Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

What was “finished” was the cup of his suffering, the cup He prayed about in the Garden.

What, more metaphors?

But agree, vinegar is better translation, (but might have been wine based?)

 

[guanophore]

What, more metaphors?

What "cup’ do you think He was referencing in the Garden?

But agree, vinegar is better translation, (but might have been wine based?)

Yes, most likely. But not the sort of beverage one would consume with a meal.

 

[mcq72]

What "cup’ do you think He was referencing in the Garden?

No, i agree with you…bring on all the metaphors and symbols …linguistically powerful…i think He may have even referred to His cup as a baptism also.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, most likely. But not the sort of beverage one would consume with a meal.

Correct…but maybe cook with…lol

 

[rcwitness]

Matthew 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.”

I believe Jesus was referring to His blood, not the mixture on the cross. Whether He meant when He saw the Apostles after His resurrection but before His ascension, or when they went to heaven, or when they Communed together after His ascension, Im not sure.

Do you believe there will be wine in heaven?

 

[Wannano]

Matthew 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.”

I believe Jesus was referring to His blood, not the mixture on the cross. Whether He meant when He saw the Apostles after His resurrection but before His ascension, or when they went to heaven, or when they Communed together after His ascension, Im not sure.

Do you believe there will be wine in heaven?

Never meant that He was referring to the mixture on the cross. No, the point was being made that the wine of the Last Supper was not wine but His transubstantiated blood or else if it was wine that He drank, when he received the sponge on the cross and it was wine He would have lied. Now that we know it was not wine but “vinegar” He could have meant “this fruit of the vine”
was indeed wine.

As to whether there will be wine in heaven I do not know but if there is it probably will taste better than the glass I am drinking right now!

 

[rcwitness]

Never meant that He was referring to the mixture on the cross. No, the point was being made that the wine of the Last Supper was not wine but His transubstantiated blood or else if it was wine that He drank, when he received the sponge on the cross and it was wine He would have lied. Now that we know it was not wine but “vinegar” He could have meant “this fruit of the vine” was indeed wine.

I believe “this fruit of the Vine” was His blood, not wine. But wine is necessary for Transubstantiation, in this life. Heaven need not wine for the banquet feast.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Never meant that He was referring to the mixture on the cross. No, the point was being made that the wine of the Last Supper was not wine but His transubstantiated blood or else if it was wine that He drank, when he received the sponge on the cross and it was wine He would have lied. Now that we know it was not wine but “vinegar” He could have meant “this fruit of the vine” was indeed wine.

I believe “this fruit of the Vine” was His blood, not wine. But wine is necessary for Transubstantiation, in this life. Heaven need not wine for the banquet feast.

Ok, but in earlier conversation you expressed that the Eucharist would be discontinued in heaven. Not sure why He would be drinking His blood in Heaven.

 

[mcq72]

They never drank blood or ate transubstantiated foods at the Passover celebrations.

Correct, figurative symbols…everything points to Calvary and the Lamb…They did not eat a transubstantiated lamb (into the future Lamb, fleshly Jesus), as we do not eat a transubstantiated bread and wine (into a past Lamb, fleshly Jesus.).

Both our “passovers” look backwards and forward.The backwards for OT is to deliverance from tenth plague and for us to Calvary respectively. The forwards is to Calvary and Lamb for OT, and to His coming again in NT.
The symbols are first declared by Jehovah, to Moses, and again by Jesus to apostles…both times the elements are declared and in Passover the symbolism can be discerned with no need to say explicitly that they are symbols…Jesus did not have to say “this is a symbol of my body” just as Jehovah did not say that to Moses…it was to be spiritually and figuratively understood/discerned.

 

[jcrichton]

would advise you to rather stop suspecting. Although this 2000 + years you claim of only Catholic history (Yes history and I am willing to go with you from Peter to Francis and we can discuss EVERYTHING , I participated in numerous threads were the HISTORY DOESN’T ADD UP) you are also going a step too far claiming I do not accept scripture. It shouldn’t be that hard to see I do not question scripture but your interpretation of it. And to make a very very uncharitable remark that I do not believe Christs words is a “cheap shot” and closed minded!

I know that it may seem as a cheep shot; rather, it is a check.

Did Jesus not state that the gates of hades would not prevail against the Church? Did Jesus not state that He would remain with the Church till the end of times? Did Jesus not state that He would send another Paraclete, Who the world cannot Receive because the world does not Know Him nor Believe and that the Church would Know Him because He would abide with and in the Church?

So it goes to your claim (and that of others) that we cannot know what “church” or that there has always been One Body of Christ.

Either Scriptures hold True or it does not. If Christ’s Only Founded Church ceased to exist then Scriptures failed, as did Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Not a cheap shot; rather, a reality check.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The Church yes. The Catholic Church uhmmmm no. And yes the Church has not succumbed to hell

You are assuming too much here as a fact and not your belief as it is.

I guess that’s what bugs me the most. All the assumptions and then to carry on as IF fact. Noooooo… we need to stop and clear that out first before all these suspecting can happen!

Regards

Again, it goes to Body of evidence. If not the Catholic Church, then what, who, where, when?

I fully concur with you, we must clear out all error of thought and false/erroneous claims.

Tomorrow hundreds of people around the world may wake up claiming that the Holy Spirit Inspired them to start yet another splinter of the Body of Christ and that it is their particular group/affiliation that is the “true” church of Christ, as they can be traced to the Apostles… to these new inventors of the wheel their vision is sound and based on the Holy Scriptures–as they interpret them!

Devoid of authority, everyone is authority!

Please, do not misunderstand my zeal for the Unification of Christ’s Body as anything else other than an earnest desire that man stops living in splinter groups and creating new splinters of the Body of Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

If you are a reasonable person, why would you believe that the accusation of “cannibalism” would arise from a “symbolic” eating of Jesus’ Flesh (common bread) and a symbolic drinking of Jesus’ Blood (wine/juice)?

Correct…i think Martyr or another father defended against cannibalism accusations by describing communion as you just did.

The accusations were probably due to the consecratory words of our Lord, and that meetings may have been held in secret due to persecution, and later only baptized were allowed to remain at ceremony (catechumens and onlookers had to depart), making the ceremony appear “secretive”, with only hearsay of what actually went on.

Can you imagine trying to defend against these allegations by citing a literal flesh eating of our Lord but only thru transubstantiation, that the wine really is blood though it still seems like wine.

 

[mcq72]

f He meant “this fruit of the vine”, meaning His Eucharist, then there’s no conflict with other instances of drinking wine.

What, Jesus speaking metaphorically, figuratively, symbolically? Are you sure you want to go there?

 

[rcwitness]

I meant there will not be the Sacrament of bread and wine changed to body and blood. But we will somehow eat the Lamb.

Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These words are true; they come from God.”

Jesus is also called the “Tree of Life”

“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.”’

 

[mcq72]

Are you seriously claiming that housekeeping notes trump official statements of Catholic doctrine?

No, I am saying Jesus connects even with housekeepers, the lowest…both call it wine.

I would not trivialize nor dichotomize, seperate the two…those housekeeping notes" come from the same Church that decrees doctrine.

 

[mcq72]

since 382, and the council of Rome, those 73 books had been accepted as the canon. The council of Florence Session 11 1442 before Luther was born, was ALSO. like Trent, an ecumenical council

And then was that not also before said pope called them deutero?..not sure…but i think that is how this line of posts started

 

[Wannano]

The Church yes. The Catholic Church uhmmmm no. And yes the Church has not succumbed to hell

You are assuming too much here as a fact and not your belief as it is.

I guess that’s what bugs me the most. All the assumptions and then to carry on as IF fact. Noooooo… we need to stop and clear that out first before all these suspecting can happen!

Regards

Again, it goes to Body of evidence. If not the Catholic Church, then what, who, where, when?

I fully concur with you, we must clear out all error of thought and false/erroneous claims.

Tomorrow hundreds of people around the world may wake up claiming that the Holy Spirit Inspired them to start yet another splinter of the Body of Christ and that it is their particular group/affiliation that is the “true” church of Christ, as they can be traced to the Apostles… to these new inventors of the wheel their vision is sound and based on the Holy Scriptures–as they interpret them!

Devoid of authority, everyone is authority!

Please, do not misunderstand my zeal for the Unification of Christ’s Body as anything else other than an earnest desire that man stops living in splinter groups and creating new splinters of the Body of Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel

This wasn’t addressed to me but hopefully it doesn’t matter too much.

As I sit here reading your words and looking for sincerity in them I am struck by a challenge I would throw out to you and all other Catholics who express earnest zeal in confronting non-Catholics.

It has been expressed numerous times by Catholic posters that the majority of folks who consider themselves Catholic do not take their religion seriously and may not even agree with many of the basics. Some say it is only 10% and others say up to 30% who keep and practice their faith. Whatever…, maybe the time has come in the history of the CC for serious Catholics to let go of the need for correcting all the non-Catholic heresies you think you see and let go of the need to refute the so called “Protestants”. Spend your effort in chllenging your own families, friends etc who are not being faithful. You guys have the sheer advantage of numbers. Just think how the world would have to sit up and take notice if even the majority of Catholics would be sincere about their faith. If Catholics worldwide would shine forth with their Light we might be surprised how many fewer splinters there really are.

 

[mcq72]

The Vulgate, Jerome’s translation in Latin, had all 73 books. Jerome followed Pope Damasus’ lead, and the canon that was wad his preface defined at the council of Rome 38

Correct but how did he “regard” them ? What was his preface to the nonhebrew books?

 

[mcq72]

Either Scriptures hold True or it does not. If Christ’s Only Founded Church ceased to exist then Scriptures failed, as did Christ and the Holy Spirit.

You had many questions.

Such is the power to frame a question, with subtle presuppositions.

If you define “church”, and you define just what constitutes “prevailing”, you merely pose a veiled rhetorical question.

So either/or.

 

[jcrichton]

I fully agree with your closing thought.

It is said that humanity continues to blame God for what is wrong with the world… it is sad still, that “Christians” choose to be divided even and in spite of Jesus’ Commands that we be Holy, Love one another, and be one in Him.

There was a time when a Catholic would die or have his/her members (body parts) removed/cut/destroyed rather than to embrace immorality or to deny Christ… society has grown away from God and Catholics (and other Christians) have folded and embraced secular values.

However, the quest for Unity and Love and Holiness cannot be gained by ignoring error (both inside and outside of the Church) and by dismissing heresy.

The argument for the Catholic Eucharist is not new… this thread demonstrate how many divisions exist and how varied the understanding and how flexible the mind of all Christians are… we can debate the reality of the Eucharist (perhaps for eons upon eons) but we seldom accept the fact that disunity (schism) is not from God so we remain separatists… even when claiming to follow Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel