Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

There is a difference between a different gospel that was received, and than what was ruled, We both receive the same foundation…just different rulings, at different times as allowed

Yes, I suppose that is true. Catholics assent to "rulings’ that are based on the One Faith we received from the Apostles. Those who have rejected Catholic faith, the children of the Reformers, have recreated “rulings” based upon what was “received” from the Reformers. So, yes, they are different rulings, and drastically different “gospels” that have occurred at different times.

 

[mcq72]

Was Jesus a Preist? I thought He was a Rabbi…?

And the 12, who were the ones at table, were Apostles of Jesus.

well, you are right…I was looking beyond Last Supper by calling Jesus a priest (after Melchizedek)…but at the Last Supper then there were no "priests’’ as they were not needed for that portion of Passover , which then would have been an odd context to say that Jesus by saying "do this’’ was ordaining apostles as priests over future remembrance. Yes Jesus was considered by others as a rabbi, and the apostles as disciples, which was a teaching role, not priestly…

Again, this ordaining the apostles as priest over the communion is a later development, not one understood at the Supper, and I would say even in recordings in Writ.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Was Jesus a Preist? I thought He was a Rabbi…?

And the 12, who were the ones at table, were Apostles of Jesus.

well, you are right…I was looking beyond Last Supper by calling Jesus a priest (after Melchizedek)…but at the Last Supper then there were no "priests’’ as they were not needed for that portion of Passover , which then would have been an odd context to say that Jesus by saying "do this’’ was ordaining apostles as priests over future remembrance. Yes Jesus was considered by others as a rabbi, and the apostles as disciples, which was a teaching role, not priestly…

Again, this ordaining the apostles as priest over the communion is a later development, not one understood at the Supper, and I would say even in recordings in Writ.

Jesus was appointing Apostles during His ministry. I think we should both agree that He was a new beginning entirely, yet He was not even a Priest among the Jews!

And to say the Apostles were not more than a teacher is missing alot.

1 Corinthians 12
And God has appointed in the Church first Apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

The Apostles, in turn, appointed Bishops and Presbyters. Presbyters is who are New Testame t Priests.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, I suppose that is true. Catholics assent to "rulings’ that are based on the One Faith we received from the Apostles… Those who have rejected Catholic faith, the children of the Reformers, have recreated “rulings” based upon what was “received” from the Reformers. So, yes, they are different rulings, and drastically different “gospels” that have occurred at different times.

Lol…well first part we agree on.

Second part, no. First reformers recreated rulings based on same Apostolic foundation, as even understood by some Catholics before any definitive rulings.

There are only a few reformed rulings (symbolic, spiritual) and i believe both use same foundation,
(Writ and Catholic historical opinions/understandings).

We both use Writ and some tradition to come up with understanding/rulings. Reformers and her children do not forsake same foundation, do not forsake Writ, and opinions/understandings of some Catholic predecessors.

Reform children do not solely rule according to Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, just as Catholics do not rule solely on Augustine, or Aquinas, or Radbertus.

 

[steve-b]

Even Pope Gregory the great did not get the memo from that council and had a different opinion. And that was after that council.

Gregory the Great, the Deuterocanon, and Papal Infallibility – Orthodox Christian Theology

For clarification

Pope Gregory accepted the deutero works as inspired and divine but not necessarily of the same stature as the other canonical works. Such was a personal opinion and not formally taught by the Pope. Infallibility guarantees that the pope will be preserved from teaching error but not that he may be wrong in a personal opinion which is not promulgated as a teaching. It was at Trent that the Church formally restated and declared not only the list of the canonical books but also their equal standing as for inspiration. Hence, we see that the pope did not contradict any previous statement of the Church in the matter of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
From EWTN Fr John Echert

 

[mcq72]

And to say the Apostles were not more than a teacher is missing alot.

well wait. I thought you raised question about me saying of Jesus being thought of as a priest at Last Supper, instead of rabbi. So in context of Last Supper and Jewishness, the apostles were still “disciples” of a “rabbi”…technically not sent out yet. But surely after Jesus ascended, they were definitely commissioned as "apostles’’ and beginning a new context , new covenant. (before Calvary they at times were sent out two by two, but still in OT covenant).

Just believe the apostles were not priests at Last Supper…but certainly after Pentecost they were presbyters, fellow presbyters amongst others they discipled and appointed.

The Greek terminology of priest was not used anymore in NT Writ offices, replaced by presbyter, with good reason.

 

[mcq72]

It was at Trent that the Church formally restated and declared not only the list of the canonical books but also their equal standing as for inspiration. Hence, we see that the pope did not contradict any previous statement of the Church in the matter of the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Cool, just like Luther then, who posited his opinion on these secondary books, also before Trent, not contradicting any previous ruling of CC.

 

[susanlo]

The fruit of the vine and the bread (“work of human hands”) is what we bring to Mass. Once there, they are consecrated.

During the last supper, jesus took the cup (fruit of the vine) and declared it was His blood. Are you saying he told a lie?

Is His blood “fruit of the vine?” Perhaps I am confused about what Scott Hahn taught. You also wrote:

I think you lost me here. Are you claiming that Jesus said the cup was “wine” after he said “this is my blood”?

This is what Scott Hahn was talking about:
Matthew 26
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

So after He said “This is my blood,” He drank the fruit of the vine (wine). This was the 3rd cup of Passover. He drank from the fruit of the vine (wine) at the cross and that was the 4th cup.

John 19
28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

I don’t understand how this explanation leads one to think that Jesus drank blood and not wine for the 3rd cup.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

At the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, And said after the blessing

Re: the Bread, take and eat, this is my body

Re: the wine, take and drink this is my blood of the new covenant

Re: ποιεῖτε DO this Lk 22:19 DO WHAT?

make, manufacture, construct, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,

Jesus here, ordains His apostles, and gives them the authority and the power to do exactly What Jesus did here. Change bread and wine into His body and blood. And this ordination, authority, and power, from Jesus, is to continue. Thus, apostolic succession.

yes, it all goes back to opinions on Last Supper (and John 6 and a text in Corinthians).

But yes what is “do this”…it was a Jewish Passover, full of symbols outlaying spiritual principle and HIStory…

Let’s back up in history to the actual Passover

1. if they didn’t sprinkle the door post with the lambs blood, what would the angel of death do to them in the house?
2. What if they didn’t actually “eat” the lamb?

mcq72:

no priests were present save the Lord (family affair…heirus priest left behind at temple, no more to offer blood sacrifices)…this we do but why?..in remembrance , of the sign of new covenant, till His coming again.

Did you see the definition of the Greek word "Do" that I posted?

ποιεῖτε DO open the link. Read all that the word “Do” represents

Jesus ordained the apostles here. He gave them the power to do what He did in the Eucharist.

What is that one will ask?

to change bread and wine into His body and blood.

Read the definition of the word. Combine that with the classic scriptures used for describing the Eucharist

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It was at Trent that the Church formally restated and declared not only the list of the canonical books but also their equal standing as for inspiration. Hence, we see that the pope did not contradict any previous statement of the Church in the matter of the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Cool, just like Luther then, who posited his opinion on these secondary books, also before Trent, not contradicting any previous ruling of CC.

In today’s legal vernacular, assuming Luther had council with him back then, his lawyer would most certainly have counseled him to keep his mouth shut regarding the following statement.

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”

 

[mcq72]

if they didn’t sprinkle the door post with the lambs blood, what would the angel of death do to them in the house?

The angel of death would come and kill first born of household.

What if they didn’t actually “eat” the lamb?

They would be hungry…it was dinner.

Let’s back up in history to the actual Passover

There is the night of the tenth plague, and there is the remembrance of that night, known as the “Passover”.

The remembrance Passover symbols eaten do not become the exact substances of the original ones eaten and drunk the night of the tenth plague…the symbols suffice to bring the Story to present, to remembrance.

What is that one will ask?

to change bread and wine into His body and blood.

well just that the word “change” is no where explicitly in the original story, in the “what”, but the "how’ is implicitly asked

 

[mcq72]

In today’s legal vernacular, assuming Luther had council with him back then, his lawyer would most certainly have counseled him to keep his mouth shut regarding the following statement.

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”

Actually, i think he wrote those words at the behest of his lawyer and Counselor.

it is not all or nothing, either/or in regards to honoring ones foundation, and past, and predecessors.

The best in any of us gives honor to where honor is due, as graced to us by His discernment of all things

 

[guanophore]

. First reformers recreated rulings based on same Apostolic foundation, as even understood by some Catholics before any definitive rulings.

Some, yes, but in doing so, denied that Jesus kept His promise to guide the Church into “all truth”. They rejected rulings that were made by an undivided church, and redefined terms so as to change what was handed down to us.

 

[Gorgias]

guanophore:

The fruit of the vine and the bread (“work of human hands”) is what we bring to Mass. Once there, they are consecrated.

During the last supper, jesus took the cup (fruit of the vine) and declared it was His blood. Are you saying he told a lie?

Is His blood “fruit of the vine?” Perhaps I am confused about what Scott Hahn taught.

I’m not sure whether you’re talking to me (to whom you responded in your post) or to @guanophore (whom you quoted in your post). I asked you to point out what media you were referring to, and since you haven’t, maybe you’re responding to @guanophore?

In any case, you asked a question, so I’ll attempt to answer it.

So after He said “This is my blood,” He drank the fruit of the vine (wine). This was the 3rd cup of Passover. He drank from the fruit of the vine (wine) at the cross and that was the 4th cup.

Well… wait, then! If your claim is that Jesus merely meant “I’m not gonna drink wine again”, then by your own admission, He was lying – He did so from the cross!

So, if we want to propose that Christ isn’t a liar, then it’s necessary to recognize that what He drank at the Last Supper was His blood !

I don’t understand how this explanation leads one to think that Jesus drank blood and not wine for the 3rd cup.

Because, if it were wine, then He lied. Or was mistaken. But, if it wasn’t wine (but rather, was truly His Blood, sacramentally present), then He didn’t lie.

 

[mcq72]

They rejected rulings that were made by an undivided church,

No, the rulings generally were made because the church was divided over an issue.

 

[mcq72]

and redefined terms so as to change what was handed down to us

No generally they used terms/understandings previously existing , possibly in minority and until ruled against. Yes for sure went against what was handed down to them in rulings.

 

[mcq72]

Some, yes, but in doing so, denied that Jesus kept His promise to guide the Church into “all truth”.

Thank you for the “some”…as to promise of guidance some would say the promise was kept by and in the minority but not discerned by the majority.

 

[mcq72]

Well… wait, then! If your claim is that Jesus merely meant “I’m not gonna drink wine again”, then by your own admission, He was lying – He did so from the cross!

If i may…if it is what was given to Him when he thirsted on the cross (vinegar,sop, old wine), He was aquite alone in His circumstance, and not with the apostles, which was the part of the context of the promise…but lets see what susanio says…thanks…good rebuttal to her good point though

 

[susanlo]

I’m not sure whether you’re talking to me (to whom you responded in your post) or to @guanophore (whom you quoted in your post). I asked you to point out what media you were referring to, and since you haven’t, maybe you’re responding to @guanophore?

I’m sorry for the confusion. I started to reply to you, but then decided just to reply to guanophore. Really the point about the 4 cups of wine is really the whole topic of his lecture. I think if you listen from 2:00 - 35:00 you would get his whole explanation. I didn’t know how to find one point in particular of his lecture to reference.

Well… wait, then! If your claim is that Jesus merely meant “I’m not gonna drink wine again”, then by your own admission, He was lying – He did so from the cross!

This isn’t my claim, but a summary of Scott Hahn’s presentation. (I don’t disagree with his explanation of the 4 cups.) His point is that when He drank the 4th cup of wine on the cross the Passover was complete. Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist shares this same point, but Scott Hahn’s video is much easier (shorter) to watch.

 

[rcwitness]

This isn’t my claim, but a summary of Scott Hahn’s presentation. (I don’t disagree with his explanation of the 4 cups.) His point is that when He drank the 4th cup of wine on the cross the Passover was complete. Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist shares this same point, but Scott Hahn’s video is much easier (shorter) to watch.

Without knowing alot about the 4 cup teaching by Dr. Hahn, my impression is that Jesus was referring to drinking together in heaven. It would be a reference to His death.

Notice Jesus says “this fruit of the vine” He has called Himself the Vine, and so He is the Vine and His blood is the drink.

Matthew 26
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

Here is the NAB footnote to this passage:

Although his death will interrupt the table fellowship he has had with the disciples, Jesus confidently predicts his vindication by God and a new table fellowship with them at the banquet of the kingdom.