Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

I can not access His local presence except thru the priest, just like OT paradigm

I am not sure what you mean by “local presence”, but Jesus is in no way confined to the Eucharistic elements.

In addition, the consecrated host is offered when there is no priest present, so to say that there is sort of restriction in place that depend upon a priest to access Christ is just false.

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

This is also false.

but a far cry of His Spiritual omnipresence

No, I think not. The reality of His Presence in the Sacraments takes nothing away from His Presence elsewhere. The Sacraments are a reliable and promised method during which we encounter Him. He is not confined by them.

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.

I am at a loss about such cynicism. If a person told you that you could have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without hindrance if you stood beneath a certain waterfall, would it not be prudent to at least consider standing under it?

Sacraments are the waterfalls of God’s grace, poured out to us. He is not limited to use the waterfalls He created for us, but we can be confident that He will be present in them as He has promised. It is not the priest who is the source of grace, but in the sacrament, we encounter Christ Himself.

If there were not a need for persons to serve in certain positions and gifts within the Church, Jesus would not have established a Church, and provided for these gifts and roles. It would seem that your argument about the “need” for it is with Him.

 

[Agathon]

Valiant effort but it could’ve done more.

 

[guanophore]

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

Without a doubt, this is the case. I am not familiar with the term “local presence”, so it is confusing.

But yes, Catholics believe that we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at baptism, reborn, cleansed, and put in right relationship with God. He dwells in our hearts through faith.

I think what you are trying to say is that we don’t need Sacraments because Christ dwells in our bodies/hearts through faith.

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.

And who is included in this 'we"?

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.

Can you give an example? It will be a while before I can see it!

 

[lanman87]

The point I’m trying to make is that just because someone calls the Bread the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ doesn’t automatically mean they are speaking literally. Often when people speak or write they will says things that sound literal but the reader will understand as metaphorical, figurative or symbolic.

In the case of Hippolytus of Rome and Clement of Alexander they were kind enough to clarify that the Bread and Wine are symbolic/represent the Body and Blood of Christ.

I believe, as Susan pointed out, that there were at least four different beliefs in the early church about the Eucharist.

 

[Agathon]

The point I’m trying to make is that just because someone calls the Bread the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ doesn’t automatically mean they are speaking literally.

Point taken. And what @rcwitness, @guanophore, and I are saying is that those who did this were wrong.

 

[mcq72]

He is clearly saying that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

just as clear as “This is my body”, when clearly it was not

This is exactly the position that Paul describes as “schismatic”.

Takes two to tango…

“Do not schism , but pacify those that contend”…Didache

Pacify then…lets call each others communion lawful

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.

Well one perhaps, the annointing with oil…the others are spiritual graces.
yes, the first two using symbols, points of faith, and some say the third also.
And as stated earlier we are His monstrance, His healing hands, for the health of the body.

 

[mcq72]

And who is included in this 'we"?

Christian brothers and sisters who commune without transubstantiating, are not positing as the Gnostics.

 

[Agathon]

guanophore:

He is clearly saying that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

just as clear as “This is my body”, when clearly it was not

This is one of the cases where even though it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it isn’t a duck.

 

[mcq72]

Without a doubt, this is the case. I am not familiar with the term “local presence”, so it is confusing.

Saint Robert Bellarmine maintains that our Lord can be locally present here on earth, in the Eucharist, even though He is also present in Heaven. He teaches that a body can be in two places at once. So, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, that very same body, which died on the Cross and rose again and ascended to Heaven, is also locally present under the accidents of bread. Is Jesus Locally Present in the Eucharist? | the reproach of Christ

“The body with which Christ rose,” says he (Augustine), “he took to heaven, which must be in a place . . . . . We must guard against such a conception of his divinity as destroys the reality of his flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth.” Augustine…Philip Schaff’s Reading of Augustine on the Eucharist – The Calvinist International

 

[guanophore]

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

On Passover, the Jews celebrated an enacted ritual (anamnesis) that involved slaughtering and consuming a lamb. The lamb had to be completely consumed during the ritual meal. Yes it is true that the passover lamb is a type for Jesus, but what I meant was that Jesus chose the Passover meal to institute the Eucharist because He Himself would be sacrificed for our sins.

Luke 22:19 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

“Do this” is the same “do this” that was given to the Jews at Passover - a ritual sacrifice.

This IS my Body = which is given up for you. Jesus makes no distinction between the Body he distributes and the Body that is given up for us. Since He did not give a figurative or symbolic body.

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?

Yes, I think that Lutherans/Consubstantiation will also say they believe in Real Presence. Just for the record, I don’t believe the Apostles taught “transubstantiation”. I believe this term was adopted much later as a result of Aristotilean philosophy. What I believe they taught is what is written in the Scripture:

This IS my Body
This IS my Blood

And we see their faith reflected in the writings of the early fathers, such as Ignatius.

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.

I would have a problem with this too, if that were the case. But clearly, it is not. From the writings of the post-apostolic fathers through Augustine we see the understanding that it is not a metaphor or a symbol.

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 agree, and but I can understand why it may seem like a “misrepresentation” when taken out of context. The context of all these writings is that they were written by Catholics, who held Catholic faith about the Sacraments. If the writings are taken out of that context, they will not make sense (except for Tertullian who seems to have drifted in and out of orthodoxy).

 

[guanophore]

I think it is much more likely that a wide variety of explanations for the Eucharist were tolerated and accepted in the early centuries.

Certainly so, and not just in the early centuries, as the CC affirms the Sacramental doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox, who never conceived of “transubstantiation” and have no use for it. Personally, I am much more inclined toward the Eastern practice of leaving these things in the realm of “Holy Mysteries”. The Western predilection to have to explain, define, and pidgeonhole every thing is maddening sometimes. It is certainly something that has fanned the flames of division in the Church.

Later it was decided to make one definition and declare it illegal to teach anything except this.

Well, to be fair, this was only the case in the West. The Eastern Church, never having become enamored with scholasticism did not need to do this.

This decision set the stage for future disagreements and divisions in the church.

I think it was the other way around. Like all dogmatic pronouncements, they are made to address heresies. So the divisions were already present, and the decision to define it was made to prevent the faithful from falling into heresy.

Dogmatic pronouncements can only protect those who are willing to embrace them, like the early Christians who were willing to abandon Gnostic and Arian ideas to cling to orthodoxy. But those who wanted to continue being Gnostic did so, and those who wanted to continue being Arian did so.

In the same way, those who want to reject what Jesus says “IS” will remain with symbolism and metaphor, regardless of what dogmatic pronouncements are made. As Paul wrote, schisms will be present, so that the genuine can be identified.

Spiritually literal?

Exactly! When people substitute the word “literal” for “real” it negates things in the spiritual realm as “real” that are not physical.

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

You seem to be suggesting the HS allowed the Church to lose the truth.

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!

LOL no doubt! Of course, the media pundits would discount the reality of Christ. Of course Christ is present in a variety of ways. He promised He would be in the midst of those who gather. He promised He would be present in the Sacraments. These are physical ways in which He is present that can be seen, touched, tasted, and heard. He created us to be physical beings, and he encounters us physically.

 

[Agathon]

Saint Robert Bellarmine maintains that our Lord can be locally present here on earth, in the Eucharist, even though He is also present in Heaven. He teaches that a body can be in two places at once. So, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, that very same body, which died on the Cross and rose again and ascended to Heaven, is also locally present under the accidents of bread.

Do you believe that nothing is impossible with God?

 

[mcq72]

I think what you are trying to say is that we don’t need Sacraments because Christ dwells in our bodies/hearts through faith.

Yes and no… some sacraments signify the spiritual reality such as baptism, even communion.

Correct, that reality, and that we are priests also after order of Melchizedek, does change the effectualness or need for some sacraments, or at least how they are administered or received.

it is not so either/or as you say.

 

[mcq72]

I am at a loss about such cynicism. If a person told you that you could have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without hindrance if you stood beneath a certain waterfall, would it not be prudent to at least consider standing under it?

And if that person claimed rights to that waterfall, and you could only be in league with said person, and with no other waterfall gatekeeper, that his waterfall was purer with better proprietary nutrients, even though same river fed other waterfalls ?

And notice I am not saying I need no gatekeeper for entrance…but more than one keeper is quite visible.

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

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

Without a doubt, this is the case. I am not familiar with the term “local presence”, so it is confusing.

But yes, Catholics believe that we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at baptism, reborn, cleansed, and put in right relationship with God. He dwells in our hearts through faith.

I think what you are trying to say is that we don’t need Sacraments because Christ dwells in our bodies/hearts through faith.

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.

And who is included in this 'we"?

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.

Can you give an example? It will be a while before I can see it!

But that would wreck it for others. Why won’t you see it for a while? Pm if you really can’t wait.

 

[mcq72]

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.

lol…you have just properly defended most Catholic doctrine that is not universal with us, that any developing understanding ending in a decree (the IC, Assumption of Mary, infallibility , papal office etc) must be apostolic and true, and all other understandings are thus spurious, orphans but for man.

 

[susanlo]

Interesting!

So where is the home of His body and blood?

Heaven

So what if a Christian is divided from the Church?

The Church is made up of all who believe in Christ. How can someone fit the definition of Christian (follower of Christ) but be excluded from the Christian Church? Well, I guess Catholicism has a different definition of church. That is a whole other topic.

 

[susanlo]

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

No. I am showing an example of how a statement can be made in literal terms, but be clearly accepted as metaphoric to all who read it. That is why when I read John 6 and statements from early writings like Ignatius’ letter I do not think that it is necessarily literal. We would have to see more details to know how the statements were meant. I grew up in a church where we referred to the Communion symbols as “body” and “blood.” I thought nothing of it. When I first heard about transubstantiation I was in my 30’s and I was just as shocked as we might be if someone held to the view that Christians were converted into literal sheep.

 

[mcq72]

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.

Boy, sure opens the door for much that cults and sects use.

Either/or arguments.

Take each doctrine on its own merit

Be Berean or “just take my word for it”

 

[mcq72]

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.

No, what you are saying then is that he commended them for their division, because after all, it makes one of the sides “right”…had to be tongue in cheek…and such speech did not carry over when he addressed the heart of the problem and its consequences…Paul was quite upset and corrective…the initial tongue/cheek opened the door to remaining “dialogue”.