Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

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

Lol…thank you…needed that to help me thru the other side’s intellectual, mystical allure/appeal, that I just got a big dose of.

 

[mcq72]

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

Spiritually literal?

 

[mcq72]

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

Now you know that is certainly not what I am saying.

 

[Wannano]

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.

mcq72:

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.

Jesus said that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them. Is that presence not Real? If He appeared physically and materially they would be calling the media!

Believers who have the real presence of Jesus in their heart and lives who come together to spiritually participate in the Body of Christ by physically eating the bread and wine which symbolizes His broken body given for them and thus remember His sacrifice as He said to do certainly are not missing out on the real presence of Christ in the observing of the Last Supper.

 

[rcwitness]

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?

Interesting!

So where is the home of His body and blood? Is it not the Church? So what if a Christian is divided from the Church?

 

[lanman87]

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.

Susan, I think you and I have come to the same conclusions. I to have read many of the snippets from Catholic Apologist blogs and such from the Early Church Fathers. But when I go read the entire section I see words like “symbol”, “figure”, and even “represents” when talking about the Eucharist.

Take for instance, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him;

Granted, Hippolytus wasn’t exactly in good standing with the Roman church however it wasn’t because his doctrine was wrong. It was because he challenged the authority of Rome.

 

[Benadam]

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

Are you implying the Scriptures are either all figurative or all literal?

 

[Benadam]

Jesus said that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them. Is that presence not Real? If He appeared physically and materially they would be calling the media!

What’s more real His presence when two gather or the Incarnation? The Eucharist is more real like the Incarnation is more real.

 

[Benadam]

Spiritually literal?

Your question implies that spiritual and material are mutually exclusive. Are you a material spiritual presence?

 

[Agathon]

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.

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.

And this is why you don’t base your faith in movies. They lack so much.

 

[Agathon]

And what of the Saint Ignatius quote? What does that mean for you? Do you ignore that?

 

[lanman87]

And what of the Saint Ignatius quote? What does that mean for you? Do you ignore that?

No, I agree with Susan.

Often when people speak metaphorically or symbolically they use literal language.

For example Clement of Alexandria in the Paedagogus 1:6 says

But the expression, “I have given you to drink” (ἐπότισα), is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. “For my blood,” says the Lord, “is true drink.” John 6:55 In saying, therefore, “I have given you milk to drink,” has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk?

later on he says But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.

later on he says _“Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” John 6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth.

then later he says Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?

It doesn’t sound like Clement of Alexandria believe in Transubstantiation to me, even though he regularly spoke in literal language when speaking figuratively.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

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.

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.

And this is why you don’t base your faith in movies. They lack so much.

Of course, I was not suggesting that. Have you seen the movie? If not, don’t knock it quite yet.

 

[Agathon]

It would have been better if the movie actually included the liturgy of the Church.

 

[Agathon]

And what of Ignatius and Augustine?

 

[Wannano]

It would have been better if the movie actually included the liturgy of the Church.

Did you see it?

 

[Agathon]

Yes. (10 characters)

 

[rcwitness]

Agathon:

Wannano:

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.

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.

And this is why you don’t base your faith in movies. They lack so much.

Of course, I was not suggesting that. Have you seen the movie? If not, don’t knock it quite yet.

I will try to see it sometime soon. But im not sure what you expect me to see (or get smacked by).

 

[Wannano]

Yes. (10 characters)

Did something strike you?

 

[guanophore]

That sounds like a sophisticated application of once right always right…infallablity by any other name

No, mcq72.

Presumption is being made here that because we both agree to correctness of Trinity that we should both agree to the meaning of Ignatius.

You are asserting that, since the Apostles did not use the terms, that they did not believe in the Real Presence, thus disqualifying the concept based upon the terminology.

If you wish to reject what Scripture clearly states, and what Ignatius clearly states, and what all the early fathers state about their beliefs in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you are free to do so.

But you have already accepted that the Apostles and their disciples believed in the Trinity, though they did not use this term, so clearly, rejecting the doctrine because different words are used is a spurious argument.

We 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.

Yes, I am sure you must find some other meaning for the passage, to discount that schism is only ever used for dogmatic issues. This passage is surrounded before and after with information on how to consider and conduct the Eucharist. Paul instructs them that they will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, which is a phrase referring to murder. To suggest that he would be tongue in cheek about their petty differences in the light of the Eucharist is just evidence that the importance of it has been lost.