Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Wannano]

Wannano:

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…

You never even touched on my comment. Don’t bother with judgements if you don’t understand what is being said.

 

[Benadam]

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.

We are one in that way. I thank God for that. Remember too that Jesus broke the Bread and said " This is My Body". One Body of Christ.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t know where it says that Jesus plainly said one would7, topic:474711"]
You never even touched on my comment. Don’t bother with judgements if you don’t understand what is being said.

I think my post was all about your comment.

When God entered time and human history He was a material reality that people could point to and say 'there He is".

The bible expresses these things just not explicitly.

 

[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.”

 

[Wannano]

Is God still insulted?

 

[steve-b]

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

It was meant for the broad audience. Particularly anyone who might think those passages, actually taught OSAS

 

[Wannano]

rcwitness:

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!

Isn’t true that Cardinals in Rome are appealing to ROME with no luck?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

Since it is off topic, someone should start it as a new topic, that is if someone is interested

 

[guanophore]

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?

I do, in fact, since the religion was illegal for the fist 300 years, there were no “buildings”, and yet, everyone knew where to find the authentic Church. The early fathers wrote about this

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

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?

I do, in fact, since the religion was illegal for the fist 300 years, there were no “buildings”, and yet, everyone knew where to find the authentic Church. The early fathers wrote about this

We agree! I wonder if we also agree that the legitimazation of the Church was a negative thing for the Church herself? I say that admitting I hate the thought of persucution.

 

[LilyM]

Wannano:

rcwitness:

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!

Isn’t true that Cardinals in Rome are appealing to ROME with no luck?

Which is exactly what happened to those among the Apostles who wanted to keep to circumcision in Acts. They discussed, Peter said no. His decision was conveyed to every Christian community and became the practice. People probably grumbled. What else does it mean yo keep the keys? Of course the Pope can’t - and shouldn’t -merely try to keep everyone happy. Jesus didn’t.

 

[mcq72]

One thing: “anamnesis” is not simply recalling.

neither are the several other views of remembrance

 

[mcq72]

The Jewish covenantal and sacrificial context is unavoidable.

Agree, yet plain hebrew/ greek can also have possible linguistic meaning. Not sure Jews allow or have anything to cover “human” sacrifice in any ritual, nor would they be familiar with any unbloody sacrifice …totally new covenant …sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise …so quite a different context

We do not need to go beyond the words of our Lord at the supper …Jewish , Greek(Aristotle) Hebrew understanding is nice but if scripture is problematic, other sources just reveal what one is seeking, perhaps. But certainly , the CC view is the most elaborately explained, even enticing, yet the symbolic is so simple yet perfectly missable , perhaps by intent.

 

[mcq72]

He came not to “end” the Law, but to fulfill it.

yes, but I said to end sacrifices ala OTstyle/covenant

 

[mcq72]

In this sacrifice, He is both High priest and Victim.

yes, and He gave us the words to remember by, He gave us the consecratoty words.

Why do you add what the High Priest did not say (but may very well have under old covenant) ?

I find it a bit unsettling to go back to the idea or the time that Jesus would pray that His sacrifice on the cross would be acceptable to the Father, as if He new not the outcome, until His Resurrection…quite a solemn apprehensive prayer…seeming contrary to the celebration , the exuberance of praise and thanksgiving of an already accepted offering for us, that the eucharist came to be known for from the beginning.

 

[LilyM]

guanophore:

In this sacrifice, He is both High priest and Victim.

yes, and He gave us the words to remember by, He gave us the consecratoty words.

Why do you add what the High Priest did not say (but may very well have under old covenant) ?

I find it a bit unsettling to go back to the idea or the time that Jesus would pray that His sacrifice on the cross would be acceptable to the Father, as if He new not the outcome, until His Resurrection…quite a solemn apprehensive prayer…seeming contrary to the celebration , the exuberance of praise and thanksgiving of an already accepted offering for us, that the eucharist came to be known for from the beginning.

Did He not pray "if it is possible, take this cup away from me… "? His human nature was not necessarily omniscient.

However the actual prayer of the priest is that “my sacrifice and yours” be acceptable. We offer ourselves along with Christ - it is that which may or may not be acceptable.

 

[mcq72]

When we practice anamnesis, we become present to these Truths, just as the Jews became present at the Exodus when they participated in the anamnesis of the Passover.

the several manners of communion all make present the Last Supper and Calvary and in light of the Resurrection and His coming again (which He also said at the Supper). Again, the present moment of the Last Supper, you do not find the added words that prays for acceptability before the Father, nor words to pray for changing of elements.

 

[mcq72]

However the actual prayer of the priest is that “my sacrifice and yours” be acceptable. We offer ourselves along with Christ - it is that which may or may not be acceptable.

I understood the priest acts in the place of the Lord, hence the Lord saying those words (again fine, for OT, but not new covenant)

However the actual prayer of the priest is that “my sacrifice and yours” be acceptable.

perhaps, but the liturgy prayer says the sacrifice that is in the preists hands , meaning the elements , meaning Christ.

And how could we say or even think that Christ’s offering may or may not be acceptable ? We bring the past to present, but doesn’t sound like we should not also remember the outcome that Christ even states at the Last Supper…of His return (because of inevitable acceptability of Calvary thru and by the Resurrection)!

but thank you for responding Lily

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

However the actual prayer of the priest is that “my sacrifice and yours” be acceptable. We offer ourselves along with Christ - it is that which may or may not be acceptable.

I understood the priest acts in the place of the Lord, hence the Lord saying those words (again fine, for OT, but not new covenant)

However the actual prayer of the priest is that “my sacrifice and yours” be acceptable.

perhaps, but the liturgy prayer says the sacrifice that is in the preists hands , meaning the elements , meaning Christ.

And how could we say or even think that Christ’s offering may or may not be acceptable ? We bring the past to present, but doesn’t sound like we should not also remember the outcome that Christ even states at the Last Supper…of His return (because of inevitable acceptability of Calvary thru and by the Resurrection)!

Yours is an oversimplistic understanding. We offer Christ - and we offer ourselves along with Him. The priest offers - and yet in a sense we are all part of the priesthood doing the offering. For that matter we are all part of the Body of Christ being offered.

Not that laymen are either ordained or standing in persona Christi as the priest does, so not all as equals.

“Through Him, and with Him and in Him”. All complex, multilayered and mulridimensional

 

[guanophore]

Good luck with that one!

It sounds as though you dont’ really believe that it is possible for one to “take it to the Church”.