Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Wannano]

This might seem really silly and superfluous after 1300 replies already. But why was the topic title never lined up with the topic questions?
Being in communion with and the Eucharist are not the same thing. Just saying.

You are asking what I asked back in the third post. It seems to be two different topics.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Actually I was just looking at the very first post and comparing it to the title. No biggie. Nevermind.

 

[Agathon]

You quote Augustine who said in another place that Jesus was holding Himself during the Last Supper.

 

[guanophore]

No, what you are saying then is that he commended them for their division, because after all, it makes one of the sides “right”

On the contrary!

1 Corinthians 11:17 [ Abuses at the Lord’s Supper ] “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.”

Certainly there were those who followed the Apostolic command to “hold fast” the the Sacred Tradition as it was delivered, but there were those who did not.

It is amazing to me that you would defend those who were misbehaving during the communal gathering as being “right”.

such speech did not carry over when he addressed the heart of the problem and its consequences

I don’t see how you can say this either. He was alarmingly clear that those who did not accept the Apostolic teaching would be guilty of the Body and Blood (murder) of Christ!

Paul was quite upset and corrective

He instructed them when He was present, but not all those who were converted were observing the obedience of faith He taught.

One has to wonder if there was no one in Corinth that was ready to be appointed as an elder or a bishop, since he does not address anyone particularly in that role. The Church at Corinth seems to run amok in many ways.

the initial tongue/cheek opened the door to remaining “dialogue”.

Such a perspective seems to indicate an understanding of the Church as a democracy. On the contrary, the Church founded by Christ is a Theocracy. Jesus appointed Apostles, and charged them with the care and feeding of the sheep. They appointed Bishops to succeed themselves, who were then given responsibility for the care and feeding of the sheep. This is not a “dialogue” but a reprimand!

 

[guanophore]

the consecration words were “thanksgiving” ? don’t see that word “thanksgiving”…but don’t have bible in front of me

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Luke 22:19
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.”

εὐχαριστήσας = thanksgiving

The context of the Eucharist is the Passover Meal. There were certain prayers embedded within that ritual sacrifice. The Jewish Christians adopted those prayers of thanksgiving for the Lord’s Supper. The wording for “he gave thanks” is taken from the liturgy of the Passover.

But beyond just the thanks for bread and wine, we are most thankful for His sacrifice for us on the cross. His body, given up for us.

Perfect time to be rationally preoccupied with literalness when a Man holds a piece of bread then offers same bread saying it is His body.

Perhaps, from our point of view, but Jesus was enacting and demonstrating a mystery of the faith. He intended for His actions to be the anamnesis of His death on the cross, that the Passover foreshadowed. Jesus has no need to be “rationally pre-occupied” when creating ceremonies to commemorate His death and resurrection.

One can see from His passion in the Garden that no “rational pre-occupation” could spare Him from the suffering that was to come. He knew the cup of suffering would be painful, and His human form would have avoided it, but it was necessary for us to be redeemed. There is much of the profound mystery of faith that defies “rational pre-occupation”.

 

[guanophore]

The litmus test then is not do you understand it my way.

I think that depends upon how significantly “my way” departs from what the Apostles believed and taught. Unfortunately, there are a great many Christians who have embraced “my way” that represents such a significant departure that the early Christians considered it “heresy”.

do you trust in the Lord and His Words, as you say.

I am certain that my separated brethren do, indeed, trust in the Lord, and how they understand His words. I am also certain that Jesus understands the sincerity of those who do not understand His intention. He is merciful and gracious.

Those who do not accept what He taught stand in the tradition of Apollos.

We both do that, and are beyond being present 2000 years ago at the John 6 discourse.

Well, perhaps you are “beyond”, and perhaps those others who are children of the Reformation also consider themselves “beyond” what He taught the Apostles. Catholics, and others who have received the Apostolic faith, such as the Eastern Orthodox, are not “beyond” but rather, are brought present to the cross, in the same way that the Jews were brought present to the Exodus through Passover.

 

[guanophore]

but in john 6, to those who left received such an explanation ?

guanophore:

NO! Though Jesus took great pains to correct the understanding of His hearers whenever they misunderstood, clearly in this case He did not. It was the “litmus test” for those who believed in Him by faith, and those who tried to understand through the flesh, which He said was to no avail.

Philip Schaff’s Reading of Augustine on the Eucharist – The Calvinist International

I am glad to see, at last, that you are using Calvin and Phillip Schaff as resources for your ideas about the Eucharist. This explains a lot! What else does Schaff have to say?

"The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy and ecclesiastical action till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century; whereas since then this feast of the Saviour’s dying love has been the innocent cause of the most bitter disputes, especially in the age of the Reformation, between Papists and Protestants, and among Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists. "

One has to wonder why in the first 9 centuries of the Church, the Lord Jesus was so weak and ineffectual that He was unable to guide His Church as He promised? Perhaps He contracted a long acting influenza, such that the powerful representation of Himself in the book of Revelation was no longer possible? Poor Jesus!

 

[guanophore]

we get accused of being like the gnostics and like those that turned away here,

It is clear that our separated brethren do believe that Christ has come in the flesh. If this were not true, then we could not be considered siblings in Christ!

However, it does seem that those who do not accept Jesus’ statements about partaking of His flesh and blood are aligned with those who left Him, saying “How can this man give us His flesh to eat”?

 

[guanophore]

you believe more in the literal , which is what the walkers away did also. And if you try to differentiate between your literal from theirs (as in spiritual literal), you make my point that Jesus made no such distinction here , zero correction for His hearers.

This is a mistake that is often made by Calvainists. There is an inappropriat

 

[guanophore]

The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

another catch all . The inadequacy of Writ, the Word of God…

On the contrary, the Written Word accomplishes all that God intends, and there is no inadequacy in it. The shortcoming is that of man, trying to make the Word do that which it was never intended to do. The NT is a collection of the “memoirs of the apostles” (Gospels) and letters to the faithful. These were collected over a period of about 50 years and eventually canonized. No effort was ever made to make a complete compendium of the faith.

and “by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved” preach what?

That which has been handed down from the Apostles. The Kerygma has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit since the day of Pentecost.

“To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts , keep them , as many as are written.”…Barnabus

You seem to believe that the Holy Spirit is unable to preserve anything that was not written. This position would seem to contradict the Apostolic teaching that we need to preserve both.

 

[Benadam]

Born at Damascus, about 676; died some time between 754 and 787.

St. John Damascene wrote: “The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body’; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body’ but ‘my body,’ and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood’ but ‘my blood’” ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]).

( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]).

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, This is My body, not, this is a figure of My body: and My blood, not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eats Me, shall live John 6:51-55.

St. Bonaventure affirmed: “There is no difficulty over Christ’s being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious” ( In IV Sent., dist. X, P. I, art. un., qu. I). On the authority of God who reveals himself to us, by faith we believe that which cannot be grasped by our human faculties (cf. Catechism, no. 1381).

 

[Benadam]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm>

The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”, has a figurative meaning, namely, “to persecute, to bitterly hate some one”. If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, “to drink some one’s blood”, in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement

Note: His enemies promised eternal life in recompense for injuries and persecution not for faith in Him.

 

[Benadam]

This is my answer to rcwitness’ OP and title question.

No, the Holy Spirit does not call anyone to a separated community. The call of the Holy Spirit to man is clear. The intellect is clouded by sin. If the source of truth is a separated communion the call is obstructed by the untruth accepted by the intellect. The will is not able to be fully informed of the good of the call in spirit and truth. If the source of truth is outside the communion of the One Holy Apostolic Church it will not be without mixture of the human or evil spirit. Diligence in humble pursuit of Christ Jesus in truth and spirit can fulfill the purpose of the call to unite the called to the Catholic Eucharist. I think this is what happens to most converts.

If the truth given by the Holy Spirit is directly infused then the person is called with the Grace to receive it without mixture of evil or their own human spirit. Then the call will with immediacy, compel the called to bring the gift of the Holy Spirit to the communion from which it came. We see this in the account with Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.

 

[mcq72]

, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him.

Yet we were once enemies, even at emnity with God, till by His grace thru the shed blood of Jesus at Calvary have been redeemed…for from the cross He said,“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”

Yep, sounds about right…figurative reaction

 

[rcwitness]

Benadam:

, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him.

Yet we were once enemies, even at emnity with God, till by His grace thru the shed blood of Jesus at Calvary have been redeemed…for from the cross He said,“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”

Yep, sounds about right…figurative reaction

So when we Commune, we figuratively crucify Him?

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him.

Yet we were once enemies, even at emnity with God, till by His grace thru the shed blood of Jesus at Calvary have been redeemed…for from the cross He said,“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”

Yep, sounds about right…figurative reaction

Yep, I figured you would react that way…

Besides the fact that you cherry picked verses out of context to fit your personal interpretation, you didn’t post or address the note I left anticipating that you would jump on the part I emphasized. Do you suggest that all we must do for eternal life is sin? Since they don’t believe that’s the figurative meaning for His listeners. They would think that Jesus insulted them with a promise of eternal life. Inconsistent on so many levels.

Note: His enemies promised eternal life in recompense for injuries and persecution not for faith in Him.

 

[rcwitness]

It doesnt bother me at all that there is figurative meaning in bread and wine, eating and drinking, etc.

I think its true that “unless Jesus was crucified, we have no life in us”. It reminds me of His words “unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it cannot yeild fruit”

So there is a sense of “proclaiming Christ crucified” and even having a part in His death.

But Communion means so much more too! When He established Communion with those who are made clean, He established a means to be Sacramentally one in flesh with Him, but in a way which requires only belief in His Spiritual power!

It means accepting His sacrifice, thanking Him for His sacrifice, worshipping Him as God, believing He is Risen and one with the Spirit, consummating our relationship with God through Him, etc.

 

[Benadam]

I like the figurative meanings. . after all the revelation of the Eucharist as Real Presence developed figuratively. What was true remains true.

But Communion means so much more too! When He established Communion with those who are made clean, He established a means to be Sacramentally one in flesh with Him, but in a way which requires only belief in His Spiritual power!

And that part, so true, so fundamental. We have faith in something inaccessible to human faculties

 

[rcwitness]

This might seem really silly and superfluous after 1300 replies already. But why was the topic title never lined up with the topic questions?
Being in communion with and the Eucharist are not the same thing. Just saying.

They are slightly different questions, yet have the same essense. Being in Communion will lead to a unified celebration of One Eucharist.

The Eastern Orthodox is the closest to a unified celebration, even retaining the Sacrament instituted by the Lord. Their differences are of valid Bishops having some different conclusions, perhaps.

 

[rcwitness]

Benadam:

, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him.

Yet we were once enemies, even at emnity with God, till by His grace thru the shed blood of Jesus at Calvary have been redeemed…for from the cross He said,“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”

Yep, sounds about right…figurative reaction

The fact that Jesus was saying “you will kill me, and unless I die you will not have life in you” is definitely something we can see Him alluding to in John 6!

We also dont believe that Peter understood that, but stayed because He believed Jesus was speaking the truth.

Now, after His death and resurrection, we see and even partake of that sign with thanfulness, knowing that we are healed through His sacrifice in the flesh.

It doesnt mean that eating His fleah and blood actually DOES the healing! No, eating His flesh and blood consumates His flesh and blood with ours, through complete faith in His words and power which His body and blood have by the Spirit.

These signs were shown after the resurrection (and some before the resurrection). He passed through locked doors, He walked on water, He vanished in a moment, and He ascended. Yet He also was not a ghost and could be touched and eat.

Interestingly enough His ascension is something He asked those, who did not accept the difficult saying, about. “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Is a proof that He is the Incarnation of the Spirit.