Do Catholics worship the Eucharist?

[dcana]

I certainly do apologize to anyone who was offended by my post. I oftentimes do sound strident and belligerent. For this I’m sorry. However, I also do not like beating around the bush and believe in speaking in no uncertain terms. Tell me, who else has spoken about the non-validity of Anglican, Lutheran, and Episcopalian orders? How many Catholics know of this fact? As a side note, I just found out a week ago that my (non-practicing) cradle Catholic cousin is going to join the Episcopalian church and have here baby baptized there. I have yet to talk to her but what do you bet she says that it’s just like the Catholic Church without all the rules or other such hogwash? No, it’s not. I could point out to her the Church’s stand that their orders are not valid and she’ll tell me that “she” doesn’t believe that. Consequently, do we, as Catholics, believe that these communions’ eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ or just bread and wine? It’s either one or the other. A thing cannot be two things at the same time. I may not know much in the way of philosophy but I know at least that much. I know the truth hurts, and very much. Of course to hear that a group believes in the non-validity of your priests and that your sacraments are thereby invalid is going to hurt and seem offensive, no matter in what terms it’s presented. It pains me greatly that these groups have never received Jesus in the Eucharist. Do others not feel so? If they were to rejoin the Lord’s Church and have their ministers validly ordained, like, praise God, some Anglicans are doing, then they would finally receive the One who they only believe they are receiving today. Wouldn’t that be a cause for celebration! Not to point out this truth only does them a disservice. Certainly, there are many who can do it more charitably than I. Isn’t it the truth that sets us free? If so, then the lack of truth keeps us in bondage. Certainly, these groups do receive grace through their sacraments, because they receive them in faith and the Lord in His Mercy does not withhold His grace from them. They can only receive grace if Jesus is truly there. However, He is not there in the way that HE intended to be. However, those who receive this “imperfect” eucharist do not receive what we Catholics receive, unfortunately. I regret that anybody could compare me to Jack Chick. Jack Chick tells lies. That’s his hallmark. What did I say that was untruthful? And yes, I did mean that the Eucharist is symbolic bread. It is indeed a symbol, and the most powerful and meaningful symbol I know of. Why does Paul say, “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup?” Why do we say at Mass, “when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus until you come in glory?” Because we are referring to the symbol. The symbol is bread and wine. The reality is Christ. I think, JonNC, you were confusing my words with those who believe that *Christ’s Real Presence *in the Eucharist is only symbolic. Quite the opposite.

 

[dcana]

The more I think about it the more I think that those who responded to my post are right. If you can’t speak the Truth in LOVE then, at best, you are wasting everyone’s time, so I am hereby banning myself from this forum.

 

[prodigal-sun]

There is scripture forbidding the worship of man-made ogjects, graven images.

I find it interesting that using GOD’s Word as our final authority in matters dealing with how to be closer to GOD, our salvation as heretical.

blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=22&v=1&t=KJV#conc/19
in remembrance g364 ἀνάμνησις anamnēsis

Shows the use of the word remembrance in other Bible verses, nothing about worship:
blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=remembrance&t=KJV

I have been asking for some time about the Sacred Traditions. Is worshipping the Eucharist a tradition that must be followed for one’s salvation?

Not talking about whether there is real presence or not-that is a given.

Can you show me how the Apostles worshipped the Eucharist and the chain of passing that tradition down - beginning with Peter?

The focus of our worship is Jesus during our entire service, including during the Lord’s Supper, but His worship remains outside the Eucharist…

Does your entire service focus on Jesus and is then shifted from Jesus to the Eucharist?

You sure are having a hard time with this concept aren’t ya… Are you saying if Jesus Christ was not present in fromnt of you that you would not worship him because the bible doesn’t talk about this event happening.

We Worship Jesus as God, The Eucharist is Jesus, We worship the Eucharist.

There is plenty of ECF that have written on the Eucharist. There is also plenty in scripture. Have fun trying to discount it as I know you will, But believe me it is clearly what is missing in your understanding of CHristianity. Christ is calling you, Open your heart and mind to understand what he teaches through his church.

Peace!

 

[spn82756]

I came across the following:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=706

“We must worship the Eucharist. In worshipping the Eucharist, we are not worshipping a piece of bread or a cup of wine. In worshipping the Eucharist we are not sinning; we are not committing idolatry. Idolatry is when you worship something or someone who is not God. The Eucharist is God. On the contrary, it is, as St. Augustine proclaimed, a sin not to adore. Receiving Communion presupposes a disposition of adoration and worship”.

What exactly is the Catholic News Agency?

How many of Catholics believe this is OK?

It’s what I believe. Eucharist truly is Christ present in the accidental appearance of bread and wine.

 

[Monica4316]

I came across the following:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=706

“We must worship the Eucharist. In worshipping the Eucharist, we are not worshipping a piece of bread or a cup of wine. In worshipping the Eucharist we are not sinning; we are not committing idolatry. Idolatry is when you worship something or someone who is not God. The Eucharist is God. On the contrary, it is, as St. Augustine proclaimed, a sin not to adore. Receiving Communion presupposes a disposition of adoration and worship”.

What exactly is the Catholic News Agency?

How many of Catholics believe this is OK?

It’s OK and it’s right… the Eucharist IS Jesus so if we worship the Eucharist, we are worshipping Him.

We do worship the Eucharist, because it is Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Wouldn’t you worship Christ if He was physically present before you?

idolatry is when we worship something other than God… the Eucharist is God. the article is right…

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

I have been invited to communion before at a Catholic Church. The Priest said all that believe this is the Body and Blood of Christ are invited to join in.

hmm… this is not Catholic teaching! only Catholics are allowed to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church because first we need to go to Confession… we can’t receive the Eucharist with mortal sin. Protestants don’t generally go to Confession. Also, receiving Communion shows a unity that is not present between Catholics and Protestants… maybe one day there will be unity

I guess I am shocked too because of the way GOD feels about idols - seems like a very fine line here. LOL! But what do I know I a just a simple Bible believing Christian.

I think it’s pretty simple… the Eucharist = Christ
so we can worship Him

God bless

 

[spn82756]

I have been invited to communion before at a Catholic Church. The Priest said all that believe this is the Body and Blood of Christ are invited to join in.

Well I do believe in the presence but it involves also consuming the bread and wine. In my church while treated with respect the left over bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ.

AND that we are doing so in remembrance- not worshipping the sacrament.

I guess I am shocked too because of the way GOD feels about idols - seems like a very fine line here. LOL! But what do I know I a just a simple Bible believing Christian.

Then you know that when Jesus told the group of followers that they must eat his body and drink his blood…He wasn’t kidding. When the crowd gumbled and walked away…Christ never called them back to say

Hey!..Wait a minute. I was being metaphorical. NOPE…He just let them walk away.

 

[JonNC]

=dcana;6460840]I certainly do apologize to anyone who was offended by my post.

Apology accepted.

However, I also do not like beating around the bush and believe in speaking in no uncertain terms. Tell me, who else has spoken about the non-validity of Anglican, Lutheran, and Episcopalian orders? How many Catholics know of this fact?

It is spoken about here all the times. You have less than 100 posts, so you may not be aware of the fact.
I mentioned in my post to you that I am aware of the CC’s position. I am not offended that you would repeat it. I expext you to as a Catholic. In a charitable dialogue, I will repsond that I respectfully disagree with the Catholic Church’s position, and point out two things: 1) the growing convergence between our communions on a number of fronts, including statements from the USCCB regarding their respect for our clergy, and 2) that I suspect that the particular question of Apostolic Succession would not be a barrier for unity.

Of course to hear that a group believes in the non-validity of your priests and that your sacraments are thereby invalid is going to hurt and seem offensive, no matter in what terms it’s presented. It pains me greatly that these groups have never received Jesus in the Eucharist. Do others not feel so? If they were to rejoin the Lord’s Church and have their ministers validly ordained, like, praise God, some Anglicans are doing, then they would finally receive the One who they only believe they are receiving today. Wouldn’t that be a cause for celebration! Not to point out this truth only does them a disservice.

Nothing that you’ve said here offends me. Disagreeing and being offended are different things.

Certainly, these groups do receive grace through their sacraments, because they receive them in faith and the Lord in His Mercy does not withhold His grace from them. They can only receive grace if Jesus is truly there. However, He is not there in the way that HE intended to be. However, those who receive this “imperfect” eucharist do not receive what we Catholics receive, unfortunately.

Againb, not offended. You have stated your position fairly and accurately.

I regret that anybody could compare me to Jack Chick. Jack Chick tells lies. That’s his hallmark.

You are the one who chose to describe using his words. I feel that was unfortunate. Clearly, by your post here, that is not the kind of person you are. I will assume it was a poor choice of words. We all do that here, at some point.

And yes, I did mean that the Eucharist is symbolic bread. It is indeed a symbol, and the most powerful and meaningful symbol I know of. Why does Paul say, “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup?” Why do we say at Mass, “when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus until you come in glory?” Because we are referring to the symbol. The symbol is bread and wine. The reality is Christ. I think, JonNC, you were confusing my words with those who believe that *Christ’s Real Presence *in the Eucharist is only symbolic. Quite the opposite

Gotcha. You and I agree on His presence. Perhaps we will agree on more things in the future.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The more I think about it the more I think that those who responded to my post are right. If you can’t speak the Truth in LOVE then, at best, you are wasting everyone’s time, so I am hereby banning myself from this forum.

That would be unfortunate. We all grow in love and charity, by hearing and listening to each other.

Jon

 

[spn82756]

Apology accepted.

It is spoken about here all the times. You have less than 100 posts, so you may not be aware of the fact.
I mentioned in my post to you that I am aware of the CC’s position. I am not offended that you would repeat it. I expext you to as a Catholic. In a charitable dialogue, I will repsond that I respectfully disagree with the Catholic Church’s position, and point out two things: 1) the growing convergence between our communions on a number of fronts, including statements from the USCCB regarding their respect for our clergy, and 2) that I suspect that the particular question of Apostolic Succession would not be a barrier for unity. jon

And let’s praise God and be thankful for anything that the HS uses to guide us toward unity.

God bless you my brother in Christ
Steve

 

[GKC]

I missed this one. As JonNC said, there have been lots of posts around here, over the years, on, particularly, Anglican orders. Most of them involving me; I’ve been around a long time. And Apostolicae Curae, its sad history, the personalities and politics and theology involved in it; Monsgr. Raphael Merry del Val word’s over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, has been a hobby of mine for much longer than I’ve been around here, even. Ten years plus. Trust me. The topic gets discussed regularly. Especially by me, whenever it comes up.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

I certainly do apologize to anyone who was offended by my post. I oftentimes do sound strident and belligerent. For this I’m sorry. However, I also do not like beating around the bush and believe in speaking in no uncertain terms. Tell me, who else has spoken about the non-validity of Anglican, Lutheran, and Episcopalian orders? How many Catholics know of this fact? As a side note, I just found out a week ago that my (non-practicing) cradle Catholic cousin is going to join the Episcopalian church and have here baby baptized there. I have yet to talk to her but what do you bet she says that it’s just like the Catholic Church without all the rules or other such hogwash? No, it’s not. I could point out to her the Church’s stand that their orders are not valid and she’ll tell me that “she” doesn’t believe that. Consequently, do we, as Catholics, believe that these communions’ eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ or just bread and wine? It’s either one or the other. A thing cannot be two things at the same time. I may not know much in the way of philosophy but I know at least that much. I know the truth hurts, and very much. Of course to hear that a group believes in the non-validity of your priests and that your sacraments are thereby invalid is going to hurt and seem offensive, no matter in what terms it’s presented. It pains me greatly that these groups have never received Jesus in the Eucharist. Do others not feel so? If they were to rejoin the Lord’s Church and have their ministers validly ordained, like, praise God, some Anglicans are doing, then they would finally receive the One who they only believe they are receiving today. Wouldn’t that be a cause for celebration! Not to point out this truth only does them a disservice. Certainly, there are many who can do it more charitably than I. Isn’t it the truth that sets us free? If so, then the lack of truth keeps us in bondage. Certainly, these groups do receive grace through their sacraments, because they receive them in faith and the Lord in His Mercy does not withhold His grace from them. They can only receive grace if Jesus is truly there. However, He is not there in the way that HE intended to be. However, those who receive this “imperfect” eucharist do not receive what we Catholics receive, unfortunately. I regret that anybody could compare me to Jack Chick. Jack Chick tells lies. That’s his hallmark. What did I say that was untruthful? And yes, I did mean that the Eucharist is symbolic bread. It is indeed a symbol, and the most powerful and meaningful symbol I know of. Why does Paul say, “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup?” Why do we say at Mass, “when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus until you come in glory?” Because we are referring to the symbol. The symbol is bread and wine. The reality is Christ. I think, JonNC, you were confusing my words with those who believe that *Christ’s Real Presence *in the Eucharist is only symbolic. Quite the opposite.

 

[GKC]

Oh, dear. I missed him.

GKC

That would be unfortunate. We all grow in love and charity, by hearing and listening to each other.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You? nahhhhh

I missed this one. As JonNC said, there have been lots of posts around here, over the years, on, particularly, Anglican orders. Most of them involving me; I’ve been around a long time. And Apostolicae Curae, its sad history, the personalities and politics and theology involved in it; Monsgr. Raphael Merry del Val word’s over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, has been a hobby of mine for much longer than I’ve been around here, even. Ten years plus. Trust me. The topic gets discussed regularly. Especially by me, whenever it comes up.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[BernadetteM]

Looking on the website under Lutherans and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, I noticed that there are some Lutheran churches that do celebrate Benediction.

I assume from this that just as Anglicans also have some churches that do have Benediction the Lutherans also have it.

That is one point I love about being Catholic, the Church teaches and all Catholics are expected to be united in their beliefs. If they are just cafeteria Catholics, I don’t consider they are truely Catholic, or in name only.

Where as in Anglican and Lutheran churches the beliefs are very broad. Some Lutherans are very much like Catholics as are some Anglicans, others are very protestant in their beliefs. I guess it is great for people who want to pick and choose. Yes there are Catholics who pick and choose, but if what they choose goes against Church teachings they are not in good standing.

I do understand that there priests and Bishops within the Church that are committing abuses in the liturgy, but hopefully Pope Benedict can stop some of them. I noticed that many of the new seminarians are returning to a more orthodox and traditional way. Also the religious orders that are growing are the traditional ones, the modern ones are dying out.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Javl]

I missed this one. As JonNC said, there have been lots of posts around here, over the years, on, particularly, Anglican orders. Most of them involving me; I’ve been around a long time. And Apostolicae Curae, its sad history, the personalities and politics and theology involved in it; Monsgr. Raphael Merry del Val word’s over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, has been a hobby of mine for much longer than I’ve been around here, even. Ten years plus. Trust me. The topic gets discussed regularly. Especially by me, whenever it comes up.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

Hi GKC:

Just an FYI…I guess that you do know that the CC has acknowledged that there are Anglican priests who are validly ordained and do have licit Orders? Just thought I’d put this bit in.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[rinnie]

I came across the following:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=706

“We must worship the Eucharist. In worshipping the Eucharist, we are not worshipping a piece of bread or a cup of wine. In worshipping the Eucharist we are not sinning; we are not committing idolatry. Idolatry is when you worship something or someone who is not God. The Eucharist is God. On the contrary, it is, as St. Augustine proclaimed, a sin not to adore. Receiving Communion presupposes a disposition of adoration and worship”.

What exactly is the Catholic News Agency?

How many of Catholics believe this is OK?

Why would we not worship Jesus Christ. That is what makes the Catholic Church apart from all others. We have the Living Christ the Eucharist. Of course we worship Jesus Christ.

 

[GKC]

It is not a defined position, AFAIK. The point would likely be the co-consecration of Old Catholic and Anglican bishops, beginning in 1932, and ditto, with PNCC bishops, from 1946. This logically would result in valid but illicit (not licit) orders. And perhaps this is a factor in the only two known sub conditione ordinations of a former Episcopal priest or bishop (Frs. Hughes and Leonard) in recent days. But there is no definitive statement on the matter, and even if there was, each case would require individual consideration. It is a complicated subject.

GKC

Hi GKC:

Just an FYI…I guess that you do know that the CC has acknowledged that there are Anglican priests who are validly ordained and do have licit Orders? Just thought I’d put this bit in.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JonNC]

It is not a defined position, AFAIK. The point would likely be the co-consecration of Old Catholic and Anglican bishops, beginning in 1932, and ditto, with PNCC bishops, from 1946. This logically would result in valid but illicit (not licit) orders. And perhaps this is a factor in the only two known sub conditione ordinations of a former Episcopal priest or bishop (Frs. Hughes and Leonard) in recent days. But there is no definitive statement on the matter, and even if there was, each case would require individual consideration. It is a complicated subject.

GKC

GKC,
What is your take on the introduction of succession amongst ELCA pastors through the Episcopal Church?

Jon

 

[jlhargus]

I came across the following:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=706

“We must worship the Eucharist. In worshipping the Eucharist, we are not worshipping a piece of bread or a cup of wine. In worshipping the Eucharist we are not sinning; we are not committing idolatry. Idolatry is when you worship something or someone who is not God. The Eucharist is God. On the contrary, it is, as St. Augustine proclaimed, a sin not to adore. Receiving Communion presupposes a disposition of adoration and worship”.

What exactly is the Catholic News Agency?

How many of Catholics believe this is OK?

JL: No arguement, blessed be God for ever, in this your post is entirely correct, I do most certainly pray, worship and adore my Eucharistic Lord and God under the appearance of bread and wine. Just as the friends on the road to Emmaus recognized Christ in the breading of the bread, so I do also. Our Lord God took bread and said take and eat this is my body and the cup of wine he said this is my blood shed for you. Again in Jn 6 he said my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. I receive him as my spiritual food for my journey in this earthly wilderness on my pilgrimage to the heavenly promised land. The Israelites received the manna as their bodily food for their journey in the wilderness to sustain and strengthen their bodily life on the way to the earthly promised land.

Praying to a piece of bread would be useless and to worship a piece of bread would be idol worship. If Christ is not raised I am still in my sins, if Christ is not really present under the appearance of Bread, I am worse than still in my sins, but as it is Christ has risen indeed, and his body is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed, Jn 6:55. Again Jesus says, I am the **living bread **come down from heaven if any one eats this bread he will live forever THE BREAD I will GIVE for the life of the world IS MY FLESH, Jn 6:51. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him, Jn 56. The scriptures can’t get any more clear, as Catholics we have two thousand years of Tradition oral and written=Scripture explicitly teaching it and the Church the pillar and ground of truth confirming it.

 

[GKC]

Two things come to mind. One, you would have to track the lines carefully, to be sure that they are intact, from the co-consecrators’ original Dutch touch. That is widespread in Anglicanism, but not ubiquitous. And, in each case, not only the minister, but the form, and intent would have to be vetted. We assume the recipient is a baptized, confirmed, male Christian.

But I’m not sure what the result would be. It’s not just tactile succession.

GKC

GKC,
What is your take on the introduction of succession amongst ELCA pastors through the Episcopal Church?

Jon