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

[M.SIGGA]

I haven't either and I to would like to hear one. Maybe it will be a little more refreshing that some of the Catholics points of view. By the way did you read the Book of Enoch? What was you last postin?

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.

[phatcatholic]

"truth"

you seem to have skipped over my most recent post in this thread and responded to posts after mine. i am curious to read your answer to the information i provided.

God Bless You in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

[Aloysius]

yes, but the pascal lamb is supposed to be eaten:

Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 -none of Jesus' bones were broken.

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

Exodus 29:33 - they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.

btw, there are three other threads in which i am waiting for your response......

Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

larry.........

what about that?

[Anna]

I Don't hate Catholics, you have it all wrong, I'm not here to convert you. I'm here to voice my view and maybe get you to look into what you beleive, so that you know what you think you know for sure, is right or wrong.

Oh, so........like, when you say, for instance, that Our Church is the whore of Babylon from the Book of Revelations, you're just wanting our opinion on that, or you just want us to look into that to see if that is what Our Church teaches? :rolleyes:

[Anna]

It spiritual.

Please describe how crackers and grape juice are spiritual for a non-denominatinal "christian."

[Brother Adam]

Well, ... ya had me going there for awhile, ... thinking, here I am at the dock when mabye I should have been at the train station and all the while they all slipped out on flight 343 for "Kansas". :rolling:

... so, as long as it doesn't take up too much of your time could you touch on the term "Dynamic Presence", thanks again.

Dynamic Presence:

Known as dynamic or spiritual presence, this view stands somewhere between the positions of Luther and Zwingli. Calvin agreed with Zwingli that the bread adn wine are to be understood symbolically. Christ is not physically present in the elements, because His risen, glorified body is in heaven (Heb. 10:12). Still, He is dynamcially and spiritually present in the Lord's Supper through the Holy Spirit. Christ gives spiritual nourishment at the Lord's Supper - from Nelsons New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

[Brother Adam]

Well, ... ya had me going there for awhile, ... thinking, here I am at the dock when mabye I should have been at the train station and all the while they all slipped out on flight 343 for "Kansas". :rolling:

... so, as long as it doesn't take up too much of your time could you touch on the term "Dynamic Presence", thanks again.

Dynamic Presence:

Known as dynamic or spiritual presence, this view stands somewhere between the positions of Luther and Zwingli. Calvin agreed with Zwingli that the bread adn wine are to be understood symbolically. Christ is not physically present in the elements, because His risen, glorified body is in heaven (Heb. 10:12). Still, He is dynamcially and spiritually present in the Lord's Supper through the Holy Spirit. Christ gives spiritual nourishment at the Lord's Supper - from Nelsons New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Thank you Bro. Adam for being SUCH a wonderful example of healthy debate and discussion between Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians. I pray that certain others here on the phorum take your example to heart and follow in your footsteps.

[dUSt]

Dynamic Presence:

Known as dynamic or spiritual presence, this view stands somewhere between the positions of Luther and Zwingli.

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

[Aloysius]

yeah... honestly.. i can't see "body" "flesh" and "blood" meaning "spirit"

i mean the words are spirit and truth, He didn't say that IT was spirit and truth... i think the spiritual presence was a later theological developement, whereas the physical presence was always understood...

[Brother Adam]

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

No, but that doesn't mean there isn't. Just means I haven't done enough research. :P

[Brother Adam]

yeah... honestly.. i can't see "body" "flesh" and "blood" meaning "spirit"

i mean the words are spirit and truth, He didn't say that IT was spirit and truth... i think the spiritual presence was a later theological developement, whereas the physical presence was always understood...

And I have a hard time seeing "born again" as literal too. That would hurt!

[Laudate_Dominum]

Communion is a Christian ceremony, not a Catholic or Protestant ceremony. You guys do see what I'm saying.

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).

[Donna]

No (in answer to the thread's original question).

Because it's not Jesus Substantially Present; it would also imply the Catholic faith is not the one, true religion, but only one of many equally valid and efficacious.

Grin.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Donna

[traichuoi]

It spiritual.

???

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yeah Larry, what do you mean by "it's spiritual"? I can understand what "it's symbolic" means, but not spiritual. Are you implying that it's a source of grace? Like a Sacrament? To almost everything you say, at least your theological assertions, the one thing that keeps popping up in my mind is the issue of authority. The Catholic Church has authority to teach because Christ, the All Authoritative, hast given it to Her. How did you obtain an authoritative teaching capacity? Have you been commissioned by Jesus Christ to teach and interpret Scripture in His Name? Did Jesus Christ bestow upon you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and grant you the power to bind and loose? Until I get a conclusive answer, your opinions are just that, opinions; and not always highly consistent ones.

[Good Friday]

First, I just want to say that everyone should take a step back and breathe. This can be done without personal attacks against Catholics on the part of non-Catholics, and this can be done without personal attacks against non-Catholics on the part of Catholics. That said, I do have an answer to the original question.

Bruce S writes:

If you were visiting a friend, and he took you to his Protestant church, would you take "Communion" if they offered it that day?

And if you did, would you think you had "Partaken in a VALID" ceremony?

And if NO, why not?

To answer the first part of your question: no, I would not receive communion in a church that was not my own, and here's why:

Main Entry: com·mu·nion

Pronunciation: k&-'myü-ny&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin communion-, communio mutual participation, from communis

Date: 14th century

1 : an act or instance of sharing

2 a : capitalized : a Christian sacrament in which consecrated bread and wine are consumed as memorials of Christ's death or as symbols for the realization of a spiritual union between Christ and communicant or as the body and blood of Christ b : the act of receiving Communion c : capitalized : the part of a Communion service in which the sacrament is received

3 : intimate fellowship or rapport : COMMUNICATION

4 : a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline <the Anglican communion>

As you can see, there are various meanings of "communion." One of them is "intimate fellowship or rapport : communication." Another is: "a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline." The word communion implies union with one another. In some ways, we are united. We're united in our belief in Jesus Christ, in the Trinity, and in many other things. But communion does not imply partial unity, but full unity. Intimate unity. A common faith and discipline. As this thread makes clear, even with the many ways we are united, we are still so divided.

You believe communion is a symbolic partaking of Christ's Body and Blood. We believe that the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. There is no common faith there, no intimate fellowship and rapport. We believe two different things. And this is only one example -- granted, one of the most important (if not the most important), but only one of them. I have struggled with this problem in the past, and I resolved not to receive communion from a church I didn't agree with. I failed in that resolve, but I made that decision because I realized that there is no communion there. It's a lie. And believe me, it felt like a lie after I received it.

You also ask if I would feel it's a valid ceremony. In what sense? What is the goal of the ceremony? Is it a remembrance of Jesus? If so, then yes, I believe that it can be a valid ceremony. Is it meant to be a common meal? If so, then yes, I believe that it can be a valid ceremony. Is it merely symbolic? If so, then yes, I believe that it can be a valid ceremony. But I don't believe it's the same ceremony as the Eucharist, and neither do you. It is not the changing of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. That cannot happen, first of all because you don't want it to and don't believe that it can, and second of all because your ministers don't have the Apostolic Succession. They do not come from the Apostles, who were first told by Christ Himself to do this in remembrance of Him. I believe your ceremonies are valid, insofar as they do achieve your goals -- symbolic remembrance, commonality, etc. But I don't believe they're on par with the Eucharist, if that's what you're asking, because I don't believe that mere symbolism can ever be on the same level as Christ making Himself present to His Church through His priests.

"Take and eat"... "Do THIS in remembrance of Me..."

WHERE isn't specified.

It is a command to DO.

The words, players, the location...were NEVER meant to LIMIT.

Using communion to CONTROL men is a sin.

You're skipping a crucial part: "This is my Body" ... "This is my Blood."

Where may not be specified -- the Church was not divided at that time -- but what certainly is specified. No offense, Bruce, but you're going to tell us about a command to do? Meanwhile, you leave out the part that Christ commanded us to do: take and eat, not symbols, but His Body and Blood. It has little to do with the words, the "players" or the location. The fact that you would call them "players" shows our fundamental difference in belief here, and why we are not in communion. It has to do with what we believe Communion, the Eucharist, to be: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. You believe it's a symbolic remembrance. It's not the same thing.

My point exactly. We are part of Christ, not THAT CHURCH or THIS CHURCH, in communion with The Lord.

Is Christ divided? After crucifying Him, have we now dismembered Him as well?

He then roundly condemned that line of thought, and said that we escaped the SLAVERY of the Law and ritual, why would one want to go there again?

Citations, please. I've not been able to find the word "ritual" in St. Paul's letters. Maybe it's your translation. But as for ritual, here's the definition of that:

Main Entry: [2]ritual

Function: noun

Date: 1649

1 : the established form for a ceremony; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony

2 a : ritual observance; specifically : a system of rites b : a ceremonial act or action c : a customarily repeated often formal act or series of acts

By this definition, all communion rites throughout all the churches are rituals. In fact, when Jesus commanded us to "do this in memory" of Him, He was commanding us to participate in ritual. I really would like to know where St. Paul says that Christ freed us from ritual, since that would seem to contradict Christ's own command to participate in the ritual He ordained.

God doesn't reside in Rome, never did, and never will.

Funny, I thought God was everywhere -- "wizzing all about."

Go to the Passover Seder with a Messianic congregation.

We do. Every Sunday. Some of us go every day. We go to the Passover Seder with the only Messianic Congregation around. We go to the only Messianic Church that can claim to be the natural extension of Judaism, that can validly trace its roots to the time of Christ, so that it can say that the granting of authority by Jesus to the Apostles happened, and the transfer of authority from the Apostles to other ministers happened -- and those ministers became Popes, Bishops, priests and deacons. They then brought the Passover Seder to all the world, making it easy for you and I today to know that Jesus was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. "Happy are those called to His Supper."

You would not have your congregations, nor your sacred meals, nor your belief in Christ, if the Catholic Church had not secured it for you. You can deny this all you want, but the history of the world confirms the truth.

The Catholic Church has gussied up the event to be a ritual, a never ending thing, like Jews sacrificing over and over, shedding blood daily, yet never getting total closure.

The Liturgy of the Catholic Church comes from Judaism, this is true. It also comes from the Apostles. The Liturgy is so ancient that no one even really knows when it began -- except us, of course. We know that it began in the Upper Room when Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me." It's been happening ever since, in the Catholic Church.

Where does your communion service come from?

Edited January 28, 2004 by Good Friday

[Tony]

I wouldnt take Communion in any other Church besides Catholic except for Eastern Orhtodox because the Catholic Church agknowledges the Eastern Orthodox Communion as valid.

[Bruce S]

Where does your communion service come from?

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.

[jasJis]

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.

Cool.

Catholics believe less in human words and more in God's Reality.