Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

If the sin is venial, yes. But someone seeking God will not remain away from His Eucharist

but apparently one can seek God enough for salvation and graciously receive it, and not have to look further than communion practice of their born in church.

If one seeks God and follow their conscience, they can be saved, even without Baptism or His Eucharist. Baptism of desire would also mean a desire to receive His body and blood.

Yet, when we meet the Word of God and hear His voice, we are able to reject His call.

If one does not hear the Gospel, are they unable to be saved???

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Pope Stephen was rebuking rebaptism.

correct.

“He admitted that baptism is always valid , even if outside the true Church…He admitted that the Holy Spirit cannot be receive outside the Church, but argued, quaintly, that the rite of baptism forgives sins but does not communicate the Spirit…been suggested was also gentleman’s agreement to accept each others baptisms…to discourage.going form one sect to another in order to seek a rebaptism that would wash away their previous sins without the rigors of any penance…Ironic (that the correct decision not to rebaptize) …was based on the wholly unacceptable premise (subsequently abandoned) that baptism does not communicate the Holy Spirit. Bad theology is providentially useful.”

“Live of the Popes” Michael J. Walsh, editor Salamander books 1998

Did Walsh by chance give a specific footnote reference for the highlighted?

mcq72:

have heard that quite a few folk back then did wait till deathbed to be baptized to for sure receieve a clean slate

Constantine was one of them.

 

[mcq72]

Did Walsh by chance give a specific footnote reference for the highlighted?

no…and yes was gonna mention constantine

 

[rcwitness]

Yep… he had some issues

 

[guanophore]

If the Catholic Church wants to say that God does not honor or Call non-Catholics who celebrate His Last Supper it is of no consequence to me. I know better.

The CC affirms all those who answer the Call of God and seek to know Him.

God calls all disciples to celebrate Eucharist, without which we have no life in us. It was intended to be a sign and celebration of unity, but when the Reformers changed the definitions associated with it that were handed down to us from the Apostles, unity began to diverge, and continues to diverge.

All are invited to the one table…as long as it is the Catholic table right?

Naturally Catholics believe that the One Faith handed down to us from the Apostles is the authentic, rather than the innovations created during the Reformation.

“…maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Eph.4:

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. I Cor. 10

Jesus never meant to us to be separated into many “breads” or different communions. He has One Table, One Bread for all of us.

may I make a slight change to that highlighted text

the HS leads “through” “from”, separation to perfect unity.

I believe this is His plan for us. But for many of us, the working of the Holy Spirit through these Protestant ecclesial communities was part of that “through”. Discounting that is a discounting of how the HS uses these communities.

On the one hand the reality is, as far as CC can discern, spiritual life outside the CC, and does well for some ecumenicism.

No, I don’t think so.

apparently there can be salvation yet rejecting Catholic view of communion

With God, all things are possible. But if what has been revealed is the Truth, it would seem such a chance is awfully thin.

but apparently one can seek God enough for salvation and graciously receive it, and not have to look further than communion practice of their born in church.

Elements of His grace are found in communities separated from the fullness of faith. If a person wishes to settle for the scrap that falls from the table.

Apparently one can have"life in them", that Jesus promised, by eating His flesh figuratively ( or another means yet not by transubstantiation).

No, if God’s life is in a person, it is not present because of heresies a person has embraced. It is present in spite of such heresies.

 

[susanlo]

This quote???

…Not as ordinary bread or as ordinary drink do we partake of them, but just as, through the word of God, our Savior Jesus Christ became Incarnate and took upon Himself flesh and blood for our salvation, so, we have been taught, the food which has been made the Eucharist bv the prayer of His word and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.…

I often see this quote singled out as evidence that Justin Martyr believed in transubstantiation. That isn’t exactly what he wrote. “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” - William A. Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57
In chapter 65 preceding this quote from chapter 66 he wrote: “And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced…” Here he is referring to ‘consecrated elements’ as bread and wine. According to transubstantiation the bread and wine would no longer remain at this point. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Elsewhere Justin Martyr wrote about the Eucharist in terms of food for remembrance. Here are a few examples:

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks”
Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 70 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind,…”
Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 117 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm

Nowhere besides the isolated sentence from Chapter 66 of The First Apology does Justin Martyr even come close to any indicator that he understood what was later termed transubstantiation.

 

[Agathon]

But does the doctrine of transubstantion depend on only Justin Martyr?

 

[rcwitness]

I often see this quote singled out as evidence that Justin Martyr believed in transubstantiation. That isn’t exactly what he wrote. “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” - William A. Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57

I will try to find where I can read this in context. As for the plain reading, i dont see how he draws this conclusion. Yet, its one that ive mentioned as a type of real consumation of the Lord and His Bride. We become one flesh with Him. So this only strengthens the concept of Transubstantiation.

In chapter 65 preceding this quote from chapter 66 he wrote: “And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced…” Here he is referring to ‘consecrated elements’ as bread and wine. According to transubstantiation the bread and wine would no longer remain at this point. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

This is rather crafty of you, because it is in direct reference to this statement, which the Saint explains the real nature of the consecrated elements.

Elsewhere Justin Martyr wrote about the Eucharist in terms of food for remembrance. Here are a few examples:…“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks” Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 70 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm

Here, the Saint is addressing the “remembrance” on our part. We recall to our minds and hearts what Jesus suffered in the flesh during His passion. But there are to parties involved in this remembrance; us and God. On God’s part, His remembrance is actually applying His body and blood at the altar, and we participate in His very Incarnated Person, the same Person who lived, died, and was raised again.

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind,…” Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 117 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm

Again, he is acknowledging our remembrance. He is not explaining the Eucharist like he did in Apology 66

Nowhere besides the isolated sentence from Chapter 66 of The First Apology does Justin Martyr even come close to any indicator that he understood what was later termed transubstantiation.

He explained it once, in very clear terms. Other times he was talking about different aspects of the Rite.

 

[Benadam]

just as through the word of God, our Savior Jesus Christ became Incarnate__
_[/qu_ote]

the food which has been made the Eucharist

is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.…

This is what was taught by Justin Martyr. Transubstantiation explains it.

 

[Benadam]

But does the doctrine of transubstantion depend on only Justin Martyr?

, we have been taught,

He said …we have been taught…so He was taught it himself

 

[Benadam]

All are invited to the one table…as long as it is the Catholic table right?

There is just one Table. Did it disappear?

 

[rcwitness]

Here is an example of how the ECF’s understood “symbol” when they used it:

Clement of Alexandria

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”

 

[mcq72]

6 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 1

Absolutely…figuratively or literally…certainly not sharing the sacrifice of Buddha or Mohamed or Hercules…it is Christ .

 

[rcwitness]

Literally. We are not pretending its Jesus.

The figurative aspect is that bread is a source of nutrition for the body and the Word of God is spiritual nutrition. Yet, when we use ordinary bread for this Rite, the Word of God changes this bread and wine into a Spiritual benefit. So it is no longer ordinary bread, but the bread which came down from heaven, and was given for the life of the world.

You may sincerely believe that the Word, who is God, became flesh! I even believe you do!

But if you do now recognize that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a sign given by Jesus for us to participate in that very reality, then you are missing a great significance of the Rite.

We profess and believe that we are joining ourselves to the Incarnated Christ through the Eucharist in a way unique but not distinct from believing His Word. It is both believing His Word and accepting His union of body into ourselves.

And so by participating in Him in this way, we are claiming fidelity to Him and receiving all of Him and with the rest of the mystical body who professes to know Him and His Teachings.

 

[Wannano]

Literally. We are not pretending its Jesus.

The figurative aspect is that bread is a source of nutrition for the body and the Word of God is spiritual nutrition. Yet, when we use ordinary bread for this Rite, the Word of God changes this bread and wine into a Spiritual benefit. So it is no longer ordinary bread, but the bread which came down from heaven, and was given for the life of the world.

You may sincerely believe that the Word, who is God, became flesh! I even believe you do!

But if you do now recognize that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a sign given by Jesus for us to participate in that very reality, then you are missing a great significance of the Rite.

We profess and believe that we are joining ourselves to the Incarnated Christ through the Eucharist in a way unique but not distinct from believing His Word. It is both believing His Word and accepting His union of body into ourselves.

And so by participating in Him in this way, we are claiming fidelity to Him and receiving all of Him and with the rest of the mystical body who professes to know Him and His Teachings.

Doesn’t participating also give you forgiveness of all your sins and place you in a complete pure state of grace? If you died one second after receiving you would enter heaven without purgatory?

 

[rcwitness]

The power of forgiveness is conditional to our repentance.

His Eucharist is the Lamb of God who atoned for all sins. But we must confess and turn from sins by also forgiving others their sins too!

Receiving His Eucharist is not a magic act. Our fidelity means we receive worthily.

 

[guanophore]

Doesn’t participating also give you forgiveness of all your sins and place you in a complete pure state of grace?

No.

If you died one second after receiving you would enter heaven without purgatory?

No

It appears you have confused the Eucharist with Baptism, which does these things.

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

wonder where he got his info…have heard that quite a few folk back then did wait till deathbed to be baptized to for sure receieve a clean slate.

That was a foolish practice, unapproved by the Church. They would not be able to receive Communion if they were not Baptized, so they would be rejecting grace for certain!

So if that characterizes who Constantine was, that is, unbaptized therefore not born again in the Catholc way, and He rejected God’s grace, why did the Church give him so much respect and involvement?

 

[rcwitness]

So if that characterizes who Constantine was, that is, unbaptized therefore not born again in the Catholc way, and He rejected God’s grace, why did the Church give him so much respect and involvement?

Im not sure what “characterized” who Constantine was. But ive never heard the Church honor that practice, by him or anyone else.

The Church honored him as the government authority, and was happy he gave so much liberty to the Church!

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Doesn’t participating also give you forgiveness of all your sins and place you in a complete pure state of grace?

No.

If you died one second after receiving you would enter heaven without purgatory?

No

It appears you have confused the Eucharist with Baptism, which does these things.

Thank you for responding clearly without gobbledygook.

This misunderstanding of mine then was formed here on CAF where I have read repeatedly that which I asked.

This seems to be confirming to me the suspicion I have been struggling with that learning from CAF is borderline useless. There appears to be a huge disconnect between what the CC actually teaches and what most adherents think it teaches and what they think they are practicing.