How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[KathleenGee]

RevKevin,

Some times I get impressions of laymen and some religious women really involved in church work, as having a resentment towards the priesthood because they can’t or are not allowed to do what the priests are chosen to do.

So when they can’t, they get into this elaborate resentment and even opposition to the administrators of the church. We had a sister with a Ph.D., who was into feminist Biblical studies…the Catholic Church allows Biblical studies where people can study privately with others and look at it from their own particular perspective. But for our class on ancient prophets and patriarchs, there wasn’t a day gone by where she would start denouncing the priesthood, the nature of the Church, and some of its teachings. And our program was all about orthodoxy. She finally left.

I never saw Catholic teachings as masculine, but as teachings of the Holy Spirit at work.

 

[KathleenGee]

For myself, to not believe in the Eucharist, our common belief going back to the Apostles, and trying to turn the words around…is in an ecclesial fracture. The Church is not perfect in itself. It is full of humanity. And Christ said the chaff would be with the wheat.

We have to die to ourselves to bear fruit. And I can’t bear the fruit of Christ if I am in some kind of fracture – whatever it is.

I prefer to stay in communion with the Church, and have been rewarded for it in my spiritual life, not by anything else.

 

[shawn38]

Shawn, you need to back up these statements you made with Scripture:

Firstly, where does Scripture say that the 4th cup will be drunk at the wedding feast?

Secondly, where does it say that the 3rd cup represents the Cup of Redemption?

I didn’t see anything in the above Scripture reference that mentions “wedding” “feast” “third” “cup” “fourth” “cup” “redemption”.

Was the Passover a foreshadow of Christ’s redemptive work?

 

[PRmerger]

Was the Passover a foreshadow of Christ’s redemptive work?

It would speak greatly to your integrity if you would have just said, “There are no Scripture verses that support my statements. They are something I came up with on my own.”

 

[shawn38]

It would speak greatly to your integrity if you would have just said, “There are no Scripture verses that support my statements. They are something I came up with on my own.”

Please answer the question, so I can answer yours. You’re all about Tradition, so lets go to the tradition of the Passover.

Christ did celebrate Passover with the apostles.

You can conclude the ark of the covenant was a foreshadow , or type, of Mary, but not the Passover of Christ’s work?

 

[PRmerger]

Please answer the question, so I can answer yours.

Nope. You made your claim first, #985.

No it was not. That refers to the 3rd cup. What were Christ’s last words? “It is finished.” What was finished? The redemptive work. What does the 3rd cup represent? The Cup of Redemption. The 4th cup, was never drank.** That will be drank at the wedding feast.**

If I’m wrong, please show me where the third and fourth cup were drank.

I’m not going to ask you for Scriptures to back up your claim, for I now know there are none. (I wasn’t sure, though, but your non-responses confirm what I thought.)

I’m just wondering if you would own up to the fact that you’ve made a man-made tradition regarding your understanding of Christ. And if you would then keep that in mind when asking accusing Catholics of having man-made traditions.

 

[PRmerger]

. You’re all about Tradition, so lets go to the tradition of the Passover.

Just so we’re clear, you should have made that a small “t”. You’re referring to customs, which are tradition with a small “t”.

Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of the apostles handed down to the Church.

Christ did celebrate Passover with the apostles.

Yes. He was the Paschal Lamb.

They had to eat the Lamb in order to complete the ritual.

 

[PRmerger]

Based on the historical research, there are numerous opinions on the real presence in those early centuries, and many of them do not coincide with the modern Roman or Orthodox viewpoints on the doctrine. There is also the ever-present anachronisms of reading modern theological concepts back into the patristic sources. common example can be drawn from Ignatius, who, when writing to the Smyrneans, said,

“They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.”

To the ear trained to hear the Fathers as Roman Catholics, Ignatius sounds as if he is referring to the real presence. He is not. Going back to the context, one finds he is making the same argument that Tertullian made. He is arguing against the docetic gnostics who denied the reality of the physical incarnation of Christ. It is foolishness to participate in the Supper, which calls us to remembrance of the flesh and blood of Christ, broken for us, if, in fact, there never was such flesh! Only by reading a doctrine that would take a thousand years to crystalize back into Ignatius can one come up with a Roman Catholic understanding. Interestingly enough, Irenaeus, likewise, in his Against Heresies (5:2:2), is making the exact same argument, not teaching a physical presence or transubstantiation, but instead fighting against the docetic gnostics who denied the physical reality of Christ’s incarnation.

"The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (*Early **Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98)."

*Source: here

 

[Deacon_JAR]

Deacon JAR;6661658:

Ageed. The bread and wine after the supper.

So if the New Covenant was sealed by the “Blood of the Lamb of God” sacrificed on the altar of the cross, why were not the apostles redeemed immediately upon partaking of the body and blood?

My brother Shawn, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. No official Catholic teaching declares that our redemption took place during the “Last Supper”. For official teachings of the Catholic Church you must go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) or any other document containing the “IMPRIMATUR” notation. The CCC contains a section dedicated to Salvation, where you may obtain the teachings of our Catholic Faith concerning this gift from God.

Just as the bread and wine (grape juice) nourishes me physically, I find spiritual nourishment in remembering and especially proclaiming Christ particularly during communion.

I know that you have a zeal for the Lord, therefore, you must constantly strive to search for the truth. Concerning the subject of this post, it is natural for brothers and sisters to provide information to defend their own belief. These actions, I believe, come from the goodness of their hearts. In post replies #312 thru #315 I provided information that I believe is factual, it can be verified. Please read those replies and provide me with any information you believe is not accurate and the source or sources that substantiate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Looking forward to hear from, my brother.

 

[Lapey]

Thats the definition.
Now from what I have been told on the CAF by other members, the reason the CC baptizes infants is because it washes away original sin. I have been told that infants can believe and they know who Christ is.
When you are baptized you believe and accept Christ into your heart. Christ is the church and we have the church, Christ, living in us. You see the church as the CC or the church that Jesus started. Christ is the church, not a man named church like the Catholic, Baptist, or any other name. Its Christ and Christ alone who is the church. We are extensions of his church, Catholic, Baptist and the others.

This is not true. I have been in debates with you on this subject before and I can remember no one telling you this. This is absurd to believe that an infant can “know” Christ or believe in Him. No Catholic told you this; I challenge you to produce the quote.

I was baptized as an infant, confirmed in 8th grade, and only came to “know” Christ at about 35 years old. I am now 44. See the dirty truth that you do not want to see is that there is some truth in what you say but not complete truth. Yes one can “come to know Him” and experience that “baptism in the spirit” that I allude to. But the purpose of water baptism is to relieve the soul of original and personal sin which brings us back into the fold, and into His Body, the CHURCH!!!

 

[Lapey]

How many Catholic church’s have pastors, evangelists?
I quess you agree with the rest of my post.

Rev,

Where did you find the word “pastor” in the bible? I am drawing a blank. If I err, I am sorry.

PS. I am a parishoner of St Joseph Church in my home town. My Pastor’s name if Father Brunet.

I don’t get your point???

 

[Lapey]

The eating is the metaphorical aspect to Christ’s statement. Christ is comparing coming and believing to eating and drinking.

No, He’s not. To see that you must completely close you mind and especially your spirit to almost the entire scripture, old & new. Sad, truly sad.

 

[rinnie]

The eating is the metaphorical aspect to Christ’s statement. Christ is comparing coming and believing to eating and drinking.

Not going to work.

He took the bread and said this is my body which will be given up for you.

This is my blood which will be shed for you.

He uses actual Bread and Actual wine that he transforms into his Body and Blood.

If he meant eating was comming why use bread then, and call it the bread of life.
If he mean believing was drinking why did he say this is the blood of the new covenant?

No, you way is not going to work. Not at all. Jesus was quite clear in his words.

 

[rinnie]

Then what does it mean?

God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him authority for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body, it is filled with Christ, who fills everything everywhere with his presence.
Christ is the head of the Church, which is his body.
So who or what is the church, Christ is. I stick by what I said.

I also said pastors and evangelists also.

They are to build up what he has been teaching all along. Building the church, building on what he has been teaching.

The church is Christ, he is the only church, he did not say the CC is the church or the Baptist church is the church, he said he is the church./QUOT

Kev I agree with you, Well kinda! You are right Christ is the Church. You did learn something yet. Now you claim he is not the CC. Tell me how could he not be the CC when the CC is founded on the teachings of the Apostles.

Who was Paul persecuting the Protestant Church? Of course not the Protestant Church did not even exist yet. Tell me Rev Kev why if the CC was not the first Church, Why is it the first Church that was ever broken away from then? Did not Luther break away from the Pope.

There you go, or are you going to try to say now that the Pope was not the Pope of the Catholic Church. Come on now Kev.

 

[Lapey]

Then what does it mean?

God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him authority for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body, it is filled with Christ, who fills everything everywhere with his presence.
Christ is the head of the Church, which is his body.
So who or what is the church, Christ is. I stick by what I said.

I also said pastors and evangelists also.

They are to build up what he has been teaching all along. Building the church, building on what he has been teaching.

The church is Christ, he is the only church, he did not say the CC is the church or the Baptist church is the church, he said he is the church.

Christ is God, and head of His Church; we are the body which makes up the Church; with Jesus as the head.

Who were the first “pastors and evangelists”? Yep, that’s correct. The Apostles, you can say it, it’s okay we know.

You are correct here “they” are to build up what He built on the Rock, Peter. Who are “they”? They are Peter and the apostles, then their successors. These are the Clergy of today’s Catholic Church; the only “they” with authority from Christ to teach anything.

No He did not say, “The Catholic Church, or Baptist Church” He said My Church. “You are peter, and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH…” Did I miss the quote that bad? Look how silly what you say would look like. “I am Jesus, the Rock, on which I will build My Church, you know, on Me.”

It is imperative that you see the verse in John 6: 64 (I think). This is not intellectual, it is spirit and life. You must study the text in its context, through the filter of the Old Testament, or you will not see the spirit of these verses. You are trying to “see” or “understand” these issues where scripture tells us to believe and trust in His Spirit.

Jesus did not build a Church on Himself, He built it on Peter and His apostles, Jesus is the Core, He is Salvation, He is the Word made Flesh, He is the Messiah. I can quote many more descriptions of Jesus, to my knowledge there is nowhere in scripture where Jesus says He is His Church.

PS. I am not a sola scriptura believer, I just always try my best to back up what I say in scripture.

 

[shawn38]

Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of the apostles handed down to the Church.

Yes. He was the Paschal Lamb.

They had to eat the Lamb in order to complete the ritual…

Actually they would have already eaten the lamb by the time Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper. Not every detail of the Passover was supplied, but what was did follow the proper sequence.

Maggid: 2nd Cup
Lk 22:17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

Koresh: eating of the bread, dipped in bitter herbs
Jn 13:26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him

Shulchan Orech: eating of the Paschal lamb. Not mentioned.

Tzafun: Finding and then sharing the afikoman (means dessert). The Afikoman, which symbolizes the Pesach Sacrifice, which was eaten at the end of the meal. It was at this point that Jesus instituted ‘the Lord’s Supper’. He took the Afikomen bread (laid aside earlier during the Yahatz stage) and gave thanks.
Lk 22:19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Barech: 3rd Cup
Lk 22:20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.

 

[Lapey]

No it was not. That refers to the 3rd cup. What were Christ’s last words? “It is finished.” What was finished? The redemptive work. What does the 3rd cup represent? The Cup of Redemption. The 4th cup, was never drank. That will be drank at the wedding feast.

If I’m wrong, please show me where the third and fourth cup were drank.

Dear Shawn,

I am not a “Seder meal” expert, but I do believe you are in error. The 3rd cup is the Cup of Blessing; the 4th cup was taken while on the cross many scholars believe; however scripture itself leaves some uncertainty here.

The third cup was the cup of blessing in which Jesus took and gave thanks and gave to His disciples with the command to drink and pass it on, “This is My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. DO THIS in memory of Me.”

Jesus fulfilled the Passover; He is the Lamb of God. Let me ask you, if the Israelites had not eaten the lamb at the first Passover and went straight to bed; what would have happened to their first born?

The redemptive work was most definitely not finished on the cross. If so, what was the point of His resurrection? Remember that the Church teaches and emphasizes the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ equally. It is dangerous to consider the resurrection unimportant.

Jesus is my Paschal Lamb, I eat Him at mass with enthusiasm and very often tears!

 

[benedictus2]

No it was not. That refers to the 3rd cup. What were Christ’s last words? “It is finished.” What was finished? The redemptive work. What does the 3rd cup represent? The Cup of Redemption. The 4th cup, was never drank. That will be drank at the wedding feast.If I’m wrong, please show me where the third and fourth cup were drank.

Aaah Shawn. I find it intriguing that you have not responded to any my posts which have directly refuted your arguments. One in particular is post 790 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6660058&postcount=790.

Why are hesitant to debate me?

Anyway, to the points you raised yet again (even though we have already proved you wrong on this).
**
First:** It if finished cannot refer to the work of redemption because the work of redemption is not finished until Christ rises from the dead. As I have said before, if Christ had not risen, then redemption would not have been accompolished. We would have be trapped in the sadness of Good Friday without experiencing the joy of Easter.

I hope you will ponder that and maybe when you respond you will actually address that point.
**
Second: **Here are the four cups as taken from this webpage cfpeople.org/Books/EuchJohn/EuchJohnp5.htm

1st Cup: This consisted of a solemn blessing(Kiddush) pronounced over the 1st cup of wine which was followed by a dish of bitter herbs. (This reminded them of their bitterness of Egyptian bondage)
2nd Cup: The Passover narrative is recited after which the “Little Hallel” Ps 113 was sung. This cup is then drunk following the psalm**.** **
3rd Cup**: The main meal was served consisting of lamb and unleavened bread which preceded the drinking of the 3rd cup known as the “cup of blessing”.
4th Cup: Finally the climax of the Passover came with the singing of the “Great Hallel” Psalms 114-118. This is succeeded by the drinking of the 4th cup of wine called the “cup of consummation.”

  If you look at the last supper narrative, Jesus breaks the bread and offers it to his apostles. Notice how this corresponds to eating of the meal prior to the drinking of the third cup.

He then said that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again. But… at the cross he does exactly that. Was he lying when he said he will drink of the fruit of the vine…? Perhaps He couldn’t make up his mind whether to drink or not to drink?

And interestingly enough, after He drinks the wine He says “It is finished”. Now it can’t be redemption that is finished and I have given you the reason for that above.

Other translations have this as “It is consumed”. Can you see here the link to the cup of consummation?

So what is finished, consumed, accomplished? The only answer that truly makes sense is the Passover of the Old covenant.

And this excerpt from the above webpage will give you a good explanation:

It seems that as we look through the Gospels, Jesus skips drinking the 4th cup during the course of the Passover meal. This is the equivalent of the priest’s omitting the words of consecration at Mass or forgetting communion. After the singing of the Great Hallel Jesus then proceeds to the Garden. In the Synoptics Jesus prays for a cup to pass by, but yet prayed that his Father’s will be done, not His. However, in Jn 18:11 Jesus says to Peter “Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?” Raymond Brown comments on this passage by saying “In Jn 18:11 Jesus said that he wanted to drink the cup the Father had given him; when Jesus drinks the offered wine, he has finished this commitment made at the beginning of the Passion Narrative.”[18] When was Jesus to drink the 4th cup? I believe that the clue to this answer is found in Jn 19:28-30:

[Jn 19:28-30]After this, Jesus knew that everything had now been completed and, so that the scripture should be completely fulfilled, he said: I am thirsty. 29A jar full of sour wine stood there; so, putting a sponge soaked in the wine on a hyssop stick, they held it up to his mouth.30After Jesus had taken the wine he said, ‘It is fulfilled’; and bowing his head he gave up his spirit.
​

The last time that Jesus drank from the blood of the grape was on the cross. Jesus finally drinks the offered wine and finished the Passover of the Old Testament and transforms it into the Passover of the New Covenant.
*
And you are right about the 3rd cup being the cup of redemption. That is why when Jesus instituted the Eucharist he said, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant which will be shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.

If I’m wrong, please show me where the third and fourth cup were drank.

I have just given you above a complete explanation. Now if you are going to refute this, then you must address the points raised rather than reciting again your old arguments which just leaves you on that merry go round unable to get off.

 

[benedictus2]

The eating is the metaphorical aspect to Christ’s statement. Christ is comparing coming and believing to eating and drinking.

Totally untenable. The same case was made by another member of CAF (Sandusky) in a thread around 3 years ago. I must say he was quite good at answering back point by point but in the end this proposition could not hold.

I will try to find the thread and post the links here.

 

[benedictus2]

The eating is the metaphorical aspect to Christ’s statement. Christ is comparing coming and believing to eating and drinking.

Here is the thread where we proved that that kind of reading of John 6 cannot hold water.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=278473

In particular posts 226 and 238 but also posts 168. 200. 201, 230. 232