Is Eucharistic Adoration idolatry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
“Hey You”,

At the time of the discourse the Apostles did not understand the implications of what was being said. At the Last Supper when Jesus uttered those words, the Apostles did not fully comprehend what he meant. However, over the next few days after the Last Supper, and finally with His Resurrections, they began to fully comprehend the true meaning of the words of Jesus.

The Last Supper commemorates Passover. Jesus was preparing Himself for His own Passover. The words of Jesus at the Last Supper were screaming “SACRIFICE”; when they finally comprehended these words, then they knew that when Jesus said “this is My Body”, that is what He really meant.

All sacrifices up until the time of the death of Jesus were sanctified on the day that Jesus died on the Cross. There are to be no more animal sacrifices, and we now have the clean oblation to the Lord that serves as a reminder that Jesus sacrificed His Life for us, and we remind the Father of the sacrifice that was made by His Son.

I hope that helps in some way with your understanding of the Eucharist as to why we believe in the way that we do.

MaggieOH
 
Michaelp,

Well, MaggieOh pretty much said what I was going to in answer to your question. I would only add that Peter had faith; therefore he simply trusted that this particular mystery would be revealed at the right time—which it was, at the Last Supper. As for your various scientific questions: sorry, but when God holds up a piece of bread and says, “This is My body”, Catholics figure He means it. I figure that He created the universe ex nihilo, so I’ll accept that He can change this bread into His body. We don’t expect to be able to scientifically, empirically understand this miracle that happens at each Mass. God is able to do things that we don’t have the capacity to understand, I’m sorry to say. Why would Paul say what he does regarding unworthy reception of the Eucharist, if it is not what Jesus said it was?
 
Michael, I am still waiting on your response to the website I have posted twice on this subject;) God Bless
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Michaelp,

Well, MaggieOh pretty much said what I was going to in answer to your question. I would only add that Peter had faith; therefore he simply trusted that this particular mystery would be revealed at the right time—which it was, at the Last Supper. As for your various scientific questions: sorry, but when God holds up a piece of bread and says, “This is My body”, Catholics figure He means it. I figure that He created the universe ex nihilo, so I’ll accept that He can change this bread into His body. We don’t expect to be able to scientifically, empirically understand this miracle that happens at each Mass. God is able to do things that we don’t have the capacity to understand, I’m sorry to say. Why would Paul say what he does regarding unworthy reception of the Eucharist, if it is not what Jesus said it was?
Click to expand...
So do you believe that the people at the last supper were actually eating Christ while he was alive, or do you say that he was sybolically looking ahead to a literal future?

Also, how come the Apostle’s did not start eating (chomping on) Christ when he said for them to in John 6. If they were taking him literally, they did not do anything about it.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
So do you believe that the people at the last supper (that John does not record) were actually eating Christ while he was alive, or do you say that he was sybolically looking ahead to a literal future?
Click to expand...
Yes,God can do the impossible and He does.God Bless
 
MaggieOH said:
“Hey You”,
At the time of the discourse the Apostles did not understand the implications of what was being said. At the Last Supper when Jesus uttered those words, the Apostles did not fully comprehend what he meant. However, over the next few days after the Last Supper, and finally with His Resurrections, they began to fully comprehend the true meaning of the words of Jesus.
Click to expand...
This might be plausible only if John, the only author that mentions this occurance in John 6, would have actually mentioned the Lord’s supper at all. But your interpretation is virtually impossible in my opinion seeing as how John was the only NT Gospel writer who did not record the Lord’s supper.
I hope that helps in some way with your understanding of the Eucharist as to why we believe in the way that we do.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
I am beginning to think you ignore me Michael because I do not write novels in my explainations:crying:
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I am beginning to think you ignore me Michael because I do not write novels in my explainations:crying:
Click to expand...
You are just precise and to the point.👍
 
40.png
michaelp:
MaggieOH said:
“Hey You”,

This might be plausible only if John, the only author that mentions this occurance in John 6, would have actually mentioned the Lord’s supper at all. But your interpretation is virtually impossible in my opinion seeing as how John was the only NT Gospel writer who did not record the Lord’s supper.
Click to expand...
So are you saying because it’s only in one Gospel it’s “not gospel”?
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Michael…I’m beginning to question your sincerity…
Click to expand...
 
So are you saying because it’s only in one Gospel it’s “not gospel”?
Click to expand...
No, because it is not in the Gospel of John who is the only one who recorded the events of John 6. This makes it exegetically implausible that John would mean something–that they were going to literally eat his flesh and blood later, not at that moment–that he does not even say anything about in his own version of the Gospel he explicitly states is sufficient to bring one to eternal life.
Michael…I’m beginning to question your sincerity…
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Your “chomping on Christ” statement wasn’t very nice…I thought you were above sniping hyperbole and were respectful to Catholic beliefs…you are treading on the “source and summit” of our religion–please keep that in mind…
 
40.png
michaelp:
No, because it is not in the Gospel of John who is the only one who recorded the events of John 6. This makes it exegetically implausible that John would mean something–that they were going to literally eat his flesh and blood later, not at that moment–that he does not even say anything about in his own version of the Gospel he explicitly states is sufficient to bring one to eternal life.
Click to expand...
So enlighten us Michael…What DOES John 6 say???
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Your “chomping on Christ” statement wasn’t very nice…I thought you were above sniping hyperbole and were respectful to Catholic beliefs…you are treading on the “source and summit” of our religion–please keep that in mind…
Click to expand...
I am sorry. I got that from the previous debate on this matter either on this thread or another where someone was saying that the Greek word actually meant “chomping.” It would not be my translation since it is only used that way concerning animals eating.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
So enlighten us Michael…What DOES John 6 say???
Click to expand...
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
 
40.png
michaelp:
I am sorry. I got that from the previous debate on this matter either on this thread or another where someone was saying that the Greek word actually meant “chomping.” It would not be my translation since it is only used that way concerning animals eating.
Click to expand...
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!
 
40.png
st_felicity:
And God come down from heaven to live among His creations AS a creature makes SENSE!?!?!
Click to expand...
It is not an issue of making sense. It is an issue of the ability of the Scripture to communicate that which it is teaching. The communication can be miraculous and be plausible. But the interpretation of John 6 is implausible for the reasons I mentioned above.

Michael
 
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.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Click to expand...
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top