Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians? Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

[Mickey]

Christ is risen!

Indeed He is Risen!

 

[StMarina303ad]

The whole point about the bread of life discourse that Jesus teaches his church from John 6, deals with those who believe in his true presence in his Eucharist (thanksgiving, sacrifice for our sins) are promised eternal life. Those who refused his teaching fell into apostacy and walked away.

In summary the OP is correct, only the Christian is Christian who partakes of the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Those baptised Christians who refuse his Eucharist are like Jesus first century **disciples **who refused to believe this hard teaching and fell into apostacy.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees this.

The dog, or anyone not discerning the body of Jesus Christ in his Holy Eucharist are subject to Judgement for not discerning the body and blood of our savior Jesus Christ. It makes no sense for a non believer to recieve this heavenly food for the soul, for it is not for the unbeliever but for the believer who remain true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The great thing is that with the Orthodox Church there are huge safe guards to prevent an animal, like the dog mentioned, or any non-Christian or even an unworthy Christian from receiving Holy Eucharist.
First each the Orthodox Priests/Bishops are the only ones who give Holy Eucharist - during Divine Liturgy, Pre-Sanctified Liturgy or to the sick/infirm.
Second the Orthodox Priest/Bishop give the Holy Eucharist to those he knows by name - he knows when the last time they went to confession, etc.
Third it is given on a spoon and placed directly into the mouths of the recepiants and if a child or mentally handicapped person spits out the Holy Eucharist (I’ve only witnessed this occuring once), the priest/bishop picks up the Eucharist and eats it immediately and they use the linen to soak up Jesus split blood)

 

[Harpazo]

StMarina303ad:
Shlom lekh,

I really admire what Orthodox clerics do in regards to the Eucharist. It is something that the Latins should get back on board with. It makes a lot of sense and prevents abuse from taking place. If I become a priest in the Maronite Church, you can bet I’ll be doing that same sort of “interrogation.” Perhaps that’s too strong of a word, but you know what I mean.

Aloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[brownjt]

It is not an either/or situation.
And physically.

It is the “Real Presence”. Jesus Christ is completely Divine (Spirit) AND completely human (physical).

What is that biblical saying about threading a camel through a needle’s eye and all that…Look your interpretation is based on your catechism regarding scacred traditions and the magesterium…and there hundreds of millions who disagree with you…so what

The most numerous converts to evangelical movements are “fallen” (not my term) catholics seeking more than what your cuurent church has provided - they are not heading for eternal damnation and neither are you guys. There is a middle way and it is called being less arbitrary about traditions and their meaning vis-a-vis their connection to salvation.

 

[Mickey]

and there hundreds of millions who disagree with you…so what.

Many are called, few are chosen. The path is narrow.

There is a middle way and it is called being less arbitrary about traditions

Are you sure it is not called “luke warm”?

 

[StMarina303ad]

What is that biblical saying about threading a camel through a needle’s eye and all that…Look your interpretation is based on your catechism regarding scacred traditions and the magesterium…and there hundreds of millions who disagree with you…so what

The most numerous converts to evangelical movements are “fallen” (not my term) catholics seeking more than what your cuurent church has provided - they are not heading for eternal damnation and neither are you guys. There is a middle way and it is called being less arbitrary about traditions and their meaning vis-a-vis their connection to salvation.

The Orthodox Churches interpretation of the John 6 has nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s Catechism. It has to do with theology which has been experienced through out all the centuries since Christ’s Resurrection. First the experience of Jesus giving Himself in Holy Eucharist to His Apostles at the Last Supper, then it has to do with those Apostles giving Holy Eucharist to the Christians, even the writings of the Pagan Romans even documented that Christians were canabals because we eat the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus in addition to the personal miracle of individuals being deified through the Mysteries there have also been physical/tagible Eucharistic Miracles which can not be disputed that have accured throughout the last 2000 years.

One famous Eucharistic Miracle took place in Lanciano (which like many Orthodox Churches in Italy, especially in Sicily, was taken over by Catholics) in Italy. Anyway the miracle is that at the prayers of the priest during consecration of the Bread and Wine during Divine Liturgy they were transformed into physical/tangible Flesh and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - this happened in the 700’s. therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[StMarina303ad]

Many are called, few are chosen. The path is narrow.
Are you sure it is not called “luke warm”?

“Many are called, few are chosen” is one of my favorite Scripture verses - I just don’t remember where it’s located in Scripture.

 

[Mickey]

“Many are called, few are chosen” is one of my favorite Scripture verses - I just don’t remember where it’s located in Scripture.

Matt 22:14

 

[StMarina303ad]

**You did not answer the question. **

The question was: Did the Holy Spriit allow Christ’s Church to enter into heresy from it’s beginng till around 1500 when Luther et all came to rescue it from it’s heresy.

Christ’s Church, the Orthodox Church has never entered into heresy - to be sure some in the laity and clergy have held heretical beliefs from time to time, but the Orthodox Church has never fallen.

The Catholic Church separated itself from the Church by adding false teachings such as Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility and Purgatory etc.
And the Protestants separated themselves not just from the Catholic Church by rightly throwing out the false teachings, but they also separated themselves from Christ’s Church by throwing out even those teachings which are true such as Bishops, Priests, Holy Eucharist, Confession, etc.

The warning in Scripture is clear that no one is to “add” or “take away” from the Faith; however, the Catholics “added” and the Protestants “took away” - only the Orthodox have maintained the Faith unaltered.

Please, if you find yourself outside the Orthodox Church, please immediatly begin to take assessment of your own heart to find out why that is. Why are you rejecting Christ by rejecting His Church? Why are you rejecting the Holy Eucharist as Jesus’ fallen away disciples did as recorded in John 6:66? Begin to study and pray. Seek out and visit an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy. Speak to the priest. God wants to the best for you which is why He give you the opportunity to join His Church which His Holy Spirit has guided and guarded for 2000 years!

Thank God for His Mercy. Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!

 

[ralphinal]

I’m not explaining the passage in “hind sight,” while attempting to make it fit a presupposition; rather, I’m reading the passage in the context of the author, and allowing the speaker to define His terms, in His way.

So we have the Catholic and Orthodox Churches saying that Jesus ment it a certain way, both claiming to have learned from the Apostles this view, and some non-Catholics seeing it another way, also claiming to know what the author intended to mean.

I’ve cited passages for you:Jer. 15:16.—“Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” The rest of the verse explains the figure.

Ezek. 3:1.—“Son of man … eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel”: i.e., consider it, and get the contents of this roll by heart, and then go and speak it to the house of Israel, as is clear from verse 4: “Speak with my words unto them.”

John 6:51.—“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever”: i.e., just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So, verse 53: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”: i.e., except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you. That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and the words could not have been understood (as they were); and, further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.

By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

1 Cor. 12:13.—“And have been all made to drink into one spirit”: i.e., receive. Compare Luke 13:15.

“Not to be” is a Hebraism for to be abject and vile, to be nothing (1 Cor. 1:28); while on the other hand,

“To be” means to be in high esteem, or of great value (1 Cor. 1:28). God hath chosen “things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.” So also

2 Sam. 19:6 (9).—“Thou regardest neither princes nor servants.” Here, the figure is translated; for the Heb. is (as in the margin: “that princes and servants are not to thee.”) R.V.: “Are nought unto thee.”

**“To permit.” **Heb. 6:3: “This will we do, if God permit”: i.e., if God so orders it, and gives the needed grace and strength.

“To seek.” Matt. 6:32: “After all these things do the Gentiles seek”: i.e., they put them in the first place, and are over-anxious, with excessive solicitude. So Luke 12:30.

“To salute.” Acts 18:22: “And when he had … gone up, and saluted the church”: i.e., and had held familiar intercourse with them. Compare 20:1. See also 21:7, 19; 25:13. This is shown from the opposite; 2 Kings 4:29: “Salute him not”: i.e., do not stop to talk with him. So Luke 10:4.

“To touch” for to hurt or to do any harm to. Gen. 26:29. Ruth 2:9. Job 1:11; 2:5; 19:21. Ps. 105:15. Jer. 12:14. Ezek. 17:10. Zech. 2:8. Heb. 11:28. 1 John 5:18.

Also, “to touch” is used for cohabitation. Gen. 20:6. Prov. 6:29. 1 Cor. 7:1.

Also, for detention, or for diverting from any purpose. John 20:17.

“To come”: where the simple verb is used for all that pertains to Christ’s advent. Matt. 11:3. 1 John 4:2, 3; 5:6.

“To see another” is used for making war with him, or of meeting him in battle. 2 Kings 14:8, 11; 23:29, etc.

“To build” is used for restore anything to all its former glory. Ezek. 26:14.

“To walk” is used for proceeding happily and prosperously. Hos. 14:9.

“To hear” is used of understanding and obeying. John 8:47. Luke 8:15.

“To confess” is used of abiding in the faith, and walking according to truth. 1 John 4:15. Rom. 10:9, 10. So also Matt. 10:32.

“Able to say” is used of being able really and truly to affirm from the heart. Prov. 20:9.

I Cor. 12:3.—“No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Any one can utter the words; but no one can truly, with the whole heart, own Jesus as his Lord, and take Him for his Master, but by the Holy Ghost.

“To eat and drink” is a Hebraism used not merely for chewing food or swallowing any liquid, but for good living and drinking wine; Matt. 11:18, 19 with Luke 7:33, 34 and Prov. 31:4.

And so on…

(Bullinger, E. W. (1898). Figures of speech used in the Bible (Page 826). London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co.)

Lots to read. I will do so tonight at home with my Bible. Is that book you cited still in print?

God withheld the understanding of the Gospel from heart-hardened Jews (cf Is 6:8-13
< Jn 12:38-43; Mt 13:10ff).

But the Apostles took it the same way. they just did not leave. Why did he not explain it to them, either?

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

So we have the Catholic and Orthodox Churches saying that Jesus ment it a certain way, both claiming to have learned from the Apostles this view, and some non-Catholics seeing it another way, also claiming to know what the author intended to mean.

I don’t think the apostles taught that extensively on the Eucharist, otherwise, we’d have clear and widespread agreement on what they taught; instead, we see different men positing different and differing ideas as to just what took place on that night regarding the bread and wine.

ralphinal:

But the Apostles took it the same way. they just did not leave. Why did he not explain it to them, either?

I think you’re assuming a lot here, Ralph. I think those that left understood Him literally, and that they were wrong in that.

Peter certainly understood that it’s Jesus words—in the sense of His teachings—that held to key to eternal life (6:68).

ralphinal:

Is that book you cited still in print?

Christianbook.com

 

[Peter_J]

The in persona Christi does not mean that a priest has the perfection of Christ, and you know that.

Ohhhh. Thank you, I read Sandusky’s statement (“I realize that for you, O’Brien is “another Christ,” however, I think you’re taking that a bit too far.”) and was wondering what the “heck” he was talking about.

Jesus also said, : “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

That’s very "harsh" language, and according your "harsh language hermeneutic," Ralph, it should be taken literally. How many of you have done that? Those who have done so, please, raise your right stump.

No, I don’t think very many people have taken that verse literally. Origen is the only one who comes to mind.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, I was baptised and raised and confirmed an episcopalian. As i grew into a teenager, I did not attend the church because it was all pomp and circumstance during the services and no substanted christian education. Of course, I took the eucharist then. Then I attended a small small baptist church ( one small biulding) in northfield vermont and heard weekend preaching from an ordained minister for a number of months. It was then I got a literal baptism in spirit and discernment about what christ meant, who he was, his journey, the definition of salvation, etc. I was bapties again becuase the bible says born of the water and the spirit…We all may disagree, but whether it is water first and spirit second - it still takes spirit and/or water

Nothing was ever said ever against any faith - these folks are focusing edcuating and saving by grace through their preaching, I never knew of the real presence in the eucharsist. Why? looking at it in context, these denominations are not focusing on the sacred traditions, but the sacred scriptures and their message.

I think they should. Once the gospel is preached the traditions are very important. But realistically, the protestants have not taught that - they (should) focus on the message of our saviour. Sacred traditions are not emphasized like the catholic church does. I guess this split is the reason.

But to all christians - are catholics saved according to their faith anf traditions - yes - are all protestants? I am not sure - the episcopal church has swung way left. The message of christ never changes and should not be re-interpreted.

Also, because non-catholic denominations do not emphasize this or believe in a different (but plausible ) interpretation of the sacraments, your church should seek to educate as well. We should not be viewed as apostates or heretics in accordance with church traditions because our view of eucharist is different,

Listen to charles stanley and billy graham and some other tv preachers. I watch ewtn all the time. Fr Corapis messages is extremely strong and inspirational.

I am actually in a RCIA. I am also sweeping the horizon and examining the methodist, lutheran, presbyterian, and episcopal websites for their view on the eurcharist and baptism before I make a decision. I have three children from a former wife wwho were dedicated and blessed as baptists - now they are older and can make their own decisions. I encourage them to seek a faith and receive adult baptism. Currently, i am married again to a secular Muslim who is very affectionate for jesus and mary. I found that your catechism accepts the muslim faith i guess and recognizes that their lobe for jesus and his teachings and mary may eventually lead them to Christ. I have a new born who will be baptised in a church of my choosing and it may be yours.

I do not know why there is all this misunderstanding and resent among the different faiths. The devil will exploit this in the end - look at Northern Ireland.

Thanks for your acknowledgment. Christ is risen!

Thanks for that. (It’s a lot more than I actually asked for – not that there’s anything wrong with that. )

With regard to ecumenism, I guess I’m a moderate (not euphorically optimistic, but not glumily pessimistic either ) but I appreciate hearing your point of view.

P.S. I notice you brought up the camel and eye-of-needle passage at 2:23 (EST). I wonder how long it will be till someone says "Well you know, when he said ‘the eye of a needle’ what Jesus really meant was … "

 

[brownjt]

“Many are called, few are chosen” is one of my favorite Scripture verses - I just don’t remember where it’s located in Scripture.

 

[brownjt]

Many are called, few are chosen. The path is narrow.
Are you sure it is not called “luke warm”?

Let’s not cherry-pick scripture. The path is narrow - you are right - let us not be sanctimonious regarding our righteousness…we all fall short and none are worthy - we need to have that attitude right before our soul departs, instead of “look at me coach (JC), i m ready to play”. Jesus recognizes the humilty in the heart, instead of religious self entitlement. While we argue over which shade of grey is better for our sunglasses and which one our Lord will like, we have become blind to the spiritual needs of the unsaved. Evangelicals are picking up the pieces and converting millions to “bathed blood of Jesus”…

 

[benedictus2]

To that I would just add: brownjt, would you attend an RCIA class, or encourage other Protestants to do so? If not, then I’d say you’re using a none-too-subtle double standard.

Excellent point!

 

[benedictus2]

Here we go with the often overlooked word use issue.

This website has a good passage about it, and it is very relevent

And about the word used

In other words, Jesus is either saying that we must slander him and degrade him (idiom usage) or he is saying that we must gnaw on his flesh (ever eaten unleavened bread?).

Let me put this passage in here

He used two different verbs for “eat” He used phago at first, then went to the harsher trogo

Excellent! I was going to write this myself (from Keating’s Fundamentatlism and Catholicism). Except the last bit about the gradation from phago to trogo. Great research!

 

[benedictus2]

I started this thread and I haven’t exited. Sure I’m not on CA 24/7. I don’t have a computer at home and I work 3 jobs and am a single mom - so there’s not a lot of time for me to post, but I do and I have. Please do not accuse me of being a devil - that is very offensive to say the least!

Hi Marina,

My post so totally DID NOT MEAN YOU. The post was in answer to I think Gamera’s post of how some threads take on a different course. It was just an aside from me because there is another thread started by someone called BibleAlone, a new member, who after opening the thread never surfaced again. And I think there was something mischievous in that.

Another one, vichlopet did the same thing except that she at least made a few post for a day I think. So you post them a question and they never answered back.

You have engaged everyone’s comments which I think is great and to a certain degree if you go by strict definition I might even agree with your OP. However, I do believe that the others are truly Christian. They just do not have the fullness of faith.

 

[benedictus2]

The dismissal of O’Brien’s argument is easy: it is not O’Brien as the reader who determines the context of the passage, but the apostle John, who wrote the passage in its context, and it’s not O’Brien, as the reader who defines the meaning of the words in the passage, but the Lord Himself, and He defines coming and believing as eating and drinking.

I realize that for you, O’Brien is “another Christ,” however, I think you’re taking that a bit too far.

Circular reasoning. We are trying to determine here who has the correct interpretation. What we are trying to determine here is exactly what the Apostle John meant. And the LORD HAS NOT DEFINED COMING AND BELIEVING AS EATING AND DRINKING.

If you can cite scholarly work that “coming and believing” is a a Hebrew idiom for "eating and drinking’ your point might even be considered.

Just by throwing Hebraisms does not get you out of the burden of proof. What specific Hebraism is there that specifically says this?

 

[benedictus2]

]

"The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense"

The dismissal of O’Brien’s argument is easy: it is not O’Brien as the reader who determines the context of the passage, but the apostle John, who wrote the passage in its context, and it’s not O’Brien, as the reader who defines the meaning of the words in the passage, but the Lord Himself, and He defines coming and believing as eating and drinking.***. ***

If you will actually bother to read Ralphinal’s citation of O’Brien’s work he is answering your contention that eating and drinking translates to coming and believing (which btw you cannot substantiate at all except by your own reasoning.)

So to re-iterate Ralphinals point: If Jesus had meant what he said figuratively (as you claim), what He would have in effect said was " He that revivles me has eternal life" because the figurative meaning among Jews (and Christ happened to be a Jew in case you I neede to remind you) of the phrase “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” is to inflict upon a person serious injury, expecially by calumny or by false accusation.

Does that sound like an intelligient interpretation of this passage to you?