Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Benadam]

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

It’s like Jesus. Wait, it is Jesus Truth that is. Whole and entire yet the depth of understanding is unfathomable and doctrinal development has taken 2000 years so far. Jesus being God it could take …who knows ?

 

[Benadam]

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.

Then you suggest they didn’t deny the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.

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

They believe but don’t give thanks. That seems an oxymoron to me.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Certainly the reasons for modern children of the Reformation to deny the Real Presence is not the same as the Gnostics, and I have only met one person who ever asserted that Jesus did not physically die on the cross (some theory of how he fell into a coma, then revived, and escaped into India).

I also affirm the value, though limited, of a symbolic, figurative rememberance. A spiritual communion is the next best thing to actually partaking.

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.

I agree, the disciples of the Apostles used the same language and concept as Jesus in the Gospels. The only difference is the modern denial that the language of the Gospel is as you say here only “a symbolic” with no change. So it denies the direct words of Jesus, which indicate not that the bread and wine symbolize, but “is”.

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.

We will read it differently because we read through different lenses. The Reformers denied what has been handed down, and the denial has potentiated exponentially.

Those who have received the Apostolic faith and held fast to it will read it through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which preserves for us the meaning of the words.

 

[susanlo]

Yes, they were, though the term “transubstantiation” was not used to describe/define the Real Presence.

Actually the term “real presence” was developed long after the term transubstantiation developed. It was developed by Anglicans who objected to transubstantiation. Neither of these terms were defined or explained in the earliest centuries.

Those who adhered to the Apostolic teaching believed what Augustine wrote “He held Himself in His hands” at the last supper.

This quote was posted last week too. Here is where that snippet was taken from.
“But, He drummed upon the doors of the city: what are the doors of the city, but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? And was carried in His Own Hands: how carried in His Own Hands? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and IN A MANNER carried Himself, when He said, This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 And He fell down at the doors of the gate; that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

He is using some imagery to explain this Psalm. He makes three allegorical statements (bold), and then he explains each (italics). Do you think that he believes hearts are literally doors? Or did he use symbolism to make a point?
I put links to 2 of Augustine’s sermons in post #780 that explain the Eucharist. I also quoted Augustine’s explanation of literal vs. figurative understanding of Scripture where he clearly wrote that John 6:53 is figurative. Very few scholars state that Augustine believed in a concept that would later be termed transubstantiation.

 

[rcwitness]

You seemed to imply that not enough were appointed, and that so many were merely Baptized and also Communed at home, that there was evidence that presbyters were not necessary to hold a lawful Lord’s Supper.

 

[susanlo]

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.

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist

Did you read the whole letter or just the pre-selected snippets posted by bloggers?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

He was warning them about Gnostics (Docetism) that denied that Jesus had a body that was crucified. They believed that Jesus had the appearance of a body, but it was a phantom-like substance. They did not believe that Jesus really suffered on the cross. Therefore they did not believe in the Eucharist because Jesus did not have body or blood.
“For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?”
This letter has nothing to do with the literal vs. figurative Eucharist. People can not celebrate the Eucharist and remember Christ’s flesh and blood if they believe that He did not have flesh and blood. To say that Ignatius is talking about people who deny transubstantiation or “real presence” (which are terms that haven’t been created yet in his time) by taking this quote out of the context of his letter is dishonest.

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)

No distinction made between the two here either!

We already talked about these quotes. See post #716.

 

[susanlo]

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]).

This wasn’t part of the council, but part of Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to anathematize Nestorius after the council. If this writing truly could only mean what is precisely defined in transubstantiation, and was agreed upon by all churches, then there wouldn’t have been hundreds of years of debate among the “orthodox” Christians prior to the council in 1215.

 

[Wannano]

You seemed to imply that not enough were appointed, and that so many were merely Baptized and also Communed at home, that there was evidence that presbyters were not necessary to hold a lawful Lord’s Supper.

If my statements implied that it was not done consciously. You, I think, have your lenses glued on your nose to the point that you cannot see anything in focus without them! But you raise an interesting point. Jesus simply said “do this in Remembrance of me.” Where does he say that Presbyters or Priests are the only ones qualified to conduct the memorial service and what did he say is required to make it “lawful?”

 

[rcwitness]

We were following a specific thought. I was staying on that thought.

Who was Jesus telling “do this” to?

 

[Wannano]

We were following a specific thought. I was staying on that thought.

Who was Jesus telling “do this” to?

I have no idea what you think that specific thought was. I think that what you thought I was thinking may not be exactly what you thought I was thinking.

We all know Jesus said that in the presence of the disciples. I am looking for your answers to my questions too.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

We were following a specific thought. I was staying on that thought.

Who was Jesus telling “do this” to?

I have no idea what you think that specific thought was. I think that what you thought I was thinking may not be exactly what you thought I was thinking.

We all know Jesus said that in the presence of the disciples. I am looking for your answers to my questions too.

Honestly? Read post 1090 with my question and your answer.

And it wasnt just disciples at the table. It was the 12 Apostles.

 

[mcq72]

What pearls were suggested?

none were suggested, no pearls given, no explanations on just how to “gnaw” on Him (let us “chew” on the why now brothers and sisters)

“There was nothing more to. be said that would change their hearts.” McQ72

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

meant to say nothing more to say that would have made them change their hearts

 

[mcq72]

Then you suggest they didn’t deny the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.

no, i am only saying what they denied…giving thanks for a bodily death/atonement

"They DO deny that they give thanks for the flesh and blood sacrifice of their Savior Jesus Christ", McQ72

They believe but don’t give thanks. That seems an oxymoron to me.

not sure I said what they believe but what they certainly do not believe

 

[Wannano]

Of course . So?

 

[rcwitness]

Our belief is that an apppointed/ordained presbyter was necessary to hold the Lord’s Supper lawfully.

This is done through Laying on Hands to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[mcq72]

So it denies the direct words of Jesus, which indicate not that the bread and wine symbolize, but “is”.

is there any other way to use symbolic, figurative speech ?

Of course sometimes people do say afterwards, “figuratively speaking” . While we don’t have that here, we also do not have “transubstantively speaking”, or "literally speaking’’.

Those who have received the Apostolic faith and held fast to it will read it through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which preserves for us the meaning of the words.

Their is the rub, the challenge, to see apostolic teaching thru tradition. The apostles never used the word “eucharist”, but do describe the original ceremony and tell of subsequent commemorations (Acts).

 

[Benadam]

no explanations on just how to “gnaw” on Him

I think the disciples response demonstrates an explanation was received and rejected. If there were no explanation on how to gnaw would there be a reason to reject the teaching? If they really didn’t understand if it were symbolic or literal gnawing?

 

[mcq72]

I think the disciples response demonstrates an explanation was received and rejected. If there were no explanation on how to gnaw would there be a reason to reject the teaching? If they really didn’t know if it were symbolic or literal gnawing?

can you please cite any discourse "explanations’, beyond the simple “you must gnaw” ?

But yes, for sure anyone listening processed the words somehow, or made some mental decision on what He may have been saying.

 

[rcwitness]

But yes, for sure anyone listening processed the words somehow, or made some mental decision on what He may have been saying.

I believe that neither the Apostles or the disciples who left understood what how He meant “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

The difference was those who left could not receive His Words as bread from heaven, and thus, that He was from heaven and would somehow fulfill the means to feed them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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]).

This wasn’t part of the council, but part of Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to anathematize Nestorius after the council. If this writing truly could only mean what is precisely defined in transubstantiation, and was agreed upon by all churches, then there wouldn’t have been hundreds of years of debate among the "orthodox" Christians prior to the council in 1215.

For clarification,
Letters mentioned in a council session, are part of the council. Did you not see the reference? from (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

And what did I say just prior to giving the link?
"Actually in this link we also see the history of the real presence"

That letter shows how the Church thought and taught on the Eucharist.

Re: "orthodox Christians,
These are Catholic Church councils, fully “orthodox”

I say it that way because “Orthodox” Christians don’t exist yet.