SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Cal_Fullerton]

Just so we’re clear–that is my interpretation of Mel Gibson’s movie. I don’t know that he intentionally thought, “Oh, I’m going to put on the cinema the Stations of the Cross that Catholics have practiced for years.”

(Note: Mel Gibson is NOT a Catholic, but a schismatic.)

Oh, I see.

Have a blessed weekend. Take care of yourself and let Jesus care for you, too.

 

[labarrios]

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible also contains a Word Study referring to the Bread of Life Discourse.

Eats (Jn 6:54)
Trogo (Gk.): A verb meaning “chew” or “gnaw”. It is used five times in the fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John, the verb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus’ teaching, which up until Jn 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthio, Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words: He demands we express our faith by eating, in the real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.

Dios los Bendiga

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I quoted a series of Bible verses about a couple weeks ago that show what God says the essentials are. I’m shocked eek that you would say, “The Bible does not tell us what’s an essential belief/practice and what’s not, eh?” Do you ever read your Bible?

Could you please repost these verses?

And could you please make sure that these are not verses that *you *think are essential, but simply leave it to the Bible to tell us that essentials doctrines are being discussed.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I quoted a series of Bible verses about a couple weeks ago that show what God says the essentials are. I’m shocked eek that you would say, “The Bible does not tell us what’s an essential belief/practice and what’s not, eh?” Do you ever read your Bible?

That you did. I had forgotten about our prior conversation. I did a search and found your original post here.

And I noticed that you made no comment on my response to your list of essentials (which, BTW, do not mention the words “essential” or “necessary for salvation” at all). Perhaps you did not see my response.

At any rate, don’t you find it curious that in your list of essentials it doesn’t mention that there is just One God. So you don’t find MONOTHEISM to be an essential belief for salvation? A pagan can remain a pagan and be saved?

And I noticed that you didn’t mention the VIRGIN BIRTH in your list of essentials. Are you really professing that someone can believe that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary the regular way, as the Mormons do?

And I noticed that you didn’t mention the RESURRECTION in your list of essentials. Are you really professing that someone can deny the resurrection and still be a Christian?

And you excluded as an essential the verse that says God is LOVE. Is that a secondary doctrine? If so, how do you know?

And is a belief in the forgiveness of sins essential or secondary? And how do you know?



So, you can see, Cal, that your list is an arbitrary list of things YOU find to be essential (and you’re missing quite a few things that I’m pretty sure you do find essential even though they are quite CONSPICUOUSLY missing.)

But, no, the Bible does not mention what’s an essential and what’s not.

We leave that up to the Church to tell us since the Bible omits that part.

 

[wisdomseeker]

PR, I quoted a series of Bible verses about a couple weeks ago that show what God says the essentials are. I’m shocked eek that you would say, “The Bible does not tell us what’s an essential belief/practice and what’s not, eh?” Do you ever read your Bible?

Do you judge yourself is capable of disregarding the teachings of God as some are meaningful and some are not?

How do you decide which Commands of God are important and which are not important? do you believe that God spoke unimportant things? that we should simply disregard what He said? because after all these things that He said it is not really important to us. how do you decide when God speaks importantly and when He doesnt?

How does man is able to judge God Words?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Oops, my last post was a mistake.

Good point about feelings.

This is not an official answer, but I would say our purpose for communion is to remember and meditate on what Jesus did for us, and our being one with him through his sacrifice.
The church I grew up in used to encourage us to examine ourselves because of a verse in 1 Cor. 11, but I don’t personally believe that’s necessary for us as it was for the Corinthians. They were totally abusing the Lord’s Supper, as you know.

I’m running out of time before dinner but I don’t trust Protestant scholars as much as you suggest. Psalms says those who trust in man are unwise; but those who trust in God are smart.

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

The eucharist is more than a memorial. When Jesus said ‘do this in remembrance of me’, He used the same word as was used by the Jews in relation to the Passover. We work from translations, and that word just doesn’t have an equivalent in English. It is translated as remembrance but it means so much more.

THE EUCHARIST : A MEMORIAL SACRIFICE IN A SACRED MEAL

For most people the word Sacrifice means mainly giving up something valuable, it implies a loss. However, sacrifice had a much richer meaning for the Old Testament Jews. They had many different kinds of sacrifices. Some were completely burnt and destroyed, in others part of the sacrificial victim was eaten, others still the blood was a major part of the ceremony.

In the Passover, a lamb is sacrificed and eaten. In the New Passover, the Passion and Death of Jesus, the victim is also eaten, only in this case, it is Jesus Himself. Jesus is the Lamb of God. If we do not eat the victim, Jesus, we do not participate in the new Blood Covenant.

To whom do you go for authentic teaching when you find a passage in the Bible that is difficult to understand? If you don’t trust Protestant scholars, who do you trust?

Why do you accept the Authority of the Catholic Church to declare that certain writings are divinely inspired (the Bible) but then reject that same Authority when it comes to teachings that are hard to understand?

The first 400 years or so of Christianity, there was no bible. They had collections of writings but not every church had the same writings. After all, why would the Corinthians have the letters Paul sent to the Thessalonikans and vice versa?

Christianity was spread by the oral Teachings of the Apostles, not the Bible. They warned that there were people distorting the message and to remain true to the teachings they had received from the Apostles.

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist
St. Ignatius was taught by Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. It is thought that Ignatius might also have been taught by John before he died.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

ps - please keep my family in your prayers. We’ve just discovered that my niece has spent most of my 87 year old mother’s money that was supposed to last for the rest of her life. She’s got enough for another year and that’s it. My mom is heartbroken that her granddaughter would do this to her.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I’ll get to your replies next week, precious Saints.

Speaking of looking into the Saints, I watched Part I of Joan of Arc last night, starring Leelee Sobieski, Chad Willett, Jacqueline Bisset, et al. (Feb 20, 2001). Was/is Joan of Arc a Saint? Seems she was close to God. If anyone is familiar with the movie, was it accurate?

 

[Stephen_C]

I’ll get to your replies next week, precious Saints.

Speaking of looking into the Saints, I watched Part I of Joan of Arc last night, starring Leelee Sobieski, Chad Willett, Jacqueline Bisset, et al. (Feb 20, 2001). Was/is Joan of Arc a Saint? Seems she was close to God. If anyone is familiar with the movie, was it accurate?

Yes she is…
newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll get to your replies next week, precious Saints.

Speaking of looking into the Saints, I watched Part I of Joan of Arc last night, starring Leelee Sobieski, Chad Willett, Jacqueline Bisset, et al. (Feb 20, 2001). Was/is Joan of Arc a Saint? Seems she was close to God. If anyone is familiar with the movie, was it accurate?

I haven’t seen the movie but will point out one thing: did you notice that all of the practices that the Christians did in the 15th century were Catholic things?

IOW: does the Church that existed in history look more like your church, or more like the Catholic Church?

Just something to think about, friend.

 

[Philthy]

However, the evangelical commentaries believe John 6:53 looks forward to Jesus’ death on Calvary for our sins. In this case, Jesus was saying, “Unless you take in the benefits (consisting in the Holy Spirit) of Jesus’ sacrifice by making him your Lord, you have no life in you.”

One problem with this line of reasoning is that it leaves Christ in the position of having misrepresented the truth and then allowing them to leave without an explanation. It is unreasonable for them - well before the Crucifixion - to understand it in a way that we might in light of it. In short, if you adhere to the above proposal then you make Christ one who misleads others and allows them to suffer as a result of it. That can’t be right…
It also ignores the history of the first generation of disciples after the Apostles (the ECFs) who taught the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist (cf Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans)
And why, exactly, would we want to simply ignore or explain all that away?? IMO it is because the truth of it would require a major life change for those who are not prepared to embrace it.

As I understand you guys, while the Catholic Church would agree that one must walk by faith in Jesus in order to have eternal life, they see Jesus referring to the rite of Holy Communion in John 6:53.

It’s usually both in Catholicism, and I don’t think this is different. The walk of faith and the participation of Holy Communion are both there, but the Eucharist is primarily in view IMHO. This became especially obvious during the Last Supper when Christ said “This is my body…do this in memory* of me”.

I’m going to be busier during the next 5-6 days, so I’ll take a break from blogging until next week. Thanks.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

And I noticed that you made no comment on my response to your list of essentials (which, BTW, do not mention the words “essential” or “necessary for salvation” at all). Perhaps you did not see my response.

Hi, PR.

I did see your response, and I remember you saying, “That’s your opinion.” Did you think I wrote the Bible?

At any rate, don’t you find it curious that in your list of essentials it doesn’t mention that there is just One God. So you don’t find MONOTHEISM to be an essential belief for salvation? A pagan can remain a pagan and be saved?

Obviously, I don’t think you can be a pagan (non-Christian) and a Christian at the same time, but a careful study of 1 Cor. 8 shows that it is possible to believe there is more than one god and also be a Christian.

And I noticed that you didn’t mention the VIRGIN BIRTH in your list of essentials. Are you really professing that someone can believe that Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary the regular way, as the Mormons do?

That’s a slander against Mormons. It’s not true.
In any case, there’s a verse in Luke, I think, that connects the virgin birth with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. We know from 1 John that if you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, God is not in you. (I didn’t answer directly because I’m not prepared to answer at this time!)

And I noticed that you didn’t mention the RESURRECTION in your list of essentials. Are you really professing that someone can deny the resurrection and still be a Christian?

Well, if Jesus IS the Son of God he must be alive.

And you excluded as an essential the verse that says God is LOVE. Is that a secondary doctrine? If so, how do you know?

And is a belief in the forgiveness of sins essential or secondary? And how do you know?



So, you can see, Cal, that your list is an arbitrary list of things YOU find to be essential (and you’re missing quite a few things that I’m pretty sure you do find essential even though they are quite CONSPICUOUSLY missing.)

But, no, the Bible does not mention what’s an essential and what’s not.

We leave that up to the Church to tell us since the Bible omits that part.

You asked, “And you excluded as an essential the verse that says God is LOVE. Is that a secondary doctrine? If so, how do you know?”

I’ve never thought much about that one. I like it when I’m challenged because it puts me on a search for an answer and I usually find the answer. Thanks.
The parable of Jesus that pops into my mind that might apply here is the one about the servant who thought God was hard, so he hid his talent in the ground.
Did I mention Hebrews 11:6 where it says one must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who diligently seek him?
I guess those two points would indicate that you have to know God has at least little goodness in Him.
Do you have to believe God is love? No, because I’ve never met a Christian that has a full revelation of his love. Such a Christian would be perfect. Right?

I whole-heartedly disagree that the Bible does not mention what’s an essential. All the verses that say you must do such and such to be saved (enter the kingdom of God) are verses that tell what is essential.

The Bible tells us what’s not essential this way: If the Bible says that if you entrust your life to Jesus you will be saved, that means you will be saved. Any false belief that does not disagree with that statement, or does not prevent you from entrusting your life to Jesus, cannot cancel out God’s promise. See what I mean?

For example, if I were all powerful, and I promise you that if you stop at every red light during your journey to a certain destination, you will arrive safely, you could know for certain that you will arrive safely, even though you stop at your Uncle’s house for 10 minutes or stop for 30 minutes at a park. Since the stop at your Uncle’s house doesn’t constitute going through a red light, the promise stands.

You’re a real thinker, aren’t you?

Now, you have to answer my question: Do you read your Bible?

Goodnight.

Out of time to get to the other wonderful folks.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PR.

I did see your response, and I remember you saying, “That’s your opinion.” Did you think I wrote the Bible?

Friend, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I rarely, ever, have written, “That’s your opinion”. That just not part of my lexicon here on the CAFs.

But, I may be mistaken. (I was once in 1996 ) so if you could take me to that post that would be great.

 

[PRmerger]

Friend, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I rarely, ever, have written, “That’s your opinion”. That just not part of my lexicon here on the CAFs.

But, I may be mistaken. (I was once in 1996 ) so if you could take me to that post that would be great.

Oh, I think I see what you mean. Yes, I did say that those verses are indeed your opinion of what’s an essential.

Do you get what I’m saying? We could get another Christian here and ask, “What are the essential doctrines of Christianity that we must agree on?” and he’ll come up with totally different verses.

Why?

Because the Bible doesn’t say what’s an essential. You have to go by your opinion of what’s an essential.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you get what I’m saying? We could get another Christian here and ask, “What are the essential doctrines of Christianity that we must agree on?” and he’ll come up with totally different verses.

In fact, we need go no further than this post of mine, from June 2011 which limned the many, many different understandings of what’s an “essential” doctrine.

Because the Bible doesn’t say, does it?

There is much disagreement among Christians about what is “essential” to being a Christian.

In fact, just here on the CAFs I’ve found these variegated opinions:

Here’s what I learned from another Protestant on another thread about what’s considered “essential” by Protestants.

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (1 John 5:7)
7. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)
8. Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6)."

Then, here’s another different list of “essentials”.

Those “essentials” were written by Matt Slick of CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. The CARM web site states that CARM exists to defend the Christian faith by analyzing religions such as Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and comparing them to the Bible. They give (at least) these scriptural references. Certainly these essentials are lacking per Catholic dogma.

Primary Essentials:

Diety of Christ – John 8:24, John 8:58 + Exodus 3:14.
Salvation by Grace – Gal 5:4, Eph 2:8-9
Resurrection of Christ – 1 Cor 15:14, 1 Cor 15:17
Gospel – Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 15:1-4
Monotheism – Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, Exodus 20:3-6

Secondary Essentials:

Salvation – John 14:6
Trinity – John 3:16, John 5:26, 1 John 4:10, John 14:26, 15:26, Isaiah 44:24, Gal 3:13, Rom 15:16
Incarnation through Virgin Birth – Matt 1:23, John 8:24

And yet here is another list of “essentials”.

1)Love God with all you heart, soul, mind, body, etc.
2)Accept Jesus , because that’s the only way one can have the Father, by having Son., through Him you will live again.
3)Follow His commandments.
4)Preach His Gospel.
5)Wait His Second Coming and do not let, His Second Coming surprise you like a thief in the night, but be prepared for it, because we are sons of light and not of darkness.
6)If you have the opportunity in your lifetime, baptize.
7)Celebrate the Lord’s Supper. (The way you believe it is to be celebrated, God knows your heart, but you have to keep it.)

And I note that there are some egregiously missing “essentials”:
-God is love
-God created us
-Love one another
-God forgives our sins
-Repent and be baptized

At any rate, as Scripture does not delineate what’s essential to being a Christian, Christians must rely on an extra-biblical authority for this.

 

[PRmerger]

Obviously, I don’t think you can be a pagan (non-Christian) and a Christian at the same time, but a careful study of 1 Cor. 8 shows that it is possible to believe there is more than one god and also be a Christian.

Huh? It’s possible to believe there is more than one god and also be a Christian? I don’t think so.

Anyway, was 1 Cor 8 on your list of “essentials”? (I don’t think it was.)

That’s a slander against Mormons. It’s not true.

If you say so. At any rate, you didn’t mention the Virgin Birth being one of the essentials. Did you forget to add that to your list of verses, or do you really think that’s not an essential?

In any case, there’s a verse in** Luke**, I think, that connects the virgin birth with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. We know from 1 John that if you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, God is not in you. (I didn’t answer directly because I’m not prepared to answer at this time!)

Did you mention those verses in your list of essentials? I don’t think so. Luke didn’t even make the grade!

Well, if Jesus IS the Son of God he must be alive.

And yet there is no mention of the Resurrection in your list of essentials. Elijah is alive–the Bible says he did not die but was whisked away to heaven. Are you saying that he also is Resurrected?

You asked, “And you excluded as an essential the verse that says God is LOVE. Is that a secondary doctrine? If so, how do you know?”

I’ve never thought much about that one. I like it when I’m challenged because it puts me on a search for an answer and I usually find the answer. Thanks.
The parable of Jesus that pops into my mind that might apply here is the one about the servant who thought God was hard, so he hid his talent in the ground.

It’s not on your list of essentials though.

Did I mention Hebrews 11:6 where it says one must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who diligently seek him?

How curious you are Cal! Hebrews didn’t make your list either!

 

[PRmerger]

I guess those two points would indicate that you have to know God has at least little goodness in Him.
Do you have to believe God is love? No, because I’ve never met a Christian that has a full revelation of his love. Such a Christian would be perfect. Right?

You are saying that one can be a Christian and deny 1 John 4:8?

It is odd that you didn’t include that in your list of essentials.

I whole-heartedly disagree that the Bible does not mention what’s an essential.

Exactly. When you claim that something is an essential doctrine, and that other things are secondary and we are permitted to disagree on those, then you are following a man-made tradition. Something NOT found in the Bible.

Now, you have to answer my question: Do you read your Bible?

Of course I do. It’s a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics.

Incidentally, at Mass I bet I recite and hear more from the Bible than you do at your services on Sunday.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

PR, I think you’re confusing my point. The whole Bible is true and important (I’m glad you read it, by the way) but I’m looking for verses that specifically say such and such is something you must do or say or believe or you cannot enter the kingdom of God on this earth, or in the next life.

You are listing doctrines that are very basic but not doctrines that are stated by the Bible to be essential (mandatory) for justification (acceptance by God, forgiveness of sins). For example, there is no verse in the Bible that says, “Those who do not believe God is love are not in God,” or, “Anyone who believes there is more than one god will be condemned to eternal darkness and destruction on Judgment Day.”

---

At issue here is John 6:53 where Jesus mentions an essential requirement for entering eternal life or maintaining that life. He says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

The Catholic Church’s interpretation of John 6:53 cannot be so because if participation in the Holy Catholic Communion—no matter how powerful it is—were an indispensable requirement for living in Christ, then Jesus was wrong earlier in John 6. John 6:28-29 says,

They asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.’

Catholic Communion is apparently great. My ex-Catholic wife says it has been her experience that communion is more powerful in the Catholic Church than in Protestant churches. But if participation in Catholic Communion were necessary for salvation, then all the Protestants who are doing the work that God requires by believing in the one (Jesus) God has sent (John 6:29), are not justified and would go to hell if they died today.

Jesus can’t contradict himself. Therefore, the Protestant view of John 3:53 must be correct, and that is, according to the NIV Study Bible, that

flesh and blood point to Christ as the crucified one and the source of life. Jesus speaks of faith’s appropriation of himself as God’s appointed sacrifice, not—at least not directly—of any ritual requirement.

Have a great day, PR. We have our Thanksgiving table all set for the company to begin arriving tomorrow. Our Father is truly worthy of all our thanks!

I’m still planning to get to other people’s comments of last week.

 

[Church_Militant]

PR, I think you’re confusing my point. The whole Bible is true and important (I’m glad you read it, by the way) but I’m looking for verses that specifically say such and such is something you must do or say or believe or you cannot enter the kingdom of God on this earth, or in the next life.

John 6:54
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

(BTW, the Greek word for Thanksgiving is Eucharist.) ευχαριστω

 

[dandingo]

If this hasn’t been posted yet, here’s a great explanation of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist by Fr. Robert Barron …

youtube.com/watch?v=bJjW3LXuHzo

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

If this hasn’t been posted yet, here’s a great explanation of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist by Fr. Robert Barron …

youtube.com/watch?v=bJjW3LXuHzo

Thanks, dan. I can easily believe that the Word of God comes into the bread and wine as a result of words spoken by the priest. I believe that when we speak God’s words, God is speaking through us.

I can’t remember where it is, but there’s a verse where Jesus said he was sending us into the world as the Father has sent him, and that we will do even greater works than the Son did—by his power and authority, of course.