Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Benadam]

Transubstantiation was rejected was rejected centuries before Reformation

Rejected by those who wanted a better explanation or those who didn’t believe Jesus words ‘this is my body’?

 

[mcq72]

Why would He not talk straigtforwardly of a symbolic act of remembrance if that is what He meant?

I thought I did explain…same reason He didn’t tell them it would be thru the changed Passover substances of bread and wine…His almost hyperbole of eating to gnawing at Him was partly veiled by any interpretation…what was not so veiled was the notion of His death, and He was more explicit about His Ascension…

I would not call any of the discourse deceiving, any more than His parables were…but veiled with a divine purpose yes, that none should perish, even those that departed, so that they might return when their hearts were right.

 

[mcq72]

Rejected by those who wanted a better explanation or those who didn’t believe Jesus words ‘this is my body’?

Rejected by those who had a different explanation of just how the bread is His body.

 

[Benadam]

Rejected by those who had a different explanation of just how the bread is His body.

Centuries before Martin Luther? I don’t think he rejected the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. Maybe he believed it was consubstantiation?

 

[MichaelP3]

I am not really sure this actually addressed what I was getting to. I even agree whole heartedly with your final point. I also profess that.

Although you did respond to my post so I guess you were trying to make some point?

Please explain?

 

[rcwitness]

It is not sacreligious if one gives Communion it’s rightful place as an act of Remembrance and Thanksgiving in which He said it is His body not will become or made into his body.

I guess I believe Communion’s rightful place is under the approval of a Bishop who’s received Laying on Hands by a Bishop who also has received Laying on of Hands.

Where does Jesus tell us that Communion is to be the most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community?

Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

 

[rcwitness]

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

Luther did NOT teach symbolism.

 

[guanophore]

Yes,correct…it is called being born again, indwelt, yet daily being renewed in the Holy Ghost.

For Catholics being “born again” is an initiation into the life of Christ- the beginning point. We are renewed in that life through the Eucharist, as He promised. Though we can only be “born” one time, we can continue to “have life in you” through the Eucharist.

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.

Yes, faith leads us to understanding. I am not at all sure they even understood at the Last Supper, or perhaps for some time after the Resurrection. The story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, in which He was revealed to them in the breaking of the bread, was placed in the “memoirs of the Apostles” at least 20 years after the fact.

they would not believe His words, much less chew on them, as the apostles did, for He had “the words of eternal life”.

THey did chew on His words but in that context, he was talking about chewing on his flesh.

Didn’t know it is linguistically problematic to hold a symbol of yourself representing your literal sacrificial death.

I think it is only linguistically problematic for those who refrain from interpreting scripture literally only when it sounds to “Catholic”.

Transubstantiation was rejected was rejected centuries before Reformation

Not sure what you are saying here, but whatever language one uses (the Eastern Churches do not use this term) those who did not accept the real presence were considered heretics.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Martin Luther? I don’t think he rejected the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. Maybe he believed it was consubstantiation?

I think the main departure of Martin Luther with regard to the Eucharist was in the Sacrifice of the Mass. This is the inheritance of the children of the Reformation today.

I guess I believe Communion’s rightful place is under the approval of a Bishop who’s received Laying on Hands by a Bishop who also has received Laying on of Hands.

This is what was believed and taught in the early church.

Luther did NOT teach symbolism.

No, and he became very provoked by Calvin and Zwingli when they decided to do so.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

It is not sacreligious if one gives Communion it’s rightful place as an act of Remembrance and Thanksgiving in which He said it is His body not will become or made into his body.

I guess I believe Communion’s rightful place is under the approval of a Bishop who’s received Laying on Hands by a Bishop who also has received Laying on of Hands.

Where does Jesus tell us that Communion is to be the most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community?

Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

What is so interesting to me is how we can all take verses and see what we need to substantiate our position on something. Obviously this verse for you says the Catholic Eucharist is the most important visible act of worship. To me it stresses studying the Apostles teaching and fellowship, oh wait, what is that? Fellowship? Hmmm, I have read numerous times here that the Catholic Church is not strong on fellowship. Some Catholics even admit it and some have even castigated the idea that fellowship is an important part of communal worship. They say rather if you value fellowship you may as well go to a Protestant church somewhere!

The breaking of bread and prayers is exactly that, that is, communal worship. Individual worshippers coming together as grains of wheat and individual grapes being crushed together to form one loaf and one wine to form one body of which each partakes in remembrance and thanksgiving for the sacrifice He made for each individual and by which we are unified as one body with Him.

This verse does not answer my question though rc. You said Jesus taught the Eucharist is the most sacred visible act of worship and I asked where in Scripture He had said that. I don’t see it in this verse.

 

[Wannano]

jcrichton:

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

Luther did NOT teach symbolism.

You are absolutely right. But it is so handy to hang everything on him!

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

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

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.

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.

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.

why do we add our sacrifice at this moment ?

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.

My belief is that the understanding has evolved.

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.

Why did the Gnostic not confess the Eucharist is His flesh,what is “the rest of the telling story” ?

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.

Where does Jesus tell us that Communion is to be the most sacred visible act of worshipping Him as a community?

John 6

Is there anything more important than having His life within us?

No there is nothing more important. Where in John 6 is there direct reference to Communion?

 

[guanophore]

Where in John 6 is there direct reference to Communion?

I do not believe this will be visible to those who are wearing anti-Catholic blinders.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

No, where did He speak it.

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”

From what I read I gather that Transubstantiation was first used as an explanation in the early 800’s. It was formally proclaimed in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council. Apparently not all Cardinals and Bishops were convinced.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Where in John 6 is there direct reference to Communion?

I do not believe this will be visible to those who are wearing anti-Catholic blinders.

That is an innovative way of saying there is none.

 

[rcwitness]

What is so interesting to me is how we can all take verses and see what we need to substantiate our position on something. Obviously this verse for you says the Catholic Eucharist is the most important visible act of worship. To me it stresses studying the Apostles teaching and fellowship, oh wait, what is that? Fellowship? Hmmm, I have read numerous times here that the Catholic Church is not strong on fellowship. Some Catholics even admit it and some have even castigated the idea that fellowship is an important part of communal worship. They say rather if you value fellowship you may as well go to a Protestant church somewhere!

They say alot of nasty things. Ive been told by a practicing homosexual Catholic that he found a liberal parish who will give him Communion. Alot of clergy makes me sad and stifled.

This verse does not answer my question though rc. You said Jesus taught the Eucharist is the most sacred visible act of worship and I asked where in Scripture He had said that. I don’t see it in this verse.

And u would say Scripture Teaches Communion bread and wine are a symbol only, right? There is the dilemma.

Acts 2:42 expresses the most key aspects of communal worship of the Church. Breaking bread was the only one which contained a tangible thing, which we call a form of Jesus.

 

[rcwitness]

From what I read I gather that Transubstantiation was first used as an explanation in the early 800’s. It was formally proclaimed in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council. Apparently not all Cardinals and Bishops were convinced.

I wonder how many preferred symbolism??

Not all Jesus’ disciples were convinced either.

 

[guanophore]

From what I read I gather that Transubstantiation was first used as an explanation in the early 800’s. It was formally proclaimed in 1215 at the 4th Lateran Council. Apparently not all Cardinals and Bishops were convinced.

I wouldn’t say “convinced” because all Catholics embrace the concept of the Real Presence. Not all were convinced about the philosophy underpinning the terminology. I am personally not fond of it either. My sensibilities are much more Eastern. For some reason, Latin Catholics seem to have a much stronger need to explain, describe, define, and create words for mystical realities. This has not been the case in the East, where the concepts are left in the form of Divine Mysteries. But despite the lack of the term, the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles is the same. The Eastern Christians also understand John 6 to be about the Eucharist.

 

[rcwitness]

The Eastern Christians also understand John 6 to be about the Eucharist.

Just to clarify a bit… I believe His John 6 discourse makes a transition.

Here is a footnote from the NAB:

6:35–59 Up to Jn 6:50 “bread of life” is a figure for God’s revelation in Jesus; in Jn 6:51–58, the eucharistic theme comes to the fore. There may thus be a break between Jn 6:50–51.

 

[jcrichton]

I was attempting to address your statements:

I always find this type of “insinuations” interesting. Many Catholics repeatedly basically claim a patent on the Bible but also more than they should on Jesus Himself.
A Catholic I very much respect but not on the new CAF told me once, “prod them with a stick and ask if they claim the invention of fire as well?”

What is claimed by Catholics is that the Church compiled and authenticated the Bible’s Canon; that Jesus is her Lord and Head, and that she is His Body.

Sadly, your “Catholic” friend does not share that understanding (as most non-Catholics also do not).

Yet, when you hear non-Catholics talk, they not only claim Jesus and Scriptures but they also teach that Catholics are not Christians and that the Catholic Church does not Teach intimacy with Jesus and the Sacred Scriptures. In essence, not only are they taking hold of Jesus and Scriptures as their own, but they make themselves the arbiters of who is allowed to know and own God and Sacred Scriptures.

…any “Christian” (who happens to not be Catholic) can claim that he/she was guided by the Holy Spirit to do “xyz” and is embraced and applauded by most, if not all, non-Catholic Christians; what is more important is that it is held as an actual “revelation”/“command” by God and that they are justified in following through.

It does not matter how preposterous the claim may be (as that televangelist who claimed that God commanded him to get Him 8 million dollars or He would take him out!); or the “apostasy” that never happened but that it is still taught in many non-Catholic circles… just as long as it is not a “Catholic” thing, it’s God’s Word and Command!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I stand corrected. Yet, he is the gateway to “changes” and “enhancements” in theology and Worship.

Maran atha!

Angel