I want communion!!!!

[rheff78]

Okay, so here it is. There OUGHT NOT TO BE Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Non-denominational, or what-have-you sacraments. Only Christian sacraments. The communion meal is designed to be a sign and facilitator of Christian unity. To use it as a pretext for division of Christians into "those in the right group" and "those in the wrong group" is anathema.

But there's the difference. To us, it's not a sign.

 

[Scott1]

There OUGHT NOT TO BE

Amen... these "Christian sacraments" you speak of are waiting for anyone who wishes to come home to orthodoxy (RC & EO).

You can't complain about divisions in the Church when your "spiritual" ancestors divided themselves FROM US.

I hope you can see what the Reformation has done to the body of Christ.

May we all be one.

 

[sojourner]

Amen... these "Christian sacraments" you speak of are waiting for anyone who wishes to come home to orthodoxy (RC & EO).

You can't complain about divisions in the Church when your "spiritual" ancestors divided themselves FROM US.

I hope you can see what the Reformation has done to the body of Christ.

May we all be one.

Any student of history can easily see that the RCC was in serious need of reform at that time. Martin Luther never intended to leave the Church. He was forced out by...Catholics. BTW, it was never Thomas Cranmer's intention to leave the Church, either. He was looking for middle ground because the Pope had involved himself in political affairs and real estate deals. And, I'm not so sure that Calvin intended to leave the Church, either. One must admit that the RCC was equally divisive in its treatment of reformers, with inquisitions and the amassing of armies and political pandering.

What you (and the RCC) fail to understand is that, when the reformers were thrown out, they took the Eucharist with them. In a real sense, it is the RCC who has divided the Eucharist by its refusal to acknowledge the ecumenical nature of it.

 

[Dunemeister]

But there's the difference. To us, it's not a sign.

By "sign" I don't mean "something symbolic." I mean that it is an indication of Christian unity. The fact that we join together under one head to share a common meal is a great sign and foretaste of that unity the church and the world will one day share. That great act is a more powerful symbol than anything that could be imagined.

Certainly the communion elements are far more than merely symbols. In the Eucharistic meal, Christ is truly present.

 

[rheff78]

What you (and the RCC) fail to understand is that, when the reformers were thrown out, they took the Eucharist with them. In a real sense, it is the RCC who has divided the Eucharist by its refusal to acknowledge the ecumenical nature of it.

Actually, one of Luther's MAIN points in his thesis' was he didn't think that the common people should be able to take the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Jesus, thus I'm not so sure the Eucharist (in the RCC way of thinking) was taken with him.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, one of Luther's MAIN points in his thesis' was he didn't think that the common people should be able to take the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Jesus, thus I'm not so sure the Eucharist (in the RCC way of thinking) was taken with him.

Why does thinking about the Eucharist have to be according to RCC? Even the early Church was divided in its understanding. Just because it's thought of differently doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In fact, I know many Catholics, who take communion every week, who don't really believe in transubstantiation. Isn't the point, really, not what we think about the Eucharist, but who we celebrate in it?

 

[rheff78]

Why does thinking about the Eucharist have to be according to RCC? Even the early Church was divided in its understanding. Just because it's thought of differently doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In fact, I know many Catholics, who take communion every week, who don't really believe in transubstantiation. Isn't the point, really, not what we think about the Eucharist, but who we celebrate in it?

Because it was the RCC that started it? I know it wasn't called that at the time but still. I know the early church was divided, that was the reason for the different councels, to get an understanding. If there asre Catholics who dont believe in transubstantiation they need to go back to class and learn about it (unfortunately, many Catholics don't know alot about their faith). I disagree with your last statement, it IS important what we think about the Eucharist. It's what the entire mass is centered around.

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, one of Luther's MAIN points in his thesis' was he didn't think that the common people should be able to take the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Jesus, thus I'm not so sure the Eucharist (in the RCC way of thinking) was taken with him.

That's the whole point, Rheff78. There are different possible ways to understand the Eucharist both in terms of doctrine and practice within the pale of orthodoxy. If you think the elements become the actual body and blood, power to you. If you think Christ is vitally but not literally present, good on you. If you think Christ is really present but the elements are a mere sign of, not a vehicle for that presence, bully for you. Our beliefs about the means of Christ's fellowship with his people at the Eucharist are irrelevant. For all Christians, Christ is at the Eucharistic feast offering fellowship, forgiveness and healing. How can different ideas about how exactly that occurs divide us? Why should differences on this point mean that we can't share the table together? Jesus accused the first-century Jewish people of negating the law of God by their tradition. It seems we've learned nothing. We negate the law of Christ by insisting that our methodology and theology trump the love of God, which is far more radical and inclusive than most of us would dare imagine.

 

[Dunemeister]

I disagree with your last statement, it IS important what we think about the Eucharist. It's what the entire mass is centered around.

Well, that's an example of what I said earlier about forsaking the law of Christ for the sake of tradition. Mass may be centered around transubstantiation for the RCC. But that's a massive mistake. Mass ought to be centered around Christ himself.

 

[sojourner]

Because it was the RCC that started it? I know it wasn't called that at the time but still. I know the early church was divided, that was the reason for the different councels, to get an understanding. If there asre Catholics who dont believe in transubstantiation they need to go back to class and learn about it (unfortunately, many Catholics don't know alot about their faith). I disagree with your last statement, it IS important what we think about the Eucharist. It's what the entire mass is centered around.

The Jews started salvation, too, and they thought about it in a particular way. Christians think about it in another way. Shall we all go back to sacrificing sheep on a temple altar, because we're not participating in "real" salvation?

I understand how you think about the Eucharist, and I respect it. I don't think you're "wrong" for thinking about it in terms of flesh and blood. But even St. Francis wrote about the eucharist thus:
"O sublime humility! O humble sublimity! That the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God so humbles himself that for our salvation he hides himself under the little form of bread!"

This indicates a range of understanding. I really don't think this has anything more or less to do with anything other than petulence. "Fine. If you don't like the way I share my toys, then you can go play somewhere else...and forget about me sharing the Kool-Aid with you." (Granted, there are Protestants who are just as petulent.) Isn't it time we followed Paul's advice to put away childish things?

 

[rheff78]

Well, that's an example of what I said earlier about forsaking the law of Christ for the sake of tradition. Mass may be centered around transubstantiation for the RCC. But that's a massive mistake. Mass ought to be centered around Christ himself.

Well, it IS centered around Christ himself and the sacrifice he made for all of us. hence, consuming the body, blood, sould and divinity of Christ.

 

[rheff78]

The Jews started salvation, too, and they thought about it in a particular way. Christians think about it in another way. Shall we all go back to sacrificing sheep on a temple altar, because we're not participating in "real" salvation?

I understand how you think about the Eucharist, and I respect it. I don't think you're "wrong" for thinking about it in terms of flesh and blood. But even St. Francis wrote about the eucharist thus:
"O sublime humility! O humble sublimity! That the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God so humbles himself that for our salvation he hides himself under the little form of bread!"

This indicates a range of understanding. I really don't think this has anything more or less to do with anything other than petulence. "Fine. If you don't like the way I share my toys, then you can go play somewhere else...and forget about me sharing the Kool-Aid with you." (Granted, there are Protestants who are just as petulent.) Isn't it time we followed Paul's advice to put away childish things?

Well, this range was later addressed in different counsels that were held. But what do you mean "childish things". If you are referring to the Eucharist, then no.

 

[sojourner]

Well, this range was later addressed in different counsels that were held. But what do you mean "childish things". If you are referring to the Eucharist, then no.

I suggest that broader ecumenical councils are needed, in which RCC leaders can discuss things of ecumenical importance (such as the Eucharist) with leaders of other branches of the Church. What I'm suggesting is childish, is the viewpoint that Christ (the Eucharist) "belongs" to a certain group, and that we refuse to share him with "others." In fact, we belong to him (and to the Eucharist), and it is Christ who shares himself with us in the Eucharist. Why should we curtail that sharing -- that abundance of life that Christ came to bring to us?

 

[rheff78]

Oh I see. I agree that Christ beongs to all of us. But you can't pick and choose what you like about the RCC and what you don't like. I guess that what it boils down to. You may believe in transubstantiation but you don't believe in "all" of the Church practices and beliefs. Maybe Scott can give you a better answer than me, but that's all I got. Sorry.

 

[sojourner]

Oh I see. I agree that Christ beongs to all of us. But you can't pick and choose what you like about the RCC and what you don't like. I guess that what it boils down to. You may believe in transubstantiation but you don't believe in "all" of the Church practices and beliefs. Maybe Scott can give you a better answer than me, but that's all I got. Sorry.

I don't understand what you mean. Of course I can pick and choose what I like about the RCC. That's why I'm not RC. It doesn't facilitate faith for me. But I also understand that it does for others. and one of the things I don't like is that the RCC seems to want to corner the market on grace, as it comes to us through the Eucharist, thereby dividing us. I have brothers and sisters in the RCC, but I can't sit down to a meal and share Christ with them. Unless I agree to do things "their way." It's sad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh I see. I agree that Christ beongs to all of us. But you can't pick and choose what you like about the RCC and what you don't like. I guess that what it boils down to. You may believe in transubstantiation but you don't believe in "all" of the Church practices and beliefs. Maybe Scott can give you a better answer than me, but that's all I got. Sorry.

rheff, where do you (or the RCC) fit the sentiment expressed in Romans 14 into this equation?

 

[rheff78]

I don't understand what you mean. Of course I can pick and choose what I like about the RCC. That's why I'm not RC. It doesn't facilitate faith for me. But I also understand that it does for others. and one of the things I don't like is that the RCC seems to want to corner the market on grace, as it comes to us through the Eucharist, thereby dividing us. I have brothers and sisters in the RCC, but I can't sit down to a meal and share Christ with them. Unless I agree to do things "their way." It's sad.

I know you don't beleive in everything the RC does, otherwise we wouldn't be having the plesent conversation.
I honestly don't think we "have the market on grace". I still believe it is the Protestants that have divided us. I'm sorry, I really don't mean to offend, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[rheff78]

rheff, where do you (or the RCC) fit the sentiment expressed in Romans 14 into this equation?

My bible versus are terrible and I'm too lazy to look for it. What does Romans 14 say?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My bible versus are terrible and I'm too lazy to look for it. What does Romans 14 say?

Here are the most relevant (IMO) verses (NLT):

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

From Biblegateway.com, which has dozens of Bible versions but unfortunately doesn't have the Vulgate, so you may want to confirm in your own Bible, but hopefully the message is the same in both versions.

 

[sojourner]

I know you don't beleive in everything the RC does, otherwise we wouldn't be having the plesent conversation.
I honestly don't think we "have the market on grace". I still believe it is the Protestants that have divided us. I'm sorry, I really don't mean to offend, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

If we, too, have grace, why not invite us to the Table? If it is we who have divided, why continue to play the silly game? Why not be the "bigger person?" We are spiritual siblings, yet we can't eat together?:sarcastic