Good point.People chew bread to digest it and not choke.
He will forgive the flock, but i'm not so sure about the clergy and their superiors who came up with these weird traditions and views.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.
According to Catholicism it IS REALLY his body and his Blood though.Luke 22:19 states that it is his body. Of course it's not cannibalism thoughIt's bread.
Yes,,, I get your point...but your analogies are not correct.He will forgive the flock, but i'm not so sure about the clergy and their superiors who came up with these weird traditions and views.
The whole idea of the supper is a supper.
In those days you didn't have sliced bread, so they broke the bread, to eat it.
Jesus taught the Apostles to have meals together and to look at the bread and the wine as symbols of his flesh and his Blood, so they would symbolically take in Christ and live of it.
"For man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Jesus warned us that people will claim He is here, or He is there, but it is not Him.
He will be here on earth when He returns like He left.
He sent us the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) in his stead.
And where do you draw the line?
"I am the Door" ?
Do his hinges need lubrication?
Somewhere along the line, the Lord's supper (a meal) changed into this transubstantiation thing (a ritual).
Yes, symbolically.Good point.
But He WAS speaking about chewing on His body.
So you mean the bread that represents it...
No. Maybe scoffers portrayed it like that.The first Christians were known as being cannibals.
Maybe, but i think it mainly means to live off Him, to take Him in, and symbolize this with bread and wine, having a meal, and do this in his remembrance when you eat.Also, when Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY at the last supper, I'm sure He meant that as He broke the bread...HIS BODY would be broken the next day.
So is it idolatry if one makes a wooden cross, for example, and assumes that the real presence of God is in the object,
believing that God transubstantiates Himself into the wooden object, the wooden cross itself becoming God to that person, and so worships the wooden object which to them is God?
Is it idolatry only to the person who doesn't believe in the real presence of God in the object? Should the person who doesn't believe that God has transubstantiated Himself into the object consider the person who does believe such to be an idolator?
And does the Isaiah passage above apply?
I used to be so sure about what you're saying.Yes, symbolically.
Not ritually changed into the actual flesh and the actual Blood.
The idea is to eat, digest and live off Him, mentally and spiritually.
The Apostles never got the idea to cut pieces off Jesus and eat it, and to let Him bleed into a cup to drink it.
The first Christians were known as being cannibals.No.Maybe, but i think it mainly means to live off Him, to take Him in, and symbolize this with bread and wine, having a meal, and do this in his remembrance when you eat.
So it changes the meal to feed your flesh into living by the Word of God.
According to Catholicism it IS REALLY his body and his Blood though.
Possessing an object would be closer to the idea of the Real Presence. Do you know the difference?Yeah, I struggled with that also as it was disturbing the idea of eating someone's body, God's body' after he had been crucified. And the scriptures refer to him as the Lamb of God. Which is a burnt offering animal. So the Catholics appear to be correct.
The solution I see is this, perhaps God can possess an object even bread and wine, doing this with his Holy Spirit. And that Holy Spirit is powerful even to the measure of the Body and Blood of Christ. So it's not cannibalism, but rather a miracle!
But I would change what I said to say, the Holy Spirit will possess his children when they take the sacrament, not literally possess the bread and wine.
Again doesn't answer the question as how the worship of the Eucharist is not idolatry. You seem to be saying that it is idolatry, but it's OK because it's authorized.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.
According to Catholicism it IS REALLY his body and his Blood though.
Possessing an object would be closer to the idea of the Real Presence. Do you know the difference?
Real Presence
Transubstantiation
Please find out...
Matters not to me what post-Biblical theologians said. My faith is not based upon what they said. Your logic seems to be that we can practice idolatry as long as it is authorized by post-Biblical theologians.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....
Matters not to me what post-Biblical theologians said. My faith is not based upon what they said. Your logic seems to be that we can practice idolatry as long as it is authorized by post-Biblical theologians.
My point is that passages like Isaiah 44 define idolatry and I can see little different because that idolatry and what some allege of the worship of the eucharist. My question is, what is the difference. The only answer I'm getting so far from the pro-worship the eucharist crowd is simply that it's allegedly authorized, but no explanation as to how it's not idolatry.
In Catholicism, unlike statues and even the crucifix, the Eucharist is alleged not simply to be a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but rather it is Christ. In Catholicism's transubstantiation doctrine God becomes the eucharist, which is itself worshiped as such.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
The idolater can claim that God's real presence is in the object he has constructed. That's essentially what Catholics claim as I see it. What's the difference?If it is God, his body and blood, which is what the scriptures teach, then I'm not sure how you're saying it is idolatry. I'm missing the point.
In Catholicism, unlike statues and even the crucifix, the Eucharist is alleged not simply to be a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but rather it is Christ. In Catholicism's transubstantiation doctrine God becomes the eucharist, which is itself worshiped as such.
In contrast Christians like myself view the whole ceremony of communion as symbolic and the elements as symbolic. And thus we don't "worship the eucharist" as Catholics do.
Again the question was in what way is the Catholic worship of the Eucharist not idolatry. No explanations so far.
Again doesn't answer the question as how the worship of the Eucharist is not idolatry. You seem to be saying that it is idolatry, but it's OK because it's authorized.
Attacking Christianity? Are you saying that Christians who don't worship the eucharist are not real Christians? Is asking a question considered attacking Christianity? If that's how you see it, maybe that's why you haven't asked yourself the question. And why you don't have a rational explanation. I suppose that's one way false doctrines get spread, by disallowing questions, part of that whole "Magisterial" concept some denominations have. So a little leaven ends up leavening the whole lump.
Actually if you read it in context he's clearly speaking figuratively. Jesus was standing right there. His body was right there. Then he picks up a piece of bread and says, "This is my body". I don't understand how anyone could take him literally there.Luke 22:19 states that it is his body. Of course it's not cannibalism thoughIt's bread.
Only if you play with semantics and definitions.Why would idolatry be permitted for the entirety of Christianity? The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. It has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning.
Those who blindly attack the Roman Church for its beliefs end up attacking all of Christianity by attacking all those beliefs universal to both Rome and the Eastern Churches.
Rome did not invent the Eucharist, Christ did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?