Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

the theme of the entire discourse is not about future “communion” , but that one must be chosen of the Father and Jesus to be a disciple, and that of a Messiah that had to be believed, every word , for the journey is not what one would expect (future death/resurrection/ascension).

The two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus referred to Himself as the manna that came from heaven. The manna was a foretaste/type of Him becoming the living bread for the people. When he was born, he was in Bethlehem, the House of Bread, and laid in a manger, out of which grain was fed to the animals. He Himself is that food that he told the disciples must be “chewed”.

Only those who are chosen by the father to become a disciple can enter into and be nourished by this food. Only those can “taste the heavenly gift”.

Do not see elements and what they really became or not as the key, but what was in the heart, or lacking, of the partaker of the table remembering, honoring Christ. The word “body” refers to the Body of Christ or even the Lord’s Body, the Church…not the Lord’s body and blood…the Corinthians had big problems being one as “one loaf” should, but did not suggest to them .

This is what is taught to the Children of the Reformation, to support the rejection of the Real Presence, but the Apostles did not teach this to their disciples. It is clearly evident in the early writings that discernment of the “body and blood” is a reference to Real Presence. That being said, I don’t disagree with the other interpretation, either. Those same writers identified a valid eucharist as one that is celebrated in unity with the Bishop. This is always how the “genuine” church was identified.

 

[rcwitness]

mcq72:

the theme of the entire discourse is not about future “communion” , but that one must be chosen of the Father and Jesus to be a disciple, and that of a Messiah that had to be believed, every word , for the journey is not what one would expect (future death/resurrection/ascension).

The two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus referred to Himself as the manna that came from heaven. The manna was a foretaste/type of Him becoming the living bread for the people. When he was born, he was in Bethlehem, the House of Bread, and laid in a manger, out of which grain was fed to the animals. He Himself is that food that he told the disciples must be “chewed”.

Only those who are chosen by the father to become a disciple can enter into and be nourished by this food. Only those can “taste the heavenly gift”.

Do not see elements and what they really became or not as the key, but what was in the heart, or lacking, of the partaker of the table remembering, honoring Christ. The word “body” refers to the Body of Christ or even the Lord’s Body, the Church…not the Lord’s body and blood…the Corinthians had big problems being one as “one loaf” should, but did not suggest to them .

This is what is taught to the Children of the Reformation, to support the rejection of the Real Presence, but the Apostles did not teach this to their disciples. It is clearly evident in the early writings that discernment of the “body and blood” is a reference to Real Presence. That being said, I don’t disagree with the other interpretation, either. Those same writers identified a valid eucharist as one that is celebrated in unity with the Bishop. This is always how the “genuine” church was identified.

1 Cor. 11

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

That is far reach to interpret as the mystical body of Christ, all believers.

1 Corinthians 11 footnote NAB
11.20 There was apparently a common meal before the Eucharist at which food and drink were to be shared. Paul condemns the abuses that had crept in.

There is a notion among some Protestants that this meal, described by Paul, was the actual Lord’s Supper. As early as this, the Apostle instructs the faithful to separate a common meal from the Lord’s Supper.

 

[mcq72]

But the term “heresies” is never used for anything but doctrinal divisions -departures from the apostolic teaching.

Correct…I believe Paul is saying they are acting as if there were heresies (but there were none), that is with dissensions/divisions…quite a cutting remark.

 

[mcq72]

I do wonder, though, how the “genuine” were to be recognized

again a play on words, meant to be cutting (otherwise Paul would be condoning heresy cause it shows up, proves the genuine true believers) He is using truth about heresies and genuineness to shame these non heretical, genuine Christians but acting un Christlike., and of all times and places, at the Table.

PS partly reminds me of the debtor who was forgiven , then goes and beats one who is indebted

 

[mcq72]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus referred to Himself as the manna that came from heaven. The manna was a foretaste/type of Him becoming the living bread for the people. When he was born, he was in Bethlehem, the House of Bread, and laid in a manger, out of which grain was fed to the animals. He Himself is that food that he told the disciples must be “chewed”.

Only those who are chosen by the father to become a disciple can enter into and be nourished by this food. Only those can “taste the heavenly gift”.

Fair enough

…the final word for eat is “gnaw”…i say that sometimes to show figurative cause… i have yet to see someone gnaw on the host…I don’t get far though…lol

It is clearly evident in the early writings that discernment of the “body and blood” is a reference to Real Presence.

Agree if you read to “discern body and blood of the Lord” it means communion…

That being said, I don’t disagree with the other interpretation, either.

Quite fair and gracious…the key being it says to discern “body” and not “body and blood” of the Lord…we are definitely the “body” but not the “body and blood”

 

[mcq72]

There is a notion among some Protestants that this meal, described by Paul, was the actual Lord’s Supper. As early as this, the Apostle instructs the faithful to separate a common meal from the Lord’s Supper.

not sure what you mean…for sure Paul is disciplining their communion meal practices, partly by indeed verifying the source of, and the actual Last Supper to be done as in “do this”,

I think Paul speaks to both the body of Christ ( church) and how they behave, or need to mature in eating at the Lord’s table, in said verses.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Steve!

…sorry, I’m quite tunneled-vision when the issue of ‘got my salvation in my pocket…’ comes up. However, I do understand what the point of the hypothetical… yet, I would still say people would be dismissive of even such Great Gift since the issue comes back to obedience and adherence to God–“liberty” is far more a goal/aspiration than the idea of subjecting oneself to God’s Will and Commandments.

Consider the Prodigal Son and the Rich Man and Lazarus–both these parables revolve around personal security but in both cases it was first disowned before the light was allow to filter in.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Either way, coming to “present” Calvary drunk, hungry, taking food from others , or not feeding others, sitting in cliques claiming rightness is so anti Christlike, that judgement must surely follow, as did Ananias.

Yet, this is not the main issue (drunkenness and gluttony and selfishness and lovelessness):

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11)

It is about discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord:

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. (St. John 6)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It’s old English usage–Writ or Holy Writ refers to the Bible or Sacred Scriptures/Writings.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

We have to remember that the Church was a closed-knit community–yes, it was open for converts but old and new remained subject to the Authority of the Apostles (the Eleven, plus One, plus One).

As the Gospel spread and more and more members entered into the Fellowship the charlatans, confused, and avid anti-Christians, also poured in. Marketing the Gospel is as old as the Apostle’s Preaching.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That’s because that is exactly what was transpiring. The term “heresy” had not enter into the vernacular but dissention and division did and that’s what St. Paul was chastising them against.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

There is a notion among some Protestants that this meal, described by Paul, was the actual Lord’s Supper. As early as this, the Apostle instructs the faithful to separate a common meal from the Lord’s Supper.

not sure what you mean…for sure Paul is disciplining their communion meal practices, partly by indeed verifying the source of, and the actual Last Supper to be done as in “do this”,

I think Paul speaks to both the body of Christ ( church) and how they behave, or need to mature in eating at the Lord’s table, in said verses.

Yes, of course there is a dual nature. And its because those who partake of the Body and Blood o Jesus become one flesh with Him.

We read in the previous chapter:

“Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

This is the reality of Christ as our bride, and Communion being the consumation of the bride and groom. We become one flesh with Jesus through Holy Communion!

 

[guanophore]

I believe Paul is saying they are acting as if there were heresies (but there were none), that is with dissensions/divisions…

Although it seems that most of Paul’s complaints about the Corinthian Church are related to discipline and factious behavior, in a later response to continuing divisions in Corinth, Paul goes on an attack against his rivals there, the so-called “super-apostles” (2 Cor 11:5). Whereas he had earlier sought homonoia or unity with these opponents (trying to persuade them to agree with him, 1 Cor 4:14–21, 15:1–8), here he attacks them as “satanic”, seducing the Corinthians just as the serpent led Eve astray (2 Cor 11:2–3, 13–15). While not using the word heresy, Paul demonizes these “super apostles” calling them out for being sources of satanic influence and sexual impurity, while building on ideologies of tradition and authentic apostolic witness. The bottom line is, misbehavior in the community is always rooted in a departure from the Truth (heresy).

 

[mcq72]

This is the reality of Christ as our bride, and Communion being the consumation of the bride and groom. We become one flesh with Jesus through Holy Communion!

ok…not sure i have heard that…i mean consummation happens upon his return…like at the actual wedding

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

This is the reality of Christ as our bride, and Communion being the consumation of the bride and groom. We become one flesh with Jesus through Holy Communion!

ok…not sure i have heard that…i mean consummation happens upon his return…like at the actual wedding

You make a good point, my friend!! And one that is so deep, its difficult to differentiate! It is Jesus who is caught up into eternity, Whom we are joined to, yet we are only parts of that one Bride, and we can be cut off by our own choice, as individuals.

Ephesians

"…Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

We are already participating in that feast during Eucharistic celebration. It is Communion with Heaven. But some (who participated) will be cut off because they profaned the Body and Blood of the Lord, yet did not repent and so have a clean garment for the Day of the final return of the Lord.

 

[rcwitness]

St. Justin, Apologiae (around 150 AD)

“We call this food the Eucharist, of which only he can partake who has acknowledged the truth of our teachings, who has been cleansed by baptism for the remission of his sins and for his regeneration, and who regulates his life upon the principles laid down by Christ. Not as ordinary bread or as ordinary drink do we partake of them, but just as, through the word of God, our Savior Jesus Christ became Incarnate and took upon Himself flesh and blood for our salvation, so, we have been taught, the food which has been made the Eucharist bv the prayer of His word and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. The Apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, have handed down what Jesus ordered them to do; that He took bread and, after giving thanks,said: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My body.’ In like manner, He took also the chalice, gave thanks, and said: ‘This is My blood’; (Cf. Lk 22:19; Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22)…”

 

[steve-b]

Hi, Steve!

…sorry, I’m quite tunneled-vision when the issue of ‘got my salvation in my pocket…’ comes up. However, I do understand what the point of the hypothetical… yet, I would still say people would be dismissive of even such Great Gift since the issue comes back to obedience and adherence to God–"liberty" is far more a goal/aspiration than the idea of subjecting oneself to God’s Will and Commandments.

unfortunately liberty, in most peoples minds, is far more the focus, than obedience to faith. Thus Jesus says few are saved.

jcrichton:

Consider the Prodigal Son and the Rich Man and Lazarus–both these parables revolve around personal security but in both cases it was first disowned before the light was allow to filter in.

Maran atha!

Angel

Re: The prodigal son, if he didn’t repent and return, as the Father said “this son of mine was dead”.
Re: the rich man, he obviously died as he lived. And in the next life he was screwed.

 

[rcwitness]

What does this have to do with the OP???

Why not start a thread on OSAS???

I understand different issues come up because of discussion, but you are over doing it here. This thread is not concerned about OSAS.

 

[steve-b]

What does this have to do with the OP???

Why not start a thread on OSAS???

I understand different issues come up because of discussion, but you are over doing it here. This thread is not concerned about OSAS.

Being separated from the Eucharist which is the topic of the thread, DOES get into salvation.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

What does this have to do with the OP???

Why not start a thread on OSAS???

I understand different issues come up because of discussion, but you are over doing it here. This thread is not concerned about OSAS.

Being separated from the Eucharist which is the topic of the thread, DOES get into salvation.

First of all, the question isnt about salvation, but God’s call.

And second, those separated from His Eucharist “may” enter salvation, even a non Baptized person… there is a difference.