G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, of course. If this were not the case, the divisions would not persist as they do. Those that hold the diametrcially opposing positions both believe they are right.
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
Forgive me guan if I appear ignorant. The statements above tell me that the Catholics and non-Catholics do agree that we do eat His flesh and blood without eating it literally. Who is being divisive?Wannano:
That God “calls” all of us to be One Faith, One Body, One Bread. He does not intend for us to be separated in the way we are!
G
guanophore
Guest
No, we do not agree. The fact of a spiritual communion does not eliminate the fact of the Real Presence. We are not at liberty to reject what was handed down to us from the Apostles.
W
Wannano
Guest
It is a new revelation to me that the CC does in fact believe that Jesus’ teaching to eat His flesh can be obeyed without believing we are eating the literal flesh of Jesus. Or am I misunderstanding?Wannano:
No, we do not agree. The fact of a spiritual communion does not eliminate the fact of the Real Presence. We are not at liberty to reject what was handed down to us from the Apostles.
R
rcwitness
Guest
He is saying a spiritual understanding is compatible with a literal. His Body and blood are one with His Spirit. They are not opposed to each other.
Why do you separate them? We do not receive the spirit only, but we come together in His body and blood.
Just as the serpent was raised in the wilderness, and those who looked upon it were healed, the Son of Man is raised up so we are gathered together unto Him.
Why do you separate them? We do not receive the spirit only, but we come together in His body and blood.
Just as the serpent was raised in the wilderness, and those who looked upon it were healed, the Son of Man is raised up so we are gathered together unto Him.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
If a spiritual Communion fulfills obedience to Christ’s teaching regarding eating His flesh and His body and blood are one with His Spirit, just who is separating them?
M
mcq72
Guest
that is immaterial as to the question of Jesus saying He would not drink wine until…
Actually upon reading Writ He does not qualify it with the circumstance…kind of says won’t drink it again till they all be together. So now did He drink at the cross is the question. I think two gospels say vinegar and one wine , and says he tasted “vinegar” it but did not drink, and was he offered drink more than once? Tough to say if He drank…doubt it, twas poison(gall) mixed with wine/vinegar
“They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.” Psalm 69:21…Some believe He did accept vinegar but only at the last moment, having refused before, and to fulfill scripture.
So whether Jesus drank wine again or not , He called it wine after consecration. Not sure it messes anybody’s communion view, for the appearance is still wine, the symbol is still wine.
I have read some Catholic literature for mass attendants on how to clean wine from Mass linens , either table cloths and the "towels’ or on any vestments. They were called “wine” stains.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Nobody said anything about a “Spiritual Communion” but a literal Communion of Jesus’ literal body and blood is Spiritual, since He is the fruit of the Spirit, and the Spirit came to us through His coming in the flesh.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, this is not what He commanded us to do. Persons who are unable to follow His commandment to participate in Real Presence engage in prayer with those who are doing so.
W
Wannano
Guest
Not nice to call guan a “nobody.” Look at post 825 .
M
mcq72
Guest
We read that even Jerome thought of them as “deutero” , but he was told to put his scholasticism aside and include them, but his commentaries I believe still stand (that they are possibly of a different nature…something Luther also did, and early KJV also) .
Don’t think it has anything to do with who accepted Jesus or not. There is no evidence that Jesus or apostles thought them to be all equal or not. Christ did not cite directly any deutero books.
The Septuagint was not put together for Israel , but for a pagan king I believe, who wanted all Jewish religious literature put into one book for his library. Yet it became the Greek book that Jews used , helping Jews in diaspora, and Greek being the universal language at the time, along side their Hebrew bible. pretty sure Jesus read Hebrew Writ when in synagogues (when he was 12).
B
Benadam
Guest
It’s true we don’t agree on a fundamental level. Catholics see a unity where protestants see a mutual exclusion. It does seem to always divide when things that are not divided are perceived to be mutually exclusive. For example science and faith.
B
Benadam
Guest
The Eucharist is spiritual food. That doesn’t mean that the bread doesn’t become the material reality of Christ’s flesh and blood.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, and from God’s point of view He is infallible and keeps His promise to Shepherd and guide into all truth.
Sometimes everybody gets it, sometimes most and all conform, and sometimes only a remnant listen, and remaining do not conform, causing division. Nothing new to God, nor should it be to us.
Sometimes the Church correctly puts out a Korah, and sometimes wrongly puts out a true prophet…but God’s truth always marches on in and thru believers, the ecclesia.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
He said Protestants have a Spiritual Communion, using bread and wine as “props”. I meant nobody called the Eucharist a Spiritual (as in opposed to His literal flesh) Communion.rcwitness:
Not nice to call guan a “nobody.” Look at post 825 .
Obviously, since we cannot percieve His body and blood by our carnal senses, that means we know by the Spirit He is there literally. Thus, we worship Him (body, soul, divinity) Spirituality, when we partake in Transubstantiation.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
Can truth march on if what is believed is part true and part not true?
W
Wannano
Guest
Wannano:
He said Protestants have a Spiritual Communion, using bread and wine as “props”.rcwitness:
Not nice to call guan a “nobody.” Look at post 825 .
I don’t see where he said this at all.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Not verbatum. Its what he meant. Nobody called the Eucharist a Spiritual Communion, as in not literal.
We do see the literal (Transubstantiation) as a Spiritual Communion, for the reasons I explained.
We do see the literal (Transubstantiation) as a Spiritual Communion, for the reasons I explained.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
They are separated in this model. A spiritual communion is made BECAUSE one is separated from the Real Presence.
G
guanophore
Guest
We agree about this, Catholics call this the sensus fidelum, but it only applies to those who hold to the faith in unity with the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles.
St. Ignatius of Antioch explains that only an ordained presbyter or bishop can consecrate the Eucharist.
"Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. "– St. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1
When Luther embraced heresies, he was no longer in unity with the Bishop. The rest of the Reformers continued this division.
- Status