Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

“perhaps going back to where there is universal light might help.”…McQ72

Reformers will still claim their own “universal light”.

Lol…is this a version of “you go first”? just had a Freudian

slip,first wrote “aversion”, forgetting the space between “a” and “version”

and we are raised, physically!

yes knew that would come up (lol…again), but we first must die…Jesus said we would not die…besides, everyone is resurrected, the just and the unjust, one to life with Christ, the other to perdition/separation.

Ummm… its kinda backwards. We eat of His Eucharist by doing as He asks, and all being in agreement. Its not about a hindsight, but faith in coming together.

perhaps you miss my point. If folks believing in substantive eating of His flesh stopped dying, per Jesus words , and folks eating symbolically or spiritually died like all ancestors, then there is proof in pudding , that substantive eating of His flesh is better/right.

And yes we all come together, as He asks, in agreement, about Calvary…and all because of Calvary (for baptized folk only, for believers only, Calvary winning us, transforming us ,to believe in the first place).

Amen. If we are all on this same journey, we should all be Communing as one!

Somehow, I think we do.

St Justin, in the second century, said this:

“And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”

Who is we?

In this case it is the “church”, the pillar of truth.

Communion is certainly not for pagans but for those who have been washed, by the blood, baptized, regenerated by the Spirit, alive in Christ and called to the ecclesia , the body of Christ(enjoined). You can’t get all that unless one hears and believes what the church teaches.

 

[mcq72]

How is our universality not muddled if not by this communion?

Do we not all commune? Is this not universal amongst Christians then and today ?. It is when we delve into answering the “somehow” that we get muddled…Is it worth answering amongst believers ? Sometimes I wonder if it is at all possible that to some the Lord may say, “what is that to you , how they commune”…like you said, some views may only be subtly different.

Like I said in my post what you describe is not the full communion.Christ offers.

And like I said, is their a qualitative difference that the eating can show forth? I mean when Daniel ate “properly” and others did not , you could see the results, even pagans could.

 

[guanophore]

there is a depth to man that can be desperate, caution thrown to the wind, unabashed,

I agree, but I do not think this is the sense Jesus had in mind with "gnaw’.

adjective: ravenous
extremely hungry.
synonyms: very hungry, starving, famished; rare esurient
“I’m absolutely ravenous”
(of hunger or need) very great; voracious.
“a ravenous appetite”
synonyms: voracious, insatiable; greedy, gluttonous; insatiate
“her ravenous appetite”

We should hunger for Him,but He satiates all of us. Your examples of going all out to get to Him do represent passion. I do not think He intends for us to be greedy or gluttonous, even for Him.

Here too, Jesus is only in you until He is mixed with other food and liquid. Then He ceases to be. Now from my point of view, it doesn’t make much sense within the realm of human understanding.

Our understanding of His physical presence does not exclude the spiritual. He does not “cease to be” in us when the elements are digested.

But I agree, the whole concept of Communion is an utter mystery.

Communion is certainly not for pagans but for those who have been washed, by the blood, baptized, regenerated by the Spirit, alive in Christ and called to the ecclesia , the body of Christ(enjoined). You can’t get all that unless one hears and believes what the church teaches.

Yes, but which “church”? There are mutually exclusive doctrines!

Do we not all commune? Is this not universal amongst Christians then and today ?

Not that I can tell, no. And we certainly don’t all hold the same belief about it.

the Lord may say, “what is that to you , how they commune”…like you said, some views may only be subtly different.

I agree that it is more prudent for us to focus on our own. Certainly the majority of Catholics confess that they don’t believe what the Apostles believed and taught. Why be concerned about what those who are separated believe when there is such work to do in our own pews?

 

[mcq72]

adjective: ravenous

yes thank you…can be for any “appetite”

“very eager or greedy for food, satisfaction, or gratification” per Webster

Yes, but which “church”? There are mutually exclusive doctrines!

Well most churches have baptism do they not, which enjoin one to Christ, as a new creature, as Martyr said .

Not that I can tell, no. And we certainly don’t all hold the same belief about it.

why even JW’s observe the communion rite…but yes , the somehow, the “details”, is different amongst the “church”

I agree that it is more prudent for us to focus on our own. Certainly the majority of Catholics confess that they don’t believe what the Apostles believed and taught. Why be concerned about what those who are separated believe when there is such work to do in our own pews?

yes thank you…concern for others is a good but sometimes judgement gets in the way

 

[Benadam]

€€Here too, Jesus is only in you until He is mixed with other food and liquid. Then He ceases to be. Now from my point of view, it doesn’t make much sense within the realm of human understanding.

It makes sense to me because Jesus said He is bread. Bread is real food. He said His flesh is real food
He said ‘this is my body take it and eat’. So to me all this adds up to Jesus instituting a communion with Him that involves receiving Him as real food and eating. So all that’s involved with that is part of the mystery of His Real Presence in us. I guess I just can’t see why He would describe the Eucharist like that if He meant it figuratively. It would be too easy to clarify and avoid confusion. But if it were literal there would be no more He could say to clarify and avoid confusion. Like maybe He did say to the Apostles " no, it really really isn’t bread anymore it’s my flesh. Nah, they couldn’t even accept the resurrection in their construct of reality at that time…

 

[rcwitness]

Happy Easter to all you in this thread!

 

[Wannano]

Happy Easter to all you in this thread!

And you bud!

 

[guanophore]

“very eager or greedy for food, satisfaction, or gratification” per Webster

Certainly it is always appropriate to yearn for the food of Christ, to be satisfied in Him, and be gratified with what gratifies Him.

guanophore: Yes, but which “church”? There are mutually exclusive doctrines!

Well most churches have baptism do they not, which enjoin one to Christ, as a new creature, as Martyr said .

Yes, but we were not talking about Baptism. It is Eucharist with which we have the mutually exclusive doctrines.

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for this clarification.

What I understand from your reply is that in the Easter Church they have not allowed man’s need to “Know” (as in discern God’s Design by human understanding and assimilation) God’s Revelation but accept it as Mystery (as St. Paul speaks of the Mystery of Christ and the Church and as it is Revealed that we were Saved by His Blood [Salvific Plan], in Christ, even before the Creation of the world). I fully concur with such understanding.

We are moved in Faith by Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think it is mostly in the created vocabulary to better explain what is Revealed in Scriptures.

Take the term “organic;” my grandfather never used chemicals in his farm so his produce was fully natural even before the term “organic” was introduced to mean fully natural.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The point being made is that while a person can hold to the Faith through Obedience to Church Authority he/she can diverge from it; to the extent to which a heretical understanding/teaching is put forth that’s what differentiates the issue of personal opinion and doctrinal teaching. The Church has always remained slow to excommunicate those who deviate from orthodoxy.

As for the variant opinions, it is the reason why the councils took place–to address error, heresies, and to define and solidify Doctrinal Understanding and Practice.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And what I really would like to know is: What difference would it make if he (along with Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others) believed that the elements were symbolic?

Since you bring it up as “proof” that Jesus meant it as a symbolic measure and by which you infer that the Apostles Taught as a symbolic measure.

It is interesting how you (non-Catholics) hold to “sola Scriptura” but deny St. Paul’s understanding that we must discern (believe that it is) the Body and Blood of Christ; ditto, Christ’s multiple emphasis that we must eat/chew/gnaw His Flesh (“true Food”) and drink His Blood (“true Drink”) or we have not Life in us.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Benadam!

What do you understand by the term “explicit?”

When this term is applied to Scriptures does it not intimate that it is directly making reference to Scriptures as the source of Authority, Knowledge, and Guidance?

Hence, ‘it is explicit in Scriptures’ is nothing short of stating that it is enough to read Sacred Writing to know/understand/find God’s Revelation fully Unfolded without the need of the exterior organ (the Church)–which boils down to “sola Scriptura.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Definition.

This is what is lacking.

How many Catholic Bishops Taught symbolism?

How many Catholic Bishops were against the adopted Biblical Canon?

How many non-Catholic Bishops took to convince non-Catholics of Christ’s symbolism (Breaking of the Bread) and how many to convince them of 66 books in Bible Canon?

What I intended to do is put forth that even Catholic Priests/Monks/Bishops can have an opinion that differs from orthodoxy–yet, if their opinion differs from Church’s Doctrine (as in Apostolic Teaching which includes Oral and Written Teachings), the Church rejects that which is put forth, no matter how intellectualized or nouveau it may seem.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

if it didn’t unite us to Him in a way just as real as eating any other food. I think I would believe the Eucharist is Jesus on earth just as real as Jesus is in heaven

I think that this is the intention of the OP–to get people to think about what the Lord’s Supper must be about; that banquet with the Lord where all partake of His Body and Blood.

I also find interesting that Jesus stated that He would remain with the Church till the end of times, that when two or three are gathered in His Name He Is there with them, and that we must be one with each other, In Him, as He and the Father are One… people look for Biblical proof and for spiritual unity yet reject what Jesus put Forth: “This is My Body” and “this is My Blood” (not, ‘this is like my body and like my blood’):

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (St. John 6)

It is Jesus that makes the connection about His Body/Flesh Being the Bread that His Followers must eat/chew/gnaw or consume.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Please reread St. John 11–even if they die, they, His Followers, are Alive in Him (St. John 6).

Now, since you are so steep in Scriptures (symbolism only) why did Jesus not simply state 'whoever reads/studies/immerse himself in Sacred Scriptures will be Alive in Me and I’ll Resurrect him on the Last Day?

…and why not ‘read Scriptures, in remembrance of Me?’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Is “accepting Jesus” reduced to believing He is the Lord and asking for His forgiveness and Spirit, or is it also accepting the narrow path of following Him out of all sin and suffering for righteousness?

I believe receiving Eucharistic Communion is more than the former, and includes the latter.

 

[Benadam]

Have no idea why you think I don’t know that.

 

[mcq72]

Is “accepting Jesus” reduced to believing He is the Lord and asking for His forgiveness and Spirit, or is it also accepting the narrow path of following Him out of all sin and suffering for righteousness?

I believe receiving Eucharistic Communion is more than the former, and includes the latter.

yes…we say He must be your Lord and Savior , you have both your former and latter points

 

[mcq72]

Please reread St. John 11–even if they die, they, His Followers, are Alive in Him (St. John 6).

yes, understand this spiritual understanding, just as the eating is spiritual, leaving your teeth and belly behind (Augustine)

'whoever reads/studies/immerse himself in Sacred Scriptures will be Alive in Me and I’ll Resurrect him on the Last Day?

Paul does somewhat implies this in His letter to Timothy I believe (that salvation is in Writ)…

and why not ‘read Scriptures, in remembrance of Me?’

well, reading scripture is indeed part of the remembrance, part of the eucharist and some say all of the Mass ( citing/reading scripture)

Christ says what He says. We both can put hypos to try to negate anothers view…like hypothetically, “This is literally my body”, or, “This is substantively now my body”