If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

[rcwitness]

Never say never Michael when it comes to the workings of the grace of God. Both sides, P’s and C’s have exhausted their scriptural resources to defend or back up their positions in this thread. That’s why it seems like the same thing over and over, which it is. All that is left is the Providence of God.

I doubt that…

Isaiah 6:4-9

4And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.5And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, theLord*of hosts!”

6*Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar.7And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”8And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”9And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

‘Hear and hear, but do not understand;
see and see, but do not perceive.’

An interesting encounter here. And in particular, the Mass literally means “go forth” or sent, to those who have Heard, and received from the Lord’s table.

 

[benhur]

They are not elements of remembrance, They are the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus said so Himself. I don’t understand how anyone cannot believe Him.

Hi Pete,

They are the elements of remembrance turned into His Body and Blood but only thru the priest was my point. Two different talking points: one being literal body/bloodvs symbolic, the other being who can transubstantiate and who can not.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Pete,

They are the elements of remembrance turned into His Body and Blood but only thru the priest was my point. Two different talking points: one being literal body/bloodvs symbolic, the other being who can transubstantiate and who can not.

Blessings

Yes. And what I find interesting, because I was raised “Evangelical Free”/“non-denom”, is that I have NEVER witnessed a group of these Christians Breaking Bread together outside the once a month practice within the Sunday service held by the leading pastor.

I’ve asked a couple members, “Would you ever Break Bread in a small group, such as a bible study or something? And have you ever Broke Bread outside your regular service?”

The answer was “No”. And the interest in ever doing so was not there.

 

[benhur]

Really? " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." Because we as Catholics believe that we are actually receiving the body and blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist, and it is not symbolic but literal, we can say that we remain in Him, while He remains in us.

“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” 1 Cor. 10:16-17.

BLESSING, CUP OF (τὸ ποτήριον τη̂ς εὐλογίας). This expression is found only in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and is best understood in light of the ancient Jewish custom of concluding meals with a prayer of thanksgiving over a cup of wine, “the cup of blessing.” This ritual act acknowledged God as the Giver of all good gifts, and consecrated the meal to the one who ate.

CONSECRATED is an adjective that means made or declared or believed to be holy. When something is consecrated it is declared to be sacred or holy.

ben, a symbol cannot be declared consecrated or holy, only the actual body and blood of Jesus is consecrated and holy. The Eucharist is not just a remembrance ritual, I really do hope that you can eventually come to the realization that it is much, much more than what you have believed up till now. Believe Jesus when he says “This IS my body and this IS my blood.”

Hi JMM,

I hope you can see the C viewpoint has been well explained to me and I believe I understand it. I understand and have posted what others have said, that the Eucharist is a sacrament,grace impartIng and the deepest union with Christ one can have on this side of life. My post merely said this is only possible (communion) thru a priest. Only he, thru ,Christ can “consecrate”. Not an elder or deacon or brother, even a “president/presider” as called by the early church, can transubstantiate.( and certainly not any Protestant presbyter for the most part) . That was my point, open to any correction.

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

Yes. And what I find interesting, because I was raised “Evangelical Free”/“non-denom”, is that I have NEVER witnessed a group of these Christians Breaking Bread together outside the once a month practice within the Sunday service held by the leading pastor.

I’ve asked a couple members, “Would you ever Break Bread in a small group, such as a bible study or something? And have you ever Broke Bread outside your regular service?”

The answer was “No”. And the interest in ever doing so was not there.

Very interesting that you thought to put that question to them.

 

[benhur]

Why hasn’t this thread been closed? Its just the same thing over and over. Protestants don’t get it and from this thread, imo, they never will. Although its amusing to watch them squirm on this issue

Hi Mike,

Just as Texas is big enough to be called “God’s Country”, this thread is big enough to endure, even sustain, all musings.

Blessings

PS- Besides, only 154 or so posts to go.

 

[benhur]

I am in RCIA right now. I told my dad, who is Methodist, about this verse and he responded by saying that it was meant to be taken symbolically and not literally. He said I read things too literally in the bible. He also said that the Thief on the Cross never took Communion and yet he was saved.

My response to him was that the thief on the cross was in a unique position due to his impending death and that Jesus can offer salvation even though someone has not taken the Eucharist before. I also said that for those of us who are not in extraordinary situations like that of impending death, we are commanded time and again to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Was my response correct?

Hi Alex,

The response is pretty good from a Catholic viewpoint, just hope it wasn’t motivated by any teenage hormones trying to buck the old man. There are times when father’s know best is just water off a duck’s back…The Lord commands many things.

Blessings

PS- Welcome to CAF

 

[JMM1957]

Hi JMM,

I hope you can see the C viewpoint has been well explained to me and I believe I understand it. I understand and have posted what others have said, that the Eucharist is a sacrament,grace impartIng and the deepest union with Christ one can have on this side of life. My post merely said this is only possible (communion) thru a priest. Only he, thru ,Christ can “consecrate”. Not an elder or deacon or brother, even a “president/presider” as called by the early church, can transubstantiate.( and certainly not any Protestant presbyter for the most part) . That was my point, open to any correction.

Blessings

ben, both C’s and P’s have an understanding of each other’s view here for sure by now. I do have lingering questions with why you see the NT priesthood in the CC as “excluding” everyone else, and trying to imply that nothing has changed from the OT priesthood? The curtain of the sanctuary has been torn down, we believe that as you do. The priesthood is not standing in the way of direct access to God, it actually facilitates it in a way. The CC has always had priests to consecrate the elements, as the Apostles received from the Lord first hand instruction on how to do it, and the command to do it in memory of Him, as often as it is done. When you don’t look at the Eucharist as symbolic only, and see it as truly receiving the Lord’s body and blood literally, you then understand how everyone has direct access to God in the most intimate way, partaking of the one loaf which is His body.

 

[benhur]

Yes. And what I find interesting, because I was raised “Evangelical Free”/“non-denom”, is that I have NEVER witnessed a group of these Christians Breaking Bread together outside the once a month practice within the Sunday service held by the leading pastor.

I’ve asked a couple members, “Would you ever Break Bread in a small group, such as a bible study or something? And have you ever Broke Bread outside your regular service?”

The answer was “No”. And the interest in ever doing so was not there.

yes that would be another discussion, how often. I have seen communion outside of a regular service. But yes it is rare. Not sure if it is just as rare for C consecration to be outside of a mass service, although C participation is often outside of a service, for the sick,elderly etc…

One must be careful in assessing judgement on how “oft” to do it. I recall one church father admonishing on against going overboard. Not sure if daily or perhaps multiple times in one day was too much for that writer.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

yes that would be another discussion, how often. I have seen communion outside of a regular service. But yes it is rare. Not sure if it is just as rare for C consecration to be outside of a mass service, although C participation is often outside of a service, for the sick,elderly etc…

One must be careful in assessing judgement on how “oft” to do it. I recall one church father admonishing on against going overboard. Not sure if daily or perhaps multiple times in one day was too much for that writer.

Blessings

Right. I wasn’t making a point about how often anyone Breaks Bread, but what I find interesting about this particular denomination, who professes that all members are able to celebrate the Ceremony, yet in practice it’s virtually never done. And when I ask members about the potential for them to do so, their response is quite indifferent, truly.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi JMM,

I hope you can see the C viewpoint has been well explained to me and I believe I understand it. I understand and have posted what others have said, that the Eucharist is a sacrament,grace impartIng and the deepest union with Christ one can have on this side of life. My post merely said this is only possible (communion) thru a priest. Only he, thru ,Christ can “consecrate”. Not an elder or deacon or brother, even a “president/presider” as called by the early church, can transubstantiate.( and certainly not any Protestant presbyter for the most part) . That was my point, open to any correction.

Blessings

If I’m understanding you rightly (and admittedly I haven’t read all of your conversations with various posters on this thread) you’re saying that the Roman Catholic Church has the Eucharist and your church does not … But you stay there anyway?

 

[JMM1957]

Right. I wasn’t making a point about how often anyone Breaks Bread, but what I find interesting about this particular denomination, who professes that all members are able to celebrate the Ceremony, yet in practice it’s virtually never done. And when I ask members about the potential for them to do so, their response is quite indifferent, truly.

Yep, that"s exactly the point I thought you were making, and I agree totally.

 

[benhur]

ben, both C’s and P’s have an understanding of each other’s view here for sure by now. I do have lingering questions with why you see the NT priesthood in the CC as “excluding” everyone else, and trying to imply that nothing has changed from the OT priesthood? The curtain of the sanctuary has been torn down, we believe that as you do. The priesthood is not standing in the way of direct access to God, it actually facilitates it in a way. The CC has always had priests to consecrate the elements, as the Apostles received from the Lord first hand instruction on how to do it, and the command to do it in memory of Him, as often as it is done. When you don’t look at the Eucharist as symbolic only, and see it as truly receiving the Lord’s body and blood literally, you then understand how everyone has direct access to God in the most intimate way, partaking of the one loaf which is His body.

Well “facilitate” is pretty close to “intermediary” as in ot priestly function. That is whatever sacramental graces are to be had in either covenant it still must be thru priest in CC. The most sacred place in ot was not the sanctuary but the holy of holies, that could be entered only once a year, and that by an intermediary. The most sacred place to meet or commune with Christ to a C is the Eucharist but only thru the priest. I mean ot folk had equal access to the blessings and graces of the yearly entrance to the holy of holies also. But they could not go in as if they were the high priest. Yet as Christians,we are to have that direct access, for that veil has been torn in two. Yet as a Catholic, besides the ceremony of the communion, a priest is needed. That to me is still a veil, much like the veil that the consecrated host after a mass was placed behind years ago in Catholic Churches

Blessings

 

[zz912]

Timothy and Titus were not “heirus” priests.

What type of priests were they? And what distinction are you creating?

 

[zz912]

sorry you can not receive God directly thru the Elements of remembrance.The Catholic’s ultimate communion with Christ needs be go thru a priest.

Blessings

Your point is not relevant. The individual could come into contact and receive God directly in the New Covenant. This is the meaning of the veil torn in two.

 

[zz912]

I am in RCIA right now. I told my dad, who is Methodist, about this verse and he responded by saying that it was meant to be taken symbolically and not literally. He said I read things too literally in the bible. He also said that the Thief on the Cross never took Communion and yet he was saved.

My response to him was that the thief on the cross was in a unique position due to his impending death and that Jesus can offer salvation even though someone has not taken the Eucharist before. I also said that for those of us who are not in extraordinary situations like that of impending death, we are commanded time and again to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Was my response correct?

Yes, you answered correctly. God expects us to follow His commands, as much as we are able.

Your dad certainly puts requirements on salvation, even if it is only that we have to believe in Jesus. But at the same time he believes some who lived before Jesus are saved. But they couldn’t have believed in Jesus. So his argument fails.

 

[JMM1957]

Well “facilitate” is pretty close to “intermediary” as in ot priestly function. That is whatever sacramental graces are to be had in either covenant it still must be thru priest in CC. The most sacred place in ot was not the sanctuary but the holy of holies, that could be entered only once a year, and that by an intermediary. The most sacred place to meet or commune with Christ to a C is the Eucharist but only thru the priest. I mean ot folk had equal access to the blessings and graces of the yearly entrance to the holy of holies also. But they could not go in as if they were the high priest. Yet as Christians,we are to have that direct access, for that veil has been torn in two. Yet as a Catholic, besides the ceremony of the communion, a priest is needed. That to me is still a veil, much like the veil that the consecrated host after a mass was placed behind years ago in Catholic Churches

Blessings

Let’s not get hung up on the term “direct access” then, because clearly we can have a relationship with God/Christ without partaking of the Eucharist.

We can pray and God hears us and will answer us. Whenever two or more are gathered together, He is in midst of us. So in just these two examples one can see that a relationship is ongoing. So, when you say “direct access”, what do you really mean?

 

[clem456]

Well “facilitate” is pretty close to “intermediary” as in ot priestly function. That is whatever sacramental graces are to be had in either covenant it still must be thru priest in CC. The most sacred place in ot was not the sanctuary but the holy of holies, that could be entered only once a year, and that by an intermediary. The most sacred place to meet or commune with Christ to a C is the Eucharist but only thru the priest. I mean ot folk had equal access to the blessings and graces of the yearly entrance to the holy of holies also. But they could not go in as if they were the high priest. Yet as Christians,we are to have that direct access, for that veil has been torn in two. Yet as a Catholic, besides the ceremony of the communion, a priest is needed. That to me is still a veil, much like the veil that the consecrated host after a mass was placed behind years ago in Catholic Churches

Blessings

What do you have in life, any sphere of your life, that does not require the mediation of someone else?

?

Everything you do is done in reference to someone else, and depends on someone else for it’s accomplishment. You can’t use the toilet in the morning without good ol Thomas Crapper and his Tradition of plumbing excellence.

?

So in your life of faith, why would you begrudge certain gifts of service given to certain unique individuals by grace? You have gifts, am I correct? Are your gifts meant for the edification of others? Or are they merely an exclusive personal gift?

It is a deception that we are our own personal and exclusive mediators with Jesus Christ. Because, the last time I looked, God did not create just this one human being, he has created many, for his glory and our mutual edification.

 

[benhur]

Let’s not get hung up on the term “direct access” then, because clearly we can have a relationship with God/Christ without partaking of the Eucharist.

We can pray and God hears us and will answer us. Whenever two or more are gathered together, He is in midst of us. So in just these two examples one can see that a relationship is ongoing. So, when you say “direct access”, what do you really mean?

Yes good point but that is why I posted access to the highest level,the deepest, even pinacle ,ultimate, as Catholics have described the Eucharist, or as OT with their yearly event entering the holy of holies( though of course they had a relationship with Jehovah thru out the year.)

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Right. I wasn’t making a point about how often anyone Breaks Bread, but what I find interesting about this particular denomination, who professes that all members are able to celebrate the Ceremony, yet in practice it’s virtually never done. And when I ask members about the potential for them to do so, their response is quite indifferent, truly.

Probably so as you state. The Catholic Eucharist communion is quite unique. I would say however, that for most churches it is a corporate,congregational ceremony. Like any" party" the bigger the better.

Also as you know these folks also claim like others that Christ, even the Holy Spirit is in them already,and they are to be filled daily in the Spirit, and even to overflowing, thru non sacramental/ ceremonial ways.

Corporately, like others again, they believe that where two or more are together, there Christ is in the midst of them. So as your example of a small bible study group, hearts can burn with revelation just as it did with the two on the road conversing with a risen Christ. I do not think they would say Christ would be more with them or in them thru their communion rite/sacrament at the bible study. And unlike the two on the road there in the book of Acts, they recognize Christ without having to see His hands break bread.

There is a time and place for everything. One can over indulge in anything that is gracious to us. We are thankful for the many things the Lord and Peter and John did,and what they did not do, such as not lingering too much on the high at the Mount of Transfiguration, not making the means an end.

Blessings