Posted on 11/20/2017 4:45:50 PM PST by ebb tide
Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it Pope St. Felix III
The decline of belief and faith among Catholics has been spiraling downward ever since the introduction of Communion in the hand in 1969. What started out as disobedience among a few select bishops in Belgium in the 1960s, has now been spread like wildfire among the average Catholic worldwide, in what is largely known in the Catholic world as a third rail topic. There is widespread confusion as to how this can be a disobedient act when it has been approved by the Church. The facts are that Communion on the tongue is still the law of the Church, while Communion in the hand is an exception to the law granted by an indult, which was granted with severe reservations by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical letter Memoriale Domini. Fr. Matthias Gaudron explains how this happened in his book The Cathechism of the Crisis in the Church, Communion in the hand was first practiced without any authorization in a few very progressive groups against the explicit rules of the Church. And it is that fact that I will explore further in this essay. Fr. Gaudron continues, On May 29, 1969, the Instruction Memoriale Domini took cognizance of this disobedience and reiterated in detail the advantages of Communion on the tongue (156). Fr. Gaudron explains that after a survey was given to the bishops about whether not they would be in support of introducing Communion in the hand, 58 percent opposed it, and only 27 percent were in favor of it (156).
The outcome of this practice has been a large diminishing of the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. A gallop poll taken only a few years ago, the results of which were referenced in the Remnant Newspaper, indicates that just 30 percent of U.S. Catholics now believe in the True Presence. The other 70 percent did not, and their belief system was sprinkled with an odd mixture of Protestant belief and Catholic Theology, or they simply had no understanding of authentic Catholic teaching.
The first objection one gets initially when approaching this subject is a mistaken notion that goes like this: But Jesus gave the Apostles Communion in the hand; therefore we are doing what Christ did at the last supper. There are two major things wrong with that statement. First of all, this is an assumption. And even if Jesus did indeed give Communion in the hand to the Apostles, we have to keep in mind that the Apostles were priests and Bishops, possessing consecrated hands.
Secondly, there is a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality that was definitely in practice in Jesus time, and still exist to this day, which is, the host feeds his guests with his own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. A thorough reading of the text of St. Johns Gospel states (13:26-30): Jesus answered, It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It. So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out Would Jesus have placed a wet Morsel into Judas hand? That would not only be unlikely, but very messy. Wouldnt He had expressed the gesture of hospitality to the person of Judas, whom He called friend later that evening in the garden, most especially during the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper with Holy Communion, giving Himself by His own Hand?
There is a faction of progressive Catholics who either knowingly or unknowingly obscure the facts of history. They mistakenly believe that they are returning to the ancient practice of the early Christians. But the facts show that this simply isnt the case. It is true that Holy Communion in the hand did indeed happen. However, when we read the Early Church Fathers we discover the reasons for why Holy Communion in the hand was allowed. It was only tolerated during times of Church persecution.
Dr. Taylor Marshall has researched this subject and reports that Saint Basil had this to say on this subject. Communion in the hand is allowed only in two instances, 1) under times of persecution where no priest is present, 2) for hermits and ascetics in the wilderness who do not have priests. This point needs to be stressed; it was a rare exception, and not the norm. Otherwise, according to Saint Basil, to receive Communion in the hand was considered a grave immoderation under normal circumstances. This practice goes way back in Church history. One of the earliest references we have about it is from Pope St. Sixtus I, who reigned from 115-125 AD, it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand. Saint Paul himself mentions the importance of the Eucharist repeatedly in the scriptures and how one should not approach it unworthily in 1 Corinthians chapters ten and eleven.
Belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist is taken straight from scripture. When Jesus told His disciples that My Flesh is real food and My Blood real drink (Jn. 6:55), His disciples took Him literally and said, This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously? (Jn. 6:60). St. Johns Gospel continues to report; Jesus was fully aware that His disciples were murmuring in protest at what He had said (Jn. 6:61). John then states that, From this time on, many of His disciples broke away and would not remain in His company any longer. Jesus then said to the Twelve Disciples, Do you want to leave Me too? (Jn. 6:66-67). The Twelve stayed with Jesus because they trusted His words (Jn. 6:69-71).
Jesus was fully aware that the departing disciples understood His teaching literally. If Jesus had only meant that they would eat his Body and drink his Blood symbolically, He would have said so before they walked away. And there are plenty of places in Scripture where the disciples were confused about His teachings so Jesus retold the parable in a way they could understand it, making the message clearer to them. Since He didnt try to re-explain what He meant when instituting the Eucharist, we know that He meant His words literally, and of course, not in a cannibalistic sense, but supernaturally.
For the last thousand years, and right up to today, Eucharistic miracles have continued to occur that baffle believers and non-believers. Now, thanks to modern technology and modern science, we can examine them thoroughly. The subject of which has been written about extensively in Joan Carroll Cruzs book, Eucharistic Miracles. Another wonderful book about the origins of the Eucharist, and as to why Jesus would establish such a practice, which by the way goes straight back to the Old Testament and Ancient Judaism, I highly recommend Dr. Brandt Pitres book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
The teaching on Christs Eucharistic Presence was not sincerely contested until the eleventh century, a thousand years after He instituted it. According to Rev. Regis Scanlon, Berengarius of Tours began teaching that Christ was present in the Eucharist only as mere sign and symbol and that after the consecration, bread must remain. Berengarius held, That which is consecrated (the bread) is not able to cease existing materially. In the thirteen century, St. Thomas Aquinas names Berengarius, the first deviser of this heresy, claiming that the consecrated Bread and Wine are only a sign of Christs Body and Blood.
St. Thomas gives a valid reason why bread and wine does not remain once the consecration takes place, Because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria. Meaning, Catholics would be guilty of the sin of idolatry by worshipping the bread and wine. Therefore, the physical nature of bread and wine no longer remains, it only appears to remain.
The Council of Trent (1545-1563), agrees with what St. Thomas correctly taught:
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema (79).
This Council was called to declare Catholic Truth that was being challenged by the Protestant Revolt led by Martin Luther, a renegade Monk who suffered from severe scrupulosity, and sadly, due to his misinterpretations of scripture, as well as his adding to and removal of them, split the Church, leaving us today with over 34,000 Protestant groups and counting.
By the time of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), there were in place a somewhat large faction of progressive theologians, many of whom were censored by Pius XII, who managed to get themselves invited into the Council by Pope John XXIII, and to even participate in its precedings. These theologians were successful in holding sway at the Council, much to the orthodox bishops frustrations, and helped to word the sixteen documents produced from the Council with ambiguous language that has confused the faithful right up to this day. Then, in 1969, some of these same theologians helped to promulgate a new Mass by eliciting the aid of the then current Pope Paul VI. With this Mass in place, the rapid decline of Catholic belief, Mass attendance, and religious vocations began.
Adding to this confusion was the progressive undertakings of a group of bishops who incessantly had one agenda in mind, the introduction of Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand was illegally introduced into Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the United States. The Church adamantly opposed this disobedient and abusive practice from the very beginning. According to Bishop Laise, from his book Communion in the Hand, On October 12, 1965, the Consilium wrote to Bernard Cardinal Alfrink, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands, The Holy Father does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts [that] the Conference offer the opportune resolutions so that the traditional manner of communicating be restored (32).
Pope Paul VI vehemently looked for a solution to this crisis. He considered two options, either close the door to all concessions, or allow the concession only where its use was already established. The Pope took a risk and asked for the opinions of the local bishops to help him in this growing disobedience. Unfortunately, the bishops did not help Pope Paul VI, but opened the doors even wider for abuse. Communion in the hand was introduced without authorization, the Pope persistently opposed allowing it but decided to grant an indult, but only where its use was firmly established so as not to call attention to the disobedience of those bishops among their flock.
Pope Paul VIs compromise was the document Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), while reconfirming that Communion on the tongue is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility. The Pope wisely cautioned that Communion in the hand carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.
There are plenty of Catholics who sincerely believe that it makes no difference on how they receive Communion. They dont understand the law of the Church, the history, or the warnings against receiving Communion in the hand. Pope Paul VI again repeated in Memoriale Domini the Churches position on this matter, He should not forget, on the other hand, that the position of the Holy See in this matter is not a neutral one, but rather that it vehemently exhorts him to diligently submit to the law in force (Communion on the tongue).
The truth of the matter is that Communion in the hand was spread through disobedience to the Pope. Pope Paul VI tried hard to put into place many obstacles to slow this disobedient practice from spreading. In Memoriale Domini he stated four restrictions; (a) the indult could only be requested if Communion in the hand was an already established custom in the country, and (b) if by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority the episcopal conference petitions Rome, c) then Rome would grant the necessary permission, (d) once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously (among these conditions, no loss of sacred particles and no loss of faith in the Real Presence) (En réponse à la demande). If any of those conditions were not met than Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult. These restrictions are part of the Popes instructions which are found attached to his document Memoriale Domini.
However, the American bishops successfully managed to maneuver around Pope Paul VIs restrictions. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the then president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, unsuccessfully attempted twice to establish Communion in the hand in America, in 1975 and 1976. Unfortunately, he finally prevailed in May 1977 when Communion in the hand was illegally authorized in the United States. The bishops totally ignored Pope Paul VIs requirements expressed in his indult about not allowing the practice of Communion in the hand where it was not already established.
Proceeding on their own initiative, the American bishops decided to vote on whether not they could get this disobedient practice introduced into their own country, despite all the historical evidence and warnings by Saints and Doctors of the Church throughout Her two thousand year history, warning against such a practice.
After the initial voting had concluded, Archbishop Bernardin reported that the vote had fallen short of the required two-thirds of all legally present members and that the matter could not be concluded until the absent bishops were polled. Bernardin was dead-set on getting Communion in the hand one way or another, even if it had just been voted down. To get around the lack of votes, bishops who were not present, retired, or even dying, were polled illegally.
Canon lawyer, Fr. Kunz, has stated that obtaining votes from absent bishops absolutely invalidates the petition for an indult, making the indult non-void. This tactic manipulated and masterminded by Cardinal Bernardin to acquire the votes simply makes the indult invalid, since only members present at the meeting could legally vote. Renowned theologian Fr. John Hardon, S.J., stated in 1997, To get enough votes to give Communion on the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be an affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.
The result of Cardinal Bernardin efforts in swaying the American bishops into promoting Communion in the hand, resulted in the Holy See granting permission for the indult which allowed Communion in the hand in the United States. The National Catholic Register quotes Bishop Blanchette:
What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient, and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline, then were very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all. (National Catholic Register, Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience, June 12, 1977)
Having been a Catholic for eight years, I have witnessed the lack of reverence and indifference among Catholics who go to Communion. The majority receive in the hand, their body language and stance clearly shows that they either dont believe in the Eucharist, or simply havent been told about Who and What It truly is. All polls are consistent with what I and other Catholics have suspected all along. Since the illegal introduction of Communion in the hand, belief in the Real Presence has not only plummeted, it is simply not being taught nor emphasized.
It wasnt until October of 2008, over four years of being a Catholic, did I have the good fortune of meeting a traditional Catholic Priest, Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea, who not only instructed me properly on this Church teaching, but on many others as well.
Communion in the hand, and the lack of solid Catholic formation, has certainly attributed to this loss of faith. Fr. John Hardon has affirmed, Behind Communion in the hand, I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can, is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
So today it seems we are stuck with Communion in the hand. Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out numerous times that he is not in favor of this practice. He has even made it known that anyone attending his Mass in Saint Peters Square must receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. It would be wonderful if the holy Father would entirely do away with this practice, most especially since it was only granted permission through an illegal voting process, and since it was introduced through an act of disobedience.
Faithful Catholics like myself either look the other way, try to educate others, or simply avoid a Mass that allows Communion in the hand. Today, I have taken the last option and attend only the Tridentine Mass, or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, codified by Pope Pius V in 1570. There is nothing in the rubrics that will allow Communion in the hand, it is the most ancient form of the Mass in existence, having been instituted over 1,500 years ago. Myself, and others pray for the day the Church fully returns to Her traditional practices and Communion in the hand is nothing more than a bad footnote in Church history, and an extinct one at that!
~ John Andrew Dorsey
Bibliography
Gaudron, Fr. Matthias. Catechism of the Crisis in the Church.
Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2010. Print.
Iacono, Kevin D. Dello. Semper Fidelis. Kevin D. Dello Iacono,
2007. Web. 27 Nov. 2012
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament Ed. Curtis Mitch
and Scott Hahn. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2010. Print. Rev.
Standard Vers.
Laise, Most Rev. Juan Rodolfo. Communion in the Hand: Documents
and History. Boonville: Preserving Christian Publications,
2011. Print.
Marshall, Dr. Taylor. Canterbury Tales. Dr. Taylor Marshall,
2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
Paul VI, Pope. Memoriale Domini. EWTN. Eternal World
Television Network, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
Scanlon, Rev. Regis. Catholic Culture. Rev. Regis Scanlon, 2012.
Web. 27 Nov. 2012
Schroeder, Rev. H.J. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of
Trent. Trans. Rev. H.J. Schroeder. Rockford: Tan, 1978.
Print.
Toon, Howard. Communion in the Hand while Standing: Whats the
problem? Remnantnewspaper.com. The Remnant, 5 Jan. 2012.
Web. 27 Nov. 2012.�
HMMMmmm...
23 Jesus replied, The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, Surely you dont mean me, Rabbi?
Jesus answered, You have said so.
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take and eat; this is my body.
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.
John 13:18-27 18 I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: He who shared my bread has turned[a] against me.[b] 19 I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am who I am. 20 Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me. 21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me. 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, Ask him which one he means. 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus answered, It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish. Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
Luke Chapter 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
Surely by now we've noticed a pattern: one of hands and of giving and taking.
The apostles fed themselves and drink of themselves. The very concept of Jesus feeding them is not only missing, but would seem quite strange as well.
Now there you go again....posting Scripture in a theological discussion.
True, but I’m Lutheran, not Catholic. We don’t believe the same things as Catholics do.
But we also don’t believe in what evangelicals or most other Protestants do either.
That’s the reason I’m reluctant to participate in threads like these, because I almost always get arguments that are meant to be against Catholics or against evangelicals, but don’t apply to me, and people tend to get frustrated with me when I try to make that clear.
So what I believe can be found in the Augsburg Confession. It’s not transubstantiation. But I still believe that it’s the literal body and blood of Jesus, even if we don’t know HOW it happens. And the power doesn’t lie in any priest or any celebrant, but in the Word of God.
I know; I must repent.
There MUST be a word for it.
Or at least an explanation.
.
“Communion” is contrary to scripture.
What Yeshua demanded of his disciples at the last Supper was not communion, but a Remembrance.
He said it was to be every time we drink the wine and break bread.
(not on the Sungod’s day)
.
Yes, Real Presence. Jesus is really there, but it’s not some miracle the priest performs and the bread and wine also remain. Unlike Catholics, who believe that the bread and wine are miraculously transformed by the words being spoken.
Instead, we simply believe in Jesus’ promise and leave it at that.
If you’re interested in knowing more, the Augsburg Confession is really easy to find online, as is the Defense of the Augsburg Confession and the Large Catechism. These are the confessions I’ve made a solemn oath to uphold because we believe that they are an accurate exposition of Scripture.
But please, don’t treat me like a Catholic. It gets very annoying.
Communion in the paw?!?
Does this mean ebb tide is a furry?!
DUN DUN DUNNNNNN.
Well, it cannot be the literal body and blood of Jesus, which was manifestly physical, and John condemn those who make Him the "Christ come in the flesh" into one without a manifest physicality.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 John 1:1-2)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (1 John 4:2)
even if we dont know HOW it happens.
Unlike the incarnation, there is nothing manifest that shows it does happen, nor is there any need to say to does.
And the power doesnt lie in any priest or any celebrant, but in the Word of God.
Or the consumption being the means of obtaining spiritual life I assume. But I will not damn you for your view, while for many Caths the wafer and wine is right up there with their Mary as needful for salvation and not believing this is damnable.
.
I don't find that Jesus 'promised' anything.
HE merely said, "This is..."
I take it as a metaphor and leave it at that.
Bingo!
The promise is “given for you” and “shed for you.”
And I don’t take it as a metaphor.
Ok; just which part of His body is Jesus holding in His hands here?
Jesus Sharing Bread On The Passover
On the eve of the atonement of Jesus, he himself declared: take, eat, this is my body as he took bread, and blessed it, and break it, and gave to his disciples. (Matthew 26:26).
He himself declared: this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed by many for the remission of sins as he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them. (Matthew 26:28,27)
Jesus did not institute an ordinance that was unfamiliar to the disciples, he simply revealed himself to his disciples.
Yes, the Lord never referred to an inanimate objects as being bodily Him, and instead His manifest body is shown in any visual presence.
But; perhaps He did. After all; hasn't Rome taught it's minions to lean on THIS verse whenever any of it's extraneous teachings are challenged?? Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25 Which provides them with carte blanche freedom to put teachings in the mouth of God, while writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)
And this is why I was reluctant to add my two cents, because people I consider my friends tend to get... intense with me.
As I said, I believe in the promise made by taking Jesus at his word. I don’t know how it happens and I don’t care.
Why would Jesus make such a big deal about bread and wine if it wasn’t literally true? I would think that the Passover lamb would be better if it was solely metaphorical.
I will get back to you when I get home from vacation.
That alone nukes the idea (and painting) of Christ standing and going around to each apostle and placing a round "host" on the tongue of each. Those who have the disciples stopping their meal to kneel and receive the bread into their mouth from the hand of the Lord must also believe He did the same with the cup, rather than giving thanks for a portion of a loaf, and the cup and giving it to them to share among themselves as conveyed by the descriptions, and as He did with the wine the first time:
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: (Luke 22:17)
And as they were eating , Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (Matthew 26:26) And as they did eat , Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. (Mark 14:22-23)
And if "breaking of bread" in Acts refers to the Eucharist/Mass, as some Catholics imagine, it which would also mean that the 12 apostles were doing this distribution on the tongue daily to the 3,000+ disciples in Acts 2, since this was before deacons or any clergy were ordained
One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, Ask him which one he means. 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus answered, It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish. Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
Catholics can reasonable argue this is not the same "consecrated bread" as given to the rest.
Meanwhile, despite the supernatural effects their Eucharist is said to have, not only do we not see this (unlike in real regeneration) but even right after receiving this supposed "medicine of immortality" by which we are joined to Christ's sacrifice and receive its inexhaustible benefits," the apostles soon manifested their carnal selves:
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. (Luke 22:24)
And the response to which was the opposite of a kingly pope:
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. (Luke 22:25-26)
——Well, it cannot be the literal body and blood of Jesus, which was manifestly physical, and John condemn those who make Him the “Christ come in the flesh” into one without a manifest physicality. -—
I don’t understand entirely what you mean by that statement.
But—at least if my best guess is correct—Jesus being God means omnipresence as one of the attributes of God. And omnipotence. The Lord made all of creation by speaking; it can’t be that difficult to put body and blood into bread and wine, just like it can’t be that difficult to form a Y-chromosome for a virgin birth.
-—Unlike the incarnation, there is nothing manifest that shows it does happen, nor is there any need to say to does. -—
Other than Jesus’s own words, which, considering that he is Lord, I need to take seriously. And in taking them seriously, I need to take them literally for this reason: As I said in an earlier post, why would Jesus use such language and call such specific attention to relatively insignificant bread and wine if he didn’t mean something very important by actual bread and wine instead of a more generic comparison?
Or the consumption being the means of obtaining spiritual life I assume.
It’s... complicated, at least here on FR when we have to deal with works-salvation Catholics v. grace-salvation everyone else. But no, we don’t believe that it’s a work we have to do in order to be saved. We believe that salvation is through the grace of God alone; nothing else.
You can skip the rest of the post if you’re satisfied with that.
I’ll do my best to explain in a way that doesn’t confuse with Catholic theology, because so much of the language is so similar and yet so, SO different in practice.
We believe that Communion is spiritually beneficial, and that it’s one of the means that the Lord uses to dispense his grace upon the recipients. The other means being the Word of God and baptism. That’s not to say that they are works that we have to perform, but rather that Word and Sacrament (that is, Scripture, Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion) are given to us in order to tell and show us about who Jesus is, and also to make our salvation clear to US.
I repeat, we’re NOT saying that Holy Communion is required for salvation, but is instead a gift from the Lord to increase our faith and give us assurance that what Jesus said about himself is true.
So (if I may ping him because this is something he’s passionate about), I have assurance of salvation just like Mark17 does. Jesus died to forgive the sins of the world; I know this because Scripture says so.
I know that Jesus died for ME because I was baptized into his death. So when the devil accuses me of unbelief or being insincere in my beliefs, I can point to the work of God that was worked within me instead of my own thoughts. Instead of turning my belief into a good work that I do for salvation, this places the focus on what the Lord has done for me instead.
(Not to say that baptism too is required for salvation—otherwise, that’d make it a work—but it too is a gift from God to give us assurance of that salvation.)
I... am not entirely satisfied with this explanation, mostly because I’m having to re-work the usual jargon because of the way FRomans use the same words to mean something radically different.
But it’s the best I can come up with right now.
If you want a better explanation that runs the risk of jargon issues, http://bookofconcord.org/ is for free online.
I'm interested in finding in Scripture this benefit; as well as grace being dispensed.
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.