the right place but your understanding is a little off in a matter that God has not revealed to man the whole story.

But maybe I am more merciful that God is on these matters.
Not to change the subject (much) but - - -
I see that you place a great (and I believe proper) deal of weight on “intent” in so far as how we are justified in our approach to the Eucharist.
Just curious here - do you hold the same view of intent when it comes to statues? I’m sure this is another are where fundamentalists generally take issue with catholics.

Peace
James
 
This is off topic, but I have often wondered on many issues that divide us whether you are a little over the top in one direction while we are over the top in another direction. And the truth is somewhere in the middle.

What if God never intended anybody to dogmatize communion? What if His intent was just for us to observe it with the mind set that (as Paul says) we are partaking of the blood and body of our Lord.

Just me wondering…
Rolltide has already given a good answer to this but I will just add that I think we wind up making things more complicated because of one word…Why?

You know the old joke/scene where the small child is driving the adult crazy with questions - - constantly asking why?
Well that is us. We can rarely be satisfied with the simple faith of trying to live the two great commandments of love. Instead we have to try and “understand” everything. So we keep asking - Why and How?
The Church, being a good mother, tries her best to get the answers and explain it to us. After nearly 2000 years of this there is bound to be a llot of explanations around. Now whether these things are “dogmatically” declared is, as Rolltide says, generally a matter of extreme need.

So - in short there are those who lean more toward the mystical and can and do accept things without the “need to know” while others are more “rational” and have a need to understand things.

Peace
James
 
And what exactly is His way? Where has He revealed to us what His way is?
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
 
So what I hold is an approach to communion, not a theology of communion. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ. And I leave whatever happens (if anything) to the Lord. And to be honest, I am satisfied with this.

So my question is why should I adopt anybody’s communion belief? Why does it matter?
that is the proper attitude to adopt until such time as your faith on this matter is fully informed. it matters because it is Truth, and knowing and understanding Truth is the reason humans have been endowed with intellect and mental faculties above those of the animals. It matters because it is Love, and understanding and accepting with width and breadth and depth of Christ’s love is the reason humans have been endowed with emotions, intellect, will, memory and faculties of the mind and heart.

It matters not an iota whether or not you adopt the views of some persons or group of people, it matters to the extent of saving your immortal soul if you believe what God has revealed about himself, and thank him for what he has done for you.
 
I, too, like your approach because we must trust Jesus’s words even when we don’t understand how it happens.

However, I think it matters because it is a matter of faith. We believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ even if we don’t understand how it happens, because Christ told us so, and he would not try to mislead us. However, many people come to God with an approach like yours, and that is their starting point. They don’t know the means or if they can prove it, but they leave it all up to God.

I think with many Protestants, however, the real reason what the Catholic Church teaches matters is because they see the Catholic teaching as idolatry. They see it as worshiping plain bread and wine. Besides Communion, we have Exposition, Eucharist Adoration, and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. At these times especially, there is great reverence given to the Eucharist: procession, prayers, special attire for the priest, songs, and long periods of silence with people on their knees before the elaborate decorated monstrance, which houses and displays the Body of Christ. In many churches, there is 24 hour adoration with people praying before the Eucharist night and day, without Christ ever left alone. There are quite a few rules of canon law regarding how the Eucharist should be kept and adored, emphasizing the fact that it truly is Jesus. This reverence is quite special, beautiful, and important to many Catholics; this love for the Eucharist could not be there without people knowing in their heart that it truly is Jesus.

To many non-Catholics, this is seen as idolatry, fruitless rituals and “traditions of men” that lead people away from Christian prayer. Some see it as silly superstition and even cult-ish.

I have never seen reverence like I have when I’ve been to large gatherings for Eucharistic Adoration. Just spending an hour with Jesus in Adoration at the chapel in town is certainly important to me, and it’s one of the reasons I love my faith. It’s not just about Communion, it’s about Christ being physically here, present on Earth for us to visit. I don’t know how it happens but I know He’s there.

So I went kind of off the topic of Communion and I hope I didn’t confuse you with crazy Catholic lingo… 🙂
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.
 
Not to change the subject (much) but - - -
I see that you place a great (and I believe proper) deal of weight on “intent” in so far as how we are justified in our approach to the Eucharist.
Just curious here - do you hold the same view of intent when it comes to statues? I’m sure this is another are where fundamentalists generally take issue with catholics.

Peace
James
Hi:
I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist. But then again to my parents I am one. So I guess it all depends on how you define fundamentalist.

I am so glad God has not given me the assignment of “judge of universe”. Therefore, although some practices may make me feel uncomfortable, I do not have to put on the judge robes and evaluate it. And being free in that respect, I think I will try to hold the practices and rituals of other organization in as much of a charitable light as possible. To me it comes down to specks and logs, which I think also applies to the my organization versus the other guys.

So doing that with statues, one can make the argument that statues are just an example of art in church. And there is really not much of a difference between a statue inspiring worship of God and a painting inspiring worship of God and great music inspiring worship of God.

But to be honest that sort of makes me feel uncomfortable too, so I can’t go there for myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top