Is it Idolatry?

bcbsr said:

That's one of the issue I brought up. The man of Isaiah 44, whom Isaiah is practically ridiculing, may claim that the object he made is a portal of God. So he may be claiming to worship God who has taken the form of his object. Yet Isaiah clearly views that very practice as idolatry.

Click to expand...

Because God does not occupy objects.
At least, not by request or rituals.

So people using objects as some sort of portal to the diety they worship is what is known as idolatry.

Click to expand...

That would depend on which deity they assume is occupying the object.
Depends on how you define 'idolatry' too.
Is it worshipping an object, or is it worshipping a deity 'through' an object?
Claiming an object actually literally becomes the deity is a large step further.

devin553344 said:

I think the conclusion I was able to understand was that anything or person, related to Jesus the Christ, The Holy Ghost or the Father God cannot be an idol since it is God or represents God. Idols by definition are false gods or something that represents false gods.

Click to expand...

What if it's a false representation of the real God?

Hieronymus said:

What if it's a false representation of the real God?

Click to expand...

I'm new to the Catholic church. So I read up on Eucharist and it references the sacrament or body and blood of Christ. So then it cannot be a false representation. I have this belief that anyone can bless the sacrament of God and partake. It's a free gift from God and no one can claim to be the only authority to pass it out to peoples.

For Eucharist see: Eucharist in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

bcbsr said:

And what of those who don't believe the Eucharist is really Jesus, but a symbol. Same question I've been asking all along. How is it different than that man of Isaiah 44 who could just as well make the same claim. Is the twisted logic that I'm suppose to reckon Catholics (and now apparently Orthodox, like yourself who actually think the Eucharist is Jesus) as idolators simply because they say they're not? Is that it?

Click to expand...

It might be best for you to look into the history of the Church's teachings on the Eucharist. The gospel writers, the apostles, the sub-apostolic fathers, and the later Church fathers were universally consistent in their teachings on the Eucharist. All of the original apostolic Churches are consistent in the same belief. It was only during the second or third generation of the protestant reformation that anyone ever doubted it. And that came more from a hatred of "all things Catholic" than from anything else.

The saddest part of that is that if you attack the teachings of the Roman Church hard enough you'll find yourself attacking Christianity itself.

bcbsr said:

So if a person claims that the God of the Bible inhabits an object and worships that object, that's not idolatry?

Click to expand...

Well the problem with answering that is that I don't have any idea if God can inhabit an object

devin553344 said:

Well the problem with answering that is that I don't have any idea if God can inhabit an object

Click to expand...

Of course He can.
The burning bush for example.
But will He, on a regular basis, by means of ritual invocation?

bcbsr said:

And what about the Catholic Eucharist?

Click to expand...

To me that's one of the red flags of Catholicism.

---Staff Edit---

Click to expand...

Yes, this was in my second post.
HOW could we be sure they aren't right???
John 6:54 says we must CHEW His body if we are to have eternal life. Also, the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers understood the bread to be the body and the wine to be the blood.

I'm going to post some things they said...please don't write me back that they weren't inspired.
Thanks.

They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110], emphasis added).

Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).

Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).


It would be good to read the entire article...which explains why I have a problem with this whole matter.

I don't think we should be so adamant about it....

Hieronymus said:

People can use objects as some sort of portal to the deity they worship.
A deity can also use objects as a sort of portal.

Click to expand...

This sounds very sci-fi'ish to me.
If this is true...then we better all start worshipping the Eucharist!

devin553344 said:

I'm new to the Catholic church. So I read up on Eucharist and it references the sacrament or body and blood of Christ. So then it cannot be a false representation.

Click to expand...

Of course it can be false.
"Do this in my memory" Jesus said.
That does not mean "i will enter into your wafers and your wine" let alone "I will become your wafers and your wine".
God can not be summoned.

GodsGrace101 said:

Yes, this was in my second post.
HOW could we be sure they aren't right???
John 6:54 says we must CHEW His body if we are to have eternal life. Also, the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers understood the bread to be the body and the wine to be the blood.

Click to expand...

You think they meant it literally?

GodsGrace101 said:

This sounds very sci-fi'ish to me.
If this is true...then we better all start worshipping the Eucharist!

Click to expand...

Not sci fi, people used to know these things before the so called "Enlightenment" narratives were pushed upon us.
Here's an idea:
Why not just worship GOD?
Why invent a strange way to summon God to enter a wafer or wine?
We're supposed to break bread and eat it as if it were Jesus' flesh, and do this in his memory.
Not in a literal sense because cannibalism is an abomination, obviously.
So is drinking blood.

Hieronymus said:

Of course it can be false.
"Do this in my memory" Jesus said.
That does not mean "i will enter into your wafers and your wine" let alone "I will become your wafers and your wine".
God can not be summoned.

Click to expand...

I don't think I understand what your suggesting. Maybe can you explain it more in-depth please.

I'm not sure how what your saying applies to the Catholic church or any church that takes the sacrament out of hope to be resurrected.

Hieronymus said:

You think they meant it literally?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure.
I used to think it was symbolic. A friend of mine said..."Right, every day God comes down and into a wafer because a priest commands Him to".

I've been reading up on the Early Church Fathers and at least 3 of them knew one of the Apostles and were taught by them.

It's not so clear anymore.
Like I said, maybe we're too adamant about it?
John 6:54 creates some question....the word eat in that particular verse meant to chew. Chew what if it's only symbolic??

This is from a Catholic site because I found it quickly,,,but you could check it out in any Greek Lexicon...

But it gets more poignant. Seeing that the Jews still seem to be misunderstanding Him, our Lord insistently declares:


"Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." (John 6:54-55)


If our Lord meant this to be symbolic, He has an odd way of showing it. If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, what you certainly do not do is rephrase yourself in a more stringently literal fashion. Yet this is what our Lord does here. Contrast this with our Lord's behavior in Matthew 16:11, when the disciples take His words about bread literally when He only meant it figuratively (""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees") or in John 11:13-14 ("Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: "Lazarus is dead"). In each case, the disciples think Jesus is speaking literally when He is actually speaking figuratively, and to ensure that He is not misunderstood by His followers, Christ clarifies Himself. Note how differently He behaves in John 6: The people are scandalized by what appears to be a very shocking statement of literal truth, and far from dissuade them from this opinion, our Lord goes out of His way to state the truth even more literally and bluntly!

This is demonstrated more plainly in the verb Jesus choose for the word eat. Initially, the verb is phago (φάγω), which simply means "to eat", and much like the English word, can have a variety of meanings. I can eat something literally. I can "eat something up" as a way of expressing delight in it. I can say "eat my dust" to express that I am faster than the person I am saying it to. "Eat your heart out" means to suffer from envy or jealousy while to say I could "eat a horse" simply means I am really hungry. To eat one's words means to be proven wrong about a fact previously asserted, while when I was a kid, Bart Simpson popularized the phrase "eat my shorts", which meant "Get lost." Phago has all the same shades of meaning. Our Lord uses phago in John 6:48-53.

But interestingly enough, in John 6:54 Jesus switches the verb He uses to represent the concept of eating. Instead of the broad, equivocal term phago, He changes to the very pointed term trogon. Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. When our Lord begins to use trogon for "eat" in John 6:54, He is removing the last kernel of doubt from His listeners as to the proper interpretation of His words. The proper English equivalent of trogon would be masticate, which is the scientific term for the act of chewing and is unambiguous.

source: "Flesh" and "Eating" in John 6

GodsGrace101 said:

I'm not sure.
I used to think it was symbolic. A friend of mine said..."Right, every day God comes down and into a wafer because a priest commands Him to".

I've been reading up on the Early Church Fathers and at least 3 of them knew one of the Apostles and were taught by them.

It's not so clear anymore.
Like I said, maybe we're too adamant about it?
John 6:54 creates some question....the word eat in that particular verse meant to chew. Chew what if it's only symbolic??

Click to expand...

People chew bread to digest it and not choke.

Hieronymus said:

Not sci fi, people used to know these things before the so called "Enlightenment" narratives were pushed upon us.
Here's an idea:
Why not just worship GOD?
Why invent a strange way to summon God to enter a wafer or wine?
We're supposed to break bread and eat it as if it were Jesus' flesh, and do this in his memory.
Not in a literal sense because cannibalism is an abomination, obviously.
So is drinking blood.

Click to expand...

I can't argue this with you because I don't have a set POV.

I think whatever we get wrong, our merciful God will forgive.

Hieronymus said:

Not sci fi, people used to know these things before the so called "Enlightenment" narratives were pushed upon us.
Here's an idea:
Why not just worship GOD?
Why invent a strange way to summon God to enter a wafer or wine?
We're supposed to break bread and eat it as if it were Jesus' flesh, and do this in his memory.
Not in a literal sense because cannibalism is an abomination, obviously.
So is drinking blood.

Click to expand...

Luke 22:19 states that it is his body. Of course it's not cannibalism though It's bread.