SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Lost_and_Found_1]

For those Jewish hearer’s to listen to those words in John 6:51-58, they would certainly require some sort of offense being taken, that is a shocking statement. So the Jews disputed among themselves saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? That’s barbaric, that’s contrary to the law. So what does Jesus say to them, truly truly, I say to you, this is only a figure of speech? I only meant it metaphorically. Now that would have been a very simple thing for him to do as a teacher, if he says the bread which I give to the world is my flesh, if all he meant was figurative, it would have been simple to say so, and it would have been morally incumbent, it would have been an obligation for him to clarify the point. But what does he do? Instead, he reiterates that offensive assertion not once, not twice but four times he says to them, truly truly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you. And in the next verse he says, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. And a third time in the next verse, for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. And finally, number four, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. Now four times he says, eat my flesh and drink my blood. How many times have you heard preachers say you must be born again? But those same preachers never say you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. They say you must take it literally here when it’s only said once but what happens when they hear it four times? They ignore it or try to make it have a figurative meaning when it doesn’t seem possible under closer scrutiny. That’s why in verse 60 we read many of the disciples saying, this is a hard saying, who can listen to it? They’re not saying, who can understand it, they’re saying who can even bear hearing it? But Jesus knowing his disciples murmured at it, said to them, do you take offense to this? Of course he knows they do. And knowing that, once again he could have explained it was symbolic, but he goes on to talk about the son of man ascending where he was before and the Holy Spirit giving life. Ultimately, it’s only when Jesus Christ ascends and gives us the Holy Spirit that this flesh and blood will be made available to us in a transforming manner. Not surprisingly we read in 66, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus turns to the twelve and says do you also want to turn away? Jesus will not compromise any truth, especially the truth of the gift of the Holy Eucharist. Peter answered, Lord to whom shall we go?

Chapter 6:4 we read that it was the time of the Passover that Jesus was giving this bread of life discourse. Now here he is discussing how he’s the living bread, how he’s the true manna that comes down from heaven. He is linking himself in the most essential way to the Passover. Back in chapter 1 John the Baptist says twice behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. So one of John’s principle emphasis is Jesus is the lamb, the Passover sacrifice. Back in the OT, back in Egypt when Israel was in bondage and the tenth plague was about to descend, the law was clear. God stipulated through Moses, you’re going to have to take an unblemished male lamb, slaughter him, sprinkle his blood on your doorpost, roast that lamb and eat that lamb. Now suppose a family did all that but didn’t eat the lamb, what would have happened to that family? They would have woken up the next day and found their first born son dead. It wasn’t enough to kill the lamb they had to eat the sacrificial lamb. And if Jesus Christ is coming to perfect the OT types which he does, then he really is the Passover lamb. He is slain, his blood is sprinkled but if he is the sacrificial lamb of the new covenant Passover, it isn’t enough for the lamb to die, it isn’t enough for his blood to be shed, we have to eat the lamb. We have to consume sacrifice for communion to be reached.

Transcribed From a Scott Hahn program

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I forget who said the following to me, but it was so astounding that I saved it on my desktop until now:

.
You seem to think that having Jesus in your heart is more real than Having His Body and Blood nourish you. Please don’t take offense at my being so blunt but having Jesus in your heart kinda sounds like an over used clique that has no true meaning.

I had been suspecting from some of the comments being made on this forum that some Catholics regard partaking of the Eucharist more important than the salvation that it points to. The comment above spilled the beans, so to speak, and spelled out in no uncertain terms what I had been suspecting.

A thought came to me as I thought about this that no doubt is from the Lord, and that is that if the ritual we call the Eucharist is made more important than the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus that it points to, the Eucharist can actually become an idol!

If you’re not sure what I mean, an idol can be anything that distracts us from carrying out the entire plan of God for our lives or something that keeps us from receiving salvation (forgiveness and a place in heaven) altogether. Colossians 3:5 shows this. The NAB says (emphasis added by me), “Put to death whatever in your nature is rooted in earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desires, and that lust which is idolatry.” The NIV version of Col. 3:5 makes it even more clear: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.”

I may offend somebody but I love you enough to tell you the truth. Proverbs 27:6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

I feel that at least once I should tell the hard truth about the matter. Jesus would. He offended a lot of people. I hope you can receive what I’ve said with the humility of Christ—even though my heart is certainly not totally purified of all that is not Christ’s love—far from it!

God bless all you precious friends.

 

[PRmerger]

I forget who said the following to me, but it was so astounding that I saved it on my desktop until now:

You seem to think that having Jesus in your heart is more real than Having His Body and Blood nourish you.

Cal, this is an absolutely true statement.

Do you really think that having someone “in your heart” is better, or even the same, as having someone physically, wholly and entirely present to you?

My dad passed away in 1991. He is in my heart forever. I hold him dear at all times of my life.

But saying that he is in my heart is absolutely INFERIOR to having him physically present to me.

If I had the choice between having someone in my heart or having him present physically in the same room, of course I would choose the latter.

And so would you.

 

[pablope]

Since the title of this conversation includes “Catholic teaching,” I guess it’s okay for us to switch to the topic of the church. . . . but do you think we should start a new conversation (thread)?

I agree that there is one church of Jesus Christ. I won’t deny that Peter was in charge, although I’ve never investigated whether he was officially appointed by God to head up the group of the 12 apostles. Do you have scriptural basis that he was charge? I’m open to learn. (If we’re not open to learn more, we’re dying.)

Others have answered this.

I know that the book of Galatians indicates that he made some serious mistakes even after receiving the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

Do you still sin, after you claimed to have received the HS also?

It was a moral fault that Peter fall into. Also, this means…that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. As recounted by Paul, he stands face to face with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless).

So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority (See gal 1 and 2) as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

Let me introduce to you also, Catherine of Sienna. She spoke forcefully to the Pope of her time, exhorting him to reform and to return the papacy from Avignon to Rome.

I have no way of knowing who Peter’s successor was, assuming he had one—and I don’t know if he had one. The Bible doesn’t tell us.

The is not a book of Christian history.

St Ireneus gives an account:newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received

And further says how apostolic tradition is preserved, in writing against the Gnostic heresy:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

[/QUOTE]

 

[adrift]

Since the title of this conversation includes “Catholic teaching,” I guess it’s okay for us to switch to the topic of the church. . . . but do you think we should start a new conversation (thread)?

The title isn’t an open invitation to discuss everything Catholic but only the teachings about the Eucharist. The Eucharist in -]Scripture and /-]Catholic Teaching.
Another topic should be for other threads.

I agree that there is one church of Jesus Christ. I won’t deny that Peter was in charge, although I’ve never investigated whether he was officially appointed by God to head up the group of the 12 apostles. Do you have scriptural basis that he was charge? I’m open to learn. (If we’re not open to learn more, we’re dying.) Do you believe Peter was infallible? If so, where’s your biblical support for that?
I know that the book of Galatians indicates that he made some serious mistakes even after receiving the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

I have no way of knowing who Peter’s successor was, assuming he had one—and I don’t know if he had one. The Bible doesn’t tell us.

I agree that the church is visible. I believe the church (not meaning the Catholic Church) is in disarray today. I believe church history shows that the church went through dark ages during which spirituality reached a low ebb and we are still in the process of restoring the church to its original glory.

I may have asked you this before—I’ve forgotten: What’s your definition of “the church of Jesus Christ”?

Many blessings to you. May His face shine upon you tonight and tomorrow. May you grow closer to him and know His love more tomorrow than today.

This has been the subject of other threads. Do a search for “Rock”. You can join one of the on going discussion. It is kind of funny because this was off topic in another thread so the moderator split it into this thread.

Good thing you had your vacation when you did. The fire has closed much in Colorado Springs.

 

[adrift]

A thought came to me as I thought about this that no doubt is from the Lord, and that is that if the ritual we call the Eucharist is made more important than the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus that it points to, the Eucharist can actually become an idol!

Cal this shows that you have no understanding of the Eucharist.
Here is a definition of the Eucharist

The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or “thanksgiving,” because at its institution at the Last Supper Christ “gave thanks,” and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion. As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in his abiding existence on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in his abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces he merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life. (Etym. Latin Eucharist, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from Greek Eucharist, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor.)

No the Eucharist could never be an idol. Jesus is true God and we owe Him our worship. The Eucharist is Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[jmcrae]

Since the title of this conversation includes “Catholic teaching,” I guess it’s okay for us to switch to the topic of the church. . . . but do you think we should start a new conversation (thread)?

I think as long as it’s understood that we are simply defining our terms so as to continue the original discussion, it should be just fine.

I agree that there is one church of Jesus Christ. I won’t deny that Peter was in charge, although I’ve never investigated whether he was officially appointed by God to head up the group of the 12 apostles. Do you have scriptural basis that he was charge? I’m open to learn. (If we’re not open to learn more, we’re dying.)

There are two Gospel passages that are traditionally used in support of the ancient tradition that Peter was the head of the Church, and that his successors, the Bishops of Rome, succeed him in this office.

The first is Matthew 16:18-19, which clearly shows Jesus (as the second David) appointing Peter to the Davidic role of “key holder.” What Peter opens is opened, and what Peter shuts is shut - that is to say, in the Kingdom of God, Peter (and his successors after him) has the authority to establish the discipline of the Church, and that his decisions are ratified by God. (It’s like when your parents hire a baby-sitter and tell her, “You can feed the children anything you want,” and then you complain to your father, “The baby-sitter is making us eat vegetables,” your father says, “You will eat whatever she sets on your plate, and you will smile and thank her for it,” instead of taking your side against her. In the same way that fathers can invest baby-sitters with certain authority, God has invested Peter (and his successors) with certain authority.

The Davidic reference is in Isaiah 22, which shows us with no uncertainty whatsoever that this is an office that takes successors.

The second passage shows Peter being appointed Chief Shepherd of the whole flock - the entire Church. We find it in John 21:15-19. Three times, Jesus asks Peter to “feed my lambs,” and “feed my sheep.” Three is an important number - it signifies completion. Peter’s authority is complete.

Do you believe Peter was infallible? If so, where’s your biblical support for that?

That the Bible exists at all is my support that all of the Apostles were infallible - if not, then the Church had no basis upon which to select the 27 books of the New Testament, nor to compile them into a codex to be distributed to every church in Christendom, by order of Pope Innocent I in 405 AD after the completion of the work of the Councils of Chalcedon, Hippo, and Rome.

I know that the book of Galatians indicates that he made some serious mistakes even after receiving the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

“Infallible” simply means that he cannot teach error regarding the moral and doctrinal precepts of the Church, and that he is to be obeyed on matters of discipline.

I have no way of knowing who Peter’s successor was, assuming he had one—and I don’t know if he had one. The Bible doesn’t tell us.

Long before we had a Bible, we knew that Pope Linus was his successor. St. Irenaeus recounted the entire list of the Popes up to his own time some 100 years before the first Bible emerged from St. Jerome’s little cave.

I agree that the church is visible. I believe the church (not meaning the Catholic Church) is in disarray today. I believe church history shows that the church went through dark ages during which spirituality reached a low ebb and we are still in the process of restoring the church to its original glory.

If it’s visible, then it has buildings and it has people in charge. If it has a former glory to which it may be restored, we won’t find it in any religion or spiritual system that didn’t exist yet at the time of that glory.

I may have asked you this before—I’ve forgotten: What’s your definition of “the church of Jesus Christ”?

All who are in good standing and full communion with Christ’s Vicar in Rome, together with all of those who would be, if they knew it were necessary, and all who are consciously striving to get there.

Many blessings to you. May His face shine upon you tonight and tomorrow. May you grow closer to him and know His love more tomorrow than today.

Thank you. The same to you.

 

[jmcrae]

A thought came to me as I thought about this that no doubt is from the Lord, and that is that if the ritual we call the Eucharist is made more important than the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus that it points to, the Eucharist can actually become an idol!

Suspect no more. We believe that the Eucharist is actually God. If it is not, then it is definitely an idol in the most old-fashioned possible sense of the word.

But it is Jesus who told us, “This bread is My body,” and “This chalice is My blood,” so, trusting Jesus, we know that it is no idol, but that it is God Himself, and to be worshipped and glorified in every way.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I forget who said the following to me, but it was so astounding that I saved it on my desktop until now:

I had been suspecting from some of the comments being made on this forum that some Catholics regard partaking of the Eucharist more important than the salvation that it points to. The comment above spilled the beans, so to speak, and spelled out in no uncertain terms what I had been suspecting.

A thought came to me as I thought about this that no doubt is from the Lord, and that is that if the ritual we call the Eucharist is made more important than the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus that it points to, the Eucharist can actually become an idol!

If you’re not sure what I mean, an idol can be anything that distracts us from carrying out the entire plan of God for our lives or something that keeps us from receiving salvation (forgiveness and a place in heaven) altogether. Colossians 3:5 shows this. The NAB says (emphasis added by me), “Put to death whatever in your nature is rooted in earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desires, and that lust which is idolatry.” The NIV version of Col. 3:5 makes it even more clear: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.”

I may offend somebody but I love you enough to tell you the truth. Proverbs 27:6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

I feel that at least once I should tell the hard truth about the matter. Jesus would. He offended a lot of people. I hope you can receive what I’ve said with the humility of Christ—even though my heart is certainly not totally purified of all that is not Christ’s love—far from it!

God bless all you precious friends.

have you been with us so long and still do not understand?

I may offend somebody but I love you enough to tell you the truth. Proverbs 27:6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

Partaking of the Eucharist is ESSENTIAL to salvation. If you do not eat His Body or drink His Blood, you do not have Life within you period, no matter how much you feel you have Jesus in your heart.

*Catechism of the Catholic Church

2113* Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith.** Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God**. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Many martyrs died for not adoring “the Beast” refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

The Eucharist is God

and therefore can NEVER be an idol. To claim that the Eucharist is an idol is blasphemy and sacrilege and a serious sin.
*
Catechism of the Catholic Church

2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.” The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.

2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.52*
bolding mine

1 Corinthians 11:27-30
This is the final passage for our analysis. Because of its importance each verse will be examined.

27 - Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

The key phrase in Greek is: “enokos (guilty) estai (will be) tou (of the) somatos (body) kai (and) tou (of the) haimatos (blood) tou (of the) kuriou (Lord).” These words express violence to the person of Christ as if one was guilty of his murder. This graphic statement makes no sense unless Paul is confirming that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of the Lord. If the Eucharist were merely a symbol, Paul could say the unworthy reception of the Eucharist is
profaning the image of the Lord, but not his body and blood.

28 - Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

The word “examine,” dokimazo in Greek carries the meaning “to prove” or “to scrutinize,” “to discover if something is genuine or not, like precious metals,” “to deem worthy.” Why is such a careful examination necessary for a mere symbol?

29 - For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

The Greek word translated as “discerning” is diakrino. That word means, “to judge,” “to separate,” “to withdraw from.” The Greek word translated, as “judgment” is krima, which means “damnation,” or “condemnation.” This is very strong language that makes no sense if Paul is speaking about a mere symbol. St. Paul affirms that the unworthy reception of the Eucharist brings damnation upon the recipient. This serious condemnation only makes sense if the Eucharist is truly Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine.

30 - That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

It is inconceivable that God would render such severe punishments for disrespect to a mere symbol. Indeed, there is no other instance in the New Testament where a death is a common penalty for sin much less for the misuse of a symbol.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I would never presume to judge whether any Christian has the Spirit living in him.

How is it that you think I would know this?

Hello, my friend.

It is sometimes hard to tell whether someone has the Spirit living in him or her. And when it’s hard to tell, like you, I try to leave the judging up to God.

I have a Catholic son-in-law like that. He never talks about his relationship with God—if he has one—and he gets uncomfortable and has often left the room when a quality conversation about Jesus is engaged in in a group in which he is present.
On the other hand, he does initiate a prayer of thanks before a meal, and said once that he says spontaneous prayers on his way to work—not just the Hail Marys.
I’m letting God judge him.

Getting back to your question, usually its easy to tell once you become acquainted. Jesus said we can identify a tree by its fruit (Matt. 7). Humans are trees, aren’t they? The fruit of the Holy Spirit is "love, joy, peace, patient endurance, kindness, generosity, faith, mildness, and chastity (Gal. 5:22).
If they talk excitedly about something Jesus is doing in them, its quite likely they have him in them.

When you walk into a room with many Christians :grouphug:, especially if they are talking about the Lord, there is a special atmosphere—the presence of the Lord.

I think you know all this. :tiphat:

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Indeed.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Cal!

Hey, we’re connecting!

 

[jmcrae]

I have a Catholic son-in-law like that. He never talks about his relationship with God—if he has one—and he gets uncomfortable and has often left the room when a quality conversation about Jesus is engaged in in a group in which he is present.

Maybe the quality is not as high as the participants think. I have quietly walked out when my Protestant friends started zealously proclaiming heresies. I didn’t feel it was right to dampen their enthusiasm for Jesus by trying to correct them, but at the same time, I could not be present in the same room with heresy.

On the other hand, he does initiate a prayer of thanks before a meal, and said once that he says spontaneous prayers on his way to work—not just the Hail Marys.
I’m letting God judge him.

It sounds like he does just fine.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello, my friend.

It is sometimes hard to tell whether someone has the Spirit living in him or her. And when it’s hard to tell, like you, I try to leave the judging up to God.

Indeed. So I find your question* puzzling.

*“I hope there aren’t Catholics who partake of the Eucharist but who do not have his Spirit living in them. Do you think there are some?”

I have a Catholic son-in-law like that. He never talks about his relationship with God

By this do you mean that if he *did *talk about his relationship with God you could determine whether he “has the Spirit living in him”?

 

[grannymh]

Hiya, Cal!

Here’s the thing: you believe Peter was infallible, as well!

How 'bout that?

How do I know this?

Because you quoted him as infallible right here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9008448&postcount=404

Unless you think there are some errors in his encyclicals, 1 Peter and 2 Peter, then you do believe he was infallible, right?

I just popped in. Peter is a person. Infallibility is not attached permanently to a person. Infallibility is attached to a declaration of Divine Revelation. I do not believe that Ex Cathedra was in use that early in Church history considering that even Acts reports a Church Council. Still, ExCathedra does not extend to every word of a Pope. Infallibility is not automatic.

 

[grannymh]

I forget who said the following to me, but it was so astounding that I saved it on my desktop until now:

I had been suspecting from some of the comments being made on this forum that some Catholics regard partaking of the Eucharist more important than the salvation that it points to. The comment above spilled the beans, so to speak, and spelled out in no uncertain terms what I had been suspecting.

A thought came to me as I thought about this that no doubt is from the Lord, and that is that if the ritual we call the Eucharist is made more important than the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus that it points to, the Eucharist can actually become an idol!

If you’re not sure what I mean, an idol can be anything that distracts us from carrying out the entire plan of God for our lives or something that keeps us from receiving salvation (forgiveness and a place in heaven) altogether. Colossians 3:5 shows this. The NAB says (emphasis added by me), “Put to death whatever in your nature is rooted in earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desires, and that lust which is idolatry.” The NIV version of Col. 3:5 makes it even more clear: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.”

I may offend somebody but I love you enough to tell you the truth. Proverbs 27:6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

I feel that at least once I should tell the hard truth about the matter. Jesus would. He offended a lot of people. I hope you can receive what I’ve said with the humility of Christ—even though my heart is certainly not totally purified of all that is not Christ’s love—far from it!

God bless all you precious friends.

The formal name of the Mass is – The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Sacrifice refers back to the Salvation of the Crucifixtion.

 

[grannymh]

*“I hope there aren’t Catholics who partake of the Eucharist but who do not have his Spirit living in them. Do you think there are some?”

There are thousands and thousands of Catholic-in name partakers of the Eucharist who do not have His Spirit living in them. They usually appear at Christmas, Easter and funerals. So many, that I am going to eventually base my report on the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin on the obvious which is that there is a disconnect between what Catholic leaders think Catholics know about the Eucharist and what Catholics actually do know.

Long ago, I stopped participating on “Eucharistic” threads because they were too heady for me. But since a lot of the forums have good examples of what Catholics do not know in all general areas of Catholic doctrines, I thought I would find a current Eucharistic thread. At the moment, it appears that there is not a lot of activity in the Eucharistic domain. Maybe, being tired, I have missed them.

Thus, I have decided to simply go by the low attendance at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the lack of in-depth education. Also, there is a great need to counter the current symbolism concept of ordinary bread and wine. Another sign of bad Catholic education regarding the Eucharist is the news about a priest being removed because he changed the words of the Eucharistic prayers. This is in the “News” Forums. Maybe this came to light because of the new translation–I really do not recall all the particulars. Sorry.

Somewhere, I did a post on simply asking one’s pastor to preach the Eucharist. Yes, I know that is preaching to the choir. But it is the choir who needs hard facts to present to their families and friends. Hard facts got lost in the era of the warm, fuzzy Jesus.

Thank you for listening to my observations about the Eucharist in Catholic teaching.
From my position in the trenches, this teaching is :whacky:

Here is the interesting news link. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=688354

Unfortunately, this type of thing, in some form, has been going on across the country. I wonder why it wasn’t noticed. Correction, some people have reported tinkering with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

If they talk excitedly about something Jesus is doing in them, its quite likely they have him in them.

This is a peculiar proposition, IMHO, Cal.

It’s also unbiblical. There is no verse that states that how excitedly someone talks about what Jesus is doing in them that tells you whether they have the Spirit in them or not.

 

[PRmerger]

I just popped in. Peter is a person. Infallibility is not attached permanently to a person.

Hiya, granny! Welcome to the thread.

And, yes, you are right. No person is permanently infallible.

But anyone who quotes from 1 Peter and 2 Peter, proclaiming that it is inspired is, de facto, acknowledging the infallibility of a* man.*

 

[PRmerger]

There are thousands and thousands of Catholic-in name partakers of the Eucharist who do not have His Spirit living in them. They usually appear at Christmas, Easter and funerals. So many, that I am going to eventually base my report on the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin on the obvious which is that there is a disconnect between what Catholic leaders think Catholics know about the Eucharist and what Catholics actually do know.

This is a trenchant point and one I had not considered before.

Long ago, I stopped participating on “Eucharistic” threads because they were too heady for me. But since a lot of the forums have good examples of what Catholics do not know in all general areas of Catholic doctrines, I thought I would find a current Eucharistic thread. At the moment, it appears that there is not a lot of activity in the Eucharistic domain. Maybe, being tired, I have missed them.

Thus, I have decided to simply go by the low attendance at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the lack of in-depth education.

Or, one could simply ask a cradle Catholic, “What is the Immaculate Conception?” and you will be astounded at the ignorant replies.

Many will look at you blankly.
Most will say, “Ummm…isn’t it when Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit?”*

Hardly any will give the correct answer, “It is when Mary was conceived in the womb of St. Anne without the stain of original sin on her soul.”

*And then they will joke about how, if they’re pregnant, it “has to be by the Immaculate Conception 'cause my husband and I haven’t done that in months!” Grrrrrr!! Not even close to the right definition.

Also, there is a great need to counter the current symbolism concept of ordinary bread and wine. Another sign of bad Catholic education regarding the Eucharist is the news about a priest being removed because he changed the words of the Eucharistic prayers. This is in the “News” Forums. Maybe this came to light because of the new translation–I really do not recall all the particulars. Sorry.

Somewhere, I did a post on simply asking one’s pastor to preach the Eucharist. Yes, I know that is preaching to the choir. But it is the choir who needs hard facts to present to their families and friends. Hard facts got lost in the era of the warm, fuzzy Jesus.

Thank you for listening to my observations about the Eucharist in Catholic teaching.
From my position in the trenches, this teaching is :whacky:

Here is the interesting news link. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=688354

Unfortunately, this type of thing, in some form, has been going on across the country. I wonder why it wasn’t noticed. Correction, some people have reported tinkering with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[jmcrae]

Somewhere, I did a post on simply asking one’s pastor to preach the Eucharist. Yes, I know that is preaching to the choir. But it is the choir who needs hard facts to present to their families and friends. Hard facts got lost in the era of the warm, fuzzy Jesus.

Not to mention that half the choir is into yoga, or crystal therapy, or what-have-you, because they have no idea of the treasures available to them in their own faith tradition, and are looking for a little spiritual excitement on the side. Someone has got to preach to the choir, as well as to the lost.