Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Wannano]

mcq72:

He came in the flesh to break all barriers, not to be limited anymore to any one place or thing or intermediary priests for graces, but in us, His new temple.

It makes sense that Jesus would want to maintain local presences all around the globe. Any number anytime any place. Because He was limited in the way you say ‘one place or thing’’ before He resurrected.

God is spirit, and in us. Can’t get much closer and intimate than that. His flesh in bread availeth little, having no hands to caress us, or lips to speak, or eyes to melt us…His Adamic body in heaven for the moment. So by design now, we are His hands and feet and lips, to love and build each other up, till His Bodily return.

If that were true would God Incarnate at all? Consider the laying on of hands to transmit the Holy Spirit. Consider, what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven. You may not think material reality is intimate but God does methinks. The hands the lips the eyes that melt the heart. Did the Incarnation give you an advantage in that way? Consider this too. This is the intimacy it offers. Jesus’ material and local presence on earth is the same presence of His in Heaven. Where He is materially worshiped on earth becomes one with the worship of Him in heaven That happens only with a material presence on earth because it is tied to the mystery of Christ’s Hypostatic Union.

Take time to read John 14.

 

[susanlo]

I would think it would be difficult. However, the statement is about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood - changed, transformed from Bread and Wine.

Ignatius makes reference to the literal presence of Christ in the elements that are consecrated. I agree, “transubstantiation” and “real presence” are terms that came later.

The terms: changed, transformed, literal, presence, elements and consecrated are not in Ignatius’ letter either.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” - Ignatius - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7

This statement does not tell us whether Ignatius thought that Christ was present symbolically, spiritually, or literally. It only shows us that the heretics refused to participate in communion because they did not believe that Christ had flesh and blood.

 

[rcwitness]

guanophore:

I would think it would be difficult. However, the statement is about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood - changed, transformed from Bread and Wine.

Ignatius makes reference to the literal presence of Christ in the elements that are consecrated. I agree, “transubstantiation” and “real presence” are terms that came later.

The terms: changed, transformed, literal, presence, elements and consecrated are not in Ignatius’ letter either.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” - Ignatius - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7

This statement does not tell us whether Ignatius thought that Christ was present symbolically, spiritually, or literally. It only shows us that the heretics refused to participate in communion because they did not believe that Christ had flesh and blood.

I sincerely disagree.

 

[mcq72]

I sincerely disagree.

lol…I believe you…I believe the arguments on both sides, from a linguistic viewpoint , are very understandable yet so diametrically opposed.

 

[Benadam]

Take time to read John 14.

I don’t see how it pertains to the material presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[mcq72]

It makes sense that Jesus would want to maintain local presences all around the globe. Any number anytime any place. Because He was limited in the way you say ‘one place or thing’’ before He resurrected.

how does it make sense to be locally present but veiled in bread, locally present but with no local voice , local hands, local gaze? The only real benefit is to have Him locally spiritually present, which He is in the believer, individually and corporately (where two or more are gathered).

The presence He left us is the HG, who is available anywhere anytime The consecrated Host is not anytime anyplace, but limited to a specific mass and for a short time within that, with limited presence (no voice ,hands).

He did not need physical hands to perform miracles, but His word heals, which His Spirit can convey in unlimited fashion, both past, present and future.

 

[rcwitness]

Would it help people to think of transubstantiation as Jesus becoming bread and wine, rather than the bread and wine become Jesus?

I think they are both compatible… ???

 

[Benadam]

how does it make sense to be locally present but veiled in bread, locally present but with no local voice , local hands, local gaze? The only real benefit is to have Him locally spiritually present, which He is in the believer, individually and corporately (where two or more are gathered).

The list of advantages you mention have not been personal advantages for you have they? Why would you demand that a Sacramental presence of Christ offer you something the Incarnation didn’t offer you? Have you been graced with Jesus local gaze? His hands?

 

[Benadam]

mcq72:

locally spiritually present, which He is in the believer, individually and corporately (where two or more are gathered).

You misunderstand the Catholic Eucharist. He isn’t local within us unless His Body and Soul is in us. It’s not what you describe. It is in the bread when it Transubstantiates.

 

[Benadam]

how does it make sense to be locally present but veiled in bread, locally present but with no local voice ,

Jesus’ material and local presence on earth is the same presence of His in Heaven. Where He is materially worshiped on earth becomes one with the worship of Him in heaven That happens only with a material presence on earth because it is tied to the mystery of Christ’s Hypostatic Union.

That is one advantage

 

[Benadam]

He did not need physical hands to perform miracles, but His word heals, which His Spirit can convey in unlimited fashion, both past, present and future.

The purpose of the Incarnation was so that God could have hands and do miracles among us wasn’t it?.So God could prove Himself to the locals::

 

[Benadam]

Would it help people to think of transubstantiation as Jesus becoming bread and wine, rather than the bread and wine become Jesus?

I think they are both compatible… ???

Good question. They are compatible to the average persons conceptualization of Transubstantiation.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Take time to read John 14.

I don’t see how it pertains to the material presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Me either!

 

[Benadam]

Then how does it matter?

 

[Wannano]

Then how does it matter?

Jesus has told us he is going to prepare a place for us so that we can come and be where he is. He never mentions coming back to Earth physically and materially after He ascends until His second coming. He never mentions that He would be physically present all over the world in as many locales as possible in the form of bread and wine stored in a Tabernacle made with human hands. He told us He is going to the Father and we should rejoice at that if we love Him. He explained on verse 25, " These things I have spoken unto you, being YET present with you. Then He promises that the Father will send the Comforter (Holy Spirit) who will abide with us forever, who makes the trusting heart His home.

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

He did not need physical hands to perform miracles, but His word heals, which His Spirit can convey in unlimited fashion, both past, present and future.

The purpose of the Incarnation was so that God could have hands and do miracles among us wasn’t it?.So God could prove Himself to the locals::

I have always understood His purpose for coming was to die as a ransom for mankind.

 

[susanlo]

I sincerely disagree.

How do you prove that “…confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh…” means that Ignatius believed that the flesh was literal and not figurative? I read 3 different translations of this section, and it isn’t explicit. “To be” and “is” do not give us enough detail to discern between literal meaning or metaphor. A verb like “convert to” or “symbolize” would make it quite clear, but we simply don’t know how he meant it.

The problem wasn’t that the heretics were denying transubstantiation. The problem was that they didn’t think that Jesus had flesh and therefore they would not state that the Eucharist was His flesh. You can’t have a symbol for something that you don’t believe is real. I don’t know what Ignatius believed about the bread and wine in terms of transubstantiation or symbolism. He didn’t leave enough specific information in his writing to clarify.

Would it help people to think of transubstantiation as Jesus becoming bread and wine, rather than the bread and wine become Jesus?

I think they are both compatible… ???

This might help a little. I find it hard to understand why Jesus would transform something literally and physically, but then prevent it from being literally and physically apparent. Why would He need to convert the bread when He is already present inside each believer by way of the Holy Spirit? And if He did convert the bread, why couldn’t it be visible? It kind of makes it seem weak. I think the miracle of salvation seen through Communion is an amazing miracle in and of itself.

I believe that if Jesus wanted to convert bread to flesh or flesh to bread He could. If He wanted to do this I do not think that He is limited and only able to perform this when certain precise wording is used by a priest who has been “properly ordained” and is in agreement with the Bishop of Rome. If Jesus wants to convert bread or wine or anything else it would be done on His terms and not on man’s terms.

 

[Benadam]

I have always understood His purpose for coming was to die as a ransom for mankind.

I havce a couple of issues with that. Not that His coming would result in His death but the ransom part. Who was holding us ransom? Anyway. God is an eternal person and the Incarnation is God’s material presence on earth. God’s eternal material presence. God’s eternal Truth. God’s eternal gifts. Your conceptualization of these things prevent you from including the eternal nature of God to the Person of Jesus. So His Truth can be on earth in the beginning but lacking the eternal quality of who Truth is it can corrupt and not be eternal like Jesus who is Truth. Or His Bodies material presence on earth can’t be an eternal reality like Jesus is who is His Body.

Please consider that these things aren’t in there if you believe they are impossible. The Christ Event is eternity entering time and history. You believe your sins can be forgiven today even though Jesus forgave them 2000 years ago. You accept eternal qualities of the Incarnation but not fully.

 

[rcwitness]

The problem wasn’t that the heretics were denying transubstantiation. The problem was that they didn’t think that Jesus had flesh and therefore they would not state that the Eucharist was His flesh. You can’t have a symbol for something that you don’t believe is real. I don’t know what Ignatius believed about the bread and wine in terms of transubstantiation or symbolism. He didn’t leave enough specific information in his writing to clarify.

I think that is the beautiful power of the Eucharist celebration, it demonstrates in the believer a personal challenge and call to believing in the deity who became flesh and blood to raise our flesh and blood to His glory. We give thanks for God accomplishing our salvation which required Him to come in the flesh, and His flesh overcame all flesh by the power of the Spirit!!

Colossians 2
For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

This might help a little. I find it hard to understand why Jesus would transform something literally and physically, but then prevent it from being literally and physically apparent. Why would He need to convert the bread when He is already present inside each believer by way of the Holy Spirit? And if He did convert the bread, why couldn’t it be visible? It kind of makes it seem weak. I think the miracle of salvation seen through Communion is an amazing miracle in and of itself.

Because its not intended to prove Him. Quite the opposite, its intended NOT to prove, yet we believe because of His Word and our belief that He is God who became flesh, and gave us a way to physically be united to Him as a bride and groom.

I believe that if Jesus wanted to convert bread to flesh or flesh to bread He could. If He wanted to do this I do not think that He is limited and only able to perform this when certain precise wording is used by a priest who has been “properly ordained” and is in agreement with the Bishop of Rome. If Jesus wants to convert bread or wine or anything else it would be done on His terms and not on man’s terms.

We dont believe He was limited to doing anything either. Yet He fashioned our Communion in a way which keeps us united to each other also.

 

[Benadam]

Jesus has told us he is going to prepare a place for us so that we can come and be where he is. He never mentions coming back to Earth physically and materially after He ascends until His second coming. He never mentions that He would be physically present all over the world in as many locales as possible in the form of bread and wine stored in a Tabernacle made with human hands. He told us He is going to the Father and we should rejoice at that if we love Him. He explained on verse 25, " These things I have spoken unto you, being YET present with you. Then He promises that the Father will send the Comforter (Holy Spirit) who will abide with us forever, who makes the trusting heart His home.

Jesus’ material and local presence on earth is the same presence of His in Heaven. Where He is materially worshiped on earth becomes one with the worship of Him in heaven That happens only with a material presence on earth because it is tied to the mystery of Christ’s Hypostatic Union.

You aren’t refuting this. The gifts and promises of Christ in your post don’t compare to this gift.

He did say He would be physically present anywhere any time after He left. You just have to believe He meant what He said “This is my Body” and " Do this in remembrance of me"