Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Wannano]

Wannano:

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!

What charcterized him was the fact he was regarded as the first Christian Emperor and had great influence on the Church and yet he was not baptized until his death bed. Does that not mean he was not a Christian until his baptism?

 

[rcwitness]

How do you know that guanophore’s answer was right?

I believe it is, because of how I explained in my answer. We both answered the same thing, his being a simple no, and mine being the way I understand it to be “no”.

In the end, you have to have an understanding of Teaching, and others can help, but ultimately the Spirit gives understanding of matters of the faith.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Wannano:

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!

What charcterized him was the fact he was regarded as the first Christian Emperor and had great influence on the Church and yet he was not baptized until his death bed. Does that not mean he was not a Christian until his baptism?

All I know of him, is that he believed the Christian faith was true, and liberated Christianity from persecution and helped leaders assemble to address serious matters.

His personal blameworthiness or guilt is something I cant judge. But the practice of postponing Baptism is wrong, no matter who does it.

 

[Imdaman]

guanophore:

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.

Really. Who here has told you that receiving the body and blood does all of this for you! I have a suspicion that you probably misunderstood what was said.

For instance the Church teaches that there are degrees of sin. Venial and Mortal. Venial sins can be washed by receiving but not there consequences while Mortal sins need confession. As a matter of fact one should not receive communion when one is in mortal sin. As that would be taking the Eucharist unworthily. The Pope just reminded us of that fact.

 

[Imdaman]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...e-of-mortal-sin-you-cannot-receive-communion/

Hopefully this will help to answer this thread also!

 

[Wannano]

How do you know that guanophore’s answer was right?

I believe it is, because of how I explained in my answer. We both answered the same thing, his being a simple no, and mine being the way I understand it to be “no”.

In the end, you have to have an understanding of Teaching, and others can help, but ultimately the Spirit gives understanding of matters of the faith.

No offence intended but I could not really grasp what answer you were giving.

 

[rcwitness]

So you thought I was answering “yes”?

I was explaining what is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Christ’s sacrifice is necessary, of which we participate in His Eucharist, but participating in itself is not what sums up how we are forgiven.

We are forgiven by confessing, turning away from sin, and also forgiving others their sins. By doing these things, we are able to participate with, fidelity, the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is Communion of a Reconciliation already accomplished, yet also with the One who merited our Reconciliation.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

guanophore:

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.

Really. Who here has told you that receiving the body and blood does all of this for you! I have a suspicion that you probably misunderstood what was said.

For instance the Church teaches that there are degrees of sin. Venial and Mortal. Venial sins can be washed by receiving but not there consequences while Mortal sins need confession. As a matter of fact one should not receive communion when one is in mortal sin. As that would be taking the Eucharist unworthily. The Pope just reminded us of that fact.

Yes I understand that mortal sins need confession to be forgiven. That is to be done before partaking of the Eucharist. If venial sins are washed by receiving how have I misunderstood? Surely if mortal sins are forgiven and venial sins are washed away…then my understanding is correct, no?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

rcwitness:

Wannano:

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!

What charcterized him was the fact he was regarded as the first Christian Emperor and had great influence on the Church and yet he was not baptized until his death bed. Does that not mean he was not a Christian until his baptism?

All I know of him, is that he believed the Christian faith was true, and liberated Christianity from persecution and helped leaders assemble to address serious matters.

His personal blameworthiness or guilt is something I cant judge. But the practice of postponing Baptism is wrong, no matter who does it.

Might not hurt to read up on him…He even called Councils together.

Catholic Baptism saves the person, it is what makes one a Christian? Constantine was not baptized until his death bed, what logical conclusion is drawn?

 

[rcwitness]

I know…So did Herod

Matthew 2
When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:

 

[susanlo]

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

No. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was first developed in the 9th century by Paschasius Radbertus.

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.

It is a stand-alone statement in a footnote from The First Apology in a book of writings complied by Jurgens.

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.

Would you have used the terms “bread and wine” for elements that you believe have changed? There are many other ways he could have written this, but he wrote that after the thanksgiving was pronounced the deacons distributed “bread and wine.”

He explained it once, in very clear terms.

But it isn’t very clear at all. That is the point.

 

[Wannano]

I know…So did Herod

???16

 

[Imdaman]

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

I am referring to this remark you made here. This statement, I think is just plan erroneous, You make this remark as if it were true and leave it there. SHow me where people have taught you what you have asserted. Your hyperbole is deafening.

 

[rcwitness]

Matthew 2

When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:

 

[Agathon]

No. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was first developed in the 9th century by Paschasius Radbertus.

Correction: that’s the first clear reference to Transubstantion.

 

[susanlo]

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.”

Which writing is this taken from? I see a similar version of this from The Instructor Book 2 Chapter 2. I actually have a quote from later in that chapter below. It sounds like you are quoting a different translation. Or am I looking at the wrong writing?

Clement of Alexandria did use symbolic terms for the Eucharist:

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.”
The Instructor Book 1 Chapter 6 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

“For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood — the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word shed for many, for the remission of sins— the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.”
The Instructor Book 2 Chapter 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

 

[rcwitness]

Transubstantiation does NOT take away the fact that bread and wine have symbolic meaning to the revelation of God in Jesus.

It does mean that the reality of the substance of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of the Word made flesh, who suffered death and rose from death. This is not a happening revealed to carnal senses, but known through faith.

 

[mcq72]

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.

sounds like literal eating of bread for our physical body and any flesh eating is only spiritual

 

[rcwitness]

Kinda, but we dont eat the Eucharist for our physical nutrition, but our physical union with Jesus, through Spiritual faith and worship

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks susan, Ill try to look into these.