Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcq72 said:
So , the transformation at the Table is no less simple to grasp. I doubt the apostles thought they were literally eating His flesh and blood that night, nor do they subsequently speak of it as such. But yes , it is His body, somehow and figurative is in the mix.
Click to expand...
Apparently you do not read much Scriptures, right?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
40.png
Wannano:
Agree, (mostly!) If He had explicitly stated “do not build buildings or edifices” do you think we would not be visible to the world if we lived His teaching?
Click to expand...
Yet, not once did Jesus stated that 'the world would believe if you believe."

Jesus actually stated 'if you are One the world would believe that the Father sent Me; if you love one another, the world would believe you are My Disciples." Get the difference?

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
I have stated the same thing before as well.
 
No. You still don’t follow Scriptures.

St. Paul preached but Christ Crucified; yet, St. Paul preached ‘when you Brake Bread, you actually and in actually must discern the Lord’s Body (Flesh) and Blood!’ (paraphrased)

Christ nor the Apostles preached/Taught symbolism–this is a new construct by Luther and his minions (followers).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
But to live His Teaching one must be part of His Community (ekklessia/church); which turns out to be an actual visible Body comprised of layers of humans and offices.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
mcq72 said:
no one doubts that the Passover and even a mass has preparations, but much of preparation stated is so that we can receive (prepare our hearts).
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a good point. Part of being able to receive in a “worthy” manner is to prepare our hearts. For Catholics, this also includes behavior.

Mark 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Even the holding of resentment toward another makes us unworthy to approach the altar.

Matt. 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

It is one thing for us to ask forgiveness for that which we hold against another, but a very different thing for us to be made responsible for what is held against us by another!
 
mcq72 said:
yes, but seems there is also a lot doing, or bringing of us for acceptability when there is nothing we can do to be acceptable
Click to expand...
If there were nothing we could do to prepare, then we would not be commanded to receive only in a worthy manner. We cannot prepare ourselves without grace, but we must fulfill our responsibility.

1 Timothy 5:22 keep yourself pure

God does not command us to do that which He is not willing to enable us to do by grace, through faith.
mcq72 said:
then why do we add to it, add our own sacrifice…you called it truncated to see only His remembrance at Eucharist … there is time and place enough to add own works and suffering in the spirit, as when we walk out of church.
Click to expand...
Two things. First, we are not “adding to it”. The Apostles brought tall they they are to the table of the Lord. There is nothing 'of our own works" that can please God. Only that which is offered by grace, through faith can please Him.

The reason Jesus chose Passover to institute the Eucharist is because the faithful stand with death at the door. They add themselves to the sacrifice of the Lamb.
mcq72 said:
why do we add our sacrifice at this moment ?
Click to expand...
The answer to this is embedded in the liturgy of the Passover. The faithful were commanded to be prepared to leave, they were dressed and packed. They were to leave everything they had known, and set out for the unknown. It was a sacrifice of everything. They were told to eat bitter herbs, to signify the bitterness of what they suffered. These are symbols of how they added their own sacrifice to the Passover meal.
mcq72 said:
My belief is that the understanding has evolved.
Click to expand...
You can do no other. If you did not embrace this, you would have to come back to the Catholic faith.

The faith has changed, most particularly at the Reformation, 1500 years after the Apostles committed the meaning of Eucharist to the Church. It was redefined, rejecting the notion of sacrifice, and changed (evolved?) so that it was no longer anamnesis, but just a symbolic rememberance.
mcq72 said:
Why did the Gnostic not confess the Eucharist is His flesh,what is “the rest of the telling story” ?
Click to expand...
Is that really relevant? What has happened is that modern evangelicals have embraced the same position they did. Even if the reason is different, the result is the same - a denial of what was passed on to us from the Apostles.
Wannano said:
Where does Jesus tell us that Communion is to be the most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community?
Click to expand...
John 6

Is there anything more important than having His life within us?
 
mcq72 said:
Manna is manna, save that it is God given,we simply receive
Click to expand...
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that there were rules and consequences around the manna as well.
mcq72 said:
the unleavened Bread is more part of the Passover, representing purity. By the same token would it not be offensive to eat human flesh,even God’s flesh., not to mention the end of all fleshly sacrifices…? …the bread seems to be a perfect answer, sacramental element
Click to expand...
Yes, it was quite offensive to the Jews to eat human flesh, and drink blood of any kind. You see that they walked away from Him because they were scandalized by that. But He did not try to correct their understanding, as He did at other times.

Jesus did not come to “end” the Law, but to fulfill it. In Him is all the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. It seems that you don’t understand the difference between “fulfillment” and “ending”.
mcq72 said:
it would be a problem if folks thought that
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a problem that folks think this. Modern children of the Reformation do not believe that Jesus held Himself in His own hands at the last supper. There is a problematic belief that He held a symbol of Himself - and thus, only a symbol of Himself was crucified for our salvation.
mcq72 said:
And we both do remembrance of that, with the symbols He chose, till His return, and partake of the elements, with the understanding thru grace and faith we have been given.
Click to expand...
No, we don’t both partake of “elements”. Those that have received the teaching of the Apostles receive His Body and Blood, as He taught in John 6.

Those who have departed from the Apostolic faith receive “elements” according to the grace and faith they have received through the Reformation, at which time the Apostolic faith was rejected.
 
Wannano said:
No, where did He speak it.
Click to expand...
Well, what we have faith in as Catholics are the words 'this is my body" What was happening was a mystery but the fact that it was changed was experienced grace (or death) in the lives of the faithful. How it became the the Body of Our Lord or how it united us to Him became important as need for explanation arose. Like when Paul taught that it must be understood as more than just a meal.
So faith in the change from bread to Christ’s body and obedience to Christ to do it was rewarded with the reality of what was happening and in time a need to understand it. Transubstantiation is just the best explanation. One simple reason we think it’s a better explanation than consubstantiation is that the mingling of Christ’s body with the bread would have been expressed by Jesus as “here is my body”

So for Catholics transubstantiation is just the best explanation for what happens when Jesus broke the bread and said “this is my body”
 
Last edited:
guanophore said:
But He did not try to correct their understanding, as He did at other times.
Click to expand...
Nor did He correct the apostles, for they had the right faith though we aren’t told of their understanding of the eating at that time…apparently faith was the bigger issue, as expressed by Peter.

Why would He correct a detail in those who were not even in the game…it says they did not believe from the beginning…they needed to depart…they would not believe His words, much less chew on them, as the apostles did, for He had “the words of eternal life”.
 
guanophore said:
Jesus did not come to “end” the Law, but to fulfill it. In Him is all the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. It seems that you don’t understand the difference between “fulfillment” and “ending”.
Click to expand...
Christ ended all fleshly sacrifices.That is why He chose bread and wine as the remaing elements of the Passover, ending blood shedding of any lamb.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
guanophore:
But He did not try to correct their understanding, as He did at other times.
Click to expand...
Nor did He correct the apostles, for they had the right faith though we aren’t told of their understanding of the eating at that time…apparently faith was the bigger issue, as expressed by Peter.

Why would He correct a detail in those who were not even in the game…it says they did not believe from the beginning…they needed to depart…they would not believe His words, much less chew on them, as the apostles did, for He had “the words of eternal life”.
Click to expand...
Of course they were all in the game - right up until the point where they walked away over this exact issue. And He let them. You still haven’t explained why on earth He - who is Truth itself - would deceive His followers in this way. Why would He not talk straigtforwardly of a symbolic act of remembrance if that is what He meant?
 
Last edited:
guanophore said:
There is a problematic belief that He held a symbol of Himself - and thus, only a symbol of Himself was crucified for our salvation.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know it is linguistically problematic to hold a symbol of yourself representing your literal sacrificial death.
 
guanophore said:
Those who have departed from the Apostolic faith receive “elements” according to the grace and faith they have received through the Reformation, at which time the Apostolic faith was rejected.
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation was rejected was rejected centuries before Reformation
 
mcq72 said:
Nor did He correct the apostles, for they had the right faith though we aren’t told of their understanding of the eating at that time…apparently faith was the bigger issue, as expressed by Peter.

Why would He correct a detail in those who were not even in the game…it says they did not believe from the beginning…they needed to depart…they would not believe His words, much less chew on them, as the apostles did, for He had “the words of eternal life”.
Click to expand...
I think Jesus had been explicit to the point that there was nothing more He could say that would change anyone’s mind including the Apostles. As you indicate about the unbelieving disciples ‘they needed to part’ because Jesus knew who would believe, and Judas is mentioned as betrayer and one of the twelve also implies that eternal states of faith and rejection were evident in this event.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top