Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[steve-b]

steve-b:

mcq72:

guanophore:

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Nor is Reform defined by those who oppose it.

I think I know what you’re saying

but could you clarify?

Let’s see if an example brings clarity to the assertion:

When your teenage child rebels against your rule that curfew is strictly at 10pm, only they have the right to define the argument, so when they say “I’m gonna do what I want because my parents are stupid”, that’s the narrative that we must give assent to.

I think that about covers it.

just making sure. Lot’s of that going around.

 

[Agathon]

Then how come Christ used it?

 

[guanophore]

Then how come Christ used it?

And the Apostles!

 

[guanophore]

Technically was not heresy till 1215.

That is absurd. If the Church believed something that was contrary to the doctrine of Christ then it was wrong from the beginning. What you are proposing is that the books that belonged in the NT were not “technically scripture” until the canon was closed in 382 AD!

Nor is Reform defined by those who oppose it.

No of course not. Those who depart from defined doctrines re-define those doctrines to suit themselves. I believe the Reformers were genuinely and excusably disgusted with corrupted Catholics in positions of leadership and power and wanted to replace their authority with something more pure and godly. To do this, the nature of the Church had to be redefined, concepts of authority, and the scriptures were tapped into a role they could not assume. All these redefinitions, though sincerely initiated, have resulted in further departure from the apostolic faith and continued division.

 

[MichaelP3]

Please, do not misunderstand my zeal for the Unification of Christ’s Body as anything else other than an earnest desire that man stops living in splinter groups and creating new splinters of the Body of Christ.

I would advise you that your “zeal” could very much be mistaken for arrogance. To question a fellow Christian on "Whether Jesus spoke the truth or whether they believe scripture sort of " is not the way to go. That is purely arrogant and any excuse of some sort of zeal just kills any kind of dialogue.

Regards

 

[rcwitness]

I agree to a large degree. But here is the thing; no matter how sincere and well intended someone’s disposition is towards God and men, does that mean they are answering God’s call in all things? In particular, im asking about Holy Communion, since we believe the Lord’s Supper to have the most profound meaning as a gathering (and sending) of the faithful’s corporal celebration.

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi RC

Arrogance is a very sad topic I feel close to.

I have been following this thread. And it is 3 am here so I will just say what I want to say.

If God is truly in the Eucharist as you believe it. Why not let other experience it and get what it is. If it is TRULY GOD it should do/mean/something something.

Yes a communion but maybe you have it the other way around. Communion has nothing to do with faith, IT IS GOD.

(I know the verses and so that may be levelled against me. Even the CCC itself. This is just my opinion.)

 

[jcrichton]

Recognizing what was there from the very beginning is not forcing Christ to capitulate.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…there’s a verse in a song that states, ‘were you there when they crucified my Lord?’

I’ve met some people that actually use that as the means to test “faith” or “knowledge” or “spirituality.”

They actually hold that there were there at the cross when Jesus surrendered His life for us.

You intimated (in a response to another poster) that your religious affiliation had it’s beginning that very day of the Lord’s Supper; any religious affiliation that started weeks/decades/centuries after the Lord’s Supper can only use the meter expressed in the song (removed visionary method).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I did not say that the Church holds the minds and bodies of the world bound and gagged–I’ve only offered that, as an example, the Church fought for human dignity in matters of war, peace, health, respect, tolerance, work… the ethics or lack there of that existed back when would have you working for 20 hours per day along with your spouse and children for the awesome prize of almost enough sustenance for that day or going to war because I desired the land that you posses or because I wanted a woman from your family, etc.

Values as “rights” and “civility” did not exist as an automatic thing that people just picked up and kept alive… just like that “dark ages” issue–the sun did not disappear for hundreds of years… the dark ages were carried in the heart and minds of people (and in some places in the world are still quite actively engaged); people were “enlightened” by the none secular teachings of the Church and the great efforts that Monks and Nuns (as well as other religious) put into the building of social justice.

So, yeah, I’m proud to be an American, in the US, who happens to be a Catholic–hence, part of the great legacy that has brought us out of the dark ages.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

The problem with that premise is that it would make the Church exist in a vacuum… and it would isolate the “Truth” (Jesus) to only the 13 Apostles’ time and era… hence any Unfolding past the life expectancy of the last Apostle that is said to have died (St. John) would be seen as suspect… which brings us to Church Doctrine and the Canon of the Holy Bible, as well as the countering of heresies and Definition of terms (ie. Writings of the Apostles = Gospels and Epistles; and the definition of the Holy Trinity, just to name a few particular defining moments in Church history).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

What continues to evade you is the fact that if there was a symbolic “braking of the bread” there would be no misunderstanding of the early Church’s practice of discerning the real Presence (as St. Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 11) of the Body and Blood of Christ.

It would be a total discombobulation to have rumors started (cannibalism and eating children, etc.) if all the Apostles and the early Church did was make some wine and cook some flower–cannibalism arguments would be off scale to such an extent that even the most steadfast anti-Christians would see through the ridiculous constructs.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…actually, if you hear me claim that I drink wine to celebrate my bother’s passing, could you honestly and reasonably start to suspect and believe that I’m a cannibal?

Please, people lets use reason in the equation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I can’t wrap my head around those statements. Why is it impossible for Him to be symbolic with the bread and wine symbolizing His body and blood and still give His literal body on the Cross? If I say to my friend while showing him a picture of my daughter, “this is my daughter who is coming tomorrow”, why can’t my daughter literally and physically arrive tomorrow?

Because Jesus did not call back those who believed that He was actually Commanding them to eat His Body and drink His Blood; rather, He emphasized that whoever does not eat His Body and drink His Blood cannot enter into eternal Life…

St. Paul made it quite clear that the Apostles did not celebrate a “symbolic” Jesus but an actual discernment (acceptance, understanding) that it is Christ’s Body and Blood that we are to Partake when the Church comes together to Break Bread!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Recognizing what was there from the very beginning is not forcing Christ to capitulate.

Maran atha!

Angel

yes, as is recognizing what is now, in “other” churches, even in “their” communion.

 

[Wannano]

…there’s a verse in a song that states, ‘were you there when they crucified my Lord?’

I’ve met some people that actually use that as the means to test “faith” or “knowledge” or “spirituality.”

They actually hold that there were there at the cross when Jesus surrendered His life for us.

You intimated (in a response to another poster) that your religious affiliation had it’s beginning that very day of the Lord’s Supper; any religious affiliation that started weeks/decades/centuries after the Lord’s Supper can only use the meter expressed in the song (removed visionary method).

Maran atha!

Angel

That post was #697, if you actually take the time to read it you will find it said nothing about my religious affiliation. The question was asked "when was your communion founded. Well my Communion was founded exactly the same time your Eucharist was…the Last Supper. We are reminded of that every time we commune.

Now a week later you in your true arrogant fashion start posting polemical innuendos based on a false statement and a song I never made reference to at all.

What a great job you are doing of making Catholicism attractive!

 

[jcrichton]

Wait, so Jesus did not have the acumen or the strength to tell His followers, ‘hey, you got Me wrong, I’m not being literal… it’s all symbolic and spiritual; please, don’t leave, let me explain it to in terms that you can assimilate!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wannano]

Your answer has no bearing on the question.

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps it is best to let this go since you neither understand me nor can I offer you anything that you can accept.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wannano]

Perhaps it is best to let this go since you neither understand me nor can I offer you anything that you can accept.

Maran atha!

Angel

Me too, please.