The Very Early Eucharist---Jesus not present in the Bread and Wine?

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Luke1:48:

The father’s individually are falliable, but when they are together at a council and declare dogmas and doctrines, they are infalliable, you really don’t understand the Catholic Church. Each agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

Every Father was taught by another Father before him…

Some of them, it seems, were taught by the Apostles themselves…

But in many cases, they don’t agree about passages in the Scripture…

And suddenly, when they meet in a council, they agree…

As if there is not ONE tradition received from the Apostles to tell all of those Fathers what is right and what is wrong… Therefore, they don’t have any unique rule to follow in their interpretation of the Scripture, other than the Scripture itself…

That’s why they write many contradicting things…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Kurt G.:

Yaqubos, your “paraphrase” of Justin Martyr’s commentary sets the stage for the apparent contradiction, as you think you have found (but which really isn’t there):

Justin actually said “… no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins …”

This means that to participate in the Eucharist, one needs 2 conditions, for sure, to exist:

1. We must be baptized.
2. We must believe what the Church teaches.

There may be more denominations, but I can think of one Church for sure which teaches and practices this.

You mean we must be ALIVE before coming to the Eucharist?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

I thought the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ…

I thought Jesus was serious when He said that we can’t have Life unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood…

But it seems, as I read in this quote, “The Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life”…

As for the Apostles of Christ, they teach clearly that we cannot be saved unless we eat the flesh of our Lord and drink His Blood.

Each time we receive the Eucharist, God’s infusing grace gets stronger. The grace received through the Eucharist, as well as the other sacraments builds our defenses against sin. If a person dies without God’s infusing grace, (by committing a mortal sin and not repenting) that person will not enter Heaven. If a child who never recieved communion dies in a state of grace, they will enter Heaven. The Eucharist strengthens people to resist sin, but it is God’s grace that saves, with or without recieving the Eucharist.

YAQUBOS:

This is the teaching of the Roman heresy…

Your negative attitude is the result of the un-biblical heresy of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

Every Father was taught by another Father before him…

Some of them, it seems, were taught by the Apostles themselves…

But in many cases, they don’t agree about passages in the Scripture…

Just like all these denominations today.

YAQUBOS:

And suddenly, when they meet in a council, they agree…

I see you were not listening to Luke. What became a dogma or doctrine is what the Church Fathers agreed on, a doctrine cannot be proclaimed unless the majority believes in it. What the Church Fathers declared as a dogma or a doctrine is binding to the faith. What they disagree on was never proclaimed a doctrine or dogma and is not binding to the faith.

YAQUBOS:

As if there is not ONE tradition received from the Apostles to tell all of those Fathers what is right and what is wrong…

But they gave us the Bible, funny? This one tradition is what had them agree on what is doctrine and dogma today, whatever they disagreed on is not binding to the faith. They all agree on the Eucharist, the other 6 sacraments, and Jesus is Lord!

YAQUBOS:

Therefore, they don’t have any unique rule to follow in their interpretation of the Scripture, other than the Scripture itself…

The Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Protoevangelion of James? There were some who agreed that these were scripture too, the majority ruled that they were not. The majority ruled that the Deuterocanonicals are scripture.

YAQUBOS:

That’s why they write many contradicting things…

Which were not approved of at various councils and are not binding to the faith of the Church. As Christ told his apostles, whatever they bind shall be bound in Heaven.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

You mean we must be ALIVE before coming to the Eucharist?

If we do not have grace before hand, how can it be strengthened by receiving the Eucharist? If a person is in a state of mortal sin, the Eucharist will do nothing for them, for that person is not in a state of grace.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Pax Vobis Cvm!

YAQUBOS:

How can a man eat the bread and drink the cup WORTHILY?

By being is a state of grace. How can you be guilty of receiving a symbol?

YAQUBOS:

Strange! Then why are some people feeling insulted when others burn the flag of their country? After all, they are not present in that flag!!!

We feel the same way when someone defaces and destorys images of Mary… but can you recieve a Flag in an unworthy manner?

YAQUBOS:

Again: How can I eat and drink WORTHILY?

By being in a state of grace. How can you be guilty of recieving a symbol?

YAQUBOS:

How can I receive forgiveness for “mortal” sin?

By confessing your sin to Jesus, who is present in the confessional. Via persona Christi.

 

[Kurt_G]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

How can I receive forgiveness for “mortal” sin?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Hello, Yaqubos… Your above question was answered nicely by Psalm 45:9, I am just questioning your quotes around the word “mortal”.

Should we take this as an indication that you believe “sin is sin is sin is sin…” and that there are no distinguishing levels of seriousness with regard to our personal sins against God, that they’re all equally bad? Or am I reading too much into it? (Just trying to catch all the directions you’re coming from… Thanks!)

God Bless Us All!

 

[RobbyS]

t some of the evidence that leads to this conclusion.

Though Catholics often cite some alleged references to their view of the eucharist in the Bible, the truth is that there’s no evidence of the Catholic eucharist in scripture. John 6 is often cited as referring to eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood by means of a transubstantiated eucharist. There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him. Jesus doesn’t refer to how these things will begin in the future, when the eucharist is instituted. Rather, He refers to them as a present reality. And John 6:35 identifies what the eating and drinking are. The passage is not about the eucharist. (See members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm for a further discussion of the problems with the Catholic interpretation of John

continued But John was writing in the present tense and asserting that the doctrine of the Church at the time of his writing was confirmed by what out Lord had said. Protestant use of the Bible is always deformed by the notion that the evangelists were stenographers.

 

[redeemed1]

You know, the major problem with the RCC is that they take too many things out of context. They major in the minors, and minor in the majors.

Jesus speaks again and again on Spirit and Life; Spirit and Truth etc. Why can they not read the Bible and understand; it never ceases to amaze me that for people who supposedly have the truth just do not get it.

Just too dumb for me.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

redeemed1:

You know, the major problem with the RCC is that they take too many things out of context. They major in the minors, and minor in the majors.

Jesus speaks again and again on Spirit and Life; Spirit and Truth etc. Why can they not read the Bible and understand; it never ceases to amaze me that for people who supposedly have the truth just do not get it.

Just too dumb for me.

At the last supper, I wonder why did Jesus break bread and give it to 12 others along with wine.
If you went to a meal as some call it, why wouldn’t you get your own bread, and drink your own wine ?
Would the table not have been prepared before hand, with everybody having their own cup and utensils at every place ?
If someone at the far end of the table offered me wine and bread, I would give them a rather curious look, and probably reply “I have plenty here thankyou”.

 

[cyprian]

As a literary device, a figure of speech is usable only when it’s meaning is understandable. This may be the case either from the nature of the remark, as when I point to a picture and say- This is my mother. or of an active child- He’s a perpetual motion machine or of a fast horse- That nag is greased lightning. Or the metaphor may be understood because it’s meaning is explained, like when I arrange matches on a table and say- Now this is my house, and the bedroom is here. Niether by the nature of the case, nor by the explaination given can the words “This is my body” have any meaning as a metaphor.

Peace and love
Pray and fast

 

[dennisknapp]

RobbyS:

t some of the evidence that leads to this conclusion.

Though Catholics often cite some alleged references to their view of the eucharist in the Bible, the truth is that there’s no evidence of the Catholic eucharist in scripture. John 6 is often cited as referring to eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood by means of a transubstantiated eucharist. There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him. Jesus doesn’t refer to how these things will begin in the future, when the eucharist is instituted. Rather, He refers to them as a present reality. And John 6:35 identifies what the eating and drinking are. The passage is not about the eucharist. (See members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm for a further discussion of the problems with the Catholic interpretation of John

RobbyS:

This would be a valid argument if any valid Church teacher agreed with you prior to 1600. Not even Luther would agree with you and he started the whole ball rolling.

Where is your evidence in the early centuries of Christianity for this interpretation? Did the disciples of the Apostles hold to this view?

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Each time we receive the Eucharist, God’s infusing grace gets stronger.

You mean a pagan who receives the Eucharist will have stronger grace? Does he have grace before eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood?
Psalm45:9:

If a person dies without God’s infusing grace, (by committing a mortal sin and not repenting) that person will not enter Heaven.

Can this person have life without eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood?
What does he have to do to be worthy to eat and drink?
Psalm45:9:

If a child who never recieved communion dies in a state of grace

How can he be in a state of grace?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Church_Militant]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalm45:9
If a child who never recieved communion dies in a state of grace

How can he be in a state of grace?

Baptism

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Pax Vobis Cvm!

If we do not have grace before hand, how can it be strengthened by receiving the Eucharist? If a person is in a state of mortal sin, the Eucharist will do nothing for them, for that person is not in a state of grace.

Jesus Christ said:

“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 yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

So I want to know: Can a person be in a state of grace without being alive by eating the flesh of the Lord and drinking His blood?

If the bread and the cup are the SAME flesh and blood about which the Lord was talking in John 6:53, then why can’t the Eucharist give life, and “will do nothing for them”, as you say?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Psalm45:9:

Pax Vobis Cvm!

By being is a state of grace. How can you be guilty of receiving a symbol?

How can a person be in a state of grace without eating the flesh of our Lord and drinking His blood?

As for the symbol: if a person burns the flag of your country, do you think he is guilty against you?
Psalm45:9:

We feel the same way when someone defaces and destorys images of Mary… but can you recieve a Flag in an unworthy manner?

I can be an enemy to your country and hold the flag of your country in an unworthy manner.
Psalm45:9:

By confessing your sin to Jesus, who is present in the confessional. Via persona Christi.

Does confesson give you LIFE and forgiveness of “mortal” sin without eating the flesh of our Lord and drinking His blood?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Kurt G.:

Hello, Yaqubos… Your above question was answered nicely by Psalm 45:9, I am just questioning your quotes around the word “mortal”.

Should we take this as an indication that you believe “sin is sin is sin is sin…” and that there are no distinguishing levels of seriousness with regard to our personal sins against God, that they’re all equally bad? Or am I reading too much into it? (Just trying to catch all the directions you’re coming from… Thanks!)

God Bless Us All!

All sins are not equal, and the Scripture is clear about that.

But all sins are equal in a way, because even if you have one “simple” sin, you cannot enter Heaven.

But I don’t see anything God said about a “mortal” sin. All sins are mortal, because the wages of sin is death. So all sins need to be washed by the ONCE FOR ALL Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Whatever, this is not our topic here.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

YAQUBOS:

How can he be in a state of grace?

Church Militant:

Baptism

Can someone who is NOT baptized be in a state of grace?

I know some Christians from a Muslim background who believed in Jesus Christ. If they are not yet baptized, do you think they have already eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and drank His blood?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Church_Militant]

YAQUBOS:

Can someone who is NOT baptized be in a state of grace?

Was Dismas? The good thief?

I know some Christians from a Muslim background who believed in Jesus Christ. If they are not yet baptized, do you think they have already eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and drank His blood?

Nope.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

Anything you believe as commanded by God must be based on a teaching coming directly from God. This means that whatever you believe must be fully consistent with the whole Word of God.

WARNING: don’t ever read the Bible with a presumption in your mind! You can read something in the Bible that SEEMS consistent with your presumption, but in fact it can be totally inconsistent. After all, don’t forget how Satan deceived our first parents, and how he tried to deceive our Lord! Didn’t he use the Word of God against the Word of God?

Thus, a Jehovah’s Witness, who says that Jesus Christ is not God Almighty but the first creature of God, can find his wrong teachings consistent with some biblical passages like:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness**, the Beginning of the creation of God**, says this” ( Revelation 3:14 )

Thus, he explains the Scripture by a presumption that he learned from a Charles Russell, instead of testing what Charles Russell says by the Scripture.

A Jehovah’s Witness can even quote a Father of the Church like Origen saying that the Son is excelled by the Father, and that the Son is a creature of the Father.

In the same manner, a Roman comes with his presumptions to understand from the Scripture and the Fathers what is the Lord’s Supper.

And the Protestants do their best to show how the Romans are wrong in their human teachings. And in many cases they fall in the other extreme of the matter. Thus, they concentrate on the fact that the Bread and the Drink are not the real body and blood of our Lord. And someone who follows the Protestant teachings without being really born again and without having deep knowledge about this matter, can be very easily deceived by the vain arguments of the Romans.

But no one can deceive a Christian who is born of the Spirit. For he follows the divine Word. For he knows that a person must come to the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner. For the Scripture says:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup." ( 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 )

He knows that we are all UNWORTHY whatever we do. He knows that we are all dead in sin, and that we need to have LIFE before eating the Bread and drinking of the Cup. He believes the Lord when He says:

“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 yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

To be continued, if He permits.

In Love,
Yaqubos†