Refused Communion

 

Someone wrote to my office (enquiries@holyvisions.co.uk) saying that they attended a Catholic wedding recently and just before Communion the priest said that non-Catholics should not take Communion but can have a blessing instead. That person was hurt by this and wrote to me about it.

Let me explain.

Catholics believe that when we take Holy Communion it is actually the body and blood of Jesus that we take. It is the real presence of Christ in the Communion that we take. Some Catholics have difficulty in believing this; but let us park this aside for a while.

Catholics take their teaching from the Gospel of John Chapter 6 where Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will not have eternal life. (John 6:51-58).

Jesus says this several times, so much so that some of His listeners decided not to follow Him any more and they left. Jesus did not stop them. He did not call them back and tried to explain saying it was all a figure of speech or symbolism. In fact, He also asked the twelve Disciples, "And you - would you also like to leave?"

Also, at the Last Supper, Jesus repeats His claim that Communion is His body and blood.

So, was the priest wrong to ask non-Catholics not to take Communion?

As already mentioned, Catholics believe that the total substance of bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ at the moment of Consecration during Mass. That is to say, the bread and wine taken at Communion are no longer such but they are the body and blood of Christ. 

Before giving Communion the priest says "The Body of Christ ... The Blood of Christ"; and the individual responds "Amen" - meaning I agree.

It would be wrong, therefore, for a non-Catholic to say "Amen" when in their heart they do not agree and believe it is all symbolism. How would God view that individual? In a way, the priest is "protecting" that individual from being un-truthful to the Lord. By denying Communion the Catholic Church is not excluding an individual for not being Catholic, but it is aiming to re-affirm their true belief in the eyes of God.

What about me? What do I believe? 

Here's what I think. 

That event was important enough for John to record it in details. He underlines the fact that Jesus repeated His claim more than once; and John also points out that some people could not accept what Jesus said and left.

Had I been there that day, would I too have left or would I have accepted Christ's Word for what it is? I honestly do not know what I would have done.

But what about today; so many years later? I honestly accept what Jesus said for what it is. I do not understand it but I believe it because it is recorded that He said it. Call me a coward if you wish. Believing just as an insurance policy. I guess when I meet Jesus one day I'll say, "I tried to believe as best as I could within the limitations of my intellect".

THE CHRISTIAN LOUNGE LINK 

The body and blood of Christ? Really?

 

At the Last Supper Jesus said, “Take and eat; this is my body”. (Matthew 26:26).

In the Gospel of John we read a long passage which says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If you eat this bread, you will live forever. The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live." This started an angry argument among them. "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" they asked. Jesus said to them, "I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in yourselves. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them. The living Father sent me, and because of Him I live also. In the same way whoever eats me will live because of me. This, then, is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread that your ancestors ate, but then later died. Those who eat this bread will live forever." (John 6:51 onwards).

As a result of what He said, a number of Christ's followers could not take this teaching and got up and left. Jesus did not call them back. He did not say it was all a metaphor, a figure of speech. He stuck to what He said and let them go. He then asked His disciples, "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer, "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying the he trusted Jesus without question.

The Catholic Church, (and others), teaches that during Mass at the moment of transubstantiation, when the bread is changed into Christ's body, not only His body is present, but Christ as a whole is present ("the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity"). The corporeal presence of Christ is in the Eucharist. 

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians we read, "For I received from the Lord the teaching that I passed on to you ... ... ... This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. It follows that if one of you eats the Lord's bread or drinks from His cup in a way that dishonours Him, you are guilty of sin against the Lord's body and blood. (1 Corinthians 11:23 onwards).

Today, the Catholic Church invites its members to believe that at Communion they are receiving the body and blood of Christ. But many do not believe this, including some priests. Many believe this is only symbolism despite it being Church doctrine.

Now this leaves me a bit puzzled. There seems to be an inconsistency here.

As Christians we believe that through the power of the Holy Spirit a virgin can conceive the Son of God. Yet we have difficulty believing that through the power of the same Holy Spirit a tiny wafer becomes truly the sacred body and blood, soul and divinity of this very same Jesus Christ the Son of God.

But then, what do I know?

Body and Blood of Christ

 

The Gospel reading in church today is:

John 6:51-58

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever."

What does all this mean? Should we take it literally? Or is it all symbolism? 

In John Chapter 6 Jesus repeats this several times. So much so that some of His listeners decided not to follow Him any more and they left.

Jesus did not stop them. He did not call them back and tried to explain.

John 6:67 onwards:

So He asked the twelve disciples, "And you - would you also like to leave?"

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. And now we believe and know that you are the Holy One who has come from God."

Well ... I guess that now, many years later, we too have to decide whether we believe this or not.

John 6

OK folks! This is going to be a little controversial and no doubt confusing. But it is Biblical. You can find it in John's Gospel.

John Chapter 6 has been the source of much debate and confusion over the years. Jesus said something that not only baffled His audience at the time; but he re-iterated what He said to make sure it is understood.

I speak of course of the part in that Chapter where Jesus says He is "the Bread of life" and later when He says that unless people eat His flesh or drink His blood they will not have life.

As you can imagine, this was very upsetting to His listeners; even His followers and disciples.

I guess they said to each other, "What is He on about? How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is cannibalism surely. This is too much for us. We don't want to follow this guy any longer!"

Some of them got up and left. So what did Jesus do?

He didn't say, "Hey ... wait a minute. You didn't understand what I meant. This is what I really meant to say ... let me explain!"

No; Jesus let them go. He didn't try to justify Himself or what He had just said. It was as if He dissolved the unspoken contract between them. They could not accept a certain clause so He let them go.

Then He turned to His disciples and asked, "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer, "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying the he trusted Jesus without question; albeit no doubt he had many questions in his mind. 

Peter accepted Christ's words without question and stepped out in blind Faith and dared to believe.

So what are we to make of all this after all these years? Did Jesus mean what He said literally or was it all symbolism and imagery using common day articles of the time like bread and wine to signify the sacrifice He is to endure for us? His flesh would be torn by the beating and the nailing to the Cross and His blood would be spilled for us. Was it all symbolism?

Catholics believe that the total substance of bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ at the moment of consecration during Mass. 

That is to say, the bread and wine that Catholics take at Communion are no longer such but they are the body and blood of Christ. 

I discussed this with a priest some time ago and he explained that this is Catholic dogma and that Catholics are "invited" to believe it is so. He admitted that some do not believe so and believe it was all symbolism.

So, where do we stand all these years after Jesus proclaimed clearly this saying?

Quite frankly, I'm with Peter on this.

I don't believe there is much to be gained in debating this ad-infinitum. The fact remains that it is recorded in the Bible that Jesus said this emphatically, and He repeated it at the Last Supper.

So I am minded to accept it for what it is. Something that Jesus said and we're to believe it as best we humanly can.

It's obvious that many will find this difficult to understand, but then, Jesus does not ask us to understand Him. He asks us to trust Him without any evidence whatsoever.

By the way: you may wish to visit this link and see what happened to a priest who had difficulties in believing. CLICK HERE.

John 6

 

Let's Agree To Disagree

Let's agree to disagree.

I never quite understood what this phrase meant. Does it mean that if I think something is red and you think it is blue, then we agree that neither of us is right? Surely if the choice is binary, between two alternatives, then one of us is right and the other not.

History is full of examples of people not agreeing on something. Nations have often disagreed on various issues and at times the disagreements were such that they led to wars and much suffering and death. They did not say, "let us agree to disagree", when the subject matter was of such importance that it had to be resolved one way or another. It could not be left unresolved ... for ever.

I am sure all of us in our personal lives can recall instances when we had to decide one way or another, to be on one side or another, on an important matter which at the time challenged a hard-held principle or belief.

I half-heard this sentence, "let us agree to disagree", on the radio the other day as I was reading the Bible. And it set me thinking ...

Did Jesus at any time say to His disciples, His followers or listeners, "let us agree to disagree"?

I could not find an example. Perhaps you can. Write me about it if you do.

This train of thought led me to the Gospel of St John Chapter 6 where Jesus says He is "the Bread of life" and later when He says that unless people eat His flesh or drink His blood they will not have life.

As you can imagine, this was very confusing to His listeners; even His followers and disciples.

"What is He on about?" they asked. "How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is cannibalism surely. This is too much for us. We don't want to follow this guy any longer!"

They got up and left. So what did Jesus do?

He didn't say "Hey ... wait a minute. You didn't understand what I meant. This is what I really meant to say ... let me explain!"

After He explained it a second time, He did not say, "All right then ... let us agree to disagree!"

No ... Jesus let them go. He didn't try to justify Himself or what He had just said. It was as if He dissolved the unspoken contract between them. They could not accept a certain clause so He let them go.

Then He turned to His disciples and asked, "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer, "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying that he trusted Jesus without question; albeit no doubt he had many questions in his mind. Peter accepted Christ's words without question and stepped out in blind Faith and dared to believe.

This particular Chapter in the Bible has been the cause of much debates, and arguments, amongst Christians for centuries. No doubt it will continue to be so.

The reality is, in my view, we will never understand what Christ meant by these words. Not until we meet Him face to face that is.

But God never asked us to understand Him. Only to trust Him and believe.

That's what Faith is.

If you don't believe ... leave!

John Chapter 6 has been the source of much debate and confusion over the years ... and the arguments will still go on. No doubt to the amusement of Jesus looking down upon us and saying: "You of little Faith. Why can't you just believe and stop dissecting and analysing everything I said as if I were an insect in your lab!"

I speak of course of the part in that Chapter where Jesus says He is "the Bread of life" and later when He says that unless people eat His flesh or drink His blood they will not have life.

As you can imagine, this was very confusing to His listeners; even His followers and disciples.

"What is He on about?" they asked. "How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is cannibalism surely. This is too much for us. We don't want to follow this guy any longer!"

So what did Jesus do?

He didn't say "Hey ... wait a minute. You didn't understand what I meant. This is what I really meant to say ... let me explain!"

No ... Jesus let them go. He didn't try to justify Himself or what He had just said. It was as if He dissolved the unspoken contract between them. They could not accept a certain clause so He let them go.

Then He turned to His disciples and asked: "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer: "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying that he trusted Jesus without question; albeit no doubt he had many questions in his mind. Peter accepted Christ's words without question and stepped out in blind Faith and dared to believe.

So what are we to make of all this after all these years? Did Jesus mean what He said literally or was it all symbolism and imagery using common day articles of the time like bread and wine to signify the sacrifice He is to endure for us? His flesh would be torn by the beating and the nailing to the Cross and His blood would be spilled for us. Was it all symbolism?

Quite frankly, I'm with Peter on this.

I don't believe there is much to be gained in debating this ad-infinitum because in reality I doubt any of us will ever come to a satisfactory conclusion. Wiser heads than mine have argued this matter over the centuries much to the amusement of Jesus looking down from above. Any efforts by me at interpreting this would no doubt have Jesus rolling on the floor with laughter.

So I am minded to accept it for what it is. Something that Jesus said and we're to believe it as best we humanly can.

There's no point in closing your eyes tightly and repeating over and over again "I believe ... I believe ... even though I don't understand it ... I believe".

God who can see deep within our hearts, and knows our human nature and its failings, realises that it is too difficult for us to understand.

But then, He does not ask us to understand Him. He asks us to love Him and to trust Him without any evidence whatsoever.

It's what is called Faith.

To believe when your common sense tells you not to.

By the way: you may wish to visit this link and see what happened to a priest who had difficulties in believing. Please CLICK HERE.

God bless.

John 6

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."

If you don't believe ... Leave ...

John Chapter 6 has been the source of much debate and confusion over the years ... and the arguments will still go on. No doubt to the amusement of Jesus looking down upon us and saying: "You of little Faith. Why can't you just believe and stop dissecting and analysing everything I said as if I were an insect in your lab!"

I speak of course of the part in that Chapter where Jesus says He is "the Bread of life" and later when He says that unless people eat His flesh or drink His blood they will not have life.

As you can imagine, this was very confusing to His listeners; even His followers and disciples.

"What is He on about?" they asked. "How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is cannibalism surely. This is too much for us. We don't want to follow this guy any longer!"

So what did Jesus do?

He didn't say "Hey ... wait a minute. You didn't understand what I meant. This is what I really meant to say ... let me explain!"

No ... Jesus let them go. He didn't try to justify Himself or what He had just said. It was as if He dissolved the unspoken contract between them. They could not accept a certain clause so He let them go.

Then He turned to His disciples and asked: "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer: "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying the he trusted Jesus without question; albeit no doubt he had many questions in his mind. Peter accepted Christ's words without question and stepped out in blind Faith and dared to believe.

So what are we to make of all this after all these years? Did Jesus mean what He said literally or was it all symbolism and imagery using common day articles of the time like bread and wine to signify the sacrifice He is to endure for us? His flesh would be torn by the beating and the nailing to the Cross and His blood would be spilled for us. Was it all symbolism?

Quite frankly, I'm with Peter on this.

I don't believe there is much to be gained in debating this ad-infinitum because in reality I doubt any of us will ever come to a satisfactory conclusion. Wiser heads than mine have argued this matter over the centuries much to the amusement of Jesus looking down from above. Any efforts by me at interpreting this would no doubt have Jesus rolling on the floor with laughter.

So I am minded to accept it for what it is. Something that Jesus said and we're to believe it as best we humanly can.

There's no point in closing your eyes tightly and repeating over and over again "I believe ... I believe ... even though I don't understand it ... I believe".

God who can see deep within our hearts, and knows our human nature and its failings, realises that it is too difficult for us to understand.

But then, He does not ask us to understand Him. He asks us to love Him and to trust Him without any evidence whatsoever.

It's what is called Faith.

To believe when your common sense tells you not to.

By the way: you may wish to visit this link and see what happened to a priest who had difficulties in believing. Please CLICK HERE.

God bless.

If you don't believe ... leave ...

John Chapter 6 has been the source of much debate and confusion over the years ... and the arguments will still go on. No doubt to the amusement of Jesus looking down upon us and saying: "You of little Faith. Why can't you just believe and stop dissecting and analysing everything I said as if I were an insect in your lab!"

I speak of course of the part in that Chapter where Jesus says He is "the Bread of life" and later when He says that unless people eat His flesh or drink His blood they will not have life.

As you can imagine, this was very confusing to His listeners; even His followers and disciples.

"What is He on about?" they asked. "How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is cannibalism surely. This is too much for us. We don't want to follow this guy any longer!"

So what did Jesus do?

He didn't say "Hey ... wait a minute. You didn't understand what I meant. This is what I really meant to say ... let me explain!"

No ... Jesus let them go. He didn't try to justify Himself or what He had just said. It was as if He dissolved the unspoken contract between them. They could not accept a certain clause so He let them go.

Then He turned to His disciples and asked: "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer: "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying the he trusted Jesus without question; albeit no doubt he had many questions in his mind. Peter accepted Christ's words without question and stepped out in blind Faith and dared to believe.

So what are we to make of all this after all these years? Did Jesus mean what He said literally or was it all symbolism and imagery using common day articles of the time like bread and wine to signify the sacrifice He is to endure for us? His flesh would be torn by the beating and the nailing to the Cross and His blood would be spilled for us. Was it all symbolism?

Quite frankly, I'm with Peter on this.

I don't believe there is much to be gained in debating this ad-infinitum because in reality I doubt any of us will ever come to a satisfactory conclusion. Wiser heads than mine have argued this matter over the centuries much to the amusement of Jesus looking down from above. Any efforts by me at interpreting this would no doubt have Jesus rolling on the floor with laughter.

So I am minded to accept it for what it is. Something that Jesus said and we're to believe it as best we humanly can.

There's no point in closing your eyes tightly and repeating over and over again "I believe ... I believe ... even though I don't understand it ... I believe".

God who can see deep within our hearts, and knows our human nature and its failings, realises that it is too difficult for us to understand.

But then, He does not ask us to understand Him. He asks us to love Him and to trust Him without any evidence whatsoever.

It's what is called Faith.

To believe when your common sense tells you not to.

By the way: you may wish to visit this link and see what happened to a priest who had difficulties in believing. Click HERE.

God bless.

John 6

John Chapter 6 has been the source of much debate and confusion over the years ... and the arguments will still go on. No doubt to the amusement of Jesus looking down upon us and saying: "You of little Faith. Why can't you just believe and stop dissecting and analysing everything I said as if I were an insect in your lab!"

I speak of course of the part in that Chapter where Jesus says He is "the Bread of life" and later when He says that unless people eat His flesh or drink His blood they will not have life.

As you can imagine, this was very confusing to His listeners; even His followers and disciples.

"What is He on about?" they asked. "How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood? This is cannibalism surely. This is too much for us. We don't want to follow this guy any longer!"

So what did Jesus do?

He didn't say "Hey ... wait a minute. You didn't understand what I meant. This is what I really meant to say ... let me explain!"

No ... Jesus let them go. He didn't try to justify Himself or what He had just said. It was as if He dissolved the unspoken contract between them. They could not accept a certain clause so He let them go.

Then He turned to His disciples and asked: "How about you? Do you want to go as well?"

As ever, Peter was first to answer: "To whom shall we go?" he asked. "We're in this for the duration, all the way, to the end". Or words to that effect, signifying the he trusted Jesus without question; albeit no doubt he had many questions in his mind. Peter accepted Christ's words without question and stepped out in blind Faith and dared to believe.

So what are we to make of all this after all these years? Did Jesus mean what He said literally or was it all symbolism and imagery using common day articles of the time like bread and wine to signify the sacrifice He is to endure for us? His flesh would be torn by the beating and the nailing to the Cross and His blood would be spilled for us. Was it all symbolism?

Quite frankly, I'm with Peter on this.

I don't believe there is much to be gained in debating this ad-infinitum because in reality I doubt any of us will ever come to a satisfactory conclusion. Wiser heads than mine have argued this matter over the centuries much to the amusement of Jesus looking down from above. Any efforts by me at interpreting this would no doubt have Jesus rolling on the floor with laughter.

So I am minded to accept it for what it is. Something that Jesus said and we're to believe it as best we humanly can.

There's no point in closing your eyes tightly and repeating over and over again "I believe ... I believe ... even though I don't understand it ... I believe".

God who can see deep within our hearts, and knows our human nature and its failings, realises that it is too difficult for us to understand.

But then, He does not ask us to understand Him. He asks us to love Him and to trust Him without any evidence whatsoever.

It's what is called Faith.

To believe when your common sense tells you not to.

By the way: you may wish to visit this link and see what happened to a priest who had difficulties in believing. Click HERE.

God bless.