Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

again, interpretation; there are those who claim to see et in the Old Testament; others have discovered the cypher of God (they’ve done several programs on the science/history/ng networks on it); yet, interpretation is much like that ‘feel-good’ theology where everyone is saved no matter what or that hollowood babble that it takes evil to do good.

Yes, and only the right interpretation is not “private”…by the way, was referencing, recalling, what augustine wrote on the matter.

Have no idea what you mean about feel good theology…but if you want to go there we can, for many religious rituals feel good, done round the world, in all religions, including ours.

 

[mcq72]

Why would we NEED 21st century terms? This is what makes me crazy about Western mentality.

Does it make you crazy that we borrow words from Greeks for some explanations?Were they common language of the day?

It would be hubris if language remained static…it is a science in itself, language and its changes, not to mention one language to another.

 

[jcrichton]

What I was attempting to convey is that through interpretation we see/find things in Scriptures and we are compelled to believe/experience what we have interpreted as the Revelation God offers.

If this interpretation supports what has been Revealed by God and has been practiced by the Church then it holds value–otherwise, it may well be just personal (as in private) understanding of what God has Revealed.

The feel-good theology is one that ascribes generalizations such as everyone is ultimately saved or we are all God’s children or salvation is found outside of Christ (so all religions lead to Heaven).

When we quote from the Fathers we may be interpreting them or actually misunderstanding them or grabbing something that is suspect in their understanding and rejecting everything else… (interpretationalism and feel-good theology often go hand in hand); we can open up the quote you made in a new thread to analyze it further, if you like.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

Does it make you crazy that we borrow words from Greeks for some explanations?Were they common language of the day?

Not at all. I am not talking about understanding the languages and cultures in which the events occurred. I am talking about projecting our 21st century expectations and attitudes into it.

It would be hubris if language remained static…it is a science in itself, language and its changes, not to mention one language to another.

You seem to be assuming that the 21st century “explanation” has to be in the form of “language”. But there are plenty of scientific “explanations” for Biblical miracles. And the concept of “transubstantiation” has as much to do with philosophy as it does language.

 

[mcq72]

Suggesting that everyone thought the same is to limit what actually transpired; heresies fought and embraced by the defenders of the Faith.

Not sure what you mean. Were those that thought differently than what was eventually ruled heretics, before the ruling ? Are you saying that Catholics in otherwise good standing sometimes thought differently amongst themselves, before final ruling? Why do many here fail or refuse to think some Catholics thought differently about real presence before 1215 ? Are you also suggesting all were conformed from the beginning except heretics ?

 

[mcq72]

I am talking about projecting our 21st century expectations and attitudes into it.

I think you are , though it is a judgement upon the question itself. It could be quite a benign question otherwise. I mean we have written understanding stemming over a thousand years (300 bc to 1215 AD), in several languages, not to mention translations into English. Then we have science and philosophy .Some laws remain the same, quite foundational. Some evolve and are built upon.

Any "updates’’ may be biased to the present, or it may be a genuine look to the past (where foundation was laid)

You seem to be assuming that the 21st century “explanation” has to be in the form of “language”. But there are plenty of scientific “explanations” for Biblical miracles. And the concept of “transubstantiation” has as much to do with philosophy as it does language.

Please try to put forth philosophy without language, and even science, unless a formula can explain real presence…but of course it is just not language, as susanio’s post shows

 

[mcq72]

St. Paul attests that we partake not of human nutrients and drink but of Christ’s Body and Blood!

yet Martyr says our bodies are nourished by the transmutation (digestion) of the bread and wine/water

does anyone suggest our bodies are nourished by eating flesh and drinking blood, even His blood ?

 

[susanlo]

Not unless he redefined that too!

John Calvin did not redefine ‘real presence.’ I don’t even think that he used the term, but people have retroactively applied this term to his understanding. I think it is Roman Catholics that are trying to redefine ‘real presence.’

Here is part of an article from a Catholic priest writing for Catholic Answers:

I found the first reference to the term “Real Presence” in the writings of fourteenth-century theologian John of Paris: “I intend to defend the real and actual presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, and that it is not there only as by way of a sign.” But John of Paris was deprived of his professorship because his views on the sacrament were considered unorthodox. It was in the same century that the precursor of Latimer and Ridley—John Wycliffe—used the term “Real Presence,” also as an alternative to transubstantiation. In other words, “Real Presence” was a compromise term used to suggest a high view of the sacrament while in fact denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation…

…Stone’s second volume shows how the great Anglican, E. B. Pusey, recoined the phrase “Real Presence” in the mid-nineteenth century and promoted it most strongly. It is thanks to Pusey that the term entered common usage within the Oxford Movement and eventually made its way through the Anglican and other non-Catholic churches that today use it so widely.

But what did Pusey mean by “the Real Presence”? He was at pains to point out that he did not hold to any corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist: "In the communion there is a true, real, actual though spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements." In another place, Pusey denies transubstantiation explicitly and argues for a “mystical, sacramental, and spiritual presence of the body of our Lord.”
Beware the Term 'Real Presence' | Catholic Answers

I really wish that Catholics would use the term ‘transubstantiation’ instead of ‘real presence’ when they are talking specifically about a concept that excludes the Lutheran and Calvinist Eucharist beliefs. Only symbolic Communion is considered outside of the definition of ‘real presence.’ But even these Christians believe that Jesus is truly present with them as they participate in Communion.

 

[susanlo]

It means what Jesus said.

Why would we NEED 21st century terms? This is what makes me crazy about Western mentality. Having such a need to explain “I am that I am” and such things. What hubris.

I am not asking about how Jesus would perform a miracle. I am asking about what miracle occurs (only at Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that I am apparently unable to understand because I am a “protestant.”

I believe the miracle seen at Communion is the gift of salvation which we received through Christ’s sacrifice. When Christians gather to worship Him, His presence is evident. Christ changes hearts and changes lives. Christ is present with believers by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is a real and true miracle.

But Catholics say that this isn’t the miracle of Communion They say that the bread and wine change. But if we were to take a Communion wafer and run it through a GC-MS, it would reveal the same gluten proteins before and after consecration. But yet Catholics deny that the change to the wafer is just a change in its meaning and significance (symbol) or merely a spiritual presence uniting believers to Christ’s body and blood. So I think it is a very fair question: What do Catholics specifically believe changes in “valid” Communions? How can someone believe that something occurs, but yet not know what occurs?

What really changed when Jesus was transfigured before the Apostles? Or do you believe they were just hallucinating? If not, do you have a 21st century explanation for what happened?

Matthew 17:2 …His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

First He looked like a typical man, and then He was illuminated. They were not hallucinating. This happened and was witnessed by all who were present to see. They were able to describe this miracle to be written about.

 

[mcq72]

I am talking about projecting our 21st century expectations and attitudes into it.

So it is ok to project backwards a thousand years but not forward ? The church went back a thousand years (to use greek philosophy/science).

 

[rcwitness]

Matthew 17:2 …His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.First He looked like a typical man, and then He was illuminated. They were not hallucinating. This happened and was witnessed by all who were present to see. They were able to describe this miracle to be written about.

I think the point of the transfiguration was to reveal who Jesus really was. He didnt “change” but always was like that, in the Spiritual world’s eys!

We dont need transfiguration of His Eucharist. We already believe it at His word.

Do you see that Jesus was already God, but that was unnoticed by carnal senses?

 

[susanlo]

Do you hold them up as example of orthodoxy?

Maran atha!

Angel

But at that time of Augustine both of their views were accepted as orthodox. Right now Catholics disagree on many issues. One example is Mary’s title as co-redemptrix. Many Catholics think this title is fitting and use it. Others disagree. Both of these groups are orthodox Catholics and are in the same Communion. I am sure many of them even like what the other ones teach on a myriad of issues. But if in 100 years the Pope or a council declares that the title is fitting, then those who oppose this title would now be considered a heretic. These 2 groups of Catholics could no longer fully accept one another and be in the same Communion.

This is what happened to Communion for Christianity in 1215. The fact that in Augustine’s time they readily accepted each other as Christians despite having different explanations on Communion, shows that both views were tolerated and accepted as orthodox.

 

[susanlo]

St. Paul attests that we partake not of human nutrients and drink but of Christ’s Body and Blood!

He wrote that Christians “eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord.” Yet this bread and cup has a significance because of Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[mcq72]

These 2 groups of Catholics could no longer fully accept one another and be in the same Communion.

This is what happened to Communion for Christianity in 1215. The fact that in Augustine’s time they readily accepted each other as Christians despite having different explanations on Communion, shows that both views were tolerated and accepted as orthodox.

So I was at my mothers house Easter Sunday …she is 90…whole family was there…my moms priest (Catholic)came by to minister communion to my mother…priest is very friendly…we chat a bit…see him often…knows our names…as he took my mother aside (to a more private room) to give her communion, I longed to go with them (I was unable to attend my church service), even for all of us to participate, but alas the division, though my mom and i still fellowship with scripture reading and prayer on Sundays…tough spot for the priest to be in…I wonder if he longs for more unity also

 

[guanophore]

does anyone suggest our bodies are nourished by eating flesh and drinking blood, even His blood ?

Actually, this has happened.

Miracle of the Eucharist -Total fast from food in the lives of the Saints

Miracles of the Saints website

www.miraclesofthesaints.com

 

[guanophore]

I am apparently unable to understand because I am a “protestant.”

I don’t think this is the reason. It has more to do with whether faith is seeking understanding.

But Catholics say that this isn’t the miracle of Communion

Actually, the CC does not deny all these things. These are just not the sum total of what happens at communion.

But yet Catholics deny that …merely a spiritual presence uniting believers to Christ’s body and blood.

I do not believe this is true. The CC does not take issue with non-Catholic services and gatherings. The CC teaches the faithful to experience spiritual communion when they cannot physically receive the Lord. It is no different for Protestants. He did promise where two or three were gathered, He would be present.

So I think it is a very fair question: What do Catholics specifically believe changes in “valid” Communions? How can someone believe that something occurs, but yet not know what occurs?

I think this is the case for all the Divine Mysteries. For example, I believe that Jesus was incarnate of Mary, and was physically born. I don’t know how this occurred (except that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her). He took flesh of her flesh, but where did He get a Y chromosome?

I believe that Jesus put mud on the eyes of the blind, and they were healed, but I can’t explain it.

I believe that many bodies of the dead were raised at the time Jesus was, but I can’t explain it. If they were seen by man around Jerusalem, what happened to them? Did they just hang out around town until Jesus ascended and go with Him, or did they go back into their graves? Did they die again?

Jesus was 'known" to the disciples in Emmaus in the breaking of the bread, but then He disappeared. Where did He go? Was he actually physically present on the journey?

How is it that Phillip found Himself at Azotus? How can someone believe that things occur without knowing how or being able to “explain”? Because we accept them in faith. We accept the source of of the report.

 

[guanophore]

hallucinating? If not, do you have a 21st century explanation for what happened?

Matthew 17:2 …His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

First He looked like a typical man, and then He was illuminated. They were not hallucinating. This happened and was witnessed by all who were present to see. They were able to describe this miracle to be written about.

Right, but what made His clothes shine? How did Moses and Elijah appear, since the gates of heaven had not yet been opened? You seem to admit here that you can accept that a miracle can occur and be written about, but this does not seem to apply to Eucharist?

But if in 100 years the Pope or a council declares that the title is fitting, then those who oppose this title would now be considered a heretic. These 2 groups of Catholics could no longer fully accept one another and be in the same Communion.

This is not necessarily the case. I don’t like the term, and I would rather not see it formally adopted, but I am willing to submit to the Church as the authority appointed by Christ. So long as I do not make a public opposition to the title, and exercise obedient acceptance, I would not be considered a heretic.

This title is the least of our worries, though. We have heretics who are masquerading as faithful Catholics in the pews, in the media, and in politics. They openly reject the teachings of the Church, and some have excommunicated themselves.

He wrote that Christians “eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord.” Yet this bread and cup has a significance because of Christ’s sacrifice.

Yes, but that significance lies in the reality that He gave His real body and His real (not symbolic) blood for our salvation.

tough spot for the priest to be in…I wonder if he longs for more unity also

If this priest has any heart for the divisions that have rent the Body of Christ then he will so long for unity.

 

[susanlo]

Right, but what made His clothes shine? How did Moses and Elijah appear, since the gates of heaven had not yet been opened? You seem to admit here that you can accept that a miracle can occur and be written about, but this does not seem to apply to Eucharist?

I believe in this miracle and other miracles. I don’t have a problem accepting that miracles happen. I just don’t know what is miraculous in Catholic Communion specifically. What changes? All of these miracles here and in the last post are about a perceivable change. What change is perceived in Catholic Communion?

Jesus/God → man
Blind man → able to see
Dead → alive
Jesus present → Jesus disappeared
Philip here → Philip there
Jesus appears typical → Jesus shines

I am fine with leaving the → unexplained.

But with the Eucharist I see
wafer → ???
What is it? It is still a wafer by our world’s standards. All of the other miracles had a scientifically detectable change. This change is not detectable by science. But it is not just spiritual. What realm does it change in?

 

[steve-b]

guanophore:

Right, but what made His clothes shine? How did Moses and Elijah appear, since the gates of heaven had not yet been opened? You seem to admit here that you can accept that a miracle can occur and be written about, but this does not seem to apply to Eucharist?

I believe in this miracle and other miracles. I don’t have a problem accepting that miracles happen. I just don’t know what is miraculous in Catholic Communion specifically. What changes? All of these miracles here and in the last post are about a perceivable change. What change is perceived in Catholic Communion?

Jesus/God → man
Blind man → able to see
Dead → alive
Jesus present → Jesus disappeared
Philip here → Philip there
Jesus appears typical → Jesus shines

I am fine with leaving the → unexplained.

But with the Eucharist I see
wafer → ???
What is it? It is still a wafer by our world’s standards. All of the other miracles had a scientifically detectable change. This change is not detectable by science. But it is not just spiritual. What realm does it change in?

susanlo,

You are focusing on the seen. The unseen realities are also there.

When Jesus at the Last Supper said “Do this” the word “DO” ποιεῖτε means to do what?

They (the apostles) were ordained, given the authority, the power, by Jesus, to do exactly what Jesus just did. Namely change bread and wine into His body and blood.
do, make, manufacture, construct, cause, ordain.

Jesus ordained them here.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, but that significance lies in the reality that He gave His real body and His real (not symbolic) blood for our salvation.

Obviously symbolists and Catholics can agree about this. Its a matter of what eating His real flesh and blood has to do with accepting the Word of God (which is the figurative aspect of eating the bread of God).

Also, as susanlo is concerned about, what real change happens in the Eucharist that makes it more than symbolic?