The Eucharist

Brother Curtis --

We do remember that we are GUESTS here and shall try to act accordingly.

My purpose for coming here over a year ago was to simply give information on what I had found. I saw posts which were giving information which was inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

All I can do is to share and try to present that which the Church teaches. You and the others here have allowed us this area to do so, and we thank you for it. You could have just as easily said "Scram....ya ain't wanted here!!"

We appreciate it. Thank you.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

I'm just refutin', Ed. That's what I do. You are as welcome here as anyone, but the idea here is to exchange thoughts, eh ?

And being a Baptist board, the views of those who moderate will probably be Baptist.

I don't tell you how to run yer boards, do I ?

Look, don't take my complete rejection of the RCC personally. The title of the thread was the eucharist, and I saw non-Baptist doctrine stated as fact. So I posted my rebuttal.

And I'd do it again.

 

Bro Curtis,

Do I get booted from this board for refuting Baptist theology? Are you a manager or something. If being a part of this board means that I have to bow when you make a post, then you just as well remove me right now.

I do wish you blessings and peace.

 

I didn't ask you to bow, I didn't ask you to do anything. Knock off the "poor little me" baloney.

And actually, I do moderate this forum.

 

Brother Curtis,

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to start a second Eucharist thread with the Baptist perspective of this Catholic Sacrament. As it is, things have already gone off track, and the bickering has started. I hardly think that Brian and Neal are going to ignore what you have to say, because frankly, they ARE Baptist. However, this particular thread is about hearing out the Catholic position in all its many aspects. It makes it very hard to do when each new reply from you is just an attack. You do not post new questions, as Neal and Brian are doing (and very hard questions, I might add). You simply tell us that we're wrong. And by golly, you're entitled to that completely. But it DOES disrupt the flow and keeps us from answering their questions as well because the topic starts to shift. I'll be more than happy to fend off an offense on the Eucharist, but this thread is a defense of the Eucharist.

You probably disagree with me, and this has nothing to do with pity or the thinking I'm trying to dodge your accusations. I'm saying it very much disrupts the flow, and I can already sense the friendly atmosphere that this thread has enjoyed as slipping away.

I hope you see my point, and I hope you'll start a second thread dealing with Baptist objections to the Eucharist when this thread is dedicated to simple Catholic explanation of presented questions. If you want, I'll start off each of my threads stating that what I present is the belief on the Catholic Church, and is not agreeed upon by all Christians, so that new people coming in here will not think that it is what a Baptists stands for.

God bless,

Grant

 

Well I read your post, and appreciate your concerns, but when non-Baptist doctrine is stated as fact, then I will put in my 2 cents. (I know-overcharging)

I'm not really concerned about the bickering, not at all. It doesn't bother me one bit to see RCCers mad at me, or even baptists, for that matter.

 

Please reread my post. I just said that if you wish, I will address all my posts as pertaining to the Catholic faith only, so that non-Catholics understand that I'm not ensinuating that non-Catholics believe this. You KNOW full well that these are matters of faith and not of fact, anyway. Your objection is well noted already. I think it's fruitless to just keep saying you disagree when we are all aware that you fully disagree. However, this thread is simply about answering questions and explaining what Catholics believe; it's up to the individual to discern "the truth" of these matters.

No need to play martyr, either. There was no bickering before you started posting. Your objection is well noted; I'm saying that its destructive to the type of thread we have going here.

You know I respect you (or you should know). I only ask for peace so that I can answer these fella's questions as they are wanting. I can't do that if I'm having to defend the fact that I merely believe them.

God bless,

Grant

 

One more thing. I don't remember insulting anyone here, but one of my doctrines that I hold dear was called a bunch of hooey. I probably would have left this thread alone if not for that comment. You see, once again the RCCers start something, and then cry foul when we retort.

 

Brother Curtis,

I did not make that comment nor do I condone it. I'll kindly ask it to be retracted by thessalonian (sorry CatholicConvert, my mistake for saying you said that!), as I disagree with its usage, most especially in the context of this thread. I apologize for approaching you but not him as well.

God bless,

Grant

P.S. Brother Neal was the one who created this thread, not a Catholic, so please do not say we started something here. That's not fair.

[ January 27, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

Actually, I thought it was theessalonian who made the comment..

But if I am going to be expected to stay on thread, then I demand the same from all others.

Fair enough ?

 

I don't think that I personally did get off track except to address my concern with this very issue. I hope that this can be my last remark on it so that we can move forward.

God bless,

Grant

 

Neal,

Your questions were answered by CC and Thessalonian. Were their answers satisfactory, or does something still need clarification? I just don't want to write a long response if what they said was sufficient. And please continue to ask any other questions you have, as the Eucharist is something that I'm very passionate about.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant, you didn't move the topic off track.

But if the pre-trib rapture can be called a bunch of hooey, on a thread about the eucharist, then I can call the eucharist a false teaching, on a thread about the eucharist.

Because I believe it is.

Your right, If I let that comment go unchecked, then no bickering would have happened.

 

Keep 'em coming!

I'm glad you have overcome the typical "Catholics are cannibals" argument that I've faced a few times already.

You can receive the Eucharist twice in one day. However, the second time must not be for the reason of trying to receive "more" of Jesus because the first time that day was somehow insufficient. Once a day is PLENTY. However, for instance, I went to a 9am Mass a week ago, because I thought that I would be leading a Bible study with the RCIA group (people thinking about converting), and they leave during the Eucharistic Liturgy. But, no one happened to attend that Mass that evening, and I ended up alter serving, and so I received the Eucharist a second time.

Further, and this may be getting two technical for your tastes, but if the first time is a Mass (when bread and wine are actually consecrated during the service), and the second service is just a communion service (the Body of Christ is distributed, but no priest presides), then you are to only receive once. This is probably for the reason that the Body of Christ used in a communion service is left over from a previous Mass and is also to be used to take to the sick. If you have already received once, it is best to let others receive it who may not have received it yet. That's just a technicality really.

Probably more than you wanted to know.

Alread answered the second part, but yes, you can receive the Eucharist every day. I attend every Mass they have here, which is Sunday and Tuesday-Friday, so five times a week.

Catholics should receive the Eucharist at least once a year, on Easter Sunday. Of course, I question the faith of the Catholic who doesn't want to receive it every Mass they attend!!!

Depends on the Rite. The Roman/Latin Rite, which most of us, typically receive communion when they are seven or eight years old, AFTER Baptism, but BEFORE Confirmation (which is sometime in high school or junior high).

EDIT: I forgot to finish my train of thought here! In some of the Eastern rites, a baby is communed right after Baptism, which is competely valid in those rites.

NO rebaptism. One Baptism is all that is valid, so as long as you were baptised "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," regardless of the Church or the minister, you are properly baptised. Therefore, you will need to either take a class (like RCIA) or speak with the parish priest and see what is appropriate for what level of understanding of the Catholic Church you are at. Typically, at that point, one would be Confirmed and then immediately follow with First Communion.

Please let me know if you need further clarification.

God bless,

Grant

[ January 27, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

Hi Grant,

Just one little thing....you said:

"Catholics should receive the Eucharist at least once a year, on Easter Sunday. Of course, I question the faith of the Catholic who doesn't want to receive it every Mass they attend!!!"

There are some Catholics who are unable to receive due to their spiritual situation. I myself have "sat out" during Communion for various reasons over the years.

I get a little uncomfortable when we try to speculate as to why someone doesn't "want" to receive....or question their faith when they don't...not everyone is at the same spot as we are, on their spiritual journey with God.

LaRae

 

LaRae,

I am well aware of those who cannot take communion either because of unconfessed sin or, as you put "spiritual situations." I'm sorry if leaving that out offended you. I just thought I had put enough technicalities out there for one day. But there are also people, I'm sure, who just don't take because they don't want to. That does not apply to you or these other situations, so you were not included in that.

God bless,

Grant

 

[/QUOTE]LaRae,

I am well aware of those who cannot take communion either because of unconfessed sin or, as you put "spiritual situations." I'm sorry if leaving that out offended you. I just thought I had put enough technicalities out there for one day. But there are also people, I'm sure, who just don't take because they don't want to. That does not apply to you or these other situations, so you were not included in that.

God bless,

Grant[/QB][/QUOTE]

Grant,

I wasn't offended....mainly wanted to post for clarification purposes, more for the benefit of others....since I assume that you did realize this.

LaRae

 

[ February 05, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Daveth ]