Is Eucharistic Adoration idolatry?

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

It does. Your point is??? I was referring to the snipe that the apostles and disciples would come up and “bite” Him–Gimme a break!

Not quite sure I understand. I just think that if Christ was being literal, He would have encouraged them to start eating Him then and there. Obviously you believe that he was sybolically referring to something that was yet to be literal, since they didn’t start eating Him at that point in John 6, right?

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Well, lets just say for now that it is highly unlikely that John wanted his audience to take Christ literally since the apostles did not start eating Christ literally. And it is unlikely that it is even an allusion to the Eucharist since John does not even record it.

What options does that leave us?

Michael

Michael–now is the time to put your money where your mouth is…Stop the evasion and the “in my opinion” and the “implausible” and have “your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.”!

 

[MariaG]

posted by Michaelp

Not quite sure I understand. I just think that if Christ was being literal, He would have encouraged them to start eating Him then and there. Obviously you believe that he was sybolically referring to something that was yet to be literal, since they didn’t start eating Him at that point in John 6, right?

Why don’t you look into what the early Church thought?
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

God Bless,
Maria

 

[michaelp]

MariaG:

Well Michael,

You can see that although we disagree, both of us can validily point to Scripture and say our interpretation is right. You disagree with our interpretation, we disagree with yours. Both are from Scripture.

So logically, we should look at what was taught by the early church.

There are more in this article catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

You can continue to lean upon your own understanding or you can seek out what was believed by the early church.

God Bless,
Maria

Actually, I have studied quite a bit of Church history . . . while I would rather stick with exegesis, I will just go with St. Augustine on John 6:

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Michael–now is the time to put your money where your mouth is…Stop the evasion and the “in my opinion” and the “implausible” and have “your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.”!

Thanks, but I must stick with intellectual honesty. Rhetoric does not make one more or less right. It is the arguement and the Holy Spirit that does the persuasion.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Thanks, but I must stick with intellectual honesty. Rhetoric does not make one more or less right. It is the arguement and the Holy Spirit that does the persuasion.

Michael

Intellectual honesty?

michaelp:

makes it exegetically implausible

michaelp:

It is not an issue of making sense.

Which is it Michael???

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Not quite sure I understand. I just think that if Christ was being literal, He would have encouraged them to start eating Him then and there. Obviously you believe that he was sybolically referring to something that was yet to be literal, since they didn’t start eating Him at that point in John 6, right?

Michael

BALONEY!

 

[michaelp]

MariaG:

Why don’t you look into what the early Church thought?
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

God Bless,
Maria

Yes, I have seen this. But Maria, have you looked at it unbiasedly? Here is a website for you to review that will walk you through Eucharistic history from a Protestant perspective:

the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Intellectual honesty?

Which is it Michael???

You are really losing me here. Please explain.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

BALONEY!

OK. Maybe so, but this doesn’t respond to the issue.

 

[MariaG]

Okay Michael,

I will be glad to read it later tonight, (I was supposed to leave about 20 minutes ago).

I started to read it, and within the first two paragraphs it had this error on Catholic teachings

There are thus two aspects of the Roman doctrine: transubstantiation,which guarantees the ‘real presence’ of Christ; and the mass,in which Christ, thus present bodily, is re-offered to God as a sacrifice.

Christ is not re-offered. It is the same sacrifice made present. If he means the same sacrifice made present, he should not be saying RE-offer.

That is just in the first two paragraphs.

Maybe you need to reread this with a more critical eye to try and see if the person writing even understands Catholic Teachings (which seems doubtful just from the second paragraph) . I’ll try not to judge too hastily, but a critical eye for errors is definitely warranted.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[st_felicity]

Ecclesiastes
Chapter 3

There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens… a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces…a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

It’s time to speak…for both of us…TELL us what John 6 says…PLEASE!

If you won’t…all I can assume is that you don’t have an answer, and list you among those who serve the idol of their own intellect…

Romans
Chapter 16
17 7 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. 18 For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan 8 under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

 

[michaelp]

I started to read it, and within the first two paragraphs it had this error on Catholic teachings. Christ is not re-offered. It is the same sacrifice made present. If he means the same sacrifice made present, he should not be saying RE-offer.

I think that this is just an interpretave matter which is only decided after you have chosen a position. From Webber’s position, arguing against Transubstantiation, this would be a “re-offering.” He still understands that Roman Catholics believe that it is the same event.

In the introduction, he shows his hand concerning his conclusion. But this does not mean that the historical research is invalidated simply because he has come to a decision contrary to what you believe, does it?

Please don’t be late.

God bless you also.

 

[MariaG]

Ahh, an extra 5 minutes.

Were you aware that Tertullian separated from the Catholic Church? Full article here: newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own.

In your article, Webster says that clearly Tertullian did not teach transubstantiation. Although I just did a quick read, I did not see where Webster mentions this fact, nor did I see a date of the writings he quoted. If you notice in the article, Tertullian definitely separated from the Church by 211. When were the writings written that Webster quoted? I will look for the answer withing the article as well as without.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[michaelp]

Ecclesiastes
****Chapter 3

There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens… a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces…a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

It’s time to speak…for both of us…TELL us what John 6 says…PLEASE!

If you won’t…all I can assume is that you don’t have an answer, and list you among those who serve the idol of their own intellect…

Romans
Chapter 16
17 7 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. 18 For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan 8 under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Now I don’t think that you are being sincere. You have yet to deal with the issues concerning John 6 which I have. I have obviously said that it is very implausible for us to take it literally, since the disciples did not start to eat his flesh and since John did not even mention the Eucharist in his Gospel.

This only leaves, as Augustine says, the figurative. There are a few different options for the figurative, all of them having to do with the theme of the Gospel belief.

But let’s keep struggling with the issue of how this cannot be literal or we will get no where. I don’t feel as if you are really struggling with the issues. Are you? If not, why continue? I am willing to struggle with any exegetical evidence that you provide.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

I think that this is just an interpretave matter .

Everything is an “interpretive matter” with you…where does the TRUTH of GOD fit in?

 

[michaelp]

MariaG:

Ahh, an extra 5 minutes.

Were you aware that Tertullian separated from the Catholic Church? Full article here: newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

In your article, Webster says that clearly Tertullian did not teach transubstantiation. Although I just did a quick read, I did not see where Webster mentions this fact, nor did I see a date of the writings he quoted. If you notice in the article, Tertullian definitely separated from the Church by 211. When were the writings written that Webster quoted? I will look for the answer withing the article as well as without.

God Bless,
Maria

Yes, but being a heritic does not mean that you have EVERYTHING wrong and everything that you have ever said is invalidated does it? In other words, if someone held to a heretical teaching sometime in their life, does that mean that everything that they ever believed is of no historic value at all? This seems to be what you are implying.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Everything is an “interpretive matter” with you…where does the TRUTH of GOD fit in?

All of life is an interpretive matter. God has created us in His image and expects us to use our minds. Otherwise, grammer, syntax, and logical consistancy are of no value. The reality of truth must be interpreted and understood to some degree before it can be consumed (no pun intended)!

All I was saying is that we should not interpret Webber out of his theological context.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Now I don’t think that you are being sincere.

Nope…I SINCERELY believe you are purposefully being evasive–and I am SINCERE when I ask you to say what you mean and quit bobbing and weaving in and out of your “hermaneutics”.

You have yet to deal with the issues concerning John 6 which I have.

You must mean deal with issues which you have NOT… AGAIN…PLEASe tell us what John 6 says in the gospel according to michaelp–all you have said is what it DOESN’T say.

 

[st_felicity]

I am willing to struggle with any exegetical evidence that you provide.

Michael

STRUGGLE WITH THIS!

JOHN 6
So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do? 31 16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35 17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” 41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” 42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 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. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”