Personal/private Communion?

[ironmonk]

PLEASE READ THIS ALL OR DO NOT REPLY.

I first must clarify something.

The Eucharist IS Christ. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, belief does not make It any less real.

You insult the Eucharist, you are insulting Christ. As the Apostles taught, and every Christian believed for over 1500 years.

1 Corin. 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

26

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If it was just bread and wine... This would not be true. If this was not true, then the bible is worthless paper.

We don't NEED the eucharist to have that 

Communion is union with God...eucharist or not. It's amesome!

If you do not have the Eucharist, you do not have communion.

If you do not have the Eucharist, you have no life in you.

John 6:53

"Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you."

Those who do not believe in the Real Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist follow doctrines of man, and are counted with those in John 6:66. I will post some of what the first Christians wrote about It at the bottom of this post.

John 6:66

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

and unless you have experienced God's presence in your own body....you have no clue... It's so challenging to be nice when all you find is criticism.

If you are not Catholic, then you do not have life in you. When you insult Christ, you will be criticized. How can you call insulting Christ being nice?!

Anna, hate to tell you, but you've lost all respect on my behalf. I don't even bother reading what you have to say no more, because the fruits you bear seem to be rotton to me.

People came insulting Christ and you dare chastize those who defend Him?

I think you both owe Anna an appology.

PLEASE NOTE THE DATES.

-------------------------------------------------

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, inDouche, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, inDouche, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,

the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

--------------------------------

Please DO NOT reply with "arm waving" or ranting and raving... I'm looking for intelligent replies... put some thought into it... pray about it... and use critical thinking.

Do not even bother rebutting it without writings from before 400 AD to refute it, because the bottom line is, the first Christians believed in the Real Pressence, and all who do not, are not physically in the Church established by Christ, if someone is not physically in the Church established by Christ they follow doctrines of man.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Edited October 31, 2003 by ironmonk

[IcePrincessKRS]

Excellent post Ironmonk!!

[Anna]

The Truth, the whole Truth, and nuttin' but the Truth!

So, help us God. :wub:

Pax Christi. <><

[Robyn]

Ok . . . I've re-read and re-read this thread and I can't find where Freaky was too out of line.

Freaky Chik does her best to be nice. If you're going to pick on anybody, she should be the last!

I remember reading it before he deleted it and I think that's what she was rolling her eyes at.

Thanks

(sorry ironmonk - I won't post anymore)

Edited November 1, 2003 by Robyn

[BLAZEr]

Robyn, please post, because I'd like to see what you think about what Ironmonk posted. He is giving you quotes from Christians who lived in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries about how they understood those passages of Scripture (John 6 and 1Cor11). Does it not matter to you that for 1500 years ALL Christians believed in that the Eucharist was in fact the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ?

I mean, say what you want about what you believe or don't believe . . . what do you think about this teaching being a constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years?

[Katholikos]

The biblical texts concerning the Eucharist are the clearest in the Bible. St. Paul and St. John could not have made it more clear. Over and over again, Jesus says in so many ways that "the bread that he will give (referring to the Crucifixion) is his Flesh for the life of the world." It is His Body and Blood, not a symbol. And He tells us that it is food inDouche, and drink inDouche, and that without it, we do not have life. The writings of the earliest Christians confirm what the Apostles believed and taught. Yet the "Sola Scriptura" crowd rejects the teaching of Christ, preferring the doctrines of men. They are like the Jews who walked away. They claim to love him, but they do not love His Church, which is His Bride and His Body, and they do not love His Eucharist, which is His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

They love the Jesus of their imagination, but not the real Jesus whose Body is the Catholic Church. They believe the Scriptures selectively, interpreted to match their own preconceived notions.

It's sad. Very sad. :(

[ironmonk]

Freaky Chik does her best to be nice. If you're going to pick on anybody, she should be the last!

Thanks

(sorry ironmonk - I won't post anymore)

You did, exactly what I asked you not to do. Thank you for proving my point. You can't prove the Eucharist wrong, so you run. Yes, You run... or you would have facts and writings from the first Christians to prove the Catholic Church wrong. If you didn't care or were not attacking it, you would not have posted and disrespected Christ.

Why don't you love Christ enough to find the Truth? If you truly love Christ, then you need an answer for everything and you need to hunt until you found one. Real answers, listen to all sides with an open heart and mind.

Why do you take my post further than it is meant? I didn't say do not post. People come here to attack the Church, then don't attack it with "nah nah na boo boo I'm right your wrong"... Come with facts. Come with what the Church of the Bible taught.

The point was actually do some study. Stop listening to men of today and all within the last 300 years... listen to the First Christians... The very same men that knew Christ and/or His Apostles.

1 Tim 3:15But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth... Which Church?

St Matt 18:17 (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Which Church do we tell according to Jesus?

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Tim 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Who where these faithful people?

The New Testament was not considered Scripture before 400 AD...

How did Christians learn of Jesus before then and before they could read?

Please post, but if you post, have some meat to your post. "I'm right, your wrong" posts do not cut it. Come with facts. Come with history. Jesus is real, He is not fiction like the Easter Bunny. Anything that is real has facts... there are right ways and wrong ways... if you say a way is right or wrong, you need to back it up. If you can't back it up, then you must have a wrong way.

Don't waste our or anyone else visiting the board's time with toddler arguments. No "my daddy can beat up your daddy" comments... no posts with idiotic rolling of the eyes just because you refuse to look things up or can't find anything.

When are you going to learn... if you can't answer something or find a real answer from your church, then you are not following the Way that Christ taught.

Any attack that you can come at the Catholic Church can be answered by the Catholic Church with historical facts. No other Church can make this claim. That IS why all anti-Catholics fear the challenge that I have had posted online for about 2 years now.

Freaky Chick is the first one to say she's going to try before actually trying. I know others have started and failed. I know others have started then not said a word, just kept on attacking. I'm very impressed with Freaky Chick for letting us know she's going to try it.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ

ironmonk

[Uncle Gus]

"Private communion" is an oxymoron.

[Anna]

"Private communion" is an oxymoron.

omgosh, you're right! :lol: