Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[jcrichton]

ignored nothing rather asked what does Oral Tradition teach about how they recognized Jesus in the breaking of bread, that would make several suppositions posted obsolete ?

This means that you would have to have the Succession of the Apostles in play; yet, when the whole history of the Church is removed or ignored there’s nothing to do but speculate and find gapping holes on everything that is presented or as the Jehovah Witnesses are skilled at doing, use interpretations about excerpts that seem to support their arguments while rejecting everything else as suspect because (in at least one example) the Church (or some other entity) manipulated the truth or removed it altogether.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Yet, St. Paul himself attests the opposite:

Ok , so Paul was not taught sometime after his conversion , and during his time in Arabia for 3 years ? So when was Paul taught? Was it instantaneous ?

rather, St. Paul is adamant that his Gospel (which is the same as the other Apostles) was given to him by Christ Himself (vv. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17)–St. Paul demonstrates that it was Divine Revelation not man’s instruction that brought him to the Fullness of the Faith;

On this we totally agree.

He went against his leaders in the old faith, against erroneous tradition, like Peter.

 

[mcq72]

This means that you would have to have the Succession of the Apostles in play;

Again, when all is correctly in play , what is teaching of how the disciples discerned the Lord only after the breaking of bread ?

 

[mcq72]

If all that had taken place was gathering bread and wine from the homes/places of those who could not attend the Breaking of the Break, the practice would actually be symbolic–like “playing electric guitar.”

don’t follow/ not sure why you give example of gathering food and wine(communion elements) from homes who could not attend…we both agree that elements were distributed from the "mass, and distributed to those who could not attend.

However, since the Church did not believe in a “symbolic” feast

again , what we disagree on…as pointed out quite properly by W that distribution to non attendees is still valuable by any understanding of elements.

 

[jcrichton]

Ok , so Paul was not taught sometime after his conversion , and during his time in Arabia for 3 years ? So when was Paul taught? Was it instantaneous ?

I thought that he was fully clear; he states that the Gospel did not come to him through any human means; that it was Jesus Christ Himself that infused His Knowledge onto him. St. Paul was not ignorant about God’s Revelation–he was a skilled Pharisee:

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinketh he may have confidence in the flesh, I more, 5 Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the law, a Pharisee: 6 According to zeal, persecuting the church of God; according to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame. 7 But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ. (Philippians 3)

His conversion was not from disbelief but from error; he was trained to persecute the Truth. It is this part of Christ’s Gospel that St. Paul did not know/understand.

How old was St. John the Baptist when he confessed Christ as Lord (God) for the very first time?

Are you limiting God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience?

Reread the Scriptures sited:

12 For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1)

If St. Paul is lying about the origin of his knowledge then most of the New Covenant’s Writing is suspect because it would be based on a lie.

How can a person be instructed by man and yet not have learned that which he was instructed–knowledge is not acquired by the shaking of hands or the laying of hands; such experience as St. Paul claims can only be attained through supernatural means (as St. John the Baptist recognizing Jesus, the God that Saves, from his mother’s womb while Christ, his Lord, had just been conceived in the Virgin’s womb.

Everything is possible for God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

But you cannot have multiple Gospels.

Correct>yet we have had multiple gospels since almost the beginning, to be discerned (just like Judaism/OT)

A group of people cannot claim to represent Christ while rejecting Christ!

there is your problem…you think the solution is in a "group of people’’, namely your church the CC, and some would say ,“how convenient”

Rather there is One faith, called Christianity, just like we came out of the One faith that is/was Judaism (Jesus said, " Salvation is of the Jews (not Pharisees, though they were better then most sects/divisions)

 

[jcrichton]

Again, when all is correctly in play , what is teaching of how the disciples discerned the Lord only after the breaking of bread ?

Did you read Jesus explanation about His ‘going away’ for a time and that the world would no longer see Him while His Followers would?

Please allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten you–I cannot convict with text that does not exist.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

so Jesus has it wrong?

exactly why we bicker…we firmly believe only each other can be wrong on a particular matter.

 

[jcrichton]

If the Church believed in a symbolism there would be no need to take anything to those who could not attend; they could simply just gather whatever materials were around and “symbolically” share in the proceeding–there would not even be a need of anyone going to them from the gathering.

But because the Church did not believe in a symbolic supper of the Lord it was important that those who could not attend be given the same exact materials (not a secondary source) as was used in the Braking of the Bread.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

This passage is talking about the decomposition of the human body as death takes hold of it; this is not talking about Jesus’ taking (or not taking, as I guess you are suggesting) the sin of the world onto Himself.

A question is not then to guess what questioner thinks , but rather asks for clarification from you. Some here do not think Jesus became sin on the cross, even become sin. So not sure if that is what you imply.No need to guess what you think when I can simply ask .

As to the more universal understanding of not seeing corruption, upon death, how was that carried out…i gave my explanation and will do so again

“i take it to mean He was not left in the grave but was resurrected quite soon, before any real decomposing took place (like Lazarus, though he stank). Unless you think He was reunited with His flesh , hours after His death, after they rolled stone in place, and descended into hell and preached to souls there , as some think…just not sure why He would need a body, cause no one else did, or had one.”

Was Jesus’s dead body still united with His soul and mind and Spirit ? I am being told they were never separated like us upon our death.

 

[jcrichton]

Correct>yet we have had multiple gospels since almost the beginning, to be discerned (just like Judaism/OT)

But that is not multiple Gospel.

Abraham was given to know that when he was still only Abram.

The Gospel is God’s Promise to the Hebrew. Moses prophesied that one like him will come to Whom all will hear (pay attention)–the same Promise.

What did change was the manner in which God Revealed Himself. The Gospel of Salvation remains the same. Check St. Paul Revelation of this One Gospel:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ:

4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity. 5 Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will: 6 Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace, 8 Which hath superabounded in us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him, 10 In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him. 11 In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will. 12 That we may be unto the praise of his glory, we who before hoped Christ: 13 In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1)

But when anyone teaches against Christ’s Teachings, that person is indeed preaching a different Gospel.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Rather there is One faith, called Christianity, just like we came out of the One faith that is/was Judaism (Jesus said, " Salvation is of the Jews (not Pharisees, though they were better then most sects/divisions)

You cannot have one Faith when you claim an invisible church (against Christ’s Teachings) or when you claim multiple Baptism (not just the act of water Baptism but the rejection of Doctrine or the creation of alternative doctrine) or when you trade in the Word of God for the word of man.

It is not I that claims One Body; it is Christ that rejects those who usurp His Authority:

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. (St. Matthew 7)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No.

You are missing the point.

Jesus Delegated His Authority to the Church not to man; He did not say, ‘when I turn the key’ or ‘state xyz in Heaven.’

Rather, Jesus giving full authority to the Church stated when you tie/loosen it will be tied/loosen in Heaven.

Why?

Because Jesus also said, ‘I will be with you till the end of times,’ and He also said, ‘the other Paraclete, will Bring you to the Fullness of Truth.’

The Church is not a man-made function/structure operating at whims.

When all Christians accept this, the Body of Christ, that exist in splintering and division, will cease claiming multiple gospels, doctrines, and inspirations of the Holy Spirit–most conflicting and contradicting one another; also, the thirst for autonomy would cease.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Jesus uses this very visual to center Believers not in some quote of Scriptures but on His Sacrifice on the Cross: Look (at the Crucified One), Obey, Believe, and Be Saved!

Then why do you dabble in discerning just what is the brazen serpent, and then dictate to others your understanding is the only one ??? is it not enough just to look at as commanded, in faith ? Apparently not, for as Paul states (sarcastically) how could one of us not see themselves as “right”.

It is not for me to know how this “transubstantiation” happens but to accept Him at HIs Command:

No, you do want to know how, and accept it only as you know the how, and call it “transubstantiation”.

"Looking ", “receiving”, “remembering” is not enough anymore, but only transubstantiation…and poof , there goes your unity , in what came also to signify unity , the one loaf.

 

[mcq72]

But that is not multiple Gospel.

I said correct , only one true saving gospel…the rest are false.

 

[jcrichton]

A question is not then to guess what questioner thinks , but rather asks for clarification from you. Some here do not think Jesus became sin on the cross, even become sin. So not sure if that is what you imply.No need to guess what you think when I can simply ask .

Jesus being God is uncorrupt. Sin never touches Him. On the Cross He takes the sin of the world (the punishment for sin: the wages of sin is death).

“i take it to mean He was not left in the grave but was resurrected quite soon, before any real decomposing took place (like Lazarus, though he stank). Unless you think He was reunited with His flesh , hours after His death, after they rolled stone in place, and descended into hell and preached to souls there , as some think…just not sure why He would need a body, cause no one else did, or had one.”

At death our bodies begin to decompose:

Decomposition begins at the moment of death, caused by two factors: 1.) autolysis, the breaking down of tissues by the body’s own internal chemicals and enzymes, and 2.) putrefaction, the breakdown of tissues by bacteria. These processes release compounds such as cadaverine and putrescine, that are the chief source of the unmistakably putrid odor of decaying animal tissue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition)

Jesus would not suffer such decomposition.

Was Jesus’s dead body still united with His soul and mind and Spirit ? I am being told they were never separated like us upon our death.

This is a difficult question. The best I can give you is something that must be surmised from Scriptures.

Jesus told the “good thief” that:

43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. (St. Luke 23)

Now, there are those who claim that this is referencing Abrahams bosom not Heaven, yet, regardless of the actual place, Jesus soul must have left His body in order to fulfill this promise. Further, St. Peter Reveals that Jesus, in the Spirit, went down (hades/hell/Sheol) to Preach to the imprisoned spirits–again this would, by necessity, mean that Jesus’ Spirit would have to leave His body.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

When Jesus Broke Bread with the disciples at Emmaus, their spiritual eyes were opened (as it was with Magdalene and the Eleven) and they were able so see Jesus in His Changed Body! The Eucharist is Jesus’ Changed Body–nourishment for His Followers:

Yes, that is Writ, the first sentence. The second sentence is tradition.

 

[jcrichton]

Then why do you dabble in discerning just what is the brazen serpent, and then dictate to others your understanding is the only one ??? is it not enough just to look at as commanded, in faith ? Apparently not, for as Paul states (sarcastically) how could one of us not see themselves as “right”.

You, as well as anyone else, can believe in anything you want. What I present to you is what is found in Scriptures. Jesus references Moses’ Brazen Serpent as a mirror to Believers; St. Paul states that the Cross is a curse to the Jews and nothingness to the Greeks (Pagans) and that to Him it is Salvation: the Instrument that God Uses to confound man’s intellect (wisdom); further he stresses that he Preaches Christ, and Him Crucified.

Yet, you don’t have to Believe anything; you don’t have to accept Jesus connection to Moses’ Brazen Serpent nor anything that I have put forth. You, as everyone else have been Created in the image and likeness of God–with freewill.

No, you do want to know how, and accept it only as you know the how, and call it “transubstantiation”.

"Looking ", “receiving”, “remembering” is not enough anymore, but only transubstantiation…and poof , there goes your unity , in what came also to signify unity , the one loaf.

I think that you are confusing the term vocabulary with what it expresses.

Transubstantiation is the vocabulary term used to express that Jesus Consecrated the bread and wine and that these materials turned into what Jesus said they were: My Body, My Blood.

You can reject the vocabulary term; you can even reject Jesus’ intent; you can construct any understanding about the Lord’s Supper; what you cannot do is claim that what Jesus stated and meant was symbolic till the term “Transubstantiation” entered the Church’s vernacular.

I do not seek to convert you, convince you or convict you. My style of writing does not change and I welcome anyone to find it in any non-Catholic forum where I have attempted to proselytize anyone.

Once I had joined a non-Catholic forum because I was invite–not once did I ever claim to know more or better than anyone else… even when a “pastor” was attempting to convince everyone that suicide is ok by God. I always offer Scriptures and reason as the means argue (present) my point. When it becomes a circular argument I choose to terminate the exchange rather than to force my views upon anyone else.

So if you feel I am forcing anything upon you, I apologize; my intent is to offer what I understand from Scriptures and Church Teaching.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The problem lies in what you gather from Sacred Scriptures–where you see a symbol I see a real Command.

The difference is that the Command is found in Scriptures, it is practiced by the Apostles, it is passed down as Doctrine, it is practiced by the Church after the death of the Apostles, it is practiced for hundreds upon hundreds of years, it becomes an issue when Protestants (don’t really know how the term arose) decided that it was a symbol not an actual Command.

You must decide if you follow Christ’s Command or man’s construct (personal understanding).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Sin never touches Him.

disagree.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Sin must be upon Him, just as the sinner lays his hand on the about to be sacrificed previously unblemished animal in OT.

Jesus would not suffer such decomposition.

So He died for three days just did not see decomposition by miracle, unlike lazarus?

I would not infer that save that He did not see “corruption”, and that thru quick resurrection.