How Often Need Catholics Take Communion?

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

How Often Need Catholics Take Communion?

Post #1

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Verdana]-
Transubstantiation is a process wherein the elements of communion (a.k.a. species) are transformed into Christ's body and blood; which, if true, is a tremendous advantage for Catholics. Here's why.

â—� John 6:53-54 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

If transubstantiation is true, then Catholics need to ingest the elements but once and they never need to ingest them again seeing as how eternal life is impervious to death. Were that not so it would be possible to assassinate God; viz: eternal life never wears out, nor wears off, nor spoils, not gets old and dies.

Q: When would Catholics obtain eternal life from the elements?

A: Right away. The grammatical tense of "has" is present tense.
[/font]

[font=Georgia]NOTE:[/font][font=Verdana] Jesus compared himself to manna; which was a curious nourishment that God provided His people during their forty years in the Sinai outback. Manna didn't give them eternal life-- in point of fact manna didn't even give them immortality; it just gave them daily sustenance.

Manna was dated; but not eternal life; no, eternal life is just as fresh now as it was a billion years ago because eternal life isn't an organic commodity; rather, it's power.

Well; if transubstantiation is true; then it isn't necessary to dine upon Christ on a daily basis, nor a weekly basis, nor even an annual basis because eternal life can't be used up; no, eternal life is endless.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #2

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Verdana]-
Q: What's the correct way to partake of Christ's body and blood?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh and blood, either literally or transubstantiated, they are going to have to first make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

Also; the night of Christ's last supper, he and all the men present with him were Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the Old Testament as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood (Lev 7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood that night, he would have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid explanation of John 6:32-58.

Q: What then is the correct way to go about it?

A: Well; Jesus informed his remaining followers that the words he spoke about eating his flesh and blood are spirit words (John 6:63). Not that people can't read and/or hear spirit words written and/or spoken in their native tongue; but in order to understand what spirit words are saying, people need some way to decode them.

No doubt Rome claims it has the ability to decode spirit words; but if John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer don't have the ability, then they're forced to take Rome's word for it.

Speaking for myself: I don't have the ability to decode spirit words, nor do I have access to an Enigma machine set up for decoding them. I think I know what Jesus' spirit words are saying; but in reality, my thoughts are only a theory; so in sharing my thoughts, I'd just be muddying the waters.
[/font]

[font=Georgia]FYI:[/font][font=Verdana] Christians are instructed to avoid eating blood. (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29, and Acts 21:25)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #3

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Verdana]-
â—� Lev 17:10 . . If anyone, whether of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing among them, partakes of any blood, I will set myself against that one who partakes of blood and will cut him off from among his people.

The reason given for banning the eating of blood is because God designated it for sacrificial purposes.

â—� Lev 17:11 . . Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement.

Was Christ's blood sacrificial blood? Yes; therefore it was curse-worthy for Christ's Jewish disciples to eat it on the night before the day of his offering.

â—� Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this law

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

Bede
Apprentice
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:43 am
Location: England

Post #4

Post by Bede »

Hi WebersHome,

I see you are still plodding your lonely way, weaving your cocoon of misunderstandings, half truths and errors, fenced round with a phalanx of straw men.

Why don’t you search for the truth?

Does your cocoon make you feel better about your apostasy?

God bless

Bede

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #5

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Verdana]-
Webster's defines apostasy as renunciation of a religious faith and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty; viz: defection, which is defined as conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine).

"Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. (CCC 1782)

If being true to one's conscience means staying with Rome for some people; well; that's one thing. But I cannot approve of someone staying with Rome against their better judgment because doing so is a sin against their conscience.

People stay with Rome against their better judgment just as others stay with Judaism and/or Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses against their better judgment because leaving would be a very big life-changing rift with their families, their friends, and their associates.

â—� Mat 10:35-37 . . For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And sometimes even their livelihood.

â—� Matt 10:38 . . and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

For example: When Muslims switch over to Christianity in a predominantly Islamic country; they not only risk ostracism and financial ruin, but also the loss of their very lives. Hard-core Islam is not exactly a tolerant religion.

Here in America; people who defect from Catholicism are merely branded bitter apostates, while in Islamic countries people who defect from Islam are branded criminals. Ex Catholics here have it much, much easier than ex Muslims in those countries. I don't mind being called names; that I can deal with; but I think I might have trouble coping with being hunted as a criminal.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #6

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Verdana]-
â—� John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

When I was growing up a young Catholic boy back in the decade of the 1950s, we were given the bread at communion, but never the wine. In other words; in accordance with the principles of transubstantiation; we ate Jesus' flesh without his blood.

Well; Jesus' recipe for "life within you" consists of both his flesh and his blood. Therefore, none of my communions counted because they were incomplete. I obtained no life from them: none of them; not a single one. I might just as well have used the host to make a peanut butter and jelly hor d'oeuvre for all the good it did me without the wine element.

It is not only necessary to include the wine element in order to obtain life, but it is also necessary to include it in order to attain to Jesus' resurrection.

â—� John 6:53 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

So then, according to the principles of transubstantiation, I not only lacked eternal life due to my total, 100% lack of Jesus' blood; but my afterlife future was in grave peril too!

I was told that both species of the Eucharist-- the consecrated host and the consecrated wine --contain Christ's body and blood (a.k.a. real presence) so that either one alone will do the trick without the other.

Well; that might be what Rome says; but it's not what Christ preached.

1• Christ taught that his body is represented by the bread.

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said: Take and eat; this is my body." (Matt 26:26)

2• Christ taught that his blood is represented by the wine.

"Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt 26:27-28)

According to the apostle Paul, when pew warmers leave one of the elements out of their communion service, they convey an incomplete gospel.

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes." (1Cor 11:26)

Paul didn't say "and/or" no, he said "and". Jesus also said "and" rather then "and/or".

Rome was not only seriously negligent back in the day, but also grossly incompetent. It couldn't even conduct something as simple and straight forward as the Lord's Supper without screwing it up.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

Post Reply