Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

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,

Yes. We each read through whatever lenses we have adopted. You read the words through the lenses provided by the Reformers. Catholics read them through the lenses of Sacred Tradition.

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!

I agree that most Catholic parishes are weak on fellowship. This may be because I was steeped in Protestant fellowships for over 20 years, and found something I never experienced in the CC. It is an area we could really use some enrichment through our separated brethren.

I have read some of those posts here on CAF castigating people who yearn for fellowship. I find it appalling, frankly. In the light of the verse quoted:

Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

I don’t see how one could not see this as interaction outside of formal liturgy. It seems closer to modern Catholic Charismatic communities, monasteries, and convents.

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.

Jesus could have instituted the Eucharist at any time, but He chose the most visible ritual act of Jewish worship in which to promulgate it. Why would we want to remove it from it’s context?

 

[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,

Yes. We each read through whatever lenses we have adopted. You read the words through the lenses provided by the Reformers. Catholics read them through the lenses of Sacred Tradition.

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!

I agree that most Catholic parishes are weak on fellowship. This may be because I was steeped in Protestant fellowships for over 20 years, and found something I never experienced in the CC. It is an area we could really use some enrichment through our separated brethren.

I have read some of those posts here on CAF castigating people who yearn for fellowship. I find it appalling, frankly. In the light of the verse quoted:

Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

I don’t see how one could not see this as interaction outside of formal liturgy. It seems closer to modern Catholic Charismatic communities, monasteries, and convents.

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.

Jesus could have instituted the Eucharist at any time, but He chose the most visible ritual act of Jewish worship in which to promulgate it. Why would we want to remove it from it’s context?

Do you mind expounding a little more on this question?

 

[mcq72]

As you indicate about the unbelieving disciples ‘they needed to part’ because Jesus knew who would believe,

Well that is future tense…Jesus knew that but can you at least see that writ says they did not believe “from the beginning”…before the John 6 discourse…in. fact it is mentioned in john2 or 3…and they would have left under any understanding of real presence, even pure symbolism,fugurative eating (anything indicating his death)

 

[guanophore]

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.

There has been criticism and division since the beginning, and even now, a majority of persons calling themselves Catholic do not accept the Church teaching on a number of things, including the Real Presence.

1 Corinthians 11:18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you

divisions=schismata

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.

Yes, I agree. Heresies and schisms have been present from the beginning. All the councils were held to address them through the centuries.

 

[mcq72]

For Catholics being “born again” is an initiation into the life of Christ- the beginning point. We are renewed in that life through the Eucharist, as He promised. Though we can only be “born” one time, we can continue to “have life in you” through the Eucharist.

Understand thank you…writ does not talk about that so much…yes about obedience to eating and etetnal lufe, and yes to negative conseqyences to eating unworthily (as was giving unworthily ala Aninias), but not sure as sustenance thru oyr journey, relative to all the other exhortations (praying, fasting,fellowship (oops that does include eucharist)

 

[guanophore]

then why does it seem that most decrees happen to be with support of a majority ?

Actually, I think the opposite is true. If it were a majority, we would all be Arian!

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 ?

It is a righteous question. This is why Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose, and the keys. This is legislative authority. This authority was passed on to their successors, the Bishops. The Seat of Moses (authority to teach and regulate) was taken away from the Sanhedrin and given to the Apostles. Jesus knew there would be divisions, and instructed the disciples to 'take it to the church". He knew that an arbitor would be needed.

 

[guanophore]

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

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

It is important to work hard to get along, as we are brethren, but we cannot give up the Apostolic faith, just in order to pacify those that contend. Jesus did not do this either.

CAF is a venue for listening to one another, but I do agree with you, not everyone here does that!

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

Yes, I think the “majority rule” idea misses the mark. On the contrary, if the majority of so called Catholics were to rule, there would have already been a departure from the doctrines handed down to us. You are right, the power to protect the One faith is in the hands of the Bishops. To them has been given the duty to preserve what is handed down, even when the majority does not agree.

1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.”
2 Timothy 1:14 “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Where did Titus get the authority to exhort and reprove? What recourse did he have for those that chose to disregard him?

 

[Benadam]

Well that is future tense…Jesus knew that but can you at least see that writ says they did not believe “from the beginning”…before the John 6 discourse…in. fact it is mentioned in john2 or 3…and they would have left under any understanding of real presence, even pure symbolism,fugurative eating (anything indicating his death)

The disciples didn’t reject bread as a symbol.
John 6 33-35

33 For the bread of God is that which[g] comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

I think we can assume that some in the crowd were ok believing the bread is a symbol. They wanted that bread. None of them complained when He said “I am the Bread” It was the Jews who complained.

41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

It wasn’t until it became clear that the symbolic meaning was not what Jesus was teaching that the disciples said it was too hard a teaching. The hard part was taught in response to the Jews were rejecting the teaching that the disciples didn’t complain about. That Jesus is the bread that comes down from heaven.

 

[guanophore]

but not sure as sustenance thru oyr journey,

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/scripture/34_045.pdf

 

[mcq72]

There has been criticism and division since the beginning, and even now, a majority of persons calling themselves Catholic do not accept the Church teaching on a number of things, including the Real Presence.

1 Corinthians 11:18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you

Ok.thanks and Paul perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek talks about hersies causing division, so that the “aproved” may be evident…yet if we read on the divisions are of a carnal nature, and apparently not doctrinal

Yes heresies do seperate so to speak the men from the boys , but sometimes claiming rightness, or “aproved”,and I would say"lawful" can be a sort of cliqueiness, actually motivated by dissension, lack of love for the Body of Christ (the ecclesia)… it feels good to be right, veiling distaste for others…this maybe is what was happening at Corinth…i mean Paul does not seem then to proceed to deal with heresy but selfishnees, even the anti thesis of Christ at Calvary of pure selflessness and love for others…to the death, and this carnality demonstrated at the eucharist celebration!

I mean try a reread of vs 18,19 and see how it might be tongue in cheek, or sarcastic, chiding them…like all involved are not doing good.

 

[mcq72]

think we can assume that some in the crowd were ok believing the bread is a symbol.

Symbol of what…the symbol i mentioned was of the new covenant, His Death (some seem to think that if any other understanding beyond literal eating were explained, like symbolic, they would have stayed…they would have not)

 

[guanophore]

Paul perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek talks about hersies causing division, so that the “aproved” may be evident…yet if we read on the divisions are of a carnal nature, and apparently not doctrinal

He writes about both kinds of division -squabbles among the faithful, and departures from the faith.

19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. I Cor. 11

factions- αἱρέσεις (heresies) sounds pretty doctrinal to me! how would those who are genuine be recognized? Those who held fast to the Apostolic teachings, whether by letter or by word of mouth. Those who obeyed the elders placed by the apostles. The church was never a democracy.

As far as the carnality, I do agree with you, but the doctrinal issues in the letter cannot be separated from the Apostolic instruction. Carnality was a problem, lack of adherence to doctrine was a problem, lack of discipline and order in worship.

 

[mcq72]

t wasn’t until it became clear that the symbolic meaning was not what Jesus was teaching that the disciples said it was too hard a teaching. The hard part was taught in response to the Jews were rejecting the teaching that the disciples didn’t complain about. That Jesus is the bread that comes down from heaven.

Seems ok ( without reading whole thing again)…but yes they rejected Him I would say because they didnt believe they needed spiritual saving, thereforeno need of His sacrificial death, much less any ascension back to heaven

The eating of Him was at least representative of His atoning death, and how then could He sit on the throne David, and throw out Romans

 

[mcq72]

He writes about both kinds of division -squabbles among the faithful, and departures from the faith.

19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. I Cor. 11

factions- αἱρέσεις (heresies) sounds pretty doctrinal to me! how would those who are genuine be recognized? Those who held fast to the Apostolic teachings, whether by letter or by word of mouth. Those who obeyed the elders placed by the apostles. The church was never a democracy.

As far as the carnality, I do agree with you, but the doctrinal issues in the letter cannot be separated from the Apostolic instruction. Carnality was a problem, lack of adherence to doctrine was a problem, lack of discipline and order in worship.

Thank you…but why does he not address any doctrinal error ?..what doctrinal error?..Why do the next many verses only deal with the carnality, and the obvious division from that?

I think 18 and 19 are specific and unified to chapter( as tongue in cheek). Dont think he would just talk of doctrinal error and drop it, to then only talk of carnality at the table.(which would bring one to question anyones “genuiness”).

 

[Benadam]

Symbol of what…the symbol i mentioned was of the new covenant, His Death

Jesus’ death isn’t taught but only implied by Jesus in John 6. There is no teaching about breaking the bread. What is rejected is the belief that Jesus comes down from heaven and the bread, which is already believed, is a symbol of Jesus. What is finally rejected is that Jesus is from God. The eating is Jesus connecting it to the sacrificial lamb that was not yet understood.

67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[Benadam]

yes they rejected Him I would say because they didnt believe they needed spiritual saving, thereforeno need of His sacrificial death,

Sacrificial death isn’t in their minds. They don’t believe He is the Holy One of God who comes down from heaven. If they did their faith would have withstood the test of the hard part of the teaching.

 

[mcq72]

Its like division over doctrine might be understandable but to see division over carnality ( non doctrinal), that is bad news to Paul…I mean he hears of “division”, at the table (who eats and when, maybe even where, who brings food and who doesnt, whom to sit with), you would think you had Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and Baptists in the same room…you expect division and seating according to each’s “genuineness”…but no, they are all Catholics , forming into cliques (who brings food / drink, which is more spiritual etc)

…Paul may be saying they are divided over fleshly things as if they were doctrinal differences, and so he tongue /cheek says there must be these high minded legitimate divisions amongst them…not, just ugly carnal divisions, whilst they all bring Calvary to the “present”

 

[Benadam]

…Paul may be saying they are divided over fleshly things as if they were doctrinal differences, and so he tongue /cheek says there must be these high minded legitimate divisions amongst them…not, just ugly carnal divisions, whilst they all bring Calvary to the “present”

I believe Paul had in mind that the real presence was what would later be explained by transubstantiation… How else can ‘physical’ consequences be the result?

29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

 

[mcq72]

Sacrificial death isn’t in their minds. They don’t believe He is the Holy One of God who comes down from heaven. If they did their faith would have withstood the test of the hard part of the teaching.

Very good. Now what do you say to them when they follow you anyways, for the bread, or for to crown the Davidic king ? Should they not cease to follow under false hopes and pretenses, and in such refusal to believe? How do you then get rid of them, so that they might later rejoin under divine calling?

I put it you that the Creator of all words and language, with precision to cut asunder bone and marrow (?), found a way to do just that in rest of the chapter, without giving pearls to swine, and at the same time laying seed to the patient, and faithful, and called of the Father.

 

[Benadam]

Very good. Now what do you say to them when they follow you anyways, for the bread, or for to crown the Davidic king ? Should they not cease to follow under false hopes and pretenses, and in such refusal to believe? How do you then get rid of them, so that they might later rejoin under divine calling?

I put it you that the Creator of all words and language, with precision to cut asunder bone and marrow (?), found a way to do just that in rest of the chapter, without giving pearls to swine, and at the same time laying seed to the patient, and faithful, and called of the Father.

The account demonstrates that those who are called by the Father stay. Only one swine to cast pearls to. The rest left.

For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”
66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Because of what? Because Jesus knew who are called by the Father.