Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

well wait. I thought you raised question about me saying of Jesus being thought of as a priest at Last Supper, instead of rabbi. So in context of Last Supper and Jewishness, the apostles were still “disciples” of a “rabbi”…technically not sent out yet. But surely after Jesus ascended, they were definitely commissioned as "apostles’’ and beginning a new context , new covenant. (before Calvary they at times were sent out two by two, but still in OT covenant).

My point was that Jesus was not a Priest in the Jewish Law (something ive never thought about before) so saying the Apostles were not Priests either is not very relative.

Just believe the apostles were not priests at Last Supper…but certainly after Pentecost they were presbyters, fellow presbyters amongst others they discipled and appointed.

When the Apostles were appointed/ordained presbyters/priests isnt significant. He was instructing them still, they were not confecting the Lord’s Supper.

The Greek terminology of priest was not used anymore in NT Writ offices, replaced by presbyter, with good reason.

This could be a good next thread!

 

[Gorgias]

If i may…if it is what was given to Him when he thirsted on the cross (vinegar,sop, old wine), He was aquite alone in His circumstance, and not with the apostles, which was the part of the context of the promise

No, that’s not what the promise was. Take a look at it again: Jesus didn’t say “I won’t drink the fruit of the vine with you until I drink it again with you in my Father’s kingdom”… He simply said “I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until…”!

So, yeah… I meant what I wrote: if @susanlo wants to claim that Jesus merely meant “wine is not going to pass my lips again”, by virtue of her interpretation of Hahn’s “four cups” theory, then she’s saying that Jesus lied (or that the Scriptures are in error).

 

[Gorgias]

This isn’t my claim, but a summary of Scott Hahn’s presentation. (I don’t disagree with his explanation of the 4 cups.) His point is that when He drank the 4th cup of wine on the cross the Passover was complete.

OK, but you’re claiming that, by means of his “four cups” theory, Hahn is saying that the Eucharist is just wine and not truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus?

 

[rcwitness]

He did say “with you”

Matt. 26
For this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

 

[Gorgias]

He did say “with you”

Matt. 26

For this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

That’s the whole point.

@mcq72 was trying to say “well, He drank it alone on the cross, so it doesn’t count in the context of the promise.” My response was that Jesus didn’t say “I won’t drink with you until I drink with you in the Kingdom”… He merely said “I won’t drink”. Period.

Now, the whole discussion comes up in the context of whether the wine that is Eucharisted is still wine, or if it’s (as the Catholic Church claims) the transubstantiated Christ (and therefore, no longer wine). So, when Jesus said “I won’t drink it until I drink it with you” and meant that at the Last Supper, it was just wine, and then, He actually did have wine at the Cross… then He lied, right?

Or maybe, just maybe… what He drank at the Last Supper was actually His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[Wannano]

rcwitness:

He did say “with you”

Matt. 26

For this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

That’s the whole point.

@mcq72 was trying to say “well, He drank it alone on the cross, so it doesn’t count in the context of the promise.” My response was that Jesus didn’t say “I won’t drink with you until I drink with you in the Kingdom”… He merely said “I won’t drink”. Period.

Now, the whole discussion comes up in the context of whether the wine that is Eucharisted is still wine, or if it’s (as the Catholic Church claims) the transubstantiated Christ (and therefore, no longer wine). So, when Jesus said “I won’t drink it until I drink it with you” and meant that at the Last Supper, it was just wine, and then, He actually did have wine at the Cross… then He lied, right?

Or maybe, just maybe… what He drank at the Last Supper was actually His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Something I have no knowledge of is whether or not the Catholic Church believes/teaches that the transubstantiated Eucharist will continue to be celebrated for eternity.

 

[rcwitness]

I believe not… its a Sacrament of faith. In Heaven, we will no longer need faith.

 

[guanophore]

No, the rulings generally were made because the church was divided over an issue.

I think this assertion is easily disputed, since heretics are not “church”. Gnostics, Donatists, Nestorians, etc. are not in a position to contribute the clarification of doctrine. The preservation of the One Faith was given into the hands of the Church, and she is bound and moved by the Holy Spirit to preserve the once for all Divine Deposit of faith infallibly.

When there are members of the Church that are divided, as was the case during the Arian controversy, the infallible elements of the Church act to define what was committed to the Church by the Apostles.

Ultimately this boils down to the issue of authority. the Reformers did not have a divine appointment to redefine and recreate the doctrines of the faith. When they did so , division was caused, and significant departures from the One Faith occurred, and continue to occur.

 

[Wannano]

I believe not… its a Sacrament of faith. In Heaven, we will no longer need faith.

Then it seems that the fruit of the vine He drank at the Last Supper and will drink again in the Kingdom was wine not His blood.

 

[Wannano]

rcwitness:

He did say “with you”

Matt. 26

For this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

That’s the whole point.

@mcq72 was trying to say “well, He drank it alone on the cross, so it doesn’t count in the context of the promise.” My response was that Jesus didn’t say “I won’t drink with you until I drink with you in the Kingdom”… He merely said “I won’t drink”. Period.

Now, the whole discussion comes up in the context of whether the wine that is Eucharisted is still wine, or if it’s (as the Catholic Church claims) the transubstantiated Christ (and therefore, no longer wine). So, when Jesus said “I won’t drink it until I drink it with you” and meant that at the Last Supper, it was just wine, and then, He actually did have wine at the Cross… then He lied, right?

Or maybe, just maybe… what He drank at the Last Supper was actually His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

If he lied because He drank from the sponge maybe have a glass of vinegar with your dinner tonight and see if it is the same.

 

[Gorgias]

If he lied because He drank from the sponge maybe have a glass of vinegar with your dinner tonight and see if it is the same.

The various accounts say different things:

• Mark calls it “wine drugged with myrrh” (ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον).
• Matthew calls it “wine” (οἶνον).
• Luke says that the soldiers approached him with wine (ὄξος – which was “sour wine mixed with water”… what the Roman soldiers drank).
• John calls it “common wine” in some translations (ὄξους – “sour wine mixed with water”, again).

Psalm 69 calls it “vinegar”, which might be where we see the various translations opting for ‘vinegar’.

In any case, I’m not certain you can hang your hat on any particular Gospel agreeing with you that it was ‘vinegar’… but remind me never to come and have dinner at your place, if that’s what you serve at table.

 

[rcwitness]

The Last Supper and the Eucharist Sacrament require Transubstantiation. The heavenly feast does not.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

If he lied because He drank from the sponge maybe have a glass of vinegar with your dinner tonight and see if it is the same.

The various accounts say different things:

• Mark calls it “wine drugged with myrrh” (ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον).
• Matthew calls it “wine” (οἶνον).
• Luke says that the soldiers approached him with wine (ὄξος – which was “sour wine mixed with water”… what the Roman soldiers drank).
• John calls it “common wine” in some translations (ὄξους – “sour wine mixed with water”, again).

Psalm 69 calls it “vinegar”, which might be where we see the various translations opting for ‘vinegar’.

In any case, I’m not certain you can hang your hat on any particular Gospel agreeing with you that it was ‘vinegar’… but remind me never to come and have dinner at your place, if that’s what you serve at table.

Thanks, that reinforces my thinking. What He drank from the sponge was not the same as the wine at the Last Supper.

 

[Wannano]

The Last Supper and the Eucharist Sacrament require Transubstantiation. The heavenly feast does not.

Or more accurately, the Catholic Eucharist requires the Last Supper to have had transubstantiation?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

The Last Supper and the Eucharist Sacrament require Transubstantiation. The heavenly feast does not.

Or more accurately, the Catholic Eucharist requires the Last Supper to have had transubstantiation?

The point is Transubstantiation won’t happen in Heaven

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi

That wasn’t my point. It is said so many times on here that “this was the belief since …(insert time period)…” So here we have a Pope who either did not believe it or and this is something to think about… it was never a universal belief and the Council of Rome didn’t do as so many think. Because the Pope failed to receive the memo of something as important as this. As Pope and if this was the belief and a conclusion of the council I would in the least expect a Pope to have been briefed on the basics…

Also the thing about his personal opinion can’t fly. And I am not even touching infallibility. For instance, do you think Pope Francis will survive if he wrote a piece (and state his personal opinion) that Contraception is actually not that bad. In that case a Pope wrote about the Canon and clearly contradicted current Catholic ideas. I for one give him the benifit of the doubt and rather think it hasn’t always been believed as claimed and the Council of Rome was less definite or clear as many more claim.

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks, that reinforces my thinking. What He drank from the sponge was not the same as the wine at the Last Supper.

Right. What He drank at the Last Supper was Eucharist.

 

[rcwitness]

The point is Transubstantiation won’t happen in Heaven.

Part of Transubstantiation, is that gifts of earth (bread and wine) are offered. That wont happen in heaven. The other aspect is that its a Sacrament of faith (things unseen by our flesh and blood senses).

 

[Wannano]

Can not one “eat His flesh” in faith without it being His literal flesh ?

Yes, Protestants do this all the time! We call this a spiritual communion, when one unites to Christ without the Real Presence. Catholics have a special prayer for spiritual communion when we cannot be present at the eucharist. Protestants, too, have this kind of longing and prayer at their communion services.

Believe Augustine said Peter ate His flesh by believing in His words and Messiahship, by faith, in John 6 discourse…

Yes, of course, this is a metaphor of “consuming” Christ.

---

So if this is the stance of the CC what are we arguing about for sure?

 

[guanophore]

So if this is the stance of the CC what are we arguing about for sure?

That God “calls” all of us to be One Faith, One Body, One Bread. He does not intend for us to be separated in the way we are!