Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

So one does not need to be a presbyter or even Baptized to hold the Lord’s Supper (as would be approved by the Apostle)

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I am hoping I don’t get blasted from all sides as I am not prepared for that.

I don’t know why you would get blasted for this. Catholics believe this too. We just don’t stop at this deficient definition of “church”. Although we are all individually members of the One Body, not all of us are given the same roles and responsibilities. The Church is identified by those who are in unity with the Apostles, and those they left to succeed them in Apostolic ministry (the Bishops). It is these who have the special charge to preserve the faith, feed and tend the flock. They are where the buck stops when something is “taken to the Church”. The Church was intended to be visible, and authorative, not invisible and “each one decides”.

And Guano, me being not that smart finds this is already where clarity in history becomes blurred. If the CC did not have to rely on Tradition and things were spelled out in Scripture plainly it would be simpler.

 

[guanophore]

And Guano, me being not that smart finds this is already where clarity in history becomes blurred. If the CC did not have to rely on Tradition and things were spelled out in Scripture plainly it would be simpler.

OIC, yes, I often wish there were more clarity in scripture about a number of things. I know the NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, but things being more pointed and less ambiguous would certainly seem to prevent disunity!

But, God knew what He was doing when He inspired the authors to pen the sacred word, so I must accept that He has allowed it to be this way for His own reasons. Perhaps because the Church NEEDS the sacred tradition.

 

[Wannano]

So one does not need to be a presbyter or even Baptized to hold the Lord’s Supper (as would be approved by the Apostle)

3000 added on the day of Pentecost. They continued in the ensuing days communally and went from house to house breaking bread, soaking up theApostles teaching, praising God in worship and God added to the Church daily as He wished. Wasn’t this the root?

 

[Agathon]

The Apostles more than likely appointed elders soon after.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

So one does not need to be a presbyter or even Baptized to hold the Lord’s Supper (as would be approved by the Apostle)

3000 added on the day of Pentecost. They continued in the ensuing days communally and went from house to house breaking bread, soaking up theApostles teaching, praising God in worship and God added to the Church daily as He wished. Wasn’t this the root?

How do you know how many Presbyters were appointed???

And these house meetings were not exactly tiny, according to St Paul admonishing the Corinthians.

 

[mcq72]

Authentic reform happens within the Church not separated from it.

Reform, or truth and best practice, stand on their own, irregardless of from within or not.

But I think most P reform began in the church and unfortunately could only survive outside church.

Calling it unauthentic is a normal defensive reaction and hinders true reflection.

 

[rcwitness]

Benadam:

Authentic reform happens within the Church not separated from it.

Reform, or truth and best practice, stand on their own, irregardless of from within or not.

But I think most P reform began in the church and unfortunately could only survive outside church.

Calling it unauthentic is a normal defensive reaction and hinders true reflection.

It would be better for you to say the Church was not confined to the ruling authorities, but when you say could only survive outside the Church, it hurts your cause.

 

[guanophore]

Reform, or truth and best practice, stand on their own, irregardless of from within or not.

I could see how this might be true in politics or other human social systems, but this is not the case for the One Church. Her Head is Christ, and her soul is the Holy Spirit. No genuine reforms will occur outside of these divine elements. Jesus appointed authority for His Church and instructed them, and they appointed successors (Bishops) to hold fast to the deposit of faith, feed and care for the sheep. It is those to whom it is given to feed and care for the sheep to reform. The Sheep are not given this responsibility. On the contrary we are to follow and obey our elders.

But I think most P reform began in the church and unfortunately could only survive outside church.

I would say that reform did begin in the Church, but it was soon followed by rebellion, which could only survive outside the Church.

Calling it unauthentic is a normal defensive reaction and hinders true reflection.

I believe that Luther’s motives were initially genuine. I think he became overtaken with his hatred of what he considered corrupted Catholic leaders and systems in which he did not personally believe. I also think he was genuinely dismayed at the division he created, especially when other reformers continued to “reform” his “reforms” even further than he thought appropriate.

 

[mcq72]

It would be better for you to say the Church was not confined to the ruling authorities, but when you say could only survive outside the Church, it hurts your cause.

Perjaps you are right…you have a good heart…just want to say excommunication or to go outside the church,was not preferred by first reformers

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

rcwitness:

So one does not need to be a presbyter or even Baptized to hold the Lord’s Supper (as would be approved by the Apostle)

3000 added on the day of Pentecost. They continued in the ensuing days communally and went from house to house breaking bread, soaking up theApostles teaching, praising God in worship and God added to the Church daily as He wished. Wasn’t this the root?

How do you know how many Presbyters were appointed???

And these house meetings were not exactly tiny, according to St Paul admonishing the Corinthians.

How many do you think I said were appointed??

 

[mcq72]

Or, there was nothing more that could be said that would change their mind.

No, there was as we have suggested…but it would have been pearls before swine.

There was nothing more to. be said that would change their hearts.

 

[mcq72]

The doctrines of the faith were whole and entire when they were delivered to the Church, so nothing can be "ruled upon’ or “developed” that was not already present.

Sounds like an oxymoron…whole and entire but can be developed if present.

Having ones cake,and eating it too

Having it both ways.

 

[mcq72]

“Were those Catholic monks who strongly opposed the Immaculate Conception heretics because the Church much later ruled on the matter?” McQ72

I am not sure you are asking this just to be ornery, or not. Such a situation does not meet the definition of heresy. Besides that, not ever member of the Church will be persuaded on matters of doctrine, but the Truth is not defined by those who do not hold it.

Agree they were not heretics, just as those opposed to substance change were not all heretics before 1215 ( you said twas heresy always)

 

[guanophore]

Sounds like an oxymoron…whole and entire but can be developed if present.

Perhaps Jesus is a manufacturer of oxymorons?

The Parable of the Mustard Seed
31 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” Matt 13.

Why would anyone expect the modern Church to look like the NT church, when the smallest of seeds can grow to becomes the “greatest” of shrubs/trees? Yet, a mustard seed produces nothing but a mustard plant, and a mustard plant cannot come from anything but a mustard seed.

Is the mustard seed whole and entire?

Did the seed grow and develop?

 

[guanophore]

Agree they were not heretics, just as those opposed to substance change were not all heretics before 1215 ( you said twas heresy always)

Yes, they were, though the term “transubstantiation” was not used to describe/define the Real Presence. Those who adhered to the Apostolic teaching believed what Augustine wrote “He held Himself in His hands” at the last supper. Those who were heretics were those who denied the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist. This heresy was present from the early part of the second century, less than 100 years after Jesus ascended. So yes, this heresy has been present continually.

 

[mcq72]

Those who were heretics were those who denied the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist.

No, the Gnoatics were heretics because they denied the Incarnation was slain on Calvary, not because of substance change.

Apples to oranges.

No one here denies fleshly Calvary death.

You deny RealPrese ce without substa ce change

 

[guanophore]

No, the Gnoatics were heretics because they denied the Incarnation was slain on Calvary, not because of substance change.

Well, perhaps we read the history differently?

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius - Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

It seems to me that there was no distinction made between the two.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

No distinction made between the two here either!

 

[mcq72]

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius - Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

Yes by any understanding the Eucharist is thanksgiving and praise for the death of Jesus on Calvary , flesh and all…gnostics would even deny a symbolic, figurative eating of any physical Jesus nbecause they deny any real body was on the cross.

The quote here is no different than, “This is my body and blood”, which is explaing a spiritual reality symbolically, with no change to bread.The Gnostics deny the bread and wine to be rerpresentative of His body and blood

The quote does not say that they deny the bread to be the body and the wine to be the blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.

They DO deny that they give thanks for the flesh and blood sacrifice of their Savior Jesus Christ

 

[Benadam]

No, there was as we have suggested…but it would have been pearls before swine.

What pearls were suggested?

There was nothing more to. be said that would change their hearts.

Without offering what that more to be said could’ve been…