Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
You are right. So, then, the communion wafer itself, no matter whether it is administered in Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, any church or denomination is not the ticket to eternal life, is it?
When it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior (not just a "communion wafer" in substance anymore) and is received in a state of grace, it is. Yes. It is the Bread of Life and "he who eats of it shall live forever."
If you don't believe that, then you speak for you. When Christ the Lord speaks that and I believe Him, I believe because He told me.
As Mad Dawg, says (only in many fewer words herewith), your "take" doesn't shake mine.
That's certainly my understanding.
Where you goin'?
In any event, Jesus is the only Savior. We're talking about HOW, not whether.
So then all of those who eat the communion wafer in Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, all churches and denominations, not just Catholic churches, "shall live forever"?
The communion wafer is NOT the same in a Catholic Mass as it is in Protestant services. Following the Bible, we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, as He directed.
Eating a symbolic wafer and drinking symbolic grape juice isn't the same.
Now, Communion with Him by itself isn't enough. We have to prepare ourselves through the Sacraments that He has left for us beginning with Baptism. He is the Way and the Sacraments are the means to follow the Way.
How is your communion wafer different than those in Protestant services?
Hmm, I see what you mean.
They might start out the same, but they become the Body (and Blood) of our Lord.
Now I get it, too.
Coffee time. :-)
I wish.
In at work again on a really nice Saturday morning. Launching new product takes way too much time.
Possible answer: Ours doesn't get the Microsoft warning that we're using pirated software and then refuse to load?
Seriously, we hold that we have a promise from God that if certain conditions are met (like bona fide priest, intention on his part to celebrate the Sacrament as the Church understands it, etc.) then the SUBSTANCE (a term of art) of Christ -- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity -- is Really present in the Consecrated what-used-to-be bread and wine, but now just looks like bread and wine.
There is a WIDE range of Opinions about the Sacrament: Mine, and the wrong ones, No, wait.
Way over HERE (and hardly anybody thinks this, except for in the case of the occasional miracle) the bread and wine are changed completely in Body and blood, in what they are AND in how they look, taste, etc.. Way over THERE is that the bread and wine suffer no change at all but it's a good thing to think of the last 23 hours of Jesus' life and eating bread and wine in church is a good way to do that.In the middle are "receptionism" -- sometimes called "The real presence of Christ IN THE BELIEVER who partakes (but not the bread and wine) -- virtualism, which is like it's just as good as if Christ were present, e.g.: some graces and consolations are bestowed, but He's not any more present or present any differently because of the Sacrament. And more and more.
The problems, conceptually, are many, like: isn't Jesus here anyway? How does "sacramental presence" differ from any other kind of presence?
My personal take is that He told us to DO it (and didn't say anything about understanding it, luckily in my case) and, bearing in mind the problems with language and the possible absence of a copular verb in Aramaic, and blah blah, it sure SEEMS to us and to the Church from early on, that he said,"THIS is my body. this is ...my blood," And for sure I'm not going to disagree with him.
I would further adduce what I take to be the incredible spiritual benefits I have derived from participation in this wonderful Sacrament, but you'd have to know how much MORE of a jerk I used to be before to believe that.
I hope that's not totally unclear. except for the jerk part.
PPPHHTTTTTH! :)
well, some groups think that Christianity was only practised after the 16th century while the Mormons believe that it was in the 1840s
Well, the article is so inane and incorrect, it'd be a waste to comment on it. Christian doctrine as known in the Apostolic Church is not what the article makes it out to be. Most of the statements are, in fact, fantastic anti=Catholic propaganda that has been there since the 16th century.
Yes, there were an astonishing array of dumb statements.
Your post makes no sense in terms of what I posted. Might I suggest that you reread what I have written and then rephrase your question.
From my reading I am led to understand that there are in place 4 Marian Dogmas, not 2. This petition is for a the creation of a fifth. (It has been re-submitted as recently as 2006.)
Again, back to my main point, denial that there are people within the church who improperly deify Mary is denial of fact - a Catholic with a proper biblical perspective of Mary is not the person of whom I speak. I speak of the minority, the extremists, the fringe element - but they are in fact there, and they are unfortunately protected by the HRCC rather than educated and corrected.
Also please find your way back to my original post which, if you readd it properly and carefully, defends the HRCC from the insanity that was the original article.
Well, I've offered all the cheeks on my face. If I offer any more cheeks I'm afraid it will be misunderstood.
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.