The Closed Table

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 13 2005, 12:24 PM'] Yes - I believe that, but I'm talking about the bread and wine actually becoming flash and blood. I seriously doubt whether that happens literally; but certainly figuratively it does. [/quote]
I really think it might help if you would read the articles I posted. Most people have a problem believing it because they think that it somehow would injure Christ, where the Church teaches in the essential presence of Christ. It's hard to wrap your mind around.

[Brother Adam]

There is nothing figurative about the word 'rememberance' in Greek. Look it up. How much clearer could the scriptures be? They couldn't. There is no way Christ could have been clearer. "My body IS true food. My Blood IS true drink." Those who have faith know.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Apr 13 2005, 10:37 AM'] This is an interesting perspective. Since I've generally encountered protestants who believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), I figured that protestants thought that they could never "eat or drink judgment on themselves" by sharing in a purely symbolic communion. Heck, if no actual sin can keeping them from eternal union with God in heaven, why should there be a problem with eating bread as a symbolic union with God? (I'd really like to know how you would answer this question.)


[/quote]
Well I can't speak for every prot - I don't like to call myself a prot because there's much I dislike about the prot mind-set. So I'm neither Catholic nor prot (formally).

Anyhow - I'm going to use the dirty 'f' word; some 'fundamentalist' Christians DO believe it is possible to eat and drink judgement if they were to partake communion in an unworthy manner. If they were in a church where immorality was rife, then to eat and drink at the Communion Table could cause much sickness in that fellowship. Also taking Communion in a very divisive fellowship can be eating and drinking judgement upon oneself: because you are not recognising the Lord's BODY (ie: His BODY being the believers: which is the church). If you hive yourself off in seclusion to break bread in a holy huddle, that can be just as bad: you are not recognising the Lord's Body because you are saying "we, and we only are it". You eat and drink judgement on yourself for taking this attitude.

there have been two times in my life when I have refused communion: (1) I lied to a brother about something and I felt I could not partake of Communion. A sister noticed and said to me "There is no sin for which the Blood of christ cannot cleanse you - go and confess it to God and receive Communion". So I did confess my sin to God and receive Communion.

(2) We (my husband and I) were in a fairly high Anglican church and the priest referred to the Lord as a "funny old God" in his sermon. When it came to Communion I was choked with sorrow for my Lord because the Priest had referred to Him in such a derogatory manner: there's no way I could have gone up and received Communion from that man! Perhaps I was wrong, but we just couldn't do it.

Does this help? If not, let me know what's not clear and I'll try again.

[quote]To address your point regarding Catholics, it's interesting that you mention that some non-Catholics can lead an "unholy life" (nice and non-specific), while you mention that Catholics can abuse children and commit fornication.  Do you see the emotional tugging in this contrast you've made?
[/quote]

Sorry - my apologies for it coming across like that. There are several non-Catholic Christians I know of who commit all kinds of sin including sexual sins, fornication and paedophilia. The Catholic church is not alone in this - it's everywhere believe me.

[quote]In this discussion, you shouldn't limit yourself to two sexual sins.  Getting away from the focus on sex (which isn't the only sin!), any single mortal sin causes us to lose sanctifying grace.  God forbid we would die in such a state!  But, Catholics should not receive the Eucharist when they are conscious of unrepentant mortal sin--doing so, they would certainly "eat and drink judgment upon themselves."
[/quote]

Again I didn't mean to - it just come out like that perhaps because sexual sins are the most prominent. In my own case (as detailed above) I lied. [b]ANY[/b] sin (not just sexual ones) which is unconfessed and not put right at the Communion table would put us in danger of eating and drinking judgement upon ourselves.

[Jake Huether]

Priscilla,

To respond to something you said that no one has responded to yet (that I know of)...

Protestant communion looks, tastes, smells, and feals the exact same as Catholic Communion. The difference insn't in the accidents, it's in the substance.

Catholics know that when we chomp down on the Body of Christ what we will feel and taste is bread. But we must force ourselves to understand that the substance that we are receiving is Truly the Body of Christ. Not just an emblem, the real deal.

A short lesson on substance...

Grass is grass not because it's green, vegitative, etc. Grass is grass because it's Creator ordaned it so. God made grass grass. God made humans human. He made dogs dogs and trees trees. The accidents of these which help us to determine that which God has already ordaned so. If you look like a human, etc. you are a human. If something has a large trunk with branches and leaves, we can be sure it's a tree. But something happened the night Jesus was handed over. He took bread, blessed it, and said 'Take, eat. This is My Body'.

Jesus, who is God, said that the bread was His Body. If God told me that my dog is a human, although I was looking at what I believed to be a dog, I would have to believe, since He's God, that the dog was no longer "dog" but human!

And so God, while leaving Himself cloaked in the accidents of bread and wine, changed the substance (what something is) into His Body and Blood!

This cannot happen in protestant communion because the Command to "do this in memory..." was given to the Apostles. And only the Apostles were given authority to bind and loose things on earth, which would be bound and loosed in heaven. Therefore, only an unbroken succession of Apostles could validly call down the Holy Spirit to make this Divine change in substance.

Protestant ministers, having no connection whatsoever with the Apostles, save by Scripture maybe, cannot call down God's Spirit to transform the sunbstance of their bread and wine.


And so, what Catholics have for Communion isn't just a symbol. It is real. We cannot allow the Real Body of Christ to be consumed by one who isn't a Catholic (i.e. believing totally what Christ taught ). You may genuinely love God, but you would be wrongly receiving the Body of Christ if you only took it to be symbolic.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 13 2005, 01:24 PM'] Yes - I believe that, but I'm talking about the bread and wine actually becoming flash and blood. I seriously doubt whether that happens literally; but certainly figuratively it does. [/quote]
Jesus said this [u]IS[/u] my Body. This [u]IS[/u] my Blood.
[u]DO THIS[/u] in Remembrance of me.
The english word "remembrance" does no justice to the concept involved. It means we are out of our time and at the foot of the Cross and the Last Supper with Jesus Christ.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Apr 13 2005, 05:21 PM']

[/quote]
Thanks it helps a little but I don't like this:


[quote]And so God, while leaving Himself cloaked in the accidents of bread and wine, changed the substance (what something is) into His Body and Blood!

[/quote]

What do you mean the "accidents" of bread and wine?


It was a Passover meal the Lord instituted the Communion: in the middle of a Seder.

Also, when Jesus spoke the words of John 6 He hadn't instituted the Communion.

Nevertheless, I think we are closer than it appears on the surface about this: I certainly agree that the bread and wine become to us as the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus. It has to - there'd be no hope otherwise.

[quote]This cannot happen in protestant communion because the Command to "do this in memory..." was given to the Apostles.  And only the Apostles were given authority to bind and loose things on earth, which would be bound and loosed in heaven.  Therefore, only an unbroken succession of Apostles could validly call down the Holy Spirit to make this Divine change in substance. 

Protestant ministers, having no connection whatsoever with the Apostles, save by Scripture maybe, cannot call down God's Spirit to transform the sunbstance of their bread and wine.
[/quote]

I see what you mean but we'll have to agree to disagree. In the early church they broke bread "from house to house". There were no tinklin bells, incense and Catholic priests. Ordinary people celebrated Communion in their own homes.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 14 2005, 03:31 PM'] What do you mean the "accidents" of bread and wine? [/quote]
It's a philosophical term; it refers to the outward, sensible, tangible characteristics of something. They don't define the thing, but the thing has them. In other words, in the case of the Eucharist, the accidents (tastes like bread and wine, smells like bread and wine, looks like bread and wine) are irrelevent.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 14 2005, 01:31 PM'] Nevertheless, I think we are closer than it appears on the surface about this: I certainly agree that the bread and wine become to us as the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus. It has to - there'd be no hope otherwise.



I see what you mean but we'll have to agree to disagree. In the early church they broke bread "from house to house". There were no tinklin bells, incense and Catholic priests. Ordinary people celebrated Communion in their own homes. [/quote]
Priscilla,

I hope Raphael answered your first question. Accidents is just another way of saying it's phyiscal characteristics. While "substance" is what something really is, the "accidents" are what make it what it is to us. God blessed us with "accidents" so that we would know what we were looking at.


On your statement about "braking bread from house to house", I'd have to say that indeed there was at least one of the 12 Apostles present in order for this to be possible. And as the need arose for more Apostles to be present, then more Apostles were ordained. And I'd also have to argue that indeed there were most likely tinklin bells, smells, and all other sensory activities which filled these Jewish people's customs. Remember, the Apostles, for the most part, were from Jewish communities, and Jesus Himself was Jewish. Jew's, like Catholics, love bells and smells. Hahaha.

God bless.

[kateri05]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Apr 12 2005, 08:37 PM'] I dont see protestants bending their knees. I see them dancing, singing, clapping, waving their hands in the air, some barking like dogs, oinking like pigs. etc.. I have never seen protestants bend their knees, or is "bending the knee" just symbolic?

As for Catholics we bend our knees. Unlike the protestant Mariam and Korahs. [/quote]
lol you haven't been to a LIFETEEN Mass or a Mass at LA RE Congress if you think only protestnats are doing that (although to be fair, they DON'T make animal noises, at least that i've heard)

[jezic]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 12 2005, 12:24 PM'] True.  I'm afraid I don't believe everything the Catholic church believes - but then there's usually something about every church which doesn't believe what I believe!! [/quote]
This almost sounds like the ideas from the Reformation. There one man said i don't like that i believe something else.

Your beliefs cannot be dictated, the only thing that can be said is you must believe certain things in order to be admitted to stuff. That is what the Catholic Church does.

As for the stuff about ordinary people celebrating communion, it is possible and likely that it happened that way. The difference is, they remembered the Last Supper (we are encouraged to do that today and i do sometimes) It is not the Mass though. The Mass IS the the Last Supper just like it happened the first time. The communion in people's homes can only remember it not celebrate it.

Edited April 14, 2005 by jezic

[Quietfire]

[quote](2) We (my husband and I) were in a fairly high Anglican church and the priest referred to the Lord as a "funny old God" in his sermon. When it came to Communion I was choked with sorrow for my Lord because the Priest had referred to Him in such a derogatory manner: there's no way I could have gone up and received Communion from that man! Perhaps I was wrong, but we just couldn't do it.[/quote]

While I sympathize with you on the remark made in reference to God. You yourself judged that particular priest and chose not to receive "from that man". It is you who have sinned also, because you could not receive communion "from that man." It is a protestant way of thinking, no matter what church you are a member of, no matter what faith you claim.(and everything outside the Church is protestant)

In the Catholic Church, 'that man' is persona Christi. The priest is the person of Christ. If I chose to refuse the eucharist, the body and blood of Christ because of the actions of the priest, it would not have brought judgement down on him, but on me.

Something that you need to understand here, Pricilla. We realize that a Catholic priest is a human man. He will make mistakes, as we all do, because he is human. It is not my place to judge that very human man for his very human actions when he is in 'persona Christi'. When that same human priest steps to the alter during Mass, though he may be human, though he may have faults, here on the alter he is the high priest. Asking God that our sacrifice may be acceptable to Him. We are all taken back to that very night when Christ first broke bread with the Apostles. We are all living that moment over and over again, in every Mass, worldwide. A Mass is held every 4 seconds around the world. This is our promise to God, that we would not forget. We do this in rememberance. We live it at every Mass as Our Lord asked us to. That is some powerful information.
The Church is very serious about doing what pleases God only, for He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the creator of creation.
The rest of us can pretty much take it or leave it. And I dont mean that as an insult, really.
But it is important to understand that you can say you love God, love Jesus until your lips fall off. What Christ is asking for is for each and every one of us to pick up our cross and carry it.
It is not about finding a church to fit my needs, or finding a church that believes in what I believe in. I am fickle, I am human, I am flawed.
Its about finding a church that is true to the written and unwritten word of God. In doing what is pleasing to God, and not myself. I am nothing without God. Why would I look to [i]head/Christ[/i] that will conform to fit the needs of His [i]body/people[/i]...I would much rather be a part of the [i]body/people[/i] that fits the [i]head/Christ[/i]. I do not change Christ, Christ changed me. Why would I change His Church?

Why do so many people wish to do this? Because they are selfish, they are human, they are flawed.
They dont like this or that about the Church, so they try to change it. Imagine going up to God and telling him you dont like the way He's conducting...well?...anything. How fast do you think you'd be struck down?
Now, I'm not saying "you" as in you personally.
But its amazing how many churches that are in this world that were started by someone who thought they could do a better job of it than Christ himself. Im sure they dont see it that way, but in plain honest truth, that is essentially what they are doing. They dont like this or that about the Church, and when they found that they couldnt change it they then chose to start their own church. Next thing you know, there are so many different Protestant denominations that you couldnt even shake a stick at them all. Because suddenly this protestant church sprang from that protestant church and so on, and on, and on.

And every Protestant Church, every last one of them, going back to the very first day that ANY particular church sprang up...you will find a very human person who in the end...felt he could do a better job than Jesus Christ himself.

Think about that for a moment...
Then think about this...


In 2000 years the Catholic Church has been the same Catholic Church since Christ first established it.

understand?

God Bless and Peace to you.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Quietfire

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Apr 14 2005, 03:00 PM'] Priscilla,

I hope Raphael answered your first question. Accidents is just another way of saying it's phyiscal characteristics. While "substance" is what something really is, the "accidents" are what make it what it is to us. God blessed us with "accidents" so that we would know what we were looking at.


[/quote]
OK - I get the drift more now. I think it's an odd way to put it, but I see what you mean.

[quote]On your statement about "braking bread from house to house", I'd have to say that indeed there was at least one of the 12 Apostles present in order for this to be possible.  And as the need arose for more Apostles to be present, then more Apostles were ordained.  And I'd also have to argue that indeed there were most likely tinklin bells, smells, and all other sensory activities which filled these Jewish people's customs.  Remember, the Apostles, for the most part, were from Jewish communities, and Jesus Himself was Jewish.  Jew's, like Catholics, love bells and smells.  Hahaha.

God bless.[/quote]

Yes but not in their homes because ordinary Jewish people could not burn incense unless they were of the priestly Tribe. ONLY THE PRIESTS COULD OFFER INCENSE: it was a sin to offer strange fire before the Lord. The Apostles weren't priests or of that Tribe.

And only the priests could wear garment with bells round the bottom.

The Apostle's weren't Jewish Priests.

The incense was just a shadow: it is not needed today.

Howbeit, the new believers (about 3000 to begin with) DID go the the Temple daily - but the breaking of bread was done in their own homes.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='jezic' date='Apr 14 2005, 03:58 PM']
As for the stuff about ordinary people celebrating communion, it is possible and likely that it happened that way. The difference is, they remembered the Last Supper (we are encouraged to do that today and i do sometimes) It is not the Mass though. The Mass IS the the Last Supper just like it happened the first time. The communion in people's homes can only remember it not celebrate it.

[/quote]
That's very interesting Jezic - thanks. It's helped me lot to understand the Mass better now.

Yes it is more of a remembrance than a celebration - what a good way of putting it.

So tell me then, at the Last Supper did Jesus, when He took the bread (which would have been unleavened) and the wine actually give them a piece of His flesh and drops of His blood - which hadn't been shed yet on the cross? I don't get that bit.

However one thing I do always see Communion as (in addition to it being a Memorial Service): is that it is a proclamation of the Lord's Death till He comes again.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Apr 14 2005, 09:23 PM']
While I sympathize with you on the remark made in reference to God. You yourself judged that particular priest and chose not to receive "from that man". It is you who have sinned also, because you could not receive communion "from that man." It is a protestant way of thinking, no matter what church you are a member of, no matter what faith you claim.(and everything outside the Church is protestant)

In the Catholic Church, 'that man' is persona Christi. The priest is the person of Christ. If I chose to refuse the eucharist, the body and blood of Christ because of the actions of the priest, it would not have brought judgement down on him, but on me.

[/quote]
Yes maybe you're right and I should repent. It was more feeling hurt really: I felt hurt for the Lord that the Priest (he was Anglican - not Catholic) had referred to the Lord as a "funny old God". I was just too upset and it put me in a totally wrong frame of mind to receive Communion.

I know about submitting to authority - even when the authority is wrong: look at the Apostle Paul's example (and King David's) how they would not touch the Lord's anointed.

However - that's just another area I differ because I believe ALL true followers of Christ are a Royal Priesthood. I believe the process of "ordination" ended when the Lord Jesus rose from the dead (or there abouts) - otherwise all priests would need to be Jewish.


[quote]But its amazing how many churches that are in this world that were started by someone who thought they could do a better job of it than Christ himself.  Im sure they dont see it that way, but in plain honest truth, that is essentially what they are doing.  They dont like this or that about the Church, and when they found that they couldnt change it they then chose to start their own church.  Next thing you know, there are so many different Protestant denominations that you couldnt even shake a stick at them all.  Because suddenly this protestant church sprang from that protestant church and so on, and on, and on.

And every Protestant Church, every last one of them, going back to the very first  day that ANY particular church sprang up...you will find a very human person who in the end...felt he could do a better job than Jesus Christ himself.
[/quote]

Your post is very challenging and I am thinking about it: however I disagree about the Reformation in the sense that I think many Reformers who could read the Scriptures could see that a lot of Catholic practises were unBiblical and just pure ritual man-made traditions: and it grated on their conscience.

It is not so much rebellion and "I can do it better than Christ", but a heart-felt desire to get back to basics and the simple faith of the early church.

[quote]In 2000 years the Catholic Church has been the same Catholic Church since Christ first established it.

understand?
[/quote]

I do believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church: but I think it's not as black and white as just being the Catholic church period. I think the Bride of Christ will be a "mixed multitude" from all kinds of denominations. You get true and false brethren everywhere and the Catholic church has had a very unholy past: it is not without spot, wrinkle or blemish (just look at the way prospective popes used to poison each other for a start).

However, the true Bride (which is not always apparent to the world) is without spot, without blemish and without wrinkle - and I believe individual Catholics make up that Bride, but the whole Catholics church is not THE Bride.

I know and have known several Catholics (and prots too!) who are not even born again: so how can they ever be part of the Bride?

[bookwyrm]

Not everyone who calls him or herself a Catholic actually is.

Edited April 15, 2005 by bookwyrm