Posted on 12/27/2008 2:48:02 PM PST by NYer
Q. Why can’t Protestants receive communion at the Catholic Church?
A. To protect them from Judgment.
1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
Since, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We would be allowing them to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. The prohibtion is actually very charitable but, unfortunately, it is usually seen as a rejection.
Evidence of this interpretation of this passage is supported by St. Justin the Martyr :
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
-Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)
Q. Why do we call the bread “The Host”?
A. Our use of this term, to refer to the consecrated bread, comes from the Latin word hostia, which means ‘victim’. We believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine on our altars. The mass is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, Jesus is the victim of sacrifice and we call the bread the host/victim to help us remember that it is no longer bread but the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us to strengthen and keep us on the journey to Heaven.
That cracker's gone in twenty minutes...After twenty minutes, you're on your own...
But's that's good...It shows you are responding to Jesus' admonitions in the Scripture...
You've read the scripture...There's no connection between your stomach and your heart/soul...Going thru the motions of the Eucharist may give you Christian convictions about sin and that's the good side of it but there's nothing magical or mysterious about eating the cracker...
That's why Jesus said 'break the bread' before you eat it...Breaking the bread will put you in remembrance of His body which was also broken, FOR YOU...Get's your mind on Jesus...
The Ten Commandments came from the Heavenly Father and even Christ said to obey them. He broke them in to two parts 'spiritual' and 'civil'. Because we are flesh, and 'frail', we all sin. There has to be a law transgressed to have sin. Else we could not have been told to repent. Christ through His death became the final required perfect 'blood' sacrifice redeemer. Even that word 'redeemer' is a legal term.
Did Jesus work on the Sabbath??? Well lets see what the bible says about it...Because I agree with the scriptures... Gal 3:22 But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. We are no longer under the condemnation of the law...The law is no longer the law but our teacher...
What does the 'word' Sabbath mean? Is that not what Christ became to us Christians? And who was this bunch who worshiped the legal system in an attempt to find cause to legally remove Christ from their religious system.
See there are traditions and then there is the WORD, Paul is taking great patience in explaining how some USED the position of their legal systems to maintain their traditions.
Now unless you know something I do not premeditated murder is still the same crime/sin to the Heavenly Father as it was when HE handed down those Commandments. And the Heavenly Father said to return the offender of premeditated murder to him as HE would be in charge of settling the outcome.
Now there you go again...Your early Christian fathers did NOT consistantly interpret the scriptures...They have constantly changed their interpretations over the years...
And these changers of interpretation may have determined your canon...They didn't determine the canon that God gave us...
By this analogy you trash the martyr's and Saints and think God is using you to correct them.
God uses millions of Christians to correct your saints where they disagree with the scriptures...And they do, a lot...
I wish more Catholics were like you, willing to talk openly but in love and grace. And willing to accept that others may have doctrinal differences but are still brothers in Christ.
I can forward you a few e-mails - or you can read some of the posts here - where Catholics pray that I will see the light and return to the “true Church”, as if one cannot commune nor connect with God except through their own doctrine.
I wonder if they would choose Timothy or Paul to throw out of the Church, or Peter or Paul? There were strong, never resolved doctrinal differences between those early founders of the Church yet they were much more open and accepting than many of these Jihadist Catholics here.
1. Romans 2:15 tells us men have “the law” written on their hearts. Lack of a bible is no excuse for ignorance of sin.
2. At least once a week.
They were absolutely consistent on the TRUE presence in the Eucharist.
You know this, and this is why you cannot provide a list of writings to say otherwise
And these changers of interpretation may have determined your canon...They didn't determine the canon that God gave us
Since the Bible did not fall from the sky you're going to have to come to grips that God used devout holy Catholic men to decide the canon. He did not suck the brains out of their heads either!
Oh but there is something magic and mysterious about “that cracker.” I can tell you from direct experience. I can also tell you every rationale you can conceive to give an alternative explaination for my experience, falls short.
There has to be a law transgressed to have sin.
Now, you're getting into the 'meat' of the word...
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
And of course the naysayers claim this refers to the ceremonial law which is not true...
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Coveteousness is not part of the ceremonial law...It's the Ten Commandments...
My KJV records Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Now this means nothing without knowing what the subject is and verse 16 nails the purpose of what is being said.
16 In the *day* (has NOT happened yet) when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Verse 11 is the subject "For there is NO respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Verse 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Then comes verse 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Note verse 15 is part of the ( beginning in verse 13.
Your point is?
None of what you quote says the law does not still apply. What was fulfilled is that the individual need NOT supply a ‘blood’ sacrifice as demonstration of repentance. The law or religious legal system of the OLD and the leavening in of men’s traditions are no longer in affect.
But it is NOT correct to say Christians are no longer required to obey the law. Even the founders of this nation followed the ‘law and order’ Creator in penning our Constitution and it is terribly misleading for Christians to make a claim of the law no longer being in effect.
Grace means that through the death of the only perfect born of woman flesh was sacrificed as the one and for all time blood sacrifice. His death did not end the law but fulfilled that particular requirement under the law to have a blood sacrifice as the requirement to have sins forgiven. Of course there were other ‘offerings’ given with blood sacrifices to demonstrate the person’s faith in the Living God as Creator and where all blessings of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness come. Those were done away and would be an affront to the Heavenly Father to claim blood sacrifices would ever again be of His requirement.
I will not disagree. Fortunately for each of us, the Heavenly Father is and will be the judge. I do have to add as Christians we are suppose to be the body of Christ, 'family', and have you noticed how young siblings used whatever they can to gain the upper hand with mom and dad.
Yep! Sibling Rivalry can certainly destroy a family!
12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [!]
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
I would say the "they" of verse 15 has as its antecedent the Gentiles of verse 14 who have not the law but do what the law requires.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps then, you can tell us what the verses I posted do say...They obviously say something...
How do you know what is a sin if you do not read the Bible? And how often to you take your cracker to restrain sin? And no I am not joking or making fun, I do not understand exactly what you mean.
Your answer
1. Romans 2:15 tells us men have “the law” written on their hearts. Lack of a bible is no excuse for ignorance of sin. 2. At least once a week.
And I quoted the scripture noted above from the KJV Romans 2:15 and found what is claimed to be there does not even come close to what is there.
And you want to know what my point is.
I do not consider the subject one to play games, or to gain one up on another.
I'm not so much ragging on him as I am questioning forming an opinion about Catholics and the Bible on a sample like that one.
Gee, not to seem rude, but, your opinion does not matter to me. That is why I am Catholic and you are not. I did not have this debate to change your mind any more than you will change mine. I do not ascribe to protestant theology, which is why I am not protestant. You do not ascribe to Catholic theology, which is why you are not Catholic. I was having a debate on one particular topic throughout this thread, pretty much with one person. I thank you to respect that. Good day :)
This is because those who were supposed to teach us didn't. In many ways, the state of the Church can be laid at the door of the hierarchy. We just weren't taught and in that a great disservice was done because we can't defend the Faith. I learned on my own due to a desire to know. Not everyone has that. They know the surface and nothing else. There are those who believe that this was done deliberately to bring down the Church. I think a part of it is the 50 years of chaos that follows every council. We're at year 43. Things are starting to get back to normal, and that should include more rigorous teaching.
As to knowing anything beyond the Catechism, Dogma and Sacred Tradition (which includes scripture) - we really don't need to know anything else. This is the bulwark against heresy. I don't mean that in any way other than a statement of fact. If you aren't going to lead the flock into temptation, why teach error of any sort? Since before any line of the New Testament was written, the flock has been led astray in places where they don't know any better. That's the way life is. As so man of us were not taught hard facts and true teaching, recognizing error is very difficult, let alone defending the teachings.
It gets to be rather stunning after a while that we've been having the same arguments for 2,000 years. In those 2,000 years, not everything has been honky dory all the time. The end of the 12th century into the 13th featured an ignorant flock. As various people became more prosperous, they began to resent being made to feel guilty by the church and went along with a revolt in the 15th. It goes on and on.
As for worship, you get out of it what you put in, just like anything else. And, no, fighting amongst ourselves gets us nowhere, but neither does closing off hearts. That's what I see on these threads. If people truly love the Triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - praying for an open heart should not be an issue.
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.