SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Cal_Fullerton]

Did you check out the link I provided? It has the Scripture.

I checked out one of your links but it may not have been the one you’re referring to above.

I’ll ask the question again. Is there biblical basis for any rites other than baptism and Eucharist? Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

I checked out one of your links but it may not have been the one you’re referring to above.

I’ll ask the question again. Is there biblical basis for any rites other than baptism and Eucharist? Thanks.

Let me ask you this, Cal: if there aren’t, does that mean that you reject the Marriage rite?

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it says that a man and a woman walk down an aisle in a church and profess their vows before a preacher.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I think you might have misunderstood. What I have never doubted was what I underlined.

Or have I misunderstood what you meant

I think I understood from the beginning. I appreciate what I think you said! (The statement on the bottom of all your comments has now happened in reality!)

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

.
It is not a mute point If I believe both. He was speaking literally and symbolically [in John 6:53]. I would also add that I came to this belief through a lot of prayer and effort in trying to understand my Catechism.

Hi labarrios.
I respect that you prayed a lot about this. I know God is faithful to answer sincere prayers. Sometimes we misinterpret what God says to us or we inadvertently add something to what God says to us—this has happened to me on infrequent occasions—but we’re always far better off if we pray, as you know.

Now factually… he did change from using a common word for “eating”, which can be taken symbolically, to a more physical word for “eating”, which one would take literally.

This is interesting. I’m going to see if my* New International Biblical Commentary* has anything to say about it.
But don’t you believe that any word could conceivably be used symbolically? And would it be true that even you interpret the more physical word for “eating” somewhat symbolically, since you do not believe you gnaw on Jesus’ glorified, resurrected body?

Linda Marie mentioned a time in history when the accidents literally changed into flesh and blood. I think she said it happened to a priest who doubted the transubstantiation.

Wouldn’t that rare experience underline the fact that even Catholics eat Jesus’ flesh somewhat symbolically during Communion?

Thanks for your good spirit. I greatly appreciate your faith in Jesus, who will say “well done” to you when you arrive in glory.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I suppose what we might know is after they walked [away in John 6:66] Scripture tells us Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were and He said no one can come to Him unless it be given by His Father. Good night and God’s love and blessings and peace be with you always as well.

Good point.
It would be interesting to me to see how you folks understand John 6:60-66.
In John 6:63-65, Jesus, still on the same subject, says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. . . . This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

When Jesus says, “the flesh counts for nothing,” I imagine that he is reassuring them that he is not talking about cannibolism but is talking about receiving the Spirit of himself.

How do you read John 6:60 and following?

 

[adrift]

I didn’t read this thread carefully so I might have missed this being addressed. If so, I am sorry.

Church Militant has a blog that covers this quite well.
“I Find no Sacarments in the Bible” he said.
Jesus established 7
Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation

Penance
Sacrament of the Sick

Holy Orders
Matrimony

I checked out one of your links but it may not have been the one you’re referring to above.

I’ll ask the question again. Is there biblical basis for any rites other than baptism and Eucharist? Thanks.

“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
Quote:
I’ve read through the bible many times, and find no sacraments.

That’s kinda odd since I have read it through many times myself and I find the following Sacraments in the following passages.

Baptism: John 3:3,5, & 22-23, 2nd Kings 5:14, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 16:15 & 33, 22:16, )Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.). Romans 6:3, 1st Corinthians 1:16, 6:11, and 15:29

Reconciliation (Confession):Leviticus. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 (even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.). Matthew 3:6,18:18, 9:6 & 8, Mark 2:7, John 20:21-23, Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10.

The Eucharist: Foreshadowed extensively! John 6:31-70, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20, Luke 24:30-35, 1st Corinthians 10:16-17, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

Confirmation: Acts 8:15-18, 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:2,

Matrimony: Genesis 2:20-24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:22-32, Hebrews 13:4

Holy Orders: Genesis 14:18, Exodus 19:22, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 2:7, John 20:21, Acts 9:17, 13:3, 14:23, 20:28, Ephesisns 4:11, 1st THessalonians 5:12, 1st Timothy 4:14, 1st Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 5:1 & 7:17.

The Sacrament of the Sick: Matthew 10:8, Mark 6:13 & 18, James 5:14-16.

 

[adrift]

Good point.
It would be interesting to me to see how you folks understand John 6:60-66.
In John 6:63-65, Jesus, still on the same subject, says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. . . . This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

When Jesus says, “the flesh counts for nothing,” I imagine that he is reassuring them that he is not talking about cannibolism but is talking about receiving the Spirit of himself.

How do you read John 6:60 and following?

In the Garden as Jesus prayed He refers to the Spirit is willing but the flesh is week. It is a reference to the supernatural and the natural. All that Jesus said about the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit not understandable by the flesh by our human minds. Are human nature is week.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

adrift said,
“Jesus saying his presence in the spirit gives life would have been perfectly easy to embrace.”

I completely disagree with that.
I’m running out of time but I’ll just quote a couple vv. that I think provide clues that even the disciples were “out to lunch” (bad figure of speech for this discussion ):

John 16:12-13:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

This indicates the disciples were without the Spirit when they walked with the fleshly Jesus, so they couldn’t have understood the idea of his presence in the spirit giving life.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

adrift said,

Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin.

That is very helpful, adrift!

I’m really enjoying this discussion.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Let me ask you this, Cal: if there aren’t, does that mean that you reject the Marriage rite?
I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it says that a man and a woman walk down an aisle in a church and profess their vows before a preacher.

Good point but off topic. A big black mark for you.

---

Now I think I covered everyone. Incredible.

 

[PRmerger]

Good point but off topic. A big black mark for you.

---

Now I think I covered everyone. Incredible.

How is it off topic? You asked if there were any other “rites” that were mentioned in Scripture besides baptism and the eucharist.

I mentioned that there’s one rite that you presumably have practiced–the marriage rite–that’s also not in Scripture.

 

[pablope]

The same folks that decided which books would be in the Bible also decided that we should interpret John 6:53 the way you interpret it?

Hi, Cal…I am not sure if this has been posted yet…and hope this helps…this is how Catholics interpret scripture…

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

This pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can “see” that Tradition implied in Paul’s commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. But since Evangelicals have not received the contact lenses with the Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they are unable to see it reflect there. Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, “Let’s see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let’s say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!”

 

[labarrios]

Hi labarrios.
I respect that you prayed a lot about this. I know God is faithful to answer sincere prayers. Sometimes we misinterpret what God says to us or we inadvertently add something to what God says to us—this has happened to me on infrequent occasions—but we’re always far better off if we pray, as you know.

I feel as if you are trying to put a seed of doubt in my head. That is how I read this post. Which I think is horrible. But I suppose its my own fault for even posting in the first place God has, and still is calling me home to the CC. There has been many signs for me, and numerous prayers answered. I have my ideas of what the good Lord is, and wants from us. Then I open My Catechism and find that its exactly what the Church stands for and professes.

This is interesting. I’m going to see if my* New International Biblical Commentary* has anything to say about it.

I suggest you use the NAB. However if you want in depth detailed info, The Saint Ignatius Catholic Study Bible in conjunction with The Catechism of the Catholic Church. That’s only if you truly desire to understand what the CC believes and why.

But don’t you believe that any word could conceivably be used symbolically? And would it be true that even you interpret the more physical word for “eating” somewhat symbolically, since you do not believe you gnaw on Jesus’ glorified, resurrected body?

I believe this is what you believe. I think the most important question to be asked, is how who was there interpreted it. Peter was there and he started the CC.

Linda Marie mentioned a time in history when the accidents literally changed into flesh and blood. I think she said it happened to a priest who doubted the transubstantiation.

Wow! Talk about confirmation.

Wouldn’t that rare experience underline the fact that even Catholics eat Jesus’ flesh somewhat symbolically during Communion?

Real Presence brother!

Thanks for your good spirit. I greatly appreciate your faith in Jesus, who will say “well done” to you when you arrive in glory.

Please pray for me to end up there. I would be most obliged:thumbsup:

Dios te Bendiga
labarrios

 

[PRmerger]

I feel as if you are trying to put a seed of doubt in my head.

Just remember, brother, that questions are good! But don’t just leave it at the questioning part. Come and see the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church! Taste and see how good it is!

 

[adrift]

adrift said,
“Jesus saying his presence in the spirit gives life would have been perfectly easy to embrace.”

I was actually quoting PRmerger
Lets put it back into context

What’s a “hard saying” about a Jesus being present metaphorically or spiritually? The disciples were Jews who understood the concept of the numinous. So Jesus saying his presence in the spirit gives life would have been perfectly easy to embrace.

If Jesus meant what he said as metaphorically, then there would be no hard saying. If they took Him literally, Jesus would have said so but He was silent because they understood Him correctly.
Jesus always explained to His followers when they asked.

I completely disagree with that.
I’m running out of time but I’ll just quote a couple vv. that I think provide clues that even the disciples were “out to lunch” (bad figure of speech for this discussion ):John 16:12-13:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

This indicates the disciples were without the Spirit when they walked with the fleshly Jesus, so they couldn’t have understood the idea of his presence in the spirit giving life.

More than you can now bear.

941
bastazo
bastasai
941 bastazo {bas-tad’-zo} perhaps remotely derived from the base of 939 (through the idea of removal); TDNT - 1:596,102; v 1) to take up with the hands 2) to take up in order to carry or bear, to put upon one’s self (something) to be carried 2a) to bear what is burdensome 3) to bear, to carry 3a) to carry on one’s person 3b) to sustain, i.e. uphold, support 4) to bear away, carry off

This is the word translated as bear. It was to much why? What has Jesus been telling them?
The disciples would be expeled from the synagogues. The hour would come that they would be killed and those who had killed them would think they were offering worship to God. Jesus speaks of His death a place He was going that they could not follow. Then He speaks of sending an Advocte. Jesus has told them a great deal to tell them more would be burdensome to much to bear or carry without the strength of the Holy Spirit the Advocate. Without the Advocate their flesh was to week. Peter would deny Jesus but not after the Advocate then the flesh was strenghthened.

 

[adrift]

Good point but off topic. A big black mark for you.

---

Now I think I covered everyone. Incredible.

Now is this fair Cal since it stemmed from a remark you made?

Perhaps we should start another thread on this topic. Because you are right it is off topic.

 

[charliedrake]

Both sides have compelling arguments, the critical component is Deity, Trinity and resurrection.

 

[jmcrae]

Good point.
It would be interesting to me to see how you folks understand John 6:60-66.
In John 6:63-65, Jesus, still on the same subject, says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. . . . This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

When Jesus says, “the flesh counts for nothing,” I imagine that he is reassuring them that he is not talking about cannibolism but is talking about receiving the Spirit of himself.

He cannot mean that His flesh counts for nothing; otherwise the Crucifixion and Resurrection make absolutely no sense whatsoever - rather, He is using “flesh” to mean the actions of the Old Covenant, or the inheritance of Abraham - their flesh (their inheritance, their ritual observances) - not His.

How do you read John 6:60 and following?

I understand them to mean that the Eucharist, as a Sacrament, works ex operato and doesn’t depend on anything I do or don’t do - or the spiritual state of the priest. These are the verses that were used to combat the heresy of Donatism, which is the heresy that the Eucharist cannot be confected by a sinful priest. These verses are used to show that the priest’s spiritual condition has no effect on the Sacrament - it happens no matter how bad he might be.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I’ve been away for a while.

You have a fascinating history. I’d love to hear a more detailed version.

You are charismatic? So am I! Do you speak in tongues? Does your local congregation have charismatic (or contemporary) praise & worship with simple praise songs designed to attract God’s presence and sung back to back to allow for a more efficient attraction of the presence of God?

Yes. I have received the gift of tongues and prophetic tongues. I used to experience visions and locutions as well but haven’t for some time now. As my avator shows, I am in the desert, spiritually.

More importantly, I think, I received the Gift of Faith.

Unfortunately, due to living in the outback, charismatic Catholics are thin on the ground and our group has dwindled.
You can find out more about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal here.

Ah, back to the infamous—or famous—John 6:53.
If any of you want to delve deeper into it, you might use the context of the verse to show me why you think the Protestant view cannot be true. Demonstrate to me that you’ve done some independent thinking—not independent of God but independent of Church leaders.
I don’t think you’re totally incapable of understanding the Bible with your own illuminated mind. I hope you aren’t letting the Church lead you to believe you have more handicaps than you do.

It was independent thinking that brought me to the Church. I had no church prior to God calling me. I just didn’t believe. I considered myself an agnostic (small a) in that I just didn’t know; things like “does God exist?”, but was open to the possibility that it was knowable.

As I said before, my father was an ex-Catholic. This is different from a lapsed Catholic. Lapsed Catholics just sort of fall away while ex-Catholics make a definite choice to leave the Church. There is usually a great deal of animosity, even hatred, to/for the Church. Catholic church leaders were always spoken of disparagingly in my home so I had no reason to give them any credence prior to that spiritual 2x4. In fact, it was never ‘Catholics’ but ‘d***Catholics’ whenever the subject came up while I was growing up.

The Eucharist drew me to the Church through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. It was the discourse on the Bread of Life in John 6 that convinced me that I needed the Catholic Church because only within Her may I receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, my Saviour. When I read it, my soul burned within me and I Knew. I had to be Baptised and I had to receive the Eucharist if I wanted to live.

What Jesus is refering to after His sermon was that it takes the Spirit to believe as the flesh is incapable of understanding that we must literally eat Jesus.

Blood is Life.

(Douay-Rheims Bible)
Leviticus 17:10-11
[10] If any man whosoever of the house of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will cut him off from among his people:
note
[10] Eat blood: To eat blood was forbidden in the law; partly, because God reserved it to himself, to be offered in sacrifices on the altar, as to the Lord of life and death; and as a figure of the blood of Christ; and partly, to give men a horror of shedding blood. Gen. 9. 4, 5, 6.
[11] Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.
Leviticus 17:14
For the life of all flesh is in the blood: therefore I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and whosoever eateth it, shall be cut off.

Deuteronomy 12:23
Only beware of this, that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is for the soul: and therefore thou must not eat the soul with the flesh:

The prohibition against eating blood in the OT was because God intended all along to give us His Blood, that we might truly live, eternal life with God. Animal blood will not give us Life, but God’s Blood does.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I’ll get back to all you precious saints later.
In the meantime, have a Very Merry Christmas! :harp:
I pray God will use you to make the gospel attractive among your unsaved relatives.

Here in New Hampshire, we need snow! :snowing: