Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

jcrichton:

If everything were to remain a mystery then there would be no need for the Lord’s Supper to Call for “do this” and it would be superfluous for Jesus’ Followers to Break Bread.

I agree, and clearly, most doctrines of the faith are quite clear. But in the East, they have not had the scholastic influence in which everything must be resolved to suit the rational mind. They celebrate the Holy Mysteries (sacraments) that are recognized as valid by the Latin Church. Clearly their appreciation for leaving things in the form of a Mystery is not equivalent to their lack of value! I would urge every Latin Catholic who has not done so to attend Divine Liturgy.

From Wiki:
“In the Greek Orthodox Church, the doctrine has been discussed under the term of metousiosis, coined as a direct loan-translation of transsubstantiatio in the 17th century. In Eastern Orthodoxy in general, the Sacred Mystery (Sacrament) of the Eucharist is more commonly discussed using alternative terms such as “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις, metastoicheiosis), “re-ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις, metarrhythmisis), or simply “change” (μεταβολή, metabole).”

To be honest, im not sure how different we regard the consecrated bread and wine.

 

[guanophore]

you just might get to the place where you find you need us yet.

Indeed:

1 Corinthians 12:21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

We are siblings, baptized into One Lord.

Why is it such a big deal if Eusebius, Augustine, and others taught something that isn’t transubstantiation?

I think the issue is not about the word that is used, much like the word Trinity was not adopted for centuries, but the concept. Why would it matter if the early Fathers did not teach the concept we later came to call the Trinity?

The other issue has already been addressed by @jcrichton. Trying t cherry pick certain passages out of the works of Augustine, without reconciling the whole of what he wrote and believed. Trying to force a Catholic such as Augustine into a non-Catholic faith does violence to him.

 

[guanophore]

Yet it would almost seem sacreligious to gnaw on the Host as if it were a leg of lamb and I a ravenous wolf

Indeed, it does seem so, but Jesus used these words to dispel all doubt that He spoke of physical eating. At the last supper, He used unleavened bread, quite different than our modern “Host” for the consecration. One would have a very difficult time consuming unleavened bread without the use of teeth.

 

[lanman87]

Do you recall Arianism?

Since it was an Alexandrian Priest that subscribed to it (originated it), do you agree with him that Christ is not Divine?

Maran atha!

Angel

The difference is the Arians aren’t considered orthodox by the Catholic Church. The two I quoted in my post, Hippolytus of Rome and Clement of Alexandria are considered orthodox. Hippolytus is a Saint in the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches . Clement of Alexandria was considered a saint until the 16th Century, which is very odd to me. Did the church make a mistake in Canonizing Clement of Alexandria or did they make a mistake in de-canonizing him?

At any rate, it is very clear that that they considered the bread and wine symbols. Either they were wrong and not really Catholic or their understanding was completely acceptable at the time to the Catholic church.

 

[rcwitness]

Bread and wine ARE symbols!

 

[susanlo]

I think the issue is not about the word that is used, much like the word Trinity was not adopted for centuries, but the concept. Why would it matter if the early Fathers did not teach the concept we later came to call the Trinity?

We have record of the word Trinity being used about 150 years after Jesus’ earthly ministry by Theophilus of Antioch. Tertullian wrote a long defense of the Trinity in the early 200’s.
Which writings by “orthodox” Christians before this time deny that Jesus is God? Or deny that there is 1 God?

The difference is not only that the term transubstantiation took many many more centuries to develop, but the concept was quite directly denied by many of the early writings of those considered orthodox.

The other issue has already been addressed by @jcrichton. Trying t cherry pick certain passages out of the works of Augustine, without reconciling the whole of what he wrote and believed. Trying to force a Catholic such as Augustine into a non-Catholic faith does violence to him.

I see the quotes that were copied and pasted from a website by jcrichton. Many of those quotes were addressed in this thread already. Can you find one of those quotes in its original larger context that actually gives evidence of a belief in a conversion of the substance taking place? Augustine wrote specifically and directly that John 6:53 is “a figure.” He wrote that the bread and wine are symbols (“symbolize”) and they are a “mere physical likeness.” I think that is clear, and scholars including the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia agree that Augustine did not believe in a concept later called transubstantiation. So which writings do you claim show that he reversed his stance on the nature of the Eucharistic elements?

And what I really would like to know is: What difference would it make if he (along with Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others) believed that the elements were symbolic?

 

[rcwitness]

Did the Word become flesh, or was that figurative?

Does a husband and wife become one flesh, or is it figurative only?

 

[Benadam]

FYI, neither did Jesus nor the Apostles Teach “sola Scriptura.”

Neither do I. I have no idea why you think so. I think you must be barreling through posts without understanding or you are responding to someone else’s post. The fact you would think I am sola scriptura makes me think it’s possibly both. You must have done the same to my last post to you.

 

[Agathon]

I see the quotes that were copied and pasted from a website by jcrichton. Many of those quotes were addressed in this thread already. Can you find one of those quotes in its original larger context that actually gives evidence of a belief in a conversion of the substance taking place? Augustine wrote specifically and directly that John 6:53 is “a figure.” He wrote that the bread and wine are symbols (“symbolize”) and they are a “mere physical likeness.” I think that is clear, and scholars including the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia agree that Augustine did not believe in a concept later called transubstantiation. So which writings do you claim show that he reversed his stance on the nature of the Eucharistic elements?

Remember that quote I told you about Christ holding Himself in His Hands?

This link will do you some good. Did Tertullian and St. Augustine Deny the Real Presence? | Catholic Answers

 

[mcq72]

One would have a very difficult time consuming unleavened bread without the use of teeth.

I know, that thought did cross my mind, yet it is already broken for us isn’t it ?

 

[mcq72]

What would be religious to gnaw at like a ravenous wolf? His word?

No , that is the word used in John 6, the "eat’ is really “gnaw” at one point in the discourse

 

[rcwitness]

Yes… the verb changes to a more literalistic form of chewing.

But from your point of view, that Jesus was not referring to His Eucharist food, you rather think Jesus was speaking symbolic for “gnawing” the Word???

Either way, I dont think He meant for us to commune ravenously on Him.

 

[mcq72]

Since you and Susan are so keen in quoting St. Augustine, I thought I share some of excerpts that you have not posted:

Yes thank you. Am aware of these , that really mimic last supper and 1 Corinthians…we show our cherry pickin and you show yours. Augustine might be a conundrum…yet we both walk away thinking we have it (understanding him).

Do not our pickins seem to contradict ? Surely the bread is somehow His body then (spiritually, figuratively ?), just as surely as Augustine says it is not the body of the Lord that ascended and is in heaven…

Let sleeping dogs lay…or wake him by saying “we have the understanding” and everybody else a heretic…well you may be right but you are no longer universal in the matter (nor we).

Never has been unanimous consent (of the fathers), even up to now, their successors (us).

This forum is riddled with quite passionate understanding and its defense on both sides, going way back.

Now back to the game…it was you that recently alluded to some fathers as not being perfect in teaching or doctrine (Origen #1377) , but yet take what is good from them ( a second cousin to cherry pickin?)…well so we do with Augustine, who clearly was in the middle of “developing” doctrinal understanding, and succumbed to young tradition that was handed down to him (purgatory, Mary being free from sin etc).

 

[mcq72]

Either way, I dont think He meant for us to commune ravenously on Him.

well it was superfluous, by either meaning.

As to ravenous or gnawing, there is a depth to man that can be desperate, caution thrown to the wind, unabashed, like Jacob wrestling with an angel/Angel, not letting Him/him go, like riding a bronco…one desperate focus… quite ravenous…definitely not lukewarm brother…(also reminds of Mary that poured the expensive oil($30-40,000., a years salary !) on the Lord’s feet , or one who washed His feet with tears, or the friends who let the paralytic down thru the roof for a healing)

 

[Benadam]

Scriptures aside, Church history and philosophy aside. I find it difficult to believe the Eucharist is figurative. It just isn’t reasonable to me for Jesus to institute a meal of Himself as bread, if it didn’t unite us to Him in a way just as real as eating any other food. I think I would believe the Eucharist is Jesus on earth just as real as Jesus is in heaven even if I were sola scriptura. Forgive me for a long post.

Ya know, bread is food. When we eat food it enters our digestive system and ends up becoming muscle tissue or fat or whatever part of us it becomes. Like the old saying we are what we eat. This isn’t some new revelation. This is the meaning of food on earth. I think Jesus is teaching that about being the Bread of Life. When He said " I am the bread of Life and whoever eats this Bread will never die. He is teaching that like bread stops being bread when we eat it, then it becomes us He becomes ‘in’ us in the same way. Like any other food He is in like manner food… So He say’s “My flesh is real food” My blood is real drink" He is teaching that eating is the way He is going to become ‘in’ us and us ‘in’ Him. He is teaching He is going to become ‘in’ us in just as real a way and in the same manner as any other food we eat. The most primordial way on earth possible. Just as the flesh of the unblemished lamb became the flesh of a Hebrew, His flesh would become the flesh of a Christian. That being the earthy ground of human nature, and so, it is the fullest possible union of Him ‘in’ us and us in Him, and it includes all other components of our nature.

Why would Jesus want this? You know when you really love someone, you want to be with them. You want to be with them in as much as it is possible. Love even seeks to go beyond ‘with’ and be ‘in’ the beloved and the beloved ‘in’ them. This is the expression of Love between the Father and the Son. The same for Jesus’ love for people. For that ‘in’ us and ‘in’ Him to be fully realized it must include our entire selves and His entire self. I can’t imagine Jesus allowing it to fall short of our whole selves. Since our mortal bodies are a reality that is one with the Incarnation I can’t imagine Jesus instituting a perpetual act that includes bread that He say’s is Himself and tells us that eating it is eating Himself, and eating Him is real food, that He isn’t teaching that it is as real as eating any other food.

 

[mcq72]

I am the bread of Life and whoever eats this Bread will never die.

But we do die, physically, don’t we? So He must have been talking spiritually.

Now if some folks end up not dying, and have more fruit in their lives strictly due to eating His substantive flesh, I think we would all be in agreement, the proof being in the pudding.

If our universality gets muddled over this, perhaps going back to where there is universal light might help.

Our lives were/are changed because of , and at Calvary with resurrection power, in the Holy Ghost.We now have new life in Christ.He in us and we in Him…

One of the evidences of such is participating in “communion”/ eucharist, a giving of thanks to Him for all the above, remembering where it all began, per His words, that we repeat, and believe, somehow.

The million dollar deal/reality, eveything before the “somehow”, is quite universally in the light, and that before the pagan world.

 

[rcwitness]

But we do die, physically, don’t we? So He must have been talking spiritually.

and we are raised, physically!

Now if some folks end up not dying, and have more fruit in their lives strictly due to eating His substantive flesh, I think we would all be in agreement, the proof being in the pudding.

Ummm… its kinda backwards. We eat of His Eucharist by doing as He asks, and all being in agreement. Its not about a hindsight, but faith in coming together. Split denominations, and their Communion which they represent, approve division.

If our universality gets muddled over this, perhaps going back to where there is universal light might help.

Reformers will still claim their own “universal light”.

Our lives were/are changed because of , and at Calvary with resurrection power, in the Holy Ghost.We now have new life in Christ.He in us and we in Him…

Amen. If we are all on this same journey, we should all be Communing as one!

One of the evidences of such is participating in “communion”/ eucharist, a giving of thanks to Him for all the above, remembering where it all began, per His words, that we repeat, and believe, somehow.

St Justin, in the second century, said this:

“And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”

Who is we?

 

[Benadam]

But we do die, physically, don’t we? So He must have been talking spiritually.

No if just spiriutually there is no resurrection of the dead. Human nature is both spiritual and material. Jesus answered that with His next sentence.

This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever;

The changes you speak of are good and true but not good and true in of themselves without the whole of human nature included.

 

[Benadam]

But we do die, physically, don’t we? So He must have been talking spiritually.

Jesus did say His words are spirit. So ‘must be talking spiritually’ seems a logical fallacy of some sort no? BTW if that is all you object to it’s a very minor I think.

If our universality gets muddled over this, perhaps going back to where there is universal light might help.

How is our universality not muddled if not by this communion?

Our lives were/are changed because of , and at Calvary with resurrection power, in the Holy Ghost.We now have new life in Christ.He in us and we in Him…

Like I said in my post what you describe is not the full communion.Christ offers.

That being the earthy ground of human nature, and so, it is the fullest possible union of Him ‘in’ us and us in Him, and it includes all other components of our nature.

.

 

[Wannano]

Scriptures aside, Church history and philosophy aside. I find it difficult to believe the Eucharist is figurative.

---

€€I liked your post here today because it is talking in terms of human understanding aside from Scriptures, Church history and philosophy. I believe that it is just as difficult for you to understand the figurative as it is for me understanding the literal. Largely I think because of the way we have been taught and conditioned.
I agree that it isn’t reasonable of Jesus to institute a meal of Himself if it doesn’t unite us to Him in some way just as eating some other food. The Last Supper He gave us unites the church members together in a unified action and purpose of remembering and thanksgiving dedicated solely for the purpose of including Him in the action. That is why we eat only bread and wine and not other food in the Communion. All other church potlucks unite us together in fellowship as church members but in Communion we are united together with Christ as the focus. To eat it worthy is to have a clear conscience before God and in relationship to other men.

---

Ya know, bread is food. When we eat food it enters our digestive system and ends up becoming muscle tissue or fat or whatever part of us it becomes… Just as the flesh of the unblemished lamb became the flesh of a Hebrew, His flesh would become the flesh of a Christian. That being the earthy ground of human nature, and so, it is the fullest possible union of Him ‘in’ us and us in Him, and it includes all other components of our nature.

---

€€€The problem I see here with how you describe the digestive system suggesting Christ’s flesh becomes our flesh, muscle and fat etc is negated by your churchs teaching itself. In another post i had asked about Jesus being ultimately flushed down the toilet as a natural part of human experience but was informed that once the host is swallowed and mixed with othr food in the stomach He is no longer there. That being the case i dont see how He is assimilated into body tissue by digestion.

---

hy would Jesus want this? You know when you really love someone, you want to be with them. You want to be with them in as much as it is possible. Love even seeks to go beyond ‘with’ and be ‘in’ the beloved and the beloved ‘in’ them. This is the expression of Love between the Father and the Son. The same for Jesus’ love for people. For that ‘in’ us and ‘in’ Him to be fully realized it must include our entire selves and His entire self. I can’t imagine Jesus allowing it to fall short of our whole selves. Since our mortal bodies are a reality that is one with the Incarnation I can’t imagine Jesus instituting a perpetual act that includes bread that He say’s is Himself and tells us that eating it is eating Himself, and eating Him is real food, that He isn’t teaching that it is as real as eating any other food.

---

€€Here too, Jesus is only in you until He is mixed with other food and liquid. Then He ceases to be. Now from my point of view, it doesn’t make much sense within the realm of human understanding.