How Often Need Catholics Take Communion? (Lutherans, Leviticus, women, churches)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-
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.
● 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.
NOTE: 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.
Well, in the Anglican Communion, most churches I've attended practice the eucharist weekly. Same is true for the Lutherans as well. Methodists and Baptists do it less frequently. I attended a Methodist service not too long ago for a baptism, and communion had a do-it-yourself manner to it. You sidled up to the rail, picked up a Chiclet-sized communion wafer, downed some grape juice, and off you went. It had the impersonal feel of a Toyota plant in action.
As far as transubstantiation is concerned, we view it as tenuous theology, particularly since it may have been borrowed wholesale from the Greek cult of Attis. While we don't go so far as to necessarily subscribe to consubstantiation either. Instead, we prefer to simply call it a mystery and leave it at that.
Well, in the Anglican Communion, most churches I've attended practice the eucharist weekly. Same is true for the Lutherans as well. Methodists and Baptists do it less frequently. I attended a Methodist service not too long ago for a baptism, and communion had a do-it-yourself manner to it. You sidled up to the rail, picked up a Chiclet-sized communion wafer, downed some grape juice, and off you went. It had the impersonal feel of a Toyota plant in action.
As far as transubstantiation is concerned, we view it as tenuous theology, particularly since it may have been borrowed wholesale from the Greek cult of Attis. While we don't go so far as to necessarily subscribe to consubstantiation either. Instead, we prefer to simply call it a mystery and leave it at that.
I grew up in the Reformed Church of America (RCA), and communion was done quarterly plus on Holy Thursday. There was a tray with little shot glass type things filled with grape juice, which were passed around, and also a tray of cubes of Wonder Bread. It really was Wonder Bread. My cousin and I went into the kitchen once when the women were tearing it into cubes and stole some when they weren't looking.
It was a "remembrance". They read the last-supper passage from the bible, and that was it. It was sort of a sidebar thing that didn't seem to mean much and when you saw those brass trays piled up on the altar, you knew it was going to be a longer-than-usual service.
My experience in the Anglican church with the Eucharist is very different and one of the reasons I became an Episcopalian. There is a holiness about it and sometimes--not every time, but often enough--I find there is indeed an otherworldly sense of communion, that we are all one.
One thing I remember about my first Episcopal church is the priest saying you can believe in the Eucharist as transubstantiation or merely a remembrance or anything in between and still be an Episcopalian. So, yes, some just leave it as a mystery, and proceed.
As a Catholic we took communion weekly , but in elementary school daily at the mandatory 8 am mass. The bottomline is you take communion whenever you want preferably following confession. As a nuance to communion we evangelicals take communion periodically so as to not make it a typical RITUAL. Catholics must attend church weekly and communion is always part of the eucharistic aspect of the mass.
It's all about John:6. Read it carefully. The Catholic belief in transubstantiation comes mostly from John:6, not some Greek pagans. Jesus said the important words twice (eat my flesh and drink my blood) to make sure his audience was not confused at what He meant.
The early Church Fathers believed it as their teachers taught them. Maybe the views of the Early Church Fathers are correct and those that refuse to accept these truths might be wrong.
- 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.
FYI: Christians are instructed to avoid eating blood. (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29, and Acts 21:25)
It's all about John:6. Read it carefully. The Catholic belief in transubstantiation comes mostly from John:6, not some Greek pagans. Jesus said the important words twice (eat my flesh and drink my blood) to make sure his audience was not confused at what He meant.
The early Church Fathers believed it as their teachers taught them. Maybe the views of the Early Church Fathers are correct and those that refuse to accept these truths might be wrong.
Correction--SOME ECF's did. Not all of them.
But the OP is asking some good questions. If eating his flesh gives eternal life, why must you do it at every Mass?
Roman Catholics are supposed to receive Holy Communion at least
once a year. It is called the Easter Duty to go to Confession then
receive Communion by Resurrection Sunday.
Roman Catholics are supposed to receive Holy Communion at least
once a year. It is called the Easter Duty to go to Confession then
receive Communion by Resurrection Sunday.
yes indeed. to satisfy this requirement communion can be received anytime in the period between "Easter" and Pentecost AND normally the individual should be in a "state of grace" being conscious of no serious sins that may have been committed prior to the reception of the sacrament (generally achieved by the WORTHY reception of the sacrament of penance/confession). this is the MINIMUM requirement and Catholics are urged to receive communion on a more frequent basis since Catholics do believe that communion provides unique and necessary spiritual nourishment.
OTOH, Catholics are required to "assist" at Mass/go to church on every Sunday whether they take communion or not as part of the biblical requirement to "keep holy the Lord's day".
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 05-21-2016 at 10:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
