Receiving the Eucharist as a protestant leaning towards catholicism

[Albion]

To tell the truth, I think we're both off target with this mini-discussion.

She said in the OP that she probably ought to look into the Catholic views concerning the Church Fathers but that she was asking about continuing to receive Communion in her current church. So what have we done but fallen into discussing the first point instead. I was wrong to do that, but it's something that occasionally happens when I close the computer in the evening and then try to pick up the discussion the next day without re-reading the OP.

 

[tz620q]

To tell the truth, I think we're both off target with this mini-discussion.

She said in the OP that she probably ought to look into the Catholic views concerning the Church Fathers but that she was asking about continuing to receive Communion in her current church. So what have we done but fallen into discussing the first point instead. I was wrong to do that, but it's something that occasionally happens when I close the computer in the evening and then try to pick up the discussion the next day without re-reading the OP.

Albion, I am not sure we are that far off topic. She stated in post #16 that

"The question of authority and whether or not it affects the Eucharist is exactly what I´m trying to figure out and I guess the only way to do that is to dig deep into the Church Fathers and Church history..and pray God would somehow enlighten me as I do that."

What I was trying to do was give her the Catholic perspective on how this authority was set up from the verses in the Bible that deal with that and how this transitioned to the next generation. Am I reading back Catholic theology into what was occurring? Perhaps, but then I tried to show the source material for her to make her own judgement.

 

[Albion]

What I was trying to do was give her the Catholic perspective on how this authority was set up from the verses in the Bible that deal with that and how this transitioned to the next generation.

OK, I understand you.

 

[FireDragon76]

OCD and religious obsessions are the exact sort of reasons Luther delved into the doctrine of justification. Don't trade your birthright for clever marketing- if you are going to study church history, look into the circumstances surrounding the Reformation.

Christ has promised to be present in, with, and under the bread and wine. He did not make this promise to a hierarchy of bishops. He made it to you and for you personally. That is what Lutheranism is about. Whether or not the substance of the bread or wine changes is unimportant in comparison, and focuses too much on the human ability to discern what should be a sacred mystery.

There is no incompatability between Lutheranism and the catholic faith, the faith once received by the saints, as our confessions point out numerous times, and as our fathers and divines attest.

 

[Open Heart]

Love this metaphor with the two cities haha! Is there anything specific you heard or read that "pushed you over the edge" regarding RCC being the Church born on Pentecost? Or was it just God helping you to have faith that RCC is the one true Church?

The one true church would have to exist from Pentecost to the Present without interruption. That means only Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in the running. So the only critical question is whether the Papacy is valid.

And then I read about Clement's first letter to the Corinthians. Clement was bishop of Rome from 88-99 AD. Corinth was not part of the Roman bishopric. It was part of the See of Antioch where Ignatius was Bishop. The way things have always been is that one bishop doesn't mess with another bishop's territory. It's unthinkable. It would be like the governor of one state messing in the affairs of another state. And Ignatius was a well known, wise, and respected Bishop, perfectly capable of handling affairs. Why in the world would the Bishop of Rome write to the church in Corinth? The ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER is that the Bishop Rome has jurisdiction extending outside the See of Rome. No other bishop had that authority.

I have to say that accepting the Catholic church meant accepting other things that were less tasty to me, especially papal infallibility -- that went down like swallowing nails. Other things were easier. I had always felt that things like the assumption of Mary weren't terrible, just unprovable. Now having church authority to back oral tradition, it was okay.

 

[justme1272]

Interestingly enough, that wording you cited means the exact opposite of what you thought it did.

interesting, never thought of that way..To me it sounded like he just meant God is omnipresent therefore He is also in the bread but only spiritually..

 

[Open Heart]

1.As far as I know the only requirement at my current church for receiving communion is belief in the basic Gospel truths and that Jesus instituted communion which is why we celebrate it. The pastors are Lutheran so they believe in the Real Presence.

If the pastors are Lutheran, then it's a Lutheran church, right? If so then the requirements for receiving communion are may be considerably more than you think. You should check with your pastor. I can't speak for the Lutheran church as my knowledge is too skimpy, but I'm wondering if you don't need to be baptized, a Lutheran, and not in serious sin (i.e. if you are committing adultery you aren't supposed to be receiving communion). Again, I am not sure. Ask.

Here is a source for a Confessional Lutheran Church here in the US, the Missouri Synod: https://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=411

 

[Albion]

interesting, never thought of that way..To me it sounded like he just meant God is omnipresent therefore He is also in the bread but only spiritually..

These Eucharistic issues are tricky, I agree. But here is the wording you are referring to:

one of them described the Eucharist to me once as Christ being in, above, under, around etc the bread meaning God is everywhere but not in the bread in a distinct way, which I would not consider believing in the bodily presence.

First, I don't think that he said "around" or "above." That would indeed make it seem like God is omnipresent but not localized in the elements of bread and wine in either a spiritual or physical way. But "in" and "with" convey a different idea. For Lutherans, Christ IS indeed present--bodily present--along with the bread and wine like a poker that's been put in the fire until it turns red. The bread and wine have not ceased to exist, which is what the Roman Catholic Church has taught since the 13th century.

 

[Basil the Great]

OP - There is nothing wrong in you also looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, as they are also Apostolic Churches. After all, if you are truly a seeker after the truth, as many of us are, then you can do no wrong by doing a thorough search.

 

[Tayla]

So I am protestant but leaning in some ways towards Catholicism. I believe that Jesus meant it literally when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". However, that raises the question if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in every Christian church or just in the ones that (claim to) have the apostolic succession, which enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist.

I am a cafeteria Catholic (but not of the liberal variety). In my view, any group of Christians who literally believe Jesus' words ("this is my body, this is my blood") can confect and partake of a valid Eucharist.

In the New Testament, the leaders of the Church, call them bishops, presided over only a local congregation. This corresponds today to a pastor of a local church who, in my opinion, is equivalent. The only criteria to be such a valid Church leader are: teaching apostolic teaching and being a good shepherd to the flock.

 

[Albion]

I am a cafeteria Catholic (but not of the liberal variety). In my view, any group of Christians who literally believe Jesus' words ("this is my body, this is my blood") can confect and partake of a valid Eucharist.

In the New Testament, the leaders of the Church, call them bishops, presided over only a local congregation. This corresponds today to a pastor of a local church who, in my opinion, is equivalent. The only criteria to be such a valid Church leader are: teaching apostolic teaching and being a good shepherd to the flock.

That's where bishops started, but long before the New Testament was completed, they were being elected by their respective councils of elders (presbyters) to be regional overseers.

 

[justme1272]

It's been a while but I thought I'd give a quick update anyway, namely that God graciously brought me back home to the Roman Catholic Church! (was baptized catholic) It was at times a frustrating and confusing journey but totally worth it to know I am in the One True Church and can trust ALL of the dogmas to be objective truth. Not to mention the Eucharist and the Sacraments..anyway, I am very grateful for your help and hope you are doing good!
Ps for anyone who is interested: J.H.Newman's "On the Development of Christian Doctrine" explains among other things the need for an infallible authority on matters of faith and the papacy. It is basically what the Lord used to convince me, the other thing was that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and Jesus doesn't, which helped to make the decision between RCC and Orthodoxy (which were both the original Church). Hope this helps somebody somehow!

 

[Open Heart]

It's been a while but I thought I'd give a quick update anyway, namely that God graciously brought me back home to the Roman Catholic Church! (was baptized catholic) It was at times a frustrating and confusing journey but totally worth it to know I am in the One True Church and can trust ALL of the dogmas to be objective truth. Not to mention the Eucharist and the Sacraments..anyway, I am very grateful for your help and hope you are doing good! Ps for anyone who is interested: J.H.Newman's "On the Development of Christian Doctrine" explains among other things the need for an infallible authority on matters of faith and the papacy. It is basically what the Lord used to convince me, the other thing was that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and Jesus doesn't, which helped to make the decision between RCC and Orthodoxy (which were both the original Church). Hope this helps somebody somehow!

Welcome home!

 

[justme1272]

Welcome home!

Thanks!

 

[tz620q]

It's been a while but I thought I'd give a quick update anyway, namely that God graciously brought me back home to the Roman Catholic Church! (was baptized catholic) It was at times a frustrating and confusing journey but totally worth it to know I am in the One True Church and can trust ALL of the dogmas to be objective truth. Not to mention the Eucharist and the Sacraments..anyway, I am very grateful for your help and hope you are doing good!
Ps for anyone who is interested: J.H.Newman's "On the Development of Christian Doctrine" explains among other things the need for an infallible authority on matters of faith and the papacy. It is basically what the Lord used to convince me, the other thing was that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and Jesus doesn't, which helped to make the decision between RCC and Orthodoxy (which were both the original Church). Hope this helps somebody somehow!

That is great to hear. May God bless you on your journey.

 

[Ron Gurley]

This is the Ordinance given by Jesus the Christ:

Luke 22:19
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

John 6 is a metaphor!

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's been a while but I thought I'd give a quick update anyway, namely that God graciously brought me back home to the Roman Catholic Church! (was baptized catholic) It was at times a frustrating and confusing journey but totally worth it to know I am in the One True Church and can trust ALL of the dogmas to be objective truth. Not to mention the Eucharist and the Sacraments..anyway, I am very grateful for your help and hope you are doing good!
Ps for anyone who is interested: J.H.Newman's "On the Development of Christian Doctrine" explains among other things the need for an infallible authority on matters of faith and the papacy. It is basically what the Lord used to convince me, the other thing was that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and Jesus doesn't, which helped to make the decision between RCC and Orthodoxy (which were both the original Church). Hope this helps somebody somehow!

Welcome back. And good on you for having great taste in books. Newman is awesome.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Hello everybody!
So I am protestant but leaning in some ways towards Catholicism. I believe that Jesus meant it literally when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". However, that raises the question if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in every Christian church or just in the ones that (claim to) have the apostolic succession, which enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist. That being said, I haven't accepted many Catholic doctrines and would have to do extensive research (on the Church Fathers and Church history, as well as the claim that the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's doctrine and it has merely developed without contradictions) in order to be fully convinced that it really is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Having said that, do you think I should continue receiving Communion at my present church, whilst partly not believing it's the way Christ intended it to be? We almost always have members of the congregation help serve Communion together with the pastor. At the same time, not receiving it (which I have been doing on and off for a while now) feels like I am disobeying Jesus, who told us to do it.
One more thing: all those doctrines I currently have a problem with (about Mary, praying to saints, papal infallibility - all the typical ones) I feel I could submit to, should God convince me through my research that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church of Christ...except the doctrine of an eternal hell. I have spent months crying and feeling miserable thinking I have to believe the most horrendous possibility there is - conscious eternal suffering of human beings - is reality. I also have religious OCD which obviously loves to make me fixated on hell. After listening to Edward Fudge's lecture (

) where he makes his case for annihilationism (I realize controversial topics such as this should be discussed in the controversial topics forum and I'm not wanting to start an argument on why it is or isn't true) I decided the only way to stay sane is to accept his explanation and put the whole thing to rest. Don't get me wrong, his argumentation was convincing to me as well. If I were to become Catholic I would have to start believing ECT again.
I feel torn between wanting to receive the Christ in the Eucharist (if I were to convert) and wanting to go on believing in annihilationism (I do realize my belief in it doesn't make it true or false), since if the Catholic Church is wrong on such a weighty doctrine, it loses all credibility and claim on infallibility. Would appreciate any advice!

I haven't read the whole thread, but here it is:

I know priests that believe in annihalism . However, to be catholic, you're required to believe their doctrine, as taught by the CCC, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The CCC teaches in hell - eternal punishment. These priests are thought of as outside of what is taught. OTOH, who can know what you're thinking? A traditional catholic will be very upset with me right now.

I believe trusting in SOME doctrine could actually lead to loss of salvation. OTOH, some doctrine does not lead to loss of salvation. What you believe about the afterlife does not affect your life now.

If you want to become Catholic you're going to have to speak to a priest and join a one year class in RCIA. Classes in catholicism. This might help you:
How to Become a Catholic | Catholic Answers

Apostolic succession is necessary for the transubstantiation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus. I'm a little confused as to what you're asking; however, it's not enough to believe in transb to receive communion in a Catholic church. You must be part of the community...communion, community.

BTW, if you DO NOT accept one of the doctrine, the procedure would be for you to pray about it and not to deny it.

Hope this helps.

 

[Ron Gurley]

The RCC should examine all of its dogma and doctrine in light of the Scriptura Suprema.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The RCC should examine all of its dogma and doctrine in light of the Scriptura Suprema.

What is Scriptura Suprema?