D
Doreen
Guest
If so, how is the current priesthood any different?
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
Plenty of people who desired to follow him did not know “exactly what he meant” at the Bread of Life Discourse.
Are you saying that if you accept him on your own terms, that’s good enough? I am not quite sure what you mean. Jesus is a good guy, he’ll take care of me as long as I love him on my own terms? You may be right. But is that enough for you?
Another quote from the Catholic encyclopedia:
He’s wrong in that these ARE supported by foundations…the foundations laid out in every other context of Christ’s teachings.Are you saying that the parabolic interpretation is grounded in the words of Jesus?
I don’t understand what you are saying. What man?
Justin Martyr (doctor of the Church, consistently referred to in later writings) is an early witness of what the sub-Apostolic Church universally believed. It is cavalier to dismiss Justin’s passage as “simply written by one who thinks this way.” And even if you choose to dismiss it, the passage presents (along with other early writings) evidence that the sub-Apostolic Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In contrast, what does the complete absence of any testimony to the contrary in early Church writings say?
D
Dorothy
Guest
Because it is the priesthood that Jesus himself established to make present His once-for-all Sacrifice to all of us, down through the ages!
And, Jesus has left His authority with the Church, His authority to define matters of faith and morals, so there would be no question or ambiguity about what He means for His flock. The Church is protected from error in faith and morals, in spite of the sinfulness or holiness of its members.
M
Mickey
Guest
Go ahead and dismiss this “Justin Martyr stuff” if that makes you feel comfortable. It is further evidence in addition to the clear teaching of Scripture and St Ignatius and all of the early Christian Saints and doctors of the Church. Here’s more!
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?
(St Irenaeus Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ
(St Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
D
Doreen
Guest
Then how did they “come up with” the whole Eucharistic preparation ceremony exactly!???
My point made.I live to be adhered completely to Christ ON HIS TERMS…If I did not, I would not spend the time I have on all this discussion.
One thing I need to point out…
I would rather be proven wrong and find the truth than to have the “satisfaction” of having my arguments win out on here if they are not in line with Christ.
Please always keep this in mind as you read my posts. I know that I am swayed in one direction and I am arguing fiercely for that side, but that does not mean I am fully convinced. If I were, I would not bother to debate it, except perhaps to show others the truth.
That is exactly what I am saying and have been saying. He spoke in figurative language very often. He said so himself. Why would this be so hard to accept as figurative then?
I was referring to (I assumed a male) the author of the excerpt of that wonderfully cryptic encyclopedia you shared.
By cryptic, I mean, your “average Joe” would not get past the first paragraph and would just say, “Well, he clearly has a lot to say about this, so he’s clearly studied this in depth, therefore what’s said here must be accurate.” (I understand that most encyclopedias are written by committee, so i say “man” and “he” just to imply that it was constructed by someone.)
This is where the question lies…in what to believe…in how to trust the interpretations made by the early church.
I agree that Christ has promised to protect “his body” (the church)…I question whether he was referring to the church you think he’s referring to…that’s the dilemma.
And finally, I have a personal testimony, as long as my arm …leg, and other arm…regarding the numerous times the Lord has answered the cry of my heart through His word and His Spirit. So I stand as a witness to His faithfulness, and I see His leading me to the text in Hebrews as yet another time where He is teaching me and showing me His ways.
Should I deny His mighty work in curing my mother of Cancer? Should I deny His intervention for a young man who was about to have his organs donated after a motorcycle accident when miraculously he showed responsiveness and is now almost 100% recovered?
Should I question the proddings of the Holy Spirit that have led me to a church that has made my marriage an incredible testimony to His restoring work, when not long ago I might have walked away altogether from my marriage?
Should I doubt His work in transforming numerous members of my immediate family from people living in sin and depression, but who now praise God daily and are free of the pull of the world?
You doubt my faith…you doubt my grasp of the fullness of truth?
Do you doubt that God has been at work in all these things, as well as in answering my very cries?
I stand here knowing that I KNOW Christ and He KNOWS me. I will not be one called “luke warm” when I stand before Him…so long as His Spirit is within me. I hope that you, too, have felt His REAL PRESENCE since you profess that’s what you partake of.
Not to be indicting here…I am passionate about which I profess. You should expect nothing less of a follower of Christ.
D.
D
Dorothy
Guest
Doreen wrote:
<<Should I deny His mighty work in curing my mother of Cancer? Should I deny His intervention for a young man who was about to have his organs donated after a motorcycle accident when miraculously he showed responsiveness and is now almost 100% recovered?
Should I question the prodding of the Holy Spirit that have led me to a church that has made my marriage an incredible testimony to His restoring work, when not long ago I might have walked away altogether from my marriage?
Should I doubt His work in transforming numerous members of my immediate family from people living in sin and depression, but who now praise God daily and are free of the pull of the world>>
No, I do not doubt that God is good and that He answers prayer according to His Will. I rejoice in your answered prayers!
But, as a sincere believer in what the Catholic Church teaches on the Eucharist, I cannot agree that He is leading you away from the whole truth…
<<Should I deny His mighty work in curing my mother of Cancer? Should I deny His intervention for a young man who was about to have his organs donated after a motorcycle accident when miraculously he showed responsiveness and is now almost 100% recovered?
Should I question the prodding of the Holy Spirit that have led me to a church that has made my marriage an incredible testimony to His restoring work, when not long ago I might have walked away altogether from my marriage?
Should I doubt His work in transforming numerous members of my immediate family from people living in sin and depression, but who now praise God daily and are free of the pull of the world>>
No, I do not doubt that God is good and that He answers prayer according to His Will. I rejoice in your answered prayers!
But, as a sincere believer in what the Catholic Church teaches on the Eucharist, I cannot agree that He is leading you away from the whole truth…
D
Doreen
Guest
Mickey, Can you show me where and when they received the command and direction for this “holy invocation”…?Go ahead and dismiss this “Justin Martyr stuff” if that makes you feel comfortable. It is further evidence in addition to the clear teaching of Scripture and St Ignatius and all of the early Christian Saints and doctors of the Church. Here’s more!
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?
(St Irenaeus Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ
(St Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
Again…this person is writing hundreds of years after Christ, so how does one know that he has remained in line with the authentic instructions of Christ?
M
Mickey
Guest
The teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is throughout Sacred Scripture. We’ve been trying to show you.
This remark does not make sense to me.
The teaching of the real absence became popular in protestant circles at least 1500 years after Christ.
Ignatius of Antioch–Disciple of St John–letter dated around 90AD
Justin Martyr-- letter dated 151AD
St Irenaeus–letter dated 189AD
St Cyril oF Jerusalem letter dated 350AD
I could go on and on…
Can you not see the apostolic succession–the continuous teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Please pray about this.
M
mercygate
Guest
What exactly is the point you are making by the statement “‘come up with’” the whole Eucharistic preparation ceremony"? I suspect somebody planted this idea in your mind. The whole Mass is so deep in Scripture, so embedded in the Gospels, that only a detractor could possibly use a phrase like “come up with” as if to say this is a (drum roll) Tradition of Men.Then how did they “come up with” the whole Eucharistic preparation ceremony exactly!???
I think we covered that earlier. “Amen, amen” is part of the answer. He also spoke literally many times. Why is THAT so hard to accept?
Ah. Thanks. I would have called the article exhaustive but not “cryptic.”I was referring to (I assumed a male) the author of the excerpt of that wonderfully cryptic encyclopedia you shared.
By cryptic, I mean, your “average Joe” would not get past the first paragraph and would just say, “Well, he clearly has a lot to say about this, so he’s clearly studied this in depth, therefore what’s said here must be accurate.” (I understand that most encyclopedias are written by committee, so i say “man” and “he” just to imply that it was constructed by someone.)
When Catholics review the history of doctrine, we consider a wide distribution of documents affirming a single position to be very strong evidence. When we find sources from Asia (Ignatius), Jerusalem (Justin Martyr), and Gaul (Athanasius of Lyons) all coming down on the same page, then we know the teaching is universal to the entire Church. Ignatius of Antioch was directly evangelized by St. John the Apostle. Ignatius personally influenced Polycarp of Smyrna, and Irenaeus of Lyon was taught by Polycarp. That is a three-link direct chain to Jesus himself.
Just to put that time-line in perspective, it is about the same length as the time between my daughter and my great grandmother. My great grandmother was 7 years old when Lincoln was shot. I remember sitting on her lap while she told me that her parents had taken her to view the funeral train as it made its way through Illinois. I have relayed that story to my daughter exactly as I heard it from her. So the transmission (to more people than my great-grandmother told her story to) from John to Athanasius is extremely credible.
We look to history. The Catholic Church today is clearly the same Church that was called “the Catholic Church” in the 16th, 12th, 7th, 5th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st Centuries. What other candidates for “the” Chrch are there?
[text deleted to save space]Doreen: you are saying that acceptance of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist would mean denying the graces you have received from God. What kind of logic is that? As a Convert, I have never for 5 seconds believed it was necessary to deny anything of grace that I received before I became Catholic. God is not small.
We don’t doubt your faith. We do doubt that you grasp the points we have laid out concerning the evidence of Scripture and Tradition concerning the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
M
Mickey
Guest
M
MariaG
Guest
Kitty Chan:
In a Nazarene Church I was in, their contention was that Jesus drank grape juice. People only accidently drank wine when the grape juice got fermented. Huge issue with them.
M
mercygate
Guest
The Last Supper is the initiation of the Eucharist. We see the first citation of a Eucharistic prayer (holy invocation) in I Cor 11:23-25 Paul uses the same words Jesus used at the Last Supper. Scholars claim that this passage is actually older than the Gospels:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
But perhaps you are not asking about this? You are asking about the elaboration of the Mass? Whatever our liturgies include is in there for a reason. The liturgy reflects the Jewish roots of the Passover meal, includes a penitential rite for placing ourselves in perspective against the perfect holiness of God, the synagogue tradition of reading and interpreting the Word (3 Scripture readings plus a Psalm on Sundays; 2 readings on weekdays followed by a homily), the offering of the gifts of bread and wine, the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, the consecration of the elements, Communion, thanksgiving, final blessing and the sending out of the congregation to proclaim the Good News.
See my earlier post about this not-so-lengthy time frame.
M
mercygate
Guest
Sorry. That’s Irenaeus of Lyon. Athanasius is in Africa (Egypt).
H
Huguenot
Guest
but for me it seems incompatible with the notion of real presence ; somebody has tried to explain to me that Mass is not a “renewal” of the sacrifice but its “re-presentation”, but it is difficult for me to see the difference, all the more as during Mass the priest ( in French, I don’t know what words are used in the United States ) says , before the Eucharist, praying to God “the sacrifice we offer you” … it seems like a real sacrifice, a repetition of it …
H
Huguenot
Guest
I don’t doubt you have it, only it seems we understand some passges in very different ways …
M
mercygate
Guest
This may be a language problem. In a way we do have to offer **our **sacrifice each time we come to the Sacrament because we are locked in time and space. In order to follow the mandate of our Lord to “do this,” we must bring our bread and wine each time we follow his word. Christ is not limited by time and space, but in the Incarnation brings time and space into a physical relationship with eternity. So we bring our bread and our wine to the table, where it is consecrated and united with the one true Sacrifice of Christ.
H
Huguenot
Guest
But what sacrifice could we offer to God ? Jesus has offered Himself for us, there is no sacrifice we could offer Him in return…
In my church we don’t consecrate the bread and the wine, we thank God for Christ’s sacrifice…
And we commemorate His death in “remembrance of him”, just as He ordered us to do, which means that we remember that He died for our sins …
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Kitty Chan:
However the question I quoted above remains … BOTH are envisioning.
Im going to bring up this point again and maybe suggest that the catholics have a tradition they feel strong about unfortunetly it tends to be exclusive. Whereas the protestant “version” tends to be inclusive of different churches.
However the question I quoted above remains … BOTH are envisioning.
M
mercygate
Guest
Kitty Chan:
Perhaps the main problem in dialogue between Protestants and Catholics on this subject is that Protestants tend to oppose “spirit” and “flesh.” But since in Christ, the spirit and flesh are united, we insist that his spiritual presence is “real” in the Eucharist, and we partake of it by faith in his words: my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
It is a mystery. In my experience, “mystery” is a word that Protestants find revolting.
Historic Protestantism has not been “inclusive” regarding the Lord’s Supper. Common belief on the nature of this central point of Christian practice was always considered crucial for admission to the Lord’s table. Only recently have the denominations softened and allowed inter-communion.Im going to bring up this point again and maybe suggest that the catholics have a tradition they feel strong about unfortunetly it tends to be exclusive. Whereas the protestant “version” tends to be inclusive of different churches.
However the question I quoted above remains … BOTH are envisioning.
Perhaps the main problem in dialogue between Protestants and Catholics on this subject is that Protestants tend to oppose “spirit” and “flesh.” But since in Christ, the spirit and flesh are united, we insist that his spiritual presence is “real” in the Eucharist, and we partake of it by faith in his words: my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
It is a mystery. In my experience, “mystery” is a word that Protestants find revolting.
M
Mickey
Guest
This makes me think of a quote by St John of Kronstadt.
**When the matter relates to God’s Mysteries, do not inwardly ask: how can this be? You do not know how God created the world from nothing; you cannot and may not know here either how God mysteriously works. God’s Mystery must remain a mystery for you, because you are not God, and cannot know all that is known to the eternally Wise, Almighty God. **
St. John of Kronstadt
- Status