Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

I had two other questions in the same paragraph as this one…Maybe you missed them?

Perhaps!

So did the folks who could not accept the teaching and left Him, go away understanding that He was not talking of eating his earthly body? (John 6).

Honestly, I am not sure what they understood. What they said was “how can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So it was clear that they understood he was calling upon them to eat His flesh.

Also at the Last Supper when He said " this is my body", was He talking of His glorified body?

I must assume so, since He did not intend for us to become cannibals. But, I cannot really reconcile what Augustine writes- “He held Himself in His own hands” when He had not yet been glorified. This is why, for me, it is a mind boggling matter. It seems so much easier to leave it in the form of a Mystery, rather than trying to make rational sense of it. I, like the Apostles, accept what He says because He has the words of eternal life. Not because what He says always makes rational sense to me.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I had two other questions in the same paragraph as this one…Maybe you missed them?

Perhaps!

So did the folks who could not accept the teaching and left Him, go away understanding that He was not talking of eating his earthly body? (John 6).

Honestly, I am not sure what they understood. What they said was “how can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So it was clear that they understood he was eating His flesh.

Also at the Last Supper when He said " this is my body", was He talking of His glorified body?

I must assume so, since He did not intend for us to become cannibals. But, I cannot really reconcile what Augustine writes- “He held Himself in His own hands” when He had not yet been glorified. This is why, for me, it is a mind boggling matter. It seems so much easier to leave it in the form of a Mystery, rather than trying to make rational sense of it. I, like the Apostles, accept what He says because He has the words of eternal life. Not because what He says always makes rational sense to me.

I like your kind way of putting up with guys like me.

It is mind boggling for me too. Leave it in a form of mystery…That is appealing too. You know, I am not to sure that most who see it symbolic don’t also believe there is a certain mystery to it as well. In my church, they see the Bread as a symbol of His body but when we are given the bread we are told “this is my Body” .

I am not so sure that John 6 was meant to be used to substantiate the Last Supper.

What about representation vs re-presentation?

 

[guanophore]

Sorry mean no misrepresentation…do you say re-present…its a “re” something…a rencatment of the original offering??

Anamnesis, like Passover.

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.”

rememberance = ἀνάμνησιν

An enacted ritual that brings the participants to the event.

I am not so sure that John 6 was meant to be used to substantiate the Last Supper.

Certainly not. Catholics do not distill doctrines from the pages of Scripture. We received the One Faith from those to whom it was committed. Some of the Teachings of the Apostles were recorded in the memoirs and letters that we now call the New Testament, but they were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

The Gospel of John, written as much as 70 years after the last supper, reflects the meditation of the faithful on the nature of the Eucharist for decades. It is a recounting of the events through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

 

[mcq72]

Not another sacrifice, not an added sacrifice, not a subsequent sacrifice, not a memorial sacrifice, not a follow-on sacrifice, not a repeated sacrifice, not a successive sacrifice, not a later sacrifice. A re-presentation of The Sacrifice, the One Sacrifice,offered and completed once at Calvary, offered before the Throne, beyond temporal limitations; time and eternity meeting at the altar, at the hands and words of the alter Christus. The Sacrifice of the Mass is one. And we are brought to it, in the Mass.

Yes, I have heard that Jesus is the priest, the sacrifice, and the altar…not sure how He is the altar…and is this all from Last Supper, that is continually re-presented , Jesus to the Father, thru the priest.

Now if it be in remembrance (as in Passover, the context of Last Supper), irregardless of "bringing to present " understanding, not sure why the symbols He chose before the fact had to be literal in what they represented, at least not before they occurred on Calvary.

I mean Calvary is the thing to be remembered, not the Last Supper, yet we remember Calvary thru the Last Supper re-enactment (likePassover).And Jesus tells us what His two chosen elements represents, in the present tense, knowing we will be remembering Calvary after the fact.

So not sure why the pre-presenting ( Last Supper) would have the symbols be literal, because it was not a pre-presenting, but telling us how to to remember after the fact. He had not shed His blood yet. Same for any post presenting…His blood already shed…eating the symbols (for bodily nourishment) and repeating their meaning per Jesus’s words are enough for remembrance, to bring us back to Calvary…just like the eating of symbols and reading of Writ brought the original Passover to life. And the Lord gave memorial instructions to Moses before the actual event, just as the Lord gave to the apostles.

 

[GKMotley]

About all that I will point out here, since the concept I was presenting is apparently opaque to your comprehension (and not surprisingly so), is that the word is the Latin word “alter”.

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

Sorry mean no misrepresentation…do you say re-present…its a “re” something…a rencatment of the original offering??

Anamnesis, like Passover.

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.”

rememberance = ἀνάμνησιν

An enacted ritual that brings the participants to the event.

I am not so sure that John 6 was meant to be used to substantiate the Last Supper.

Certainly not. Catholics do not distill doctrines from the pages of Scripture. We received the One Faith from those to whom it was committed. Some of the Teachings of the Apostles were recorded in the memoirs and letters that we now call the New Testament, but they were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

The Gospel of John, written as much as 70 years after the last supper, reflects the meditation of the faithful on the nature of the Eucharist for decades. It is a recounting of the events through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

Considering this then it is difficult to understand why so many Catholics use John 6 to disprove concepts about eating flesh that they don’t agree with.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I have heard that Jesus is the priest, the sacrifice, and the altar…not sure how He is the altar…

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. Isa. 53:16

It seems more like the role of the scape goat than the altar, as He bore our sins upon His body. One does not offer sins on an altar, but a perfect sacrifice. In this case, the cross became the altar upon which He was offered in expiation for our sins.

and is this all from Last Supper, that is continually re-presented , Jesus to the Father, thru the priest.

OUr understanding of what occurred during the crucifixion is informed by the prophesies of the OT as well as the accounts in the New. But no, our conception of Jesus as priest and sacrifice is inextricably tied to to the crucifixion. The anamnesis is contained in the Last Supper, because it is there that the ritual occurs that captures what is to be done to bring us present to His giving of His Body for us.

And Jesus tells us what His two chosen elements represents

I accept that you understand this is what Jesus is telling you. You must read it this way, through the lens provided by Calvin, so rather than "IS’ it is “represents”. But this is not what was passed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

So not sure why the pre-presenting ( Last Supper) would have the symbols be literal, because it was not a pre-presenting, but telling us how to to remember after the fact.

I am not sure either, and frankly, cannot intellectually grasp how Jesus could have “held himself in his hands” at the last supper. I accept what is written in the Gospels about this event because I believe the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God.

The Last Supper was not just a “telling us how to remember”, but an enactment of how we are to remember.

do this = ποιεῖτε

poieó: to make, do
Original Word: ποιέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: poieó
Phonetic Spelling: (poy-eh’-o)
Short Definition: I do, make
Definition: (a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4160.htm

The use of the term “do/make” would seem to indicate that something occurs, is caused during the celebration of the Eucharist.

eating the symbols (for bodily nourishment) and repeating their meaning per Jesus’s words are enough for remembrance, to bring us back to Calvary

Yes, this seems to be the case for those who reject the Teaching about the nature of the Eucharist. But it seems that one could repeat the words without “do/make” involved?

We do not understand Jesus words to be about “bodily nourishment”, especially in light of what Paul says about eating the meal prior to coming for the celebration of the Eucharist. Due to abuses of the “feast” there was an early separation from eating to nourish the body and eating so that we can have life in ourselves.

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Clearly humans eat any and all kinds of food for “bodily nourishment” and have life in them without the Eucharist, so we do not understand Him to be referring here to natural flesh eating and drinking of “symbols for bodily nourishment”.

And the Lord gave memorial instructions to Moses before the actual event, just as the Lord gave to the apostles.

The difference here is that the Lord gave instructions to Moses, but not the Apostles. He enacted what He wanted to be “done/made”, giving instructions as He did so . I doubt anyone in the room really understood what “this is my body” and “this is my blood” really meant at the time.

concept I was presenting is apparently opaque to your comprehension (and not surprisingly so)

the concept I was presenting is apparently opaque to your comprehension (and not surprisingly so)

Yes, it does appear that opaque is an appropriate word. I continually marvel that the lenses of Calvin have this effect on persons.

 

[mcq72]

About all that I will point out here, since the concept I was presenting is apparently opaque to your comprehension (and not surprisingly so), is that the word is the Latin word “alter”.

The “alter” part almost makes one want to become a priest… but thank you for sharing…and I now know how Christ is an altar by us placing our lives as a living sacrifice upon Him

Seems like much evolving of understanding and practice of the communion memorial…like in architecture (ie. churches) going from romanesque, to gothic, to baroque to the superfluos ornation of rococo.

 

[mcq72]

so we do not understand Him to be referring here to natural flesh eating and drinking of “symbols for bodily nourishment”

Not sure i said that is why we eat…i think i said we eat the symbol and two things are nourished , the flesh by transmutaion/ digestion and our spirits by faith…the Passover also does both…transmutation is an early father thought /word

 

[rcwitness]

Seems like much evolving of understanding and practice of the communion memorial…like in architecture (ie. churches) going from romanesque, to gothic, to baroque to the superfluos ornation of rococo.

I like this analogy. And we can consider the beginnings of this “architecture” like simple huts.

Its like the description of the early Church as having a sort of Primitive way about it. Or young might be a better term. The Scriptures are unique in that the Word of God is both young and old. Able to reach the simple and the wise, even perpetually deep.

But we just cannot try to put ourselves into the early age of the Church, except for imagination and inspiration. Otherwise, we have to live in these times and accept how much the Gospel has contended with and been articulated by the Church in Her wisdom. Yes, some of it may sound unecessary to us now, but there have been reasons in various times.

 

[guanophore]

Considering this then it is difficult to understand why so many Catholics use John 6 to disprove concepts about eating flesh that they don’t agree with.

Well, Catholics don’t usually use verses to “prove” or "disprove’ doctrine. For us, the doctrine was delivered to the Church through the Sacred Tradition, and the entire NT was produced out of that Sacred Tradition. The faith was whole and entire before any of it was written.

For us the passages of scripture reflect the doctrines of the faith.
For our separated brethren who have been separated from that Sacred Tradition, all that remains is the Scripture, so doctrine must be extracted from it. Naturally there are no few interpretations that contradict what we have received.

I now know how Christ is an altar by us placing our lives as a living sacrifice upon Him

Indeed, we are to make of ourselves a living sacrifice. The problem with the living sacrifice is that it keeps crawling off the altar!

Seems like much evolving of understanding and practice of the communion memorial…like in architecture (ie. churches) going from romanesque, to gothic, to baroque to the superfluos ornation of rococo.

I can understand why it seems like the doctrine “evolves” based upon modern culture over time. But if this were to happen, then what Jesus committed “once for all” to the Church, and promised to preserve infallibly would be lost.

This is the major difference between development and evolution. Evolution implies an ontological change, where development is like something going from a tiny seed to a large tree - same fundamental identity, but different appearance.

 

[mcq72]

I accept that you understand this is what Jesus is telling you. You must read it this way, through the lens provided by Calvin, so rather than "IS’ it is “represents”. But this is not what was passed down to us from the Apostles.

The words are only interchangeable in the context of the Passover, full of symbols, which Jesus borrowed from, and changed, indicating with the “is” , as in, "this unleavened bread signifying purity, now "is’’ fulfilled in Me, the unblemished Lamb, the wine that signified freedom from enslavement is now fulfilled thru His blood signifying new covenant freedom…the “cup is the new covenant”

Calvin was not the first to believe in a "dynamic’’ view of communion(Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen)

 

[mcq72]

I like this analogy. And we can consider the beginnings of this “architecture” like simple huts.

yet they made great foundation, facing death…pure. Reminded of sermon “The Power of Nothing” , Richard Wurmbrand…or as guanophore says “more with less”

 

[guanophore]

Calvin was not the first to believe in a "dynamic’’ view of communion(Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen)

One could only believe that these Catholics accepted a non-Catholic view by cherry picking parts of their writings. But I agree, Calvin was not the first to deny that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Lord!

 

[mcq72]

One could only believe that these Catholics accepted a non-Catholic view by cherry picking parts of their writings. But I agree, Calvin was not the first to deny that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Lord!

Cherry pie…my favorite!

At least you admit they can have the accidents of such a view

 

[jcrichton]

I think that you’ve fully missed my intent.

Here’s a second take:

Bring 1000 people to an island. Give them each a copy of Scriptures (KJV or any other version) and, through the “explicit” rule you will find that each person will make his/her claimed based on such rule; yet, what you may not be ready to accept is that there would be variations in what is determined as God’s Revelation–there would be as many nuances/differentiations as personal preconceptions would shape what is understood. What is more, if there are strong characters in the mix they will sway the weaker members into their interpretational understandings forging the various clicks/units/denominations that would support or reject the various “understandings” of what is being “Revealed.”

It is the texting/tweeting norm: throw out grammatical rules and even the most incomprehensible and deformed thought can be offered as wisdom–what’s really scary is that the weak and those who thirst for “change” and “trendy” will lap it up as “true” revelation.

This by no means singles out non-Catholics. Sadly, “Catholics” are prone to the same vulnerability: ego before God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I use the same mode when speaking about “Catholics.”

In my mind, this differentiates those who call themselves Christians/Catholics from those who are seeking to Fellowship with Christ… here’s the difference: Christ Commanded that all should be Baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit… a person in Fellowship with Christ would not bring into question a “Baptismal formula” nor the need for Baptism. The libertarian and modernist believe that they can be in Fellowship with Christ yet dismiss Christ’s Commands.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

This is quite an interesting take… but do you not see where it leads… Jesus is telling His Followers that there would come a time when myriads of claims will be made about where He, Jesus, is. He warns His Followers not to follow the strange teachings that leads them away from the Way.

…an old movie coined it this way: “…there can be only One.”

Once a persona diverts him/herself from the Way, he/she is actually following exactly against Jesus’ warning.

…not thousands or millions of bodies; One Body, One Baptism, One Faith, One Holy Spirit, One Lord, One God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

But movies are representations of what men deem the “truth.”

I’ve just scanned through a movie title “God is not dead” (or something like that)… do you know what I noticed? Not a single person represented the Catholic Church (it’s like those sci-fi movies where multitudes of gods is OK but don’t make reference to Yahweh/Yeshua because that demeans and offends). So according to this movie’s interpretation only non-Catholics believe in a Living God; is that the truth?

Maran atha!

Angel