Catholics Would u go to church w\o the real presence teaching Eucharist

[otjm]

And thank you for your :twocents: :tiphat:

I said the Catholic Church’s core is the Real Presence. You’re preaching to the choir. I am fully aware the there is more to the Church. But are those things the reason for the Church in the first place? I say no. You said it if the Eucharist never existed it would not be the end of the church. I say if the Eucharist never existed there would be no Church in the first place.

Pax †

Christ gave a command to the Apostles: Go out and spread the Good News! He did not say go out and celebrate the Eucharist.

and that is why the Church has had an ongoing message to you, to me, and to all Catholics; it is called the New Evangelization. Not the New Mass.

The Mass, and the Eucharist, is the summit of our faith. It sanctifies us, it feeds us, and it keeps us oriented. And that orientation is to spread the Good News.

Would we lose an intrinsic and critical part of our faith if Christ was not present in the Eucharist? Absolutely.

But that was not the question. The OP asked if we would still go to church if Christ were not present in the Eucharist.

“Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” would still be true if the host was not transubstantiated. God would still be God, and still deserving of our worship (as the Jews worshiped for centuries upon centuries).

So, yes, the reason for the Church is Christ’s commandment to go and preach the Good News.

 

[Della]

Christ gave a command to the Apostles: Go out and spread the Good News! He did not say go out and celebrate the Eucharist.

and that is why the Church has had an ongoing message to you, to me, and to all Catholics; it is called the New Evangelization. Not the New Mass.

The Mass, and the Eucharist, is the summit of our faith. It sanctifies us, it feeds us, and it keeps us oriented. And that orientation is to spread the Good News.

Would we lose an intrinsic and critical part of our faith if Christ was not present in the Eucharist? Absolutely.

But that was not the question. The OP asked if we would still go to church if Christ were not present in the Eucharist.

“Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” would still be true if the host was not transubstantiated. God would still be God, and still deserving of our worship (as the Jews worshiped for centuries upon centuries).

So, yes, the reason for the Church is Christ’s commandment to go and preach the Good News.

Well, it’s not that simple now is it? Jesus also commanded the Apostles to baptize, and he commanded them to “do this in remembrance of me,” so all these elements are important to fully do as Our Lord commanded.

 

[otjm]

REALLY? [honestly???]

What was the question I missed?

GBY

What you missed were the first two sentences of the OP:

Catholics are taught the “the real presence” communion Eucharist.

Would u go to church w/o this teaching?

The OP didn’t ask for a dissertation on the Eucharist, nor did the OP deny the Eucharist; they simply posited a hypothetical question.

You have gone off in a number of different directions, none of which answer the question. I do not suggest you have spoken any untruth; only that what you have said does not respond to the question.

Apparently Catholic Fireman would not go to church if the Eucharist was not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

I would: God is still God; we still have a duty to worship him; the Jews for centuries upon centuries “went to church okay, synagogue and temple” without any Eucharist.

The Eucharist is the “sum and summit of our faith”. But without the Eucharist, Jesus would still be Jesus; still the Son of God. and the mission of the Church would still be to preach the Good News. Christ still would have died for our salvation.

 

[otjm]

Well, it’s not that simple now is it? Jesus also commanded the Apostles to baptize, and he commanded them to “do this in remembrance of me,” so all these elements are important to fully do as Our Lord commanded.

Did I deny any of that? Maybe I missed what I said…

The OP asked a simple question. It does not take a dissertation on the Eucharist to answer. Baptism would not go away under the question. And the “do this in remembrance of me” refers specifically to the Eucharist, so we could chase rabbits down holes as to whether of not that had any meaning (it still could, but different from what we do now).

In short, if you want to look at the OP’s question differently: none of the Protestant churches have the Eucharist. They have a church service. So: whether or not they have a communion memorial (remembrance, only distantly related to anamnesis), they continue to “go to church” on Sunday.

And the OP asks Catholics: would we?

Would you? I would.

 

[Della]

Did I deny any of that? Maybe I missed what I said…

The OP asked a simple question. It does not take a dissertation on the Eucharist to answer. Baptism would not go away under the question. And the “do this in remembrance of me” refers specifically to the Eucharist, so we could chase rabbits down holes as to whether of not that had any meaning (it still could, but different from what we do now).

In short, if you want to look at the OP’s question differently: none of the Protestant churches have the Eucharist. They have a church service. So: whether or not they have a communion memorial (remembrance, only distantly related to anamnesis), they continue to “go to church” on Sunday.

And the OP asks Catholics: would we?

Would you? I would.

If saying a few prayers and singing a few hymns and listening to a sermon were all that the early Church did, then that would be our model, but it isn’t. And sure, if I could not get to Mass (which is more than described above), I’d still recite the appropriate Office along with others, if possible, but would I regularly attend what amounts to a Protestant service, when the Mass is available and is the better form of worship? No, I wouldn’t.

 

[otjm]

If saying a few prayers and singing a few hymns and listening to a sermon were all that the early Church did, then that would be our model, but it isn’t. And sure, if I could not get to Mass (which is more than described above), I’d still recite the appropriate Office along with others, if possible, but would I regularly attend what amounts to a Protestant service, when the Mass is available and is the better form of worship? No, I wouldn’t.

You still are missing the question.

It really is not that hard.

It is a hypothetical, so it does not deny what exists.

Let me try to rephrase the OP: if Christ never instituted the Eucharist - that is, if He never said “this is My Body…” but he simply had the Paschal meal, and then was crucified and rose again - then, would you still go to church?

The OP is asking, “if the Eucharist never happened”.

It really is not that difficult a question.

 

[eddie_too]

how about i paraphrase the OP’s question?

if abraham, isaac, jacob, moses and Jesus had never existed, would you still be a catholic?

a completely human created imaginary situation, just like the OP’s.

discussions may begin.

 

[CatholicFireman]

how about i paraphrase the OP’s question?

if abraham, isaac, jacob, moses and Jesus had never existed, would you still be a catholic?

a completely human created imaginary situation, just like the OP’s.

discussions may begin.

 

[otjm]

how about i paraphrase the OP’s question?

if abraham, isaac, jacob, moses and Jesus had never existed, would you still be a catholic?

a completely human created imaginary situation, just like the OP’s.

discussions may begin.

Okay, “f” in logic.

 

[Della]

You still are missing the question.

It really is not that hard.

It is a hypothetical, so it does not deny what exists.

Let me try to rephrase the OP: if Christ never instituted the Eucharist - that is, if He never said “this is My Body…” but he simply had the Paschal meal, and then was crucified and rose again - then, would you still go to church?

The OP is asking, “if the Eucharist never happened”.

It really is not that difficult a question.

Well, I went to churches that pretended none of the things that Jesus instituted he was serious about, and guess what? I got tired of doing the same things every Sunday and coming home knowing I’d gained no ground and got nothing more from any of it, so the answer still is and would always be: no. Okay?

The reason being, it’s only a pretense that Jesus never instituted the Eucharist, which means that the sacrifices of the OT meant nothing, Jesus death on the cross wasn’t a sacrifice, and therefore meant nothing, and therefore, we would have no sacrifice to offer in fulfillment of the sacrifice God demands for sins. Yes, it’s that complex and that important, so again, no, I wouldn’t go to that kind of service again and I don’t.

I’d only attend to share prayers if no Catholic Mass were available, but that’s all it’d be. It wouldn’t be full on worship with the sacrifice of the Mass. And I do understand the parameters of the OP’s question, I simply think it a poorly asked question. And since he hasn’t responded to anyone’s replies, what difference does it make anyway? And I’m not obligated to explain my responses, it’s of no further interest to me.

 

[otjm]

Well, I went to churches that pretended none of the things that Jesus instituted he was serious about, and guess what? I got tired of doing the same things every Sunday and coming home knowing I’d gained no ground and got nothing more from any of it, so the answer still is and would always be: no. Okay?

so, if hypothetically there was never an institution of the Eucharist, you would not go to church, correct?

The reason being, it’s only a pretense that Jesus never instituted the Eucharist, which means that the sacrifices of the OT meant nothing, Jesus death on the cross wasn’t a sacrifice, and therefore meant nothing, and therefore, we would have no sacrifice to offer in fulfillment of the sacrifice God demands for sins. Yes, it’s that complex and that important, so again, no, I wouldn’t go to that kind of service again and I don’t.

None of that is correct, as you obviously do not understand what a hypothetical question is. The OP said absolutely nothing whatsoever about Christ not dying on the cross. Nor anything about His death not being a sacrifice. Nor about the OT sacrifices meaning nothing. It is truly not complex at all. It is a very simple question.

I’d only attend to share prayers if no Catholic Mass were available, but that’s all it’d be. It wouldn’t be full on worship with the sacrifice of the Mass. And I do understand the parameters of the OP’s question, I simply think it a poorly asked question. And since he hasn’t responded to anyone’s replies, what difference does it make anyway? And I’m not obligated to explain my responses, it’s of no further interest to me.

Actually, it is a very well designed question that focuses on only one issue alone. You are bringing in extraneous matters which are not part of the question.

You explained your answers quite well; they were just not responsive to the question, as the question was exceedingly limited. Take care. I am not trying to pick a bone with you; I am just trying to get what has been a series of people’s rambles focused back on the OP’s question.

 

[PJM]

What you missed were the first two sentences of the OP:

The OP didn’t ask for a dissertation on the Eucharist, nor did the OP deny the Eucharist; they simply posited a hypothetical question.

THAT QUESTION IS:

Catholics are taught the “the real presence” communion Eucharist.

Would u go to church w/o this teaching?

I don’t Know because its ONLY a hypothetical question; so how can i provide an informed, OBJECTIVE ANSWER?

I’m here to share our Beautiful Catholic Faith, to the many posters here who do NOT know it, or perhaps know it partially or incorrectly.

Because this DOGMA is th very foundation of Catholicism, I took the opportunity to explain just WHY we do choose to believe it [or at least SHOULD do so].

From our Catholic Catechism

**1324 **The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

**1407 **The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.

You have gone off in a number of different directions, none of which answer the question. I do not suggest you have spoken any untruth; only that what you have said does not respond to the question.

Apparently Catholic Fireman would not go to church if the Eucharist was not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

I would: God is still God; we still have a duty to worship him; the Jews for centuries upon centuries “went to church [okay, synagogue and temple” without any Eucharist.

The Eucharist is the “sum and summit of our faith”. But without the Eucharist, Jesus would still be Jesus; still the Son of God. and the mission of the Church would still be to preach the Good News. Christ still would have died for our salvation.
[/QUOTE]

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[CatholicFireman]

Apparently Catholic Fireman would not go to church if the Eucharist was not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Helloooo. Remember what I said earlier? The would be no Church without the sacrifice of the mass. But since this question is silly (hypothetical or not) because He IS and always will be the True Presence (it’s what He was sent down for in the first place; to give of Himself to save us from sin. Remember what He said to Peter? “Get behind me satan!”) I shouldn’t have wasted my time posting anything. That being said, have fun discussing the “what if” of the never can and never will.

Peace

 

[otjm]

Helloooo. Remember what I said earlier? The would be no Church without the sacrifice of the mass. But since this question is silly (hypothetical or not) because He IS and always will be the True Presence (it’s what He was sent down for in the first place; to give of Himself to save us from sin. Remember what He said to Peter? “Get behind me satan!”) I shouldn’t have wasted my time posting anything. That being said, have fun discussing the “what if” of the never can and never will.

Peace

Okay, now it is 4 cents.

and peace to you, too. Stay safe fighting those fires.

 

[steve_b]

*I don’t think you “get it,” *my dear. These people have no more concept of “truth” than the average dog. They are immune to God’s grace because they are perfectly content or they have never had any opportunity to avail themselves of God’s grace. The latter are as culpable as someone living in the bush who has never heard of God. And thank God, their judgment, and ours, is not up to us–it’s up to God.

Re: one knowing the truth of the Eucharist,

*When the CCC says
*
1791 “ignorance can *often *be imputed to personal responsibility”.

Often also means frequent.

Meaning Ignorance is often / frequently NOT innocent. One has the responsibility to learn what they need to know. Therefore, ignorance isn’t always an escape for one who appeals to ignorance for an escape…

Then the CCC goes on to explain why that is

“This is the case ***when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.”

***Thus in such cases

this “Ignorance” is no excuse for such a person.

they are culpable, as in, guilty for what they do, such as , avoiding the Eucharist, or even to learning about it.

Re: immune to God’s grace

Who on this side of eternity is immune to God’s grace?

 

[steve_b]

You have a tremendous amount to learn about people. Ease of finding research in your case presumes an awareness of it. It also presumes that secularism is not the biggest problem influencing mankind, at least in western society.

see #145

in extension to that,

by 2020 it’s estimated that 7 billion smart phones will be in peoples hands. Meaning 7 billion people can look up anything at their fingertips.

Since God’s grace is involved with every single soul on the planet and since God desires all to be saved AND come to the knowledge of truth. 1 Timothy 2:4

Therefore in that passage from Paul, while God doesn’t force anyone to learn, or be saved, He gives the grace to everyone to want to learn. Whether they follow through is up to them. It doesn’t mean they are always going to be innocently ignorant if they don’t follow through with the grace given.

See #145

otjm:

Ultimately, the issue is God’s. But it is all too easy to sit in pseudo judgment of people, all the while protesting that we are not judging.

If a person is baptized, we have an obligation to teach them the truth if we see them on the wrong track. That takes judgement. And as Paul teaches 1 Corinthians 5:12

As for educating ALL people on the Church and the Eucharist, since God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, we need to evangelize everyone.

 

[otjm]

see #145

in extension to that,

by 2020 it’s estimated that 7 billion smart phones will be in peoples hands. Meaning 7 billion people can look up anything at their fingertips.

Since God’s grace is involved with every single soul on the planet and since God desires all to be saved AND come to the knowledge of truth. 1 Timothy 2:4

Therefore in that passage from Paul, while God doesn’t force anyone to learn, or be saved, He gives the grace to everyone to want to learn. Whether they follow through is up to them. It doesn’t mean they are always going to be innocently ignorant if they don’t follow through with the grace given.

See #145

If a person is baptized, we have an obligation to teach them the truth if we see them on the wrong track. That takes judgement. And as Paul teaches 1 Corinthians 5:12

As for educating ALL people on the Church and the Eucharist, since God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, we need to evangelize everyone.

None of which is responsive to the OP.

 

[eddie_too]

billions of people go to church or join in communnity and do not believe in the Real Presence or even celebrate the Lord’s Supper. for example, there are hindus, jews, sikhs, bahai, buddhists, muslims, etc., etc., etc.

millions of protestant christians celebrate the Lord’s Supper but do not believe in the Real Presence.

since there would be no Catholics without the Eucharist, being that Catholics are the primary if not sole community that believes in the Real Presence, it is strange that the OP would ask this question of Catholics knowing that the need to gather in community and worship a god is virtually innate in all human beings but any responses would be just as imaginary as the question.

i wonder what is the OP’s motive in formulating such a hypothetical. is it merely idle curiosity? is there some other motive that the OP wants to keep to him or her self? if so, why the secrecy? does the OP have too much time on his or her hands?

why did the OP formulate and publish the question? anyone know?

 

[steve_b]

None of which is responsive to the OP.

says you

 

[Jestersage]

If there are no Real Presence, I will go Orthodox.

But assuming what OP means is that: if the bread of life discourse was removed, and anything that is about the Eucharist has real presence, such that none of the Christianity have any concept of real presence, would I still be a Catholic?

Perhaps, because of the primacy of Peter, larger presence compare to Orthodox, and vernacular literature of its theology. Remove its theology, and I may start to lean toward Orthodox.

As to whether I would go with Baptist or Anglican: No. One of the reason I convert is due to history, theology, and moral stance, in which Baptist and Anglican just seems to see it’s one way or another.

Now, what would make me NOT go to church? Simple: 1 Cor 15:14:
“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain”