Catholic understanding of the Eucharist

[marks]

It is our flesh that counts for nothing..

Except Jesus said, "the flesh", not, "your flesh". And then went on to give the interpretation.

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

Now what is facinating to me right now is watching the German Catholic Church.

The sacraments of communion of the Catholic Church is supposed to be just for Catholics (except in cases of dire emergency).
And in Germany they are allowing Protestants, married to Catholics, partake in communion without them actually joining the Catholic Church.
This kinda goes against the rules...

And I'm curious as to whether a letter telling them to stop is going to be issued from the Vatican or not.

Not with this pope. A new to the bone and in his heart Catholic pope will do something about it....IMO

 

[Marymog]

Except Jesus said, "the flesh", not, "your flesh". And then went on to give the interpretation.

Much love!

Hi Marks,

You are right! He said “the flesh” not "your flesh". We know He couldn’t have meant his flesh since he explained six times in verses 54-58 that eating his flesh would bring eternal life. Jesus wouldn’t contradict himself.

Peace...Mary

 

[Illuminator]

 

[marks]

Hi Marks,

You are right! He said “the flesh” not "your flesh". We know He couldn’t have meant his flesh since he explained six times in verses 54-58 that eating his flesh would bring eternal life. Jesus wouldn’t contradict himself.

Peace...Mary

Hi Mary,

I remember one year going to my mother-in-law's church with her at Christmas. They had a new pastor whom they would not have much longer. My wife and I were fairly horrified when this pastor announced that we were about to receive the body and blood of Christ, and that by receiving these we would be saved and would have eternal life.

But what horrified us about it all was that this pastor went on to explain that the simple act of eating was sufficient, we didn't necessarily have to believe any particular thing.

My wife and I didn't participate for conscience sake.

Is it fair to say that your view of salvation is that we receive it through faith and through sacraments, but not one without the other?

Much love!

 

[DPMartin]

This all seems subject to interpretation. I can see many different beliefs could stem from those passages. But we do take the sacrament, do you take the sacrament, and say this is the body and blood of Christ Jesus? If it's just spirit, then that's fine with me also. So long as we take the sacrament. Although I'm starting to wonder if some members on this forum would dismiss the Sacrament also as not required, like baptism...

Luke 22:19:

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

so what is the "daily bread" in the Lord's prayer? food for body or food for Spirit?

also no one looks to why bread and wine. bread is first mentioned in scripture with Adam:


Gen_3:19　 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

note that in the same verse the Lord God mention of earth to earth is the life man now has.

the first place wine is mentioned is with Noah:
Gen_9:21　 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

the second place in scripture where bread is mentioned, and also the second place where wine is mentioned is here with Abraham the man of faith of which is the same faith as those who believe and trust the Word of God:

Gen_14:18　 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

to be clear there is ten generations from Adam to Noah and there is ten generations from Noah to Abraham.

and with Noah grace is first mentioned and with Abraham faith is first mention and Jesus is the fulfillment of these things for told as far back as Noah. you eat bread because it sustains the life you have received in the flesh. but to receive the Word of God is the true bread that sustains the Life one receives when born again of Spirit of God, and since one must receive via Spirit the Spirit that quickens the Spirit is the Life thereof hence blood represented by wine which is not one's uncovering but the opposite. its the covering, in that the Life of Christ received Justifies you in the Presence of God in the sight of God seeing that He sees you through His Beloved Son the Lord Jesus Christ and not your sins of your life you had in the life of dust to dust. the born again have a Life of from Heaven to Heaven.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

I remember one year going to my mother-in-law's church with her at Christmas. They had a new pastor whom they would not have much longer. My wife and I were fairly horrified when this pastor announced that we were about to receive the body and blood of Christ, and that by receiving these we would be saved and would have eternal life.

But what horrified us about it all was that this pastor went on to explain that the simple act of eating was sufficient, we didn't necessarily have to believe any particular thing.

My wife and I didn't participate for conscience sake.

Is it fair to say that your view of salvation is that we receive it through faith and through sacraments, but not one without the other?

Much love!

Hi Marks,

I appreciate your story and agree with you. You should have been horrified. That pastor lied to you.

Several years ago I went to my spouses church. The pastor announced that we were about to receive the body and blood of Christ and he held it (a saltine cracker) up and said "At the last supper Jesus held up the bread and said this is a SYMBOL of my body. Do this in remembrance of me". The pastor flat out lied to the entire congregation and twisted Scripture based on HIS beliefs instead of what Jesus actually said.....I never went back. Several hundred (around 1,000) people still attend.

This same pastor was an associate pastor at a church before he started his own church. He started his own church because he disagreed with the doctrines/beliefs of the lead pastor at the church he left.

The reason I tell you my story is that it doesn't matter what some pastor of some local church decides what they personally believe. Those pastors are a dime a dozen. What matters is what The Church teaches. The Church was established by Chirst upon a "rock" and not on shifting sands where one can be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians)!! The Church that Christ established is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy). The Church that Christ established decides who is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector (Matthew). Not you. Not me. The Church!!!

So to answer your question: The Church teaches that we receive salvation by doing many different things. It is not one or the other!!

Hope that helps...Mary

 

[JohnDB]

Neat! What can you tell me about John the Baptist as 'best man'?

Peace!

As we know from Jesus that John was the "Elijah" voice calling out from the wilderness as prophesied about in Micah.

We also know the story about Elizabeth and Zachariah and the Angel Gabriel inside the Temple before he was born. (Making him in the Jewish classification of "Born From Above" same as Sampson and Samuel.)

But, John's parents were old...too old to see him into adulthood and with no one to guide him into his Caste of Levites that would allow him to be a Temple Priest he needed to find parentage elsewhere.

So for John the Essenes provided a place to stay and live.
The Essenes were all about strict ritual/spiritual purity (tehorah). They also wore white robes, practiced regular ritual bathing, and made copies of Tenakh and other books for an income.

At some point in time there appeared to be a schism between John and the Essenes. John wore camel hair (tan) and everyone else in his group wore white.
John also started eating only food not cultivated but solely what the Earth provided. (Locust and wild honey)
And in the Judean wilderness John obviously lost a lot of weight.

Now...
An understanding of Old Testament is needed. Moses as the Lawgiver was considered a very great man because through the Torah/Law a person could have access to God through an intermediary of a Priest and a patriarch. And the Law provided for a standard of behavior for everyone and a remedy when they didn't.
Abraham, by being God's friend, provided a relationship and inheritance... again another great man.

But

Jesus said, "Of those born of Women there are none greater than John".

Now even though I'm really stupid at times I'm not going to argue with God in this issue.

So what did Jesus mean by this?

John was Baptising a baptism of repentance...AND telling people that they could share scriptures with each other.
Now where this is something of a "yeah....AND?" By people today...the importance of this was twofold.
And we have a name for this today we call the "Priesthood of Every Believer"

Because of John's Baptism people could pray for repentance of their own sins without an intermediary of a patriarch or a priest to make a sin offering for them.
AND
They could now explain and handle scriptures by themselves without a priest.

These two practices being authorized by John's Baptism gave people an unprecedented access to God and the ability to explain about God to others using the scriptures they knew. Previously if scriptures were discussed a Levite Priest was needed onsite.

 

[marks]

The Church teaches that we receive salvation by doing many different things. It is not one or the other!!

This does, thank you!

This is where I run into a conflict between your church's teachings and the Biblical teaching of justification. I don't see where justification comes in pieces, and I do see where justification is complete when given.

I look at "rebirth", and I have to ask, is the person reborn when they come to faith and receive Jesus? Or does their faith not save them until they they go to a Catholic priest to receive the Eucharist?

If all who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved, where is space for additional requirements?

I'm not a part of "The Church" as I'm not Catholic, and have never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, is that correct?

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

This does, thank you!

This is where I run into a conflict between your church's teachings and the Biblical teaching of justification. I don't see where justification comes in pieces, and I do see where justification is complete when given.

I look at "rebirth", and I have to ask, is the person reborn when they come to faith and receive Jesus? Or does their faith not save them until they they go to a Catholic priest to receive the Eucharist?

If all who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved, where is space for additional requirements?

I'm not a part of "The Church" as I'm not Catholic, and have never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, is that correct?

Much love!

Thanks Marks. I don't know what you mean by "reborn" so I can't answer that question.

Some would say that Scripture is not clear on the fact that you have to go to a priest to receive the Eucharist. What is clear is that Jesus said Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day! So very truly I tell you Marks that unless you eat His flesh you will not have life in you and you will not be raised on the last day. How do you eat His flesh to fulfill his command?

Scripture says a little bit more than calling upon His name to be saved. Your a smart man. You know that. Don't you? Here is the best summary I have found on how one receives salvation, justification, new birth and eternal life or the "additional requirements" as you call them:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Lu 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By maintaining the faith (Col 1:22-23; Mt 24:13)?
By works (John 5:28-29; Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:24)?
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?

I don't understand your last question. (I'm not a part of "The Church" as I'm not Catholic, and have never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, is that correct?)

Respectfully, Mary

 

[marks]

Scripture says a little bit more than calling upon His name to be saved. Your a smart man. You know that. Don't you?

As someone who has "called upon the Name of the Lord", this to me means that I've believed that He exists, and saves, and I desire that salvation. My reliance on the Scriptures that this is true is my faith in God which in return, I believe, He then bestows a re-generation - a new life - which is patterned not after Adam, but after Himself. We are reborn, and have become the spirit children of our Heavenly Father.

This rebirth is also described as our justification, becoming justified by God in two distinct ways.

One is that having died in Christ, and being raised with Him in His resurrection, we have completed in Christ the due penalty for our sins, yet, in Christ we survive to live new life. The soul that sins shall die, and we have died.

The other is that having risen with Christ in new life, we are no longer the sinner, and can now live lives of righteousness.

So we have been forgiven our sin, and we've been recreated righteous and holy, the two products of justification. Scripture is clear we've been justifed by faith as opposed to anything we do, so our justification is apart from sacraments by necessity.

Much love!

 

[marks]

So very truly I tell you Marks that unless you eat His flesh you will not have life in you and you will not be raised on the last day. How do you eat His flesh to fulfill his command?

Of course as Jesus tells us His words are spirit, I look for a spiritual meaning here, and not that we're going to tear off chunks of muscle and chow down.

Jesus also taught that man is not the better or worse for what he puts into his mouth to eat, as it just moves through the body and out again. Rather, what matters is the heart, again, looking to the spiritual.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I don't understand your last question. (I'm not a part of "The Church" as I'm not Catholic, and have never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, is that correct?)

On this part . . . Since I've never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, this would mean I've never received a "transubstantiated" Eucharist, therefore, have never eaten the Body of Christ, therefore, have no life in me, and will not be raised on the last day? All this meaning also I'm not part of the True Church?

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

On this part . . . Since I've never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, this would mean I've never received a "transubstantiated" Eucharist, therefore, have never eaten the Body of Christ, therefore, have no life in me, and will not be raised on the last day? All this meaning also I'm not part of the True Church?

Much love!

According to Him, not me...Yes! For very truly you must eat his body and drink his blood to have life in you and be raised on the last day. Your disagreement is not with me it is with Him.

 

[marks]

According to Him, not me...Yes! For very truly you must eat his body and drink his blood to have life in you and be raised on the last day. Your disagreement is not with me it is with Him.

Except I don't seem to have a disagreement with Him. I don't see the Scriptures teaching this doctrine, I see where Jesus speaks of a spiritual reality expressed in fleshy terms, but specified as a spiritual reality.

Someone could argue that I'm deceived, but the One I've met has shown me nothing but love, and has worked wonderfully in me in sanctification. Is that the devil's work? I trust in Jesus, and Jesus does not let me down. He truly has shown Himself to be my Faithful Creator.

By your church doctrine that's all a lie in my life. So I suppose you are evangelizing me!



Much love!

 

[Marymog]

Except I don't seem to have a disagreement with Him. I don't see the Scriptures teaching this doctrine, I see where Jesus speaks of a spiritual reality expressed in fleshy terms, but specified as a spiritual reality.

Someone could argue that I'm deceived, but the One I've met has shown me nothing but love, and has worked wonderfully in me in sanctification. Is that the devil's work? I trust in Jesus, and Jesus does not let me down. He truly has shown Himself to be my Faithful Creator.

By your church doctrine that's all a lie in my life. So I suppose you are evangelizing me!



Much love!

Hi Marks,

I can see where it might look like I am evangelizing to you. I guess in a way I am. What I am doing is just quoting what He said. Nothing more. Nothing less. You have your interpretation of those passages(bread of life discourse). How old is that interpretation? When did you decide? Or did you just decide to agree with the 16th century men on that interpretation?

My interpretation of those passages is held by The Church and is around 2,000 years old. Paul re-affirms what Jesus said in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. That is Pauls interpretation OR what he was taught concerning the bread and wine. I agree with Paul.

None the less thank you for your time.

 

[Illuminator]

On this part . . . Since I've never received the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, this would mean I've never received a "transubstantiated" Eucharist, therefore, have never eaten the Body of Christ, therefore, have no life in me, and will not be raised on the last day? All this meaning also I'm not part of the True Church?

Much love!

No. It's not black and white. The historic Church considers you to be in a separate community, but still part of the True Church. This is explained further in numerous encyclicals on ecumenism. CCC817-820 for starters. Whatever benefits you receive from unsubstantiated Eucharist is none of the Catholic Church's business.

 

[marks]

No. It's not black and white. The historic Church considers you to be in a separate community, but still part of the True Church. This is explained further in numerous encyclicals on ecumenism. CCC817-820 for starters. Whatever benefits you receive from unsubstantiated Eucharist is none of the Catholic Church's business.

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

I agree with this completely! That is if I understand "Catholic Church" to mean "universal church", is that what this would mean? But how does this make someone a "separate community"? Or are you saying that as I'd refer to another congregation or fellowship? Not that we are separate in our faith and knowledge of God's Son, but that we are in different assemblies, and both are equally valid?

Much love!

 

[Illuminator]

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

I agree with this completely! That is if I understand "Catholic Church" to mean "universal church", is that what this would mean? But how does this make someone a "separate community"? Or are you saying that as I'd refer to another congregation or fellowship? Not that we are separate in our faith and knowledge of God's Son, but that we are in different assemblies, and both are equally valid?

Much love!

Both are valid, but as long as there is disunity, they cannot be both equally valid. It's the tragedy of relativism.

 

[marks]

Both are valid, but as long as there is disunity, they cannot be both equally valid. It's the tragedy of relativism.

Is it possible the unity exists somewhere else? Can we not have a real Christian unity in some other way?

Much love!