Protestant Communion Compared To "catholic Holy Communion."

[KennC]

[quote name='Budge' post='1247991' date='Apr 18 2007, 10:57 AM']and then you have alcoholics who need to avoid even a taste.[/quote]
I hope that wasn't intended as a blanket statement Budge.

[Socrates]

Once again, Budge places her own opinions and the (recent) traditions of men over the Bible.

[Paddington]

Sorry Catholics, but to be biblical you must DRINK His blood (this cup) as well. Catholics are not required too. And in the past have been prohibited to. I know that you EAT His blood in the Host, but you don't DRINK it until there is "wine" and a cup involved. The Catholic answer, AFAIK, is that this is being picky and the Church can do what it wants. If the true Catholic answer is better than the one I gave, then please share it.

[Aloysius]

His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are substantially present in the Host. By one host, you consume the whole and entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. You do not "eat" his blood, receiving the host is exactly the same as drinking His blood.

a line must be drawn somewhere; and you are drawing it into a type of legalism. Yes, we are accused of legalism for our positions, but we are not legalists; we understand the substantial consumption of the Body and Blood of the Lord as that which Our Lord asks of us. To require it to be "drunk" would be like requiring us to "gnaw" in our consumption of the Host literally to the original text.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1248999' date='Apr 19 2007, 12:24 AM']To require it to be "drunk" would be like requiring us to "gnaw" in our consumption of the Host literally to the original text.[/quote]

sometimes i chew it just for that exact reason. mostly because it's stuck to the roof of my mouth. then i remember hearing a nun say it's more reverent *not* to chew it. insignificant details i know, but i want to be the best i can be for Him! just gotta watch the scrupulousness..

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1248934' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:34 AM']Sorry Catholics, but to be biblical you must DRINK His blood (this cup) as well. Catholics are not required too. And in the past have been prohibited to. I know that you EAT His blood in the Host, but you don't DRINK it until there is "wine" and a cup involved. The Catholic answer, AFAIK, is that this is being picky and the Church can do what it wants. If the true Catholic answer is better than the one I gave, then please share it.[/quote]


Gee, i've never heard that answer.
The cup is in fact partaken of at each and every Mass by the priest. At the last supper there were preists there and they were given this command. NOWHERE does it say the whole congregation must and in cases where there is a limited amount of wine or to many people it is simply not feesible or possible to have the whole congregation partake of the cup. The Church Fathers and the Church also view the meeting of Christ with the two men on the road to Emmaus as a Eucharistic event. "Their eyes were opened and they recognized him" AFTER they partook of the BREAD. No wine! It certainly is the fullest sign of the sacrament to have both but the bread and wine both contain the full Christ and so one or the other is not absolutely neccessary.

Christ is the guide and the example for the magesterium. We are to submit to them in such matters as Hebr 13:17 says they have concern for our souls, and quite evidently we don't all have a great grasp of every passage in the Bible that might excuse or condemn something. If he did it then it is okay to do. Check out Luke 24.

God bless.

Edited April 19, 2007 by thessalonian

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1248934' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:34 AM']Sorry Catholics, but to be biblical you must DRINK His blood (this cup) as well. Catholics are not required too. And in the past have been prohibited to. I know that you EAT His blood in the Host, but you don't DRINK it until there is "wine" and a cup involved. The Catholic answer, AFAIK, is that this is being picky and the Church can do what it wants. If the true Catholic answer is better than the one I gave, then please share it.[/quote]

The same Jesus Christ who said "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life within you" also said "He who eats this bread shall live forever." And He said, "the Bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." We receive the LIVING Christ, whose body and blood cannot be separated. To receive either the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine is to receive the substance of the entire Christ, His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

St. Paul was teaching this when he wrote: "Therefore whoever eats the bread [b]-OR-[/b] drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of profaning the body [b]-AND-[/b] blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27).

The bread and wine are offered separately in [b][i]Sacrifice[/i][/b] (the Mass aka the Divine Liturgy is a sacrifice; its full name is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), but they are transformed thereby into our LIVING Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and become our spiritual food -- food for our souls.

Likos

[jckinsman]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1248121' date='Apr 18 2007, 03:15 PM']The Gospel According to Budge.

In Budgianity, grape juice is OK. "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness," excpet for the bits that Budge disagrees with and that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

[/quote]
Okay so...............my humility left the room with this one!!!!! "Budgianity" is a very ,very funny word!

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1249400' date='Apr 19 2007, 03:21 PM']Okay so...............my humility left the room with this one!!!!! "Budgianity" is a very ,very funny word![/quote]

I'm going to have to give props to Mateo el Feo for that (at least, I believe that the provenance of that term is with him).

[jckinsman]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1248294' date='Apr 18 2007, 07:14 PM']

that's going to be my new phrase with my friends. "HEY THAT'S NOT BIBLICAL!"
maybe we can push for a jeopardy category too.[/quote]
Maybe we should make it a new thread under open mic?????? JC

[Paddington]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1249251' date='Apr 19 2007, 04:46 PM']St. Paul was teaching this when he wrote: "Therefore whoever eats the bread [b]-OR-[/b] drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of profaning the body [b]-AND-[/b] blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27).[/quote]


Thanks for that.
It looks great. I will still see what the EO say about it.
The other remarks were good too. Thanks to Aloysius and Thessalonian as well.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Budge' post='1247995' date='Apr 18 2007, 10:02 AM']And there are theories the wine of that time had a LOT less alcohol, only some alcohol was added to kill impurities.[/quote]

A theory has scientific/historical basis.

Alcohol was not added to wine. The alcohol was a natural consequence of natural fermentation from yeast that were naturally on the surface of the grapes. Wine in those times had variable alcohol content depending on alot of factors-in most likelyhood, it had more alcohol than wine of today, seeing as they had no control over the natural fermentation process. As for alcohol "killing" impurities: . Alcohol in wine would retard bacterial growth, but would not remove any impurites already present.

[White Knight]

Bump up, I guess there aren't any futher responses from anybody about this topic. Oh Well, thanks for the discussion guys and gals.

[Akalyte]

Interresting:

The use of grape juice began during the American Temperance Movement, which began in the early 1800s and culminated in Prohibition in the early 1900s. The motivations for switching to grape juice were those of the Temperance philosophy. Basically, they thought that alcohol was unhealthful, and that it contributed to crime and the degeneration of society. In the tradition of Temperance, many modern believers still believe drinking alcohol to be a sin. When Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch successfully pasteurized Concord grape juice in 1869, he widened the availability of unfermented grape juice to churches that were distant from vineyards, and made it possible for churches to have unfermented wine even when grapes were not in season. Prior to pasteurization and refrigeration, there was really no good way to prevent the fermentation of grape juice into wine. Some have suggested that ancient societies boiled grape juice to reduce it to a thick syrup that would not ferment, and then added it to water to create wine, but the New Testament evidence does not bear out that this was the typical wine of Jesus' time (e.g. wineskins do not burst except under the pressure of fermentation [Matt. 9:17], etc.).

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1249877' date='Apr 20 2007, 12:09 AM']A theory has scientific/historical basis.

Alcohol was not added to wine. The alcohol was a natural consequence of natural fermentation from yeast that were naturally on the surface of the grapes. Wine in those times had variable alcohol content depending on alot of factors-in most likelyhood, it had more alcohol than wine of today, seeing as they had no control over the natural fermentation process. As for alcohol "killing" impurities: . Alcohol in wine would retard bacterial growth, but would not remove any impurites already present.[/quote]

I was going to post that, so thanks. I guess I can add that the first "vintage date" is from Egypt, as far as I'm aware. Even though we have earlier evidence of wine from Sumeria, I guess they didn't care about the dates.