# Communion



## Free Willie (Jan 21, 2009)

I am Catholic so, of course, I believe in Transubstantiation, which is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I TRULY, 100% believe that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Lately, I have run into protestants of are starting to believe in Transubstantiation. I'm not talking about Lutherans or Episcipalians, but Baptists, Presbyterians, and even a guy who is a long time member of Mt. Paran Church of God. 

So, I thought I'd make a poll and see who all believes....


----------



## Banjo (Jan 21, 2009)

As a Roman Catholic, you must adhere to transubstantiation...otherwise you would be excommunicated.

I asked this before, but not to you...

What do you do with the "leftovers" of Jesus' body and blood?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 21, 2009)

In the Episcopal Church they are returned to the ground thru a special sink. Not sure on Catholic. But I agree that at a minimum after the blessing it is no longer just bread and wine.

I agree with Willie. It does become the body and blood.


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 21, 2009)

Banjo said:


> As a Roman Catholic, you must adhere to transubstantiation...otherwise you would be excommunicated.
> 
> I asked this before, but not to you...
> 
> What do you do with the "leftovers" of Jesus' body and blood?



Good Question.

The remaining Blood is consumed by the Celebrant (usually the Deacon. The remaining Body is placed inside the Tabernacle behind the altar. The Chalice is then cleaned with water and the Celebrant drinks the water out of the Chalice. He then wipes the chalice out with a cloth, (I think it is called a Corporal) and then places the Corporal over the chalice. After Mass is over, the cloth is rinsed off in a special sink that drains directly into the ground. If I am not mistaken, the corporal is burned and it's ashes are also disposed into the ground.

Hope this helps.

Willie


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 21, 2009)

Banjo said:


> As a Roman Catholic, you must adhere to transubstantiation...otherwise you would be excommunicated.
> 
> I asked this before, but not to you...
> 
> What do you do with the "leftovers" of Jesus' body and blood?



Also, I don't adhere to it because I am Catholic or out of fear of excommunication. I adhere to it because it is Scriptural and because I BELIEVE!

Until about the 2th century, pretty much ALL Christians (even Martin Luther) believed in Transubstatiation. My guess is that in an effort to discard all things Catholic, the protestants also discarded this belief. What a shame.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 21, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> I am Catholic so, of course, I believe in Transubstantiation, which is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I TRULY, 100% believe that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Lately, I have run into protestants of are starting to believe in Transubstantiation. I'm not talking about Lutherans or Episcipalians, but Baptists, Presbyterians, and even a guy who is a long time member of Mt. Paran Church of God.
> 
> So, I thought I'd make a poll and see who all believes....




if a Protestant believes the wafer is 100% Jesus... then he is not a Protestant...  he's a Catholic and is going to the wrong church...

not to be gross, willie, but i have question(s) for you since you believe in the "transforming" of a wafer into Christ... if the wafer is literally Jesus going into the person's body... what is it when it comes out of the body?  is it still Jesus?  again, i dont mean to be gross but i am asking a sincere question...

also, if you actually eat Jesus in the wafer, doesnt that break God's commandments of NOT being a cannibal (eating the flesh of man) located thru out the Bible?

also, God said there is NO forgiveness without the "shedding of blood"...  in transubstantiation... there is no "shedding of blood" so how is there forgiveness of sins again, in eating the wafer?  

also in the RC book, The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33  -  it says    _"...the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world_.    

so we can assume that the the priest may be called the "creator of the Creator..." ?

just asking...


----------



## addictedtodeer (Jan 21, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Until about the 2th century, pretty much ALL Christians (even Martin Luther) believed in Transubstantiation.



I'd love to see your primary sources on this one.

Your poll is some what slanted,for instance: Luther, who came to hold to consubstantiation, could not vote on this nor could Calvin and Knox, who held to a view that today would best be described as between consubstantiation and symbolic.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah...I'm kinda confused about the responses as well.  

I don't believe in Transsubstatiation at all.  

I do think that the bread and the juice/wine is symbolic.  

I also believe that transsubstatiation is manmade hogwash.

So I could answer three of the responses and they'd be true.  Which one am I supposed to pick?


----------



## Banjo (Jan 21, 2009)

When Jesus said

"This is my body...This is my blood"  

How could that have been literal?  His body was holding the elements.   He was speaking symbolically...


----------



## Banjo (Jan 21, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> In the Episcopal Church they are returned to the ground thru a special sink. Not sure on Catholic. But I agree that at a minimum after the blessing it is no longer just bread and wine.
> 
> I agree with Willie. It does become the body and blood.




Does the PCA church you belong to have no problem with this?  Just curious.

I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own ****ation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and can not, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 21, 2009)

Banjo said:


> When Jesus said
> 
> "This is my body...This is my blood"
> 
> How could that have been literal?  His body was holding the elements.   He was speaking symbolically...



Hold the presses folks....

Banjo, I completely agree and I think that is an excellent question.  How could the first communion have really been his body and blood if his body and blood was actually and physically holding it?

Was it symbolism the first time and reality all the rest?


----------



## THREEJAYS (Jan 21, 2009)

To me it's a symbolic reminder, kind of like the church refered to as the bride of Christ.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 21, 2009)

During communion, Jesus is there.  In our minds and hearts.
It's definitely bread.  It taste like bread and it feels like bread in my mouth.  But in that moment, I'm connected with Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 21, 2009)

My personal believe is the communion that must churches do is wrong !
What Jesus did was the Jewish passover meal and at the end he gave it the reveal of what that feast had foreshadowed for so many centuries, so to me unless you do it as the Jews do , you have committed unto a new belief or man Made Dogma, IMO


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 21, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Yeah...I'm kinda confused about the responses as well.
> 
> I don't believe in Transsubstatiation at all.
> 
> ...


 
I went with the 'not at all', though I know it is a symbolic ref. to Christ's sacrifice for us.  Banjos' posts cover what would have taken me a long time to put together.


----------



## NotaHunter (Jan 21, 2009)

There's a simple way to find out. If it's flesh and blood after the priest blesses it, then it will show as such in a chemical test, otherwise it's symbolic.


----------



## jawja_peach (Jan 21, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Yeah...I'm kinda confused about the responses as well.
> 
> I don't believe in Transsubstatiation at all.
> 
> ...




You know my hubby just told me this the other day and to be honest I almost fell in the floor in amazement. I just don't understand.  I mean, um, Christ came to died for us, and as he said, (thanks Banjo) do this in remembrance of me. Not, pass the knife let me cut a chunk outta my arm...and that is not said to be smart or nasty...but I mean really..?? Do you buy the wafer?? Doesn't the Bible say that not even a bone would be broke in Jesus' body?? And to 'eat' of the wafer that represents the 'bone/body'  How can it not be 'broken'??

John 19:36

36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
KJV


And scripture after scripture the Bone and Flesh are spoken as being *spiritual*. You CANNOT spiritualize it here, but not there. This is where the lost get 'lost' as they are not of the 'Spirit' and do not understand that which is "Spiritual". I believe that communion is a very serious thing, and that it's a one on one thing between you and God. A special event that should not be taken lightly. Though I have seen the present of the Spirit of God, thick like a mist hovering over us, inside during a candle lit communion, I honestly do not think that the wafer is actual His Body, nor the juice, which others use,((Hubby and I do the juice--it's pure juice straight from the vine.)) is actually His Blood. A lot of Denoms. use wine, but wine then was two different things..one of the pure vine...the other fermented. ((Kinda like we GA Peaches say, "Get me a Coke"...A 'Coke' can be a Sprite, a Rootbeer..etc.))Some will disagree with that, but it is true. I believe the wine taken at the last supper was pure grape juice. Why would Christ who is pure defile His body by putting something fermented in it? It was representing His Blood, which is/was pure. The bread we use is not bought but made by me or another lady in the church. Unleveling bread. Now, for it to transform would be great. But I honestly can not believe that such happens. I also believe Communion should be taken when ever the Pastor feels it's time. 
Sorry, I agree with the above in blue.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

Banjo said:


> When Jesus said
> 
> "This is my body...This is my blood"
> 
> How could that have been literal?  His body was holding the elements.   He was speaking symbolically...



1st, He was and is God and therefore, capable of much more than what you just described.  In other words "literal."  Did he not change water into wine, feed people with never-ending bread, raise people and himself from the dead?  Were those "symbolic?"

Second point, if it was merely symbolic, why even say it at all.  WHy not just say, "Hey, I found this killer loaf of pumperknickel down at Rabbi Goldman's mud hut and this 33AD wine, best around.  Let's pig out, it's my last day."  There was more to it, or it would not be in the Bible.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 21, 2009)

Dude, you're much better at making an argument than that.  I'm disappointed.

That was just bad.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Dude, you're much better at making an argument than that.  I'm disappointed.
> 
> That was just bad.



I have a lot going on so, it was a quickie.

So answer this:  Why did he even say what he said if it was only symbolic?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 21, 2009)

He said a lot of things that were symbolic.   Parables ring a bell?


----------



## Banjo (Jan 21, 2009)

> I mean, um, Christ came to died for us, and as he said, (thanks Banjo) do this in remembrance of me.



You are most welcome....


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 21, 2009)

jawja_peach said:


> A lot of Denoms. use wine, but wine then was two different things..one of the pure vine...the other fermented. ((Kinda like we GA Peaches say, "Get me a Coke"...A 'Coke' can be a Sprite, a Rootbeer..etc.))Some will disagree with that, but it is true. I believe the wine taken at the last supper was pure grape juice. Why would Christ who is pure defile His body by putting something fermented in it? It was representing His Blood, which is/was pure.



Hmmm...that is another thread altogether....maybe I should start a new one as to not hijack this one.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> He said a lot of things that were symbolic.   Parables ring a bell?



OK wise one.  How does one distinguish between symbolic and literal sayings of Christ.  Maybe John 3:16 is symbolic.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

jawja_peach said:


> .... but wine then was two different things..one of the pure vine...the other fermented. ... I believe the wine taken at the last supper was pure grape juice. Why would Christ who is pure defile His body by putting something fermented in it? ...



So why did the Pharisees call Jesus a "winebibber" in the Bible?  Because he drank WINE not grape juice  NOt this debate again


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 21, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> OK wise one.  How does one distinguish between symbolic and literal sayings of Christ.  Maybe John 3:16 is symbolic.



Context.....and you can call me oh wise one too


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Hmmm...that is another thread altogether....maybe I should start a new one as to not hijack this one.



..as if this has never been discussed ad nauseum


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 21, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> ..as if this has never been discussed ad nauseum



sorry, already started it....I figured I'd touch off another debate where we all get to eachother and then  at the end


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> sorry, already started it....I figured I'd touch off another debate where we all get to eachother and then  at the end



Fine with me.  But that---------->   IS REAL BEER, not GRAPE JUICE


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Context.....and you can call me oh wise one too



And?  What context?  Is it in red or something?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 21, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> OK wise one.  How does one distinguish between symbolic and literal sayings of Christ.  Maybe John 3:16 is symbolic.



"Wise One".  I like that bud.  I may have to require that people refer to me as wise one.

How does one distinguish?  I honestly don't have an answer for you.  I read the last supper as being symbolic.  He said "remember me" not "eat me" (I'm sorry...that's just funny!).

I don't know for sure that it wasn't meant literally.  But my interpretation, instinct, logic and everything else tells me that he was being figurative in that moment.  Sort of a "eat and drink this so that you are reminded of this moment and what i've meant to you and taught you" kind of thing.

I guess my question is, what purpose would it serve for it to actually be the body and blood?  None IMO.

Our difference lies in this.  It doesn't matter to me whether it's literal or figurative.  It's not a deal breaker to me.  It is to you.  I don't get it...but it is.

Y'all all come on over to my house.  We'll have small group, watch Joel Osteen, eat some non-body wafers and have a real beer afterward (but you better like Sweetwater 420...that's all that enters my house).


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 21, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Y'all all come on over to my house.  We'll have small group, watch Joel Osteen, eat some non-body wafers and have a real beer afterward (but you better like Sweetwater 420...that's all that enters my house).



Can we drop osteen for some arrow affliction and sling some at your glendel buck?  Add a fine cigar in there and I'll even miss church to attend


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 21, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Can we drop osteen for some arrow affliction and sling some at your glendel buck?  Add a fine cigar in there and I'll even miss church to attend



I sold the glendel the other day.  Should have another on the way shortly....

No worries though.  There are three other targets out there for us to sling 'em at.


But the rest sounds just fine with me bud.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 21, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> "Wise One".  I like that bud.  I may have to require that people refer to me as wise one.
> 
> How does one distinguish?  I honestly don't have an answer for you.  I read the last supper as being symbolic.  He said "remember me" not "eat me" (I'm sorry...that's just funny!).
> 
> ...



Never watched Joel Osteen, but I do like Sweetwater


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 21, 2009)

Well then come on!


----------



## jawja_peach (Jan 21, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> OK wise one.  How does one distinguish between symbolic and literal sayings of Christ.  Maybe John 3:16 is symbolic.




Yep, and He's a door too....A door to our heart (symbolic), not the bathroom....(carnal) He is the Vine (symbolic), ye are the branches...Hmm...? 

The Bible was written for the people of that time. They knew what was what, things we don't understand. We don't know everything that was going on at that time so because of that we have to look at the Bible with a spiritual sense. To be discern spiritually. Someone with out Salvation will never understand the Bible in anyway, much less see it spiritually. I mean they can read it, look at the words, read it with a carnal mind, but to really read it and see the 'nuggets' that are there in, they miss so much.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 21, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Fine with me.  But that---------->   IS REAL BEER, not GRAPE JUICE






Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 21, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Does the PCA church you belong to have no problem with this?  Just curious.
> 
> I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
> 
> ...



Here's what our associate pastor thinks when we talk about this issue.....   


I do not agree with the PCA on this issue. We have come to an understanding on it though... That's why in an earlier post I said I was a religious mutt. A Presbepiscomethicathocan....

If I fit anywhere in the denominations it is the AMIA (Anglican Mission in America). Which is a reformed version of the Anglican church.  But alas there is none around here so I am a PCA Pres...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 21, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> My personal believe is the communion that must churches do is wrong !
> What Jesus did was the Jewish passover meal and at the end he gave it the reveal of what that feast had foreshadowed for so many centuries, so to me unless you do it as the Jews do , you have committed unto a new belief or man Made Dogma, IMO



My Mother and my Sister (who is in Seminary at Asbury) are studying Jewish theology and the festivals and feasts of the Jewish faith. They would both agree with that. As a family the week before easter we have a passover meal. With my Dad reading the service and prayers.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 21, 2009)

NotaHunter said:


> There's a simple way to find out. If it's flesh and blood after the priest blesses it, then it will show as such in a chemical test, otherwise it's symbolic.



Come on...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 21, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> 1st, He was and is God and therefore, capable of much more than what you just described.  In other words "literal."  Did he not change water into wine, feed people with never-ending bread, raise people and himself from the dead?  Were those "symbolic?"
> 
> Second point, if it was merely symbolic, why even say it at all.  WHy not just say, "Hey, I found this killer loaf of pumperknickel down at Rabbi Goldman's mud hut and this 33AD wine, best around.  Let's pig out, it's my last day."  There was more to it, or it would not be in the Bible.






I LOVE THAT ONE!

OK. I'm catching up after actually have to suffer thru a day of work today so forgive the multiple posts...


----------



## Banjo (Jan 23, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Here's what our associate pastor thinks when we talk about this issue.....
> 
> 
> I do not agree with the PCA on this issue. We have come to an understanding on it though... That's why in an earlier post I said I was a religious mutt. A Presbepiscomethicathocan....
> ...



That is interesting.  I have never heard of "Reformed" Anglican, but will certainly look it up.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 23, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> I can assure you, "Reformed" comes in any flavor





Even Reformed Catholic....???


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 23, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Even Reformed Catholic....???



Yes, after they convert from Protestantism, they are "reformed"


----------



## Banjo (Jan 23, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Yes, after they convert from Protestantism, they are "reformed"




Here I was thinking that a "Reformed" Catholic was one who converted to Protestantism....


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 23, 2009)

There is a reformed Catholic segment of the church. A lot like Lutherans. 

Banjo- If you follow my beliefs on many of these issues. Like Priests, Transubstantiation, liturgical organization, baptism then the AMIA is a great fit. They have a great website too.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 23, 2009)

There's also a segment of the RCC that adheres to a lot of the tenants of the reformation.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 23, 2009)

*Excellent response - well researched and without passion.  Just the facts,*



Big10point said:


> if a Protestant believes the wafer is 100% Jesus... then he is not a Protestant...  he's a Catholic and is going to the wrong church...
> 
> not to be gross, willie, but i have question(s) for you since you believe in the "transforming" of a wafer into Christ... if the wafer is literally Jesus going into the person's body... what is it when it comes out of the body?  is it still Jesus?  again, i dont mean to be gross but i am asking a sincere question...
> 
> ...



With the help and permission of the author.
SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING!

First off this is in no way a sincere question, especially for someone
 who continues to claim he was Catholic,but you guys know that.
Second there is a false assumption here that everything we consume is
 passed completely through the body.
 Finally from EWTN


http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur85.htm

 "What would cause the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament
 to no longer be? You indicated that a host saturated with water would
 no longer contain the True Presence. However, a while back we had the
 gluten-free battles, which seemed to indicate even if there is any
 quantity of gluten in the host the True Presence would exist. How
 would saturation of the host change this? Furthermore, would there be
 a similar situation present somehow with the species of wine? It is
 necessary to add water to wine, but why would too much wine invalidate
 consecration, and what would be the factor for judging what is too
 much?"

 Although similar, the two situations are not quite the same. The
 question regarding gluten refers to the minimum requirements necessary
 for bread to be considered as valid matter for effecting the
 consecration. The question regarding soaking a host in water or the
 addition of copious quantities of water to the Precious Blood refer to
 the integrity of the already consecrated species.

 Christ's presence is tied to the integrity of the species. Once this
 integrity is gone, then Christ's real presence also disappears. Thus,
 although a host soaked in water may retain for a while some of the
 accidents of bread, it has undergone such a change that removes the
 presence.

 Likewise, if the quantity of water added exceeds that of the Precious
 Blood, although similar in appearance, it is no longer integrally what
 it once was.

 Although adding unconsecrated wine to the Precious Blood does not
 change the accidents in any way, I believe the effect is the same in
 destroying the integrity of the species as after the consecration we
 are no longer dealing with wine but with the Lord's Blood.

 For precision's sake I would note that if altar bread were soaked or
 altar wine severely diluted before the consecration, they would no
 longer be valid material for confecting the Eucharist. However, if
 done after the consecration they would not, technically speaking,
 invalidate the consecration, but rather corrupt the species so that it
 no longer contains the Real Presence. The holy sacrifice of the Mass
 would still have been validly celebrated.

 This could throw light on a related topic regarding the duration of
 Christ's presence in the communicant. It is important to remember that
 the graces received in Communion derive from the participation in the
 sacrifice and the act of receiving holy Communion.

 The consideration of the actual physical duration of the Real Presence
 after Communion, while beneficial for personal devotion, makes
 practically no difference as to the grace received in the act of
 Communion itself. Thus even if it were true, as some experts sustain,
 that the disintegration of the host is almost immediate, there would
 still be multiple motives for remaining in thanksgiving after
 Communion.

An Arizona reader asked about a practice in her parish. She tells of
 "extra ciboria (there may be two or more) taken by the server and
 brought to the far side of the altar and left on the end of the altar.
 The priest during the time of consecration does not even acknowledge
 that they are there, and they are not moved to the middle of the altar
 on top of the corporal for consecration. They are not picked up until
 Communion by the priest, who then hands the ciboria to the
 extraordinary ministers of Communion."

 Certainly all hosts to be consecrated should be placed on a corporal,
 preferably in front of the priest. If the space before the priest is
 insufficient, then another corporal may be placed on the altar to
 receive the ciboria. It might be that there is a corporal on the altar
 not visible from the pews. If there is no corporal, then the practice
 is liturgically deficient -- but it would not necessarily affect the
 consecration.

 For a valid consecration it is sufficient that the priest be aware of
 the presence of the ciboria and have the intention of consecrating
 them or has a general intention of consecrating all that has been
 placed upon the altar for that purpose.

 Another reader asked regarding the omission of the rite of adding
 water to the wine at the presentation of gifts. We have addressed this
 topic June 29 and July 13 of last year. ZE05062120

 This too..

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur115.htm


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 23, 2009)

I can argue the first part of it. Yes you can be a Protestant and believe in Transubstantiation. Lots of us do.

The rest of what's above is pretty interesting. I'll have to read it two or three times to let it sink in.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 23, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> OK wise one.  How does one distinguish between symbolic and literal sayings of Christ.  Maybe John 3:16 is symbolic.



 It is easy, symbolic is spiritual....just look..John 6:52-56

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
KJV

John 6:60-63

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
KJV


 The Jews and the disciples could not understand Christ when he said "eat my flesh and drink my blood", they were thinking literal, but in verse 63 he explained "his words are spirit"


----------



## Big7 (Jan 23, 2009)

*Missed a few in your own post??*



pigpen1 said:


> It is easy, symbolic is spiritual....just look..John 6:52-56
> 
> 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
> 
> ...



Go back and check out the RED part.

According to who? You? 

I thought you guys say The KJV is free of error.
Now, by your own post, you have it BOTH ways.

Correct Translation of John 6 - HERE
Corect "footnotes" are in the little numbered [..]
Read up!
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john6.htm


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 23, 2009)

Big7 said:


> According to who? You?
> 
> I thought you guys say The KJV is free of error.
> Now, by your own post, you have it BOTH ways.



 No, you are mixed up, there is no contradiction there.. Christ said it, the disciples could not understand it, and he explained it....His Words Are Spirit....

  I ask you, Christ told Peter to feed his sheep, Did Christ mean for Peter to get a bale of hay and go to the barn???NO

 When Christ said he was the door to heaven, did he mean he is a six panel wood door? NO

 So the problem is when people take spiritual words and define them literial.........HE SAID MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT....


----------



## Big7 (Jan 23, 2009)

Eucharistic Miracles




The Holy Eucharist is a continuos living miracle   
Emmanuel , God is with us

"Do this is memory of me" 
(John. 6:51) "I myself am the living bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."  52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"  
53 So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  

54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;  

55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  

56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.  

57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.  

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever."

Looks pretty literal to me. 



LOT MORE HERE TOO!
http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm
Open this and you will find links to references below.

EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES


What are Eucharistic Miracles? Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, Jesus has proven beyond any doubt that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. Why did He have to prove this to us? It is because at certain times in history, there were heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. On other occasions, some priests doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And yet, on other occasions, the Holy Eucharist was abused by believers and non-believers alike.

What follows are some of the Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the history of the Catholic Church. All of these have received the full approval of the Catholic Church. Please click on the links to obtain details about each Eucharistic Miracle.

YEAR

3 rd - 5 th Century SCETE, Egypt

6 th Century JORDAN/ARABIAN DESERT - St. Mary of Egypt, Egypt

7 th Century ROME, Italy (part 1)

7 th Century ROME, Italy (part 2)

720 A.D. VALENCIA, Spain (part 1) (The Holy Grail)

720 A.D. VALENCIA, Spain (part 2) (The Holy Grail)

750 A.D. LANCIANO, Italy (part 1)

750 A.D. LANCIANO, Italy (part 2)

1010 A.D. IVORRA, Spain (part 1)

1010 A.D. IVORRA, Spain (part 2)

1055 A.D. WEINGARTEN (part 1), Germany

1055 A.D. WEINGARTEN (part 2), Germany

11 th Century SAINT PETER DAMIAN, Italy

11 th Century TRANI, Italy

1171 A.D. FERRARA, Italy

1194 A.D. AUGSBURG, Germany

1125 A.D. BETTBRUNN, Germany

1203 A.D. BRUGES, Belgium

1216 A.D. BENNINGEN, Germany

1222-1465 A.D. MEERSSEN, Netherland

1225 A.D. SANTAREM, Portugal (Or 1247)

1227 A.D. RIMINI, Italy

1228 A.D. ALATRI, Italy

1230-1595 A.D. FLORENCE, Italy

1231 A.D. CARAVACA DE LA CRUZ, Spain

1239 A.D. DAROCA, Spain (part 1)

1239 A.D. DAROCA, Spain (part 2)

1240 A.D. ASSISI (Saint Clare), Italy

1247 A.D. SANTARÉM, Portugal (part 1)

1247 A.D. SANTARÉM, Portugal (part 2)

1251 A.D. SAINT JOHN OF THE ABBESSES, Spain

1254 A.D. DOUAI, France

1255 A.D. REGENBURG, Germany

1257 A.D. NEUVY SAINT SÉPULCRE, France

1264 A.D. BOLSENA, Italy (part 1)

1264 A.D. BOLSENA, Italy (part 2)

1273-1280 A.D. OFFIDA, Italy

1280 A.D. KRANENBURG, District of Kleve, Germany 

1290 A.D. GLOTOWO, Poland

1290 A.D. PARIS, France (part 1)

1290 A.D. PARIS, France (part 2)

1294 A.D. GRUARO (Valvasone), Italy

1297 A.D. GERONA, Spain

1300 A.D. BREDA-NIERVAART, Netherland

1300 A.D. O'CEBREIRO, Spain

1310 A.D. FIECHT, Austria

1317 A.D. HERKENRODE-HASSELT, Belgium

1330 A.D. WALLDURN, Germany

1330 A.D. CASCIA, Italy

1331 A.D. BLANOT, France

1342 A.D. STIPHOUT, Netherland

1345 A.D. KRAKOW, Poland

1345 A.D. AMSTERDAM, Netherland (part 1)

1345 A.D. AMSTERDAM, Netherland (part 2)

1348 A.D. ALBORAYA-ALMACERA, Spain (part 1)

1348 A.D. ALBORAYA-ALMACERA, Spain (part 2)

1356 A.D. MACERATA, Italy

1370 A.D. BRUSSELS, Belgium

1370 A.D. CIMBALLA, Spain

1374 A.D. LUTTICH (Corpus Domini), Belgium

1374 A.D. MIDDLEBURG-LOVANIO, Belgium

1380 A.D. BOXTEL-HOOGSTRATEN, Netherland

1383 A.D. WILSNACK, Germany 

1384 A.D. SEEFELD, Austria

1392 A.D. MONCADA, Spain

1399 A.D. POZNAN, Poland

1400 A.D. BOXMEER, Netherland

1405 A.D. BOIS-SEIGNEUR-ISAAC, Belgium (1405)

1411 A.D. WEITEN-RAXENDORF, Austria

1411 A.D. LUDBREG, Croatio

1411 A.D. LUDBREG, Croatio

1412 A.D. HERENTALS, Belgium

1412 A.D. BAGNO DI ROMAGNA, Italy

1417 A.D. ERDING, Germany

1420 A.D. GUADALUPE, Spain

1421 A.D. BERGEN, Netherland

1427 A.D. ZARAGOZA, Spain

1429 A.D. ALKMAAR, Netherland

1430 A.D. DIJON, France

1433 A.D. AVIGNON, France (part 1)

1433 A.D. AVIGNON, France (part 2)

1447 A.D. ETTISWIL, Switzerland

1453 A.D. TURIN, Italy (part 1)

1453 A.D. TURIN, Italy (part 2)

1461 A.D. LA ROCHELLE, France

1472 A.D. VOLTERRA, Italy

1533 A.D. MARSEILLE-EN-BEAUVAIS, France

1533 A.D. PONFERRADA, Spain

1535 A.D. ASTI, Italy

1560 A.D. MORROVALLE, Italy

1568 A.D. ALCOY, Spain

1570 A.D. VEROLI, Italy

1572 A.D. GORKUM-EL ESCORIAL, Spain

1597 A.D. ALCALA, Spain 1597

1604 A.D. MOGORO, Italy

1608 A.D. FAVERNEY, France

1610 A.D. ROME, Italy

1630 A.D. CANOSIO, Italy

1631 A.D. DRONERO, Italy

1631 A.D. SAN MAURO LA BRUCA, Italy

1640 A.D. TURIN, Italy

1643 A.D. PRESSAC, France

1649 A.D. ETEN, Peru

1656 A.D. CAVA DEI TIRRENI, Italy

1657 A.D. MONTSERRAT, Spain

1668 A.D. LES ULMES, France

1718 A.D. ASTI, Italy

1730 A.D. SIENNA, Italy

1732 A.D. SCALA, Italy

1750 A.D. SIENA, Italy

1772 A.D. PATIERNO (Naples), Italy

1822 A.D. BORDEAUX, France

1824 A.D. ONIL, Spain (part 1)

1824 A.D. ONIL, Spain (part 2)

1902 A.D. MORNE-ROUGE, Carribean Island of Martinique

1902 A.D. SAINT ANDRÉ DE LA RÉUNION, Island of La Réunion.

1906 A.D. TUMACO, Columbia

1907 A.D. SILLA, Spain

1948 A.D. ROSANO, Italy

2001 A.D. CHIRATTAKONAM, India


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 23, 2009)

Yep. Kind of why I lean over that way too!


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 23, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Eucharistic Miracles
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Tell the pope to get him some hay then.....


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 28, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> I have a lot going on so, it was a quickie.
> 
> So answer this:  Why did he even say what he said if it was only symbolic?


do you believe water baptism is symbolic or the actual physical act saves you?  if one is symbolic then surely you see that the other could be symbolic.

now, if you believe in transsubstantiation then it also goes to reason that you would believe that you are not actually saved until the act of submersion in water.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Is it your belief that the word "spirit" means symbolic?



 His words are spiritual, That is why he explained in parables so men could understand....

  And no Christ is not faulty in His explanations, we are faulty in our understanding when we try to interpret spiritual words carnally...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 28, 2009)

Only if you do not understand the symbolism of water in the bible and the importance of it to an arid region. Surely you don't believe people were dunked in puddles... Some where dunked in the Jordan but you got to look pretty hard to find a spot in the Jordan that is deep enough to get beyond your ankles most of the time.

Whether or not the bread and wine "supernaturally" turn to the Body and Blood upon blessing is not really my issue. I happen to believe it does but my issue would be the cavalier way we treat it in the modern church. Choosing when to have it because it "loses" it's significance. Or not realizing that even if it is not becoming the Body and Blood that it should not be thrown out with the garbage at the end of the service. Those are my issues. The rest I can live with different views on. Thus the reason I have been a PCA Pres for a long time.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 28, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> do you believe water baptism is symbolic or the actual physical act saves you?  if one is symbolic then surely you see that the other could be symbolic.
> 
> now, if you believe in transsubstantiation then it also goes to reason that you would believe that you are not actually saved until the act of submersion in water.




Don't get me started.
The Bible makes it clear that we are saved by God's grace.  It also makes it clear to me that the actual point of salvation is during the baptism process.  I think the Bible puts it this way:   "It is baptism that doeth now save you, not the washing away of sin with water, but the answer of a good conscience."

What does the Bible give as a purpose for baptism coming after salvation?


----------



## Israel (Jan 28, 2009)

If and when we come to understand Jesus did not say "I am making this bread and wine into my body and blood"
We will see the Lord not only in "communion"...but as our communion.

1 Corinthians 5: 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 28, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Don't get me started.
> The Bible makes it clear that we are saved by God's grace.  It also makes it clear to me that the actual point of salvation is during the baptism process.  I think the Bible puts it this way:   "It is baptism that doeth now save you, not the washing away of sin with water, but the answer of a good conscience."
> 
> What does the Bible give as a purpose for baptism coming after salvation?



  How can you add something else to Grace??? Baptism in water is works that we do, water does not was away sins, the Blood of Christ does. If water could save us what would have been the point in Christ coming. One Lord, One faith, One Baptism....and it is the Baptism of the Spirit of God...I don't understand why people rely on water more that Christ, even John said this....Mark 1:8

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
KJV

  I wonder why people will sing the old hymn " What can wash my sins away, nothing but the blood of Jesus" and then say water can...
   They need to change the song to What can wash my sins away, nothing but the water in the swimming hole, what can make me whole again, nothing but the water in the swimming hole......

  Water baptism is a outward show of a inward transition, it is showing forth to the world that we have been saved,it is not saving us... if water is what it takes the thief on the cross went to he11..


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> But that fails to answer the question...
> 
> Is it your belief that the word "spirit" means symbolic?



  It means Spiritual.... What do you perceive Christ meant when he told Peter to feed his sheep????

  When he told the woman at the well she would never thirst again, did that mean she never had to drink again, because she had a literal river flowing from her belly??

 When he told the Pharisees that he would raise the temple in three days, did he mean the literal Temple???

   1 Cor 2:13

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual .
KJV

1 Cor 10:3-4

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
KJV


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> My Mother and my Sister (who is in Seminary at Asbury) are studying Jewish theology



HEY!  I went to Asbury!  The college....but still.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> HEY!  I went to Asbury!  The college....but still.



She went to College there as well. Finishes Seminary in December I believe. Christian Education.

Wish I had gone there. May have actually studied and enjoyed college.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 29, 2009)

Dominic said:


> That spiritual food was real food which was the manna from heaven.
> 
> That spiritual drink was real drink which was the water from the rock.



 What was the Rock? you need to finish reading...

  And what about the other questions I asked you???

 And are you saying the bible is lying? and by the way manna was not meat....

 When he told the woman at the well she would never thirst again, did that mean she never had to drink again, because she had a literal river flowing from her belly??

 When he told the Pharisees that he would raise the temple in three days, did he mean the literal Temple???

   1 Cor 2:13

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual .
KJV

1 Cor 10:3-4

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
KJV[/QUOTE]


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> How can you add something else to Grace??? Baptism in water is works that we do, water does not was away sins, the Blood of Christ does. If water could save us what would have been the point in Christ coming. One Lord, One faith, One Baptism....and it is the Baptism of the Spirit of God...I don't understand why people rely on water more that Christ, even John said this....Mark 1:8
> 
> 8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
> KJV
> ...



Properly translated, with footnotes:
8 
5 I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the holy Spirit." 
9 
It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. 

[8-9] Through the life-giving baptism with the holy Spirit (Mark 1:8), Jesus will create a new people of God. But first he identifies himself with the people of Israel in submitting to John's baptism of repentance and in bearing on their behalf the burden of God's decisive judgment (Mark 1:9; cf Mark 1:4). As in the desert of Sinai, so here in the wilderness of Judea, Israel's sonship with God is to be renewed.

Because in order to "jive", sometimes you have to actually
look to other Chapters and Verse to get the picture.
That's how.... and why.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Properly translated, with footnotes:
> 8
> 5 I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the holy Spirit."
> 9
> ...



 Footnotes are not scripture, they are mans opinion....some may be right, some may be wrong, But the word of God is not wrong.....


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Footnotes are not scripture, they are mans opinion....some may be right, some may be wrong, But the word of God is not wrong.....



Pigpen- He's using scripture and then explaining it using more scripture...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Footnotes are not scripture, they are mans opinion....some may be right, some may be wrong, But the word of God is not wrong.....



Also the interpretation you have is man's interpretation. Your interpretation.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Pigpen- He's using scripture and then explaining it using more scripture...



Aaahhhh! 

pigpen1
Get yourself a "Study Bible" I think they
got em' in KJV.

Pastor Arnold Murray sells them.
Shepherd’s Chapel
PO Box 416
Gravette AR 72736 USA 

I'll get you the 800 number next time he's on!


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Also the interpretation you have is man's interpretation. Your interpretation.



Aaahhhh! 

Wait..... don't tell him that.
He will go nuts. 

He thinks GOD sat down and wrote it
Himself.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 30, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Pigpen- He's using scripture and then explaining it using more scripture...



  Yes, but you can use all the scripture you want, and if you interpret Spiritual scripture carnally you will still have the wrong meaning....

  By the way Big7, call the Pope and tell him that R&F feed has their sheep feed on sale 25% off.....


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 30, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Also the interpretation you have is man's interpretation. Your interpretation.



  1 John 2:27

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
KJV


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 30, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Yes, but you can use all the scripture you want, and if you interpret Spiritual scripture carnally you will still have the wrong meaning....
> 
> By the way Big7, call the Pope and tell him that R&F feed has their sheep feed on sale 25% off.....



So your interpretation is the only correct one?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 30, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> 1 John 2:27
> 
> 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
> KJV



Again you are "interpreting" scripture. Not being a smartalleck but still. You are injecting your understanding of those verses. I am not claiming they are wrong.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 30, 2009)

Dominic said:


> In this case there are two rocks one is the rock Moses struck and drew water, the second is Christ who when pierced had the water of life flow from His wound. However in scripture there are many rocks Peter is called the rock, Abraham is called the rock, God is called the rock, and Christ is called the rock.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The great philosopher Jimmy Buffet said "you treat your body like a temple I treat mine like a tent!"

When I die I am living my body to Science Fiction... To quote a fishing buddy of mine.

Had to inject that...


----------



## Big7 (Jan 30, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> The great philosopher Jimmy Buffet said "you treat your body like a temple I treat mine like a tent!"
> 
> When I die I am living my body to Science Fiction... To quote a fishing buddy of mine.
> 
> Had to inject that...



Don't forget this:

Living In Fast Forward lyrics.

The body's a temple, that's what we're told
I've treated this one like an old honky-tonk.  
Greasy cheeseburgers and cheap cigarettes
One day they'll get me if they ain't got me yet


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 30, 2009)

Dominic said:


> In this case there are two rocks one is the rock Moses struck and drew water, the second is Christ who when pierced had the water of life flow from His wound. However in scripture there are many rocks Peter is called the rock, Abraham is called the rock, God is called the rock, and Christ is called the rock.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 You have contradicted yourself, now you are saying it is not literal...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 1, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Do you not know that your body is a temple?



 Do you know you are a sheep???? but wait you might be a Goat...I don't know which you are, but God will seperate them one day where all can see.....


----------

