Posted on 07/13/2007 11:13:07 AM PDT by JZelle
If you did EXACTLY what the scriptures say, you would at least have to obtain some human flesh and human blood to use.
Also, I thought only the Priest drank the blood (wine or grape juice) at Mass? That's not exactly what the Scripture says either if I am correct.
When Jesus said, “I am the door...”, did He mean that He was a wooden board with a doorknob sticking out His side?
“Of course, non-Catholics would never excoriate the Roman Church as “not a true church.”
And here is the difficulty, one Christian Protestant may say that, or even a whole Seminary may teach that, but that is their teaching.
When the Pope puts forward that position, he is literally speaking for the entirety of Catholicism.
For myself, the Roman Catholic Church is a “true” church, why would it not be? Why wouldn’t a Baptist Church be a “true” church, do they dispute Christ’ Birth Passion Death and Ressurrection?
BTW, all of this is part of the reason why I avoid “religion”.
Ah, the old provocateur raises his head again.... ;-)
I don't know that there's any easy answer to your question, because the underlying subject has to do with trying to define the thin line between God on one side, and human teaching about God on the other. Church rules are intended to define that line, and as such they're more than just "rules" of the sort you find in a kids' game. "Proper" rules are considered to be given by God.
So it's difficult to distinguish the two parts of your question. Overall, I'd say that the answer is basically "yes," to both.
First, the context:
The fundamental purpose of the church (in the universal sense of the word) is to ensure that what Jesus taught to the Apostles, is accurately passed on trhough the generations. That's what doctrine is all about -- a set of rules and processes designed to keep the Message free and clear of "innovations" that are not part of God's teaching.
However, churches are human institutions, and subject to human failings that get in the way of things. (For a secular comparison, see how our Constitution has been warped over the years.) The message gets obscured, either by false teaching making its way into the mix; or true teaching being wrongly identified as "false" and rejected.
So in that context, the Catholics are saying that they're the keepers of the true teaching, including about the Sacrament of Communion, and thus the only true Communion occurs in the Catholic Church.
So to answer the first part of your question, it's more a matter of receiving Communion in the right way, of which there's only the one (Catholic) option. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but it's important: it's less a matter of excluding other churches, as it is saying that Catholics offer the only true Communion.
In that context, we see that it is a "Church Rule," but that rule is intended to properly identify the exact location of the thin line between God and man.
Jesus often speaks figuratively, and the wafer always tasted wafery to me.
That's my experience too, although my kids were instructed not to take communion in school masses, but to take a blessing instead.
...there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...1Tim 2:5
...thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God... Exodus 20:4-5
Yea - you bow down to - pray to for deliverance and providence but its not worship?
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...!
GOD fight!
He also said He's a gate, and a block of stone, among other things, but we don't take Him literally in those cases. It's probably better to take His statements about His flesh and blood in the same sense that we do the others -- as more like metaphors for His true nature, than as literal claims.
On the other side, at the Last Supper, He commanded us to "do this in remembrance of me," which tends to lend credence to non-transubstantiation point of view.
Speaking as an Anglican, I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist in some way ... but the exact nature of His presence is a mystery.
The nature of the Eucharist, like most mysteries, is probably better left alone, as the feeble human attempts to unravel them almost always end up in bloodshed -- which seems somewhat counter to the point God was trying to make.
Since Catholics are so big on tradition, let's see what some of the patristics (aka "church fathers") had to say about this:
"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; 'and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'-meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith." (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ch. 38)
"And there was one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed, here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services; and the mysterious symbols of the Saviour's passion were dispensed. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 10, Chs. 3-4)
"And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.' ...But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, 'Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.' Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, 'This is an hard saying, who can hear it?' And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:'they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, 'This is a hard saying.' It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood." (Augustine, Exposition on the Psalms, Psalm 99)
"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (Pope Gelasius I, in his writing against Eutyches and Nestorius)
For the sake of whatever brevity might be left, more quotes and argumentation can be found here
Thanks for the explanation.
Pity..
OK, thanks
Well, yeah ... that is, after all, his exact job description.
And here is the difficulty, one Christian Protestant may say that, or even a whole Seminary may teach that, but that is their teaching.
Fine ... but when their teaching is different from that of the Catholic Church it implies that one or the other teaching is incorrect (assuming, of course, that either is correct in the first place).
Given that churches are intended to prevent the accumulation of false teaching -- which we know takes place -- it seems to me a fundamental responsibility of any church to point out false teaching when it finds it. That's never easy to do, of course, because human frailties keep getting in the way of things.
A lot of blood has been spilled in the name of correcting false teaching -- it comes as a result of people being more concerned about their rules, than about the real Gospel message. We see that at work on this and similar threads, not to mention the world at large.
BTW, all of this is part of the reason why I avoid “religion”.
Which is really just another way of saying that you're your own denomination, on the same level as Baptists or Catholics.
Furthermore, the Bible tells us in the New Testament in Acts 15:29 to 'abstain from blood.' So do you really mean to tell me that the council of Jerusalem issued an edict to the Syrian church, etc., which would have forbid them from partaking of communion? I think it's pretty clear that the idea of transmutation had not even come up at that point.
Here it is: Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.
“then why deny...”
Because if communion is taken unworthily, then it has the opposite effect of what was intended by god, that being sickness rather then health. (II Cor).
By not being a Catholic, by definition, you would be out of communion with God, the only way to be in communion would of course be by being a Catholic in good standing.
Ehh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I’m sure you know that you’ve also stated the view of many orthodox protestant churches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.