Would You..."take -communion-" Elsewhere?

[Good Friday]

Anna, you beat me to the dictionary definition of "spin." Great minds think alike. :thumb:

Bruce S writes:

Same, we just view it symbolically, not literally.

And we do it once a month, that allows for more time for the Sermon/Homily, Protestants believe more in preaching, less in ritual.

How can two different rituals come from the same source? As you've already noted, you view your communion service symbolically, whereas Catholics see the Eucharist as a divine reality -- the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. How can these two very different beliefs both come from the Apostles?

Catholics believe in a balance between the Word and the Eucharist. That's why every Mass is broken down into two main liturgies: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For us, though, the Eucharist is the summit of the Christian life. It's one thing to read about God and what He said, and that's a wonderful thing. But it's quite another for Him to make Himself present to us, speaking to us in the here and now, through the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. It's one thing to read about His Sacrifice on Calvary. It's quite another for Him to make that Sacrifice present to us, two thousand years later. Catholics believe that Scripture is very important. The Church frequently encourages us to read more Scripture. But we don't believe that Scripture should take the place of the Eucharist. Both can make Christ present to us, but only the Eucharist can make Christ actually, physically present to us in the here and now, as He was to the Apostles, fulfilling His promise: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20).

The Priest is KEY here. Without a MAN interposed between the bread and wine, according to Catholic belief, the "event" is corrupted. Thus, the priest is the ACTIVATING AGENT, and...according to MY belief, it is a human element, not a divine element that was substituted and done so for the express reason of allowing a priestly class to have control over populations and establish themselves as overlords and ensure corporal power.

First question: In your denomination, does your minister not preside over your communion service? I've yet to go to a church that does not have the minister presiding over communion services and other rituals.

Second: Where do you get your information from? Have you any actual experience with Catholic priests? Have you ever actually read something written by the Pope, or by our Bishops? As has already been said in this thread, Catholic priests function in many of the same ways that Protestant ministers do: they visit the sick and imprisoned, they preside over funerals, they supervise bakesales. This is all part of their vocation. Another part of their vocation is letting Christ work through them to make Himself present to us in the Eucharist.

Some priests, in fact many priests, go above and beyond. Take St. Maximilian Kolbe, for instance. He was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for his outspoken opposition to the Nazis. When a prisoner escaped from the concentration camp, the Nazis decided to kill several people in the camp to make them examples. St. Maximilian Kolbe took one man's place, because that man had a family to take care of. He was starved and tortured, but did not submit to death until they gave him a lethal injection. St. Maximilian Kolbe was a Catholic priest, obviously not interested in having control over populations and establishing himself as an overlord to ensure corporal power.

Another example: Bl. Damien de Veuster, also known as the Leper Priest and the Hero of Molokai. In 1873, he volunteered for an assignment to a leper colony on Molokai. There, he worked with the lepers -- especially the children. In 1885, he contracted leprosy, but he continued to build hospitals, clinics, churches and about six hundred coffins. He died there as a leper, working with lepers, something most would never do. He was a Catholic priest.

These are only two examples among many.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Good Friday

[Truth]

Do you know of any evidence that shows us that this "dynamic presence" was believed by Christians before Luther and Zwingli's time?

You guy beat up on Luther all the time, but where was and did he get his teaching from. Was he not Catholic? Was he not one of the Catholic Church bright minds? When he show the light and confronted the Cc he became a nutt case. Who to say if he was led by God to confront the wrongs of the Cc or not. He was demonized by the Cc, and you have to agree. God led people based on his will not the Cc. He may have been dealt with by God to do what he did. Was that ever a concept in your minds. No because the Cc said he was filled with demonds.

[Truth]

Anna, you beat me to the dictionary definition of "spin."  Great minds think alike.  :thumb:

How can two different rituals come from the same source?  As you've already noted, you view your communion service symbolically, whereas Catholics see the Eucharist as a divine reality -- the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.  How can these two very different beliefs both come from the Apostles?

Catholics believe in a balance between the Word and the Eucharist.  That's why every Mass is broken down into two main liturgies: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  For us, though, the Eucharist is the summit of the Christian life.  It's one thing to read about God and what He said, and that's a wonderful thing.  But it's quite another for Him to make Himself present to us, speaking to us in the here and now, through the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.  It's one thing to read about His Sacrifice on Calvary.  It's quite another for Him to make that Sacrifice present to us, two thousand years later.  Catholics believe that Scripture is very important.  The Church frequently encourages us to read more Scripture.  But we don't believe that Scripture should take the place of the Eucharist.  Both can make Christ present to us, but only the Eucharist can make Christ actually, physically present to us in the here and now, as He was to the Apostles, fulfilling His promise: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20).

First question: In your denomination, does your minister not preside over your communion service?  I've yet to go to a church that does not have the minister presiding over communion services and other rituals.

Second: Where do you get your information from?  Have you any actual experience with Catholic priests?  Have you ever actually read something written by the Pope, or by our Bishops?  As has already been said in this thread, Catholic priests function in many of the same ways that Protestant ministers do: they visit the sick and imprisoned, they preside over funerals, they supervise bakesales.  This is all part of their vocation.  Another part of their vocation is letting Christ work through them to make Himself present to us in the Eucharist.

Some priests, in fact many priests, go above and beyond.  Take St. Maximilian Kolbe, for instance.  He was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for his outspoken opposition to the Nazis.  When a prisoner escaped from the concentration camp, the Nazis decided to kill several people in the camp to make them examples.  St. Maximilian Kolbe took one man's place, because that man had a family to take care of.  He was starved and tortured, but did not submit to death until they gave him a lethal injection.  St. Maximilian Kolbe was a Catholic priest, obviously not interested in having control over populations and establishing himself as an overlord to ensure corporal power.

Another example: Bl. Damien de Veuster, also known as the Leper Priest and the Hero of Molokai.  In 1873, he volunteered for an assignment to a leper colony on Molokai.  There, he worked with the lepers -- especially the children.  In 1885, he contracted leprosy, but he continued to build hospitals, clinics, churches and about six hundred coffins.  He died there as a leper, working with lepers, something most would never do.  He was a Catholic priest.

These are only two examples among many.

Literal; mean to Upholding the ezact meaning of a word or the words of a text. Word for word: verbatim.

How much of the Gospels where Christ speak is Literal, send me chapter and verse.

Now, tell me where he spoke parabels and metaphor or even parallels. Do you see what is wrong with what you are saying. If it was not said literal its meaning was not literal. Its to bring you to a point of understanding only is you were able to understand. Being that it would have come from God.

You can't change the way the Bible was writing because you claim to have put it together.

The problem here is that the Cc lay claim to everything and say its only they that have a right to it. 2000 years don't make it right it just make it old. You can look at the Jews its even older and still stands, but its just as mislead as the Cc. If you don't get it this time you will never get it because it was not meant for you. He who have an ear let him hear what the spirit is saying to the church.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Truth

[Good Friday]

Truth writes:

You guys keep working that 2000 years. If you drove Hwy I20 to get Arkansas for 2000 years you would never make it. If you took Hwy I30 east you would make it in 3 hours. It more about the direction than the time. I have this in my kitchen to remind me of the truth.

We "work that 2,000 years" because of undeniable scriptural truth:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  - Matthew 16:18 (emphasis mine).

"And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."  - Matthew 28:20 (emphasis mine).

Is Christ a liar?

Until 1054 A.D., the Catholic Church was the only Church, and history confirms this fact. If the Catholic Church taught error for over a thousand years, and if it was the only Church, then Christ lied when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Are you saying that Christ lied?

He also said He is with His Church all days. How could He have not been with His Church for over a thousand years? That would also make Him a liar, would it not?

We "work that 2,000 years" because the Catholic Church is the only Church that makes any kind of sense. We're the only Church that has existed for 2,000 years, and we were the only Christian Church until 1054 A.D. We are the only Church that Christ could possibly have fulfilled His promise in: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." If we are that Church, then it is our responsibility to say so.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Good Friday

[Good Friday]

Truth writes:

How much of the Gospel where Christ speak is Literal, send me chapter and verse.

Christ did speak in parables, but those were always understood as parables. At the Last Supper, He said: "This is my Body." Usually, after a confusing parable, the Apostles would have asked Jesus to explain it to them. This time, no clarification was needed, implying that He had already explained it to them before. They may not have understood it yet, but He had already explained it. Otherwise, He would have explained it, as He explained His other parables.

So when did He explain it to them before the Last Supper? In John 6. He explained the meaning of the Eucharist to the Apostles in John 6. Many of His disciples left Him at that time, and He didn't stop them by explaining to them that it was a parable, that He was speaking only in symbolic terms. Surely Jesus would not have allowed them to leave just because they were confused. He would have clarified, if there had been anything to clarify. There wasn't. He meant what He said. It's just that simple. The Apostles came to understand that later, after they were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

And ever since then, the Real Presence has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It stood uncontested until Martin Luther introduced his doctrine of consubstantiation at the beginning of the Reformation, over a millennium after Christ's ascension and the birth of the Church.

[Truth]

We "work that 2,000 years" because of undeniable scriptural truth:

Is Christ a liar?

Until 1054 A.D., the Catholic Church was the only Church, and history confirms this fact. If the Catholic Church taught error for over a thousand years, and if it was the only Church, then Christ lied when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Are you saying that Christ lied?

He also said He is with His Church all days. How could He have not been with His Church for over a thousand years? That would also make Him a liar, would it not?

We "work that 2,000 years" because the Catholic Church is the only Church that makes any kind of sense. We're the only Church that has existed for 2,000 years, and we were the only Christian Church until 1054 A.D. We are the only Church that Christ could possibly have fulfilled His promise in: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." If we are that Church, then it is our responsibility to say so.

The gates of hell prevail aginst the Jews or ther places of worship. You point out the Peter and the rock qoute every time this come up. He was Jesus stumbling block not the foundation of Christ Church. Christ is the cornerstone (foundation) and the Cap stone (the head ) of the Church. You give credit where it is not due, if you want to give credit for the church give it to Paul.

[Truth]

Christ did speak in parables, but those were always understood as parables. At the Last Supper, He said: "This is my Body." Usually, after a confusing parable, the Apostles would have asked Jesus to explain it to them. This time, no clarification was needed, implying that He had already explained it to them before. They may not have understood it yet, but He had already explained it. Otherwise, He would have explained it, as He explained His other parables.

So when did He explain it to them before the Last Supper? In John 6. He explained the meaning of the Eucharist to the Apostles in John 6. Many of His disciples left Him at that time, and He didn't stop them by explaining to them that it was a parable, that He was speaking only in symbolic terms. Surely Jesus would not have allowed them to leave just because they were confused. He would have clarified, if there had been anything to clarify. There wasn't. He meant what He said. It's just that simple. The Apostles came to understand that later, after they were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

And ever since then, the Real Presence has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It stood uncontested until Martin Luther introduced his doctrine of consubstantiation at the beginning of the Reformation, over a millennium after Christ's ascension and the birth of the Church.

Once again, that was not a parable it was a metaphor.

[Truth]

I see what your saying Larry, for the sake of dialogue I will share the Catholic view.

The Church teachings that the Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life.

St. Padre Pio says that the world would survive better without the sun then without the Mass, referring of course to the Eucharistic Sacrifice which is the heart of the Mass.

St. John Vianney says that if we knew the value of the Eucharist we would die of love.

It is the Church's duty, being entrusted with such an inexpressible gift, to bar unbelievers from partaking of this Most Holy Sacrament. And this prohibition is charitable toward the non-Catholics, since it is a terrible sacriledge to partake of the Eucharist without acknowledging the True Presence of Christ therein (see 1 Cor 11:23-29).

Very key words here are; do this in remembrance of me and verse 25) For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

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

Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Bible NIV

Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996 SoftKey Multimedia Inc. All Rights Reserved

[Aloysius]

.... umm.. anamnesis is MUCH MORE than rememberence, and that's the greek word used there. it means making truly present, like remembering by bringing it to be truly there at that moment... ANAMNESIS!!!! rememberence is just the closest english word they could come up with

if the Eucharist was a metaphor in John 6, explain John 6:66... where ppl were IDIGNANT that He would say you must eat His flesh, and He was like, hey it's the truth, YOU MUST EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD OR YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU... and they were like, no way,

anyway

Peter the stumbling block????!! that's the most scripturally-ignorant statement i've ever heard. Peter, KEPHAS, which means LARGE HUMUNGOUS BOLDER, FOUNDATIONAL HUGE ROCK... and the Rock is Peter speaking truth, as shown by Jesus saying "Blessed art thou, Simon son of John, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven." u see, the Pope is ROCK when God makes sure he teaches no error, kinda like the first dogma: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God"

Larry, my friend... do you read our posts thouroughly? do you ever ponder them at all? use your flashlight of human reason battery powered by the Holy Spirit, please :)

[Truth]

No, it the woman clothed with the Sun thread - about how the Book of Daniel predicts an end to the Roman Empire in King Nebuchanezar's Dream via the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no real defense because this isn't from any modern Church teaching, it's Biblical fact that was understood by the Jews and believed by the first Jewish converts to Christianity.

Believing in "hidden knowledge" is Gnosticism. Since you don't identify with either Protestants or Catholics, and you preach an unknown 'truth' leads people to believe that you are a gnostic. The Book of Enoch is only accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which also believes that Christ never had two natures (the Monophysite heresy). Making gnostic statements and aligning yourself with heresy only leaves one to think your are a Gnostic.

For the umteen time I will tell you I'm Christian, you speak like a fool. You think that you are wise and that make you a fool, I speak beon your understanding not because I'm wise but because of the Holy Spirit. Led not to your own understanding, but by the Word of God. Heresy, is that something like the witch hunt. Jesus qouts from the Book of Enoch. Enoch must have been a very blessed man that he walked with God for 300 year and was taken up by him. That is even in your Bible.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I'm playing moderator again...

ya'll need to STAY ON TOPIC.

That means, Truth, you need to answer whether or not you would "take communion elsewhere".

So would you?

If you want a new topic, start a new topic.

[Good Friday]

Per Kilroy's request, I've started a new thread on the debate that has grown out of this thread, on the difference between Protestant communion and Catholic Eucharist:

Protestant Communion vs. Catholic Eucharist

[Donna]

Here is the truth, Truth, on Martin Luther.

As a monk (Catholic priest) he suffered very badly from scruples, which is a spiritual sickness: a true inability to rightly judge the things pertaining to one's self. (And maybe he suffered from much worse things, too). This means he was convinced everything he did was a grave sin; he also left off sleeping, and eating. His fasts and mortifications (penances; sacrfices) were way, way, way out of line. His priest confrere's and superiors tried to calm his mind; tried to get him to cease starving and sleep-depriving himself.

Luther would not listen to these counsels.

And kept getting worse in every way.

Read his laments, on the wretched state of Christianity after his revolt, quoted from "Table Talk", in the book "The Facts About Luther" by O'Hare.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Donna

[Selah]

No.

[LouisvilleFan]

Whatever.