Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[benhur]

GREAT question, but you nor rightly understanding what IS taking place here

CHRIST IS THE PRIMARY AND ESSENTIAL SACRIFICE THAT WE DO OFFER BACK TO THE FATHER

“OUR SACRIFICE” here means ALL that we have; we OFFER back to God in UNION with Christ Sacrifice. It is in effect returning to GOD all that GOD has granted us for HIS use. Notably led by our “FREE-WILLS” being offered BACK to God: “THY WIll noy MY will be done” AMEN!

It is at times termed the “New Passover” in NAME but not in effect.

Even Jesus can and DID die only One Time for us; hence the Eucharist as indicated is correctly understood as “A” [not “thee”\ RE-Presentation; NOT a mere “represenatation”

**Part of the mystery; this miracle is that it is the VERY one and the very SAME Sacrifice Offered Originally by Jesus that IS made [RE] Preset [AGAIN] time and time again until the “End Times” is every Mass throughout the entire WORLD

God can do ANY “good thing” Because this IS GOD; Really, Truly and Substantially {all of Jesus}; it IS the GREATEST of all possible “good-things”: Literally GOD IN OUR MIDST here on earth

May THAT very GOD bless you!
PatrickHi Patrick,

As an old time father once said, “Lets us not suppose that because God can , that He does or has”, a generic rule that rings true in cautioning.

To my point , tell me why we have to hope and pray , that what He gave us, that He will accept back, as if it is conditionally good.

The consecratory prayer I quoted has reference to the gift at hand, the hand of the priest, the “Host” not our conditional compliance and good will or worthiness.

Why would we doubt that His perfect gift may not be accepted back as our offering ?

Again, our part is the obedience and thanksgiving and praise “sacrifice”. That is what we offer up. Pray that that be acceptable instead of representing Calvary, which we know is acceptable and pleasing to the Father, for ever.

But even our sacrifice is a no brainer , for that is what He commanded. Nothing to be praying or hopeful about. Like He tells us to do something, then we do it , but ask ,"I hope you like it "???

Blessings

 

[benhur]

My my my. So much discussion and discourse and no one is convinced.

sunsanlo, benhur, and skeptical Catholics, a dare: Call your local Catholic parish and find out when they offer adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Then go, and sit in the presence of what appears to the eyes to be bread. Tell the Lord that you simply cannot believe that He is there. Ask - beg - the Holy Spirit to reveal to you *whether or not *Christ is present in the Eucharist. Be as patient with the Lord as He has been with you. Remember that we are speaking of divinely revealed truth regarding Him whom you claim as your Savior.

When you are aware that He is there, you will be changed. Endless disputation serves only to dig the heels in. Humble, open-hearted submission to the Spirit enlightens and frees.

HI po.

Thank you for the dare. We or I have not been absent from experiencing a Catholic Mass, and more than once.

How about a double dare? For faith cometh by hearing and that by the Word of God. And indeed thankfully here on caf , we have had plenty of Writ and tradition to think about. So the double dare is to take all of it and go into any prayer closet of choice , and ask the indwelling Lord and Holy Ghost for the illumination, and patiently also ?

I do not doubt the religious feeling one may have on such a Catholic sacrament. But I also know “seek and ye shall find” is in play also. That is, what you seek , you shall find.

But thank you for your petition and how you spoke of how the Lord enlightens.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

HI po.

Thank you for the dare. We or I have not been absent from experiencing a Catholic Mass, and more than once.

How about a double dare? For faith cometh by hearing and that by the Word of God. And indeed thankfully here on caf , we have had plenty of Writ and tradition to think about. So the double dare is to take all of it and go into any prayer closet of choice , and ask the indwelling Lord and Holy Ghost for the illumination, and patiently also ?

I do not doubt the religious feeling one may have on such a Catholic sacrament. But I also know “seek and ye shall find” is in play also. That is, what you seek , you shall find.

But thank you for your petition and how you spoke of how the Lord enlightens.

Blessings

Hi Ben

Being in the presence of the Lord in Eucharistic adoration far exceeds a religious feeling, which can lack authenticity. I have felt God’s presence in there so strongly that I thought I would pass out.

Different experience from the Mass, especially if you are the only one in the chapel at the time.

Also different than any experience I ever had as a Non-Catholic Christian. Not that you cant have a deep spiritual experience the way you described, you most definitely can, but there is something about Eucharistic adoration that is hard to even put into words. Very powerful.

Pax

 

[MartinJordan]

Precisely!!!

And they can take it further by studying the Jewish understanding of Jesus statement…to do this in remembrance of Him. To a 1st century Jew that meant to make it alive again. To a 21st century American that means make a headstone and print some details on it and come once per year to visit.

And watch a Journey Home program of a Jew who converts to the Catholic Church. They go to a Mass for the first time and they feel at home as many Jewish customs are incorporated into the Mass. This is how it should be…yes we are saved by grace and not Jewish law, but Jesus did not come to abolish, he came to fulfill. And we should see the fingerprints of Judaism in our faith.

Since no one commented on above. Praise the Lord that this Jew convert saw the beauty of Truth

MJ

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Since no one commented on above. Praise the Lord that this Jew convert saw the beauty of Truth

MJ

 

[steve_b]

Hi stev,

yes took a quick look but…

benhur,

problem is, there was way too much in there to just take a quick look.
b:

The CC says what I fear , the priest/high priest is “as intermediaries between man and the Divinity, ,that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins (now the eucharist)”. and no distancing from this traditional sense is made

benhur ,

If you have questions regarding intermediaries, then ask away.

Re: The CC, that is Our Lord’s Church.#34 (look at all the internal links) He established it. He maintains it, He gives all His promises to His Church. And not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. In Context

Paul calls it the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 , apart from His Church there is no salvation. ( again, all internal links are operational #34 )

Re: the priesthood

Jesus established His priesthood. This is not some invention by some guy waking up one day in the 15th century or later, and decides to invent a new religion. The Catholic Church has been here from Jesus establishing her, and His priests do what Jesus ordained them to do.

Examples

when Jesus said

• "Do this"τε as in, do what I’m doing here (when He established the Eucharist) when He Changed bread and wine into His body blood in the Eucharist. #[6 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13753233&postcount=6)
• Forgive others their sins John20:22-23

Jesus established that, no one else.
b:

Yes thank you for Ignatius quote.

you’re welcome
b:

The previous post has a site that talks of this.That is , do not deny your view, just that an opposing view existed simultaneously, in early writings.

Blessings

What was that opposing view?

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said about the office of bishop and presbyter . . .

When I say they are interchangeable, I mean they were initially , as found in Writ . . . .

And all I am asking is that you show some evidence of this “IN writ”.

I don’t see how you are going to be able to do that without making a circular argument.

But I’ll wait and see what you write.

Concerning the historical quotes you offered in post 176, I will deal with those later. For now I want to see what you are alluding to within Sacred Scripture.

 

[steve_b]

Let’s be careful not to talk past each other. I don’t have an issue here. I just don’t believe the Apostles fully understood John 6 in a sacrificial sense.

To a Jew, what do they think of when they hear body and blood? Jn 6 is full of sacrificial language.
r:

Yes, they had faith. They believed He was from God. But it also had a lot of uncertainty. And how couldn’t it.

I just think it’s important, when discussing it with our Protestant brothers, not to sound like we think Peter and the others understood what Jesus was saying.

Yet Peter and the apostles weren’t arguing with Jesus. They had no problem with what Jesus was saying. They stayed. It was the others who protested Jesus teaching. THEY were the ones who left. THEY didn’t understand what Jesus was saying. Because they had no faith
r:

How could they? *He was speaking Sacramentally, but **didn’t show them the Sacrament yet.

---

Yes, Jn 6 is chalk full of sacramental language as well.

a sacrament is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace”

What’s the outward sign in Jn 6?

• giving His body and blood to eat
• He is the bread of life which we must eat

Where is the unseen component (grace) of a sacrament mentioned

• Since grace is life, and particularly life of the soul, ( life is mentioned 17 times in that discourse) which is what eating His body and blood gives the soul.

 

[rcwitness]

To a Jew, what do they think of when they hear body and blood? Jn 6 is full of sacrificial language.

and they murmured “How can this man give us His flesh and blood to eat/drink?”

Yet Peter and the apostles weren’t arguing with Jesus. They had no problem with what Jesus was saying. They stayed. It was the others who protested Jesus teaching. THEY were the ones who left. THEY didn’t understand what Jesus was saying. Because they had no faith

Faith doesn’t mean a complete understanding. I don’t believe Peter understood that Jesus was implying both His sacrificial death and it’s sacramental Supper. What he did believe is that Jesus was speaking on behalf of God and Peter trusted that Jesus would fulfill His Word. He didn’t understand how, but he trusted.

Yes, Jn 6 is chalk full of sacramental language as well.

a sacrament is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace”

What’s the outward sign in Jn 6?

• giving His body and blood to eat
• He is the bread of life which we must eat

Where is the unseen component (grace) of a sacrament mentioned

• Since grace is life, and particularly life of the soul, ( life is mentioned 17 times in that discourse) which is what eating His body and blood gives the soul.

Yep. Did Peter understand this?

 

[Techno2000]

THEY didn’t understand what Jesus was saying. Because they had no faith

Right, their carnal flesh minds couldn’t understand, because he was talking about something supernatural and spiritual,so whatever he said was no avail for them in understanding what he was saying.

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6;63

Living in the Spirit

The** mind of the flesh** is death, but the** mind of the** ****Spirit is life ****and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8:6-8

 

[steve_b]

and they murmured “How can this man give us His flesh and blood to eat/drink?”

And their murmuring turned into their rejection of what Jesus was teaching them and they left Him never to return
r:

Faith doesn’t mean a complete understanding.

If one understood everything perfectly one wouldn’t need faith.
r:

I don’t believe Peter understood that Jesus was implying both His sacrificial death and it’s sacramental Supper.

Jesus drew direct reference to manna in the desert and Himself being the bread of life… Eating the manna saved those from dying of starvation, just as eating the bread of life (Jesus) will keep one’s soul alive.

Point being

• Jn 6 is loaded with sacramental and sacrificial language.
• the apostles didn’t argue about anything Jesus was teaching them. No push back came from His apostles. They believed what Jesus said.
• Peter said it all.* “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”*
• except for Judas

 

[rcwitness]

If one understood everything perfectly one wouldn’t need faith.

Exactly. Yet, they understood fully what Jesus was saying only after His Supper, death and resurrection.

Jesus drew direct reference to manna in the desert and Himself being the bread of life… Eating the manna saved those from dying of starvation, just as eating the bread of life (Jesus) will keep one’s soul alive.

Point being

• Jn 6 is loaded with sacramental and sacrificial language.
• the apostles didn’t argue about anything Jesus was teaching them. No push back came from His apostles. They believed what Jesus said.
• Peter said it all.* “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed*, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
• except for Judas

The Jews referenced the manna, no? Jesus was fulfilling the Passover Lamb in Himself. He doesn’t mention the Passover Lamb, just Manna. I suppose because the Jews brought it up. They should have seen the Passover in His words, right?

 

[rcwitness]

Interestingly enough, is that the Jews could not have the Manna in the wilderness without the Passover Lamb of Egypt.

 

[rcwitness]

I believe we (as Catholics) should agree with the Symbolic Communion about an aspect of the Bread of Life discourse (John 6). Namely, that Jesus is talking about the Bread of His Word. Yet the Bread of His Word was bound to His actual flesh and blood. Because, He is the Word made flesh.

So to diminish the Lord’s Supper as only symbolic, doesn’t quite do Communion justice. Consider this verse 53:
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
The word Mass even means “sent”! We are nourished by the Word of the Father at Mass. We receive His Scripture and His Eucharist at the one table of Mass. We are then “sent” to be Christ in the world.

 

[NickyMaz]

Having come from an evangelical background we were told that the catholic practice was impossible because it was unscientific, but these were the same people who took the seven day creation story as literal truth and thought the universe was 6,000 years old.

One thing we never talked about in church was actual church history, because if we did we would have learned that the Eucharist has been practiced by Christians since day one. That’s were their arguments fall apart.

 

[PJM]

Hi benhur,

In looking at the following offices, in scripture

• apostles
• Priest / presbuteros / elder catholic.com/encyclopedia/priest
• *Bishop / episkopos * catholic.com/encyclopedia/bishop
• *Deacon / *diakonos catholic.com/encyclopedia/deacons

I thought I would show how those in apostolic times, those who were ordained by the apostles, taught on this subject?

Bp Ignatius, of Antioch, was ordained by the apostles and was a direct disciple of John the apostle. Ignatius mentions all the offices AND the name of the Church that Jesus established. He wrote this letter ~107 a.d. on his way to be thrown to the lions. He had been bishop for about 40 years at this writing. Keep in mind, there was no NT at this time. The NT writings hadn’t been identified yet, nor assembled or canonized yet. John had just written Revelations 7 yrs earlier.

Ignatius hit all the subjects in this one chapter

Epistle to the Smyrnæans Chapter 8. (emphasis mine)

Let nothing be done without the bishop

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Ignatius wrote to the Catholic Church in 6 locations

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyrnæans

Plus 1 other letter

• Epistle to Polycarp

plus 1 letter written about him

• The Martyrdom of Ignatius

Full Question
catholic.com/qa/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned

The New Testament mentions three categories of Church leaders: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So how can the Catholic Church justify its office of “priest”? The New Testament writers seem to understand “bishop” and “presbyter” to be synonymous terms for the same office (Acts 20:17-38).

**BISHOPS [Douay Bible] **
1 Tim 3: 1,2
Titus 1:3
1 Pet. 2:25

DEACON [RSV Bible]
Rom 16:1
Phil 1:1
1 Tim 3:8, 10, 12, 13

PRIEST; [presbyter[/COLOR]]
Answer
The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the** New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23)****. The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they d administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so 8, 10, 12, 13wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or "presbyter.’ END QUOTES**

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben

Being in the presence of the Lord in Eucharistic adoration far exceeds a religious feeling, which can lack authenticity. I have felt God’s presence in there so strongly that I thought I would pass out.

Different experience from the Mass, especially if you are the only one in the chapel at the time.

Also different than any experience I ever had as a Non-Catholic Christian. Not that you cant have a deep spiritual experience the way you described, you most definitely can, but there is something about Eucharistic adoration that is hard to even put into words. Very powerful.

Pax

Hi La,

Thank you for sharing the pearls of your heart. Understand, Been there . And thank you for understanding "closet’ 'experiences.

I wonder if OT Jewish experiences were limited in physical things as far as effectual spiritual experience,certainly relative to pagan worship and pagan temples.

I am also reminded of a Richard Wurmbrand message. It is titled “The Power of Nothing”. It is based on what he experienced as a prisoner for his faith in the old Soviet Union. He had nothing in his room save a bowl. But in that darkness Christ became everything, and was stronger than anything physical. He spoke of the Earth rotating on it’s axis, which of course does not exist, therefore can not wear out, or require maintenance (being held by gravity by forces perfectly placed and ultimately being the Word of God).

I think of David not passing out but weeping before the Lord all night soaking His pillow. Yet he danced with Joy before the Ark (God’s place of presence).

We are now His ark. We are promised His inner presence, not just with us but in us Jesus said. And corporately also (where two or three are gathered).

As far as adoring the Eucharist,well I can see contemplating Calvary, for which the bread symbolizes.That enough could cause one to pass out. As you know for me , I kindly submit it is not necessary therefore to insist in His presence within the host, and for sure inner presence and corporate presence (you and the priest are two and therefore …) are promised and also enough.

Again ,thank you for sharing.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Having come from an evangelical background we were told that the catholic practice was impossible because it was unscientific, but these were the same people who took the seven day creation story as literal truth and thought the universe was 6,000 years old.

One thing we never talked about in church was actual church history, because if we did we would have learned that the Eucharist has been practiced by Christians since day one. That’s were their arguments fall apart.

HiNM,

Welcome to CAF…thanks for sharing.

Indeed church history may be lacking in many churches. If I only add one caveat, and that is that some respected historians will also say the symbolic and or spiritual presence views were also held since day one.

The CC final communion declaration (Trent ?) certainly can be shown to be an evolving teaching, even if from day 1,

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur,

problem is, there was way too much in there to just take a quick look.

benhur ,

If you have questions regarding intermediaries, then ask away.

Re: The CC, that is Our Lord’s Church.#34 (look at all the internal links) He established it. He maintains it, He gives all His promises to His Church. And not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. In Context

Paul calls it the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 , apart from His Church there is no salvation. ( again, all internal links are operational #34 )

Re: the priesthood

Jesus established His priesthood. This is not some invention by some guy waking up one day in the 15th century or later, and decides to invent a new religion. The Catholic Church has been here from Jesus establishing her, and His priests do what Jesus ordained them to do.

Examples

when Jesus said

• "Do this"τε as in, do what I’m doing here (when He established the Eucharist) when He Changed bread and wine into His body blood in the Eucharist. #[6 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13753233&postcount=6)
• Forgive others their sins John20:22-23

Jesus established that, no one else.

you’re welcome

What was that opposing view?

Hi stev,

The opposing view ,what we were talking about, is that of early church writers saying bishop and presbyter were interchangeable.

Understand that the CC teaches the Last Supper was a command for priests, as the apostles were there as office holders.

I feel that is an assumption. For sure then we must discern every time Jesus told the apostles to do something, whether it was only for ordained or laity…So for example , is foot washing only for ordained, and feeding sheep only for ordained,etc .Then what are we disciples for ? What is the end of our maturity? Not to do what our spiritual fathers do ?

Yet of course there are offices, giftings. Just have not seen in scripture setting aside of presiding over rites, not for mature, spirit filled Christians , but for ordained Christians only.

Blessings.

 

[benhur]

benhur. You said about the office of bishop and presbyter . . .

And all I am asking is that you show some evidence of this “IN writ”.

I don’t see how you are going to be able to do that without making a circular argument.

But I’ll wait and see what you write.

Concerning the historical quotes you offered in post 176, I will deal with those later. For now I want to see what you are alluding to within Sacred Scripture.

Hi C,

Ok, don’t have them at my fingertips, nor the site, but I did give your other half of Word ,in early father writings. Any comment on those? For they clearly use precedent and writ for their conclusions ( i think i only quoted their conclusions).

Not sure if circular . If I call you Catholic at times, and other times brother, and other times Christian, is that circular to then say they are interchangeable ?

I believe that is how bishops and presbyters are found in writ and father writings. Inetrchangeable based on context.

Blessings