Communion vs Holy Communion

[Marymog]

Then don't receive Jesus again per the Mass by how it does declare His Presence being in the Eucharist when He is already in you. That warning in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 applies to the Eucharist and not just believers seeking they can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation.

Is it possible that the warning is for you and your ilk?

You give me a warning. I give you a promise from Christ:
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

And a warning from Paul: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Is it possible that the warning is for you and your ilk?

You give me a warning. I give you a promise from Christ:
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

You want to take what He said to the Jews in sarcasm because they were still NOT believing Him in how to receive the bread of life which was by believing in Him? Jesus was not talking about communion at all in that chapter but about how they can be saved. See proof that the Jews were not believing Him on how to receive that bread of life.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

They had asked Him to give them that bread in verse 34 and Jesus told them how to receive that bread... by believing in Him, and Jesus pointed out afterwards that they were not believing Him when He had said that. That led to Him being sarcastic to the unbelieving Jews that you are quoting.

Jesus spoke the truth again to His disciples that by believing in Him is how one receives the bread of life as in eternal life.

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? ( that's talking about His ascension after His resurrection ) 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: ( that means the eating of the bread profits nothing ) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. ( Once again, Jesus points out how not believing in Him is how they are not receiving the bread of life ) For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

So you decide if you want to continue in the RCC's error for picking verses out that was done in sarcasm to the unbelieving Jews or take what Jesus said to His believing disciples on how to receive that bread of life as in eternal life... by believing in Him.

If you take verse 35 as meaning communion....

John 6: 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Then the RCC and you would only take communion once, otherwise you would make Jesus look like a liar when you take it again when He had promised that you would never hunger nor thirst for that again.

But He was talking about receiving Him at your salvation as Him being in you always is proof that you are saved and have eternal life.

It's not like the unbelieving Jews turned on Him and began eating Him for how the RCC is taking His words of sarcasm to the unbelieving Jews. Neither did His disciples and they, except for Judas Iscariot, believed His words and thus believed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And a warning from Paul: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Mary

I submit to you that taking communion for any other reason other than what He said to take it for which was to be done in remembrance of Him is taking the bread & cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner.

It was before His crucifixion when Jesus had broken bread and sup the cup with His disciples; not afterwards.

 

[BreadOfLife]

With all of these discussions you are involved in, I can understand how you are losing track of the discussion between you & me, but you were contending that a bishop did not need to be married whereas I was citing scripture that explained why they should be married.

How you got off to polygamy was something I was trying to get back to point on what Paul said and it had nothing to do with making sure there were no polygamous bishops as if that was the reason why a bishop had to be a husband of one wife when Paul said in verse 5 that if they cannot manage their own household, how then can they manage the house of God.

I am sure the requirement for a bishop to be a husband of one wife would keep out a polygamous sinner, but for them to be in that assembly and even considered, they would have had to been saved and to repent of that sinful lifestyle or they could not even be in the assembly to even be considered for bishop.

I am sure that it was a concern to avoid a polygamous bishop, but Paul stated why a bishop should be a husband of one wife and that was about showing he can manage his own house to show he can manage the House of God as Paul said in verse 5.

1 Timothy 3:1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

And this says absolutely SQUAT about it being better or even necessary for a Bishop to be married.
It simply states that IF he can't properly run his household - he shouldn't be running a congregation.

NOWHERE in ANY of Paul's letters does it say that a Bishop MUST be married. It only that he should be the husband of just ONE wife - if he IS married.

So had Jesus lied on the cross? No. Then you applying Him making intercessions for us as presenting His one time sacrifice for sins to apply "again" to believers through the Mass has nothing to do with Him interceding on our behalf. By your saying that it does apply is giving certain terms in how Jesus makes intercessions for us... ie only in the Mass and that is WRONG.

Prayer to Him, confessing your sins to Him does it, brother. Not the Mass.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Looking to a ritual to do it is akin to saying you do not believe confessing to Him will bring the promise from His words that you will be forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness.

You have to decide between His words in the N.T. that His disciples wants us to have and believe and the words of the RCC which did not develop their catechism until many hundreds of years later which none of the disciples have taught in the way the RCC is teaching communion to be used for.

The RCC using what Jesus said to the Pharisees rather than what He had said to His disciples should lead you to wonder if the RCC has it wrong.

And again - what YOU fail to understand is that His sacrifice is ETERNAL.
His death didn't forgive ONE, SINGLE sin. It PAID the penalty for sin. We STILL have to repent every time we sin.

He isn't re-sacrificed at mass. His Eternal sacrifice is presented again before God so that we we can be forgiven. of our sins. At every mass, we recite a prayer of confession and repentance.

If YOU call confession and repentance a useless "ritual" - what do you call it when YOU confess and repent??

 

[BreadOfLife]

The problem here is by his own writing, Ignatius of Antioch was not following the apostle John because John did not write any of what Ignatius had written to support what Ignatius was teaching about the Eucharist at all. If the apostle John did not write about the Eucharist, then Ignatius was not following the apostle John, now was he?

And this shows how little you know of the Gospel.
John's Gospel is the Gospel where we hear the Eucharist explained more specifically than the other three.

In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-71), our Lord emphatically states that unless we eat his flesh and drink his Blood, we have no life within us. He goes on to say “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

It's interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is NOT the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to gnaw or rip apart one's food - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole (exaggeration) as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Later, John 6:66, goes on to say, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

This marks the ONLY time in Scripture where Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. They simply couldn’t handle what Jesus was telling them. Did He try to explain to them as they were leaving that this was all just "symbolic"?? NO.
He simply turns to the Apostles in the next verse and says, "Do you also want to leave?"

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief in the Holy Eucharist – so much so that they were willing to shed their blood by martyrdom for this belief. The Jewish and Roman leaders of the time accused them of cannibalism for their belief in the Eucharist - and many of them suffered horrible deaths because of it.

Not ONE of them rejected the Real Presence of the Eucharist. 100% of them believed in it.
In fact - I will leave the Catholic Church today if you can find ONE quote from the Early Church that rejects this teaching.

This teaching wasn't rejected until John Calvin. Your other Protestant Fathers believed in it.

 

[Marymog]

You want to take what He said to the Jews in sarcasm because they were still NOT believing Him in how to receive the bread of life which was by believing in Him? Jesus was not talking about communion at all in that chapter but about how they can be saved. See proof that the Jews were not believing Him on how to receive that bread of life.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

They had asked Him to give them that bread in verse 34 and Jesus told them how to receive that bread... by believing in Him, and Jesus pointed out afterwards that they were not believing Him when He had said that. That led to Him being sarcastic to the unbelieving Jews that you are quoting.

Jesus spoke the truth again to His disciples that by believing in Him is how one receives the bread of life as in eternal life.

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? ( that's talking about His ascension after His resurrection ) 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: ( that means the eating of the bread profits nothing ) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. ( Once again, Jesus points out how not believing in Him is how they are not receiving the bread of life ) For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

So you decide if you want to continue in the RCC's error for picking verses out that was done in sarcasm to the unbelieving Jews or take what Jesus said to His believing disciples on how to receive that bread of life as in eternal life... by believing in Him.

If you take verse 35 as meaning communion....

John 6: 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Then the RCC and you would only take communion once, otherwise you would make Jesus look like a liar when you take it again when He had promised that you would never hunger nor thirst for that again.

But He was talking about receiving Him at your salvation as Him being in you always is proof that you are saved and have eternal life.

It's not like the unbelieving Jews turned on Him and began eating Him for how the RCC is taking His words of sarcasm to the unbelieving Jews. Neither did His disciples and they, except for Judas Iscariot, believed His words and thus believed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God.

I submit to you that taking communion for any other reason other than what He said to take it for which was to be done in remembrance of Him is taking the bread & cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner.

It was before His crucifixion when Jesus had broken bread and sup the cup with His disciples; not afterwards.

Dear friend,

Twist it all you want. Your theory is roughly about 500 years old. It is a theory that the reformers of the Reformers came up with. You have a 500 year old theory compiled by men who didn't eve agree with the original Reformers. You remember the original Reformers? The ones who were allegedly getting everything right that the Catholic Church got wrong? Your men, who gave you your theory, disagreed with those men.

I have 2,000 years of teaching from men who lived during the time of the Apostles. Their teachings mirror scripture. I choose my men over your men.

Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

And this says absolutely SQUAT about it being better or even necessary for a Bishop to be married.
It simply states that IF he can't properly run his household - he shouldn't be running a congregation.

NOWHERE in ANY of Paul's letters does it say that a Bishop MUST be married. It only that he should be the husband of just ONE wife - if he IS married.

If a bishop is not married, how can any one have confidence that they can manage the House of God? That is the point for Paul mentioning why a bishop BE a husband of one wife.

And again - what YOU fail to understand is that His sacrifice is ETERNAL.
His death didn't forgive ONE, SINGLE sin. It PAID the penalty for sin. We STILL have to repent every time we sin.

He isn't re-sacrificed at mass. His Eternal sacrifice is presented again before God so that we we can be forgiven. of our sins. At every mass, we recite a prayer of confession and repentance.

If YOU call confession and repentance a useless "ritual" - what do you call it when YOU confess and repent??

Confession and repentance is what we are called to do ( 1 John 1:9 ) but not through communion when Jesus said plainly to do that in remembrance of Him. To do communion for more than what Jesus has said to do communion for, is to take communion in an unworthy manner.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

And this shows how little you know of the Gospel.
John's Gospel is the Gospel where we hear the Eucharist explained more specifically than the other three.

In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-71), our Lord emphatically states that unless we eat his flesh and drink his Blood, we have no life within us. He goes on to say “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

It's interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is NOT the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to gnaw or rip apart one's food - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole (exaggeration) as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Keep glossing over His words in John 6:30-36 all you want, but the gospel in how to receive the bread of life is there in John 6:35 but you are not believing Him as the Jews did not believe Him.

Later, John 6:66, goes on to say, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

This marks the ONLY time in Scripture where Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. They simply couldn’t handle what Jesus was telling them. Did He try to explain to them as they were leaving that this was all just "symbolic"?? NO.
He simply turns to the Apostles in the next verse and says, "Do you also want to leave?"

So when remaining His disciples claimed that they believed in Him, including Judas Iscariot whom Jesus knew he did not believe in Him, did they turn on Him in obedience to believing in Him and bite Him and drank His blood like a pack of animals? So why didn't Jesus just call them all liars and say "And still, you do not eat me nor drink my blood?"

Did the remaining disciples after His crucifixon stole His body and ate Him and drank His blood as they are the only ones that have eternal life?

Absurd questions? They apply to what you believe Jesus had meant.

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief in the Holy Eucharist – so much so that they were willing to shed their blood by martyrdom for this belief. The Jewish and Roman leaders of the time accused them of cannibalism for their belief in the Eucharist - and many of them suffered horrible deaths because of it.

Not ONE of them rejected the Real Presence of the Eucharist. 100% of them believed in it.
In fact - I will leave the Catholic Church today if you can find ONE quote from the Early Church that rejects this teaching.

Does the scripture of the N.T. church reject idolatry? What is idolatry?

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

That includes idols of bread.

This teaching wasn't rejected until John Calvin. Your other Protestant Fathers believed in it.

Paul rejected such teaching. You just don't see him saying it in that way which is why a miracle is needed from the Lord to help you see the truth.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Dear friend,

Twist it all you want. Your theory is roughly about 500 years old. It is a theory that the reformers of the Reformers came up with. You have a 500 year old theory compiled by men who didn't eve agree with the original Reformers. You remember the original Reformers? The ones who were allegedly getting everything right that the Catholic Church got wrong? Your men, who gave you your theory, disagreed with those men.

I have 2,000 years of teaching from men who lived during the time of the Apostles. Their teachings mirror scripture. I choose my men over your men.

Mary

They do not teach this in the N.T. in the way that they do now in the Church. That should tell you something.

 

[Marymog]

They do not teach this in the N.T. in the way that they do now in the Church. That should tell you something.

Hi,

I don't understand what you are saying. What is "this"? And what "Church" are you talking about?

Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Hi,

I don't understand what you are saying. What is "this"? And what "Church" are you talking about?

Mary

Hi Mary,

That was in response to your reply in what you are talking about. You referred to my "theory" as roughly 500 years old in comparison to the RCC or as another member in this forum refers to it in general as the "Church" as being traditional, but yours is not traditional if it wasn't taught as such in the N.T. plainly as the RCC or the Church is, in how they are teaching the works of catholicism today, including how they are to take communion for more than just in remembrance of Him.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

That was in response to your reply in what you are talking about. You referred to my "theory" as roughly 500 years old in comparison to the RCC or as another member in this forum refers to it in general as the "Church" as being traditional, but yours is not traditional if it wasn't taught as such in the N.T. plainly as the RCC or the Church is, in how they are teaching the works of catholicism today, including how they are to take communion for more than just in remembrance of Him.

Hi,

I sincerely apologize. I don't have a clue what you are trying to say to me.

Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Hi,

I sincerely apologize. I don't have a clue what you are trying to say to me.

Mary

Well, it is understandable when replying to other posts in other threads and losing track of the course of our discussion in this one. No problem.

I will leave out the quote portions so you can read your reply in full better.

You said...

"Marymog, post: 395407, member: 7405" = *** Dear friend,

Twist it all you want. Your theory is roughly about 500 years old. It is a theory that the reformers of the Reformers came up with. You have a 500 year old theory compiled by men who didn't eve agree with the original Reformers. You remember the original Reformers? The ones who were allegedly getting everything right that the Catholic Church got wrong? Your men, who gave you your theory, disagreed with those men.

I have 2,000 years of teaching from men who lived during the time of the Apostles. Their teachings mirror scripture. I choose my men over your men.

Mary ***

To which I had replied; and I am editing it so you can hopefully understand it better...

"You referred to my "theory" as roughly 500 years old in comparison to the RCC as being traditional, but yours is not traditional when it wasn't taught as such in the N.T. plainly

Certainly not as the RCC are teaching the works of catholicism today, including how they are to take communion for more than just in remembrance of Him." There is no emphasis on such teachings from the RCC found anywhere in the N.T. for any church in the N.T. to follow. That extra emphasis was added later and so not a traditional teaching of the N.T. churches.

 

[Marymog]

Well, it is understandable when replying to other posts in other threads and losing track of the course of our discussion in this one. No problem.

I will leave out the quote portions so you can read your reply in full better.

You said...

"Marymog, post: 395407, member: 7405" = *** Dear friend,

Twist it all you want. Your theory is roughly about 500 years old. It is a theory that the reformers of the Reformers came up with. You have a 500 year old theory compiled by men who didn't eve agree with the original Reformers. You remember the original Reformers? The ones who were allegedly getting everything right that the Catholic Church got wrong? Your men, who gave you your theory, disagreed with those men.

I have 2,000 years of teaching from men who lived during the time of the Apostles. Their teachings mirror scripture. I choose my men over your men.

Mary ***

To which I had replied; and I am editing it so you can hopefully understand it better...

"You referred to my "theory" as roughly 500 years old in comparison to the RCC as being traditional, but yours is not traditional when it wasn't taught as such in the N.T. plainly

Certainly not as the RCC are teaching the works of catholicism today, including how they are to take communion for more than just in remembrance of Him." There is no emphasis on such teachings from the RCC found anywhere in the N.T. for any church in the N.T. to follow. That extra emphasis was added later and so not a traditional teaching of the N.T. churches.

I think I now understand what you were trying to convey and my answer is still the same. My belief is backed by scripture and 2,000 years of Historical Christian writings. When Jesus said it was his body and to do it in remembrance of Him I believe it and I do it.

What is your historical evidence that the theory you hold, and that you have parroted from other men, is more than 500 years old?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

If a bishop is not married, how can any one have confidence that they can manage the House of God? That is the point for Paul mentioning why a bishop BE a husband of one wife.

Wrong.

Paul is merely stating that IF he is married and CAN'T run his house properly - then he shouldn't be a Bishop. If he IS married and CAN run his house properly - then he is a good candidate.

Confession and repentance is what we are called to do ( 1 John 1:9 ) but not through communion when Jesus said plainly to do that in remembrance of Him. To do communion for more than what Jesus has said to do communion for, is to take communion in an unworthy manner.

And I NEVER said that we repent and confess "through" Communion, - DID I??
I stated plainly that there IS a time for confession in the Liturgy of the WORD which is NOT part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Receiving the LORD (Eucharist) is an "unworthy" manner is about being in a state of sin and NOT a state of grace as Paul explains (1 Cor. 11:17-30). Paul even goes so far as to say that those who DO this unworthily are eating ans drinking DAMNATION on themselves.

This is pretty harsh language for what you Protestant claim is only a "symbol" of remembrance . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

Keep glossing over His words in John 6:30-36 all you want, but the gospel in how to receive the bread of life is there in John 6:35 but you are not believing Him as the Jews did not believe Him.

So when remaining His disciples claimed that they believed in Him, including Judas Iscariot whom Jesus knew he did not believe in Him, did they turn on Him in obedience to believing in Him and bite Him and drank His blood like a pack of animals? So why didn't Jesus just call them all liars and say "And still, you do not eat me nor drink my blood?"

Did the remaining disciples after His crucifixon stole His body and ate Him and drank His blood as they are the only ones that have eternal life?
Absurd questions? They apply to what you believe Jesus had meant.
Does the scripture of the N.T. church reject idolatry? What is idolatry?
Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

That includes idols of bread.

Paul rejected such teaching. You just don't see him saying it in that way which is why a miracle is needed from the Lord to help you see the truth.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

This entire ridiculous response shows a complete ignorne of the Gospel.

First of all - WHY would the Apostles "bite" Him and drink His blood in John 6?? Why would they eat his dead body AFTER the Crucifixion??
Jesus instructed them HOW to eat His flesh and drink His blood at the Last Supper.

As to your absurd statements about "idolatry" and the quote from Rev. 9:20 - HOW is worshiping Jesus considered "idolatry" when He is GOD?? Explain that . . .

Finally - as to your preposterous comment about Paul having "rejected" this teaching - what Bible are YOU reading??
Paul's version of the Last Supper is recited at EVERY Mass (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “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. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I think I now understand what you were trying to convey and my answer is still the same. My belief is backed by scripture and 2,000 years of Historical Christian writings. When Jesus said it was his body and to do it in remembrance of Him I believe it and I do it.

What is your historical evidence that the theory you hold, and that you have parroted from other men, is more than 500 years old?

Curious Mary

Jesus told you how to receive the bread of life; by coming to and believing in Him in John 6:35. Jesus was not talking about communion, but about how we can obtain salvation by only believing in Him. His words trumps the RCC misusing His words which was said later on after the Jews refused to believe Him in how to receive that bread of life.

He was not talking about communion because He gave a promise; that we would not hunger nor thirst any more after we had come to & believed in Him. If it was communion, or the Mass as you have been misled to believe, then you would only need to take it one time; that is it, but the RCC is not taking communion in that way either.

You look up the Biblical definition of an idol and you tell me how the Eucharist is not an idol of bread.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Wrong.

Paul is merely stating that IF he is married and CAN'T run his house properly - then he shouldn't be a Bishop. If he IS married and CAN run his house properly - then he is a good candidate.

And if he is not married, how can any one know he can manage the House of God when there is nothing to signify his qualification to do so? Therefore no single person can be a bishop. They can be in missionary outreach or other positions in the church, but not a bishop.

And I NEVER said that we repent and confess "through" Communion, - DID I??

Sure read like it.

I stated plainly that there IS a time for confession in the Liturgy of the WORD which is NOT part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Well, is that confession in the liturgy of the word being practice within the liturgy of the Eucharist as in during the Mass or not?

Receiving the LORD (Eucharist) is an "unworthy" manner is about being in a state of sin and NOT a state of grace as Paul explains (1 Cor. 11:17-30). Paul even goes so far as to say that those who DO this unworthily are eating ans drinking DAMNATION on themselves.

This is pretty harsh language for what you Protestant claim is only a "symbol" of remembrance . . .

[/QUOTE]

You'd just posted that the Eucharist is the Lord in receiving and therefore you cannot abstain from the appearance of evil in treating that bread as an idol.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

This entire ridiculous response shows a complete ignorne of the Gospel.

First of all - WHY would the Apostles "bite" Him and drink His blood in John 6??

Because this was before the Last Supper, right? For the RCC and you to take His words to the unbelieving Jews to mean to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they would have no concept of the bread and the wine to think any other way. That is why the unbelieving Jews and many of His disciples walked away because they took it literally as you are taking His words to mean BEFORE the Last Supper.

Why would they eat his dead body AFTER the Crucifixion??
Jesus instructed them HOW to eat His flesh and drink His blood at the Last Supper.

And yet you & the RCC are taking His words in John 6th chapter to mean it that way.

As to your absurd statements about "idolatry" and the quote from Rev. 9:20 - HOW is worshiping Jesus considered "idolatry" when He is GOD?? Explain that . . .

An idol is something YOU make. Men make the Eucharist; an idol of bread rather than one of wood, tone, or precious metals. You imply His Presence is in the Eucharist.

Are you going to be held hostage if a maniac comes in during the Mass and hold a gun to your version of the Eucharist? If you consider that absurd, then so is your Eucharist. Are we stronger than the Lord? No.

Finally - as to your preposterous comment about Paul having "rejected" this teaching - what Bible are YOU reading??
Paul's version of the Last Supper is recited at EVERY Mass (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “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. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

Okay. So when someone does eat or drink in an unworthy manner, your church marched them up to that Eucharist and wine to have them apologize to those items, right? I don't see that happening.

In the local news, someone raided a Catholic church and threw the bread wafers out all over the church's lawn. The priest was seen carefully picking up the pieces of the bread wafers and suggested that Satanists were involved for how they treated the Eucharist. Are Satanists stronger than the Lord? No.

That's the point about idolatry. You can't do anything to the real Lord Jesus Christ but you can do anything to an idol.

 

[Marymog]

Jesus told you how to receive the bread of life; by coming to and believing in Him in John 6:35. Jesus was not talking about communion, but about how we can obtain salvation by only believing in Him. His words trumps the RCC misusing His words which was said later on after the Jews refused to believe Him in how to receive that bread of life.

He was not talking about communion because He gave a promise; that we would not hunger nor thirst any more after we had come to & believed in Him. If it was communion, or the Mass as you have been misled to believe, then you would only need to take it one time; that is it, but the RCC is not taking communion in that way either.

You look up the Biblical definition of an idol and you tell me how the Eucharist is not an idol of bread.

Hi JIF,

Simple question: What is your historical evidence that the theory you hold, and that you have parroted from other men, is more than 500 years old?

Maybe it is your own theory? If so I apologize for suggesting you were parroting other men. If it is your own theory, why is it more valid than the one I have parroted?

If you can't answer or are to embarrassed to answer or have realized your answer would be deficient then I am willing to move on. Just let me know.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

And if he is not married, how can any one know he can manage the House of God when there is nothing to signify his qualification to do so? Therefore no single person can be a bishop. They can be in missionary outreach or other positions in the church, but not a bishop.

I've had some pretty inane conversations with certain people on this forum - but YOU take the cake.
Paul doesn't say that a man MUST run a good, married household.
He merely states that IF a man is married - he must run a tight ship.

This is getting ridiculous . . .

Well, is that confession in the liturgy of the word being practice within the liturgy of the Eucharist as in during the Mass or not?

The Mass consists of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Two SEPARATE parts of the Mass.

You'd just posted that the Eucharist is the Lord in receiving and therefore you cannot abstain from the appearance of evil in treating that bread as an idol.

The Eucharist IS the Lord. It is only under the appearance or "accidents" of brand and wine.
HOW is this "idolatry"??[/QUOTE]