1
1beleevr
Guest
Someone, somewhere mentioned sacrifices that are made during the eucharist. True or false; and if true, are these made by the parishioners? Biblical support please?
- Status
C
choy
Guest
no, there is one perfect sacrifice, and that is when God sent us His only Son to die on the cross to redeem us from our sins
the Eucharist is not a new sacrifice, but an extension of this perfect sacrifice, to perpetuate the Eternal Sacrifice Christ made on the cross
C
choy
Guest
it is preferable to receive in both species, but this is only required of the priest
when we receive the Body of Christ, we receive the fulness of Christ (body, blood, soul, divinity). Christ cannot be divided, so receving in one speciest doesn’t mean you only receive part of Christ
the bishops today hold the teachings of the Apostles, as they are the successors. so receiving the teaching of the bishops is receiving the teaching of the Apostles, and Christ Himself
1
1beleevr
Guest
So, then, this practice contradicts Hebrews 10:12-17?
1
1beleevr
Guest
So you’re saying that the apostles drank the wine back then, sometimes?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
A brief definition of the Holy Eucharist from the Baltimore Catechism stated:
The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In it, our saviour Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, is contained, offered, and received.
It is the body and blood of Christ, made sacramentally and really present, that is presented in sacrifice. This is a re-presentation, not a repetition, of the sacrifice on the cross at Calvary.
A full explanation, and all the references one might want, can be found by accessing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (there’s a number of places where it’s online), beginning at paragraph 1322.
Blessings,
Gerry
C
choy
Guest
no, how can it? like i said, its the same sacrifice, not a new one
C
choy
Guest
when did i say that the priest receives in both species sometimes? i said the priest is required to recieve both the Body and Blood of ChristSo you’re saying that the apostles drank the wine back then, sometimes?
so it would be safe to assume that the Apostles did the same
its the laity who doesn’t have to, since receiving one species is receiving Christ in full
C
choy
Guest
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Wine is part of the Passover service, a very important part. In fact it is so important that charities are established to this day to provide the wine for Passover for families who cannot afford it.So you’re saying that the apostles drank the wine back then, sometimes?
The Last Supper was a Passover service, but Jesus changed it to institute the Eucharist. He changed it in a variety of ways. That time, the Passover service was actually finished on the cross (long story, not on topic.)
So yes, in the time of the Apostles, they drank wine, at least as part of the rituals of their faith. This should not be a surprise or a source of confusion.
P
PJM
Guest
Actually** 1believer** He is [HAS in the Bible]
John 10:16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”.
**Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I **[singular[/COLOR]] tell you, you are Peter, **[singular] **and on this rock **singular] **I will build my **singular] **church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [singular] 19 I **[God singular] **will give you **[singular] **the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you **[singular] **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, **SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [SINGULAR] **in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
Eph. 4: 4 “There is one body **[One Church] ** and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, One Triune God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma and Tradition] one baptism, [By water in the Trinity[/COLOR]] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift”
***Now as for your EXCELLENT question on the wine:
The reason is “that the ENTIRE CHRIST is Completely Present [ENTIRELY] [Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity] in Just the “Bread”, or Just the “Wine”; in fact is JUST any part of the BREAD or Wine.”
The World wide NORM is for Communion to the laity under the form of what was BREAD only. The reason the Priest always consumes BOTH is the Command of Jesus to “Do this in memory of Me.”
The reason the CC does not insist od BOTH form forms as necessary for all are two. 1. As mntiopned above the Etire Jesus is Present in both species, so it is not absolutely necessary. 2. There is the increased possibility of sacriledge or abuse.
And of couse you and I are still taught by the Apostles if we use the Catholic Bible.
Thanks for asking,
Love and prayers,
Pat*****
C
CMatt25
Guest
That would have been difficult considering Jesus resurrected into heaven approximately 8 decades or 80 yrs before the words “Catholic Church” were found to have been first written. The term “Christians” though can be found right there in Acts 11:26.
Well not that it would have been difficult for Jesus to have told you that. He could have done so but it speaks volumes that He chose to not.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Apostles, being priests of the New Covenant, would have certainly drank “the wine” (by which I assume you mean the Blood) every time they said Mass for the people.So you’re saying that the apostles drank the wine back then, sometimes?
R
rinnie
Guest
You are right the Catholic CHurch is world wide or Universal like Christ said it would be
.Also you lost me on how the Apostles died so you could not be taught by them?
Do you think that Catholics believed that we were taught by the Apostles. Oh No lb. Catholic never believed that we were or or ever will be taught by the Apostles. We were taught by Jesus Christ. He only Spoke through the Apostles. As he continues to do, like he said he would. He promised us that he would teach us through the CC thought the Chosen teachers until the end of time.So what would it matter if it was St John 2000 years ago, or Father John today? Do you think that Jesus did not mean those words, or is not capable to keep his promise to give them the words today as yesterday?
Jesus said I am with you always. Until the end of time, do you feel time has ended?
R
rinnie
Guest
Um lb what does that have to do with denying the Eucharist? Heb 10:12-17 is talking about how only Christ’s spiritual sacrifice can sanctify mankind. That the Old Sacrafices were ineffective?
Why did Jesus say DO THIS in memory of me. IF he did not want the Priest to DO THIS? DO this means to do something in the present does it not?
Again how you feel that the Eucharist that is the Spiritual Sacrifice that sanctify’s mankind does not go hand in hand with DO THIS in memory of me is beyond me?
Where is the contradiction there?
Here is the scripture. He is abolishing the FIRST sort to ESTABLISH the SECOND. And this WILL was for us to be MADE HOLY by the OFFERING of the BODY of Christ made ONCE and for all.
Do you not understand lb that to us it is the actual presence of God with us, that Jesus is there, and welcomes us to the table with him. We are made Holy by this offering of bread and wine. How are we to be made Holy if we do not do this? Especially when he commanded his Apostles to DO THIS?
H
Hesychios
Guest
I will try to remember and link to this post the next time a Latin Catholic complains that they are not allowed to receive in an Orthodox church.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I would have hoped that no Latin Catholic would ever make such a complaint - if they did, then they don’t understand our own teachings, either.
I will try to remember and link to this post the next time a Latin Catholic complains that they are not allowed to receive in an Orthodox church.
R
rinnie
Guest
I was wondering? Rather you like the answer you got, or agree with the answer you were given do you at least understand the answer?
This question is addressed to anyone who wondered why the CC does not allow anyone to receive the Holy Eucharist without being Catholic.
What I think is difficult for a Priest is he is asked to do Gods work. I am sure you can ask any Priest if he really understands every single reason for what he is asked to do, and like you and I and being human he does not have all of the answers. But he does not question God and obeys his commands.
The Eucharist is actually the Whole Being of the RCC in my opinion. It is what it says, the Body and Blood of CHrist. It is CHrist becoming alive before our eyes in the Eucharist. And in order to go up to him and receive this living bread being brought down straight from heaven we must be made worthy to receive it. That is why we have the other sacraments. The Holy Eucharist and Confession go hand in hand.
That is why in the RC faith before a Child can receive the Holy Eucharist that child must first go to confession. This is for 2 reasons. First that child must be made to realize what exactly he or she is receiving. And in order to do this, must realize what sin is.
This question is addressed to anyone who wondered why the CC does not allow anyone to receive the Holy Eucharist without being Catholic.
What I think is difficult for a Priest is he is asked to do Gods work. I am sure you can ask any Priest if he really understands every single reason for what he is asked to do, and like you and I and being human he does not have all of the answers. But he does not question God and obeys his commands.
The Eucharist is actually the Whole Being of the RCC in my opinion. It is what it says, the Body and Blood of CHrist. It is CHrist becoming alive before our eyes in the Eucharist. And in order to go up to him and receive this living bread being brought down straight from heaven we must be made worthy to receive it. That is why we have the other sacraments. The Holy Eucharist and Confession go hand in hand.
That is why in the RC faith before a Child can receive the Holy Eucharist that child must first go to confession. This is for 2 reasons. First that child must be made to realize what exactly he or she is receiving. And in order to do this, must realize what sin is.
C
choy
Guest
i’d pray for the day that Catholics can openly receive in Orthodox Churches, and the Orthodox can openly receive in Catholic Churches
I will try to remember and link to this post the next time a Latin Catholic complains that they are not allowed to receive in an Orthodox church.
1
1beleevr
Guest
With so many “rules” for receiving the eucharist, perhaps we are better off not receiving it, and doing it the way Jesus and His disciples did at the Last Supper! And do you see Him in your mind’s eye? You know, transsubstantiation? And it is possible for someone, anyone to confess directly to the Father(God, that is!) So, I have never complained about not being able to take communion at a catholic church, just wondered why in some instances, the priest is the only one drinking the wine?
- Status