Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[jcrichton]

No matter how much groups try to rely on Scripture alone, they must subscribe to traditions.

…and as perplexing as that is they seem to eat their denominational (or non-d) traditions as manna from Heaven!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

But that’s an utopian thought is it not?

If Scriptures were to have been Written with such clarity that any person reading them could ascertain this “explicit” knowledge and Truth, why are there over 30,000 non-Catholic “Christian” denominations?

By your (and many other non-Catholics that I have encountered) definition of “explicitly” found in Scriptures, shouldn’t there be only two distinct bodies: Catholics and non-Catholics?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Your argument makes the Apostles, the Gospels, and the Epistles superfluous.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

And you hold this in regards to Jesus, am I correct?

Hold what in regards to Jesus ?

 

[Wannano]

Oh yes, thank you. So kind of you to notice.

The idea there has not been explained properly. Maybe start on page 24 and work from there.

What you said there is exactly what I would have thought if I were the Pope. Hopefully you see the light before the curtain falls.

The post before that explained it well. I am so glad you are perfect in every way? Oh no, not at all I have never noticed.

I fully concur, that is the problem with keeping up to the Jones’.

 

[TC3033]

Why do you put Christian in parentheses when speaking of non-Catholics? Do you not believe that non-Catholics are Christians?

 

[mcq72]

The list of advantages you mention have not been personal advantages for you have they?

How would i not know them , His voice, His gaze, His touch, if I had not experienced them, but in truth and spirit.

Why would you demand that a Sacramental presence of Christ offer you something the Incarnation didn’t offer you?

have no idea what you mean, or could i ask why do demand anything of the Eucharist, accept to praise Him for everything! ?

 

[mcq72]

You misunderstand the Catholic Eucharist. He isn’t local within us unless His Body and Soul is in us.

Ok, but not sure I posted anything but what you state is local presence. Where have I described it (presence in host) differently?

Perhaps you misunderstood my understanding , not of Eucharist, but His local presence in the believer spiritually, in the new birth…do you believe that ?

 

[rcwitness]

But here is the question of the thread:

Just because someone has accepted the Holy Spirit through belief in Jesus and Baptism into the Church, does that mean its the Holy Spirit calling us to separated Communions (which includes their opposed teachings of what Jesus says)??

 

[mcq72]

Jesus’ material and local presence on earth is the same presence of His in Heaven.

more power to you if that is what you believe ( I could what ask in the style of others , which I dislike, then why need He return?..please don’t answer…I get what you mean)…but i just disagree…I will take seeing Him literally face to face any day than seeing Him now, spiritually, but veiled, thru a glass darkly…this is in “truth and spirit”…otherwise , “I can only imagine” (no slam, just had that song come to mind…heard it, “I Can Only Imagine” ?

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.

All worship that is done in truth and spirit is in union with Christ, and a fragrance in heaven.

“He inhabits the praises of His people.”…and on Earth

 

[mcq72]

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::

ok …can’t argue against a smiley face…but He has been doing miracles probably since the fall, but yes, to prove Himself to the "locals’’.

 

[mcq72]

Is it reasonable to conclude that Jesus is using language His intended audience couldn’t understand?

absolutely yes…and no (the apostles understood perfectly…just enough, just barely…like “Lord I have no idea what you be talking about, but…we believe, you are the Messiah, and have the words of eternal life”

They weren’t confused about what He meant. They were confused as to how it was true.

Know what you mean, still, they were confused in what He meant.

 

[mcq72]

The author didn’t know the words I would understand to put to the concepts that he was communicating. The people he wrote to shared a language and could easily understand.

So Moses didn’t understand but the people did ?

 

[mcq72]

18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." I Cor. 11

Factions = σχίσματα So how are the genuine in a schism to be recognized? Paul goes on to explain the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

have discussed this already…Paul was writing “tongue in cheek”…a kind of slam on those who justified their clique by presuming to be right, and maybe they were but with fault non the less.

I am not sure how you can say it is “not quite as settled as Christology is”. It is quite settled for those who have received the Apostolic faith, and I think it is fair to say that it is also quite as settled for those who have received Reformed faith. It is just settled in a schismatic fashion.

As I said settled, but not as unified are we as with Trinity…still debating this since at least 9th century now,according to our predecessors in the faith

 

[Wannano]

But here is the question of the thread:

Just because someone has accepted the Holy Spirit through belief in Jesus and Baptism into the Church, does that mean its the Holy Spirit calling us to separated Communions (which includes their opposed teachings of what Jesus says)??

I don’t know why the decision of one person to be a Christian should mean the Holy Spirit is calling everyone to be in different Communions. By Communions you mean churches, right?

 

[rcwitness]

I mean denominations with different teachings. The same teachings they say are from Jesus, that are interpreted differently.

Why would we share a Communion of Jesus and claim He teaches different things???

 

[mcq72]

The error here is that the consecrated elements are Christ, not a temple.

I am sorry , but when i see a gold monstrance, with the consecrated Host, which we still see with our senses, I think of a kind of temple, a localized presence, then He is put behind the veiled tabernacle, after the service.

There is no longer any role for heirus, since there is no longer any need for continued sacrifice for sin.

Yet you do have a separate priesthood apart from the priesthood of all believers , which is also after Melchizedek, to offer "sacrifice, in an unbloody manner however…I can not access His local presence except thru the priest, just like OT paradigm

I think what you are saying is that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is “limited and timed” because it occurs and is consumed at Mass?

yes

am not sure why you would object to this

I am just stating its limitations, and some were calling it almost omnipresence because it is at different places around the world, which is true , but a far cry of His Spiritual omnipresence…and Jesus prophesied that some would say , "look He is here ’ , “He is there”, though referencing false prophets, still calls us to seeing Him in truth and spirit…as Wannano also posted

 

[mcq72]

That being said, there are certain places and ways in which we can experience an outpouring of grace, and He is present in special powerful ways that He ordained He will be present.

I am sorry Guanophore but some are cynical, and point out that is how some would have us see it…ie , the need for a priesthood, intermediary to graces, as taught by same said intermediaries.

But i agree, there are individual wells of grace (prayer, fasting, reading, etc.) and corporate (fellowship, praise, communion, baptisms, etc.).

Peace

 

[Wannano]

I mean denominations with different teachings. The same teachings they say are from Jesus, that are interpreted differently.

Why would we share a Communion of Jesus and claim He teaches different things???

Personally I don’t think that is what is happening. We share a common Jesus and share in unity the reasons why He came, why He died and why He was resurrected and what He is doing for us in this life and the next. We don’t claim that He teaches different things. It is men who have differing opinions in intrepeting what He taught, not that we claim He teaches differing things.

 

[mcq72]

If Jesus’ promise to be present in the Eucharist “availeth little” for you, then it makes sense that you would reject it for yourself.

Correct, I accept His spiritual presence , not physical , that animates my whole being, at Communion.