I want communion!!!!

[Dunemeister]

You know, it's funny. On several occasions of serious ecumenical effort, when everything had been agreed upon, and consensus has finally seemed possible, when it came time to share the Meal, the impending concordat was shattered. it's funny that the Body of Christ is the one insturment we use to hack, instead of to heal. To me, that's a greater desecration of the Body of Christ (which is the community of followrs) than opening the Table. Even Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes...

Amen.

Primary? I don't think so....it's done out of love.... we want you to come home to your "mother church".

Yes, primary. Exclusion because of love...dunno 'bout that. It seems haughty and unwarranted to me.

Preserving some sort of "mystery" about a miraculous non-miracle doesn't seem to me to be a firm basis upon which to promote unity. It seems the sort of side issue Jesus continually deplored, and it is a great shame to the church that differences of opinion concerning the nature of the communion elements has become a primary basis upon which to divide the church. I say this not only to RC shame, but to all of ours. But it seems to me that Anglicans have at least made a way forward by practicing an open table.

Why is your restriction to only those who are "validly" baptised any different than our restriction based upon valid Holy Orders?

Because communion is for Christians -- all of us. And for one of our groups to deny it to others of different professions, even though they acknowledge the same Lord -- is antithetical to Christian love. The RCC has no way around this.

Well, there is a difference though. We believe that the Eucharist IS the body,blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ. IF you don't believe that, why would you want to take communion with us?

Because communion isn't about whether you hold to a weird metaphysical view. It's about sharing a common meal, of acknowledging our common faith in Jesus. I might wish to share communion with you as a testimony to my solidarity with you in the gospel. And why should the RCC prevent me? It's absurd and churlish.

 

[rheff78]

Because communion isn't about whether you hold to a weird metaphysical view. It's about sharing a common meal, of acknowledging our common faith in Jesus. I might wish to share communion with you as a testimony to my solidarity with you in the gospel. And why should the RCC prevent me? It's absurd and churlish.

Come on, don't start with the name calling. But that's the reason right there. It's not weird to us. Transubstantiation. If yo don't believe the things we believe why would you want to? I don't take coummunion at other churches because I don't believe what they are offering. It's just that simple. No offense meant brother.

 

[Scott1]

Yes, primary. Exclusion because of love...dunno 'bout that. It seems haughty and unwarranted to me.

Preserving some sort of "mystery" about a miraculous non-miracle doesn't seem to me to be a firm basis upon which to promote unity. It seems the sort of side issue Jesus continually deplored, and it is a great shame to the church that differences of opinion concerning the nature of the communion elements has become a primary basis upon which to divide the church. I say this not only to RC shame, but to all of ours. But it seems to me that Anglicans have at least made a way forward by practicing an open table.

Hey... opinions vary... unity before truth is not the best policy, we believe... and all we can do is practice the faith as it has been since the begining:

JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST. And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Absurd and churlish.... hehe... same thing they said to Justin.

 

[Dunemeister]

Come on, don't start with the name calling. But that's the reason right there. It's not weird to us. Transubstantiation. If yo don't believe the things we believe why would you want to? I don't take coummunion at other churches because I don't believe what they are offering. It's just that simple. No offense meant brother.

I'm sorry, but I do find the idea strange. If that word is better, I'll use it. Communion is what it is regardless who is "offering" it. What is being offered is being offered by God, not by the church. And God is offering himself in the communion. Now, whether you hold that to be a sacrificial thing or a literal thing or a mysterious fellowship thing or a symbolic thing doesn't matter one iota. It really doesn't. For the whole purpose of the communion table is to unite the body under the head, and different ways of conceiving the means of that purpose ought not to be a bar. In other words, every community that believes in the historical Jesus offers exactly the same thing in communion -- a common witness of our unity under Jesus our Head. If, as you take communion, you want to conceive of the elements as literally Jesus, mysteriously Jesus, or symbolically Jesus, or <insert theory here>, go ahead. It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant for the public act and shouldn't bar the spiritual work going on, namely the believer's communion with Jesus and with the Christian community.

 

[sojourner]

Hey... opinions vary... unity before truth is not the best policy, we believe... and all we can do is practice the faith as it has been since the begining:

your mistake here is that unity is truth. It's Biblical, and it has been the rallying call for the Church since its earliest days. That's the whole reason for there being one Eucharist, in which we all participate. That's the whole reason why the term "catholic" is used. That was the impetus for the great church councils, and the development of the confessional creeds. If you're truly interested in practicing the Faith as it has been since the beginning, then unity should surely be your polar star.

 

[Dunemeister]

Hey... opinions vary... unity before truth is not the best policy, we believe... and all we can do is practice the faith as it has been since the begining:

What if there's been a mistake from the beginning? Nothing in scripture demands that we take the elements in the RC way. And it seems to me that there are multiple ways of understanding the various church fathers to accommodate more than just the RC view. Given that possibility, perhaps we shouldn't make a metaphysical understanding of the elements a central basis upon which to divide the church. As I've said before, that charge carries to almost all branches of Christendom. Even if the mainstream church regarded the elements as Martyr says, that's not to say that other interpretations are not valid or at least allowable under the pale of orthodoxy. And if they are allowable, there should be no bar to Christians accepting communion from various tables. Unfortunately, I think the insistence comes from a longstanding papal claim to authority, and perhaps that needs to be relativized before real progress can be made on other issues.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry, but I do find the idea strange. If that word is better, I'll use it. Communion is what it is regardless who is "offering" it. What is being offered is being offered by God, not by the church. And God is offering himself in the communion. Now, whether you hold that to be a sacrificial thing or a literal thing or a mysterious fellowship thing or a symbolic thing doesn't matter one iota. It really doesn't. For the whole purpose of the communion table is to unite the body under the head, and different ways of conceiving the means of that purpose ought not to be a bar. In other words, every community that believes in the historical Jesus offers exactly the same thing in communion -- a common witness of our unity under Jesus our Head. If, as you take communion, you want to conceive of the elements as literally Jesus, mysteriously Jesus, or symbolically Jesus, or <insert theory here>, go ahead. It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant for the public act and shouldn't bar the spiritual work going on, namely the believer's communion with Jesus and with the Christian community.

Com=with. Unity=together. Com=with. Union=...together. The fact that we, even though we understand differently, can come together in unity in the greatest act of God in the Church, is our strongest testimony to who we are. it is our strongest witness, our most powerful ministry to a world that operates out of its estrangement. Christ offered himself once for all, did he not?

 

[Dunemeister]

your mistake here is that unity is truth. It's Biblical, and it has been the rallying call for the Church since its earliest days. That's the whole reason for there being one Eucharist, in which we all participate. That's the whole reason why the term "catholic" is used. That was the impetus for the great church councils, and the development of the confessional creeds. If you're truly interested in practicing the Faith as it has been since the beginning, then unity should surely be your polar star.

Unity expressed through LOVE, of course.

 

[Dunemeister]

Com=with. Unity=together. Com=with. Union=...together. The fact that we, even though we understand differently, can come together in unity in the greatest act of God in the Church, is our strongest testimony to who we are. it is our strongest witness, our most powerful ministry to a world that operates out of its estrangement. Christ offered himself once for all, did he not?

Industrial-sized frubals for that, sojourner.

 

[sojourner]

a longstanding papal claim to authority, and perhaps that needs to be relativized before real progress can be made on other issues.

Perhaps you mean sole authority? The pope does have ecclesial authority...but not sole ecclesial authority.

 

[Father Heathen]

Can someone explain to me why the pope will not let me partake in communion during mass.

Just take a box of wafers with you, and whenever you want communion, stuff one in your mouth.

the Catholic Church believes in what we call transubstantiation, meaning that wafer of unleavened bread actually turns in to the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

:dracula:
Then shouldn't you be able to regurgitate it, take a DNA sample from it and clone Jesus?

 

[rheff78]

Then shouldn't you be able to regurgitate it, take a DNA sample from it and clone Jesus?

We're led by faith, not by sight.

 

[sojourner]

Then shouldn't you be able to regurgitate it, take a DNA sample from it and clone Jesus?

No, but once we communicate, we are one with Jesus -- Christ is in us, and we are in him.

 

[Dunemeister]

Perhaps you mean sole authority? The pope does have ecclesial authority...but not sole ecclesial authority.

Well, as far as I know, the Pope claims de jure jurisdiction over all other Christian bishops, even Eastern Orthodox, although his de facto authority over them is of course severed. It was the Roman bishop's claims to authority over his eastern peers that eventually caused the first great schism. It's that claim to authority I have in mind, but I don't want to change the subject (something I fear I do quite a bit despite my desire not to--O miserable man that I am).

 

[rheff78]

I'm sorry, but I do find the idea strange. If that word is better, I'll use it. Communion is what it is regardless who is "offering" it. What is being offered is being offered by God, not by the church. And God is offering himself in the communion. Now, whether you hold that to be a sacrificial thing or a literal thing or a mysterious fellowship thing or a symbolic thing doesn't matter one iota. It really doesn't. For the whole purpose of the communion table is to unite the body under the head, and different ways of conceiving the means of that purpose ought not to be a bar. In other words, every community that believes in the historical Jesus offers exactly the same thing in communion -- a common witness of our unity under Jesus our Head. If, as you take communion, you want to conceive of the elements as literally Jesus, mysteriously Jesus, or symbolically Jesus, or <insert theory here>, go ahead. It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant for the public act and shouldn't bar the spiritual work going on, namely the believer's communion with Jesus and with the Christian community.

I understand, transubstantiation is a tough one to figure out. NO probs there!!
OTHO I'm just not sure why it's a big deal. The Catholics look at the Eucharist as the body of Christ, not just a symbol. With that in mind, why offer communion to people who don't see it as such? It's a symbol to you, it's reality to us. I do agree with you, all Christians should unite together though.

 

[Dunemeister]

I understand, transubstantiation is a tough one to figure out. NO probs there!!
OTHO I'm just not sure why it's a big deal. The Catholics look at the Eucharist as the body of Christ, not just a symbol. With that in mind, why offer communion to people who don't see it as such? It's a symbol to you, it's reality to us. I do agree with you, all Christians should unite together though.

I've figured it out. I just find it an absurd notion. (Sorry, I'm trying to be nice. If anyone can tell me a kinder way to put it, I'll do so.) It's a big deal because the insistence that we all must hold to a particular style of Aristotelian metaphysics causes unnecessary division. Here's a case where churchmen could and should allow a variety of opinions to be held. Thus a church could believe that in communion, X is going on, whereas a believer in that church might believe Y is going on, especially if both the church and the believer are followers of Jesus. Our unity is not based on metaphysics, it's based on a common fidelity to Jesus. The stubborn refusal of the churches to acknowledge this is behind the current divisions. And, I deeply suspect, behind that stubborn refusal is a good deal of politicking.

 

[sojourner]

I understand, transubstantiation is a tough one to figure out. NO probs there!!
OTHO I'm just not sure why it's a big deal. The Catholics look at the Eucharist as the body of Christ, not just a symbol. With that in mind, why offer communion to people who don't see it as such? It's a symbol to you, it's reality to us. I do agree with you, all Christians should unite together though.

Here's the crux of the issue: How do you know how we view it? I'm not Roman Catholic. I serve a "protestant" denomination (even though we're not really "Protestant"), and we view the Holy Communion as the Body of Christ. But, you didn't bother to ask, did you? You just made an incorrect assumption, because we don't submit to Rome.

Who's to say what is, or is not "reality," in that sense? The real question isn't, "Why offer communion to people who don't see it as such?" The real question is, "Why not offer communion to people who wish to unite with Christ and the body of his faithful, and who see Christ as vitally present in that act?"

 

[Scott1]

Here's the crux of the issue: How do you know how we view it? I'm not Roman Catholic. I serve a "protestant" denomination (even though we're not really "Protestant"), and we view the Holy Communion as the Body of Christ. But, you didn't bother to ask, did you? You just made an incorrect assumption, because we don't submit to Rome.

Unless you believe only a priest with valid Catholic/Orthodox Orders can confect the Eucharist.... my "assumption" does not seem incorrect.

Who's to say what is, or is not "reality," in that sense?

The Church

The real question isn't, "Why offer communion to people who don't see it as such?" The real question is, "Why not offer communion to people who wish to unite with Christ and the body of his faithful, and who see Christ as vitally present in that act?"

This has been answered... we believe Christ is LITERALLY present... not vitally present.

 

[sojourner]

Unless you believe only a priest with valid Catholic/Orthodox Orders can confect the Eucharist.... my "assumption" does not seem incorrect.

What does that have to do with what I believe about the Eucharist? The hang-up here appears to be yours, not mine. I am able to see Christ as present in the Eucharist, in all times and places. You are not.

The Church

And who is the Church? The people ... all of us.

This has been answered... we believe Christ is LITERALLY present... not vitally present.

Now you're picking the fly **** out of the pepper. I believe Christ is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. Now what do we do?

 

[rheff78]

Here's the crux of the issue: How do you know how we view it? I'm not Roman Catholic. I serve a "protestant" denomination (even though we're not really "Protestant"), and we view the Holy Communion as the Body of Christ. But, you didn't bother to ask, did you? You just made an incorrect assumption, because we don't submit to Rome.

Who's to say what is, or is not "reality," in that sense? The real question isn't, "Why offer communion to people who don't see it as such?" The real question is, "Why not offer communion to people who wish to unite with Christ and the body of his faithful, and who see Christ as vitally present in that act?"

No no no. I never said I KNEW what you believed. I think I mentioned that in an earlier post. I only told you what we, catholics, believe. I never made an assumption otherwise. Believe me, I make it a point not to do that, since loads of people do that to me.