The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[rinnie]

Radical, also if you deny the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then we have no new Covenant correct? And Jesus lied to us when he said this is the NC.

So now what do you suggest? Going back to the OC? Because he said his death on the Cross, and the Eucharist was the New C.

As I have asked earlier, and never got a response. Where are we to get this body and blood that is to give us eternal life if it does not exist? Then none of us can gain eternal life because we have no life in us correct? Because to have eternal life we must eat and drink this cup of the NC to have eternal life. According to you this is no N.C. Now Jesus said there is, but you say this is not. Jesus said we must eat TRUE bread from heaven. He said his body and blood IS TRUE BREAD from Heaven. Again then why did Jesus say this? Was this saying just a symbol also?

 

[rinnie]

actually my answer would be that Jesus did not leave His church (those who possess the Spirit)) - with a way to know, with perfect certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist…if it can’t be achieved individually, then it can’t be achieved collectively.

Then if Jesus did not leave his Church with a way to know with perfect certainty why did he say I must leave you, so I can send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth. So you deny these words also?

Now was he or was he not speaking to the Apostles. Did he not promise them the gift of the HS to teach in his name? Now how could this be possible to teach in his name? Did he keep his promise and send the Holy Spirit as he claimed he would and did they not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost or not?

 

[Radical]

Radical you ask where our proof is that only a Catholic Priest can offer the Eucharist. We have showed you the scripture of the laying of hands. The Scripture said not to be too quick of the laying of the hands on just anyone. The Laying of the Hands is called Holy Orders.

Actually, over here the “laying on of hands” is called the “laying on of hands”. The laying on of hands was and is used for healing, blessing and appointing…for a “proof” you would need to have some passage that states that the laying on of hands acts as a transmission of an authority (that can only be enjoyed by those along the chain of transmission) and that the authority involves the exclusive power to “offer the Eucharist”…please keep in mind that the passage must say exactly that and not something else (quite different) that you nevertheless interpret to mean that your priests enjoy some special power/authority

Now you claim that any Priest can give the Eucharist, then if any Priest not only a Catholic Priest can change wine and bread into the living Christ, why don’t they, Why do they claim it a symbol.

bc/ it is a symbol and b/c, even though you may think a change of substance occurs at your Eucharist, I am inclined to believe that no such change occurs.

If Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood, why would he choose those words.

He probably spoke Aramic and said the equivalent of, “This --my body.”

Why would he not say this is a symbol of my body and blood.

b/c it is that obvious

Also how can a symbol give us everlasting life.

it doesn’t…God does…how does “eating God” give everlasting life…and how come doesn’t it work for non-believers?

How do we eat a symbol?

normally we chew and then swallow the bread…which symbolizes his sacrificed body

Another problem, Do you feel that Baptism is the actual pouring of the Holy Spirit, Just as Jesus said,…

could you provide that verse for my reference?

Radical, also if you deny the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then we have no new Covenant correct?

nope, the new covenant is based on Christ’s blood poured out at the cross and not on a real bodily presence.

And Jesus lied to us when he said this is the NC.

do you mean when he said the cup was the NC in his blood?..again, two things are obvious. First, he didn’t mean the cup, but rather what was in the cup (and no, I am not saying Jesus was confused or a liar b/c I understand his reference to be WRT the contents). Second, the wine was a symbol of his blood that would be poured out at the cross.

As I have asked earlier, and never got a response. Where are we to get this body and blood that is to give us eternal life if it does not exist?

as Augustine pointed out, it is a figure enjoining us to share in Christ’s suffering on the cross etc.

Jesus said we must eat TRUE bread from heaven. He said his body and blood IS TRUE BREAD from Heaven. Again then why did Jesus say this? Was this saying just a symbol also?

you seem confused here…here you are saying Christ is bread?..but then it seems that you also want to claim that bread is flesh (and not really bread)…so what is it? Is Christ literally bread?..or is it that the bread is literally Christ’s flesh?..and if you don’t understand Christ to literally be bread, why not?..did he lie?..this “did he lie?” approach gets kinda silly, doesn’t it?

Then if Jesus did not leave his Church with a way to know with perfect certainty why did he say I must leave you, so I can send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth. So you deny these words also?

If you read my posts you should have realized that the lack certainty had to do with the limitations of our fallible minds…and you should be able to notice that a promise made directly to the apostles to send the Holy Spirit to lead them to all truth is not the same as a promise to ensure that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church can’t use their fallible minds in such a fashion that results in error…they are two very different things

Did he keep his promise and send the Holy Spirit as he claimed he would and did they not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost or not?

yeah they did…but how does that mean that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church can’t use their fallible minds in such a fashion that results in error? It just doesn’t necessarily follow.

 

[rinnie]

Radical sure you want proof here it is.

In 1 Tim .22 He is told do not lay hands too readily on anyone. Now you have to agree that does not mean don’t cure just anyone.

Scripture shows Holy Orders of the Church and Church Hierarchy.

Not to have Holy Orders in the Church would be contrary to not Only Sacred Scripture but also Sacred Tradition.

Here let me show you.

Eph 4:11-12
l Peter 2:5 2:9
Heb. 5:1
l Tim 3
Titus 1:7-9
Rom 16:1
l Tim 3:13

You would have to ignore quite a bit of Scripture to reject Holy Orders.

 

[rinnie]

Now Jesus said when you speak with the Gift of the Holy Spirit it will be in MY VOICE they will hear.

And what you are saying is quite contrary to Scripture do you not agree. You are saying that the Priest can speak in the Name of the Holy Spirit and lead us astray? So how do you explain this scripture.

John 17:17 Consecrate them in the Truth. Your word is the Turth. As you sent me into the world send them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them and that they also may be consecrated in truth.

Now did Jesus or did he not Consecrate them in the truth? When a Pope or Bishop teaches by the Power of the Holy Spirit we have this promise from God that they are consecrated in the Truth. Now you are saying you do not believe this. How can you say this when it is the word of God? Do you ignore this scripture also?

 

[Radical]

Scripture shows Holy Orders of the Church and Church Hierarchy.

IMHO scripture shows a form of Church leadership that is quite different from what you call Church Orders and Church Hierarchy

Radical sure you want proof here it is…Here let me show you.

Eph 4:11-12

this constituted part of your proof of the Priest’s special power WRT the Eucharist. Here are those verses:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
It mentions pastors and teachers after it mentions prophets and apostles…no mention of a priest that must do something special at the Lord’s Supper. Please note that the mere mention of leadership roles doesn’t mean they have some sort of thing that they do at the Eucharist that no one else can do…nor does it mean that the leadership roles closely resembled the offices now found in the CC. …it means that they had leaders called pastors and teachers (which is also what Protestant congregations have)
But wait, maybe that was a lone misfire on your part. Here is the second pair of verses that you list (1 Peter 2:5&9):
…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
So this passage designates believers as a royal priesthood…if anything that suggests that a clerical priest isn’t necessary b/c we are all priests. It seems that you think the mere mention of a priesthood validates everything you believe about your priesthood. What’s next?

You would have to ignore quite a bit of Scripture to reject Holy Orders.

no, I would only have to ignore your interpretation of scripture…

And what you are saying is quite contrary to Scripture do you not agree.

no, what you claim scripture states and what scripture actually states are two very different things

You are saying that the Priest can speak in the Name of the Holy Spirit and lead us astray? So how do you explain this scripture.

I would explain it by pointing out that the Holy Spirit isn’t granted only to the clergy…so it isn’t as if the Catholic Priest has some monopoly on speaking with guidance by the Spirit. With such guidance one won’t lead the flock astray, but it is hardly the case that Catholic priests always choose to follow such guidance…

Now did Jesus or did he not Consecrate them in the truth?

in that passage Christ prayed for his disciples and for those who would later believe… (that would include protestants and their clergy)

When a Pope or Bishop teaches by the Power of the Holy Spirit we have this promise from God that they are consecrated in the Truth.

when anyone teaches by the power of the Spirit, truth will result, but I fail to see where it is mentioned that the Catholic Popes and the Catholic Bishops would only teach by the power of the Spirit. Whenever they have taught error that you can’t help but acknowledge, you will claim that they weren’t officially teaching on behalf of the CC…the thing doesn’t count. Well, you just need to realize that the “unofficial teaching” (aka error) extends to what you think is inspired teaching.

How can you say this when it is the word of God? Do you ignore this scripture also?

no, just your interpretation of it

 

[DENNYINMI]

The Levites replaced the people as the priesthood but Aaron and his sons continued as the ministerial priesthood.

Question: Do we also have these two divisions of the priesthood? Read CCC # 1547.

Answer: Yes, those of us who are covenant believers are all members of the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ but some of us are called to serve in the ministerial priesthood

Radical would need a further understanding of Leviticus, to fully understand Priest and Eucharist, also Leviticus also explains why disciples in John 6 walked away after the discourse by Jesus on The Bread of Life. Drinking blood would have been spiritual death to a Jew.

To the New Covenant believer however, we know it means eternal life. (Life in Us).

 

[rinnie]

This is MY body,This is my blood what else do you need its what Our Lord said do you THINK He was lying

Hi Bill, haven’t seen you for awhile. Love how you just get to the Point!

 

[rinnie]

IMHO scripture shows a form of Church leadership that is quite different from what you call Church Orders and Church Hierarchy

this constituted part of your proof of the Priest’s special power WRT the Eucharist. Here are those verses:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
It mentions pastors and teachers after it mentions prophets and apostles…no mention of a priest that must do something special at the Lord’s Supper. Please note that the mere mention of leadership roles doesn’t mean they have some sort of thing that they do at the Eucharist that no one else can do…nor does it mean that the leadership roles closely resembled the offices now found in the CC. …it means that they had leaders called pastors and teachers (which is also what Protestant congregations have)
But wait, maybe that was a lone misfire on your part. Here is the second pair of verses that you list (1 Peter 2:5&9):
…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
So this passage designates believers as a royal priesthood…if anything that suggests that a clerical priest isn’t necessary b/c we are all priests. It seems that you think the mere mention of a priesthood validates everything you believe about your priesthood. What’s next?
no, I would only have to ignore your interpretation of scripture…
no, what you claim scripture states and what scripture actually states are two very different things
I would explain it by pointing out that the Holy Spirit isn’t granted only to the clergy…so it isn’t as if the Catholic Priest has some monopoly on speaking with guidance by the Spirit. With such guidance one won’t lead the flock astray, but it is hardly the case that Catholic priests always choose to follow such guidance…

in that passage Christ prayed for his disciples and for those who would later believe… (that would include protestants and their clergy)

when anyone teaches by the power of the Spirit, truth will result, but I fail to see where it is mentioned that the Catholic Popes and the Catholic Bishops would only teach by the power of the Spirit. Whenever they have taught error that you can’t help but acknowledge, you will claim that they weren’t officially teaching on behalf of the CC…the thing doesn’t count. Well, you just need to realize that the “unofficial teaching” (aka error) extends to what you think is inspired teaching.

no, just your interpretation of it

Could you show me the scripture where Jesus said that People that protest his teaching’s are also concecrated in the truth? Because I don’t see it! I do see it say not to stray from the teaching’s of the Early Fathers of the Church. But I don’t see where Jesus said that you can protest his teachings and still have the truth. Does not make sense to me.

But I’ll bite show me that scripture!!

Because concecrate means to ordain a Priest into the order of Bishops.

 

[wisdomseeker]

IMHO scripture shows a form of Church leadership that is quite different from what you call Church Orders and Church Hierarchy

this constituted part of your proof of the Priest’s special power WRT the Eucharist. Here are those verses:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
It mentions pastors and teachers after it mentions prophets and apostles…no mention of a priest that must do something special at the Lord’s Supper. Please note that the mere mention of leadership roles doesn’t mean they have some sort of thing that they do at the Eucharist that no one else can do…nor does it mean that the leadership roles closely resembled the offices now found in the CC. …it means that they had leaders called pastors and teachers (which is also what Protestant congregations have)
But wait, maybe that was a lone misfire on your part. Here is the second pair of verses that you list (1 Peter 2:5&9):
…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
So this passage designates believers as a royal priesthood…if anything that suggests that a clerical priest isn’t necessary b/c we are all priests. It seems that you think the mere mention of a priesthood validates everything you believe about your priesthood. What’s next?
no, I would only have to ignore your interpretation of scripture…
no, what you claim scripture states and what scripture actually states are two very different things
I would explain it by pointing out that the Holy Spirit isn’t granted only to the clergy…so it isn’t as if the Catholic Priest has some monopoly on speaking with guidance by the Spirit. With such guidance one won’t lead the flock astray, but it is hardly the case that Catholic priests always choose to follow such guidance…

in that passage Christ prayed for his disciples and for those who would later believe… (that would include protestants and their clergy)

when anyone teaches by the power of the Spirit, truth will result, but I fail to see where it is mentioned that the Catholic Popes and the Catholic Bishops would only teach by the power of the Spirit. Whenever they have taught error that you can’t help but acknowledge, you will claim that they weren’t officially teaching on behalf of the CC…the thing doesn’t count. Well, you just need to realize that the “unofficial teaching” (aka error) extends to what you think is inspired teaching.

no, just your interpretation of it

But who has the authority from God to say that the CC leaders have tought any error?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

But who has the authority from God to say that the CC leaders have taught any error?

Absolutely…That’s the thing. I mean the Church has taught from the days of the Fathers and the Apostles that Jesus meant what he said. It wasn’t until the Reformation was under way that people discarded that…

 

[wisdomseeker]

Absolutely…That’s the thing. I mean the Church has taught from the days of the Fathers and the Apostles that Jesus meant what he said. It wasn’t until the Reformation was under way that people discarded that…

Exactly, I hear so many individuals saying how the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Bullward of the Truth, got all wrong, but I am to see who has this authority from God to know if the CC has tougth any Doctrinal falsehood.

St Augustine knew all about heresies for he was one them one time, until he realized how wrong they were and they had no authority whatsoever.

**
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…**

 

[MartinJordan]

Everything anti-priest is simply OLD HAT. I can also do this by going to biblecc.com.

MJ

 

[Radical]

But who has the authority from God to say that the CC leaders have tought any error?

That is both a good and an odd question.

It is odd in that, if it is your position that God gave the CC a certain authority that puts it above everyone and everything else on this planet with regards to determining sound doctrine, then why would you bother posting any response other than “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong…end of discussion.” On the other hand, if it is your desire to try and establish Catholic doctrine from another source but when the going gets rough you merely resort to “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong”, then there seems to be little sense in discussing anything with you.

That being said, I think the question is something that every Christian should consider (though not on this thread). As such, if you would like to participate in a legitimate discussion WRT that question, I would invite you to start a thread. (By “legitimate”, I mean one that doesn’t see you relying on the circular argument that “The CC’s official teaching is w/o error and we know that is true b/c it is an official teaching of the CC.”

 

[rinnie]

That is both a good and an odd question.

It is odd in that, if it is your position that God gave the CC a certain authority that puts it above everyone and everything else on this planet with regards to determining sound doctrine, then why would you bother posting any response other than “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong…end of discussion.” On the other hand, if it is your desire to try and establish Catholic doctrine from another source but when the going gets rough you merely resort to “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong”, then there seems to be little sense in discussing anything with you.

That being said, I think the question is something that every Christian should consider (though not on this thread). As such, if you would like to participate in a legitimate discussion WRT that question, I would invite you to start a thread. (By “legitimate”, I mean one that doesn’t see you relying on the circular argument that “The CC’s official teaching is w/o error and we know that is true b/c it is an official teaching of the CC.”

Okay I will say it. The CC is led by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is right and everyone else is wrong!

You will never hear a Roman Catholic say that they are right and the Church is wrong. Simply because we know that we are not the Pillar of all Truth the Church is.

What you are asking of us is to say that we have the Mind of Christ to interpret scripture, even though scripture itself tells us we don’t!!

Answer me this, is we knew the mind of God and understood his word then why did Jesus have to explain thing’s to the Apostles? Why is it the Apostles did not have the mind of Christ until the day of Pentecost when they were filled with the Power of the Holy Spirit?

Next if we were to define and interpret scripture why did the Apostles tells us not to, because we do not have the gift of the Holy Spirit to define Scripture to go by the teachings of the Church.

Now with that said how about answering the good and odd question? What is your answer?

 

[Radical]

Now with that said how about answering the good and odd question? What is your answer?

are you starting a thread for that topic? …or did you want to derail this thread further?

 

[wisdomseeker]

That is both a good and an odd question.

It is odd in that, if it is your position that God gave the CC a certain authority that puts it above everyone and everything else on this planet with regards to determining sound doctrine, then why would you bother posting any response other than “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong…end of discussion.” On the other hand, if it is your desire to try and establish Catholic doctrine from another source but when the going gets rough you merely resort to “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong”, then there seems to be little sense in discussing anything with you.

That being said, I think the question is something that every Christian should consider (though not on this thread). As such, if you would like to participate in a legitimate discussion WRT that question, I would invite you to start a thread. (By “legitimate”, I mean one that doesn’t see you relying on the circular argument that “The CC’s official teaching is w/o error and we know that is true b/c it is an official teaching of the CC.”

Dont want to derail the thread, it is just something to think about. that is all. Who has authority from God on this earth to say that the CC has tought any Doctrinal error? who?

"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D

 

[rbarcia]

Okay I will say it. The CC is led by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is right and everyone else is wrong!

You will never hear a Roman Catholic say that they are right and the Church is wrong. Simply because we know that we are not the Pillar of all Truth the Church is.

What you are asking of us is to say that we have the Mind of Christ to interpret scripture, even though scripture itself tells us we don’t!!

No where in scripture does it say that we cannot interpret scripture. It is written in English already. Peter talks about interpreting “PROPHECY.” This is very different. When you take the text in context, you see this very clearly

*2 Peter 1

16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.*

1. 
   *]Peter called scripture a “more sure” than his eye witness? If the church is the authority, then His testimony would be more sure than the word.
   *]it is the prophecy in scripture in view, not all of scripture. So things like moral laws (Commandments, Christian living, etc…) is not prophecy.

 

[DENNYINMI]

That is both a good and an odd question.

It is odd in that, if it is your position that God gave the CC a certain authority that puts it above everyone and everything else on this planet with regards to determining sound doctrine, then why would you bother posting any response other than “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong…end of discussion.” On the other hand, if it is your desire to try and establish Catholic doctrine from another source but when the going gets rough you merely resort to “The CC said ‘X’ and nobody can say that it is wrong”, then there seems to be little sense in discussing anything with you.

That being said, I think the question is something that every Christian should consider (though not on this thread). As such, if you would like to participate in a legitimate discussion WRT that question, I would invite you to start a thread. (By “legitimate”, I mean one that doesn’t see you relying on the circular argument that “The CC’s official teaching is w/o error and we know that is true b/c it is an official teaching of the CC.”

In confirmation of this, various prophetic utterances of Holy Scripture are quoted, after which the Catechism proceeds: “To this Church, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:20) belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or shall exist in the profession of the true faith to the end of time, all of whom are founded and raised upon the one cornerstone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near, and to them that are afar. She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This, therefore, is to be taught as a most just criterion to distinguish the true from a false church.”

The above statement, was not meant to derail. When we are speaking of things, such as dogma, doctrine and beliefs, quite simply, God is not a God of confusion!

Truth can not be relative.
There is an absolute truth.

When we are speaking of the Holy Eucharist, it would appear that the truest teachings would be those closest to the teachings of the Apostles and their understandings. We can see the Eucharistic celebrations and writings of the Earliest Church Fathers understandibly “knew” it was the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This truth was not questioned, or its truth was not challenged until reformations sprang.

To believe in the true Prescense and transubstantiation of the bread and wine, was TO BE Catholic…this in and of itself…is a problem for some.