I want communion!!!! (Jesus Christ, ritual, blood, churches, scriptures)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by rheff78

wait, wait, wait. I NEVER said Christ wasn't among your congregation. I'm sure he is, come on. Just that I don't see your Eucharist as mine. They are different. That doesn't mean that Christ is not there with you. Again, I see it as the TRUE body and blood of Christ. The reason you can't take it with us is because you don't see it that way. And let's say you DO believe in transubstantiation, the power that comes from taht comes down through the pope (which I'm pretty certain you don't agree with).

Among us, but apparently not when it comes to Eucharist? Jesus excuses himself at that point? I see Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ, too. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

I think that authority and power do come through the Pope. Not all power and authority...but it is there, nonetheless.

What is it that makes Eucharist either "mine" or "yours"?

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Might I suggest you read "Christianity Rediscovered" by Fr. Vincent Donovan. he points out that life, itself, is communion -- is Eucharist."

The bread we share certainly does have meaning. If you can't find meaning in it, then I would suffest that this is your shortcoming, and not the church's.

This makes sense; it is by God's grace (eucharist) that we eat anything. How often do we think: "If Jesus hadn't died on the cross for me I might be worried stiff about what is in my Big Mac." Most people just take Jesus and their food for granted as though it were some kind of right.

I am reminded of my Catholic cousin coming to dinner on friday. My mother being somewhat unfamiliar with Catholic practices was serving meat instead of fish. My cousin graciously ate the meal including the meat. There was more sharing of the love of God in that act than any religious observance could ever provide.

[sojourner]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that RCCs feel "entitled" to Jesus. Some may, but that certainly isn't the teaching of the Church. But I don't think (and what Fr. Donovan discovered) that you can't encapsulate Eucharist into an event set apart from all other events in time. To me, that goes against the very nature of the sacrament, which includes "all times and all places," as the Preface says: "it is right, and a good and joyful thing, that we should, at all times and in all places, give thanks to you..."

Eucharist is part of our daily living. All are brought to the Table, because we are all part of one another -- even non-Christians. If the words of institution ring true: "Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is my blood of the new covenant. It will be poured out for you and for all, so that sin might be forgiven," there is a universality that transcends even the Church. As well, the Agnus Dei, which states that "the Lamb of God ... takes away the sin of the world."

What the Church does in the Eucharist (IMO), is to act on behalf of, not only themselves, but the world, including those who will not, or cannot come. The Act of Eucharist is acted out in time, as a type of everyday living, for all people. I just don't see how an act like that can, in any way, be exclusionary.

[Scott1]

I was hoping that with another thread covering the topic, this thread would die... but it looks like I should post my comments from that thread over here:

For a Roman Catholic to receive the Eucharist, they must:

1. Be in a state of grace.
2. Have been to confession since their last mortal sin.
3. Believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.... to include the teaching that only a validly ordained priest may confect the Eucharist.
4. Observe the Eucharistic fast.

So you see, it's not just a simple matter of "unity".... to force this upon us means you force us either to ignore our teachings or accept some odd "duality" of laws for each group coming to the table.... that folks, is not true unity.

Emotional appeals to unity are super.....they sure sound good.... but our faith is founded upon more than emotion. We have a duty as Christians to pass along the deposit of faith from the Apostles.... and the early church and early fathers did not accept open communion. (Research the Donatists and see how Saint Augustine handled their schism.....as well as his "De Trinitate" and his defininition of the Holy Spirit as communion). So unless someone can show me.... from Scripture or the early Church why this should happen, emotion alone won't get the job done.

My question for those who desire open communion is this:

Who would YOU allow into Communion at your Church?

Anyone who desires it?

Do YOU place any "fences" (baptism for example)?

[crystalonyx]

Wow, you must really have to be good to be a Catholic.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by rheff78

And let's say you DO believe in transubstantiation, the power that comes from taht comes down through the pope (which I'm pretty certain you don't agree with).

The Pope alone, and no other?

As I mentioned in this thread, I have problems reconciling that position with the Bible, in particular Luke 9:49-50:

49"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."
50"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

Jesus seems perfectly fine with people outside the circle of the Apostles performing miraculous things in His name.

Even if Jesus gave "Keys to the Kingdom" to Peter, that doesn't mean that He didn't get a few more sets cut while He was at it.

[rocka21]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Just to note, no one is going to physically stop you from receiving communion.

Wrong!

I was physically stoped when I was 16 at st. Marys ( galveston , TX.)

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Wow, you must really have to be good to be a Catholic.

Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed.").


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The Pope alone, and no other?

As I mentioned in this thread, I have problems reconciling that position with the Bible, in particular Luke 9:49-50:

CCC It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Rocka21

I was physically stoped when I was 16 at st. Marys ( galveston , TX.)

Thank God.

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."