Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[MichaelP3]

I suspect that you do not accept the reality of the 2000 plus Church history and that you believe that Scriptures only mean somewhat what they say.

I would advise you to rather stop suspecting. Although this 2000 + years you claim of only Catholic history (Yes history and I am willing to go with you from Peter to Francis and we can discuss EVERYTHING , I participated in numerous threads were the HISTORY DOESN’T ADD UP) you are also going a step too far claiming I do not accept scripture. It shouldn’t be that hard to see I do not question scripture but your interpretation of it. And to make a very very uncharitable remark that I do not believe Christs words is a “cheap shot” and closed minded!

Consider that there’s no government body that has existed for the same period as the Church (over 2000 years); that the Church has influenced and shaped the world we now hold; finally, consider that Christ stated that not even the gates of hades could overthrow His Church.

The Church yes. The Catholic Church uhmmmm no. And yes the Church has not succumbed to hell.

Only a revisionist can state that both the Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church and that Christ’s Word did not fail–then that person would insert what is “the Church” and what the Word of God “really meant.”

You are assuming too much here as a fact and not your belief as it is.

I guess that’s what bugs me the most. All the assumptions and then to carry on as IF fact. Noooooo… we need to stop and clear that out first before all these suspecting can happen!

Regards

 

[mcq72]

Can truth march on if what is believed is part true and part not true?

Yes and no. Truth marches and so does some error sometimes…doesn’t negate the truth, unfortunately not the error also…else why would one need discernment, why would one need to knock, or seek with all of ones heart.

Truth can not be partly false, just as error can not be partly true. I think what you bring up is something different altogether, where truth and error can reside together.Isn’t that one of the aspects of the battle , the challenge, to indeed walk in the Spirit, to be petfect as the Father in heaven is perfect?

 

[mcq72]

So what you are intimating is that Jesus would have to capitulate to man’s determination to go it his own way?

Did the CC in Lumen Gentium force same capitulation to say there is grace and salvation in these "other "churches, with differing communion views?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

If you have the idea that we hold to a symbolic celebration of a symbol I can understand why you think we go against the teaching of Scriptures.

But isn’t that what most non-Catholics who do not discern the Body and Blood of Christ believe?

Maran atha!

Angel

No! We do not see the sacrifice of Jesus as a symbol. You know better than that I believe.

 

[Wannano]

…it is like the saying ‘were you there when they crucified my Lord?’

We can visualize being there but we were not; anyone who claims that their 20th, 19th, 18th… century founding of a body of Christians was initiated right before the Lord’s Supper… are they not stretching it?

Maran atha!

Angel

You are completely talking over my head.

 

[Wannano]

Consider that there’s no government body that has existed for the same period as the Church (over 2000 years); that the Church has influenced and shaped the world we now hold;

---

Considering the sad state of the world today it is gracious of you to take credit for it!

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

Can truth march on if what is believed is part true and part not true?

Yes and no. Truth marches and so does some error sometimes…doesn’t negate the truth, unfortunately not the error also…else why would one need discernment, why would one need to knock, or seek with all of ones heart.

Truth can not be partly false, just as error can not be partly true. I think what you bring up is something different altogether, where truth and error can reside together.Isn’t that one of the aspects of the battle , the challenge, to indeed walk in the Spirit, to be petfect as the Father in heaven is perfect?

I was thinking of truth marching in a historical sense. I was wondering if you would agree that it began marching at Pentecost fully true, a faith that was all truth with nothing believed that was not true.

If we agree on that, then does it follow that faith that didn’t believe anything not true, at some point began believing things not true. Then that faith began believing more and more untrue things. Then if you would agree that since faith started out without believing in any untrue thing it isn’t reasonable to think that truth can march on to inform our faith until we are no longer believing untrue things.

 

[susanlo]

OK, but you’re claiming that, by means of his “four cups” theory, Hahn is saying that the Eucharist is just wine and not truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus?

It is hard to further discuss this if you are not familiar with the lecture by Scott Hahn.

Scott Hahn says that the Last Supper was a Passover celebration. He asserts that Jesus blessed the 3rd cup of wine and then stated that He "will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I [He] drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (Mark 14) Jesus did not drink the 4th cup at the Last Supper. This 4th cup is the cup of consummation and is the climax of the celebration. He drank wine at the cross and declared “It is finished” (consummated). (John 19) This was the 4th cup of the Passover, and the Passover was finished on the cross.
This above is what I understand from Scott Hahn’s lecture. I don’t disagree with this part, but it is just a summary based on his lecture. You should listen to the short lecture if you really want to know what he teaches about this. If you have further disagreement you can take it up with him.

continued below…

 

[susanlo]

Part 2

So while Scott Hahn (and Brant Pitre) teach that Jesus drank wine after calling it His blood, they both believe in transubstantiation. They both cite the fact that at the Passover one must eat the lamb after it was sacrificed. According to these men, because the Israelites ate lamb when they fled Egypt - and every year after as a commemoration of this - it must mean that people who celebrate Communion must eat a sacrificial Lamb (Jesus).

While I understand their argument, I don’t think that this is the only conclusion. At the Passover celebration the Jewish families would have to take an unblemished lamb or goat to be sacrificed at the Temple. The animal was slaughtered and the blood was collected in special bowls to later be poured out on the altar. The next day the lamb was roasted intact (no broken bones) with bitter herbs. The family did eat this roasted lamb along with unleavened bread and wine (as the Israelites did when they escaped Egypt), along with other symbolic foods that were added to the Passover celebration. (Some of these current symbolic foods may be different than what the ate during Jesus’ day.) They never drank blood or ate transubstantiated foods at the Passover celebrations.

So why such a focus on “eating the lamb?” If Communion is a Passover wouldn’t there be wine and bread present too?

I think that Communion can be seen as a type of Passover celebration. It has many similarities, but is altogether different at the same time. I think consuming the unleavened bread and wine while in the presence (spiritual) of the Lamb is reflective of the Passover meal. I think other OT sacrifices (Todah-Thanksgiving Offering; and Minchah Offering) are also represented in some ways in the Communion celebration as well.

I can appreciate what Scott Hahn is teaching about how Communion is a reflection of the Passover celebration, but I don’t come to the same understanding that one must “eat the lamb.” This idea seems forced onto the explanation while ignoring so many other differences between the Passover and Communion.

 

[susanlo]

Further, you and others who reject Transubstantiation do so because you claim to have a better understanding than the Church’s 1500 years–when faced with historical accounts of Transubstantiation you (non-Catholics) reject what secular history shows:

Charge: Cannibalism

CAECILIUS THE PAGAN: You Christians are the worst breed ever to affect the world. You deserve every punishment you can get! Nobody likes you. It would be better if you and your Jesus had never been born. We hear that you are all cannibals–you eat the flesh of your children in your sacred meetings. (Why Early Christians Were Despised - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline)

that Christians committed flagitia, scelera, and maleficia— “outrageous crimes”, “wickedness”, and “evil deeds”, specifically, cannibalism and incest (referred to as “Thyestian banquets” and “Oedipodean intercourse”)— due to their rumored practices of eating the “blood and body” of Christ and referring to each other as “brothers” and “sisters”.[14][15]:128 (Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia)

Are you claiming that the Christians ate the flesh of their children, committed incest and other evil deeds? Or do you think that perhaps these charges were misunderstandings of what the Christians actually did? Of course even Christians who believe in a symbolic Eucharist state that they are consuming the body and blood of Jesus. A lady told me once that the first time she went to church, the church sang a song where they kept repeating “thank you for the blood” and she thought it was morbid. She did return to a different church a year later. But it is easy to see even nowadays how confusing this must be to someone who is not used to this language. I don’t think the early Christians had to believe in transubstantiation in order to be misunderstood.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree. I dont think pagan understandings of Christian beliefs and practices can provide much clarification about these things.

 

[rcwitness]

I think Hahn is saying that the specific requirement of the Hebrews to eat the lamb was a sign of what was to come in the New Covenant.

As for the 4 cups of wine, I think he would have to clarify that teaching for us. I personally think its likely that when Jesus said “I will not drink this fruit of the vine until I drink it with you in the Kingdom” He did not mean on the cross, but after His resurrection and maybe Pentecost or heaven. But I could be wrong, and either way im not seeing it as disproving the Transubstantiated cup. Interestingly enough, the times He broke bread after His resurrection, the wine was never mentioned.

 

[rcwitness]

Here is a condensed version of Dr. Scott’s explanaition:

Hunt for the Fourth Cup | Catholic Answers Magazine

He does present a good case for the 4th cup being at the cross.

 

[Gorgias]

that is immaterial as to the question of Jesus saying He would not drink wine until…

No… it’s highly relevant!

If He meant “this fruit of the vine”, meaning His Eucharist, then there’s no conflict with other instances of drinking wine. If the Last Supper was only wine, however, then there’s a conflict if He drinks wine prior to the coming “of the kingdom.”

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.

Precisely!

So now did He drink at the cross is the question.

Now, you’ve got it!

I think two gospels say vinegar and one wine

So, here’s the thing: you’re looking at “vinegar” and “wine” and saying “two different things.” Are you certain that this is how 1st century folk would look at it?

If you’re unconvinced with the argument about Roman soldiers and their “sour wine”, then ask yourself, “is there anywhere in the Scriptures in which a prohibition against drinking vinegar part of a prohibition against drinking wine?” – in other words, did the ancients conflate the two (in ways that you do not)? In fact… there is! Take a look at the description of the Nazirite vows in Numbers 6.

and says he tasted “vinegar” it but did not drink, and was he offered drink more than once? Tough to say if He drank

So… your whole case rests on whether “tasting” counts as “drinking”?

So whether Jesus drank wine again or not , He called it wine after consecration.

Right… 'cause, what He really should have done, if He meant what the Catholic Church teaches, was to launch into a lecture on Aristotelian categories and the distinction between ‘accident’ and ‘substance’…

[quote[
Not sure it messes anybody’s communion view, for the appearance is still wine, the symbol is still wine.
[/quote]
The appearance is wine; however, what we’re saying is that it no longer is 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.

Are you seriously claiming that housekeeping notes trump official statements of Catholic doctrine?

 

[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.

However,

since 382, and the council of Rome, those 73 books had been accepted as the canon. The council of Florence Session 11 1442 before Luther was born, was ALSO. like Trent, an ecumenical council. Luther as a Catholic priest, learned from that canon. Trent merely took Luther’s argument about those books, and refuted Luther’s argument thereby closing the argument. That’s what councils also do. It doesn’t mean that Trent defined something new, that the Church wasn’t already teaching about that canon for the last 1100 years.

 

[steve-b]

Hi

That wasn’t my point. It is said so many times on here that “this was the belief since …(insert time period)…” So here we have a Pope who either did not believe it or and this is something to think about… it was never a universal belief and the Council of Rome didn’t do as so many think. Because the Pope failed to receive the memo of something as important as this. As Pope and if this was the belief and a conclusion of the council I would in the least expect a Pope to have been briefed on the basics…

Also the thing about his personal opinion can’t fly. And I am not even touching infallibility. For instance, do you think Pope Francis will survive if he wrote a piece (and state his personal opinion) that Contraception is actually not that bad. In that case a Pope wrote about the Canon and clearly contradicted current Catholic ideas. I for one give him the benifit of the doubt and rather think it hasn’t always been believed as claimed and the Council of Rome was less definite or clear as many more claim.

Your point was using the following link
Gregory the Great, the Deuterocanon, and Papal Infallibility – Orthodox Christian Theology

that was challlenging “papal infallibility” using Pope Gregory and his view of the deutero canon as the example.

For clarification I provided a link explaining that challenge.

“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

 

[MichaelP3]

Scratch the link then. Was just the quickest one I could find that stated what he said. Even leave infallibility out of it. I am not challenging that here.

Can you respond then to my question which didn’t touch on infallibility?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Hebrews that didn’t accept and rejected Jesus, have 39 books to their canon. THIS is the canon Luther in the 16th century accepted, and in extension, all the Protestants from then till now. Add to that the 27 books of the NT = 66 books.

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) .

The Vulgate, Jerome’s translation in Latin, had all 73 books. Jerome followed Pope Damasus’ lead, and the canon that was defined at the council of Rome 382.

As far as Luther’s commentary on those 7 books

Luther wrote

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books from scripture status, to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

mcq72:

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.

As for references in the NT of Jesus referring to the Deuteros, Here ya go

mcq72:

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).

Here’s a quick answer

 

[steve-b]

Scratch the link then. Was just the quickest one I could find that stated what he said. Even leave infallibility out of it. I am not challenging that here.

Can you respond then to my question which didn’t touch on infallibility?

Did he teach the Church is to believe those 7 books are NOT scripture? NO

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

Benadam:

Can truth march on if what is believed is part true and part not true?

Yes and no. Truth marches and so does some error sometimes…doesn’t negate the truth, unfortunately not the error also…else why would one need discernment, why would one need to knock, or seek with all of ones heart.

Truth can not be partly false, just as error can not be partly true. I think what you bring up is something different altogether, where truth and error can reside together.Isn’t that one of the aspects of the battle , the challenge, to indeed walk in the Spirit, to be petfect as the Father in heaven is perfect?

I was thinking of truth marching in a historical sense. I was wondering if you would agree that it began marching at Pentecost fully true, a faith that was all truth with nothing believed that was not true.

If we agree on that, then does it follow that faith that didn’t believe anything not true, at some point began believing things not true. Then that faith began believing more and more untrue things. Then if you would agree that since faith started out without believing in any untrue thing it isn’t reasonable to think that truth can march on to inform our faith until we are no longer believing untrue things.

I do believe that but don’t think it has been accomplished yet.