Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

The Calvinist teaching on Communion is considered to be under the umbrella of “real presence.”

Not unless he redefined that too!

 

[jcrichton]

Again, like writ that says the bread is, so does Augustine…does not do away with possibility of figurative.

“Commend:to entrust for care or preservation”…what is to be preserved ? His body? No, for it is eternal . I would say what is to be preserved and entrusted is the latter, "which He poured out for us, for the forgiveness if sins, the new covenant, the gospel…Alleluia…praise and thanksgiving be given to God. And so it has been called “Thanksgiving” or in Greek “Eucharist”.

The Lord entrusted, preserved the remembrance of such to the communion rite and its symbols.

Sad to go on this merry go, yet again… not once did the “symbol” come up when Jesus Spoke; not once when the Apostles Preached; not once when the Writ, as you say, was Written:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (St. Luke 22)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11)

The Apostles did not have 1500 of void and vacuum in which to construct nuance into the understanding of Christ’s Commands; they took the very Word of Christ and Lived it and, as St. Paul states, pass onto His Followers what Jesus Ordained: My Body/Flesh and My Blood.

Never did they delve into symbolisms and hyperboles!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

But what does that mean? How do you explain this in 21st century terms?

It means what Jesus said.

Why would we NEED 21st century terms? This is what makes me crazy about Western mentality. Having such a need to explain “I am that I am” and such things. What hubris.

We know that its molecular composition is the same before and after the consecration, so it does not change in chemical substance.

This is not always the case either.

Catholics disagree with those who believe that Jesus is united to the recipient in invisible spiritual form.

On the contrary, the CC encourages spiritual communion for those who cannot be physically present.

Catholics disagree with those who would believe that the meaning and significance of the elements of Communion change.

Of course we must! We are bound to retain/hold fast to what was given to use by the Apostles. Changing the meaning and significance creates “a different gospel” which is anathema.

It is not just how they are “regarded” - this would imply a symbolic change and not necessarily a “real” change.

I agree with your point here, though one’s perception is important, it does not change the facts.

So what "real"ly changes?

What really changed when Jesus was transfigured before the Apostles? Or do you believe they were just hallucinating? If not, do you have a 21st century explanation for what happened?

 

[jcrichton]

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."

…and yet, Jesus warns that many will be rejected because they believe that they have arrived (Lord, Lord) but they are far from Him (be gone from my sight children of iniquity). [St. Matthew 7:21-23, paraphrased]

It is the “spirituals” that Jesus reject because they remain in their own understanding (interpretation) of His Word.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Amen…thank you…I think he goes on to say that Peter ate that day in John 6 , as per his confession of faith…so whatever eating His flesh is, Peter did it, in John 6

…again, interpretation; there are those who claim to see et in the Old Testament; others have discovered the cypher of God (they’ve done several programs on the science/history/ng networks on it); yet, interpretation is much like that ‘feel-good’ theology where everyone is saved no matter what or that hollowood babble that it takes evil to do good.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t think Augustine would admire Hilary if he did not accept this view of the RP, do you?

…nor would he interpret Hilary’s writings to mean what he wants it to mean by dissecting and divorcing Hilary’s writings from Hilary’s understanding of Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I can think of a lot of people who I admire, respect and learn from even though I may disagree with them on some topics.

Do you hold them up as example of orthodoxy?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

The Lord entrusted, preserved the remembrance of such to the communion rite and its symbols.

This is a critical reference. You see, the communion rite, as celebrated in the One Church, has always included prayers before and after the consecration. Bread and wine were brought (symbols) along with monetary donations as an offering for the sacrifice.

It is rooted in the synagogue service, and the Last supper. In fact, if you attend a synagogue service today you can recognize some of the prayers used during Mass.

 

[jcrichton]

To St Augustine there were no ‘Church’s’ without Apostolic Succession. That’s what ‘all Christians’ means in St Augustine’s mind

…well not just to St. Augustine mind; that was the mindset (understanding); it is the reason why Christendom was coined Christendom; there were no multi bodies of Christ offered as a smorgasbord to whet the appetite or to lavish the masses with multi-colored-choose-your-design theologies.

They actually believed, as St. Paul, in One Faith, One Baptism, One Body (Church), One Spirit, One Lord, One God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for responding…am encouraged…I recall one historian i admire, and he point blank states that yes, some fathers did seem to believe in literal understanding of eating , even of His flesh, but also states that others did not, and that there were 3 or 4 views expressed…so though not all conforming they still were all in unity in communion…and to your point , “unanimous consent of the fathers” on scriptural interpretations, I think a Trent term, is questionable, even lacking (though the defense to this is that unanimous does not necessarily mean “all”…?)

…and, when one studies Church history, one finds that all matters of Faith were discussed and treated in similar fashion until a defining conclusion was made (ie: the Bible Canon, the Divinity of Jesus, the Triune Revelation of Yahweh God). Suggesting that everyone thought the same is to limit what actually transpired; heresies fought and embraced by the defenders of the Faith.

Heresies were embraced (ie: Origen, Valentine, Marcion…) then, as today, because people have a thirst for “design” and they interpret and believe those things that they ‘see clearly’ as the path to God.

Luther held (though many continue to argue and defend him with the lame ‘personal communication’) that a Christian could kill and/or commit adultery a thousand times per day with no loss 'cause Jesus already paid the price to give His Followers carte blanche.

So yeah, even those in the “know”/“Faith” can get caught up in their own understanding; when they begin to teach such principles it becomes heresy.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In the early church Paul addressed those in Corinth as some were using the communion as feasting ( I guess they had a full meal ) and some were getting drunk on the wine. Sounds like the poor were let into the banquet hall after most of the food was consumed. If a priest was there to make a valid Eucharist by saying the Words of Consecration one wonders why there was so much mayhem. Jesus instituted a simple act of Remembrance. Man sure has complicated it.

The problem with such understanding is that it dismisses the exact argument: 'you dopes, don’t you have a home of your own where you can eat and drink till you’re filled? Why do you desecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord by hording the bread and drinking till you become inebriated? If you do not discern the Body/Flesh and Blood of the Lord, you sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord!

…do you mean to say that St. Paul was simply worried that gluttony and drunkenness was replacing a symbolism?

Interestingly enough, you fail to see the changes that took place, right from Scriptures about the Unfolding of the Truth both as Worship and as Practice.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for sharing what is actually said at that point in the Liturgy. I am curious about what the sentences are before this one since this one contains the word “therefore”. This seems to indicate a prior need, action or requirement or qualification, "make holy, therefore,…

Wow! Really?

“therefore” is a grammatical accident–as our Father Who art in Heaven… eventually ‘art’ changed to ‘are.’

Everything does not have to have a ‘missing-link’ phenomena attached to it.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This, of course, is one variation of interpretation.

…another is that Jesus, the human mind and body, would feel a separation from the Father (’…but I’m never alone since the Father is always with Me…’) as He would take on the sins of the world (death) onto Himself.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Do you mean the Holy Spirit , or God, or Jesus…God certainly demonstrates emotions in the bible, so suffer as in being hurt I would think is one of them.

This of course begs the question, is God as small as man since He actually does Reveal that He is a jealous God, that He Wrath will be unleashed onto the world…

Yes, God expresses Himself in terms that the human condition can understand, but God is Spirit and does not feel/experience the human condition as humans do.

The Incarnation of the Word made it possible for God to actually experience the human condition (‘sacrifice and holocaust you did not want, but you Made me a body; here I am, God, to do your Will…’).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Grieve:to cause to suffer… …Webster

8"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. (Isaiah 55)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Sad to go on this merry go, yet again… not once did the “symbol” come up when Jesus Spoke; not once when the Apostles Preached; not once when the Writ, as you say, was Written:

Maybe because it was so obvious.

 

[jcrichton]

You’ve already delved into it.

Jesus body went right through the closed door; He ate and drank and did everything that the human body could do; yet, He was more. He could traverse time, space, and the physical constructs of this temporal existence… yet, His body remained changed, visible, and operating within ‘normal capacity.’

It is the same for the Consecrated Bread and Wine. It remains the accidental construct of the temporal existence; yet, it is changed:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11)

St. Paul attests that we partake not of human nutrients and drink but of Christ’s Body and Blood!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why would we NEED 21st century terms? This is what makes me crazy about Western mentality. Having such a need to explain “I am that I am” and such things. What hubris.

I fully concur!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

but God is Spirit and does not feel/experience the human condition as humans do.

The Incarnation of the Word made it possible for God to actually experience the human condition (

Not sure about that…reminds me of a child, no a teenager, thinking parents just don’t understand them…

Not sure how a creator, an author, can not understand,comprehend ,that which He creates, even after His image.

I would rather say He incarnated not so He could learn anything, but that we could!

This would include feelings.

 

[jcrichton]

Experience is not the same as knowledge.

God cannot experience death.

Only the Incarnate Word could experience death.

God, till the Crucifixion, had not the experience knowledge of death.

I hope this helps.

Maran atha!

Angel