The Eucharist

[mica]

mica said:
believers don't miss the connection. you'll know it also when you're born again. There was no new covenant until His death. He wasn't dead at the last supper.

Maybe the baby isn't born until the birth is complete, but does that mean there is no baby when it's only partially born?

as usual you're just playing word games, anything in attempt to discredit the word of God and uphold the words of men because you believe the words of the men of the RCC instead of those of God. the NT didn't start until His death, not a meal prior to it.
and I do believe scripture regarding that has already been posted by someone here. that you choose not to believe God's word is a major problem for you.

those with Him at the last supper still did not know what would be happening to Him in the coming hours. They did not believe they were eating His body or drinking His blood. They were Jews still in OT time and held to Jewish law.

From Matthew:
[31] Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
[32] But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
[33] Peter declared to him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away."
[34] Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."
[35] Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." And so said all the disciples.

and yet we know that Peter did fall away, he did deny Jesus - 3x ! those who know Him and believe His word do know that. according to your own post you don't know that.

jonathan_hili said:
We don't really know. There are some indications that they did (e.g. Peter said he would die with Jesus, Jesus said someone would betray him), and there are some indications that they didn't.

From Mark:
[31] for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise."
[32] But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him.

Peter said a lot of things - like that he wouldn't deny Him, but he did just that 3x. so obviously Peter didn't know his own weakness - but Jesus did know it.

They did not understand what Jesus was saying in vs 31.

here's Luke 18 -
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

those words (in God's word) are just 'some indications' to you that they didn't understand what He said?

It states clearly that they did not understand what He was saying.

 

[ding]

More made up nonsense. Jesus said 'his flesh' not some hocus pocus recreation.

I don't care what other denominations do. We cannot eat Jesus.

Why should we care what your denomination teaches?

 

[1Thess521]

Christ is present during every Mass.

Theology 101
That is what omnipresent means:

Christ is also present in Hell:

I asked you
What happens during Mass that it would still need to continue ; even if Christ was sitting there?

 

[ding]

Theology 101
That is what omnipresent means:

Christ is also present in Hell:

I asked you
What happens during Mass that it would still need to continue ; even if Christ was sitting there?

Christ is not present in hell.

Why would the Mass not continue?

 

[1Thess521]

Christ is not present in hell.

own the implications of your beliefs

so then, Christ is not omnipresent?

 

[1Thess521]

Why would the Mass not continue?

follow along:
a wife places a candle in the window every night waiting for war-bound husband to return:
When he returns: she no longer places the candle in the window:
Why? because there is no need to have a remembrance if the husband has returned.

1 Corinthians 11
He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying
This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

do this in remembrance UNTIL Christ comes

you asked
Why would the Mass not continue?

the answer is
The Biblical reason for the wine and bread (do this in remembrance ) is not needed if Christ has returned

 

[jonathan_hili]

and yet we know that Peter did fall away, he did deny Jesus - 3x ! those who know Him and believe His word do know that. according to your own post you don't know that.



Peter said a lot of things - like that he wouldn't deny Him, but he did just that 3x. so obviously Peter didn't know his own weakness - but Jesus did know it.

Yes, I know. The post was to show evidence that Peter understood that Jesus would face strife and probably die.

They did not understand what Jesus was saying in vs 31.

here's Luke 18 -
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

those words (in God's word) are just 'some indications' to you that they didn't understand what He said?

It states clearly that they did not understand what He was saying.

Yes, I know. That's why I posted it.

 

[mica]

jonathan_hili said:

We don't really know. There are some indications that they did (e.g. Peter said he would die with Jesus, Jesus said someone would betray him), and there are some indications that they didn't.

Yes, I know. The post was to show evidence that Peter understood that Jesus would face strife and probably die.

your post above says differently.

Yes, I know. That's why I posted it.

your post above says differently.

 

[RayneBeau]

No. There are numerous nCCs who had never received the Eucharist who are in heaven

You are misinformed - the Roman Catholic Church Catechism teaches that the Eucharist IS necessary for salvation to be received either sacramentally or in desire.

No.

What is the RCC's interpretation of John 6:53? Christ's words say: "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you."

If you mean, does eating the Eucharist give a Catholic spiritual life in Christ, then that depends if they are in a state of grace or not. Anyone can partake in the Eucharist unworthily.

I did not ask anything about whether "eating the Eucharist" gave a Roman Catholic a spiritual life in Christ.

My question was:
If the Roman Catholic eats Christ then he is given a 'pledge' of future glory according to Roman Catholicism, true or false?

 

[ding]

You are misinformed - the Roman Catholic Church Catechism teaches that the Eucharist IS necessary for salvation to be received either sacramentally or in desire.

What is the RCC's interpretation of John 6:53? Christ's words say: "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you."

I did not ask anything about whether "eating the Eucharist" gave a Roman Catholic a spiritual life in Christ.

My question was:
If the Roman Catholic eats Christ then he is given a 'pledge' of future glory according to Roman Catholicism, true or false?

The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. It is the Passover meal of the nc, the spiritual food for our journey to the Celestial city, the heavenly Jerusalem. If is definitely a important part of our journey but I am not sure I would consider it a pledge.

 

[mica]

The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. It is the Passover meal of the nc, the spiritual food for our journey to the Celestial city, the heavenly Jerusalem. If is definitely a important part of our journey but I am not sure I would consider it a pledge.

That's a false teaching taught by the RCC. catholics have not 'passed over' from the world to Him. They've 'passed over' to the RCC which is not His church.

the sharing of bread is the physical remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross that He made for us. We become His when we take part in His sacrifice thru the rebirth (that is not by water baptism).

Until one is born again there's nothing for them to 'hold in remembrance ' within their heart. It's just words (lip service) from those who are not His (haven't experienced the rebirth). All catholics have is what the RCC drummed into them as a child (and / or adult) and catholics just keep parroting those false teachings, not having the reality of it in their hearts and lives.

 

[ding]

That's a false teaching taught by the RCC. catholics have not 'passed over' from the world to Him. They've 'passed over' to the RCC which is not His church.

the sharing of bread is the physical remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross that He made for us. We become His when we take part in His sacrifice thru the rebirth (that is not by water baptism).

Until one is born again there's nothing for them to 'hold in remembrance ' within their heart. It's just words (lip service) from those who are not His (haven't experienced the rebirth). All catholics have is what the RCC drummed into them as a child (and / or adult) and catholics just keep parroting those false teachings, not having the reality of it in their hearts and lives.

Are saying that the bread and wine are not the Passover meal of the NC?

 

[RayneBeau]

Why would you say that? Is this from something you read or did someone tell you?

Actually ding, perhaps you didn't know, but it is your Roman Catholic Catechism that teaches, in regards to the Eucharist, that "it is the Incarnation continued in space and time.

 

[RayneBeau]

The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. It is the Passover meal of the nc, the spiritual food for our journey to the Celestial city, the heavenly Jerusalem. If is definitely a important part of our journey but I am not sure I would consider it a pledge.

Whether you are "sure" about the 'pledge' or not doesn't matter, your Roman Catholic Church Catechism teaching says in regards to the question of "What is the sacrament of the Eucharist?
Answer #1214: The Eucharist is the sacrament which really, truly, and substantially contains the body and blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. It is the great sacrament of God's love in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge is given to us of future glory."
"A 'pledge' according to Webster is an agreement or something given as a security.

 

[jonathan_hili]

your post above says differently.


your post above says differently.

I said in the post that there were some indications that the apostles knew what would happen to Jesus and some indications that they didn't, that's why I posted the two passages that show their understanding (Peter saying he would die with Jesus - obviously he understood Jesus was going to face death, as did the other apostles here) and lack of understanding (the quote from Mark).

 

[mica]

I said in the post that there were some indications that the apostles knew what would happen to Jesus and some indications that they didn't, that's why I posted the two passages that show their understanding (Peter saying he would die with Jesus - obviously he understood Jesus was going to face death, as did the other apostles here) and lack of understanding (the quote from Mark).

if he understood that what didn't he understand?

 

[RayneBeau]

Why should we care what your denomination teaches?

Yeah, why should you care - Roman Catholics don't even know or care what their own institution teaches

 

[balshan]

Yeah, why should you care - Roman Catholics don't even know or care what their own institution teaches

Oh they might find the truth.

 

[RayneBeau]

More made up nonsense. Jesus said 'his flesh' not some hocus pocus recreation.

I don't care what other denominations do. We cannot eat Jesus.

I'm glad you brought this up Beloved Daughter, because speaking of "other denominations," why can't the presiding minister of the Word, in a non-RC church read the Scriptures, ask God's blessing on the bread and wine that they use for their communion service at their Christian Church, and identify it and distribute it as the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, just the same as Roman Catholicism broadcasts and believes that "their" bread and wine fully, really and truly contains the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ within their same elements, and passed out to Christians who have gathered to worship and praise our Lord and Savior and to rejoice in all He has done for us. Since when was the Last Supper ever a Roman Catholic gathering or meal when Jesus established it to be implemented in His memory?

 

[mica]

Are saying that the bread and wine are not the Passover meal of the NC?

where did I say that in my post? repost and highlight it.