Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[benhur]

Hey Edwin,

The way I have come to understand it, is that when an ordained priest of the Catholic Church gives blessing over the gifts of bread and wine, God (through the Holy Spirit and words of the priest) no longer regards the bread and wine as such, but as our Father in heaven (remembering His Son’s physical sacrifice) considers it to be this sacrifice.

Hi RC,

I think you are too nice in only stating “remembering”, and not also re-presenting. Remembering should not be a sacrifice, unless you mean of praise, which ties in better with thanksgiving /eucharist. We remember we no longer need to make propitiatory sacrifice, and that is a cause for “celebration”. We do not need “approval” or third party priest for “remembering”.

Seems the priest goes beyond remembrance with the blessing. It is quite still OT testament to bless a sacrifice and say, “may our sacrifice be acceptable to God the Almighty Father” or “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands (the priests’ hands)”, “We bring you these gifts, make them holy”

Sorry, Calvary and its remembrance (even a representing) is already acceptable and Holy, as evidenced by the Resurrection, and the directive to “remember”.

God gave us the sacrificial Gift and blessed it .He presented Calvary to us. No need to give Him back, and that thru a priest, and hoping it be “acceptable”. We are thankful that all that other stuff is behind us. Eucharist =Thanksgiving. Sacrifice of praise.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Opinions might vary. My comment was as to the pure history of the post. Sloppy.

Yes, as I was guiding neatness as to what is or should be “pure history” and not opinion.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Why, when only validly ordained priests have the power to confect the Eucharist?

I don’t believe what you are saying here is quite true according to the Catholic Church.

A priest does NOT “have the power to confect the Eucharist”.

I believe that the teaching of the Catholic Church is that somehow or another the HOLY SPIRIT does it thru the priest, NOT that the priest does it.

And as I have said before, God does NOT have to abide by our rules or our interpretation of rules.

I do not think/believe that God is as stingy as some think God to be and/or as some seem to want God to be.

 

[benhur]

I don’t believe what you are saying here is quite true according to the Catholic Church.

A priest does NOT “have the power to confect the Eucharist”.

I believe that the teaching of the Catholic Church is that somehow or another the HOLY SPIRIT does it thru the priest, NOT that the priest does it.

And as I have said before, God does NOT have to abide by our rules or our interpretation of rules.

I do not think/believe that God is as stingy as some think God to be and/or as some seem to want God to be.

Blessings to you TB . Keep going with such thinking and allow simpler thinking of what “remembrance/communion” should and can be, outside of transubstantiation, outside the “box” that is not as universal.

 

[spedteacherita]

Blessings to you TB . Keep going with such thinking and allow simpler thinking of what “remembrance/communion” should and can be, outside of transubstantiation, outside the “box” that is not as universal.

Hi, Ben,

While Christ did tell us to do it in “remembrance” of Him, He also said , “This IS my body - and later this IS my blood.” Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion. His favorite way to describe it was “in, with, and under.”

Time to go for my heart cath!

God bless

 

[Tom_Baum]

Hi, Ben,

While Christ did tell us to do it in “remembrance” of Him, He also said , “This IS my body - and later this IS my blood.” Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion. His favorite way to describe it was “in, with, and under.”

Time to go for my heart cath!

God bless

You wrote, “Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion”.

Are you saying ALL Lutherans?

Maybe Lutherans do not believe in the “True Presence” but I have read along the way that Martin Luther, most definitely, did.

As a matter of fact, I have seen it written that some of the other reformers wanted Martin Luther to change his mind concerning the “True Presence” and he declined.

 

[Telstar]

OK, I just wanted to look for a better definition for ‘literal’ than the one that was posted, yesterday. I think these will give us a better perspective: literal: adjective

1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical:
   the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly:
   a literal translation of Goethe.

3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:
a literal description of conditions.

4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
the literal extermination of a city.
Of all these 4 meanings, I would tend to think #3 and #4 are the best ones to use in this instance, as long as we remember that we are speaking of Jesus being the literal Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist, which becomes the literal Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ through the process of transubstantiation in the Mass. We have to remember that it’s all about perspective, whenever Jesus speaks. We also have to remember that there are several other ways to interpret scripture, but they are all based on the literal, first and foremost. I think, for the most part, this discourse speaks from the spiritual perspective.

 

[GKC]

Yes, as I was guiding neatness as to what is or should be “pure history” and not opinion.

Opinions vary, on that distinction, I have found.

 

[Peter_J]

instead of scoring cheap polemical points

Hmmm … Am I the only one who immediately pictured Kermit saying this, and then Fozzie exclaiming “Did someone say cheap polemical points”?

 

[GKC]

Hmmm … Am I the only one who immediately pictured Kermit saying this, and then Fozzie exclaiming “Did someone say cheap polemical points”?

Possibly.

 

[Telstar]

I don’t believe what you are saying here is quite true according to the Catholic Church.

A priest does NOT “have the power to confect the Eucharist”.

I believe that the teaching of the Catholic Church is that somehow or another the HOLY SPIRIT does it thru the priest, NOT that the priest does it.

And as I have said before, God does NOT have to abide by our rules or our interpretation of rules.

I do not think/believe that God is as stingy as some think God to be and/or as some seem to want God to be.

While it is the power of the Holy Spirit that makes it possible, the Priest actually confects the Eucharist.LETTER TO BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTER OF THE EUCHARIST

"1. In teaching that the priestly or hierarchical ministry differs essentially and not only in degree from the common priesthood of the faithful, the Second Vatican Council expressed the certainty of faith that only Bishops and priests can confect the Eucharistic Mystery. Although all the faithful indeed share in the one and the same priesthood of Christ and participate in the offering of the Eucharist, it is only the ministerial priest who, in virtue of the sacrament of holy Orders, can confect the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the person of Christ and offer it in the name of all Christian people."What it means when we say “In persona Christi”, is that the Priest stands “in the Person of Christ”. He fully represents Jesus at the moment of Consecration as if Jesus was actually standing in his shoes. So, it’s not the Priest that offers the Sacrifice, but it’s actually Jesus Christ Who offers Himself to the Father, as though He was hanging on the Cross at Calvary. At every Catholic Mass, we are all spiritually standing at the foot of the Cross at Calvary, along with every other Catholic that has, or will have ever attended Mass. We are all there, on that hill, whenever we attend a Catholic Mass.

 

[Abu]

Maranatha33
The Roman Church does hold to the literal flesh and blood in transubstantiation. (Which was an invention of pope innocent III at the 4th lateran Council of 1215 AD.)

This invention in the mind of the poster indicates the lack of understanding of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. As St Paul affirms: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor: 26,27).

Note the clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," which establishes the reality.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:

1. Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
2. By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the Supreme Vicar of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him.

No wonder there are so many sects disrupting the teaching of Christ when His real teaching is ignored.

 

[Peter_J]

In your usage, what does “literal” mean? The original meaning?

I was thinking about this question again today, and I think the following may help: that’s not what “literal” means, but it may work out, in many cases, that a literal meaning comes first and then a metaphorical use comes later.

An example where that is not the case is the word “moot”. If I wanted to indicate the older meaning of that word, I’d just have to say “moot, in the old sense”, because there’s nothing more literal about the old meaning than the newer meaning.

 

[benhur]

While it is the power of the Holy Spirit that makes it possible, the Priest actually confects the Eucharist.LETTER TO BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTER OF THE EUCHARIST

"1. In teaching that the priestly or hierarchical ministry differs essentially and not only in degree from the common priesthood of the faithful, the Second Vatican Council expressed the certainty of faith that only Bishops and priests can confect the Eucharistic Mystery. Although all the faithful indeed share in the one and the same priesthood of Christ and participate in the offering of the Eucharist, it is only the ministerial priest who, in virtue of the sacrament of holy Orders, can confect the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the person of Christ and offer it in the name of all Christian people."What it means when we say “In persona Christi”, is that the Priest stands “in the Person of Christ”. He fully represents Jesus at the moment of Consecration as if Jesus was actually standing in his shoes. So, it’s not the Priest that offers the Sacrifice, but it’s actually Jesus Christ Who offers Himself to the Father, as though He was hanging on the Cross at Calvary. At every Catholic Mass, we are all spiritually standing at the foot of the Cross at Calvary, along with every other Catholic that has, or will have ever attended Mass. We are all there, on that hill, whenever we attend a Catholic Mass.

Then is the Catholic eucharistic wording wrong when it asks, prays that the offering in “your hands be acceptable and holy”. Is Jesus asking the Father, again, for His sacrifice to be received as worthy and holy ? Asking and thanksgiving are at opposite ends of the process. I thought eucharist=thanksgiving ?

I would think that Jesus would say , “thank you Father for receiving Me and finding favor in my sacrifice”. Thanksgiving =eucharist.

 

[benhur]

Hi, Ben,

While Christ did tell us to do it in “remembrance” of Him, He also said , “This IS my body - and later this IS my blood.” Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion. His favorite way to describe it was “in, with, and under.”

Time to go for my heart cath!

God bless

Lord be with you sister.

Yes He said that while He was still whole physically, and the bread still looked like bread, and wine wine. He even still referred to wine as such just after His “consecrating” words. How could one not simply take it as spiritually symbolic, much like the old passover/covenant “elements”, and that for remembrance sake ?

 

[Thorolfr]

Hi, Ben,

While Christ did tell us to do it in “remembrance” of Him, He also said , “This IS my body - and later this IS my blood.” Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion. His favorite way to describe it was “in, with, and under.”

Time to go for my heart cath!

God bless

Lutherans use the term “sacramental union” rather than consubstantiation or transubstantiation to describe how the body and blood are present. According to Wikipedia:

Sacramental union (Latin, unio sacramentalis; Luther’s German, Sacramentliche Einigkeit;[1] German, sakramentalische Vereinigung) is the Lutheran theological doctrine of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Christian Eucharist.

The sacramental union is distinguished from the other “unions” in theology like the “personal union” of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the “mystical union” of Christ and his Church, and the “natural union” in the human person of body and soul. It is seen as similar to the personal union in the analogue of the uniting of the two perfect natures in the person of Jesus Christ in which both natures remain distinct: the integrity of the bread and wine remain though united with the body and the blood of Christ.[2]

In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ’s original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these “elements”—the consecrated bread and wine—really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

 

[Peter_J]

Lutherans use the term “sacramental union” rather than consubstantiation or transubstantiation to describe how the body and blood are present.

Indeed, although that doesn’t seem to be too well known. (Admittedly, I myself thought that Lutherans believed in consubstantion until about a dozen years ago.)

 

[Peter_J]

Lord be with you sister.

Yes He said that while He was still whole physically, and the bread still looked like bread, and wine wine. **He even still referred to wine as such just after His “consecrating” words. **How could one not simply take it as spiritually symbolic, much like the old passover/covenant “elements”, and that for remembrance sake ?

Forgive my laziness, but could you quote that verse?

 

[GKC]

Indeed, although that doesn’t seem to be too well known. (Admittedly, I myself thought that Lutherans believed in consubstantion until about a dozen years ago.)

This point seems to be a Lutheran motleyism.

 

[benhur]

Forgive my laziness, but could you quote that verse?

OK I will paraphrase “will not drink from the fruit of the vine till after I am in kingdom”. Something like that, and found in one of the gospels last supper scene.