Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[jcrichton]

The breaking of bread and prayers is exactly that, that is, communal worship. Individual worshippers coming together as grains of wheat and individual grapes being crushed together to form one loaf and one wine to form one body of which each partakes in remembrance and thanksgiving for the sacrifice He made for each individual and by which we are unified as one body with Him.

But is that not what you claim that Catholics do? Isolate a verse?

Catholics actually do the opposite!

We take the whole of the whole Scriptures into consideration. Your Braking of the Bread cannot be separated from St. Paul’s admonishment that to Break Bread must accompany the discernment of Jesus’ actual Body (Flesh) and Blood–that those who do not do so, are heaping upon themselves a curse.

By claiming a symbolic gathering of the bodies you have floored the Lord’s Supper and have constructed a “reminiscing” party where people tell good ole stories about “the Lord.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…heard the saying ‘if it fits?’

Is Luther not the catalyst for protestation?

Sure, he may have kept some of his Catholic understanding and may have even wanted his followers to remain within his grips of the “truth;” yet, by following his own example, Calving and the rest just simply took the leaps that he refused to take–but all lived up to the spirit of Protestantism: don’t agree speak against it; no one listens?.. breakaway and start your own club! (This is still happening today 40k plus denominations… and counting.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…that’s the beauty of being Created in the Image and Likeness of God–we are giving freewill; sadly, this liberty often takes over as the libertine heart and mind of man/woman chooses to be his/her own authority–hey, do you recall what Scriptures tells us about obedience to those in authority, does it calls for protestation and usurping it?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…actually no; it’s reminiscent of Christ’s Teaching about those who even though a man (Christ) comes back from the dead they will not (refuse) believe!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

From what I read I gather that Transubstantiation was first used as an explanation in the early 800’s. It was formally proclaimed in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council. Apparently not all Cardinals and Bishops were convinced.

Correct, and I believe the formal decree was needed because indeed there was some division over the matter, howbeit only from a few outspoken cleric critics, one being Ratmanus or something. One can question the lack of criticism or why the relative silence but transubstantiation thesis was slow to appear also, but when it did, so did some criticism.

One more teaching that did not have unanimous consent, but eventual consent yes…we usually only bring this up not to disparage but to obviously point out, defend, reformers that brought little that was new to the forefront again.

 

[rcwitness]

Wannano:

From what I read I gather that Transubstantiation was first used as an explanation in the early 800’s. It was formally proclaimed in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council. Apparently not all Cardinals and Bishops were convinced.

Correct, and I believe the formal decree was needed because indeed there was some division over the matter, howbeit only from a few outspoken cleric critics, one being Ratmanus or something. One can question the lack of criticism or why the relative silence but transubstantiation thesis was slow to appear also, but when it did, so did some criticism.

One more teaching that did not have unanimous consent, but eventual consent yes…we usually only bring this up not to disparage but to obviously point out, defend, reformers that brought little that was new to the forefront again.

You speak as though Christianity (or what is Taught and defined by the Church) is up to a democracy.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

What is so interesting to me is how we can all take verses and see what we need to substantiate our position on something. Obviously this verse for you says the Catholic Eucharist is the most important visible act of worship. To me it stresses studying the Apostles teaching and fellowship, oh wait, what is that? Fellowship? Hmmm, I have read numerous times here that the Catholic Church is not strong on fellowship. Some Catholics even admit it and some have even castigated the idea that fellowship is an important part of communal worship. They say rather if you value fellowship you may as well go to a Protestant church somewhere!

They say alot of nasty things. Ive been told by a practicing homosexual Catholic that he found a liberal parish who will give him Communion. Alot of clergy makes me sad and stifled.

This verse does not answer my question though rc. You said Jesus taught the Eucharist is the most sacred visible act of worship and I asked where in Scripture He had said that. I don’t see it in this verse.

And u would say Scripture Teaches Communion bread and wine are a symbol only, right? There is the dilemma.

Acts 2:42 expresses the most key aspects of communal worship of the Church. Breaking bread was the only one which contained a tangible thing, which we call a form of Jesus.

No, I don’t think I have said that Scripture teaches it is a symbol only.

 

[mcq72]

You speak as though Christianity (or what is Taught and defined by the Church) is up to a democracy.

then why does it seem that most decrees happen to be with support of a majority ? I mean in OT sometimes majority was right, and sometimes minority, of one, sometimes was right? When is a minority a Korah, and when is she a righteous prophet ?

And yes, we are a kingdom, with King ,who has laid down His laws, thru the R(r)ighteous.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

From what I read I gather that Transubstantiation was first used as an explanation in the early 800’s. It was formally proclaimed in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council. Apparently not all Cardinals and Bishops were convinced.

I wonder how many preferred symbolism??

Not all Jesus’ disciples were convinced either.

Not sure symbolism was on the table or not. Transubstantiation was a new development in the aspect of the Real Presence as I understand it.

 

[mcq72]

Sure, he may have kept some of his Catholic understanding and may have even wanted his followers to remain within his grips of the “truth;” yet, by following his own example, Calving and the rest just simply took the leaps that he refused to take–but all lived up to the spirit of Protestantism: don’t agree speak against it; no one listens?.. breakaway and start your own club! (This is still happening today 40k plus denominations… and counting.)

Oh please, it takes two to tango.

“Create not a schism, but pacify those that contend”…Didache

Interesting the “no one listens”, much less pacify ?

Interesting the majority rule, the powers to be protecting status quo,forgive my possible cynicism.

Actually the Church does listen, hence the counter reformation, with some genuine behavioral reform, though not a stitch in doctrine…and i think I see a bit of responding to some of the successes of P’s, with slight mimicking, even changes as seen in Vat II etc ( and some P’s taking on some old Catholicism practices).

 

[rcwitness]

Oh!!! Well that throws me for a loop!

 

[Wannano]

I was attempting to address your statements:

I always find this type of “insinuations” interesting. Many Catholics repeatedly basically claim a patent on the Bible but also more than they should on Jesus Himself.
A Catholic I very much respect but not on the new CAF told me once, “prod them with a stick and ask if they claim the invention of fire as well?”

No, you are wrong here. The vast majority of non-Catholics do not applaud the antics of TV shucksters just because they are anti-Catholic. In my world most non-Catholics are not anti Catholic, they just see Catholics as having some things a little confused and misguided.

 

[jcrichton]

You’ve already made up your mind… cynicism is just the overflow of self-determination and self-knowledge.

Look at what you’ve cited from the Didache… do you understand the language in which it was created. It is not talking about manipulation but of controlling the dissention so that it does not flourish into schism. This is exactly what was attempted before Luther’s experiment exploded.

Since Luther’s experiment was anti-Catholic and it took a life of its own (he actually thought that his followers would actually follow him) it is easy to point to some of the issues and claim, ‘aha, there! The Church changed only because he was right and because it feared losing membership/wealth/etc.’ The reality is that even this revolt (Luther’s experiment) had some value as it pointed to some errors that needed correcting.

You seem to be as those who demand that the Church apologize for past “errors/crimes” and then turn around and say, ‘see, she was wrong, and she only apologizes because she will lose wealth/power/control/etc.’

The changes have always been part of the Church’s struggle to Serve Christ and man.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

The breaking of bread and prayers is exactly that, that is, communal worship. Individual worshippers coming together as grains of wheat and individual grapes being crushed together to form one loaf and one wine to form one body of which each partakes in remembrance and thanksgiving for the sacrifice He made for each individual and by which we are unified as one body with Him.

But is that not what you claim that Catholics do? Isolate a verse?

Catholics actually do the opposite!

We take the whole of the whole Scriptures into consideration. Your Braking of the Bread cannot be separated from St. Paul’s admonishment that to Break Bread must accompany the discernment of Jesus’ actual Body (Flesh) and Blood–that those who do not do so, are hipping upon themselves a curse.

By claiming a symbolic gathering of the bodies you have floored the Lord’s Supper and have constructed a “reminiscing” party where people tell good ole stories about “the Lord.”

Maran atha!

Angel

If that is what you think happens in my circles, I am here to inform you that you are acknowledging that you know absolutely zero about how we approach Communion.

Your flamboyant style of sterotyping non-Catholics is as ugly as those who attribute the realm of the Antichrist to the Catholic Church.

 

[jcrichton]

Yet, not once have I ever heard of a single non-Catholic demand that such events be called by what they are… the only affinity I find is that they support anything from the non-Catholic theater and reject most anything that is presented as Catholic. Clearly, my experience is limited as I do not know most people in the world–still, the experience is basically the same, regardless of the affiliation “xyz” or non-denominational credo.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I apologize if my knowledge is limited and my views are wrong. But both on-line (virtual) and in person (reality) the representatives of non-Catholic Christians reject most, if not all Sacraments, and hold the view that the Holy Eucharist is a symbol or a remembrance of Christ that is empty of any true value when it deals with the Christian Life, Worship and Salvation.

Some groups do even practice it; some groups may do a monthly thing; still others would do monthly, once a year or special occasions.

I welcome your clarification on this matter since I cannot speak but from the perspective from which I have been informed.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wannano]

Let me know when you land…

 

[rcwitness]

Let me know when you land…

Sure… just figured your interpretation of symbolism would have Scriptural grounds. From your point of view.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Let me know when you land…

Sure… just figured your interpretation of symbolism would have Scriptural grounds. From your point of view.

It does but that is different from saying Communion is “just” a symbol or “just a mere symbol” or just a party with crackers and grape juice.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree. In context of the discussion, I meant the substance of the bread and wine dont change, but are only symbols for what is being remembered.