SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Cal_Fullerton]

Thanks for clearing some things up, Miguel.

I asked my Catholic step-son and step-daughter if the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants like me aren’t Christians because we aren’t Catholic. My step-daughter said, “That’s crazy. Anyone born-again, whatever church they’re in, is a Christian.”

My step-children may not be typical Catholics although they’ve been Catholics for decades, but their beliefs served to remind me that Catholics on this forum may not be typical.

Now, in defense of my Catholic brothers and sisters on this forum, I’d like to say that adding an extra requirement for salvation to what the New Testament requires does not ban someone from salvation. If I say to someone, “You will get to the top of the tree if you climb up one limb at a time and yell ‘I’m a monkey’ at each limb,” that someone will make it to the top even though yelling “I’m a monkey” wasn’t necessary.

PR clearly told us that faith in Jesus is a requirement. Is it an imperfect faith with lies mixed in? Certainly. However, none of us have a perfect revelation of the nature of Christ and his ways. That’s why we need the covering of the blood of Jesus.
As I understand it, the covering of the blood of Jesus is part of what we celebrate in communion.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

how do you decide when God speaks importantly and when He doesnt?

The Bible itself tells us what is most important and what is not as important. We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

How does the Catholic Church interpret, “My sheep listen to my voice” (John 10:27)?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Bible itself tells us what is most important and what is not as important. We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

How does the Catholic Church interpret, “My sheep listen to my voice” (John 10:27)?

How can you prove that HS is guiding you and not the Church Jesus found?

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

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.

I don’t doubt that. I’ve heard Protestant teachers say something similar.

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.

I understand “eating Jesus” as a moment by moment activity in which he is constantly filling me with his living water. It is not limited to the time of communion or mass. “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him” (John 7:38).

You experience that too, don’t you, Linda?

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?

I have lots of respect for many Protestant scholars and anyone, Protestant or Catholic, who I can discern is walking close to God. However, until the Spirit of God reveals to me what that difficult passage means, I have to say I don’t know what it means. Saying “I don’t know” seems to be a lost art, but I think it’s needed if we are going to remain humble and teachable.

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?

I don’t think anyone has the authority to make me believe an untruth.

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.

That was then; this is now. I believe that as Jesus’ return draws closer, his people will grow in purity and the devil’s crowd will grow in unrighteousness. Our Father will keep us safe!

I will put your mom on my prayer list.

The grace that comes through you is a blessing to me. You don’t come across as argumentative. You make Catholicism attractive.

 

[Church_Militant]

]

Which is right in line with the New Testament when it calls the church the pillar and ground of the truth.

Sometime I’d like to have a discussion about what the New Testament says the church is, but it’s off topic for now, I’m afraid.

You know how to open a new thread don’tcha?

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks for clearing some things up, Miguel.

I asked my Catholic step-son and step-daughter if the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants like me aren’t Christians because we aren’t Catholic. My step-daughter said, “That’s crazy. Anyone born-again, whatever church they’re in, is a Christian.”

My step-children may not be typical Catholics although they’ve been Catholics for decades, but their beliefs served to remind me that Catholics on this forum may not be typical.

Now, in defense of my Catholic brothers and sisters on this forum, I’d like to say that adding an extra requirement for salvation to what the New Testament requires does not ban someone from salvation. If I say to someone, “You will get to the top of the tree if you climb up one limb at a time and yell ‘I’m a monkey’ at each limb,” that someone will make it to the top even though yelling “I’m a monkey” wasn’t necessary.

The only thing that may “save someone’s bacon” would be the mitigation of having someone teach them wrongly, hence James 3:1.

When our Lord Himself tells us,
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.

PR clearly told us that faith in Jesus is a requirement. Is it an imperfect faith with lies mixed in? Certainly. However, none of us have a perfect revelation of the nature of Christ and his ways. That’s why we need the covering of the blood of Jesus.

As I understand it, the covering of the blood of Jesus is part of what we celebrate in communion.

Which is why we Catholics celebrate the Eucharist the way we do. Whereas the Jews struck the doorposts and lintels of their homes with the hyssop and the Passover lamb’s blood making the sign of the cross, we also make that same sign in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Remember that the last supper was a Passover celebration. Passover was not just a meal or memorial, but was a re-presentation of that original Passover so that all Israel’s descendants would participate in it’s fullness and meaning…in that same covenant. This is the same as the Eucharist, a Zikaron, (Hebrew) and Anamnesis (Greek) of the sacrifice on Calvary. (You might do well to carefully read the Catechism on the Eucharist. It’s quite long, but it’s very deep and so needs careful study. Enter the Catechism at this paragraph)

In the same way that the Jews re-presented and made present the original Passover sacrifice, we also make present and are united in the sacrifice of the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, jm.
I’m not letting you off the hook that easy!
Mormons claim that God reestablished the church of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.
How can you prove that your church holds the authority of God and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other non-Catholic church?

This is a probing question that is not easily answered.

Cal, I answered this, and it was an easy one, and I think I get extra points because I actually used you as the example!

Here’s how we prove that our Church upholds the authority of God and not the LDS: each and every time you quote from the Scriptures that the Catholic Church discerned for you as being* theopneustos*, and you don’t quote from the Book of Mormon as being inspired, you give proof to the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi, jm.
I’m not letting you off the hook that easy!
Mormons claim that God reestablished the church of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.

When God sends a new revelation (as He has done twice in history, now) He accompanies it with public signs and miracles. We know that Jesus is Who He claimed to be, because He raised Himself up from the dead. No such miracle accompanied the revelations of Joseph Smith. Nor did Joseph Smith even claim or pretend to be God Incarnate, so he is definitely not the Messiah.

How can you prove that your church holds the authority of God and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other non-Catholic church?

Very easily. The four marks of the Church are that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. A further identifying characteristic is that it was founded by the man Jesus Christ, while still in His flesh here on earth.

Is the Mormon Church “one”? Possibly. Is it “holy”? It contains many heresies, and much that contradicts the plain teaching of Christ, including polygamy. Is it catholic? (That is, is it open to the whole human race, if they want to convert?) Not at all, being confined as it is to only the English-speaking members of the white race. Is it Apostolic? Clearly not, since it dates back only to the 1800s. And obviously it was not established by Jesus Christ during His lifetime here on earth.

This is a probing question that is not easily answered.

Luckily, I’ve been asked this question before - more than once.

 

[jmcrae]

The Bible itself tells us what is most important and what is not as important. We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

How does the Catholic Church interpret, “My sheep listen to my voice” (John 10:27)?

That there is a Shepherd (pastor) to whom we must listen, who speaks with Christ’s voice - a Vicar of Christ on earth. All we have to do now is find him, and listen to him.

 

[guanophore]

The Bible itself tells us what is most important and what is not as important.

Really?! Is your version color coded, so that the essential, primary, and secondary doctrines are all labeled?

Bible Christians think this because they do not realize that they have inherited their doctrines from Reformation Theology, and that their notions of what is essential is extra biblical, just like the idea that Scripture should be the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine.

We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

The HS does not guide one group of believers in one direction, and another in the opposite.

How does the Catholic Church interpret, “My sheep listen to my voice” (John 10:27)?

Jesus appointed shepherds over His One Flock. Those who are in unity with Him obey the shepherds He has appointed. He speaks through His Aposltes, and their successors. We can hear His voice in the infallible Teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t doubt that. I’ve heard Protestant teachers say something similar.

Didn’t you ever wonder why the early church understood this teaching literally?

I understand “eating Jesus” as a moment by moment activity in which he is constantly filling me with his living water. It is not limited to the time of communion or mass. “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him” (John 7:38).

Yes, of course, this is also true. But there is a special sense in which He is present to us during the Lord’s Supper that sets it apart. It also sustains us, so that this daily living in Him is possible.

I have lots of respect for many Protestant scholars and anyone, Protestant or Catholic, who I can discern is walking close to God. However, until the Spirit of God reveals to me what that difficult passage means, I have to say I don’t know what it means. Saying “I don’t know” seems to be a lost art, but I think it’s needed if we are going to remain humble and teachable.

I realize I am late to the thread, but I wanted to jump in here to commend you on this attitude. I think it is great that you are open minded, willing to explore various perspectives, and willing to be convinced.

I don’t think anyone has the authority to make me believe an untruth.

No, but God has the authority, also give to His Church, to proclaim the Truth, and to direct you to believe in it. The fact that you may not be convinced it is a Truth does not make it any less of a Truth, nor does it diminish the Church’s responsibility to proclaim it as such, and to distinguish the fullness of the faith by adherance to it.

The grace that comes through you is a blessing to me. You don’t come across as argumentative. You make Catholicism attractive.

And you are the person for which CAF exists, and I am grateful for your thoughtful and charitable participation here. God bless you and yours.

 

[rocknswords]

Hi there!

I used to pray for those who do not believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One day I came accross with this website:

contenderministries.org/Catholicism/eucharist.php

which blocks me a little bit about what I do really believe. Hope this is also inlined to what we are discussing here. Its cross bible texts are clear. I haven’t find yet what are parts which are lacking. I’m still working now with a theological point of view on that. Please help!

In Christ

 

[PRmerger]

Hi there!

I used to pray for those who do not believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One day I came accross with this website:

contenderministries.org/Catholicism/eucharist.php

which blocks me a little bit about what I do really believe. Hope this is also inlined to what we are discussing here. Its cross bible texts are clear. I haven’t find yet what are parts which are lacking. I’m still working now with a theological point of view on that. Please help!

In Christ

How about checking this website out:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

That has great Scriptural references to the Eucharist.

Also, it’s important to understand that no other Christian denomination that denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can trace its origins to the Apostles.

The Apostles believed in the RP. The disciples of the Apostles believed in the RP. Their disciples believed in the RP…etc etc etc

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi there!

I used to pray for those who do not believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One day I came accross with this website:

contenderministries.org/Catholicism/eucharist.php

which blocks me a little bit about what I do really believe. Hope this is also inlined to what we are discussing here. Its cross bible texts are clear. I haven’t find yet what are parts which are lacking. I’m still working now with a theological point of view on that. Please help!

In Christ

The bad thing is that not many people today, have knowledge of the CC as they did once. It is very easy to deceive anyone. they use great strategy and only the those who are faithful are able to see the disparaty and contradiction they presented.

They were not there, at the beginning of the Church, they dont know what was tought then. they are here today, so they cant possibly know what was tought then.

The Church is commissioned to teach all men from generation to generation. the generation of 300 or 600 years later do not know what was tought years before unless the Church is here today to pass on to them what was tought before.

It is almost impossible to reason with such a people since they use the Bible as if they knew what they are reading. The CC is the target for all these religions outside the CC.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I think the following by Philthy is the oldest message I have not responded to:

. . . 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)

If that letter is short, could you put a link to it on here for me?—if it’s easy for you to do.

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.

In contrast, I was thinking that the Catholic view of John 6:53 (unless you eat and drink Jesus you have no life in you [paraphrase]) waters down the gospel and makes it easier. It’s easier to participate in Communion than to change your whole life by daily yielding to the Lord. (Although I hasten to add Jesus’ words, “My yoke is easy and my burden light.”)

I have wondered if there are many Catholics who have not made Jesus Lord because the Church gave them the impression that participating in Communion was enough, or perhaps because the Church has emphasized Communion participation at the expense of proper emphasis on living by the Spirit.

That’s not an accusation, just a recurring thought I’ve had. I’ll pose it as a question at this point. Hopefully, you can show me that those thoughts are unfounded.

. . . 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”.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!

Thanks for the wish/prayer.

I’ve been meaning to discuss what the word is is (an allusion to Clinton was intended ).
Pretend your mind is a clean slate, that you’ve never heard any Catholic teaching. Wouldn’t it make more sense if is meant represents here, as it does in many other places in the Bible? For example, in Revelation it says things like “the beast is a king,” or “the seven heads are seven hills” (Rev 17:9).

God blessings to you, Philthy.
BTW, what does Philthy stand for? I don’t want to guess!
Also, what does “H” stand for in “IMHO”?

 

[PRmerger]

I have wondered if there are many Catholics who have not made Jesus Lord because the Church gave them the impression that participating in Communion was enough, or perhaps because the Church has emphasized Communion participation at the expense of proper emphasis on living by the Spirit.

If there is a Catholic who believes that “participating in Communion was enough”, sadly, he is mistaken, and has been poorly catechized, Cal. For the Church, while she does proclaim that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, has never ever maintained that participating in Communion is “enough”.

That would be like a wife saying, “I did the conjugal act with you, husband, and that is all that makes me your wife.”

Also, what does “H” stand for in “IMHO”?

Humble. As in “in my humble opinion.”

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Before I forget . . .

While we’re on the topic of the Eucharist, I want to ask a question about the shedding of Jesus’ blood.

Benny Hinn, an internationally known healing evangelist, wrote that Jesus shed his blood seven times during the hours surrounding His crucifixion. I’m very curious—do they match the Catholic Stations of the Cross? Here they are:

1. His sweat (Luke 22:44)
2. His face when they plucked out his beard (Isaiah 50:6)
3. His head when they put the crown of thorns on him
4. His back (Matthew 27:26)
5. His hands when they pierced them
6. His feet
7. His side when they pierced his side (John 19:34).

 

[PRmerger]

Before I forget . . .

While we’re on the topic of the Eucharist, I want to ask a question about the shedding of Jesus’ blood.

Benny Hinn, an internationally known healing evangelist, wrote that Jesus shed his blood seven times during the hours surrounding His crucifixion. I’m very curious—do they match the Catholic Stations of the Cross? Here they are:

1. His sweat (Luke 22:44)
2. His face when they plucked out his beard (Isaiah 50:6)
3. His head when they put the crown of thorns on him
4. His back (Matthew 27:26)
5. His hands when they pierced them
6. His feet
7. His side when they pierced his side (John 19:34).

This is not something that the Stations of the Cross address.

However, it is also not contrary to anything the Church has proclaimed, and is an interesting thought to meditate upon while praying the Stations.

 

[jmcrae]

Before I forget . . .

While we’re on the topic of the Eucharist, I want to ask a question about the shedding of Jesus’ blood.

Benny Hinn, an internationally known healing evangelist, wrote that Jesus shed his blood seven times during the hours surrounding His crucifixion. I’m very curious—do they match the Catholic Stations of the Cross? Here they are:

1. His sweat (Luke 22:44)
2. His face when they plucked out his beard (Isaiah 50:6)
3. His head when they put the crown of thorns on him
4. His back (Matthew 27:26)
5. His hands when they pierced them
6. His feet
7. His side when they pierced his side (John 19:34).

I think it’s interesting that he came up with a list of seven things to remember and meditate on regarding the Passion of Christ. He is thinking like a Catholic.

 

[Algo1]

Not the chemical make-up, but the substance is changed. After consecration the Eucharist retains the accidents(chemical make-up) of bread and wine, but the substance is now the Body and Blood of Christ. There have been a few occasions when the accidents have also changed, as in the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, but this is very rare.

Transubstantiation

The Eucharist: The Lord’s Supper

Have you ever pondered why Jesus’ first resting place was a feeding trough?

Catechism of the Catholic Church
ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

Why did Pope Gelasius I deny Transubstantiation?

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773])

See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx)

Latin

Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur.

Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III , Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964). See also Gelasius’s Eucharistic teaching at no. 14 of his Tractatus seu Gelasii episcope romani de duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium in Andreas Thiel, Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilario usque ad Pelagium II, Tomus I (Brunsbergae, 1868), pp. 530-57, at 541-42.

Whatever else might be said, it is certain that the early Church took John 6 and the accounts of the Last Supper literally. There is no record in the early centuries of any Christian doubting the Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and the metaphorical accepted.

Karl Keating: Catholicism And Fundamentalism p. 238
Source