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

[Mickey]

1 Cor 11 doesn’t teach the above.

Ah poor sandusky. You have spent so many hours and posts in an attempt to refute the clear teaching of the Real Presence. You will never succeed in your refutation because it cannot be refuted. Your refutauions are protestant innovations and false interpretaitons. It is clear in Scripture. It is clear in 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. It is clear by the writings of the Church Fathers including those who were disciples of the Apostles. It is crystal clear–yet you persist in your deception. Open your eyes sandusky–let your ears hear the truth. May the Lord have mercy on you for denying His Real Presence.

 

[TBolt1000T]

I have to strongly disagree. If someone believes in the Trinity, believes that Jesus suffered and died for their salvation and will receive it thru His mercy then they are Christian. Because their sincere belief is not exactly the same as ours does not make them a non-Christian. It makes them a Christian “without the fullness of the faith”. I would just venture a guess here that even the Pope would give you an argument on this one.

I agree. From what I understand, the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They are Christians, but they’re not in full communion with us. Just because they’re not in full communion with us, that doesn’t mean that they’re not Christians. In fact, this is why the Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptisms, as long as they’re done with the Trinitarian formula.

 

[sandusky]

Gabriel of 12:

Never mind what Ralphinal or myself tell you listen to Jesus from John 6:54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

Then non-Catholics don’t have eternal life, and they can’t.
Gabriel of 12:

The Eucharist speech from Paul about the body and blood of Jesus begins in Verse 23, What are you doing in verse 17?

Because it’s part of the context of the passage, and it explains what is meant by “not discerning the body.”
Gabriel of 12:

Paul disitinctly Explains the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in bread and cup of blessing, which is the third cup of wine drink from the last supper.

Paul doesn’t explain anything, he simply reiterates what Christ said at the supper.
Gabriel of 12:

Stick to the context of Paul is describing from verse 23 on… to the curse. Why would Paul place a curse of body of believers for speaking about a body of believers ?

I am sticking to the context, it’s you who’s not.

What are you talking about ”Paul placing a curse??? Paul doesn’t curse anyone.
Gabriel of 12:

We are focusing on what Paul is handing on in the Eucharist celebration, where only the cup of blessing is made other than the Jewish passover meal which Jesus fulfilled at the last supper and in his passion literally.

Paul isn’t “handing on” anything; he’s simply re-stating what the Lord said at the supper.
Gabriel of 12:

No of course not Peter is talking about in general how we are partakers of Jesus divinity. This is done through the sacraments, and the Eucharist is the blessed Sacrament, where we partake of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.

:doh2:
Gabriel of 12:

Do you believe you partake of Jesus divinity? if so, how?

By grace.
Gabriel of 12:

Here are the scriptures that speak figuratively about persecuting or assaulting someone using the “eat the flesh or to drink the blood” Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, 49:26, Micah 3:3, 2Samuel 23:15-17, Revelation 17:6, 16.

Those passages have nothing to do with John 6; the context of John 6, is John 6.
Gabriel of 12:

Believe me I assume nothing when it comes to my salvation. You asked for an apostle who taught this literal true body and blood presence in the Eucharist as Jesus did, Paul is one, I gave you Peter to indicate a stronger Traditional belief in Jesus Literal presence in the Catholic church, because we partake of his divinity also. The scriptures have provided your proof, not an assumption.

Paul doesn’t teach any such thing; neither does Peter.
Gabriel of 12:

Just as you appear to be doing walking away from this hard teaching. Maybe this will help you, “it is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail” John 6:63

:doh2:
Gabriel of 12:

Sorry as a Catholic were taught to love the Word of God not remember scripture passages.

LOL.

 

[sandusky]

Ah poor sandusky. You have spent so many hours and posts in an attempt to refute the clear teaching of the Real Presence. You will never succeed in your refutation because it cannot be refuted. Your refutauions are protestant innovations and false interpretaitons. It is clear in Scripture. It is clear in 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. It is clear by the writings of the Church Fathers including those who were disciples of the Apostles. It is crystal clear–yet you persist in your deception. Open your eyes sandusky–let your ears hear the truth. May the Lord have mercy on you for denying His Real Presence.

You can’t explain it from scripture, Mickey; that’s why you post in the manner in which you do—you can’t defend it.

 

[ralphinal]

This has been a strange thread.

I agree with Sandusky et al., that non-Catholics who do not accept the Real Presence are still Christians, assuming that they are properly baptized.

I disagree with him about why they do not accept the Real Presence.

And on both fronts, I am stating the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Mickey]

You can’t explain it from scripture, …you can’t defend it.

It has been defended and explained clearly–on this thread–on countless other threads—and over 2000 years. But the wisdom of sandusky continues his efforts to refute the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Lord have mercy on you.

Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.
**St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D. **

 

[sandusky]

It has been defended and explained clearly–on this thread–on countless other threads—and over 2000 years. But the wisdom of sandusky continues his efforts to refute the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Lord have mercy on you.

Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.
**St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D. **

Cyril is neither inspired, nor infallible; he’s Cyril.

 

[sandusky]

This has been a strange thread.

I agree with Sandusky et al., that non-Catholics who do not accept the Real Presence are still Christians, assuming that they are properly baptized.

ISTM that your church’s equivocation concerning one-time heretics, and now “separated brethren” creates quite a quandary for Catholics, and, it should.

 

[Mickey]

Cyril is neither inspire, nor infallible; he’s Cyril.

Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.
**St. Cyril Of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6] **

 

[sandusky]

Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.
**St. Cyril Of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6] **

Cyril is neither inspired, nor infallible, but stating an opinion.

 

[Mickey]

Cyril is neither inspired, nor infallible, but stating an opinion.

The Church Fathers drink from the spiritual well of Sacred Tradition as they reveal the interpretations of Holy Scripture for the Apostolic Church.

Now sandusky is an uninspired, non-infallible man–holding an opinion taught to him by the reformers–an opinion that was invented about 500 years ago.

I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.
St. Ignatius Of Antioch, “Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

 

[sandusky]

The Church Fathers drink from the spiritual well of Sacred Tradition as they reveal the interpretations of Holy Scripture for the Apostolic Church.

Now sandusky is an uninspired, non-infallible man–holding an opinion taught to him by the reformers–an opinion that was invented about 500 years ago.

I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.
St. Ignatius Of Antioch, “Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

The primary basis is tradition, and, secondarily, revelation.

 

[Peter_J]

ralphinal doesn’t agree that Jesus means “eternal life.” Do you disagree with ralphinal? I thought Catholics were united in what they believe? Which of you two Catholics am I to believe, believes the actual Catholic teaching?

Wrong question, because none of us here have any authority in saying what the Catholic position is (notwithstanding the fact that any of us might be helpful to you in your quest to learn what it is).

So if you insist on asking “Which of you am I to believe?” the only answer we can give is “Neither.” (To put it in perspective, whom should I believe concerning the Protestant position?)

 

[Peter_J]

ISTM that your church’s equivocation concerning one-time heretics, and now “separated brethren” creates quite a quandary for Catholics, and, it should.

The word I would use is confusion.

 

[Mickey]

The primary basis is tradition, and, secondarily, revelation.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition go hand and in hand. However, your odd traditions having their roots 500 years ago–are traditions of men–and have twisted the true interpretation of the most Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

It always saddens me to see someone denying the Truth of the Real Presence as set forth for us by the Word of God in the Sacred Scriptures.

The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!
St. Clement Of Alexandria, “The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.

 

[sandusky]

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition go hand and in hand. However, your odd traditions having their roots 500 years ago–are traditions of men–and have twisted the true interpretation of the most Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

It always saddens me to see someone denying the Truth of the Real Presence as set forth for us by the Word of God in the Sacred Scriptures.

The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!
St. Clement Of Alexandria, “The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.

You said it was from the “deep well of tradition,” and “an interpretation of scripture.” There interpretation may be old, but the age of their interpretation doesn’t determine its superiority.

 

[sandusky]

Wrong question, because none of us here have any authority in saying what the Catholic position is (notwithstanding the fact that any of us might be helpful to you in your quest to learn what it is).

So if you insist on asking “Which of you am I to believe?” the only answer we can give is “Neither.” (To put it in perspective, whom should I believe concerning the Protestant position?)

That’s why I posed my question in the way that I did.

 

[sandusky]

The word I would use is confusion.

That’s a good word for it.

 

[Mickey]

You said it was from the “deep well of tradition,” and “an interpretation of scripture.”

The deepest wells have the clearest water-- and the Church Fathers are part of the well of Sacred Tradition.

Your reformed well is shallow and false and leads many people into deception.

The angel who is always near us is by nothing so distressed and made indignant as when, without being constrained by some necessity, we deprive ourselves of the ministration of the Holy Mysteries and of reception of Holy Communion, which grants remission of sins. For at that hour the priest offers up the sacrifice of the Body of Him Who gives us life, and the Holy Spirit descends and consecrates the Body and Blood and grants remission to creation. The Cherubim, the Seraphim, and the angels stand with great awe, fear, and joy. They rejoice over the Holy Mysteries while experiencing inexpressible astonishment. The angel who is always by us is consoled, because he also partakes in that dread spectacle and is not deprived of that perfect intercourse.
St. Isaac the Syrian

 

[ralphinal]

ISTM that your church’s equivocation concerning one-time heretics, and now “separated brethren” creates quite a quandary for Catholics, and, it should.

Not really. And I am not saying that Jesus did not say “eternal life” as you said in another post. What I am saying is that those who are baptised are Christian, whether anyone on here wants to admit it or not. The John 6 discorse never once says that you must eat to enter heaven. It says to have eternal life WITHIIN you. IN other words, to partake of heaven on earth.

Jesus said that to be saved, we must be born again of water and the Spirit, which means be baptised and beleive. The Eucharist is not required, but it is highly recommended. The Church teaches that you MUST receive at least once a year.

To be a heretic, you must know the truth and prefer the lie. Most Protestants prefer the lie but do not know the Truth.