Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

We claim Christ, the living God became flesh and blood crucified and risen, seated in Heaven whome sent the Holy Spirit to believers.

Jesus gave us His flesh and blood which made everything new. If we have His body and blood, we claim to know Him. If we know Him, we know what He Teaches. He does not Teach division, but a common mind and judgment. He does not have opposing Teachings which lead to separate denominations and thus Communions.

 

[mcq72]

Your argument in a sense, has already been waged to Jesus personally by His own “disciples”… not the 12 but His “other disciples”

No, in no sense are we like the disciples who followed only for what they would get from Him, fashioning Him in their image, their desires.

Who told you that? It’s NOT from scripture.

Correct…susanio was more succinct, He is in us as thru the Holy Ghost, our bodies being His temple…thank you.

So why did Jesus make this conditional statement beginning with

As I noted before, the fruits from Communion do not seem to prove themselves one over the other.

 

[Wannano]

We claim Christ, the living God became flesh and blood crucified and risen, seated in Heaven whome sent the Holy Spirit to believers.

Jesus gave us His flesh and blood which made everything new. If we have His body and blood, we claim to know Him. If we know Him, we know what He Teaches. He does not Teach division, but a common mind and judgment. He does not have opposing Teachings which lead to separate denominations and thus Communions.

I challenge you to go see the movie about Paul and see if you are smacked in the face with a teaching of Christ that the early church taught but the Catholic Church let go of early on and no longer teaches. “If we know Him, we know what He teaches.” True.

 

[Benadam]

Please read carefully. I understand the whole of the Word of God is not expressed bt Scriptures alone. My point isTruth given by Christ And preserved by the Holy Spirit cannot become corrupted. So please quit misreading my posts and attempting to correct error that isn’t there.

 

[mcq72]

It is the reason why St. Paul, being the learned Pharisee was able to express that the Breaking of the Bread must be an activity which “Discerns” the actual Body and Blood of our Lord.

Freudian slip…fashioning after your hearts desire…but that is not the verse.

It is, "not discerning the body of the Lord. ", as in the church, and its members, the body of Christ (no blood)

Peace

 

[Benadam]

How do you come to that conclusion? Moses knew the people knew its only you and I who are not in the language loop.

 

[mcq72]

No so much defensive but corrective;

So said the what to the what ?

and interestingly enough these “reforms” are claimed to be headed by the Holy Spirit and found in Scriptures, as the Jehovah Witnesses’ and Mormon’s claim.

be careful, for you also say things that JW’s also claim

 

[Benadam]

It’s both. They aren’t mutually exclusive. God unites His own He doesn’t divide the sheep

 

[mcq72]

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

wait, am I on the wrong thread ? Is this the "bible alone " thread ? lol

 

[mcq72]

How do you come to that conclusion? Moses knew the people knew its only you and I who are not in the language loop.

Ok misread it…see what you mean…yet if we look at Jewish commentaries pretty sure they have a range of opinions as to just what is a day and what is a night , maybe, not sure

 

[mcq72]

It’s both. They aren’t mutually exclusive. God unites His own He doesn’t divide the sheep

well, if it is hypostatic then we are one yet distinct…The Body and blood of Christ are indeed His, and we are one with Him, yet with our own bodies also, making the "body of Christ , the church

 

[guanophore]

This statement does not tell us whether Ignatius thought that Christ was present symbolically, spiritually, or literally.

I am sure it cannot tell you that. But Ignatius was Catholic, and held Catholic faith. He held the faith that was passed on to him by the Apostles, who believed that when Jesus said “this IS my Body” He meant exactly what He said. The consecrated Bread and Wine were intended to create anamnesis for the Body and Blood He shed for us on the cross.

You are making the same error that is commonly made by modern evangelicals, separating “spiritual” from “literal”. That makes it seem like something that exists on the spiritual plane cannot be “literal” (real). If this were true, then angels would not be “real” either!

It only shows us that the heretics refused to participate in communion because they did not believe that Christ had flesh and blood.

False. The statement says that they are heretics because they do not believe that the
“Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”.

There is no separation between the flesh and blood in the Eucharist, and the flesh and blood He gave for us on the cross.

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

I don’t see how any “linguistics” can change what Ignatius is stating. He is clearly saying that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

“diametrically opposed” is an accurate observation. This is exactly the position that Paul describes as “schismatic”.

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

It is certainly a righteous question. How did it make sense for Jesus to come in the flesh, veiled in human form? Jesus knows what He is doing - He knows His plan for us, and if He has determined that this Real Presence, 'veiled in bread" is the way to discern the true from the false, that is up to Him.

But I think you nailed it when you observed that we are His hands, His feet, His voice. Eucharist is how we become One with Him so that we can most effectively be Him to the world.

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.

No, but He did use his Physical hands. He made mud, he used spittle, He commanded that those who sought healing to bathe in water. Yes, he can convey in unlimited fashion, past, present, and future. But He gave us certain material methods through which His grace would flow. The waters of baptism, the oil of anointing, the bread and wine of Eucharist. Jesus knows that we are physical beings with physical needs, and He provided for these through the Sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

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).

Yes, He left us His Holy Spirit, who is the One who brings His presence into the Bread and Wine. You are right, the consecrated Host is not “anytime and anyplace” but is specific to the Anamnesis He commanded at the Last Supper.

Yes, it is limited to the Eucharistic Celebration, from which we depart as His voice, His hands, His presence in the World.

The reason they are called “Holy Mysteries” is that they do actually defy reason. How does it make sense? It cannot.

He never mentions coming back to Earth physically and materially after He ascends until His second coming.

Well, we read it differently, do we not?

John was clear throughout His Gospel about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Bread. He alone includes the story of the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, to emphasize that Jesus is present in the breaking of the Bread. His mystical presence in the Eucharist is there to bring us physically present to the foot of the cross, just as the Passover brought the Jews, through anamnesis, ritually and enacted into the Exodus.

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.

Malachi 1:11
11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."

Jesus is the Pure Offering that is present in the Holy Eucharist from the rising of the sun to its setting. His name is great among the nations, as He is offered everywhere in the sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy. The anamnesis during which we become mystically present at His sacrifice on the cross.

The Bread and Wine are not His “tabernacle made with human hands” but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Him who died for our sins on the cross.

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

Because we do not believe that He gave “figureative flesh on the cross”.

“To be” and “is” do not give us enough detail to discern between literal meaning or metaphor.

I understand that it is not sufficient for you.

27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand." John 10

Those who do not belong to Him cannot hear His voice.

 

[guanophore]

we simply don’t know how he meant it.

Indeed. Those who have rejected His Church cannot know, since the Truth was entrusted to the Church.

The problem wasn’t that the heretics were denying transubstantiation.

Technically, this is true, since the term had not yet been coined. But such a claim is the same as saying that the disciples from the Apostles until 325 were denying that there are three persons in One God because they did not use the term Trinity.

The problem was that they didn’t think that Jesus had flesh and therefore they would not state that the Eucharist was His flesh.

It is true that the Gnostics did not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They denied that the Eucharist was His flesh and blood because there is no separation between the two.

You can’t have a symbol for something that you don’t believe is real.

I suppose this is true, but this does not change the fact that the Apostles taught the Real Presence. You can’t have a flag for the United States that has any validity unless the US really exists. Otherwise, the flag has no meaning.

But St. Paul said that one who does not eat and drink in a worthy manner profanes the Body and Blood. How can one profane what is not present?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Your argument in a sense, has already been waged to Jesus personally by His own “disciples”… not the 12 but His “other disciples”

No, in no sense are we like the disciples who followed only for what they would get from Him, fashioning Him in their image, their desires.

Most of Jesus disciples left Him over His teaching on the Eucharist. And IMV one of the scariest areas in scripture follows that passage where they left Him not to follow Him anymore… Jesus doesn’t go after them. He lets them go. He doesn’t keep arguing with them. He knew in advance they had no faith and he let them go. HOLY SMOKES!!! Which given the consequence Jesus just left them with, in what He taught, that’s probably where they will spend eternity… but it’s their choice

 

[Wannano]

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).

Yes, He left us His Holy Spirit, who is the One who brings His presence into the Bread and Wine. You are right, the consecrated Host is not “anytime and anyplace” but is specific to the Anamnesis He commanded at the Last Supper.

Yes, it is limited to the Eucharistic Celebration, from which we depart as His voice, His hands, His presence in the World.

The reason they are called “Holy Mysteries” is that they do actually defy reason. How does it make sense? It cannot.

He never mentions coming back to Earth physically and materially after He ascends until His second coming.

Well, we read it differently, do we not?

John was clear throughout His Gospel about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Bread. He alone includes the story of the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, to emphasize that Jesus is present in the breaking of the Bread. His mystical presence in the Eucharist is there to bring us physically present to the foot of the cross, just as the Passover brought the Jews, through anamnesis, ritually and enacted into the Exodus.

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.

Malachi 1:11
11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."

Jesus is the Pure Offering that is present in the Holy Eucharist from the rising of the sun to its setting. His name is great among the nations, as He is offered everywhere in the sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy. The anamnesis during which we become mystically present at His sacrifice on the cross.

The Bread and Wine are not His “tabernacle made with human hands” but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Him who died for our sins on the cross.

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

---

The Bread and Wine are not His “tabernacle made with human hands” but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Him who died for our sins on the cross.

****(
I did not mean what you said here. I was refering to Jesus being put away in the Tabernacle that is located by the altar. It is a box made by human hands.

 

[guanophore]

you only cite words from the discourse, and they offer no explanation

Respectfully, nothing that any of us can say will make any difference. You cannot accept the Sacred Tradition, which is the lens through which we understand what is written. You must reject this Source, in favor of a Reformed Source, so that the meaning can be changed.

You continue to point out Jesus said nothing about figurative by way of explanation therefore it all must be literal

He corrected His hearers at virtually every other situation in which they misunderstood. In this discourse, they took Him literally, and he allowed them to walk away. They did not belong to Him, because they did not have faith.

Did He even hint of eating Him in an unbloody manner in John 6 ?

Catholics, unlike our Reformed siblings, do not derive doctrines by parsing out verses. We receive the One Faith whole and entire from the Apostles, then we understand what was produced by that Sacred Tradition in writing (the New Testament) through the lens of what was delivered once for all the the Church.

Because of this we take the totality of the Scriptures together, and understand the doctrine in such a way that does not exclude any of what is written. The fact that a certain detail is not present in one passage is not a concern for us. The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

Did He give any explanation that we would eat Him thru the bread in John 6 ?

I am not sure what constitutes and “explanation” for you?

Did He explain it as any sort of a spiritual literal eating in John 6 ?

This is how we understand it, yes.

The explanation for figurative is not there, just as surely as it is not for any literal understanding

Every reader/listener is free to reject what is offered.

"Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? " Mark 8

It is only in hindsight

It is certainly the case that what was delivered once for all to the Church has only been understood through hindsight in many cases.

John 12:16
16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him.

 

[guanophore]

Mark 9:32
32 But they did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.

Luke 2:50 50 But they did not understand what he said to them.

Luke 9:45
45 But they did not understand this saying; its meaning was concealed from them, so that they could not perceive it. And they were afraid to ask him about this saying.

John 8:27
27 They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father.

John 10:6
6 Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Yes, there were many things they did not understand when they happened, but only in hindsight.

is the word “eucharist” in the bible?

I am going to accept this as an honest question, though it seems odd.

εὐχαριστίας = thanksgiving

The ultimate thanksgiving prayer for us is the Lord’s Supper.

Nor did He say, “This bread is literally…”

Of course not! They did not have some irrational pre-occupation with the word “literally”.

When God said “let there be light”, there was light, etc. they accepted this as “literal” (real)

Or, “This only has the appearance of bread but its substance is now…”

Indeed not. In fact, it appears that John 6 is actually a litmus test for true believers. Either the listeners believed He had the Words of Life, or not, even if they did not understand them at the time.

Yes, the disciples but not the apostles as found in their Writ

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

yes at some point in succession you have some teaching on real presence, even increasing with time, with some variation and development and even some discord, but with eventual conformity and decree/acceptance by majority (not that there was voting but that there was remnant of those disagreeing)

I think what you are saying here is that the HS failed to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

For my benefit tell me where he said He would be physically present anywhere any time after He left. I am missing something.

Yes, you are missing the Real Presence in the eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

How do you personally define “Real Presence?”

Honestly, I could never find myself equal to such a task. I accept what was handed down to me through the Sacred Tradition (paradosis).

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. I Cor. 11

Not this “symbolizes” my body, not 'the is a figure of my body" not this is a “metaphor” of my body.

The anamnesis is an enacted, ritualized rememberance that involves a literal eating of the Passover Lamb. Not a figurative or symbolic lamb.

 

[susanlo]

I understand that it is not sufficient for you.

27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand." John 10

Those who do not belong to Him cannot hear His voice.

Hmmm…do you believe that this passage is about literal sheep - baaa baaa - or is Jesus just using a metaphor?

I suppose this is true, but this does not change the fact that the Apostles taught the Real Presence. You can’t have a flag for the United States that has any validity unless the US really exists. Otherwise, the flag has no meaning.

But St. Paul said that one who does not eat and drink in a worthy manner profanes the Body and Blood. How can one profane what is not present?

Is it ok to put the US flag on the ground and spit and stomp on it if you are in Europe and not in the same physical location as the US? Does a flag have the same meaning and value when it is apart from the physical location of its home country?

Honestly, I could never find myself equal to such a task. I accept what was handed down to me through the Sacred Tradition (paradosis).

I Cor. 11 (edited for space)

Not this “symbolizes” my body, not 'the is a figure of my body" not this is a “metaphor” of my body.

The anamnesis is an enacted, ritualized rememberance that involves a literal eating of the Passover Lamb. Not a figurative or symbolic lamb.

Hmmmm…Do you mean literally eating a lamb (baaa baaa)? Or do you mean the Passover lamb is figurative or symbolic for Jesus?

But seriously, the reason I ask about the term ‘real presence’ is because it has a flexible definition that means different things to different people. Many Catholics treat this term as a synonym for transubstantiation, but this term is also used to describe consubstantiation and spiritual presence. Do you believe that the Apostles taught all of these or just transubstantiation?

Like I have said before, in the early writings there is no mention of “transubstantiation,” “consubstantiation” or “real presence.” The writings do not reveal terms like “actual” or “literal” when describing the Eucharist. However we can find the terms “symbolizes,” “figure,” “metaphor,” “likeness,” along with other allegorical language to describe the Eucharist.

I have a big problem with the claim that the Apostles taught a concept that was passed down orally since 33 AD, but never mentioned in writing until 1000 years later. In the meantime many writers like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Augustine, and others misrepresented what was supposedly known by all orthodox Christians in the church. It just doesn’t make sense. I think it is much more likely that a wide variety of explanations for the Eucharist were tolerated and accepted in the early centuries. Later it was decided to make one definition and declare it illegal to teach anything except this. This decision set the stage for future disagreements and divisions in the church.