Confused

Dorothy Mae · Feb 25, 2019

Anthony2019 said:
Although I am from an Anglican background, I have visited many different churches of varying denominations. I have been enriched by their styles of worship and feel I have learned a lot from them.
I feel the presence of God in the silence of a monastic community as much as I do in a lively charismatic church. There are churches which uphold the Bible as speaking for itself in all matters of faith and the sole rule of faith and practice (sola scriptura) and churches which believe the scriptures must be understood through the lens of tradition, reason and experience. Whilst I have seen disagreements among the various churches over theological issues, I have met many Christians who attend these churches whose primary focus is to deepen their relationship with Christ and place Him at their centre of their lives and whose lives show evidence of the fruits of the Spirit.

God has made us all unique and special and I think it would be mundane if we all worshipped in exactly the same way.

Pretty sure Jesus said that some worship in one way but the Father seeks those who worship in spirit and in truth. He does not seem to share you viewpoint nor thinks it mudane if all worshipped in spirit and truth according to Jesus.

Dorothy Mae · Feb 25, 2019

ouranopolis said:
I agree. Liturgical orthodox and catholic worship is like being in heaven . and is biblical . my friend I love the catholic and orthodox churches. It just pains me to see the watering down that goes on particularly by leadership . I see my dear wife on her knees each night ,trusting the bible , fasting , praying crying out to God. Then I go to church and half the leader would rather be at the pub , and tell us to not take it all so seriously. Could just be the churches I've been to but sometimes us smells and bells people don't help ourselves by actually being the very stereotype of what evangelicals think we will be , all pomp and no substance . it pains me because I know that of only we can carry this high form of worship and actually live it - there is no higher way to God. So few appear to do it .

The description of worship in Heaven is given in the book of the Revelation and none of it fits the catholic mass. None. Does not seem like it is Heaven to those in Heaven.

Lost4words · Feb 26, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
Ah, the answer given when a man does not know the reference. Just say, "it is there and you are ignorant" instead of showing where. I want your answer, not something you do not know but just ask others to tell trusting that they know.

The Mass is profoundly pagan from its incense and statues where the toes are kissed so that over the centuries they are gone to its assumption that every choice the one man sitting under the dagonian hat is the voice of God speaking and no one should read a bible. A visit to the Vatican shows the paganism so clearly it is astounding.

But it is pointless to argue the point. What is to be gained by discussing it? You know your catholic links. I would that you knew the Bible instead.

The answers are in that link. Too many to post! Many Biblical scriptures to support the Catholic mass as Biblical. Its very obvious from your post, my dear friend, that you do not know Catholicism and at the same time 'believe' in old school lies about Catholicism.

God bless you

Dorothy Mae · Feb 26, 2019

Lost4words said:
The answers are in that link. Too many to post! Many Biblical scriptures to support the Catholic mass as Biblical. Its very obvious from your post, my dear friend, that you do not know Catholicism and at the same time 'believe' in old school lies about Catholicism.

God bless you

If you yourself cannot give an answer for what you believe but can only point to someone else who will tell us what you believe, what is the point in discussing it with you? The author of the link needs to join the discussion as you cannot express your own thoughts in words. No insult intended but I can’t discuss something with someone not there (a link.)

Anthony2019 · Feb 26, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
Pretty sure Jesus said that some worship in one way but the Father seeks those who worship in spirit and in truth. He does not seem to share you viewpoint nor thinks it mudane if all worshipped in spirit and truth according to Jesus.

Hello Dorothy, I totally agree with you that we should all worship in spirit and in truth. What I was trying to say was that given people come from different backgrounds and have different personalities, the style of worship will vary from person to person. No person is the same - we are all differerent! Some people love crowded auditoriums with loud music and shouting, others prefer to worship God in a more quiet setting. In order to worship in spirit and in truth, the person first has to find a worship style where they feel most comfortable and can be genuine with themselves and with God. It's not so much about the form of worship, but the integrity of it. I hope the original poster will find a church where he feels he can both be himself and where his faith can grow.

Major1 · Feb 26, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
The description of worship in Heaven is given in the book of the Revelation and none of it fits the catholic mass. None. Does not seem like it is Heaven to those in Heaven.

The Catholic Mass is actually what the Protestant believes Communion is. However the Catholic understanding is that it is the LITERAL body and blood of Christ which is consumed and that is where the rub is......a "Re-sacrifice" of Christ.

We risk the Roman Catholic saying that the biblical response to their position is a response to a straw man. Typically, the Roman Catholic will say that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice. But it is difficult to conclude otherwise when we examine what the official Roman Catholic documents say.

What is said a lot down here in the south is that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. Likewise, if the Mass is said to be a sacrifice of Christ and is repeated, then we must conclude that it is a continuing sacrifice, a re-sacrifice of Christ since the Catholic Church says that this very sacrifice is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God); and it is only the actual sacrifice of Jesus that can accomplish propitiation.

Major1 · Feb 26, 2019

Lost4words said:
The answers are in that link. Too many to post! Many Biblical scriptures to support the Catholic mass as Biblical. Its very obvious from your post, my dear friend, that you do not know Catholicism and at the same time 'believe' in old school lies about Catholicism.

God bless you

The Communion service is Biblical, but the Catholic mass is not because it portrays the blood and body of Jesus as being literal and that is NOT what the Bible says.

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine in communion literally change into Jesus' physical body and blood. This is called the Sacrament of the Mass or Holy Eucharist and occurs when the priest says, "This is My Body, This is My Blood." So the elements of bread and fruit of the vine do not just represent or symbolize Jesus' flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper, they actually physically become His Flesh and Blood in an unbloody sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:26,27; 9:24-28 - Old Testament priests offered sacrifices repeatedly, but Jesus does not need to offer daily sacrifices. He offered Himself once for all.

Hebrews 10:1-4,9,10,12,18 - Animal sacrifices had to be repeated because they could not really take away sins. If they could take away sins, they would have ceased to be offered. Jesus finally offered the one sacrifice that can take away sins, so it ceased to be offered.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, however, has Jesus being sacrificed repeatedly. This flatly contradicts the Bible.

paul becke · Feb 26, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
The description of worship in Heaven is given in the book of the Revelation and none of it fits the catholic mass. None. Does not seem like it is Heaven to those in Heaven.

Clericalism has been the bane of the Catholic church since at least the time of Constantine, but you are wrong. In Revelation we read that an angel offers up the prayers of the saints to God in the appearance of incense. For Protestants such as yourself, nobody can intercede for us in heaven. Likewise your people had the temerity to tamper with the canon of scripture identified by the early, i.e. Catholic, church.

You follow the Bible religiously ? What about Maccabees and the commendation of offering prayers for the dead ? But then Maccabees has been censored, expurgated(!) from the Old Testament by Protestant churches, hasn't it ?

Dorothy Mae · Feb 26, 2019

paul becke said:
Clericalism has been the bane of the Catholic church since at least the time of Constantine, but you are wrong. In Revelation we read that an angel offers up the prayers of the saints to God in the appearance of incense.

Been to mass plenty of times. Never saw incense offered up as prayers of those present.
But you missed the rest of the worship service before God in Revelation.

For Protestants such as yourself, nobody can intercede for us in heaven.

Wrong. The bible says Jesus does.

Likewise your people had the temerity to tamper with the canon of scripture identified by the early, i.e. Catholic, church.

You mean we translated into something besides Latin (which was a translation from the Greek)
so people could read it?

You follow the Bible religiously ?

I follow Jesus and not very religious. You could say I obey the last recorded words of Mary if you like.

What about Maccabees and the commendation of offering prayers for the dead ?

What about them?

But then Maccabees has been censored, expurgated(!) from the Old Testament by Protestant churches, hasn't it ?

We can read it anytime we like.

Dorothy Mae · Feb 27, 2019

Anthony2019 said:
Hello Dorothy, I totally agree with you that we should all worship in spirit and in truth. What I was trying to say was that given people come from different backgrounds and have different personalities, the style of worship will vary from person to person. No person is the same - we are all differerent!

Except from Jesus we learn that God doesn’t accept any and all forms of worship. That was my point. There will be those who come to Jesus expecting their lives were acceptable who will be rejected. He determines what He accepts as worship, not our tastes or culture.

Some people love crowded auditoriums with loud music and shouting, others prefer to worship God in a more quiet setting.

If God found the music insulting, loud or quiet, it was not worship for Him. The people might call it so but they don’t have a vote as to what God accepts.

In order to worship in spirit and in truth, the person first has to find a worship style where they feel most comfortable and can be genuine with themselves and with God.

No they to need to find a worship that is acceptable to God.

It’s not so much about the form of worship, but the integrity of it.

Sincerely enjoying a service that grieves God has integrity for man but is not worship for God.

I hope the original poster will find a church where he feels he can both be himself and where his faith can grow.

I would that his relationship with God were such that it doesn’t matter the form as long as God is pleased and he, the poster, knows it.

Dorothy Mae · Feb 27, 2019

Major1 said:
The Catholic Mass is actually what the Protestant believes Communion is.

No it isn’t.

However the Catholic understanding is that it is the LITERAL body and blood of Christ which is consumed and that is where the rub is......a "Re-sacrifice" of Christ.

Yes I know...transubstant~

We risk the Roman Catholic saying that the biblical response to their position is a response to a straw man. Typically, the Roman Catholic will say that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice. But it is difficult to conclude otherwise when we examine what the official Roman Catholic documents say.

Dudnt want to discuss that point.

What is said a lot down here in the south is that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. Likewise, if the Mass is said to be a sacrifice of Christ and is repeated, then we must conclude that it is a continuing sacrifice, a re-sacrifice of Christ since the Catholic Church says that this very sacrifice is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God); and it is only the actual sacrifice of Jesus that can accomplish propitiation.

Duck theology said to be truth by virtue of repetition? If enough say it is so, you believe it?

Major1 · Feb 27, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
No it isn’t. Yes I know...transubstant~
Dudnt want to discuss that point.
Duck theology said to be truth by virtue of repetition? If enough say it is so, you believe it?

Duck theology is said to be truth by OBSERVATION.

Transubstantiation is NOT Bible teaching.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63...……...
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,".

Mountainmike · Feb 27, 2019

Still cherrypicking verses out of context I see.

Jesus uses a word that means "gnaw"(as of flesh) not "consume". Why so if he meant it was just the word?
Its clear that the synagogue knew what he meant which is why they were reviled by it, assuming he meant cannibalism. Real flesh and blood

And when he could have called followers back. Not a bit of it. He said "will you go too?"

Then if you look at Justin Martyr "is the flesh of Christ" - or Ignatius to Smyrneans - saying to be a valid eucharist of the real body it needs to a bishop in succession. How can it be valid or otherwise if it was only ever a symbol?

And he was taught by John the apostle. Are you saying John did not know the meaning of the verses he wrote? Hardly...

Paul in saying "is it not the body of our Lord "speaks of why "some are sick, others have died" because of profaning the eucharist. How so if it is just a symbol?

In short the argument on eucharist as a symbol is a total #fail. Only by cherrypicking out of context can you ever conclude that.

I think you should also reflect that all those who chose your new testament, believed it was real flesh and Blood... If you doubt their wisdom, you doubt the new testament.

Then if you are a science buff.... look at the eucharist miracles...forensic evidence....of real flesh, that forensic scientists say could not have been a fraud and cannot be explained (intermingling of bread and flesh!). Several of them several different labs...

Major1 said:
Duck theology is said to be truth by OBSERVATION.

Transubstantiation is NOT Bible teaching.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63...……...
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,".

Dorothy Mae · Feb 27, 2019

Major1 said:
Duck theology is said to be truth by OBSERVATION.

What do you observe besides people?

Transubstantiation is NOT Bible teaching.

Agreed.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63...……...
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,".

Well he literally laid down his body and shed his blood. Not merely spiritual.

BobRyan · Mar 1, 2019

ouranopolis said:
We compromised and went to a supposedly conservative Anglican church which turns out to be against the ordination of women but rejects key biblical truths which is odd. We left that church to find another with different issues . the only church we have found which preaches young earth creation and a literal Adam and eve , belief in hell as a real place and salvation through Christ , marriage between one man and one woman , homosexuality as sin - is a very " low church " evangelical church .

And of course the denomination I attend.

ouranopolis said:
the Eucharist is quite literally thrown to the floor at times during the service and none there seems to think like me that actually fasting and being disciplined is of any benefit , because Christ did it all so we can just kick back .

Agreed that would be a problem. I am glad I don't attend such a church as you are describing. I guess we all have something to be thankful for.

ouranopolis said:
What I essentially saying is this . I need a church which actually believes the bible , and holds orthodox / catholic liturgical style.

Reverent yes. But latin mass not going to be Biblical.

Also -- we have this from scripture
Heb 8
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry,

Hebrews 7 says the earthly priesthood ended. Hebrews 10:4-12 says all of the sacraments of the priesthood ended. Hebrews 8 says Christ Himself would not be a priest on Earth.

The whole reason many Christians today are not Catholic or Orthodox is because the Bible does not support a lot of their man-made-traditions. It is not just "preference"

It seems most orthodox and catholic groups have long ago abandoned believing the bible is true and kind of merge and evolutionist approach to life

In fact a great many theistic evolutionists among them so no surprise that it is going that direction.

BobRyan · Mar 1, 2019

Lost4words said:
I have never heard of the Catholic church abandoning that the Bible is true! The whole Catholic mass is 'Biblical'. All the Catholics i know 'Do' take their faith seriously.

The RCC strongly affirms blind faith evolutionism but "allows" members to still believe the Bible Creation account "if they must". May also be true of the Orthodox.

So I think we expect to find a lot of "Bible observations are myth if it is not repeatable in the lab" selectively applied among their theistic evolutionists.

BobRyan · Mar 1, 2019

Mountainmike said:
Paul in saying "is it not the body of our Lord "speaks of why "some are sick, others have died" because of profaning the eucharist. How so if it is just a symbol?

The Sanctuary on earth was filled with symbols - but there was death in store for those Jews that defiled it. That does not mean that inside the gold or the images "God was transubstantiated" -- there was not "confecting the body soul and divinity of God" wild claims going on there.

You are conflating two entirely different things.

Mountainmike · Mar 1, 2019

Which fails to answer a single point I made! Now read tmy previous list

The scripture is consistent with it using words like "gnaw" not consume , meaning actual flesh and it is why many of Jesus' followers left. He did not call them back.

The early church believed in real flesh as many l fathers state clearly. Some taught by apostles including John! He knew what John 6 meant. he wrote it. Ignatius from that teaching clearly refers it as real body and sacramental.

Both Paul and fathers also clearly believed in sacramental eucharist, without which concepts such as "validity" (ignatius) or "profaning" (apostle Paul) have no meaning

Those who composed the new testament believed in real flesh - they say so many times.
Take athanasius "So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Sure there are arcane arguments of philosophy: orthodox reject the concepts of form and substance, needless to say they regard it as "flesh" Justin Martyr, but hold it a mystery how.

Symbolic is totally unjustifiable.

A man made tradition and pure invention of some after the reformation.

BobRyan said:
The Sanctuary on earth was filled with symbols - but there was death in store for those Jews that defiled it. That does not mean that inside the gold or the images "God was transubstantiated" -- there was not "confecting the body soul and divinity of God" wild claims going on there.

You are conflating two entirely different things.

BobRyan · Mar 1, 2019

Mountainmike said:
Paul in saying "is it not the body of our Lord "speaks of why "some are sick, others have died" because of profaning the eucharist. How so if it is just a symbol?

The Sanctuary on earth was filled with symbols - but there was death in store for those Jews that defiled it. That does not mean that inside the gold or the images "God was transubstantiated" -- there was not "confecting the body soul and divinity of God" wild claims going on there.

You are conflating two entirely different things.

Mountainmike said:
Which fails to answer a single point I made! Now read tmy previous list

I specifically singled out the point in your list that I was addressing.

The scripture is consistent with it using words like "gnaw" not consume , meaning actual flesh and it is why many of Jesus' followers left. He did not call them back.

1. You are referring to John 6. I was referring to your statement about "many of you are sick" as if that somehow can only be true if transubstantiation is true.
2. your John 6 quote is not helping you because in John 6 we have this
a. Jesus did not say in John 6 - some day in the future at the last supper you will have to bite my flesh.
b. Jesus said in John 6 he already IS the bread of life that came down out of heaven and it is already true that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
c. Jesus said in John 6 that literally eating flesh and blood is pointless and that "it is my WORDS that have spirit and LIFE".
d. It is the faithLESS disciples that take Christ too literally and leave.
e. Not one single one among the faithFUL disciples "bites Christ" at that John 6 sermon.
f. If all the faithFUL disciples that remains had bitten Christ - there would have been no last supper.
g. Christ strongly reprimanded the faithFUL disciples for taking his symbol of bread TOO literally.
Matt 16: "11 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.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
h. When Christ turns to the faithFUL disciples and asks them point blank if they too will join the too-literal group and leave - Peter responds with the right view "you have the WORDS of life" and not "Ok I will now bite your flesh and drink your blood"

And even in all of that -- nobody claiming to "confect the body, blood soul and divinity of God"

Mountainmike · Mar 1, 2019

I am not going to go blow for blow. Experience says it isnt worth it.

The list I produced is fair and objective of who believed what and when in early church
Indeed what John the apostle passed on.
And none of them thought it was just a symbol. All said real body/flesh.

So take just the first point you refer:

My comment "some are sick, some have died" - a reference to Paul and Corinthians demonstrates it is NOT just a symbol. How else could it be "profaned" (paul) or "valid if only performed by bishop" Ignatius.(disciple of John). None of that would make sense if it were just a symbol.

The symbolic only eucharist was unheard of before the reformation , and because "tradition" means "faith handed down" (paradosis) - the symbolic only eucharist is man made tradition post reformation.

BobRyan said:
The Sanctuary on earth was filled with symbols - but there was death in store for those Jews that defiled it. That does not mean that inside the gold or the images "God was transubstantiated" -- there was not "confecting the body soul and divinity of God" wild claims going on there.

You are conflating two entirely different things.

I specifically singled out the point in your list that I was addressing.

1. You are referring to John 6. I was referring to your statement about "many of you are sick" as if that somehow can only be true if transubstantiation is true.
2. your John 6 quote is not helping you because in John 6 we have this
a. Jesus did not say in John 6 - some day in the future at the last supper you will have to bite my flesh.
b. Jesus said in John 6 he already IS the bread of life that came down out of heaven and it is already true that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
c. Jesus said in John 6 that literally eating flesh and blood is pointless and that "it is my WORDS that have spirit and LIFE".
d. It is the faithLESS disciples that take Christ too literally and leave.
e. Not one single one among the faithFUL disciples "bites Christ" at that John 6 sermon.
f. If all the faithFUL disciples that remains had bitten Christ - there would have been no last supper.
g. Christ strongly reprimanded the faithFUL disciples for taking his symbol of bread TOO literally.
Matt 16: "11 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.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
h. When Christ turns to the faithFUL disciples and asks them point blank if they too will join the too-literal group and leave - Peter responds with the right view "you have the WORDS of life" and not "Ok I will now bite your flesh and drink your blood"

And even in all of that -- nobody claiming to "confect the body, blood soul and divinity of God"

Confused

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus I Trust In You

Well-Known Member

Pax et bonum!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads