Many different denominations do. Some not.
If you so believe, why?
If not. Why not.
Thanks,
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred
|
Many different denominations do. Some not.
If you so believe, why?
If not. Why not.
Thanks,
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred
Hi, arcura!
Believe in it in what way, please?
Thanks!
Clough,
What way?
The only way that it is taught as far as I know and that is the in the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In some denominations they have what is called communion service which does not believe or teach that.
The word Eucharist means "give thanks" communion does not mean that.
So when I speak of the Eucharist it is in regard to the belief that a miracle takes place if done according to that dogma.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Christ tells us, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The blood signifies a 'real' sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch. This is why we know it's literal or a real meat and not symbolic; it's the only food that consumes, bite by bite.
In the synagogue at Nazareth Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his 'real presence,' ”and began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.” (Luke 4:21). If you will read your book, you'll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. “And behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; Because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold more than Jonas here.” (Luke 11:31); THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The personification of Elias (Mat 12:6), He requires our faith based on His Divinity (John 6:29), “Jesus answered and said to them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." To glorify the Father He created in their midst a new Kingdom, what the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, had been but a preparation (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).
Taking the seat of Moses, Christ now becomes the High Priest of that Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The High-priest of the Messianic Kingdom continues the sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20) Taking that seat Christ becomes the perfect high-priest sacrificing the perfect sacrifice offering it up in the Kingdom of God, i.e. his Temple, the Church, with His own blood entering Heaven. (Cf. Hebrews 9)
One of the most important observances for the observing Jew then and now is the Pasch or Passover. It too was a commemoration or a remembrance of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. Another commemoration was commanded by God and an elaborate sacrificial Law. (See Exodus 12, 13, etc.) This is a reference to the law of sacrifices, the Old Law, the Law of Moses. In Hebrews 10, Paul tells us that the blood of the goat or oxen cleansing, but not perfectly remitting sin. Obviously had the Jews possessed a perfect sacrifice there would have been no need for Christ's redemptive sacrifice. However the Jew did understand that there is both a real and a spiritual power in the Sacrifice of the Meat and Blood. Moses' sacrifice can't remove sin because it is not a perfect sacrifice; rather ritualistic or symbolic, that is a sacrifice that leaves no sense of a “conscience of sin.” This would have been an offering did not please the pharisaic Jew. Christ offered himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. This sacrifice produces eternal life similar to the manna from God, but more still. Not a sacrifice simply feeds the belly or the intellect by one that removes totally the stain of sin. This sacrifice is so perfect it can never be repeated nor can it ever ceases, this is one in the same sacrifice of the Passion Christ, done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It's done in loving obedience of that continual perfect sacrifice, “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.” The Sacrament of Communion is a continuation of Moses' sacrifice with a perfect lamb; The Real Sacrifice, the Real Presence of Christ. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom,Homily 17 on Hebrews)
The Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. Don't you watch movies? Good grieve Charlie Brown, everybody our age has seen Charlton Heston's, 'The Ten Commandments' – you should've seen it a dozen times since its' release in 1956. What Got Yul Brynner, aka Rameses, so mad that he went chasing after Moses in a rage? Rameses' son was killed by the curse he himself uttered. Moses saw it coming and the 'BLOOD' of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door header so the curse would 'PASS OVER'. And I get this part of the story right without the use of a BOOK – who'd a thunk it! Since then, (no, not since 1956 -, since Moses) part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home, there was the custom of 'Pesachim' which included a search the house for leaven bread. Leavend bread epresented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant and sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul's words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ's and the Twelve.
One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies that take place over the many days of festival was on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth of the Jewish month). On day 14 day, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and a sacrifice a lamb, part of which, accompanied with the blood was carried home. The first born ate the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. This is a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice, signified by the presence of 'blood'. We know this because in Jewish sacrificial costom the presence of blood related to the meat. The point being that this would have been much better understood, along with all the nuances of a multiple of images this would represent to a Jew; especially to the Pharisees. Now, re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.
Most of the Gospel of John, Chapter 5 regards other cleansing spiritual rituals in the sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R'glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism and Catholicism. But, what's important to us is when Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appealed to the intellect of the Jews, not to their passions or heart (at least not here in Chapter 5). The question at the end of this chapter is pivotal for Christians, “But if you do not believe his writings (Moses), how will you believe my words?” The question cuts right to the heart of the Jewish tradition in Catholicism. Or, at the best, most of Moses' tradition clouded in the passage of time. It's important here because it's this tradition that Gospel of John 6 speaks to.
The Church feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul of those who hunger for Christ. The miracle of 5,000 isn't so much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened by coming into contact with these 5,000. Pasch was at hand, a Time of Atonement, a sacrificial lamb was required – stress this 'was required' no Jew worth his salt would be caught without one. This was to be a perfect sacrifice lamb bleed then burnt on the God's altar for atonement of sins. Later to be consumed by the first born of the Kingdom – among these 5,000 new adopted sons of God were a very special Twelve. Notice too, it is the men who are told to sit and that it is bread that is feed them – we're not told but likely it was the commoner's unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder.
What then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the 'meat'? Why would Christ feed his Jewish bothers bread when we all know that man doesn't live by bread alone? Why would he feed us manna, especially one that had a 24 hour shelf life? – you may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil. What value is a food like that? Sounds like Twinkie food to me – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center, but of no real nutritional value. How long can such sustenance last? Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49). Sounds like all bun to me; can shortbread take a man through an eternity without a filling meat? The bread of a Divine knowledge is a worthless burger without the meat.
Christ tells these first-born of his Kingdom, 'eat meat'. He's definitely not playing to the chick Pharisee's cows who want moo miracles. You can almost hear, 'Punt the burger, and pass the Chikin”! [Sorry, I'm a sucker for corny jokes] Not, at all. Christ says Moses bread didn't save; why? The bread of the intellect isn't meat enough to last an eternity; intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He'll provide the beef, he says “I am that bread of life”. I am the meat that an eternal death will pass over, I am the meat of everlasting life, a flesh for the life of the world; a meat for the first-born of His Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born is given us all; death will pass over.
Straight out of the Jewish tradition of Seder Christ said, why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where's the beef? Christ tells us where and flat out too, and it ain't in Wonder bread, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55). This is a real sacrifice containing the real presence of Christ. This is how we know this is a 'real sacrifice' and not a spiritual one of symbolic prayers.
JoeT
JoeT,
So you do believe in the Eucharist and you did a marvelous job of saying why.
Thanks.
Now I look forward to other posts on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Are you asking, Fred, whether I believe that the Communion emblems, the love feast of Christ, needs to be consecrated by the hand of man to be that which Jesus declared it to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
paraclete,
I think I have already answered that as I did.
Here it is again.
Clough,
What way?
The only way that it is taught as far as I know and that is the in the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In some denominations they have what is called communion service which does not believe or teach that.
The word Eucharist means "give thanks" communion does not mean that.
So when I speak of the Eucharist it is in regard to the belief that a miracle takes place if done according to that dogma.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Eucharist: Definition from Answers.com
communion - definition of communion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
It is practice as a remembrance. The bread and wine do not become Jesus but is a way of remembering his sacrifice. I know the Catholic church believes it becomes holy and is holy. Yet just like baptism is just another outward celebration and remembrance of Christ and his sacrifices for us.
Jesushelper76,
Believe as you wish.
But I'll believe what Jesus says about it.
He said of the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine, "This IS my flesh" and "This IS my blood"
So it was, is, and always will be because God the Son said so and has the power to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Jesushelper76,
Thank you for your opinion on that.
That's what I'm after here, the different opinions and why.
You did not go into the way of what you believe.
Is it because the bread and wine, though if consecrated is claimed to become the body and blood of Christ still look and taste like bread and wine?
If so please thin about this.
Appearances are deceiving.
Take out a quarter coin and look at it. Heft it.
In your hand it looks like it is standing still.
But...
Scientists tell us that it is moving at about 186,000 miles per second.
The atoms that make up that coin are furiously moving.
Looks are deceiving.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Hi, JoeT777!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Are those mostly all your words or the words of someone else, please?
Thanks!
Hi again, Fred!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I'm assuming that you're referring to the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Is that true?
In the main church where I attend and am a member, the Eucharist is referred to as Holy Communion. It's a Missouri Synod church. We believe that, in the bread and wine, the "real presence" of Jesus is there. However, there is no consecration nor repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus.
Thanks!
So Fred let's get this straight, Jesus did the consecrating and at the same time said do this in remembrance of me. So. If I do do it as Jesus said is this not doing as he told me to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clough
These are all my words. Where I paraphrased one of the Early Church Fathers, I stated as much. When I quoted somebody I stated as much, and (hopefully) provided the appropriate quotation marks. But, you see if you write about the Catholic faith most everything imaginable has already been discussed and it's quite possible to include the ideas and thoughts of other Catholics without giving proper credit and citations. But on the whole, this is my understanding of my faith, expressed in my words. Who else do you know that makes the 'where's the beef' parody, or the 'moo miracles' parody; who else could be that corny? How much more original do you want it? Ah shucks, could you stand more corn if I was to peel off even 'more original' flakey stuff.
JoeT
Thank you for your explanation! I could see where a good part of what you posted is also on at least a couple of other sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I just wanted to understand and to be sure...
They too, should all be mine; that is if they only appear on three sites, including this one. And they should be distinctively JoeT. If not, let me know. I need to send the poor sap that plagiarized my posts a few aspirin – I'm sure he needs it by now!Quote:
Originally Posted by Clough
JoeT
PS - a part of this was originally posted on this forum Feb 2, 2010, 08:53 PM. I think it was the only place this particular information regarding Seder was posted. Is there somebody copying?
Clough,
Several denominations believe that and I did first learn it in the Lutheran church.
The pastor DID Bless the bread and wine.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Is that what you have been doing JoeQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
It is my understanding that only the RCC and its branches believe this.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I'm not so sure about which Person of the Trinity that does the 'changing', but we do believe that the consecrated Host is the 'real presence' of Christ; body, soul and Divinity. It's not a symbolic sacrifice like the Lutherans hold; but a literal continuation of the same (real) sacrifice made by Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcurathe Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
“He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”A Eucharist that consumes, and becomes consuming, with every bite; because as Christ said, “as the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me.” (Cf. John 6)
JoeT
That is not what Lutherans believe, that it's symbolic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Wondergirl,
Quite a few different denominations believe in the Holy Eucharist.
Most notable among the Protestants are the Lutherans and some Methodists.
Then there are the many eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglicans and the various Episcopals.
That's way over 1 billion Christians that so believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred
I'm a Lutheran preacher's kid, arcura. Lutherans do not believe in the Holy Eucharist in the same way that the Catholics do.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Wondergirl,
Oh yes they do.
That is where I learned it.
Lutherans believe that the blessed bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus.
When I was president of our local Lutheran Sunday School I was told to teach that and I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Maybe Uncle Backwards has been posting for me again. Let’s try this one more time.
I’m not so sure about which Person of the Trinity that does the ‘changing’, but we do believe that the consecrated Host is the ‘real presence’ of Christ; body, soul and Divinity. I’ve been told Lutherans hold it’s a symbolic sacrifice. On the other hand Catholics hold that it’s a literal continuation of same (real) sacrifice made by Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcurathe Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
“He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”A Eucharist that consumes, and becomes consuming, with every bite; because as Christ said, “as the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me.” (Cf. John 6)
Changes are in red
ELCA or LCMS?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
It's a tad more complicated than that.Quote:
Lutherans believe that the blessed bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus.
Joe,
Perhaps some of the several Lutheran Churches believe the Eucharist changes are symbolic, But Luther insisted that in is indeed the body and blood of Jesus Christ and the Missouri Synod so teaches.
When I was president of the Sunday School I was instructed to teach and I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
There is a fine line between what the LCMS teaches and what the RCC teaches. The RCC teaches that, with consecration, the wine and wafer change completely and permanently into the body and blood of Christ. The unused elements must be consumed or saved in a safe place until another Eucharist.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The LCMS teaches that the believer receives the body and blood of Christ spiritually in, with, and under the bread and wine at the time of consumption, but the elements are still bread and wine. Elements that have been consecrated but not used are destroyed.
P.S. LCMS churches have a pipe in a room near the altar. This pipe goes vertically into the ground. Consecrated but unused wine is poured down this pipe and back into the earth from which they came. The minister consecrates as many wafers as he thinks he will need. If anything, he will underestimate the figure. Thus, if he realizes he needs more at a service, he will do a quick consecration of more and then continue giving out Communion. Rarely does the minister have left-over consecrated wafers. If he does, they too are sent down the pipe and back into the earth.
Wondergirl,
Thanks for the fine line.
The body and blood if Christ IS still consumed either way.
Fred
Yes, in one (RCC) physically and in one (LCMS) spiritually.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Fred,
I believe the Lord Jesus told us to remember him in his death. The bread and the wine are symbols of his broken body.. (bread) and shed blood... ( wine). I believe there is power in remembering the Lord.. and I DO .Having said that... it is symbolic. It doesn't turn into anything once it enters the body. If you can show me in the Bible that it becomes more than it is... let me know. I have never even heard it called holy Eucharist.
Why don't I believe in it? The same reason I don't believe many things in the Catholic faith... it isn't in the word of God.
classyT ,
Jesus SAID that the blessed bread and wine were and are his body and blood so they were and still are, NEVER were symbols.
I believe Jesus has the power to do that.
If you don't that is up to you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fredrick,
How is it that you take Jesus words at the last supper as literally his body and blood but you don't take literally when the Bible records that James is the Lord's brother..
I do believe it is symbolic... we won't agree on this but we can agree that there is power in the spiritual realm when we partake it... can't we?
classyT ,
Jesus had no blood brothers. The was NO word in Aramaic for bother. All male relatives were called what we today say cousins or brothers.
So that coves a lot of territory.
And when studying the bible we can see that those who are called brothers did have different parents than Mary as Joe has pointed out.
I hope that helps you understand my belief on that.
Please note that we do agree on about 95% of what scripture says and have some different interpretations or understanding on the little bit of about 5%.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
It's a matter of interpretation of the Scriptures, arcura. There is no one set way, nor correct way to interpret them.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Thanks!
Clough,
Oh, but I believe that there is a correct way and that way is by The Church that Jesus established and gave the keys to heaven.
It is also The Church that was inspired and entrusted to promulgate the holy bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You said it for me. I would have added that logic wouldn't have a God of Truth demanding that we be One in faith and then turn around and say it's OK to have different sets of virtuous morals, e.g. like abortion is Ok for this person, multiple wives is OK for me, etc. This unity is scripturally mandated. Christ said speaking to His Apostles, “I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.” John 17Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
JoeT,
Once again point well made and well said.
Thanks.
Now I'm off to bed. My bad back is really bad tonight.
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
And, what is the "correct" way that you feel is right, arcura? Please note, that I used the word "feel" rather than "think". For me, and I'm sure, many others, it is a matter of interpretation...
Thanks!
Cloug
FEEL and THINK and KNOW that the correct way is as I said.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 AM. |