Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

Right. Its not only because they are in the Septuagint.

Btw, here is an interesting article with evidence the New Testament writers used the Septuagint with passage quotes: Did Jesus Use the Greek Version of the Bible? – Shameless Popery

 

[steve-b]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity

Thank you for the reference,

using that same article, If we expand on that quote (highlighted)

“This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others–a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage.”

so In extension,
one could ask, why weren’t the books removed? The reason is, they were considered inspired. AND they were used in liturgy.

From that same article, in the same time period, (as an aside, Augustine and Jerome were contemporaries and friends)

“The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.”

That said,

Those weren’t removed, and the reason being, they were considered inspired by the Church, and were used liturgically.
Ianman87:

However, it was Jerome who called the Deutero books apocrypha in his preface. Luther, and later reformers, agreed with Jerome.

Yet Jerome left those books alone, and 1100 years later all doubt about them is removed.

 

[lanman87]

Yet Jerome left those books alone, and 1100 years later all doubt about them is removed

In the debate between Augustine and Jerome, Jerome had the better argument. However, Augustine had more influence. Ultimately, the Augustinian view prevailed. Not because it was the stronger argument but because in officially proclaiming those books as Canon they got to stick it to the Protestants (or so they thought).

Luther originally did the same thing as Jerome. He included the books with a preface saying they are profitable for devotion but not for doctrine. Which is what the original copies of the Vulgate said.

However, I know that for a devout Catholic it doesn’t matter that Jerome’s position was the stronger position. Trent proclaimed them part of the Old Testament and for Catholics that settles the matter. For the rest of us, however, we can look at the arguments and conclude that the Council of Trent was wrong.

 

[guanophore]

Not sure why He would be drinking His blood in Heaven.

Actually, it does not say He drank it. He consecrated it, then gave it to the Apostles to drink.

do not eat a transubstantiated bread and wine (into a past Lamb, fleshly Jesus.).

How do you imagine that Jesus was so weak or disinterested that He was unable to correct the Church for 1500 years?

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.

There is no difference between these. The persons who have abandoned the doctrines of the faith have become Protestants, though they don’t know it. Some non-Catholic communities are comprised of a majority of “ex Catholics”!

 

[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.

Guanophore has brought up an interesting point that took me to researching the Bible and I think he is right. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank of the Last Supper.

If that is true and it appears to be, a new thought comes to me. Why then does the priest consume any of it if he is acting in the place of Christ at Mass?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Yet Jerome left those books alone, and 1100 years later all doubt about them is removed

In the debate between Augustine and Jerome, Jerome had the better argument. However, Augustine had more influence. Ultimately, the Augustinian view prevailed. Not because it was the stronger argument but because in officially proclaiming those books as Canon they got to stick it to the Protestants (or so they thought).

One has to ask why did Augustine have more influence.

Here’s

Augustine on the Deuteros
“The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth … then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon … [T]here are also others too, of a different order … such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras … Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon … But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

Re: the authority of the Catholic Church

Ch 5 v6 Against Manichæus
“Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…”
Ianman:

Luther originally did the same thing as Jerome…

Ianman87:

However, I know that for a devout Catholic it doesn’t matter that Jerome’s position was the stronger position. Trent proclaimed them part of the Old Testament and for Catholics that settles the matter. For the rest of us, however, we can look at the arguments and conclude that the Council of Trent was wrong.

I just give information. What a person does with that information is up to them

That said

May I suggest reading Ch’s 4 & 5 of Augustine’s letter Against Manichæus for context of why Augustine is making this argument this way.

 

[Gorgias]

Guanophore has brought up an interesting point that took me to researching the Bible and I think he is right. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank of the Last Supper.

If that is true and it appears to be

It’s not true.
Matthew 26:

The disciples then did as Jesus had ordered, and prepared the Passover. When it was evening, he reclined at table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said

In order for your claim to hold true, you have to claim that ‘they’ refers exclusively to the apostles, and not to Jesus and His apostles.
Mark 14:

as they reclined at table and were eating, Jesus said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.”

And here, Mark reports that Jesus says that the apostles were “eating with me.” Not “one who is eating”, but “one who is eating with me.”

Are you really gonna suggest that this means that Jesus did not partake in the Passover meal?
Luke 22:

When the day of the feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, the day for sacrificing the Passover lamb, he sent out Peter and John, instructing them, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” … [and] say to the master of the house, ‘The teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’

When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles.

He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer"

Does the narrative explicitly say, “Jesus picked up a piece of lamb, and a piece of bread, and a cup of wine”? No. However, if you know your Old Testament, then you know that every Jew was commanded to eat of the Passover meal, every year, or else he was no longer considered part of the Jewish community. It literally meant ‘excommunication’ to not eat the Passover meal.

Therefore, considering Jesus’ words, above, it’s ludicrous to consider that Jesus did not partake of that Passover meal which we know as ‘The Last Supper’.

 

[steve-b]

Guanophore has brought up an interesting point that took me to researching the Bible and I think he is right. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank of the Last Supper.

If that is true and it appears to be, a new thought comes to me. Why then does the priest consume any of it if he is acting in the place of Christ at Mass?

Consume Himself?

 

[rcwitness]

The Ministerial Priest is not Christ.

And if Jesus did receive His own body and blood, what is wrong with that? Its pure.

Even if He took it according to your symbolism, He would still be giving thanks for the offering of His sacrificial life for the world.

 

[mcq72]

How do you imagine that Jesus was so weak or disinterested that He was unable to correct the Church for 1500 years?

I do not totally believe in predestination or such eternal security for a church…some things are conditional…dont presume upon HG guidance…kind of counter intuitive for a disciple or a congregation to think they can not lack in grace to be perfectly aligned with the mind of Christ…

what , if we error, it is God’s fault, which just can’t be, which means we can’t err ???

But to be technical, if her ruling on communion be wrong, it has only been 800 years to date (since 1215)…or it was only several hundred years before any “reform” was heralded…not to mention earlier warnings by Radbertus, and some sects in France…

So please, reformers, said nothing new.

The 1500 years often quoted is quite superficial and in error.

And if the churh was in error, how should Jesus show his strength and concern?

You allude to Luther with the “1500”…cant think of a better example…His(Jesus) strength and concern shown thru such “weakness”
.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Guanophore has brought up an interesting point that took me to researching the Bible and I think he is right. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank of the Last Supper.

If that is true and it appears to be

It’s not true.
Matthew 26:

The disciples then did as Jesus had ordered, and prepared the Passover. When it was evening, he reclined at table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said

In order for your claim to hold true, you have to claim that ‘they’ refers exclusively to the apostles, and not to Jesus and His apostles.
Mark 14:

as they reclined at table and were eating, Jesus said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.”

And here, Mark reports that Jesus says that the apostles were “eating with me.” Not “one who is eating”, but “one who is eating with me.”

Are you really gonna suggest that this means that Jesus did not partake in the Passover meal?
Luke 22:

When the day of the feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, the day for sacrificing the Passover lamb, he sent out Peter and John, instructing them, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” … [and] say to the master of the house, ‘The teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’

When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles.

He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer"

Does the narrative explicitly say, “Jesus picked up a piece of lamb, and a piece of bread, and a cup of wine”? No. However, if you know your Old Testament, then you know that every Jew was commanded to eat of the Passover meal, every year, or else he was no longer considered part of the Jewish community. It literally meant ‘excommunication’ to not eat the Passover meal.

Therefore, considering Jesus’ words, above, it’s ludicrous to consider that Jesus did not partake of that Passover meal which we know as ‘The Last Supper’.

Ok, maybe I caused confusion. Of course I know he ate of the Passover Meal but did He eat and drink of the bread and wine He gave thanks for and told them to eat in Remembrance of Him?

 

[guanophore]

I do not totally believe in predestination or such eternal security for a church

No, I don’t either, but Jesus only founded one Church, not “a church” (one among many). He promised that He would lead His fledgling Church into “all Truth”. So somewhere, the powerful Jesus evident in the book of Revelation took about a milennia and a half off the job.

some things are conditional…dont presume upon HG guidance…kind of counter intuitive for a disciple or a congregation to think they can not lack in grace to be perfectly aligned with the mind of Christ…

i AGREE but what you are saying is that everyone, everywhere was lacking in grace for 1500 years, and Jesus was unable to redirect them - as if their lack of grace was stronger than His own promise.

what , if we error, it is God’s fault, which just can’t be, which means we can’t err ???

Of course we can, but He did not say He would protect all of us from falling into error. the promise was made to His Church, against which the Gates of Hell would not prevail. So either He fell down on HIs promise, or the fallibility of mankind is stronger than His grace.

But to be technical, if her ruling on communion be wrong, it has only been 800 years to date (since 1215)

No. That is like saying that the Apostles did not believe in the Trinity until 325. Or the hypostatic union. Or that the NT books were not actually scripture until they were declared to be so in 382. On the contrary, the Church formalized what the Church always believed.

This attitude also does not accomodate the EO, who also accept the Real Presence, and yet were not part of 1215.

So please, reformers, said nothing new.

Yes, I agree. The heresy that the Eucharist was not the REal Presence has been evident from the beginning.

The 1500 years often quoted is quite superficial and in error.

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it. What you are claiming is that Jesus was too weak or disinterested to correct His One Body, the Church until the Reformation.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, maybe I caused confusion. Of course I know he ate of the Passover Meal but did He eat and drink of the bread and wine He gave thanks for and told them to eat in Remembrance of Him?

Gotcha.

I’m still gonna say ‘yes’, though, on the basis of the OT sacrifices. Jesus is instituting a sacrifice that is both a fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice and a ‘thank offering’ (todah). In both cases, the person offering the sacrifice must eat of it. By that standard, Jesus (who is both the one who offers and the one who is offered) must partake of the sacrifice himself.

 

[Wannano]

The Ministerial Priest is not Christ.

And if Jesus did receive His own body and blood, what is wrong with that? Its pure.

Even if He took it according to your symbolism, He would still be giving thanks for the offering of His sacrificial life for the world.

Right, he is another Christ, in persona Christi.

 

[rcwitness]

Not “another Christ” but yes, in Persona Christi.

There is only One true Priest, Jesus. We (Baptized Christians) are all priests in Him. Ministerial Priests have received Ordination by Laying on Hands. They are able to administer Communion and Absolution in Persona Christi.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, I agree. The heresy that the Eucharist was not the REal Presence has been evident from the beginning.

Technically was not heresy till 1215.

 

[mcq72]

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Nor is Reform defined by those who oppose it.

 

[steve-b]

guanophore:

Yes, I agree. The heresy that the Eucharist was not the REal Presence has been evident from the beginning.

Technically was not heresy till 1215.

Actually in this link we also see the history of the real presence
From Council of Ephesus 431
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

I would just add, note the historical argument given in that link. Councils also validate doctrines already in place.
Council of Nicaea I, came close to specific language as well to please sceptics

 

[steve-b]

guanophore:

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Nor is Reform defined by those who oppose it.

I think I know what you’re saying

but could you clarify?

 

[Gorgias]

mcq72:

guanophore:

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Nor is Reform defined by those who oppose it.

I think I know what you’re saying

but could you clarify?

Let’s see if an example brings clarity to the assertion:

When your teenage child rebels against your rule that curfew is strictly at 10pm, only they have the right to define the argument, so when they say “I’m gonna do what I want because my parents are stupid”, that’s the narrative that we must give assent to.

I think that about covers it.