A Eucharistic Dialogue

Julie left a comment on Candy's Biblical Worship post that I decided to try and respond to:

The only church that made me uncomfortable was a Catholic church I visited years ago with a friend of mine who was Catholic. It could have been that I did not understand a lot about that faith, but it seemed off for some reason. (Guess I got use to the singing and praising from my Methodist and Baptist experiences). Her church did not have any of that at all...very methodical and robotic if you asked me. I could not even take communion because I had not completed THEIR requirements though I had been saved for about 4 years at that point. I was still a sinner in their eyes.


Candy DID post my response, and she and I exchanged comments for the next hour or so. I thought it would be a good idea to save the exchange here, since Candy doesn't keep the comments even if she archives a post.


I wrote:

Julie, I am truly sorry that your friend either has such a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's theology on this matter, or, as is more likely, that she explained it so poorly.

The Catholic Church does accept non-Catholics as Christians, and also accepts the baptism of other churches, as long as it was a Trinitarian baptism.

As Freddy said, Communion at Catholic Churches is closed to non-Catholics, because by taking communion you are saying that you believe and accept the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation, that the bread and wine are changed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

There is Biblical support for this:

1 Cor 10:16:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor. 11:27-29:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

There are other churches besides the Catholic Church which practice closed communion. Candy has mentioned not being able to partake of the Lord's Supper at a church she regularly attended.


Candy replied:

Kelly, neither of those scriptures tell us to eat and drink Jesus literally. This is no more literal than when Jesus says that if we accept Him, then living waters will come forth from our bellies.

I still don't have water springing out of my belly, and I have never seen anyone who does. Have you?

Both scriptures are refering back to the Last Supper, where Jesus told us to partake of Communion in rememberance of Him, in remembering that his body was broken for us.

Eating and drinking Jesus isn't literal. It means that He is your All in All.


My response:

How do you sin against a symbol? Sinning against connotes blasphemy, as in, failing to recognize the presence of God.

I see nothing in these verses which indicates they should be taken in a spiritual manner. When discussing John 6, you said that there are key words, which indicate that verses are to be taken spiritually rather than literally.

However, I understand that we don't agree on this, and I can respect that.
My point in posting the verses was simply to explain the Catholic teaching to Julie, since she felt hurt and confused by her experience.


Candy said:

Kelly, how ~do~ you sin against a symbol? I certainly don't know either. I don't think it's possible.

Communion isn't a symbol. It's the breaking of bread among fellow believers in rememberance of Christ, just as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper. Certainly Jesus wasn't literally eating and drinking Himself.

Are we supposed to believe that with the exception of the Last Supper, communion is supposed to be literal?

BTW Kelly, thank you for your respectful comments. It's nice to see someone arguing the issue, instead of attacking the person.


I wrote:

Communion isn't a symbol. It's the breaking of bread among fellow believers in rememberance of Christ, just as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding what you mean here. Are you saying that when you celebrate the Lord's Supper, it is to remember the Last Supper, and has no symbolism to the body of Christ, who was broken for us on the cross?

1 Cor. 11:27 says "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

How is celebrating the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner sinning against the body of the Lord, if it is just a symbol. As I said, I don't think you can sin against a symbol.

If the Lord's Supper is just a commemoration of the Last Supper, then I'm not sure how the body and blood of the Lord would be relevant at all, or why Paul would bring them up.

And I appreciate that you have published my comments.

I often used to try and leave respectful comments, but they were not published. I assumed they fell under "having incorrect religious teachings that could lead new Christians astray."

So, I am happy that you are letting me post at the moment, for whatever the reason.


Candy explained:

This is why Jesus told us in John chapter 6 that He was speaking in the Spirit. It is not always easy to understand in the flesh, just as it's hard for unbelievers to understand how to get saved, until they actually do.

Jesus and His disciples broke bread and drank wine at the last supper. When Christians partake of Communion, they are breaking bread and drinking wine/grape juice just as Jesus and His disciples do. We do this in rememberance, as Jesus commands us to do. It really has nothing to do with John 6, where Jesus was telling us that his body is the bread of life, broken on the cross for us. His blood is the wine that spilt forth to cleans our sins. However, that was not communion, it was a spiritual picture.

Jesus often used these types of strong mental pictures, to weed out the false followers from the true ones. Jesus knew who was true, and who wasn't but He did these things to reveal this to others, and to reveal people own hearts to themselves. There is a specific Greek term for this, but I can't remember it. Sorry. :-(

Anyhow, these types of strong descriptions from Jesus are part of the reason why He is called a "stumbling stone." Even some of His discliples stumbled at some of the things He said.

Moving on to the scripture about being unworthy of partaking of Communion, earlier in that chapter, it gives us a list of who is unworthy:

- partaking because of physical hunger

- partaking while drunk

- not partaking in rememberance of Jesus

These are some of the reasons given in verses 17-25 as to why some were/are unworthy to partake of Communion.

Remember, Jesus said "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." - 1 Cor. 11:24b

Obviously it wasn't literally His body, for he partook as well, at the Last Supper.

Kelly, I'm letting your posts come through for two reasons:

1) they are respectful. You haven't once called me "ignorant," a "hater," etc. Nor have you put words into my mouth

2) Even though I believe you are providing incorrect teachings, I have the time to respond to your comments. When I have the time to respond to such comments, then I have no problems publishing them. When I don't have the time, I often save the comment, with the intention of publishing it and responding to it later. However, many times when I've done this, I was then attacked by the comment leavers, because they didn't immediatly see their comment published. At that point, I see no reason to try to reason with them, so neither comment ends up being published.



I appreciate how she implies that my previous comments didn't get posted because I attacked her for not immediately publishing my comment.

At this point, I'm not planning to post anymore comments on this thread. If you notice how much longer Candy's last comment was, I would also need to write a long response to give the Catholic view, and as the entire topic has nothing to do with Candy's actual post, I'm going to let Candy close the discussion. I'm happy that she let me make my points, and hopefully many people read them.