What Is The Purpose Of Taking Communion ?

[Webers_Home]

.

God transforms the Eucharist

That ought to be a red flag to a thinking person right there because
according to Ex 7:17-21 and Rev 16:3-6, the Bible's God gives people
blood to drink for retribution. It would be inconsistent of Him to give
people blood to drink as a blessing; unless of course their name was
Edward Cullen.

Note : the Catholic system in which I grew up; the congregation was never
permitted to consume the wine element. So all those years I observed the
Lord's supper incorrectly; and if incorrectly, then I was robbed because
according to the Lord's testimony as an expert witness in matters related to
the procedure of his own supper; it is necessary to consume both elements
in order to be blessed with eternal life.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

Subject Change:

†. Mtt 26:27-28 . . He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them,
saying: Drink from it, all of you.

What was in the cup?

†. Mtt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

According to Acts 2:5-15, new wine is quite sufficient to get people hammered.
But the vine beverage in the supper's cup is not stipulated to be new. This
tells me that it isn't mandatory to use a fermented liquid for communion
services-- which is a good thing because here in the USA it's illegal to give
alcohol to minors.

Buen Camino
/

 

[neophyte]

.


That ought to be a red flag to a thinking person right there because
according to Ex 7:17-21 and Rev 16:3-6, the Bible's God gives people
blood to drink for retribution. It would be inconsistent of Him to give
people blood to drink as a blessing; unless of course their name was
Edward Cullen.

Note : the Catholic system in which I grew up; the congregation was never
permitted to consume the wine element. So all those years I observed the
Lord's supper incorrectly; and if incorrectly, then I was robbed because
according to the Lord's testimony as an expert witness in matters related to
the procedure of his own supper; it is necessary to consume both elements
in order to be blessed with eternal life.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.

Subject Change:

†. Mtt 26:27-28 . . He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them,
saying: Drink from it, all of you.

What was in the cup?

†. Mtt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

According to Acts 2:5-15, new wine is quite sufficient to get people hammered.
But the vine beverage in the supper's cup is not stipulated to be new. This
tells me that it isn't mandatory to use a fermented liquid for communion
services-- which is a good thing because here in the USA it's illegal to give
alcohol to minors.

Buen Camino
/

Buen Camino, your mistaken, that is incorrect. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, we read (RSV): "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" [emphasis added]. Whether we eat the host or drink from the cup, we profane both the body and the blood of Christ, so the host consists not only of the body of Christ, but also of his blood. Likewise, the cup consists of not only the blood, but also the body of Christ.

 

[Webers_Home]

Buen Camino, your mistaken

Sure, sure, whatever you say; only I wish you'd read some of post #14 first
before passing judgment on my comments.

BTW: my name isn't Buen Camino. The two words are a greeting sort of like
Bon Voyage traditionally called out to pilgrims trekking the El Camino de
Santiago in Spain; which begins on the French side of the Pyrenees and
terminates at Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain.

Emilio Estevez produced a really emotional movie centered on the Camino in
2010 starring his dad Martin Sheen called "The Way" in which a bitter eye
doctor back-packs his son's ashes from one end of the Camino to the other
after his son was killed by a storm in the Pyrenees on his very first day out
on the Camino. Sheen's adventures along the Camino are pretty interesting,
and the score is good too. I especially enjoyed the songs by James Taylor
and Alanis Morrissette.

Cliff
/

 

[neophyte]

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:45 PM
. by Webers_Home
†. 1Cor 11:27 . . Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the
Lord.

What's he talking about there? Homicide? I seriously doubt it. Christ rose
from the dead immortal so he can't be killed anymore.

†. Rom 6:9 . . Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die
again; death no longer is master over Him.

I'm pretty sure the most anybody can reasonably get out of 1Cor 11:27 is
just simply the sin of sacrilege; which Webster's defines as: gross disrespect
for a hallowed person, place, or thing. Here's a version that best represents
that concept.

"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
(NIV)

A footnote in my electronic Catholic Bible interprets this particular sacrilege not
as a homicide, but as a sin against the Lord himself-- in other words: a personal
insult. (cf. 1Cor 8:12)

Note : it's interesting that Christ at one time was subject to death right
along with the rest of mankind; and that can only be because he was
imputed a share in Adam's indiscretion.

†. Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered into the world, and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

"all sinned" is in the grammatical past tense indicating that the forbidden
fruit incident made a sinner out of the Lord just as effectively as it made
sinners out everybody else.

†. Rom 5:19 . . through the one man's disobedience; the many were made
sinners

The punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit is limited to one's earthly
demise; so nobody is danger of going to hell for it; viz: when the Lord
died on the cross, justice was satisfied and the fruit was expunged from
his record-- and since he never committed any sins of his own to answer
for; Jesus is no danger of the second death depicted at Rev 20:10-15.

Cliff
/

Edited by Webers_Home, 17 August 2012 - 06:56 PM.

• 
• 
• 0

• Back to top

" The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ ? And the bread that we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord." [ 1 Cor. 10:16 ]

 

[Webers_Home]

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ?
And the bread that we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord.

You've somehow assumed that "sharing" and "partaking" indicate consuming.
But the koiné Greek word doesn't mean that at all.

The word translated for both sharing and partaking is koinonia (koy nohn-ee'-ah)
which means partnership; elsewhere translated fellowship; for example:

†. 1John 1:2-7 . . We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that
you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father
and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.

. . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is
light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him
yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in
the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the
blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Look: if you're content to cannibalize the Lord's body, and vampirize his blood,
more power to you; but I simply cannot justify memorializing him like that.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Mungo]

.
Far from being immortal, the natural-born human soul is quite susceptible to
termination.

†. Mtt 10:28 . . Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The Greek word for destroy is not that which is used earlier for kill. It means rather “ruin”. It is the same verb used in Mt 9:17 referring to the wineskins that are ruined.
"People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”

It is the alternative to eternal life as described by Jesus in Mt 25:46 when he says “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

Souls are not annihilated but go to everlasting punishment which is ruin.

I was baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944 and subsequently
was enrolled in catechism until I completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.
But listening to me today you'd never know it because now I thoroughly renounce
Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation as little more than a masterpiece of cannibalistic
fiction.

Probably because you do not understand it.

And we should not expect children to understand it either.

We believe in Jesus, and what he said, by faith.

Protestants do not believe in what Jesus says unless they understand it.

As a result they are like the disciples who said “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” and then "As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." (Jn 6:60 & 66)

We are like those disciples who did not understand but stayed with Jesus because they believed in him. Gradually over time we do begin to understand more and more. But even if we never fully understand (and we cannot because it is a mystery) we have faith in Jesus words:

This IS my body
This IS my Blood

Take and EAT
DRINK from this all of you

 

[Templar81]

What do most of you think of someone taking communion who is not even Baptised.

As a member of the Church of England I wasn't allowed to recieve Communion as a child because I had not yet been Confirmed but now each Parish can give out Communion at their own discretion which in most cases means that anyone can just step right up and take it. The problem with this is that in the UK most people hardly even know what a Church is let alone the mysteries of the Holy Eucharist. Thus they turn up for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve stinking of booze and they take Communion not knowing what they are doing. The reason for this is that the cofE is the state Church but is there for its non-members just as much as its members which is why lots of peopel get Baptised but are never seen again and churches are full on rememberance Sunday and Christmas but nearly empty all year round.

i've seen so many people take communion who really didn't have a clue what they were doing or how they were to behave and I tkae the Eucharist extremely seriously so you can imagine how much it upets me to see other people take it flippantly without the due reverance.

This is why I'm against the receving of communion by the uncatechised but that s not to say that I don't think chidren should recieve it as long as they have had it preoperly explained to them and they know what they are doing.

 

[Mungo]

What do most of you think of someone taking communion who is not even Baptised.

As a member of the Church of England I wasn't allowed to recieve Communion as a child because I had not yet been Confirmed but now each Parish can give out Communion at their own discretion which in most cases means that anyone can just step right up and take it. The problem with this is that in the UK most people hardly even know what a Church is let alone the mysteries of the Holy Eucharist. Thus they turn up for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve stinking of booze and they take Communion not knowing what they are doing. The reason for this is that the cofE is the state Church but is there for its non-members just as much as its members which is why lots of peopel get Baptised but are never seen again and churches are full on rememberance Sunday and Christmas but nearly empty all year round.

i've seen so many people take communion who really didn't have a clue what they were doing or how they were to behave and I tkae the Eucharist extremely seriously so you can imagine how much it upets me to see other people take it flippantly without the due reverance.

This is why I'm against the receving of communion by the uncatechised but that s not to say that I don't think chidren should recieve it as long as they have had it preoperly explained to them and they know what they are doing.

The unbaptised are not allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church.

Children go through a catechetical process to explain it to them. That does not mean they have to understand transubstantiation, but to believe that they are truly receiving the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

the Catholic system in which I grew up; the congregation was never
permitted to consume the wine element. So all those years I observed the
Lord's supper incorrectly; and if incorrectly, then I was robbed because
according to the Lord's testimony as an expert witness in matters related to
the procedure of his own supper; it is necessary to consume both elements
in order to be blessed with eternal life.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal
life.

Apparently Vatican II ruled that Catholics can now consume the wine
element. But what about all those pre Vatican II Catholics? What's to
become of them?

Well; if what Jesus testified at John 6:53-54 can be assumed true and
reliable; then all those pre Vatican II Catholics were dead men walking, and
in grave danger of eternal suffering; because it's necessary to obtain eternal
life in order to be safe from retribution.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

There's an additional situation associated with eternal life. According to
God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own
son: those pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied eternal life via the wine
element; were consequently denied Christ too.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us
eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life;
whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christlessness is an extremely hazardous spiritual condition.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Mungo]

.


†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal
life.

Apparently Vatican II ruled that Catholics can now consume the wine
element. But what about all those pre Vatican II Catholics? What's to
become of them?

Well; if what Jesus testified at John 6:53-54 can be assumed true and
reliable; then all those pre Vatican II Catholics were dead men walking, and
in grave danger of eternal suffering; because it's necessary to obtain eternal
life in order to be safe from retribution.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

There's an additional situation associated with eternal life. According to
God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own
son: those pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied eternal life via the wine
element; were consequently denied Christ too.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us
eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life;
whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christlessness is an extremely hazardous spiritual condition.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

Buen Camino
/

When we receive the body of Christ we receive Christ entire, body, blood, soul and divinity.

As St. Thomas Aquinas says:
After what we have said above (Article 1), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead:

There is no necessity to receive under both species.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

When we receive the body of Christ we receive Christ entire, body, blood--
There is no necessity to receive under both species.

According to the Lord's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters
pertaining to his own wishes; Christ's body is in the bread, and his
blood is in the cup.

†. Mtt 26:26-27 . .While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks
and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat; this is my
body. Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying:
Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Paul corroborated the Lord's testimony.

†. 1Cor 11:23-25 . . For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered
to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which he was betrayed took
bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat; this
is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the
same manner he also took the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of
me.

According to Christ then; communion is incomplete when only one of the
elements is consumed; viz: participants in a half-baked communion are
disqualified from the blessing of eternal life; and not only that, but people
who listen to celebrities like Thomas Aquinas instead of listening to Christ,
are under a special curse.

†. Gal 1:7-9 . .There are some who trouble you and want to pervert the
gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As
we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other
gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Like they say: a word to the wise is sufficient. Be wise therefore instead
lacking in prudence.

†. Prv 29:25 . . Reverence for men will prove to be a snare; but whoever
trusts in The Lord is kept safe.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Mungo]

.


According to the Lord's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters
pertaining to his own wishes; Christ's body is in the bread, and his
blood is in the cup.

†. Mtt 26:26-27 . .While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks
and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat; this is my
body. Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying:
Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Paul corroborated the Lord's testimony.

†. 1Cor 11:23-25 . . For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered
to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which he was betrayed took
bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat; this
is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the
same manner he also took the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of
me.

According to Christ then; communion is incomplete when only one of the
elements is consumed; viz: participants in a half-baked communion are
disqualified from the blessing of eternal life; and not only that, but people
who listen to celebrites like Thomas Aquinas instead of listening to Christ,
are under a special curse.

†. Gal 1:7-9 . .There are some who trouble you and want to pervert the
gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As
we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other
gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Like they say: a word to the wise is sufficient. Be wise therefore instead
lacking in better judgment.

†. Prv 29:25 . . Reverence for men will prove to be a snare; but whoever
trusts in The Lord is kept safe.

Buen Camino
/

The substance of the bread is converted into the substance of Christ's body. His blood, soul and divinity are present by concomitance.

The substance of the wine is converted into the substance of Christ's blood. His body, soul and divinity are present by concomitance.


That both body and blood are present in some way under both species is implied in scripture:
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." (1Cor 11:27)

As Thomas Aquinas says:
Since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.

Your questions are not new. St. Thomas died almost 800 years ago.

 

[Templar81]

Mungo
I know perfectly well, the criteria for admission to the Eucharist in the RCC. I was asking in general terms to all members of the forum taking part in this discussion, the majority of whom are not Roman Catholics.

 

[epouraniois]

I want to write about this, and I need to say a word about figures of speech first. They add, they do not subtract from the meaning. And the verses in question in 1 Cor 11 employee a figure of speech. Figures are scientific and definite. They have names, categories, and never detracts from truth, but makes it more emphatic.
have purpose, they are:

Warm and vivid way of stating a literal truth,
make it more colorful, make truth more vivid, accent the subject

Figures of Speech:
attract attention
emphasize
make the conversation warm and vivid

Ex:

Say the ground is dry. This is literal fact. Say the ground is thirsty. This cannot be true. The ground has no feelings. It gives the truth color, makes it less boring, gives more color, but the as dry as the ground may be, it can never experience the human quality of thirst.

When a statement is contrary to known fact, it is sure to be Figure of speech
when a statement is contrary to Biblical doctrine, it is sure Figure of speech is being used
when rules of grammar are departed from, you can be sure it is Figure of speech

Now the verse in question is either quite literal, and bread is actually Christ's body in truth and in fact, and true worship includes the worship of bread because it is literally worshiping the body of Christ. Now this all hangs on Figure of speech. You can see how important it is to know if a Figure of speech is used there. How do I then know? Well, I do, because when I read the words the HS has given, I notice the actual rules of grammar are broken. And so it calls my attention up.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The word 'this' references the word 'bread' doesn't it? The Lord is saying, this bread is my body. I just point this out to you, the word 'bread' is masculine, and the word 'this' should agree with is and doesn't.

It is in the neuter gender and it is pulled over to agree with the word 'body'. Now this may sound technical to you, but anyone who reads Greek will notice this right away. And the HS who is writing it, has deliberately done it, to alarm us and show us that it is this Figure Metaphor that is being used.

This bread represents my body. That is the way to say it without the Figure Metaphor. Metaphor is only one of some 200 clearly defined and articulated Figures.

Ellipsis would be, 'this bread is like my body'.
Metaphor would be, 'This bread is my body'.


Hypocatastasis would be, 'My body is bread'.

Another Figure Metaphor the Lord used in the same way is, I am the door. I am everything a door represents, Christ is the way in.

In the Bible there are some Figures we still use today, while others haven't been used for thousands of years. Being that the bread is not literally Christ's body, but the Figure metaphor, we can see how important it is to be aware when a Figure is being used, to the intent we do not go astray from the truth which is being made known.


This is not literaly His body. He is saying this represents my body...

 

[neophyte]

SACRIFICELet's look at the prophets and how they said God would be worshiped by the Gentiles (non-Jews, i.e., most of us) when God finally came to us:[background=#eeeeee]

Malachi 1:11 (Douay Rheims)


[sup]11[/sup] For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.Show with Haydock Commentary or the [url="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb/Malachias_1:11"]Latin Vulgate BibleBible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com [/background]
From here we see that worship of God:1. Involves a pure sacrifice or oblation2. Occurs everywhere and at every timeNow (1) can only mean one thing: Calvary. No other sacrifice was pure. If the Jewish sacrifices had been pure then they would have atoned for the sins of the Jews (and Calvary would have been unnecessary), and they didn't.[background=#eeeeee]

Hebrews 10:4 (Douay Rheims)


[/url][sup]4[/sup] For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.Show with Haydock Commentary or the [url="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb/Hebrews_10:4"]Latin Vulgate BibleBible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com [/background]
But now... how can Calvary, which occurred once for all in 33 AD on one hill outside Jerusalem, be made present at every time and in every place?With that question in mind, click this link and read the explanation of how the Old and New Testament priesthoods relate to one another, and it should be crystal clear that when Paul says:[background=#eeeeee]

1 Corinthians 10:16 (Douay Rheims)


[/url][sup]16[/sup] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?Show with Haydock Commentary or the [url="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb/1%20Corinthians_10:16"]Latin Vulgate BibleBible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com [/background]
... he is speaking of the Eucharist as a literal sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is confirmed later on in the same letter...4. CONSEQUENCES[background=#eeeeee]

1 Corinthians 11:22-30 (Douay Rheims)


[/url][sup]22[/sup] What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
[sup]23[/sup] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
[sup]24[/sup] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
[sup]25[/sup] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[sup]26[/sup] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
[sup]27[/sup] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
[sup]28[/sup] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
[sup]29[/sup] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
[sup]30[/sup] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.Show with Haydock Commentary or the [url="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb/1%20Corinthians_11:22-30"]Latin Vulgate BibleBible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com [/background]
...So how can someone who eats symbolic bread be guilty of murdering God? How can he be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord unless... you know... the Lord is actually THERE?Moreover if one can get sick and die by eating bread while in a state of grave sin, then there would be lots of sick people falling over at the waffle house. (I had to say that again.

) Clearly there is more to the Lord's Supper than just bread.Finally, see verse 29. Again, how can you discern the Body of the Lord unless the Body of the Lord is ACTUALLY THERE? I sometimes hear Protestants say that the "Body of the Lord" means the congregation, in other words, that the verse supposedly states one has to be a Christian in order to partake. But look at who the letter is addressed to:[background=#eeeeee]

1 Cor 1:2 (Douay Rheims)


[/url][sup]2[/sup] To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in every place of theirs and ours.Show with Haydock Commentary or the [url="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb/1%20Corinthians_1:2"]Latin Vulgate BibleBible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com [/background]
... the Corinthians are already Christians. Since all Scripture is instructive (2 Tim 3:16) then the warning must refer to some other aspect of the Lord's Body, otherwise there would be no instruction and 1 Cor. 11 would not be Scripture.5. BIOLOGYNow, it is true that Christ is one body with many members. To use modern biology, we are all members, cells, in Christ's Body. Now what happens to a cell when it no longer partakes of the blood of the host? It goes to the reserves and consumes the fat. And when that's gone?[background=#eeeeee]

John 6:53-56 (Douay Rheims)


[/url][sup]53[/sup] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[sup]54[/sup] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
[sup]55[/sup] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
<a name="verse56" rel="nofollow">[sup]56[/sup] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.Show with Haydock Commentary or the Latin Vulgate BibleBible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com [/background]
So we see there's nothing cannibalistic about the Real Presence. You're not a cannibal on account of your muscle cell eating your fat or drinking your blood. So it is with you and Christ, for you are part of His Body. And if you don't partake of what He gives you, you will not have life--that is, Him--within you.Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!More answers here and also here.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

That both body and blood are present in some way under both species is
implied in scripture: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and
blood of the Lord." (1Cor 11:27) As Thomas Aquinas says: etc, etc, etc,

You see? This is what happens when people listen to ecclesiastic celebrities
instead of listening to Christ. Well; serves them right; and I have to say that I
can hardly wait to watch the Lord's reaction when the species theorists quote
Rome's heroes in defense of their strange beliefs and practices. (chuckle)
That's going to be good because smoke and mirrors don't work on Christ. He's
too sharp; and if there's anybody who knows the truth about the elements of
communion; it's got to be him.

Buen Camino
/

 

[aspen]

.


You see? This is what happens when people listen to ecclesiastic celebrities
instead of listening to Christ. Well; serves them right; and I have to say that I
can hardly wait to watch the Lord's reaction when the species theorists quote
Rome's heroes in defense of their strange beliefs and practices. (chuckle)
That's going to be good because smoke and mirrors don't work on Christ. He's
too sharp; and if there's anybody who knows the truth about the elements of
communion; it's got to be him.

Buen Camino
/

What a troubling response.......

so let's get this straight - you are looking forward to watching people who end up being wrong about theology, get punished?

There is something wicked in that idea.......

 

[Brother James]

Folks, I am convinced that we can be wrong about quite a few things without condemnation coming from God over it. In fact, I'm pretty much counting on it because I am not arrogant enough to think that I'm the one person who has 100% perfect understanding of all of God's truths. Now, there is a difference when I discuss doctrine with Catholics becuase they must accept what their church teaches. To do otherwise would be to shake the foundation of faith they put in their church as being God's repository of truth on earth. As a Protestant, I do not accept the supposed authority of the church and so I can read the Bible and hold to a different understanding. That is not available to Catholics, I understand that. I do not ridicule them because I have too many Catholic friends who I am convinced place their saving faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord. To ridicule them over what I believe is a misunderstanding, as if I am incapable of misunderstanding, is just plain wrong to me.

 

[justaname]

The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.

Systematic Theology; Charles Hodge

 

[aspen]

Folks, I am convinced that we can be wrong about quite a few things without condemnation coming from God over it. In fact, I'm pretty much counting on it because I am not arrogant enough to think that I'm the one person who has 100% perfect understanding of all of God's truths. Now, there is a difference when I discuss doctrine with Catholics becuase they must accept what their church teaches. To do otherwise would be to shake the foundation of faith they put in their church as being God's repository of truth on earth. As a Protestant, I do not accept the supposed authority of the church and so I can read the Bible and hold to a different understanding. That is not available to Catholics, I understand that. I do not ridicule them because I have too many Catholic friends who I am convinced place their saving faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord. To ridicule them over what I believe is a misunderstanding, as if I am incapable of misunderstanding, is just plain wrong to me.

I agree with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church, some I do not. In the cases where I do not agree, I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong. I like your post very much because you are not afraid to be wrong either. I have little doubt that doctrinal understanding will be cleared up the instant we enter Heaven - the sanctification of the heart - becoming lovers of God and each other is what takes a lifetime and needs to be practiced on Earth.