In ~rememberance~ of Me?

[JackmanUSC]

My question is that for 1500 years it was universally accepted that the Real Presence of Christ was in the Eucharist. All the great theological minds throughout the Centuries, including Martin Luther subscribed to the Real Presence. Now, are you telling me that in the last two or three centuries, the bulk of knowledge about Christ and the Last Supper should be thrown out because of the personal interpretation of some Protestant Ministers? This argument again flows back to the faulty doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This is why Christ set up 1 church to shepard his flock. We shall see in the coming centuries a further degeneration of the belief systems in all sects of Christianity, except for Catholicism. Why, because people interpret things based on the cultural norms of the time. 100 years ago it was solid doctrine that contraception and gay marriage were against the teachings of Christ. Now, according to the interpretation of certain Protestant Churches, these beliefs have been wrong. How is this so? My belief is that Sola Scriptura and the heracies, including the belief in the absence of the real presence, will cause the Reformation to come full circle. Most will finally realize that the revisionism that takes place within the Protestant dogma is faulty and that the truth lies within the authority of the Catholic Church, which was handed to it by God.

 

[STIOFAN]

adstrinity:

He was commissioning the Eucharist. He was really there and yet He said, “Do this in rememberance of me”. Why would they need to remember him if He was there? Yet, He told them to do it. As sure as He told them “This is my body.” He wanted us to remember His sacrifice at Calvary. As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim His death. If He didn’t want us to do it, He wouldn’t have said so. I find it much more interesting that He told us to do this, rather than just preach the word.

If it’s really not Him, how come we must discern ourselves before we eat Him as St. Paul said? How come we are told if we don’t eat Him we wont have life in us? See what answers you’ll get to these (IF it comes up again)…and, I’m sure that you WILL get answers…

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: I only give credit where credit is due, well put adstrinity–:bounce:

 

[David_Brent]

JackmanUSC:

My question is that for 1500 years it was universally accepted that the Real Presence of Christ was in the Eucharist. All the great theological minds throughout the Centuries, including Martin Luther subscribed to the Real Presence. Now, are you telling me that in the last two or three centuries, the bulk of knowledge about Christ and the Last Supper should be thrown out because of the personal interpretation of some Protestant Ministers? This argument again flows back to the faulty doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This is why Christ set up 1 church to shepard his flock. We shall see in the coming centuries a further degeneration of the belief systems in all sects of Christianity, except for Catholicism. Why, because people interpret things based on the cultural norms of the time. 100 years ago it was solid doctrine that contraception and gay marriage were against the teachings of Christ. Now, according to the interpretation of certain Protestant Churches, these beliefs have been wrong. How is this so? My belief is that Sola Scriptura and the heracies, including the belief in the absence of the real presence, will cause the Reformation to come full circle. Most will finally realize that the revisionism that takes place within the Protestant dogma is faulty and that the truth lies within the authority of the Catholic Church, which was handed to it by God.

I appreciate your loyalty to the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church does not resemble the early church in Acts. So, I have a hard time believing that the truth lies within the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. The Truth is in the Bible and the person of Jesus. Catholic and Protestant doctrine is not on par with the Bible. We are incapable of wrapping our minds around Truth. We get glimpses. Sometimes big chunks. Holding up doctrine as gospel is problematic. Whatever a priest or pastor might share in a homily or sermon or a book should be checked against the Bible, not doctrinal volumes.

Could it be that since the Reformation, more people have had access to the Bible and its original texts which led to a deeper insight or revelation about what the Bible says? Or are priests the only ones privy to divine inspiration?

Careful about jumping on Protestants generally about subjects like contraception and gay marriage. There are many Catholics who use contraception and who support gay marriage. Further, there are many Protestants who oppose contraception and gay marriage.

 

[VociMike]

David Brent:

First – VociMike, I am not following you around the forum – intentionally anyway.

Good, I didn’t want to have to call 9-1-1.

I do not understand the connection that you (and others) are trying to draw between the word “remembrance” and the contextual idea of sacrifice.

I’m not trying to make any such connection.

Jesus is “present” here through the Holy Spirit. His spiritual presence is no less “present” than if He walked into the room – it would just be much easier to point Him out!

The question in this thread is does “do this in remembrance” preclude Jesus from being really present? Here’s the relevant portion of the original post:

“Christ said ‘do this in ~rememberance~ of Me’, so if He were really there, why do we have to remember him.”

It seems kinda inane to me, but it got the other Protestants around saying “oh, good point!”

If the answer is “no”, that “do this in remembrance” does not preclude Jesus from being really present, then why would it preclude Jesus from being really present in the particular mode that Catholicism teaches?

 

[VociMike]

David Brent:

I appreciate your loyalty to the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church does not resemble the early church in Acts.

Neither do you resemble the early David in the fallopian tube. But it’s the same David.

Our loyalty to the Church is loyalty to the will of Christ.

Could it be that since the Reformation, more people have had access to the Bible and its original texts which led to a deeper insight or revelation about what the Bible says? Or are priests the only ones privy to divine inspiration?

More people would have had access to the bible regardless – it was simply a matter of technology. The question everybody has to answer is how does one distinguish deeper insight or revelation, not to mention divine inspiration, from simple error? That is where the authority of the Church comes in. There is no other way to separate truth from error.

BTW, Catholics don’t teach that priests are privy to divine inspiration.

 

[JackmanUSC]

David Brent:

I appreciate your loyalty to the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church does not resemble the early church in Acts. So, I have a hard time believing that the truth lies within the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. The Truth is in the Bible and the person of Jesus. Catholic and Protestant doctrine is not on par with the Bible. We are incapable of wrapping our minds around Truth. We get glimpses. Sometimes big chunks. Holding up doctrine as gospel is problematic. Whatever a priest or pastor might share in a homily or sermon or a book should be checked against the Bible, not doctrinal volumes.

Could it be that since the Reformation, more people have had access to the Bible and its original texts which led to a deeper insight or revelation about what the Bible says? Or are priests the only ones privy to divine inspiration?

Careful about jumping on Protestants generally about subjects like contraception and gay marriage. There are many Catholics who use contraception and who support gay marriage. Further, there are many Protestants who oppose contraception and gay marriage.

But the main argument is still unanswered. If Sola Scriptura is a legitimate doctrine, why has it diluted Christianity to the point of accepting what is identifiable as a Sin, as not? Also, you speak of priests having had the only access to the Bible since the beginning? Are you saying that the daily readings at Mass were lies until luther came along and shed the light? The entirety of the Holy Bible is recited at Mass throughout a certain period of time. We don’t refute the truth of Jesus, what we refute is the reinterpretation of his message year after year in different and distorted ways. Jesus knew men would have these faults. That was the purpose for setting up a terrestrial authority to guide the Church down the path of truth until his return. Last I checked there were Protestant Churches that are now denying the Holy Trinity. Where does the misinterpretation end? Also, the point of Catholics accepting birth control and gay marriage on a personal level is much different than the Church condoning it. Just because a person in our faith thinks that those sins are right does not make those actions less sinful in the eyes of the Church. Next thing you know there will be an interpretation of the Bible that says Hey wait a minute, see here, he says we can engage in this previously sinful activity. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.

 

[David_Brent]

VociMike:

The question in this thread is does “do this in remembrance” preclude Jesus from being really present? Here’s the relevant portion of the original post:

If the answer is “no”, that “do this in remembrance” does not preclude Jesus from being really present, then why would it preclude Jesus from being really present in the particular mode that Catholicism teaches?

I don’t really understand what point was trying to be made by the troublesome Protestants who bengeorge encountered. Are they trying to say that Jesus wouldn’t say “remember” this if He became present during communion? Therefore, because He said “remember” He doesn’t become “present?”

By bengeorge I think I’ve got it.

I think He said “remember” so we’d remember. Much like we are commanded to keep holy the sabbath. We are asked to keep holy the sabbath so we can reflect on the Creator, His awesome creation and His authority over us (His creation).

Does “remembrance” preclude His presence? I think the answer is obviously “no” because Jesus is omnipresent. When we submit ourselves and participate in communion, we are remembering His sacrifice and asking Him to dwell within us in word and/or in deed. Whether that proves transubstantiation, who knows? I don’t think it does, but it doesn’t eliminate the possibility either. Regardless of what happens to the communion host, Jesus is present by virtue of His omnipresent nature and the Holy Spirit which He sent us to help us draw closer to Him.

 

[VociMike]

Catholics obviously agree, David, that “in remembrance” does not preclude Jesus being present, but I can attest that such an argument is indeed put forward now and then by Protestants arguing against the Real Presence. In the future I shall simply tell them that you said they’re wrong.

BTW, please allow me to welcome you as a brother in Christ to “the fray” here at catholic.com.

 

[David_Brent]

VociMike:

BTW, please allow me to welcome you as a brother in Christ to “the fray” here at catholic.com.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[DianJo]

The term anemnesis is used in connection with sacrifice in the OT. I think we agree on that. The connection carries because when Jesus says it to the Apostles they would have recognized the meaning of His statement in terms of a sacrifice.

They may have understood, they might not have at that particular time. The Apostles were kinda dense when Jesus was trying to teach the theology of what He was about to do. They were still pretty much looking for an earthly king - regardless - after the event and they had received the Holy Spirit, who helped them remember everything Jesus had ever taught them, they understood and that’s why they taught the doctrine of the Eucharist.

Sacrifice to the Jews had to follow certain perameters. For Passover, the lamb had to be spotless, perfect with no defect, had to be of a certain young age, it had to be slaughtered a certain way, at a certain time of the day. The blood and the animal carcass was divided in two - one for the priest to offer (burnt offering. The lamb at passover is charred). The other half was to be eaten by the people and the blood of the lamb spinkled on the people. The key is that in order for a covenant sacrifice to be effective or binding, it had to be shared and eaten. If not, the sacrifice was invalid. The sacrifice was therefore shared between God and His people - a covenant.

That’s why the language of sacrifice for the Mass - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was the old covenant sacrifice that was changed into the New Covenant Sacifice at the Last Supper by Jesus that was (is) to be perpetuated for all time at His command - Do this in rememberance (with the sacrificial connection) of me.
The old covenant was not completely wiped out - it was perfected, changed into the New. The Mass is the perpetual re-presentation of the perfect sacrifice that Jesus commanded us to do for the forgivness of sin and thanksgiving. Holy Communion is the sharing of the sacrificial lamb between God and His people. The eating of the lamb makes it a valid sacrifice or covenant.

Hope that helps explain the connection.

 

[VociMike]

DianJo:

The key is that in order for a covenant sacrifice to be effective or binding, it had to be shared and eaten. If not, the sacrifice was invalid. The sacrifice was therefore shared between God and His people - a covenant.

Yes, and as His people continue to come into the world, the Sacrificial Lamb must continue to be made available to them. Hence the continuing Sacrifice of the Mass, so that all might eat and have life.

 

[David_Brent]

VociMike:

Yes, and as His people continue to come into the world, the Sacrificial Lamb must continue to be made available to them. Hence the continuing Sacrifice of the Mass, so that all might eat and have life.

The Lord is available to everyone who comes after He dwelled among us through the Holy Spirit, not a communion wafer. Life comes by believing in God, not by partaking in communion.

 

[adstrinity]

David Brent:

The Lord is available to everyone who comes after He dwelled among us through the Holy Spirit, not a communion wafer. Life comes by believing in God, not by partaking in communion.

John 6:51-58

Matthew 26:26-29

From a Greek Orthodox site:

n other places in Holy Scripture, Christ has assured us that His Body is “truly food” and His Blood is “truly drink.” Moreover, this is shown by the fearsome saying that “whoever does not eat My body and does not drink My blood, has no life in him.” This proves that the Holy Eucharist is the spiritual nourishment of man. Just as man cannot live without natural nourishment, so neither can he live without spiritual nourishment–the body and blood of Christ–without Holy Eucharist. Christ makes this very clear. He says that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John, 6:53-54).

Holy Eucharist unites man with God. It deifies him. Since man unites with God, he also unites with other people. St. Paul says that “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the One Bread” (1 Corinthians, 10:17). This unifying of the people among themselves into one body is like the unity of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
greekorthodoxchurch.ca/eucharist.html

*My emphasis…well, Jesus’ actually…

AND, STIOFAN…I thank you bows

Also, Mr. Brent, the By bengeorge comment, :claps:

 

[TeriGator]

Let’s take a look at what one of Christ’s apostles believed about whether the bread and wine become His body and blood:

1 Corinthians 11:27 (NIV)
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Corinthians 11:27 (KJV)
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.
**29
**For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

 

[TeriGator]

David Brent:

The Lord is available to everyone who comes after He dwelled among us through the Holy Spirit, not a communion wafer. Life comes by believing in God, not by partaking in communion.

The one who believes in Christ’s words, believes it when He said that we could not have life in us unless we ate His flesh and blood.

 

[VociMike]

David Brent:

The Lord is available to everyone who comes after He dwelled among us through the Holy Spirit, not a communion wafer. Life comes by believing in God, not by partaking in communion.

But if you fully believe, you partake, and you partake not of bread and wine but of Christ really present. This is a hard saying, who can hear it? Those with enough faith.

To hear the teaching of the Real Presence (this is my body…this is my blood…eat my flesh…drink my blood) and reject it is to reject Christ. Reject His words, reject the teaching of the Church He left, and you reject Him.

 

[adstrinity]

adstrinity:

John 6:51-58

Matthew 26:26-29

From a Greek Orthodox site:

n other places in Holy Scripture, Christ has assured us that His Body is “truly food” and His Blood is “truly drink.” Moreover, this is shown by the fearsome saying that “whoever does not eat My body and does not drink My blood, has no life in him.” This proves that the Holy Eucharist is the spiritual nourishment of man. Just as man cannot live without natural nourishment, so neither can he live without spiritual nourishment–the body and blood of Christ–without Holy Eucharist. Christ makes this very clear. He says that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life*” (John, 6:53-54).

Holy Eucharist unites man with God. It deifies him. Since man unites with God, he also unites with other people. St. Paul says that “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the One Bread” (1 Corinthians, 10:17). This unifying of the people among themselves into one body is like the unity of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
greekorthodoxchurch.ca/eucharist.html

*My emphasis…well, Jesus’ actually…

AND, STIOFAN…I thank you bows

Also, Mr. Brent, the By bengeorge comment, :claps:

 

[irenaeus1]

David Brent:

I appreciate your loyalty to the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church does not resemble the early church in Acts. So, I have a hard time believing that the truth lies within the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. The Truth is in the Bible and the person of Jesus. Catholic and Protestant doctrine is not on par with the Bible.

It would seem that some church somewhere must have the truth… after all, the Bible states that the church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth. Incidentally, if it were not for the Catholic Church, you would not even have a Bible; it was the Catholic Church who discerned which books should be in the Bible from which you could even appeal for truth.

We are incapable of wrapping our minds around Truth. We get glimpses. Sometimes big chunks. Holding up doctrine as gospel is problematic.

So, the doctrine that Jesus is fully God and yet fully Man is problematic. What about the doctrine of the Fall of man – is this problematic? What about the doctrine that adultery, hatred, abortion are examples of moral evils – is this problematic? What about the doctrine that man will be judged by God according to his deeds – is this problematic? These doctrines (and all others contained in the deposit of faith) are TRUTH, and thus, are not problematic to the gospel.

Could it be that since the Reformation, more people have had access to the Bible and its original texts which led to a deeper insight or revelation about what the Bible says? Or are priests the only ones privy to divine inspiration?

People had access to the Bible through hearing the Word read and proclaimed at Mass. However, it is true that more people have had access to the bible (particularly for study) since the invention of the printing press and the increase in the literacy rates among the populace.

Careful about jumping on Protestants generally about subjects like contraception and gay marriage. There are many Catholics who use contraception and who support gay marriage. Further, there are many Protestants who oppose contraception and gay marriage.

Catholics who use contraception or support gay marriage are being disobedient. We know this because as a Catholic, we have a reference point with which to measure – it is the magisterial teaching of the Church. However, for the Protestant, since the only reference point they have is open to debate and interpretation, no one can know for certain which Protestant is wrong.
In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Church_Militant]

Check out this whole thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172

 

[David_Brent]

TeriGator:

Let’s take a look at what one of Christ’s apostles believed about whether the bread and wine become His body and blood:

1 Corinthians 11:27 (NIV)
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Corinthians 11:27 (KJV)
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.
29
****For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Good points TeriGator.

Did you know that it is believed that the letters to Corinth actually pre-date the Gospels? So Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper would technically be the first put to paper (or papyrus).

Earlier in the chapter, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for what is occuring at their Last Supper celebrations. This may or may not be a reference to what we think of as communion today (where we get in line and walk up front to receive the bread and wine). This may actually refer to more of a meal shared by the congregation. Paul rebukes them because when they come together, some are hoarding their food and not sharing, so others go hungry. Some who may not eat the rest of the week are gorging themselves or getting drunk.

In verse 26, just preceding the “Therefore” in verse 27, Paul says this: 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

“27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”

What Paul is saying is that when you approach communion in an unworthy manner by gorging yourself at the expense of those with nothing or you get drunk (or otherwise focusing only on yourself and your own desires), you are not honoring the sacrifice that the Lord has made for you which is the focus of the Last Supper remembrance. Communion is a time to show the Lord the appropriate reverance He deserves for the sacrifice He made for you.