Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

If you believed that His Eucharist is actually Himself, then you would see the connection that His body and blood both brought the Spirit and suffered loss which atoned for sin against God.

I think the Eucharist can do that, offer thanksgiving and praise for the Incarnation atoning on the cross, with just the elements of such remembrance as He chose. The “connection”, the remembrance is not lost to any of the several convictions on just how we eat the Lord.

The difference is that Protestants deny that the very substance of our gifts of bread and wine are changed in the eyes of God. Therefore it is not merely our memory of who Jesus is, but God’s remembrance of His Son applied at the Altar.

We are to remember, but God has participation here too!! His rememberance is called on by the words of consecration. By the Power of the Holy Spirit, Christ in the flesh, moves and dwells bodily in the form of bread and wine, so that our Communion is a real participation of the one Sacrifice offered at Calvary.

Dont get us wrong, we believe you do well to raise your hearts to God, bringing your minds to what Jesus did for us. Yet, if you are doing so through the hands of leaders who have been appointed apart from those leaders who have been appointed through an unbroken laying on of hands, then you are participating in a rejection of the unity which Jesus established in His Apostles.

Our pride will cause us to not want to submit to this communion with lawful leaders in the Church, and maybe because we see ugliness and faults in some of them. Yet, even the most holy and venerable leaders are not able to confect a lawful Eucharist on account of their holiness and devoutness! It is God who places men in positions of leadership, or allows them to be, for His own purpose. We are called to be humble.

 

[rcwitness]

It is one thing to say that the truth of Jesus’ Gospel belongs to any institutional church and quite another to say that any one church owns it like maybe they “own” John the Baptists front teeth. In my mind the Truth certainly belongs in any church who claims to be a Christian Church. There are indeed some who twist the Truth that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and put their institution in the place of a relationship with Jesus. If anyone is placing their hope and trust in their institutional church rather than in Jesus alone, they do not have the truth.

There is only one “institutional Church”. Jesus established one Church. The Apostles and their successors established churches all over which were not separate from this one Church. Hey just happened to be localized communities in different geographical areas.

But “churches” which are established on tenants which are fundamentally different than the Universal Church, cannot be rightly called thee Church, since they are in discord with the universal Church.

This is not to say that these separated communities are not united to the Church in some ways! Yet they are not united in the degree to lawfully be called the same Church as that which Jesus established. There is a significant difference.

An individual’s relationship with Jesus does not make them a bishop in communion with the whole Church! They may accept the foundational Gospel message, and Baptism, and publicly preach a message in harmony with the Universal Church, yet that can never give them the ability to be a Bishop who oversees and lawfully issues the Lord’s Supper in that community!

Only an ordained (appointed by Laying on Hands) Christian member can offer the Lord’s Supper to a community of believers. Though he may depart from his own personal relationship with Christ because of his own personal sins, it is not himself who confects transubstantiation, but the Holy Spirit working through those who had received ordination of Laying on Hands from a Bishop who also received Laying on Hands.

 

[rcwitness]

This thread is being a little stifled by matters like Sunday Mass obligation and OSAS.

The topic is the Sacrament of Communion. The Lord’s Supper is what we gather together for and under.

Many churches do not even celebrate their Communion meal each time they gather for service! This in itself should be a sign of something wrong. There is an attempt to put the Lord’s Supper to the side, and underneath other aspects of their meeting service!

Why dont they decide to not sing any music three Sundays of the month? Or pass around the offering basket once a month?

 

[guanophore]

You brought him up the way you did. You seem to know where in scripture, he found…OSAS. Where did he find it?

He thought he found the whole TULIP there, as do his modern adherents.

 

[goout]

The last thing I am able to say:
using scripture as a help to prove something is not the same thing as proof texting. Proof texting is citing the text out of context.
Catholicism is never out of context. The Eucharistic passages you cite from John are integrated with the whole of scripture, OT and NT. They are also integrated with the continuous teaching of the living magisterium going back to the Apostles. And with the whole of revelation which is summed up in the living Jesus Christ.
The assertion that literally “only a few will be saved” is not well integrated with the whole, in fact the reading of Luke is easily seen as a rebuke of the attempt to quantify the salvation of souls.
This is an even handed treatment of Luke 13. It rejects both the extremes of literalism and indifference.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-narrow-gate/5249/

Have a fruitful remaining weeks of Lent.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

It is one thing to say that the truth of Jesus’ Gospel belongs to any institutional church and quite another to say that any one church owns it like maybe they “own” John the Baptists front teeth.

There is a community that surrounded Jesus in the beginning. To this community Jesus gave the keys to His Kingdom and the promises required to stay a visible material reality in the world. It’s a house established on rock not sand nor mist. This community received eternal gifts because she is the bride of an eternal Person the Bridegroom. That characterizes how the Truth belongs to her. What must be believed for her not to be a material eternal reality on earth are denials of the written Word. Jesus made it very plain that His Church would be a recognizable visible people that could be pointed to and have said ‘there it is’.

. In my mind the Truth certainly belongs in any church who claims to be a Christian Church.

of course I agree. But that isn’t what we are discussing is it?

If anyone is placing their hope and trust in their institutional church rather than in Jesus alone, they do not have the truth.

Indeed that is the subtle difference between your thinking and the Church’s.
That is a mindset that is natural to someone separated from the Church that the Truth belongs to. In fact there is no such thing as a relationship with Christ alone. He chose to be conceived in a womb and born into a family. He gave Himself to a living breathing community. Our trust and hope have already been served and will continue to be served by the community that Jesus gave Himself to. It’s an illusion to think that a relationship with Jesus can happen apart from the community that Jesus belongs to. Without them no one would even know that Jesus is Our Savior.

Of course we need community…That is not the context in which I meant Christ alone. I think you know that.

I don’t know where it says that Jesus plainly said one would be able to point to a building and say “there it is.” His said His followers would be recognized by their love for one another. We are called to be his disciples. I don’t believe He gave the Church a name. He makes His dwelling in the hearts of men, not in buildings made by human hands.

 

[guanophore]

It is one thing to say that the truth of Jesus’ Gospel belongs to any institutional church and quite another to say that any one church owns it like maybe they “own” John the Baptists front teeth.

This is an interesting statement. St. Peter’s in the Vatican is built upon the bones of St. Peter. Does the CC “own” his bones?

I think "truth"is different in that there are ways to discover and enter into at least some truths of the Gospel while a person is outside the visible boundaries of the Church founded by Christ upon the person whose bones rest in that basilica. There is very clear evidence in the NT that the Apostles and their successors were considered the custodians of the One Faith. Those who departed from them were considered heretics.

When the once for all divine deposit of faith is changed to the point where it departs from the doctrines that were given into the Church’s custodianship, they constitute “a different gospel” that we are not able to support or encourage.

In my mind the Truth certainly belongs in any church who claims to be a Christian Church.

Of course! All who are disciples of Christ should belong to the Truth. But this does not always happen. I have recently read some very bizarre interpretations of Truth right here on CAF.

There are indeed some who twist the Truth that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and put their institution in the place of a relationship with Jesus. If anyone is placing their hope and trust in their institutional church rather than in Jesus alone, they do not have the truth.

But who decides how it is “twisted”? we will all agree that this happens, but where we don’t agree is where the standard is located.

Jesus was never alone. He founded a Church, and He trained His apostles to run that Church. He promised to lead that Church into “all Truth”. To place one’s hope and trust in Jesus is to become part of His One Body, the Church. He is one with her, He is her Head, and we are members. It is disingenuous to claim a relationship with Christ that does not include a relationship with His One Body.

 

[guanophore]

Don’t mean to butt in but aren’t these classic OSAS scriptures?

Don’t go there Benadam! He is lying in wait with volumes of cut and paste ready to derail the whole thread with “proofs”!

 

[guanophore]

Steve. Great defense! You are preaching to the choir though.

It appears that is immaterial. The goal is to get the content on as many threads in as many different contexts as possible so they will pop up on more google searches.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

It is one thing to say that the truth of Jesus’ Gospel belongs to any institutional church and quite another to say that any one church owns it like maybe they “own” John the Baptists front teeth.

This is an interesting statement. St. Peter’s in the Vatican is built upon the bones of St. Peter. Does the CC “own” his bones?

I think "truth"is different in that there are ways to discover and enter into at least some truths of the Gospel while a person is outside the visible boundaries of the Church founded by Christ upon the person whose bones rest in that basilica. There is very clear evidence in the NT that the Apostles and their successors were considered the custodians of the One Faith. Those who departed from them were considered heretics.

When the once for all divine deposit of faith is changed to the point where it departs from the doctrines that were given into the Church’s custodianship, they constitute “a different gospel” that we are not able to support or encourage.

In my mind the Truth certainly belongs in any church who claims to be a Christian Church.

Of course! All who are disciples of Christ should belong to the Truth. But this does not always happen. I have recently read some very bizarre interpretations of Truth right here on CAF.

There are indeed some who twist the Truth that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and put their institution in the place of a relationship with Jesus. If anyone is placing their hope and trust in their institutional church rather than in Jesus alone, they do not have the truth.

But who decides how it is “twisted”? we will all agree that this happens, but where we don’t agree is where the standard is located.

Jesus was never alone. He founded a Church, and He trained His apostles to run that Church. He promised to lead that Church into “all Truth”. To place one’s hope and trust in Jesus is to become part of His One Body, the Church. He is one with her, He is her Head, and we are members. It is disingenuous to claim a relationship with Christ that does not include a relationship with His One Body.

Jesus was often alone. Even Peter deserted Him.

I agree with what you say about the Church, I did not mean to advocate that we should not have a relationship with His One Body, which is comprised of all true believers. We are called to be His disciples.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus was often alone. Even Peter deserted Him.

Yes, and He went alone to pray, and there was a unique kind of isolation during his crucifixion. He also went alone into the desert before beginning HIs ministry. But once that ministry commenced, He surrounded Himself with Apostles and disicples. He spent Himself entirely within community, within intimate relationships with those He had chosen. He taught, modelled, explained demonstrated and commissioned them.

I did not mean to advocate that we should not have a relationship with His One Body, which is comprised of all true believers.

I was reminded of this post-Reformation redefinition of “Church” when the US redefined marriage so that it was no longer one man and one woman. For me, the definition did not change, just as for the Church founded by the Apostles, a modern innovated re-definition cannot change what Christ established.

He established a visible Church, build upon Himself and the human persons He grafted into His foundation. He appointed authority, and succession. The Church is comprised of Him as the Head, the Holy Spirit as the Soul, and all those who have gone on before us in the faith.

It is not comprised only of “all believers” that remain here on earth, and it is not some amorphous ameoba that cannot be identified or found. When He taught them to “take it to the Church”, he intended that the One Church He founded could be visibly located.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Jesus was often alone. Even Peter deserted Him.

Yes, and He went alone to pray, and there was a unique kind of isolation during his crucifixion. He also went alone into the desert before beginning HIs ministry. But once that ministry commenced, He surrounded Himself with Apostles and disicples. He spent Himself entirely within community, within intimate relationships with those He had chosen. He taught, modelled, explained demonstrated and commissioned them.

I did not mean to advocate that we should not have a relationship with His One Body, which is comprised of all true believers.

I was reminded of this post-Reformation redefinition of “Church” when the US redefined marriage so that it was no longer one man and one woman. For me, the definition did not change, just as for the Church founded by the Apostles, a modern innovated re-definition cannot change what Christ established.

He established a visible Church, build upon Himself and the human persons He grafted into His foundation. He appointed authority, and succession. The Church is comprised of Him as the Head, the Holy Spirit as the Soul, and all those who have gone on before us in the faith.

It is not comprised only of “all believers” that remain here on earth, and it is not some amorphous ameoba that cannot be identified or found. When He taught them to “take it to the Church”, he intended that the One Church He founded could be visibly located.

Agree, (mostly!) If He had explicitly stated “do not build buildings or edifices” do you think we would not be visible to the world if we lived His teaching?

 

[deMontfort]

Pretty sure I know who you’re talking about. Just report his posts as spam. That’s what he’s doing afterall: Spamming up threads with mountains of cut and paste posts.

 

[rcwitness]

It is not comprised only of “all believers” that remain here on earth, and it is not some amorphous ameoba that cannot be identified or found. When He taught them to “take it to the Church”, he intended that the One Church He founded could be visibly located.

Right. “Tell it to the Church” must mean a visible leadership.

And we can appeal all the way to Rome, just as St Paul appealed to Peter.

 

[Wannano]

guanophore:

It is not comprised only of “all believers” that remain here on earth, and it is not some amorphous ameoba that cannot be identified or found. When He taught them to “take it to the Church”, he intended that the One Church He founded could be visibly located.

Right. “Tell it to the Church” must mean a visible leadership.

And we can appeal all the way to Rome, just as St Paul appealed to Peter.

Good luck with that one!

 

[rcwitness]

How do you mean???

 

[mcq72]

IF the Lord no longer thought the symbol of the Lamb was relevant, I do not think we would see this in Revelation.

Don’t think I said Lamb is no longer relevant…said lamb (meat) is no longer relevant to sacrificial eating, but bread is, but in remembrance eating.

And like Manna, coming down from heaven, we give thanks, and offer back only that…thanks and praise…true eucharist…we do not offer back up the Manna, praying that it be acceptable to the Father

 

[goout]

guanophore:

IF the Lord no longer thought the symbol of the Lamb was relevant, I do not think we would see this in Revelation.

Don’t think I said Lamb is no longer relevant…said lamb (meat) is no longer relevant to sacrificial eating, but bread is, but in remembrance eating.

And like Manna, coming down from heaven, we give thanks, and offer back only that…thanks and praise…true eucharist…we do not offer back up the Manna, praying that it be acceptable to the Father

Since we have been talking about a whole-some context for Scripture, it is good to know what Jesus himself would have meant with His eucharistic language. Jesus lived and spoke as a first century Jew, so that is the context in which these words derive their meaning. The Jewish covenantal and sacrificial context is unavoidable.
Brant Pitre wrote a great book about this called “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist”.
Well worth the time if one is interested in gleaning meaning and language of the day.
One thing: “anamnesis” is not simply recalling.

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist - Dr. Brant Pitre

Dr. Brant Pitre uses the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish tradition to frame the actions of Jesus at the Last Supper, and to provide a fresh look at the heart of Catholic practice — the Eucharist.

www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org

talk on youtube:

This is first rate scholarship.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t know where it says that Jesus plainly said one would be able to point to a building and say “there it is.”

Jesus is God. God is an eternal reality. When God entered time and human history He was a material reality that people could point to and say 'there He is". It’s like God’s Word. God’s Truth. Why would God introduce Truth into the world if it were to ultimately corrupt? Why bother? God instituted the Eucharist. because His Body is a material reality. His Body is God. We are His Body. This all follows from the fact that Jesus is God. God is an eternal reality that has entered time and history. The bible expresses these things just not explicitly. If you ask me, when someone say’s 'where does it say that in the bible?" The depth of the bible is ignored and God is insulted…

 

[Ruminsem]

No. I don’t believe it. Every person is called to unity in Christ. When He offers Himself and the offering is refused, this is putting distance between the person and Christ. Everyone acts in ways that distance him from God. Thankfully, God is merciful and forgives us. It is so sad when anyone seeks that division.