Posted on 02/23/2016 8:17:35 AM PST by Salvation
...having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. (Luke 22:17-20)
No, your dozens of posts to me are spam. The scripture you posted reflects the Catholic teaching on the subject, not Protestant theological fantasies.
If you read the three Gospel accounts of the Passover Seder which The Jesus of Christianity celebrated with His disciples the night before the cross, Jesus called the contents of the cup of Remembrance, fruit of the vine. Using that fruit of the vine, He revealed that the Passover Seder would, after His crucifixion, be a remembrance of His being The Lamb of God. By making this new Seder the faither in Him as Savior and Lord IS connected spiritually to the deliverance He alone can provide.
What’s the penalty for a Prot; who shows up in a Catholic service; and takes communion along with the others?
I hope it’s not too severe. When my Dad was studying for the diaconate, there were occasions where a priest would give my Mom communion, even though he knew she was Methodist.
would, after His crucifixion, be a remembrance
That is not what's in the scripture; or rather that is a paraphrase of the part "Do this for a commemoration of me". The problem with your paraphrase is that you say, the Seder (a Jewish ritual remembering the Exodus from Egypt) will by itself become a remembrance, whereas Jesus said that the disciples should "do this"; it does not become a remembrance by itself.
But the bigger problem is that this is not all He said. He also said "this is my body" and "this is my blood". That was said in the present tense. This is why that moment is the first Eucharist, not merely a prophecy about future Eucharistic celebrations.
The Passover was a representation of Christ, looking forward to His work on the cross.
What we call communion is also a representation of Jesus work on the cross, but instead looking back on what Jesus did and remembering it.
The Jews never actually thought they were actually eating the coming Messiah.
Thank you for answering her; I did not read her 50 posts to me.
A Protestant and generally non-Catholic (in the narrow sense of “Roman Catholic”) is not under any canonical obligations toward the Church, so no penalty attaches whatsowever to him.
The Orthodox are asked to follow the guidance of their bishops on that; however, the Catholic Church will gladly give them communion if there is no Orthodox communion they can attend or on such a blessed day that the Orthodox bishops allow intercommunion.
As to the rest, the question can only be of personal sin. If someone is not informed that the Catholic communion is restricted to Catholics and Orthodox, there is no sin; he would be acting out of ignorance. If the intention is to deceive someone and pretend to be Catholic while not being one, the sin is of lying with one’s actions. Further, if the communion is not taken with the intention of consuming it as body and blood of Christ, then it becomes also a blasphemy, but again, the question of mental competence to commit blasphemy remains.
Finally, if a Catholic experiences doubt in the doctrine of Real Presence, he is asked by the Church to work on overcoming the doubt, but so long that he takes the communion with the right intent of getting closer to Christ he can take it.
Greater burden is on the priest giving communion wrongly and knowingly; but in your case, the priest probably made the determination that no desire to deceive or blaspheme was there.
I am not a canonist but I think I am describing things reasonably correctly. If not, and if someone with greater knowledge can correct me, please do.
And I just read what is written in the Holy Scripture.
Jesus celebrated the remembrance Passover Seder and opened up deeper knowledge to His disciples telling themn that this remembrance thereafter would be of Him as the Lamb slain fromt he foundation of the world, The Lamb of God. Do you really believe Jesus would violate the laws against blood and cannibalism during this very special Seder? Sorry, Jesus's own words show you He called the cup of liquid WINE and was to be taken in the Seder a new way as remembrance of the True Lamb of God.
It might interest you to know that Jesus was born int he 'season' when the special temple shepherds were watching over the flocks of birthing sheep, in order to pick up immediately any lamb born without spot or blemish and take it into a special enclosure wrapping it in smaddling clothes and place up off the floor in a manger, to prevent injury or blemish during the borthing season. These were the Passover lambs ...
The fruit of the vine.....
The Spirit gives life, the flesh is of no help at all.
Then believe it, too.
Make that swaddling ... here’s another lol for you, Sal.
No question Jesus violated many of the precepts of the Jewish Law; He was, after all, convicted of blasphemy. The Seder is a type of the Eucharist, just like the crossing of the Red Sea is a type of baptism, but they are not the same. The Last Supper was both: a Seder celebration and the First Eucharist celebration, as the quoted text shows.
And what? Wine is also called “fruit of the vine” but what Jesus gave the disciples to drink was his blood and not wine. The Eucharist is of the Spirit, not of the flesh and does not feed the flesh. Just like the Scripture teaches.
Explain what you meant by asking:
“Why, then that Muslim or Atheist or Protestant has a faith in Christ that he, poor thing, cannot articulate. Beats mocking Christ in His Church every time no one even asked you to.”
It's too bad you don't choose a better and more fruitful one. You know, like leading those atheists, Muslims and Hindus to Jesus Christ or even drawing Catholics in name only back. I think it would honor Christ more than laughing at brethren in Christ.
Observing Passover is.
Mom; it is NOT considered playing games when you happen to own the football!
No; that's only TWO.
There are FIVE other 'sacrements'; I've been told.
REALLY?
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.