SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Cal_Fullerton]

Cal, did Paul have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels at his disposal when he wrote Romans? Did he have Revelation, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John?

Or do you think that he was talking about, well, the paradosis here?

Clearly, he could not have been talking about the Bible [in Romans 1:16], right?

There you go again, PR, around in circles. (Gotta love ya.)

I don’t know what the paradosis is.
In any case, I’m talking about the gospel, not the Bible. The gospel is the power that leads to salvation for everyone who believes. (Now I can’t remember why I said that in the first place. :bounce

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrea said, "This part is a historical fact. . . .

The Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome since 67 AD, was the only form of Christianity in existence for more than a thousand years. There was no other.

Now, it’s still the only one that was around to carry the Holy Tradition of the Apostles through those thousand years, and still the only one that in 33 AD was given authority by Jesus Christ to bind and loose - since the rest of them didn’t even exist, yet.

Peter was Pope from 33-67 AD - he became Bishop of Rome in 67 AD just shortly before his execution (hence, “Bishop of Rome since 67 AD” - prior to that I think he was the Bishop of Antioch?) - and the authority of the Papacy was passed to the next Bishop of Rome, St. Linus, who inherited both titles from St. Peter, just as every Bishop of Rome has, as they were both passed from Bishop of Rome to Bishop of Rome in unbroken succession since then.

I hope you had a fun and spiritual holiday. Fun and spiritual go together, don’t they, crea?

For me, they certainly do. The highlight of my Christmas was that I directed a very successful Christmas Pageant; there were 30 children involved, all of whom took the whole thing very seriously and had everything memorized (we had 14 wonderful Angels who led the singing of the hymns; ages 3-9), whose parents made such beautiful costumes for them, and who portrayed the simple Nativity story with such power and grace that the people were moved to spontaneous applause several times throughout our short performance.

After that I attended two different “Christ Masses,” and both of them were wonderful in their own way.

(I’ve been pronouncing crea, cray. Is that correct? Or doesn’t it matter?)

It’s “crae” (reverse your e and a) - and yes, “cray” is exactly how we pronounce it. (And no, in a written medium, it doesn’t really matter - I could go into detail about my name, but it is neither here nor there.)

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I too would never want to put a wedge between someone and the Lord. which can happen when we get down to the nitty gritty of faith questions between Protestants and Catholics.

Yes. I see you understand that. Well, we’ll give each other enough grace to allow for each other to inadvertently threaten to make such wedges, if that makes any sense!

You apparently know Spanish. Are you Spanish? I took one year of Spanish at Oral Roberts University many years ago. I remember padre means friend, right?

Without faith one cannot believe in the Real Presence of the Christ in the Eucharist. . . . That the Trinity is big enough and grand enough and oh so most powerful that is is not unbelievable for the presence of the most important sacrifice in the history of creation To truly be present in the Eucharist. It just boils down to Faith.

Are you referring to a faith that doesn’t understand what it believes in, but believes in it anyway?

The part about Christ being in the Eucharist that I can’t understand is the part that says—and I think it was jmcrea who said this—that it’s not just the Spirit that is in the bread and wine, but Christ himself. As I understand use of the word Christ in Scripture, it either refers to the second person of the Trinity with his glorified, resurrected body; or it refers to the Spirit of Christ, which contains all of the essence (substance, what Jesus really is, what Jesus is made up of) of Christ.

jm seemed to be using a third definition of the word *Christ *, a definition that I have never fathomed. To me, all of Christ is in his Spirit except his resurrected, glorified body.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

There are 3 comments I haven’t responded to.
I’m out of steam. :yawn:
Love to all.

 

[labarrios]

Yes. I see you understand that. Well, we’ll give each other enough grace to allow for each other to inadvertently threaten to make such wedges, if that makes any sense!

You apparently know Spanish. Are you Spanish? I took one year of Spanish at Oral Roberts University many years ago. I remember padre means friend, right?

Are you referring to a faith that doesn’t understand what it believes in, but believes in it anyway?

The part about Christ being in the Eucharist that I can’t understand is the part that says—and I think it was jmcrea who said this—that it’s not just the Spirit that is in the bread and wine, but Christ himself. As I understand use of the word Christ in Scripture, it either refers to the second person of the Trinity with his glorified, resurrected body; or it refers to the Spirit of Christ, which contains all of the essence (substance, what Jesus really is, what Jesus is made up of) of Christ.

jm seemed to be using a third definition of the word *Christ *, a definition that I have never fathomed. To me, all of Christ is in his Spirit except his resurrected, glorified body.

Yes that makes sense. And no not Spanish, but it’s a huge part of me.
Padre means father. Amigo means friend.

referring to a faith that doesn’t understand what it believes in, but believes in it anyway

I was referring to “without faith works are dead”. I know I can’t buy my way into heaven. I know that if I participate in all the Sacraments, and live my life how the Bible says to live it just to get into heaven, I ain’t getting there. So for me the Sacrament of communion is about my relationship with God here on Earth. As is the rest of the Sacraments for that matter. They are ‘tools’ if you will, to help me come closer and live even that much more in Him. And He in me. I have come to believe, with his Divine intervention in my life, that the Eucharist is Christ in total.

As I understand use of the word Christ in Scripture, it either refers to the second person of the Trinity with his glorified, resurrected body; or it refers to the Spirit of Christ, which contains all of the essence (substance, what Jesus really is, what Jesus is made up of) of Christ.

To me, all of Christ is in his Spirit except his resurrected, glorified body.

These two quotes I think I need some elaboration on. I’m a bit confused. How can all of Christ be without his body? Am I reading this right?

Dios te Bendiga
God Bless you
labarrios

 

[labarrios]

Ok. I did some pondering Cal…so its the Holy Spirit then that you can see being in the Eucharist? Is that what you mean when You say without his his glorified resurected body?

La paz
labarrios

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

My Faith is in God, He will and has led me. I have Jesus in my heart. . . . I pray every day for him to guide me to do his will. However I also know I am human and a sinner, and our free will complicates things. There are sins I am working on that I am aware of, and some I am not, and am sure he will reveal to me when the time is right. I believe Salvation is a gift that can be thrown away by our selfish sinful ways and that our road to Salvation starts with excepting Jesus in our Hearts not ending there. I know and profess Jesus is our Lord, but I am still imperfect. Perfection is a process that ends at death when we are pure and with God.

I will say this much so we don’t get pinned for totally going off topic… When the Good Lord was leading me to truly understand the Eucharist something changed in me. This whole path to him that he has me on, is leading me to partake more and more in the Sacraments, and the Ah ha moment I had with the Eucharist was…I cant even begin to put words to it. There are no words equal to when God reveals himself to you. To truly believe in the RP. For me its indescribable.

Hey, it’s good to be back after a whole week. I wonder if you wondered if I would ever be back.

Labarrios, your testimony is great. You’re definitely my brother in the Lord Jesus Christ! My experience parallels yours until you get to the Eucharist.

Your statement, “Lets hope I make the cut eh!” puzzled me. Then you said, “Only God can tell.” (I may have deleted those comments from the quote above.) Are you confident that God will let you into heaven if you have not turned completely away from him during this life? Romans 8:16, NAB, says, “The Spirit himself gives witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” I know you have that witness in your spirit because you said Jesus is in there. You are God’s child—not because he created you—which of course he did—but because he has accepted you. He has accepted (justified) you because of your faith and repentance, and because Jesus died for you. All the time you are growing in the Lord, you can be confident that you will be let into heaven should you die at any moment.
Do you believe that? (I’m wondering if Catholics under-emphasize the doctrine of justification [pardon]) The NAB teaches it at Romans 3:21-28.

Your experience of the Eucharist is where we sort of part company in our experience. Apparently, you feel the strong presence of God during Communion. I can’t remember a time when I consciously felt an increase in His presence during Communion—although maybe I’ve forgotten about it. I don’t think most Protestants usually do, although I could be wrong.

I almost always feel an increase in his presence during our about-30-minute-long praise time. His love encompasses me, reassures me, empowers me, etc. There is nothing in the world that can compare to his presence!

I don’t think the differences in the timing of our climactic times with Jesus need to divide us.

Have a great day.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Oops. Helen called me to dinner.
I didn’t get to anybody else.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Hey, it’s good to be back after a whole week. I wonder if you wondered if I would ever be back.

Glad to see you back. Hope you had a good break.

Your experience of the Eucharist is where we sort of part company in our experience. Apparently, you feel the strong presence of God during Communion. I can’t remember a time when I consciously felt an increase in His presence during Communion—although maybe I’ve forgotten about it. I don’t think most Protestants usually do, although I could be wrong.

That’s because He’s not substantially there. Only a priest whose ordination is in the line of Apostolic Succession has the power to confect the Eucharist. All Protestant Communions are symbolic only because their priests/pastors are not ordained in Apostolic Succession.

Again, I make a warning against depending on feelings. Sometimes we lose the feelings we once had. If our faith depends on feelings, we can lose our faith along with the feelings.

THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

- The Catechism of the Catholic Church

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

1575 Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father’s right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today.61 Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops.62

1576 Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the "gift of the Spirit,"63 the "apostolic line."64 Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.65

Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist
True, Real and Substantial

 

[jmcrae]

Your experience of the Eucharist is where we sort of part company in our experience. Apparently, you feel the strong presence of God during Communion. I can’t remember a time when I consciously felt an increase in His presence during Communion—although maybe I’ve forgotten about it. I don’t think most Protestants usually do, although I could be wrong.

This could be because Protestant Holy Communion is, in fact (and can only ever be) symbolic.

The Real Presence of Christ exists only in Apostolic Succession in direct hand-to-hand-to-hand going back to Christ’s anointing of Peter. That physical connection is required, going back in time to Christ Himself.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

It is against forum rules to discuss what we have received in visions or locutions.

That’s strange to me. If you watch the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s (do you?) flagship program, the host will often ask the guest, “What has the Lord been speaking to you, lately?” We want to hear what the Lord is saying, even if it comes through the least member of the church.
I have been present during a few of those rare occasions when “prophesies” were spoken out during a church service that were not from God. One time, the congregant was escorted out by the ushers!

You recommended The Life and Revelations of St. Gertrude the Great. I’ll check that out on Amazon. You can often read comments on Amazon.com by people who have read the books they sell. I’d like to read an anointed book by a Catholic. When did she live?

The Gospel is the Good News of Christ. The Gospel was proclaimed long before pen was put to paper and the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written.

There were other written gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, that were not included in the Bible when the Church determined, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which works were divinely inspired, which were heretical and which were profitable for our spiritual development while not being divinely inspired.

I haven’t read those non-biblical gospels, but based on what I know, the early Church did a good job of following the Spirit.

We Protestants practice the Eucharist as well.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I am late in this thread, but I hope I can still contribute my 2 cents. You asked how we interpret Christ’s words in John 6:63-65. Personally I think what He means is this: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh (without the Spirit) counts for nothing.” Clearly, the flesh without the Spirit would be dead flesh, and it would profit no one. . . .

Read again John 6:47-59, and notice that most of the time Christ does not refer to His flesh as “the flesh.” Instead, He says “my flesh” and “my blood.” He did not ask His listeners to eat any kind of flesh, including dead flesh. What He told them was to eat His living flesh, a flesh animated by His Spirit. No wonder it sounded like cannibalism to many of the listeners, which is why they walked away.

Notice also, that after saying “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh counts for nothing,” He quickly added this: “the words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.” This implies that what He had told them earlier (about eating His flesh and drinking His blood) is for real. Those words - though hard to accept - are Spirit and Life, so you better believe it!

Rom422, I think your personal thoughts on John 6:63-65 are great. (Ordinary Catholics CAN use their own minds—enlightened by the Spirit—to interpret the Scriptures! {Forgive me if you are not ordinary. })

 

[rom422]

Rom422, I think your personal thoughts on John 6:63-65 are great. (Ordinary Catholics CAN use their own minds—enlightened by the Spirit—to interpret the Scriptures! {Forgive me if you are not ordinary. })

LOL. Hey, where did it say in the Bible that only ordinary catholics can use their own minds to interpret the Scriptures?

 

[jmcrae]

That’s strange to me. If you watch the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s (do you?) flagship program, the host will often ask the guest, “What has the Lord been speaking to you, lately?” We want to hear what the Lord is saying, even if it comes through the least member of the church.

This is a question that one might be asked in private spiritual direction, but never in public. The Church is very careful about what She puts into the public arena, and makes sure ahead of time (without the need of a rowdy scene with the ushers) that when someone claims to be speaking for the Lord, that they are in fact doing so. The Church has all of eternity, so these things are seldom rushed. Most people don’t know within their own lifetimes whether or not their locutions have been accepted as authentic by the Church. Indeed, one of the salient signs that a locution is genuine is if the person goes to his or her grave an obedient child of the Church, even when feeling that they have been misunderstood by Her.

I haven’t read those non-biblical gospels, but based on what I know, the early Church did a good job of following the Spirit.

You would have no way of knowing it if She hadn’t - you would probably have accepted whatever Bible she gave you, without question, and criticized the current version for whatever flaws it may in fact genuinely have, and use those as your basis for rejecting it - rather than accepting it, and rejecting other possible versions for reasons that make sense now that the Church has explained why they were rejected.

 

[Linda_Marie]

That’s strange to me. If you watch the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s (do you?) flagship program, the host will often ask the guest, “What has the Lord been speaking to you, lately?” We want to hear what the Lord is saying, even if it comes through the least member of the church.
I have been present during a few of those rare occasions when “prophesies” were spoken out during a church service that were not from God. One time, the congregant was escorted out by the ushers!

I imagine it would be due to heated discussion or even arguments about said revelations. One person saying, “God told me thus and such” and another saying that God told them something completely different. A person receiving revelations, visions or locutions should take them to their spiritual advisor for discernment.

Private revelation is only binding on the person receiving it, not on anyone else. If someone is told they must fast 3 days a week, for example, it is only for them. They can’t tell anyone else to fast 3 days a week as well. They can recommend such a practice but it would be entirely voluntary to do it.

It is the same with devotions revealed in private revelations such as the Sacred Heart or the Divine Mercy. Practising these devotions is entirely voluntary but the spiritual benefits are great.

You recommended The Life and Revelations of St. Gertrude the Great. I’ll check that out on Amazon. You can often read comments on Amazon.com by people who have read the books they sell. I’d like to read an anointed book by a Catholic. When did she live?

circa 1256 to 1302. She is the only female saint to be called ‘the Great’.
For a more recent revelation, there is St. Faustina, 1905 to 1938. She revealed to us the Divine Mercy. You can read her diary, Diary of Saint Sister Maria Faustina Kowalska (Divine Mercy In My Soul)

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Now, it’s [the Catholic church is] still the only one that was around to carry the Holy Tradition of the Apostles through those thousand years, and still the only one that in 33 AD was given authority by Jesus Christ to bind and loose - since the rest of them didn’t even exist, yet.

Peter was Pope from 33-67 AD - he became Bishop of Rome in 67 AD just shortly before his execution (hence, “Bishop of Rome since 67 AD” - prior to that I think he was the Bishop of Antioch?) - and the authority of the Papacy was passed to the next Bishop of Rome, St. Linus, who inherited both titles from St. Peter, just as every Bishop of Rome has, as they were both passed from Bishop of Rome to Bishop of Rome in unbroken succession since then.

Hi jm.
So what you’re saying is that Jesus gave authority to the Catholic (you’re using “Catholic” to mean universal) church in AD 33; and Jesus gave Peter authority to be the head (Pope) of the church; and the authority has been passed from bishop to bishop (through the laying on of hands?) down to the present day.

(If I repeat back to you what you said, and you are satisfied with my representation of what you said, then I think I can say I understand it—at least until I forget—hopefully I won’t forget. )

If there was a bad pope—a man who was in total rebellion against God—would that have broken the chain of authority? If not, why not?

The highlight of my Christmas was that I directed a very successful Christmas Pageant. . . .

After that I attended two different “Christ Masses,” and both of them were wonderful in their own way.

That’s neat. I’m glad the pageant was successful. It sounds like it was a blessing to many folks.

Does the word “Christmas” come from “Christ Mass”? I’m almost embarrassed to ask , since it seems virtually obvious that it did.

 

[PRmerger]

If there was a bad pope—a man who was in total rebellion against God—would that have broken the chain of authority?

No, it would not have broken the chain of authority.

If not, why not?

Because, thankfully, the authority lies in the office, not the man. Thus, while we have had some horrendous sinners in the office of the papacy, not a single sinner has ever proclaimed a teaching on faith and morals that was in error.

In fact (please provide details, all you more knowledgeable Catholics!), there’s a pope who was a horrible man who wanted to change the canon of Scripture (exclude some books, add others), and the evening before he was going to make this official proclamation, he died.

God saw it that his Church was protected.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I was referring to “without faith works are dead”. I know I can’t buy my way into heaven. I know that if I participate in all the Sacraments, and live my life how the Bible says to live it just to get into heaven, I ain’t getting there. So for me the Sacrament of communion is about my relationship with God here on Earth. As is the rest of the Sacraments for that matter. They are ‘tools’ if you will, to help me come closer and live even that much more in Him. And He in me. I have come to believe, with his Divine intervention in my life, that the Eucharist is Christ in total.

I’m a little confused here.
I agree that faith without works is dead, and that you can’t buy your way to heaven.

But your third sentence seems to say that you are not going to go to heaven even if you participate in all the Sacraments and live your life how the Bible says to live it. I bet you probably didn’t mean to say that!

I think it’s great that the Sacrament of communion is about your relationship with God here on earth, as are the rest of the Sacraments.

---

You were confused by my statement about the Spirit of Christ versus the person of Christ. Maybe I should step back and simply describe how I understand the Trinity to see if we can agree on that. I have been suspecting that a lack of understanding of the Trinity is what has led to a failure of connection between me and the Catholics on this forum concerning the bread and wine changing into Christ.

Perhaps you can all comment on the following description of the Father and the Son:

The Father is one person, the Son is another person.

The Son is subject to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28, NAB). (The NCV says “under God.”)
The Father is subject to no one. (Heb. 6:13).

They are one in essence, substance, spirit, & being (when spirit and being do not mean “person”). That is, they are one in love, truth, Word, righteousness, light, eternal life, power over all creation, etc. They are equally perfect in every way. They are animated by, and filled with, that eternal essence that makes them one.

They also shared in creation, share now in sustaining the universe, and will share in the judgment of all humans.

When God comes into our hearts as believers in Christ, their eternal essence comes into us (John 17).

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Ok. I did some pondering Cal…so its the Holy Spirit then that you can see being in the Eucharist? Is that what you mean when You say without his his glorified resurected body?

La paz
labarrios

Yes.

 

[Linda_Marie]

You were confused by my statement about the Spirit of Christ versus the person of Christ. Maybe I should step back and simply describe how I understand the Trinity to see if we can agree on that. I have been suspecting that a lack of understanding of the Trinity is what has led to a failure of connection between me and the Catholics on this forum concerning the bread and wine changing into Christ.

Perhaps you can all comment on the following description of the Father and the Son:

The Father is one person, the Son is another person.

The Son is subject to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28, NAB). (The NCV says “under God.”)
The Father is subject to no one. (Heb. 6:13).

They are one in essence, substance, spirit, & being (when spirit and being do not mean “person”). That is, they are one in love, truth, Word, righteousness, light, eternal life, power over all creation, etc. They are equally perfect in every way. They are animated by, and filled with, that eternal essence that makes them one.

They also shared in creation, share now in sustaining the universe, and will share in the judgment of all humans.

When God comes into our hearts as believers in Christ, their eternal essence comes into us (John 17).

The Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Trinity, distinct from the Father (1st Person) and the Son (2nd Person).

The Blessed Trinity
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

Also, if you don’t mind a fair bit of reading, to understand the Catholic teaching on the Trinity, I recommend the Catechism.

“I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”
(keep clicking on Next)
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

“I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT”

and:
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

Originally Posted by labarrios
Ok. I did some pondering Cal…so its the Holy Spirit then that you can see being in the Eucharist? Is that what you mean when You say without his his glorified resurected body?

The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. They do not become the Holy Spirit, the 3rd Person of the Trinity, nor is the Holy Spirit ‘in’ the Eucharist. The Eucharist is Jesus, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, even though the appearance of bread and wine has not changed.