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.
You need to try actually READING those "inspired, written words of God" once in a while... there is MORE text devoted to "this is my body" than to "born again."
This kabuki dance of yours doesn’t change the fact I answered with scripture your question of how one could know sin apart from the bible.
Most of these heretical Christians were known as Arians. They never disappeared. In the seventh century one of them emerged as a charismatic leader, and since then these former 'heretical christians' have been known as Muslims.
Now IF I had no Bible and knew nothing about Paul and/or the law, of what benefit would I gain to be told Romans 2:15 Which shew the works of the law written in their hearts,.....)"?
You answered nothing. When did the magical event occur wherein the law got written in your heart? If I knew nothing about the Bible, Paul or the law I would be totally confused from your posts.
Now I also would point out I do get the pleasure you have in using the WORD to pass out your special brand of ridicule. To each his own.
DG, would you do me the kindness of walking this brother through the concept of natural law that St. Paul is appealing to here?
I, literally, can not think of how to do it myself without giving offense...which will benefit no one.
Thanks in advance.
You seem to think that the reference to the day of the Lord or God's not being a respecter of persons has some telling or determining bearing on whether the text can rightly be understood as supporting the idea that even those without the so-called positive law still have some, possibly innate, understanding of right and wrong.
I'm not trying to score points. I'm trying to understand your contention and I'm failing miserably.
I see no parentheses in verse 13. When Paul says God is no respecter of persons (it looks to me something like "For there is no favoritism by God"), in the context I see him explaining that therer will be tough times for whoever does evil, Jew or Greek, and glory, honor, and peace for whoever does good, Jew or Greek. And then there is verse 11 with its postpositive γαρ: ου γαρ εστιν προσωπολημψια παρα τω θεω.
So it seems that the aspect of persons which God does not consider is whether they are Jew or Greek. The γαρ (= "for", more or less) serves to join the statement of principle (no regard for persons) to the instance (being a Jew or a Greek won't make any difference about the kind of consequences deeds incur.)
Verse 12 continues and restates the idea that sinners (οσοι ... ημαρτον) without the law (ανομως) or "in" the law (εν νομω) will be judged, without or within the law.
13 contrasts hearing and doing - doing justifies, hearing doesn't.
14 ... and I believe this is where the nub of the disagreement is, says (and again there is the postpositive γαρ) FOR, when the ethne not having the law [nonetheless] DO "by nature" (φυσει) what the law requires, they are a law to themselves [!].
Then (and I take this as an explanation of the idea of being a law to oneself, an expression which could stand some explication) Paul says that what the law requires is γραπτον εν ταις καρδιας -- written in their hearts.
So that seems to me to support the idea that at least some aspects of the moral law are revealed to all.
And I don't remember now but I think that was papertyger's initial contention, and it sure seems to me that walking through these verses supports that contention.
IN general, I think Augustine is right. We are born with a lack in us which can be filled only by God. One aspect of that lack is a moral sense, and, as it were, seeing the shape of the hole left in our soul, we can begin to understand the shape of the thing which would fill it. And the moral aspect of that understanding is sorta kinda maybe like what theologians mean by "natural law".
IMHO, somebody needs to write a paper on Paul's use of φυσις and its cognates.
I never gave it any thought but I suspect I'd rather have a female pastor than a male, queer pastor, if I had to chose...”
MAN OH MAN, there's something wrong with you. I don't sense an ounce of Christ like behavior in these comments.
In fact, comments such as these could quite possibly repel persons looking to the Christian faith for peace and civility in a broken world.
Thanx a bunch. Try not to help Christ any further.
In fact, may I suggest reading the beatitudes once again.
Meditate and pray on them. Ask the Holy Spirit to come soften your heart.
It's that plank thang.
If you believe in the mystery of Incarnation and Resurrection, you should have no problems believing that the Eucharistic bread and wine are truly his body and blood for no other reason than because the Bible says he said so.
You have to understand that the 1st century Church did not have sophisticated theology but rather took things at their face value. It believed what was said. Do you believe that Jesus ascended into heaven (wherever that may be?) straight up, and through the clouds? Do you believe that man can live in a belly of a fish for three days and live to tell about it?
If you do, then you should have no problems believing in the bread and wine dedicated to his memory is his body and his blood. But, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will realize that it has to be done by those who succeeded the apostles directly, because only they have been given the ability to loosen and bind on earth and what will be loosened and bound in heaven.
This was a concern for my wife and I at our wedding. We are Roman Catholic, however many of our family are not. We discussed this with our priest and during the wedding rehearsal, he explained to the family in attendance what the rules are. Everything went very well.
As far as we (Catholics) are concerned, yes. While they use terminology different from ours, we consider their belief regarding what the Eucharist is to be the same as ours.
We suggest that they should, however, follow the discipline of their own Church as to whether they actually receive Holy Communion in our Church.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who originally stuck your finger into someone's eye and said, 'na na, na na, na, we don't have female priests like you do, or something like that???
like you do or something like that? I did not say that at all nor did I attempt to taunt as you suggest.
I was only setting the record straight as it was obvious you know little concerning the Anglican church.
We do not ordain woman nor do we accept the ordination of homosexuals. We do not condone those lifestyles as being biblically acceptable.
Not sure where your getting your information, it is incorrect.
I assume you are Catholic.....if so, would it not prompt you to set the record straight if I was to say something to the effect, “Roman catholic priest are predominately pedophiles.”
We know that is not true, it is an inaccurate portrayal, sophomoric and shallow.
The same holds true with statements like, queer priest this or queer priest that.
Pretty offensive.
Yes I do believe what is written before 13-15 and right after does need be required instruction to fully get a grasp on what Paul is instructing. Paul's words come across to many different peoples differently depending upon how much of the 'old' they have been taught. As Paul makes note of where his foundation came in Romans 1:2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Based upon how it reads to me 2:15 comes well into the doctrinal subject which from my reading starts in Romans 1:16 and continues through Romans 8:39. And Romans 1:20 gives a depth that Paul builds around through out his writings wherein he says "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that *when* they knew God they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
When was this *when* they knew God they glorified Him not as God????
I'm not trying to score points. I'm trying to understand your contention and I'm failing miserably.
I too do not understand why the plucking out a few words in the beginning of doctrinal instruction would be use, given the subject of this thread. Especially given that the scripture quoted regarding who can be sanctioned to have communion does not read to me it is any man's business regarding who is allowed or whom is NOT.
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.
This reads *whoever* and does not box any person in any particular church, nor does it give responsibility to any head or passer out of the Communion the charge to judge the status of any desiring to partake.
I see no parentheses in verse 13. When Paul says God is no respecter of persons (it looks to me something like "For there is no favoritism by God"), in the context I see him explaining that therer will be tough times for whoever does evil, Jew or Greek, and glory, honor, and peace for whoever does good, Jew or Greek. And then there is verse 11 with its postpositive γαρ: ου γαρ εστιν προσωπολημψια παρα τω θεω.
I do not know what to tell you my KJV clearly has parentheses from Romans 2:13-15.
So it seems that the aspect of persons which God does not consider is whether they are Jew or Greek. The γαρ (= "for", more or less) serves to join the statement of principle (no regard for persons) to the instance (being a Jew or a Greek won't make any difference about the kind of consequences deeds incur.)
Again I will refer you back to Romans 1:20-21 as Paul explaining on differing levels about when some things took, are taking, and will take place. Paul goes into great detail regarding 'predestination' in Ephesians where in Paul ends Romans mentioning a 'mystery'. Paul serves as example of being predestined to pen the majority of the New Testament even though his will was to destroy the Church.
Verse 12 continues and restates the idea that sinners (οσοι ... ημαρτον) without the law (ανομως) or "in" the law (εν νομω) will be judged, without or within the law. 13 contrasts hearing and doing - doing justifies, hearing doesn't. 14 ... and I believe this is where the nub of the disagreement is, says (and again there is the postpositive γαρ) FOR, when the ethne not having the law [nonetheless] DO "by nature" (φυσει) what the law requires, they are a law to themselves [!]. Then (and I take this as an explanation of the idea of being a law to oneself, an expression which could stand some explication) Paul says that what the law requires is γραπτον εν ταις καρδιας -- written in their hearts.
In the most simplest terms I can possible use I believe what is said is there is no perfect judge to assess intent because the Heavenly Father alone can know the 'heart' and mind. Each will be judged alone on what they individually do, think and believe based upon their level of acceptance and instruction. The complete opposite of our current judicial system wherein ignorance of their law is no defense, whereas the Heavenly Father who reads minds knows without doubt the state of mind of each and every one of us is the only one who can judge.
Which is what I believe Paul's doctrinal message is about at least up to the verses we are discussing.
So that seems to me to support the idea that at least some aspects of the moral law are revealed to all.
I do not dispute this but the question is *WHEN*? And according to Paul before this 'flesh' age everybody knew full well what was what and who was who and some chose to go against the Heavenly Father. I can provide from the 'old' where others discuss as well as Paul in his writings speak of an age wherein Peter call it the world (age) that was. IIPeter 3.
And I don't remember now but I think that was papertyger's initial contention, and it sure seems to me that walking through these verses supports that contention. IN general, I think Augustine is right. We are born with a lack in us which can be filled only by God. One aspect of that lack is a moral sense, and, as it were, seeing the shape of the hole left in our soul, we can begin to understand the shape of the thing which would fill it. And the moral aspect of that understanding is sorta kinda maybe like what theologians mean by "natural law". IMHO, somebody needs to write a paper on Paul's use of φυσις and its cognates.
I do not know Augustine, but what and why does Paul describe Jacob and Esau in the manner he does in Romans 9:10-13.... He is not saying God created Esau to be hated and yet Esau was hated before ever entering this flesh age.
21 Because that *when* they knew God they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
When was this *when* they knew God they glorified Him not as God????
There's no "when" in the Greek.
dioti gnontes ton theon
because having known [the] God
ouch os theon edoxasan e eucharistesan, ....
not as God did they glorify or thank. ...
gnontes γνοντες is an aorist participle used possibly as a substantive - "the having known guys"
I never thought when I joined Free Republic that I'd be goosing up my Koine Greek.
The "plucking out of a few words" is used because here Paul seems to be clarifying how being "without the law" does not exclude one either from deserving punishment or from acts which are in some sense meritorious. And this has led to people talking about "natural law" or "general revelation".
And I still do not see a positive statement of what you think the passage is about. What I am seeing is THAT you disagree, but not what your disagreement leads you to think about the passage, or about "natural law" or "general revelation".
As to the rest, tempting as these issues are to explore, if you don't mind I think that we may lose sight of the general revelation issue if we go after them.
One of the things I remember one of my high schoold friends, a devout Catholic, said, "Hurry and pass me another hotdog before I remember it's Friday."
I recall several years back, a non-Catholic christian who was asked how she reconciled her faith with the fact that she posed for a men's magazine and she replied that all her sins were forgiven because she accepted Jesus as her personal savior. (Apparently it didn't matter that she accepted the Lord before posing.)
I would say the "age of flesh" began when Adam ate the fruit Eve offered him. Flesh without Spirit is dead and in our first parents we turned away from the source of that life-giving breath. Consequently we die, and in our fragmented and ambivalent wills we experience the claws of death reaching into our lives.
And further, we still die, in two ways. The normal way and also we die in Christ. Our struggles are not just birth pangs but also death agonies, not just the old man dying, but the new man being brought to life.
Okay, let's see you knock that out of the park.
And if I may say so, it's time for you to learn New Testament Greek. It's not that hard. But when I pin an argument on a word which was the choice of the translator but not in the text, I become aware of my need for frequent recourse to the text. What is one man's effort to translate a phrase into fluent English may be confusion to another man.
I think the "when they knew" is the translator trying to be more graceful in his dealing with the participle, just as in the miserable New American Bible foisted off on us papists the imperfect is often translated "kept on ..." which I think nicely captures the continual or repeated nature of that tense but falsely limits the interpretation to a kind of intended persistence which the tense itself does not justify.
What comes to my mind in what words Paul uses is in IICorinthians 11:2-3......."simplicity that is in Christ."?
It is my understanding that Romans is not the first book Paul wrote, yet it is placed first, and Romans gives the ABC's of "church" teaching. "The just shall live by faith" (1:17)
There's no "when" in the Greek. dioti gnontes ton theon because having known [the] God ouch os theon edoxasan e eucharistesan, .... not as God did they glorify or thank. ... gnontes γνοντες is an aorist participle used possibly as a substantive - "the having known guys"
And while you are technically correct that the word *when* is not in the Greek as used in the English Romans 1:21 there is a time element given by the implication of what is said.
I never thought when I joined Free Republic that I'd be goosing up my Koine Greek. The "plucking out of a few words" is used because here Paul seems to be clarifying how being "without the law" does not exclude one either from deserving punishment or from acts which are in some sense meritorious. And this has led to people talking about "natural law" or "general revelation". And I still do not see a positive statement of what you think the passage is about. What I am seeing is THAT you disagree, but not what your disagreement leads you to think about the passage, or about "natural law" or "general revelation". As to the rest, tempting as these issues are to explore, if you don't mind I think that we may lose sight of the general revelation issue if we go after them.
I do not read Romans in a vacuum, but as foundation given on three levels. Paul was not allowed to live his life with doing his free will. He explains why he was set apart from the majority of peoples that come through this flesh age. This is instruction to me and explains how it could be said that God loved Jacob and hated Esau Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;)
Well Paul says Eve was beguiled = deceived or the Greek exapatao (long o). Adam was instructed by God Himself to not 'touch' the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But Adam did blame the woman for his acts.
Why was there a "age of flesh". It is by physical evidence left upon this earth that there was no flesh man upon this earth in the times of the dinos. And Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 both describe the fall of Lucifer and Ezekiel says that the king of Tyrus was in Eden the garden of God: When (English form of the word) did Lucifer rebel and was sentenced to death?
Moses does not describe the creation of Lucifer but he sure tells us he was in Eden. Moses also says that it was the breath of life which means soul that was breathed into the Adam's nostrils that made him living. Where did that soul come from? When were the souls created? Sometime in Genesis 1:1? How does one predestine someone if the entity never pre existed?
And further, we still die, in two ways. The normal way and also we die in Christ. Our struggles are not just birth pangs but also death agonies, not just the old man dying, but the new man being brought to life. Okay, let's see you knock that out of the park.
Ah but the flesh is given but a mere twinkle of the eye in time to exist. The soul and its spirit intellect can have life eternal. Christ said "Except a man be born from above, (yes I know somebody used the English word 'again') he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) verse 5 Christ says "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The book of Ecclesiastes by Solomon addresses both the flesh and the spirit bodies. Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See this is new?' it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
And if I may say so, it's time for you to learn New Testament Greek. It's not that hard. But when I pin an argument on a word which was the choice of the translator but not in the text, I become aware of my need for frequent recourse to the text. What is one man's effort to translate a phrase into fluent English may be confusion to another man.
It was not my intent to pin anything upon one particular word, rather to provoke a consideration by asking in the English the 'when' of what Paul was describing in Romans 1:20 followed by 21 with the pronouncement Paul makes.
I am reminded of Job being asked by the Heavenly Father in 38:2 "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou Me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The Heavenly Father is not describing flesh bodies here and other places tell us that 'morning stars' is a metaphor for the children.
Back to Romans where Paul sets his own credibility of the knowledge to write these books in Romans 1:2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Then later in Romans 1:17 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul (not flesh) which is lifted up is not upright in him:
but the just shall live by *his* faith.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;
but because vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beast, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned into their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient:
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without *natural* affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Paul is writing this to the church, not to the heathen, so in English *WHEN* verse 20 "invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse:", get this knowledge???
There are many scriptures that are uncomfortable for many to accept and so they by their design make Jesus a community social justice activists. Christ said Feed my sheep and the people pass the plate and set up soup kitchens. But the food Christ spoke about was for the soul/spirit NOT just for the maintenance of a flesh body. And they are going to be in for a big surprise when the flesh goes back to the dust and full knowledge is restored in that spirit body.
I think the "when they knew" is the translator trying to be more graceful in his dealing with the participle, just as in the miserable New American Bible foisted off on us papists the imperfect is often translated "kept on ..." which I think nicely captures the continual or repeated nature of that tense but falsely limits the interpretation to a kind of intended persistence which the tense itself does not justify.
I see it a bit differently, given what other words are given the added *when* demonstrates a 'time' to be understood on whatever level the reader develops from the study of per Paul Romans 1:2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
And there are many words not correctly brought forth from the original languages and some of them can be found aside from your specific *when* in these few short verses. You know the Greek I am sure you will have no trouble finding them.
But is there really a “completely different understanding about what is going on”?
I have talked to several priests about this (both Catholic and Lutheran) and this is my understanding of the issue:
I am Lutheran and my understanding of communion is that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Christ is present in the Lutheran perception of Eucharist, we just don’t go the next step and define HOW he is present. The catholic church does. That makes me question how different the two forms of a similar sacrament actually are.
I know that communion in the Catholic Church also acts as a bond between the worshiper and the one true church. By accepting communion a follower is accepting Catholic doctrine and entering fellowship with others of the same beliefs. That is why I don’t take communion from the Catholic Church. Not because of the metaphysical presence of Jesus as defined by the Catholic Church, but out of respect for those who adhere to the practices of Catholicism. They have a right to exclude me from the sacrament, because I do not profess my allegience to their church.
Calling someone “woefully ignorant” because they took communion at a Catholic service isn’t necessary. The underlying theology is a shade of Grey and is easily misunderstood.
I’m sure many of you will disagree, but I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions about the Lutherans believing Jesus isn’t there and the Catholics believing they are eating Jesus’s flesh. The theology is much more complicated than that (like most theology is :)
Ask your priests (or your fellow perisheners). You’ll be shocked at the number of different explanations you receive for what the sacrament means, their interpretation of it, and the reasons it is restricted to followers of the Church .
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.