Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

The disciples didn’t reject bread as a symbol.

John 6 33-35

correct , i meant they would have rejected eating a demised Christ thru symbol of bread (any type of eating Him they rejected…con, tran, spiritual, figurative, because all related to His demise)

 

[rcwitness]

I think they just didnt understand how He could feed them His flesh and blood. But neither did those who remained with Him, since they did not believe He was going to die either!

But Jesus knew that it would be a stumbling block for those who did not believe in Him. Those who stayed believed that He would fulfill His Word.

 

[mcq72]

ok…read…for sure bread and wine are physical sustenance , as one of the fathers writes by transmutation(digestion), and for sure spiritual food, both in the obedience to do and the remembrance, yielding to grace…always a good thing to come back to Calvary, where it all started , and to gain hope of His return for us.

Thanks lol…had to read it , easy, so short !

 

[mcq72]

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.

I understand that(your) kind of reading…it definitely requires a different reading of it, but it is there…why must there be divisions, there never should be…sounds like he is justifying factions…very odd if you take such a straight view of the text…the tongue and cheek view is the explanation .

 

[mcq72]

esus’ 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.

Ok…just that most insist the difficulty came in eating His flesh…but I see what you mean that He came down from heaven (and His frustrated response with them about what, ascending also ?)…agree that the theme of the entire discourse is not about future “communion” , but that one must be chosen of the Father and Jesus to be a disciple, and that of a Messiah that had to be believed, every word , for the journey is not what one would expect (future death/resurrection/ascension).

 

[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.

Agreed…

 

[mcq72]

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.

no matter what type of real presence, it is still a spiritual event also, and all sin leads to death,eventually.

Do not see elements and what they really became or not as the key, but what was in the heart, or lacking, of the partaker of the table remembering, honoring Christ. The word “body” refers to the Body of Christ or even the Lord’s Body, the Church…not the Lord’s body and blood…the Corinthians had big problems being one as “one loaf” should, but did not suggest to them .

Either way, coming to “present” Calvary drunk, hungry, taking food from others , or not feeding others, sitting in cliques claiming rightness is so anti Christlike, that judgement must surely follow, as did Ananias.

 

[mcq72]

The Father would grant to reveal His Son according to some time or event? No, it happens at first exposure to Jesus.

well, not really. Nicodemus came around (to finally believe) , but I think writ suggests certainly not after first time of hearing. Paul/Saul certainly had witness and testimony galore before he got knocked off His horse.

But you are correct. We have no direct evidence that any disciples that departed came back at later time. I only pointed it out so as not to portray Christ as unfair, or superpredestination, to unbelievers, that it was the wisest thing for them to get them to depart if operating under false faith and pretenses(especially if you think the eating thru them off course, as many suggest.

We also know that thousands got saved at and after Pentecost, it is not unreasonable that many had heard and seen Christ and did not believe, or that some were departed disciples.

 

[mcq72]

I posted this a bit ago…

Here is a footnote from the NAB:

6:35–59 Up to Jn 6:50 “bread of life” is a figure for God’s revelation in Jesus; in Jn 6:51–58, the eucharistic theme comes to the fore. There may thus be a break between Jn 6:50–51.

not so sure,seems to flow together

 

[mcq72]

The Eucharist means remaining in Him, and His life remaining in us. Its an ongoing participation and consumation of love and devotion.

Not sure “means” is the right word…“part of” yes, just as fellowship, studying the word, prayer, being filled with HG etc…all equally if not more, admonished for our journey,

 

[mcq72]

When u eat Communion with another church, it means u approve of their doctrines, and u accept them (doctrines) within you.its a way of uniting yourself to that body, including what it accepts and what it rejects of Jesus.

maybe, maybe not.

Although not exact apple to apples, Paul talks about eating meat offered to idols, false gods, but he says eat it by all means…it won’t trip you up, is not sin, but just don’t trip up a weaker brother.

But yes , i have abstained for reasons you stated…not sure my decision had any value to others, certainly not myself. maybe i was weak.

 

[rcwitness]

Just out of curiosity, when you say “writ” do you mean Scripture?

 

[mcq72]

Why would God bother to make His material presence on earth if it wasn’t going to be eternal like Him?

I don’t know…like asking why was He present in Spirit only ( from Abel to Micah) for so long, and then come for a short time, then leave , then come back again ? I mean why couldn’t the Holy Ghost come and Jesus remain ?

If you are trying to say His presence materially is in the consecrated bread providing that continuing presence, it is still quite limited relative to His presence in His glorified body …

do we need to go back to material objects to hold His presence , like the OT ( the Ark, Holy of Holies etc), as if we are not His monstrances today ?

 

[mcq72]

Just out of curiosity, when you say “writ” do you mean Scripture?

yes…

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Just out of curiosity, when you say “writ” do you mean Scripture?

yes…

Thanks. Where do you get that term from? Seems like a legal term

 

[SnowRose]

Merriam-Webster defines Holy Writ as the Bible and dates the phrase to before the 12th century.

 

[mcq72]

Where do you get that term from…(writ)

Don’t know…think it is old fadhioned term…must have seen it somewhere before for first time

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks. No problem. Just never heard someone use that term.

 

[guanophore]

I understand that(your) kind of reading…it definitely requires a different reading of it, but it is there…why must there be divisions, there never should be…sounds like he is justifying factions…very odd if you take such a straight view of the text…the tongue and cheek view is the explanation .

I do agree he is talking also about dissentions/factions (squabbles) that people tend to have when they gather together. But the term “heresies” is never used for anything but doctrinal divisions -departures from the apostolic teaching. I do wonder, though, how the “genuine” were to be recognized. The Apostles taught that it was those who were in unity with the Bishops/Elders. But it is not clear that Corinth even had a bishop at that time.

 

[rcwitness]

mcq72:

I understand that(your) kind of reading…it definitely requires a different reading of it, but it is there…why must there be divisions, there never should be…sounds like he is justifying factions…very odd if you take such a straight view of the text…the tongue and cheek view is the explanation .

I do agree he is talking also about dissentions/factions (squabbles) that people tend to have when they gather together. But the term “heresies” is never used for anything but doctrinal divisions -departures from the apostolic teaching. I do wonder, though, how the “genuine” were to be recognized. The Apostles taught that it was those who were in unity with the Bishops/Elders. But it is not clear that Corinth even had a bishop at that time.

The genuine were recognized by suffering against those who were heretics.