The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: the Eucharist

The point I’m making, is different.

Jesus made, a do this or else statemen

I wonder how old is this " valid ordination" to do eucharist. Not sure the earliest forefathers mention this.

Actually I’ve shown you the answer before. Going back 1000+ posts ago (holy COW that’s a LOT of posts ago) See the internal link see ch 8 from this post to you HERE

Note: I would add, read ch’s 4-8 in that link I provided. But don’t let that restrict your reading. it’s ALL a good and short read

As you know, Ignatius was ordained by the apostles, AND was a direct disciple of John.

NOW

Be sure and read that… ok? Because we know who would have taught Ignatius those points. …Right?

mcq72:

Indeed one could say there is discussion of what communion is or is not

Answered in that link from Ignatius … particularly in those ch’s I asked you to read

In essence,

Ignatius is also saying, being a Catholic bishop, the phrase we are familiar with today, outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation ch 3 letter to the Philidelphians

mcq72:

One could also say there is discusiion of a presider over cerrmony, even a " president," and also of a presbyter/ bishop. The context of valid ordination seems to be lacking. Yes, orthodoxy is aim but not sure of any focus on valid orders needed for “real presence”.

Ignatius in few words, dealt with that. Just as Paul dealt with those who won’t listen and won’t change, to instruction(s) given from the one true Church. Titus 3:10-11 … right?

 

[Nicene]

“I was taught that we enter into the Passover ceremony as though we are actually present in Egypt as slaves, and not only our forebears. In other words, we directly were brought out of Egypt and by the hand of G-d Himself, not by an angel. We are there ourselves and we are liberated”

I’m incredulous. Are you honestly telling me you cannot read and understand what meltzerboy2 plainly wrote? (it was borrowed from another thread on the Jewish Passover)

The Lord’s Supper wasn’t instituted to help us remember the Last Supper.

It’s not possible for you to remember it, you weren’t present.

It was instituted to help us remember and celebrate and give thanks for the Sacrifice of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Can you show where Jesus says this is WHY He instituted the Last Supper in Sacred Scripture? Jesus teaches us THIS is why he instituted the Last Supper:

Jn 6:53 So Jesus said 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;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Jesus isn’t a spirit, he is a physical person in a glorified body, he further says:
Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Is it the claim of Evangelicals that he became a spirit when he ascended?

All who have faith in Christ and have been renewed and born by the Spirit spiritually receive the atoning benefit of what Christ did for us on the cross.

Jesus says we are born again of “water and Spirit” in baptism:
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Trully Truly, literally in koine Amen ,Amen, this is truth this is truth.) and as St. Paul teaches we are buried with him in baptism and rise to new life. Rom 6:3-4

And the Lord’s Supper is a physical (outward) representation of the Spiritual reality and grace we receive by faith.

Actually it is a Re-presentation, not a representation. It is his actual Body and Blood. This He teaches unquestionably as shown above.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

edit:format

 

[lanman87]

Only in your mind.

Well, folks who follow this thread and read the definition can decide for themselves.

 

[Nicene]

I’m going to try and combine some of these posts because it only allows 3 replies.

Perhaps the other aspect you refer to is the remembrance vs sacrifice aspect. On quick reflection then we do have a difference between bringing to “present”. For sure God commanded old passover to continue slaying lambs but in new testament we are told an end to such sacrifices (except for praise and thanksgiving, which is one of the passover cups), and the first supper there also was no sacrifice yet. Just thinking out loud here…and finally i can only add the Greek term that the communion rite was identified with was “thanksgiving”, which to me has implication of not so much of a sacrifice but a reaction to said sacrfice as central to meeting.

You do realize the word “Eucharist” is Thanksgiving right? It is the biblical word used. Additionally The Passover lamb had to be consumed for the covenant. And who is the Passover lamb according to the NT? Can’t consume the lamb if he is present if he isn’t present in his glorified body. I would like to challenge you since you keep saying you eat him spiritually to find the place in sacred scripture where is says to “Spiritually eat Him”. You’re bible alone, so I am going to hold you to it, heck I’ll even accept any “Evangelical Church Father” from 2000 years ago. You do have copies of their manuscripts correct?

mcq2 I couldn’t help but notice that you picked one like out of this paragraph in the post, and one other, to answer separately, so ill ask again in hopes that you can at least address the issue from an evangelical belief:

we are to apply the deepest meaning of remembrance semantically

Please reply to the question this time.

It is quite objective. We do participate, we do literally spiritually eat, even at the foot of the cross, when we are born of the Spirit, when we first believe, unto life.

Show where Sacred Scripture even remotely says this about eating spiritually. Or any of the rest of that sentence, I don’t recall Jesus ever saying any such thing.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Good, lets actually put that all together:

Heb:13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.
9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents.
10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.
11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.
12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
13 Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured.
14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come.
15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.

So tell me, how does v15 negate vs10? Because v10 contrasts v9, the old Altar and foods, which did not benefit, with the New altar which the non believers have no right to eat. There is a lot more going on in that short paragraph but lets narrow the focus to what you just said.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Ignatius to me cites what gospels and Corinthians say each in slightly different contexts. In a each case discernment is needed, and rationale is found by and in the several communion practices we still have today. I disagree with those who say there was only one explicit understanding in early church or that it was transubstantiation only, if at all.

Transubstantiation: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration. It seems you don’t understand transubstantiation at all, that it is the conversion of the offerings into the Body and Blood of Jesus. And the Church Fathers are unanimous in this belief.

It actually holds no regard if you disagree or not, The fact is the only ones who didn’t believe were the Gnostics to which Ignatius writes:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

I mean Jesus said, “Thiis is my body.” Paul says the Lord’s words also, and Ignatius also correlates the bread to His body. Did Jesus mean transubstantiation? Did Paul, or Ignatius?

Yep, without a doubt.

Just saying Ignatius says nothing new to any communion view. Further explicitness however is forthcoming for different views culminating in later centuries and finally with Aquinas for your case.

Have you actually read them? Or is it possible you can’t understand them at all? Honestly I’m boggled that anyone could actually say that after having read them, if they read them.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

edit:format

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Only in your mind.

Well, folks who follow this thread and read the definition can decide for themselves.

Yep. All they have to do is open the link

 

[Wannano]

Jesus isn’t a spirit, he is a physical person in a glorified body,
*******************£

I understood that Catholics see Mary as the Mother of God because Jesus is God, how then can Jesus be God if He is not a spirit for the Bible tells us that God is a spirit?John 4:24 “God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

 

[Nicene]

Yep the Father is Spirit, also Light. Yet Jesus is the fusion of God and Man, true God and True man. I’ve always suspected because it is said so much that Evangelicals don’t actually believe in the incarnation. Y0ou are making my point. You aren’t alone, Gnostics believed it as well. However what do you do with

1 Tim2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

and

Jn 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

For Catholics we believe God actually became man, died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven in a glorified body, sits at the right hand of God who mediates between God and Man (liturgically), is both priest and sacrifice. We do NOT believe he rose from the dead as a spirit and ascended into heaven and became a spirit, not shed his gloried body to assume the form of a spirit. As St. Paul teaches us:

1 Cor 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Not a Spirit, a “spiritual BODY” A glorified body, as he continues throughout the section on the resurrection. And as St. John points out, we will become just like him.

I guess the difference which is being highlighted by the 3 of you (and ive heard it many times with people I work with, mostly evangelicals) you are spiritualists and we are incarnationalists.

it is the mystery of the faith:

51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

edit: forgot last of 1 Cor, edit 2:internationalists to incarnationalists

 

[Wannano]

I cannot make sense of all you are saying with incomplete sentences but I don’t think you have a true grasp of what Evangelicals believe but I think you have your mind made up that you do.

 

[Nicene]

It’s hard not to when you all keep disputing it. Or are you saying you can’t actually express it? Your own words:

how then can Jesus be God if He is not a spirit

I’m not exactly sure how you believe I write in incomplete sentences unless you don’t understand what is the use of the colon?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Wannano]

I cannot seem to connect the dots so I am withdrawing from this. Go in peace.

 

[mcq72]

Do you see any kind of correlation between the miraculous bread from heaven, aka “Manna”, and the Eucharist?

Yes, manna was physical food from the Lord whilst the Lord as Bread of life is spiritual food, spiritually eaten thru literal eating of designated.
symbols. The wilderness folk ate and died as we will also who eat the bread, but live eternally in Him if we eat Him spiritually. The promise is a spiritual one (“life”) and the eating is spiritual, unlike those in the wilderness.

 

[steve-b]

In the bread of life discourse Jesus says several things, one of which seems to be generally ignored.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
(Joh 6:51-54 DRB)

I missed answering this post. If you think I answered it, just ignore this post.

To your point,

Actually

Scripture clearly says, there is a consequence for one’s illicit receiving the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27

SyCarl:

With respect to Church unity Jesus says:

And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.

(Joh 17:11 DRB)

How are the Father and Jesus one? They are one God in three persons. I believe that in the same say the universal church can be one in a number of denominations. Just as Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are one God, I believe that that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians etc. can all be one Church.

Keep reading

Jn 17: 20
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

Notice the example Jesus uses for unity? Perfect unity

No division allowed. ZERO division

People divided FROM Our Lord’s Church?

Paul addressed this clearly, in multiple ways

For space I’ll give links from another post from another thread

Check it out HERE

 

[steve-b]

Wannano,

Did Jesus resurrect back to heaven, in spirit only? NO

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Are you thinking of John 6?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Yet Jesus is the fusion of God and Man, true God and True man.

That’s incorrect - He is not “the fusion of God and Man”. C.f. the infallible dogmatic definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:

So, following the saintly fathers , we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise . As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

Source: www.papalencyclicals.net (emphasis added)

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Actually

Scripture clearly says, there is a consequence for one’s illicit receiving the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27

Don’t forget 1 Cor. 11: 29 (Douay-Rheims)!:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself

There’s eternal as well as temporal consequences of receiving Our Lord unworthily.

I don’t remember the exact quote, but Our Lord told one of the Saints/mystics that there is no punishment on earth that can satisfy for one unworthy Holy Communion!

If I find the source on that I’ll edit my post.

I’m not disagreeing with you - just got your six that’s all.

 

[Wannano]

Nicene:

Wannano,

Did Jesus resurrect back to heaven, in spirit only? NO

No, I agree…they watched Him ascend in bodily form and were told he would return the same way.

I am surprised to learn though that the CC does not believe Jesus is a spirit. I did not know that.

 

[mcq72]

And the Church Fathers are unanimous in this belief.

Nope.

The fact is the only ones who didn’t believe were the Gnostics to which Ignatius writes:

Nope

Honestly I’m boggled that anyone could actually say that after having read them, if they read them.

And I am boggled that one could read earliest fathers and see only transubstantiation, and that unanimously.