Is Eucharistic Adoration idolatry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
st_felicity:
This is not at all what i am doing and i believe you know that that is true–I care about your soul and it clearly says BELIEVE and EAT-- I am lovingly (perhaps assertively) providing fraternal correction. Run away and point fingers if you must. I am doing what the Bible tells us to do–I am doing it out of concern–not to win an argument.
Click to expand...
But there is such a thing as a cloud without water. An accusation with out evidence to back it up. I think that we are in the middle of that part now.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
You know, Lisa, the Mormons say the same thing about the “burning in their bosom.” I will stick with Scripture and God’s hand throughout history. Subjectivism never lead me to a good place.

Michael
Click to expand...
I am sticking with scripture Michael,Jesus did not explain away what He said,nor did He correct those who walked away.It is a matter of faith,and like I said I will be praying for you to recieve the grace to believe. Mormans, okay now I know how you felt about the Tlaloc comment:crying:
 
  1. he who comes to Me will not hunger
Click to expand...
Comes=eating in the context. This is parallel, meaning that they both represent the same thing.
  1. he who believes in Me will never thirst
Click to expand...
Believe=drinking (to satify the thirst). This is parallel, meaning they both represnt the same thing.
(1) is parallel to (2).
Click to expand...
Agreed, VERY good! I am impressed!!
If it seems so clear to you then why have you failed to explain it?
Click to expand...
That is a purely subjective statement.
And as for the **grammatical **part of your historical-grammatical-cultural-literary hermeneutic: where is it?
Click to expand...
That is what we are talking about. Grammer includes syntax.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
But there is such a thing as a cloud without water. An accusation with out evidence to back it up. I think that we are in the middle of that part now.

Michael
Click to expand...
What are you talking about now? Deflect and weave. You explaind John 6 perfectly–said it was clear–and yet you continue to say you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…
It seems pretty clear what He is talking about. This is probebly why the disciples did not ask for a bite of his leg.
Click to expand...
Explain–obviously you left something out or we would be reaching the same conclusions…everything looked good and then ??? If He is not REAL FOOD what is he talking about? Enlighten me.
 
40.png
michaelp:
But there is such a thing as a cloud without water. An accusation with out evidence to back it up. I think that we are in the middle of that part now.

Michael
Click to expand...
This same argument is being used about the whole life of Jesus,you are choosing not to believe what Jesus said because it is a hard saying,we choose to believe.God Bless
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I am sticking with scripture Michael,Jesus did not explain away what He said,nor did He correct those who walked away.It is a matter of faith,and like I said I will be praying for you to recieve the grace to believe. Mormans, okay now I know how you felt about the Tlaloc comment:crying:
Click to expand...
I was comparing the type of comment you made, not your character. There is a difference.

Lisa, how do you explain that John, even though he is writing to an audience to whom he wants to impart knowledge of eternal life, skips mentioning the Lord’s supper at all in its historical setting, when all three other Gospels record it? And you believe that John is actually wanting his audience to believe that the Eucharist is essential for eternal life? He mentions “belief” well over 100 times, but does not even mention the events of the Lord’s supper. He devotes more time to the upper room than any of the synoptics (other Gospels), yet he does not mention the Lord’s supper. Why? How do you explain this? Oversight?
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
This same argument is being used about the whole life of Jesus,you are choosing not to believe what Jesus said because it is a hard saying,we choose to believe.God Bless
Click to expand...
No, I do believe exactly what he said. To come to him is to satify your hunger (which I have done) and to believe in him is to satify your thirst (which I have done).

Look no further than to the women at the well in John 4. Satifying of hunger and thirst is a comon them in Johannine theology. It is always fulfilled by believing, not consuming.

Look to Augustine for your guidence.

Michael
 
Ani Ibi:
We can agree on that. It seems to be a place you like to be in, however.
Click to expand...
Baseless statement with nothing but your subjective opinion to back it up.😉
 
Quote:
It seems pretty clear what He is talking about. This is probebly why the disciples did not ask for a bite of his leg.
Click to expand...
Explain–obviously you left something out or we would be reaching the same conclusions…everything looked good and then ??? If He is not REAL FOOD what is he talking about? Enlighten me.

i FIND IT INTERESTING THAT YOU KEEP CLAIMING BELIEF IN THE rEAL pRESENCE IS A LEAP IN THE DARK–WHEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT pETER DID IN jOHN 21 (sorry–had the Cap lock on…:o ) He jumped out of the boat and ran to the Lord–who fed them!

Also…in John 21:12…
Jesus said to them, “Come, have breakfast.” And none of the disciples dared to ask him, 6 “Who are you?” because they realized it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came over and took the bread and gave it to them, and in like manner the fish. 14 7 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead.

–Why bread and fish?
 
40.png
michaelp:
I was comparing the type of comment you made, not your character. There is a difference.

Lisa, how do you explain that John, even though he is writing to an audience to whom he wants to impart knowledge of eternal life, skips mentioning the Lord’s supper at all in its historical setting, when all three other Gospels record it? And you believe that John is actually wanting his audience to believe that the Eucharist is essential for eternal life? He mentions “belief” well over 100 times, but does not even mention the events of the Lord’s supper. He devotes more time to the upper room than any of the synoptics (other Gospels), yet he does not mention the Lord’s supper. Why? How do you explain this? Oversight?
Click to expand...
As I explained to you,the rationalization was the comparison I made.Subjective is not what I am*,I* told you why I am Catholic it was an answer to a very specific prayer,Jesus brought me to His Church,the One that holds His truths.Like a child I am obeying and He has given me the grace to believe.I never had the problem of not believing He gave me the grace.Oversight NO,Jesus said it He out ranks Saint John;) God Bless
 
Explain–obviously you left something out or we would be reaching the same conclusions…everything looked good and then ??? If He is not REAL FOOD what is he talking about? Enlighten me.
Click to expand...
If you are not connecting with this, then I don’t know where I lost you. Somewhere way back there. I think that you obviously have been reading some posts wrong (if you are being serious).
i FIND IT INTERESTING THAT YOU KEEP CLAIMING BELIEF IN THE rEAL pRESENCE IS A LEAP IN THE DARK–WHEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT pETER DID IN jOHN 21 (sorry–had the Cap lock on…:o ) He jumped out of the boat and ran to the Lord–who fed them!
Click to expand...
Peter had reason to do this. It was not a leap into the dark. Jesus was very dependable. In fact, if Peter had not come when Christ said come, his lack of faith would have been a leap into the dark considering all that Christ had shown him. It just showed his love for the Lord. It was not an issue of faith.

Now when Peter walked on the water, it was faith, but not a leap into the dark. There is a big difference in what we are talking about and Peter walking on the water, since there was no ambiguity in Christ’s statement to Peter “Come” and what we are discussing. Christ’s words to Peter “Come” is in the context of Peter asking him to command

Michael
 
Hey Lisa, I just thought of something. This is what you wanted me to talk about the other day wasn’t it? Well I have been discussing it for quite some time now. 🙂
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
As I explained to you,the rationalization was the comparison I made.Subjective is not what I am*,I* told you why I am Catholic it was an answer to a very specific prayer,Jesus brought me to His Church,the One that holds His truths.Like a child I am obeying and He has given me the grace to believe.I never had the problem of not believing He gave me the grace.Oversight NO,Jesus said it He out ranks Saint John;) God Bless
Click to expand...
I respect your right to this opinion.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Comes=eating in the context. This is parallel, meaning that they both represent the same thing.

Believe=drinking (to satify the thirst). This is parallel, meaning they both represnt the same thing.
Michael
Click to expand...
This is all very nice, but you keep forgetting one important fact that I’ve posted in this thread and in the Clement thread. You assume the conclusions you are making. From Scripture alone we can verify that eating the flesh and drinking the blood had “parallel meanings” if you will, but they definitately not “coming to someone” or “having one’s thrist satisfied”.

They were already well established metaphors for doing grave harm to someone. I’ll post some relevent Scripture again:

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”.

Furthermore, if you seriously believe that Jesus was introducing a new idiom into his language without telling anyone, and then actually let them leave with their own salvation in peril, well then I think you know what such a position would be demonstrating about our Lord and Savior. Frankly, I can’t believe you would even suggest that He would purposefully deceive his disciples, and the existing metaphor would be nonsense, so where does that leave us? With the correct literal interpretation.

Remember speaking spiritually does not mean symbolically, and is not mutually exclusive with speaking literally. The key to understanding is how we eat his flesh is in verse 62…
 
40.png
michaelp:
Hey Lisa, I just thought of something. This is what you wanted me to talk about the other day wasn’t it? Well I have been discussing it for quite some time now. 🙂
Click to expand...
This and making sure you went through the sit and the writings of the Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist on the site.I am going to assault you with prayers for the grace to believe in the Eucharist Michael:D You have been forewarned;) Do you guys hear that?Pray for the grace for Michael to believe,the Divine Mercy or the Rosary.PM Me if your in:) God Bless
 
40.png
mtr01:
This is all very nice, but you keep forgetting one important fact that I’ve posted in this thread and in the Clement thread. You assume the conclusions you are making. From Scripture alone we can verify that eating the flesh and drinking the blood had “parallel meanings” if you will, but they definitately not “coming to someone” or “having one’s thrist satisfied”.

They were already well established metaphors for doing grave harm to someone. I’ll post some relevent Scripture again:

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”.

Furthermore, if you seriously believe that Jesus was introducing a new idiom into his language without telling anyone, and then actually let them leave with their own salvation in peril, well then I think you know what such a position would be demonstrating about our Lord and Savior. Frankly, I can’t believe you would even suggest that He would purposefully deceive his disciples, and the existing metaphor would be nonsense, so where does that leave us? With the correct literal interpretation.

Remember speaking spiritually does not mean symbolically, and is not mutually exclusive with speaking literally. The key to understanding is how we eat his flesh is in verse 62…
Click to expand...
Ummm . . . OK . . . and which position is this relevant for???😉
 
michaelp said:
Explain–obviously you left something out or we would be reaching the same conclusions…everything looked good and then ??? If He is not REAL FOOD what is he talking about? Enlighten me. If you are not connecting with this, then I don’t know where I lost you. Somewhere way back there. I think that you obviously have been reading some posts wrong (if you are being serious).
Click to expand...

Please Michael–we all are reading the same posts and you have never said what is so “clear” --Your squirming is almost embarassingly transparent…Explain it to me–if I’m an idiot–so be it! Please correct me. What will you answer when you get to heaven and God asks you why you didn’t straighten out that poor Felicity when you had the chance?
 
Hey all, I think that this has no where to go but into circles now. We have given each other enough to chew on (pardon again;) ).

Thanks for the great discussion on this thread. Lisa has given us a good place to stop. Please PM her. But just pray for the grace part, you don’t have to fill in the blanks!!

Michael
 
Poor Felicity…:crying: I guess I’m just not one of the “Elect”…:crying:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top