Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[LilyM]

Jesus told His followers to go and preach the Gospel. If you are a follower, you are commanded to preach the Gospel, not a denomination.

To preach the Gospel is to preach everything that Jesus taught. Now He definitely taught something about the Eucharist. And we are commanded to preach the same. Of course He did not at one and the same time preach multiple inconsistent views on Eucharist. So some Christians are preaching a false Gospel to the hurt of His body.

And He definitely taught something about a visible church with clearly defined authority structure. We see this in the way disputes were settled in Acts and the way Paul consulted with the Apostles before setting off on his mission.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

LilyM:

guanophore:

mcq72:

So , the transformation at the Table is no less simple to grasp. I doubt the apostles thought they were literally eating His flesh and blood that night, nor do they subsequently speak of it as such.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.

To assert that it does not really transform into His flesh and blood and that eating and drinking of such is not essential is to totally deny the meaning of John chapter 6. In John 6 Jesus quite emphatically literally asserted both points, and allowed many to walk away who could not accept what He was saying. Note that He then challenged the Apostles to walk away also - to them at least He would have explained had He been speaking other than literally.

Would you mind sharing where Jesus literally asserted Transubstantiation in John 6?

“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world…”

not “is my flesh but remains bread also” (consubstantiation) and not “is a mere symbol”.

Please clarify something for me. Is the transubstantiated Host the physical flesh Jesus took upon Himself through Mary?

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Wannano:

LilyM:

guanophore:

mcq72:

So , the transformation at the Table is no less simple to grasp. I doubt the apostles thought they were literally eating His flesh and blood that night, nor do they subsequently speak of it as such.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.

To assert that it does not really transform into His flesh and blood and that eating and drinking of such is not essential is to totally deny the meaning of John chapter 6. In John 6 Jesus quite emphatically literally asserted both points, and allowed many to walk away who could not accept what He was saying. Note that He then challenged the Apostles to walk away also - to them at least He would have explained had He been speaking other than literally.

Would you mind sharing where Jesus literally asserted Transubstantiation in John 6?

“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world…”

not “is my flesh but remains bread also” (consubstantiation) and not “is a mere symbol”.

Please clarify something for me. Is the transubstantiated Host the physical flesh Jesus took upon Himself through Mary?

It doesn’t have the physical attributes of His human flesh and blood, but yes, in every way that matters, it is.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

LilyM:

Wannano:

LilyM:

guanophore:

mcq72:

So , the transformation at the Table is no less simple to grasp. I doubt the apostles thought they were literally eating His flesh and blood that night, nor do they subsequently speak of it as such.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.

To assert that it does not really transform into His flesh and blood and that eating and drinking of such is not essential is to totally deny the meaning of John chapter 6. In John 6 Jesus quite emphatically literally asserted both points, and allowed many to walk away who could not accept what He was saying. Note that He then challenged the Apostles to walk away also - to them at least He would have explained had He been speaking other than literally.

Would you mind sharing where Jesus literally asserted Transubstantiation in John 6?

“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world…”

not “is my flesh but remains bread also” (consubstantiation) and not “is a mere symbol”.

Please clarify something for me. Is the transubstantiated Host the physical flesh Jesus took upon Himself through Mary?

It doesn’t have the physical attributes of His human flesh and blood, but yes, in every way that matters, it is.

Jesus brought no flesh down from heaven where He existed before becoming man?

 

[LilyM]

Please clarify something for me. Is the transubstantiated Host the physical flesh Jesus took upon Himself through Mary?

It doesn’t have the physical attributes of His human flesh and blood, but yes, in every way that matters, it is.

Jesus brought no flesh down from heaven where He existed before becoming man?

He has flesh and blood, where it came from is unimportant. And it is that flesh and blood that He said we must eat and drink.

 

[rcwitness]

Would it not be borderline sacrilegious of Jesus to Teach us that we need to eat and drink His Spirit only and that eating actual bread was carnal… AND then establish Communion with the very thing that He implied to be the carnal approach to Him???

What i mean, is that Jesus obviously criticized those looking to Him as a “bread king”, right?

So why would He establish His most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community, using mere bread which He told the Jews did not sustain them to eternal life anyway???

I agree with sybolists that Jesus is the True bread, and that the act of eating something into the belly in itself is not what profits a person. But that His body and blood are real elements that dwelled among us and accomplished the will of the Father!

 

[rcwitness]

Jesus brought no flesh down from heaven where He existed before becoming man?

John 1
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

John 6
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Word is bread, symbolically. His flesh is not symbolic, but His true body and blood which was sacrificed for our eternal life

 

[Wannano]

Would it not be borderline sacrilegious of Jesus to Teach us that we need to eat and drink His Spirit only and that eating actual bread was carnal… AND then establish Communion with the very thing that He implied to be the carnal approach to Him???

What i mean, is that Jesus obviously criticized those looking to Him as a “bread king”, right?

So why would He establish His most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community, using mere bread which He told the Jews did not sustain them to eternal life anyway???

I agree with sybolists that Jesus is the True bread, and that the act of eating something into the belly in itself is not what profits a person. But that His body and blood are real elements that dwelled among us and accomplished the will of the Father!

It is not sacreligious if one gives Communion it’s rightful place as an act of Remembrance and Thanksgiving in which He said it is His body not will become or made into his body.

Yes, some where looking for a free meal again.

Where does Jesus tell us that Communion is to be the most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community?

His flesh was given for the life of the world.

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t say this to offend.There is a sublime distinction between the Gospel according to the Catholic Church and Gospels preached by our separated brethren. Words betray the heart. When I read or listen to the words from separated brethren, underlying everything is the belief that the Truth does not exist in any one communion on earth. There is no people of God you can point to. No Church that can be pointed out to someone and say ‘there it is’. To me that mentality is a natural consequence when someone is a Christian but separated from the community that Truth does belong to.

This is part of the dilemma of the separation of the Body of Christ (schism)–in order to dismiss/reject Christ’s Foundation and Delegation one must first dismiss/disintegrate the Body of Christ and recreate the body of “Christians.” It requires that the Word of Christ be redefined (interpreted) through that construct where the Body/Church/Community that Jesus Called Forth (Founded on Cephas) was only meant as an abstract “community” not as an actual visible Body of Christ.

The thought that Jesus promises were to a community that is a visible material reality until the end of time is impossible for our separated brethren. So Protestants invariably speak of the Church as a misty reality that can’t be pointed at directly. Go to this place, they have alot of Truth, that place you might like the way they teach Jesus and so forth.

This, of course, stems from the above construct: if there is a physical visible Body of Christ that exists through the Succession of the Apostles any person/group that is not part of that Body cannot be found to be in Full Communion with Christ. Hence, one must reinterpret Christ in order to make His Word mean what one wants it to mean–this, again, is the construct.

How dare anyone act like Jesus is theirs more than anyone else? Well, no one else acts or thinks that way because it isn’t true for them. If it were true then they would act and think that way too.

…and what is extremely perplexing is the fact that the Apostles Taught the indissolubility of the Church (visible gathering) and Christ (1 Corinthians 12:24-31).

In Christ His Body gains Unity.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is a fact that many Protestants do more with less.

The only sad part of that is that they have learned to not want more–its bemusing to still find someone asking me if I have a personal relationship with Christ; being Catholic does not mean much to them… that’s because they miss the whole ‘you must chew My Flesh/Body and drink my Blood–because my Body is Food indeed and my Blood is real (True) Drink.’

How much more intimate with Christ can a Christian get if not by Receiving Christ’s Body and Blood?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I believe in passover the symboly/lamb is consumed, but the foreshadow symbol is not the actual Lamb of God, just as we consume the bread/symbol, being an aftershadow of Calvary

…and everyone has the right to opinionate!

The problem is that Christ did not offer a “symbol:” ‘this is like my body, this is like my blood, when you break bread think good feelings and remember Me through this symbolic gesture.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yet, rather then stating that as a fact we could state it as you’ve have just now; we don’t Know the mind of God; God can use all things for the good of those He Loves.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

OSAS, that Billy preached, is what’s being challenged by Fr Longenecker. Yes, one won’t find that in scripture. I’m sure, Billy misled a WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE on that teaching of his. Which led to my question, what Gospel was Billy preaching?

…and that’s the issue; can OSAS be taught as Christ’s Gospel?

Yet, as with those who preach that ‘we are all God’s children,’ the “feel good theology” takes precedence even over Christ’s own Word: ‘not all who call Me Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom.’ (St. Matthew 7:21-23)

Yet, as I’ve stated previously, God can use everything for the good of those He Loves.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Would you refuse the gift of knowing ahead of time, whether you were going to heaven or not in your current condition?

But that is not God’s Gift!

Scriptures does not guarantee anyone’s Salvation; rather, Scriptures warn that we are to remain abiding in Christ (St. John 15:1-10); it is He (Christ) in Whom our Salvation is hidden:

3 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3)
Here’s the view of Christ’s Disciples:
23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Romans 8)

Salvation is only assured in Christ–anyone who has “received” eternal salvation is no longer waiting patiently for God; he/she has actually superseded God’s Gift and Salvific Plan; Christ is no longer the deposit of their Faith (Hope) but their “knowledge” (assurance) is the “salvation” that they grasp and believe in.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Not sure anywhere in OT do you have “spiritual food”, that foods/drinks used in holy rituals were symbolic, but still food…the food helped the body but the holy ritual helped the spirit, in understanding

The spiritual part comes in what actually took place: “Passover.” This is where the angel, because the Hebrews obeyed Yahweh God as they did what He commanded (did not brake a single bone of the sacrificial lamb and used its blood to mark their dwelling places) passed over the land and did not harm a single Hebrew (firstborn) as the plague that Pharaoh dictate brought about.

The connection (as a type) comes right from the intro of John ('here comes the Lamb of God), is pronounced in the circumstances of Christ’s death (‘pierced His side’) and is prophesied for the Parousia ('all eyes will see Him, even those who pierced Him).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is interesting that while non-Catholics can presume to own the “rights” of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church is found suspect when she Preaches Christ as the Apostles: One Baptism, One Faith, One Lord, One Body.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

You think that because you limit your belief to the written Word of God which isn’t the full expression of the Word of God on earth. The prayer for an acceptable offering is an acknowledgment of the full reality of the Body of Christ.

We are thankful because He is our head and we are His members. That through the Incarnation our eternal God materially extended Himself with a human body and became an eternal local reality in us and the world. He said, wherever two of us gather at the same location He is located there too…So where we are located He is located. Location can only be real with a Body.

The real presence of Jesus manifests a material location in the breaking of bread. Jesus meant what He said “this IS my body” Because He is an eternal being from heaven He can maintain a local material extension of Himself on earth in the offering of Bread so that He remains a local reality in us and in the world.

He unites Himself to us in the likeness of our suffering to His and in that way Jesus’ Body, of which we are members, remains located on earth. In this way we become an offering of Bread to the Father with Him, because He unites His suffering with ours so we can share in His redemption of ourselves and the world. Paul’s teaching about this share in Christ’s suffering is preserved in the written Word…

It is our suffering that we ask the Father to accept as a sacrifice worthy to be united to His Son’s redemptive suffering on the cross. That eternal sacrifice is re-presented ie. a material extension that becomes local in the bread, when we gather in His Name to break bread to offer our sacrifice with His. I believe that an acceptable human offering was Prophesied by Simeon when inspired by the Holy Spirit he said to Mary “and a sword will pierce your own soul too”

Thank you .Quite a lot of material, to quilt together, to explain the CC Eucharist. Many of the sections stand on their own, but seems a bit strained in a few of their connections. A bit of Greek thinking, even puffy in spots. And puffiness can offset love, as in its perceived rightness being overbeared on others.

But thank you for your post.

 

[jcrichton]

As to refusal of assurance first mentioned…reminds me of the the novena promises , or where you do 9 first Fridays(mass/communion) and are promised assurance of eternal life…yet how many people /priest do them ?

I think it is because these “promises” take into consideration the mindset of the times; there was a time when even those who professed to being atheists and anti-Christ respect the Church (buildings) and Priests and Nuns–there was a respect for “Holiness.” As time progressed, the culture has turned from respect to all out assault as the Church, Christ, and specifically, Priests and Nuns are targeted because of Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If you read the passage as a whole, it is a fearsome warning to those who believe their salvation is attained by mere membership. The chapter is addressed to his own people.

(and none of this has anything whatsoever to do with liberal/conservative)

But it addresses His own people because they chose to reject Him and Baptism–a mandate from God through John the Baptist… it is this bending of Scriptures (legalism) that Jesus challenges as He calls the religious elite “hypocrites.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Do you not believe that the Apostles brought all that they were to the banquet? How did they go about “preparing” the last supper, other than what they purchased and cooked? They didn’t all show up with Jesus at the last minute, and expect he would miraculously lay the table! They brought what had been prepared! We see this as early as the Apology of Justin Martyr, when he describes the Mass, an the Didache that describes how the faithful should prepare.

As Catholics we are not restricted to only what is stated in the Scriptures, since we have what was handed down through Sacred Tradition.

mcq72:

no one doubts that the Passover and even a mass has preparations, but much of preparation stated is so that we can receive (prepare our hearts).

It is not strange to us. It brings clarity that we are not there because of anything we have done, but only because of what He has done.

yes, but seems there is also a lot doing, or bringing of us for acceptability when there is nothing we can do to be acceptable,I see contradiction…preparation to receive, not give

Yes, I agree. If it is centered around us, it loses it’s meaning.

then why do we add to it, add our own sacrifice…you called it truncated to see only His remembrance at Eucharist … there is time and place enough to add own works and suffering in the spirit, as when we walk out of church.

It is the point where our whole being is brought in thanksgiving for His sacrifice.

Again, why do we add our sacrifice at this moment ?