Is Eucharistic Adoration idolatry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
michaelp:
Yes Michael, very much. Thank you. Can you point me to the teaching of the church on this? Does the Catechism speak to this issue? And, is this the official infallible teaching?

And, if it does cease to be the body and blood of Christ, what difference does it make to our spiritual life??? We are arguing over what happens to some bread for 15 min? Why? Ultimately, neither one of us have the body and blood after 15 min, so what is the big deal? If it is just the spiritual element that is ongoing after 15 min, that is what Protestants say about the entire time.

Michael

Michael
Click to expand...
Hi MichaelP,

Can I just say “hey you” to avoid confusion with all of the men named Michael on this forum?

I have only had a very quick look at your questions, and I can see that you are struggling with the nature of the Eucharist.

What I want to focus on with you, is the fact that the Eucharist is a Sacrament. A Sacrament is an oath that is made between God and ourselves. There is a promise on both sides because it is an oath that is related to a covenantal agreement that we have with God.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “this cup is my blood of the new and everlasting covenant.” (paraphrased). By partaking of the Eucharist, we are giving a promise to life the way of Christ. In return, God gives us grace. Yes, every time we receive the Eucharist, and partake in the communion meal that is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we receive grace from the Holy Spirit.

The accidentals of the Eucharist dissolves within us, but the grace remains. Therefore it is the grace that provides for our spiritual needs, rather than the bread and the wine that had been transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

MaggieOH
 
AND (drum roll) THE ANSWER IS…

CCC# 1377

AND…
Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.

from:
usccb.org/dpp/realpresence.htm
 
40.png
michaelp:
Thank Jimmy, but I don’t think that it is I or the Protestants who are turning it into a scientific thing. We are not the ones using the word “Literal” to discribe our belief about the sacraments. You believe that they, from a scientific standpoint, turn into the body, blood, and sould of Christ, DNA for DNA. We don’t.

Michael
Click to expand...
Michael, If you question how scientific this is, then you have to question the ressurection on the same grounds. You have to question all of Christianity.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Michael, If you question how scientific this is, then you have to question the ressurection on the same grounds. You have to question all of Christianity.
Click to expand...
I do, I believe the resurrection was a literal resurrection. But it is the implications of the body and blood being literal that cause questions/concern. The implications of the resurrection do give rise to such difficulties.

But again, I am not the one who is bringing the scientific literalness to the Eucharist, Roman Catholics are. I just believe it is symbolic of a spiritual reality.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
I do, I believe the resurrection was a literal resurrection. But it is the implications of the body and blood being literal that cause questions/concern. The implications of the resurrection do give rise to such difficulties.

But again, I am not the one who is bringing the scientific literalness to the Eucharist, Roman Catholics are. I just believe it is symbolic of a spiritual reality.

Michael
Click to expand...
I’m jumping in late, so maybe this has already been dealt with, but why would Jesus use the phrase “eats my flesh” to mean believe in him? This shocked many people and He lost disciples over this. Why would He say it this way if He knew people would leave Him over it? The disciples who left Him already believed in Him, yet they left and stopped believing when He said to eat His flesh. Why would He not say something like, "just as eating manna gave you life, receiving me will give you eternal life? (or having faith in me will…; or believing in me will…, or or faith in me will nourish your spirit, etc., etc.)?

So why would Jesus phrase having faith in Him as eating His flesh? Do you think those disciples that left Him did so for another reason besides thinking He was speaking literally? If Jesus did let them leave while thinking He was speaking literally, when He was not (according to you), was He deceiving them by letting them go?
 
40.png
michaelp:
I do, I believe the resurrection was a literal resurrection. But it is the implications of the body and blood being literal that cause questions/concern. The implications of the resurrection do give rise to such difficulties.

But again, I am not the one who is bringing the scientific literalness to the Eucharist, Roman Catholics are. I just believe it is symbolic of a spiritual reality.

Michael
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the link I provided yet?Please don’t forget after Jesus said it people walked away because they had trouble with it too.God Bless
 
40.png
michaelp:
But it is the implications of the body and blood being literal that cause questions/concern.

Michael
Click to expand...
It shoud be of concern…

Have I offended you somehow?
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I’m jumping in late, so maybe this has already been dealt with, but why would Jesus use the phrase “eats my flesh” to mean believe in him? This shocked many people and He lost disciples over this. Why would He say it this way if He knew people would leave Him over it? The disciples who left Him already believed in Him, yet they left and stopped believing when He said to eat His flesh. Why would He not say something like, "just as eating manna gave you life, receiving me will give you eternal life? (or having faith in me will…; or believing in me will…, or or faith in me will nourish your spirit, etc., etc.)?

So why would Jesus phrase having faith in Him as eating His flesh? Do you think those disciples that left Him did so for another reason besides thinking He was speaking literally? If Jesus did let them leave while thinking He was speaking literally, when He was not (according to you), was He deceiving them by letting them go?
Click to expand...
Yes, but his disciples did not literally start eating his flesh did they? No, it seems that they understood it to be sybolic as well. Peter said that you have the “words” (i.e. message) of eternal life, not “give me a bite so that I might live.”

Michael
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Have you looked at the link I provided yet?Please don’t forget after Jesus said it people walked away because they had trouble with it too.God Bless
Click to expand...
Hi Lisa, I went back and looked for it but I could not find it. What exactly is this?
 
40.png
michaelp:
Yes, but his disciples did not literally start eating his flesh did they? No, it seems that they understood it to be sybolic as well. Peter said that you have the “words” (i.e. message) of eternal life, not “give me a bite so that I might live.”

Michael
Click to expand...
Why did the other desciples walk away?

If it was becasue they thought it was literal, why didn’t Jesus correct them?

If they thought it was symbolic, what would be so shocking as to make them quit following Him?
 
40.png
jimmy:
Michael, If you question how scientific this is, then you have to question the ressurection on the same grounds. You have to question all of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Some people have soooooo much difficulty thinking with their heart. They must have scientific proof or they will refuse to believe. The Eucharist is literal yet mysterious. The Ressurection is literal yet mysterious. Your point is well taken Jimmy.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_10.gif
 
40.png
st_felicity:
It shoud be of concern…

Have I offended you somehow?
Click to expand...
Felicity, you have not offended me at all. Sorry if I have somehow given that impression. I have been working alot recently so I have have about five minutes every so often to check and respond. If I ignored your post or question, please do not think that I am doing so intentionally. You are a very kind person and a friend that I helps very much.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
Felicity, you have not offended me at all. … please do not think that I am doing so intentionally.
Michael
Click to expand...
Oh–Thank Goodness!..I was worried because I seem to be ticking people off lately…:o
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Oh–Thank Goodness!..I was worried because I seem to be ticking people off lately…:o
Click to expand...
St.-Felicity, I for one can not imagine you ticking anyone off:) Except maybe witness:D 😉 😛 I don’t think I made witness to happy either:) God Bless
 
st_felicity said:
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_204v.gif Well…I have had a burr in my breeches lately, but I don’t think I’ve been totally unjustified. (don’t ya love that smiley?!)

Has anyone noticed that the verse where the disciples walked away is John 666? Just curious I think…
Click to expand...

That smiley rocks:) Yes I noticed what verse:eek: I do not think it a coincidence either.God Bless
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Why did the other desciples walk away?

If they thought it was symbolic, what would be so shocking as to make them quit following Him?
Click to expand...
Nothing! As I have posted before, they would not have taken him symbolically because “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” was already a common metaphor in Jesus’ culture. It did not mean to believe, it meant to do harm (especially grievous physical harm) to someone. Here are a few scriptural examples:

When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (Psalm 27:2, KJV).

Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused399, 7170 the Jews. (Dan 3:8, KJV) [Strong’s definition of 399: accuse, devour, eat; of word 7170: to eat the morsels of any one, to chew him up]

And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused399, 7170 Daniel (Dan 6:24, KJV) [see note above]

Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron. (Mic 3:2-3, KJV)

And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. (Rev 17:16, KJV)

This is why the crowd took Jesus literally, because using this language in this culture, it couldn’t have been a metaphor. They rightly assumed Jesus was speaking literally (to eat), because in their language, interpreting it as a metaphor (harm/attack) makes no sense. It would change the meaning of John 6:53 to something like “Verily, verily I say unto you, except you attack the Son of man and harm him, ye have no life in you. Whoso reviles me and curses me hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”.

You know, I think I’m having an acute case of deja vue 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top