The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[LilyM]

God doesn’t need an “interceder” just the same as he doesn’t need a mediator. God has plenty of ability in Himself to forgive our sins and listen to our confessions for us. He doesn’t need a sinful man to do it for Him.

No, God doesn’t need a mediator. For that matter He doesn’t need an interceder or a saviour. Yet WE need all of these things. God doesn’t need us full stop - nor does He need to have anything to do with us. He CHOOSES to save us.

And He CHOOSES to cater to our human needs for visible and audible signs of His salvation - hence baptism, the Bible, public worship, images of Christ, Communion services and so on.

AND he caters to our human need for visible and audible reassurance of forgiveness - hence He instituted the Apostles to forgive sins and the sacrament of Confession stems from that.

 

[mercygate]

He wouldn’t need to, and again as I keep saying why would he institute it when it goes completely against the idea that Jesus is the only mediator?

Intercession, i.e., praying for one another, is something Paul talks about all the time.

The unique mediation of Christ is effected via the Incarnation – his Divine Person, incarnate in true human flesh, “mediates” between the Father and us. This mediation accomplishes the reconciliation of God and man.

When we use the word “mediate” as if it were a kind of negotiation or transaction, we use it in a watered-down sense that does not convey the full theological significance of the word. Jesus is the One Mediator in the sense that He is the **only-**begotten Son of God. He is the “mediate” Being.

The Epistle of James, as others point out, we are told to “confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” (Jas 5:15-16) IOW: BOTH confession and intercession are mentioned on the same breath.

 

[Gamera]

God doesn’t need an “interceder” just the same as he doesn’t need a mediator. God has plenty of ability in Himself to forgive our sins and listen to our confessions for us. He doesn’t need a sinful man to do it for Him.

“And when he had said this, he breathed on [the disciples in the upper room], and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” John 20:22-23.

Do you believe those disciples in the upper room received Jesus’ authority to forgive sins in His name? Obviously the Bible says they did. That didn’t make them “other mediators,” though. Jesus remained the sole mediator. He simply delegated authority to his disciples.

So assuming that you accept this Scripture, your real objection is not that Jesus “couldn’t” delegate authority to forgive sins (since obviously He did in John 20:22-23), but rather that you don’t understand how that authority got passed beyond those first-generation Christians, from generation to generation. Is that accurate?

 

[VociMike]

Confession is a difficult thing. I find it alot harder to confess to a priest than to confess to God alone. When I enter the confessional, I’m alot more nervous and conscious of my sins than I would be if I were just kneeling down to pray for forgiveness. In reality, I should be infinitely more afraid of the wrath of God for the sins I have committed, than of the judgment of one priest.

Christ knew our human limitations. He knew that we find it easy to take God’s forgiveness for granted. When He instituted confession, it was designed to give us a more appropriate sense of repentance - to make it easier for us to feel true remorse.

Confession also forces us to seriously examine our consciences, and to clearly spell out our faults. Without confession, we would be much less likely to do so.

Christ did a very wise thing when he instituted the Sacrament of Confession.

Quite right. The reasons that confession to a priest are good for us (good for our souls, you might say) are exactly the reasons people don’t want to do it. If a person truly and honestly examines the reasons he doesn’t want to confess to a priest, he will understand why Christ requires it.

 

[zerocrossing]

Why would God say one thing, and yet have his Son teach something that goes against it?
.

The last time you made this sort of categorical, it concerned incense being an abomination to God. Have you gone back and read those scripture passages that we showed you, demonstrating that God ordered the use of incense in the temple worship and that it is used by angels before God’s throne in heaven?

Given your history with categorical statements in this thread, I would suggest being more careful in their use.

 

[zerocrossing]

What God needs or doesn’t need isn’t really the point. It is God who gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) and it is God who commands us to make use of it.

It is not up to us to tell God that He doesn’t actually need for us to do that. Rather, it is up to us to be obedient to God, and to do things His way, rather than whatever way we happen to think might be an “improvement” on His way.

As you said, it’s not about what God needs. I would add that it IS about God’s recognition of what WE need.

I think that somewhere in this thread it needs to be mentioned (it probably already has!) that this sacrament is not just about forgiveness but also about reconciliation. And it’s not just about reconciliation with God.

The sacrament is only essential (though it is always useful) when we commit grave sins. Grave sins seriously damage our relationship not only with God but also with man. Confession to a priest reconciles us in both areas - the vertical relationship with God and the horizontal relationship with our fellow human beings.

WE need that reconciliation - both spiritually and even psychologically. This sacrament demonstrates clearly how well God understands the human need not only to be forgiven but also to be reconciled and to repair the bonds that have been broken by our sin.

 

[zerocrossing]

The evidence has been in my reasons, for which I have already stated.

I haven’t seen any evidence, only assertions.

 

[agangbern]

I haven’t seen any evidence, only assertions.

Yes, it really looks like it. And assertions need to be supported with clear evidence. Many posters here have already shown clear evidences from scriptures that the Eucharist is true body of Christ. But up to this point of the discussion, AJK never attempted to destroy the said evidences directly. He just circles around them with his own reasoning.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, it really looks like it. And assertions need to be supported with clear evidence. Many posters here have already shown clear evidences from scriptures that the Eucharist is true body of Christ. But up to this point of the discussion, AJK never attempted to destroy the said evidences directly. He just circles around them with his own reasoning.

Reasoning? Ever notice how often people say things like: “I have my own ideas” or “This means . . .” or “I like to think for myself” when what they really mean is, “My reaction is . . .”

No real research, effort or honest THOUGHT has gone into the supposed “conclusion” at all. The conclusion is a flash-reaction.

 

[justasking4]

porthos11;3099314]First of all, why do you ignore the clear Scripture we gave you proving that Christ COMMANDED his apostles to forgive sins?

Are there any passages in Scripture that shows someone confessing their sins to an apostles and that apostle forgiving those specific sins?

Second, how much more absurd is it than God healing people using handkerchiefs or even Peter’s shadow?

No, you presented no evidence. You presented only your opinion, was soundly refuted with Scripture, which you then clearly ignore and maintain your position with no support.

I challenge you. Explain John 20:22-23. Someone already tried to twist it violently with no support whatsoever. How about you? Why do you ignore the Bible?

Where in John 20:22-23 do we see any evidence of a confessional or anything like you have in the catholic church?

My second question is: must a catholic confess his-her sins to a priest to be forgiven?

 

[Gamera]

Where in John 20:22-23 do we see any evidence of a confessional or anything like you have in the catholic church?

Nowhere. There is no requirement that confession occur inside a confessional booth, that’s just a custom. A valid confession could occur anywhere (for instance, in a priest’s office).

My second question is: must a catholic confess his-her sins to a priest to be forgiven?

No. However, we must confess to a priest before again receiving Communion.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Are there any passages in Scripture that shows someone confessing their sins to an apostles and that apostle forgiving those specific sins?

So, are you suggesting that Jesus’ words are meaningless? Are you going as far as saying that Jesus, God the Son, did something that had really no practical meaning? And if you are suggesting it, why would the author of the Gospels include it? Surely, if people were not to confess to them then the power they received was **absolutely **meaningless.

What say you?

Now, next step is to read Church Fathers to learn about how people were confessing their sins (if you dare).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Are there any passages in Scripture that shows someone confessing their sins to an apostles and that apostle forgiving those specific sins?

John, the Baptist did.

4 Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. - John 3:4-6

Where in John 20:22-23 do we see any evidence of a confessional or anything like you have in the catholic church?

Private confessionals? They developed over time. Originally confessions were public, and the penance was also public in the Early Church.

My second question is: must a catholic confess his-her sins to a priest to be forgiven?

The sins can be either be forgiven, or retained. If the persons does not make a firm purpose of amendment, that is make the resolution to avoid the sin at all cost, the sin is retained. There have been incidence, which priest retain forgiveness or deny absolution because the penitent refuse to abstain from using contraception, or refuse to move out with his girlfriend.

I do have a question for you? Why are we discussion confession in this thread? This has nothing to do with confession. Is this thread about Eucharist?

 

[mercygate]

Are there any passages in Scripture that shows someone confessing their sins to an apostles and that apostle forgiving those specific sins?

In 2 Cor. 2:10, Paul states with respect to the incestuous man that whatever he [Paul] has forgiven, “forgave I it in the person of Christ.” (KJV) In chapter 5, Paul mentions being an ambassador of Christ. And he also says that Christ “hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” An ambassador serves with the powers of the King. The “word of reconciliation” in the sacramental sense, is the ability to pronounce absolution.

You have to be reading this with your Catholic goggles on to catch this and to understand it as a reference to the early appearance of the Apostolic power of absolution/reconciliation (just as you need those same liturgical goggles to understand that the Epistle to the Hebrews is ALL about the Eucharist!).

Where in John 20:22-23 do we see any evidence of a confessional or anything like you have in the catholic church?

The essential feature of Jn 20:22-23 has not changed: that Christ entrusted the Apostles with the power to forgive and retain sins the forgiveness of sins. Catholics believe this HAD to be transmitted to their successors as well because Christ would not leave His Church without an effective means of transmitting the central message of the Gospel until He comes again – namely, the forgiveness of sins.

The externals of the sacrament changed over the centuries, from open confession in front of the whole congregation in the early Church to private confession with a priest only (and aren’t we glad about THAT!). “Phone booth” confessionals were an innovation after the Council of Trent. And a good one, if you ask me.

My second question is: must a catholic confess his-her sins to a priest to be forgiven?

Yes. This is the normative way that Catholics receive absolution. In case of urgency, such as a ship going down and no priest available, a Catholic with perfect contrition, may be assured of the Lord’s forgiveness. However, if he makes it to shore, he must go to confession as soon as he can. Neither God nor the Catholic Church hold people to a duty they are unable to perform.

Confession is just about the BEST thing about being Catholic!

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Now, next step is to read Church Fathers to learn about how people were confessing their sins (if you dare).

justasking4-
I posted a CA article a few pages back called “Confession”. It addresses what Gandalf is talking about. I suggest you read it.

EDIT: Here they are!

Physician of the Soul
How to Talk About Confession
Confession

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Confession [and the Eucharist are] the BEST things about being Catholic!

I fixed it some

 

[justasking4]

If the eucharist is the body of Christ how do catholics know this to be the case if there is absolutely no phyiscal change in the wafer and wine itself?

What is the evidence for it?

 

[EphelDuath]

The same reason we believe that Christ performed miracles without any physical evidence.

Because the Church and the Bible teach it, and as Jesus has proven his credibility, we have faith that he’s not a scoundrel.

 

[Gamera]

Yes. This is the normative way that Catholics receive absolution. In case of urgency, such as a ship going down and no priest available, a Catholic with perfect contrition, may be assured of the Lord’s forgiveness. However, if he makes it to shore, he must go to confession as soon as he can. Neither God nor the Catholic Church hold people to a duty they are unable to perform.

No “urgency” is needed. Catholics can confess directly to Jesus with an act of perfect contrition and receive immediate absolution at any time — no “sinking ship” scenario is needed. However, they still must confess through a priest before receiving Eucharist unless there is a grave reason (that’s where the “urgency” comes into play).

If I am in mortal sin and I make a perfect act of contrition, Jesus will forgive me today, even though confession isn’t until Saturday. However, I still must go to Saturday confession if I am to receive the Eucharist on Sunday.

 

[mercygate]

If the eucharist is the body of Christ how do catholics know this to be the case if there is absolutely no phyiscal change in the wafer and wine itself?

What is the evidence for it?

Some people might drag you to the authenticated eucharistic miracles. I don’t go there because those are for the faithful or for the wannabe faithful. (It does kind of get my attention that all the verified miracles have the blood type AB negative, as does the Shroud of Turin.)

When sharing Catholic belief with other Christians, I prefer to rely on Jesus’ own words both in John 6 and at the Last Supper.

So the evidence is the persistence of the belief and the fact that it is documented back to the earliest times. The early Christians believed that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist: No argument against that at all for hundreds of years. Refinements in the teaching that led to the definition of transubstantiation came much later in response to various challenges. But the basic belief that this IS the Body of Christ was unchallenged in the Apostolic and subapostolic Church. We have a heck of a paper trail on this.

“Cannibalism” is one of the charges leveled against the early Christians.

None of the Apostolic churches (those with unchallenged Apostolic Succession) has EVER dreamed for a second of changing this belief.