Is the Mass Idolatry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StAugustine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless perhaps a mixed worship in a single act of adoration is being rendered to God, of Christ and creature, which would be impure. That’s worth knowing.
 
No. Thee Eucharist is not ‘bread and wine which CONTAIN the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ it IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
You have drawn out the shortcomings of medieval philosophy trying to explain mystery.
 
The subjects still contain the matter of bread and wine, it isn’t annihilated when transformed into the substance of Jesus Christ. So how do the Protestants say the accidents contain no subject and relationship to Christ if the accidents retain the matter of bread and wine and are transformed into the literal substance of Jesus himself? God isn’t contained in the bread, it is just turned into the matter and substance of God so that lifts off the accusation of paganism.
 
There is no worship of bread and wine… 0 worship like absolutely and entirely no worship of (bread and wine). We worship god. The Eucharist is god. There is no science to explain it there is only faith that what Christ taught us is true.
 
On the one hand, we are taught that God is immovable. But on the other hand, we are taught that when the priest says the words of Consecration: This is My Body, God does respond and the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. Is God moved by the prayers of the priest?
 
Perhaps another way to look at it is this: suppose I’m in Heaven, and before me is Jesus as the Lamb of God, appearing as a slaughtered lamb before my eyes as He did in Revelation. I fall to my knees and worship Him. Am I committing adultery because I am worshipping a lamb?
 
Last edited:
Who or what is confusing you? Are you listening to those whose intent is to destroy your faith?

Ignore them!

Full story bro’
 
Just putting this out there. If Lutherans are right that they have the Eucharist, then they literally equate Jesus to bread. ESPECIALLY after the mass. No good Lutheran would say Christ remains with the elements after service.

I think we still have the high ground.
 
StAugustine said:
Now, the accidents have no subject, they no longer refer to anything in reality. Since the substance of bread is gone, they are mere appearances without a connection to anything. They have no subject!
Click to expand...
The accidents of bread and wine have no subject, but that does not mean the Body of Christ is no longer there. The Body of Christ is there, but it is not the subject in which the accidents inhere. The accidents of the host continue to be conserved by God’s power, not by Christ’s Body.

When we adore the Eucharist, we adore Christ behind the accidents. We do NOT adore the accidents, so it is not idolatry.
 
The accidents are only a symbol of the mysterious reality that is the Real Presence. The host does not contain God, but becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ himself and so is rightfully adored. The comparison to a tomb is incorrect.
 
AlNg said:
But on the other hand, we are taught that when the priest says the words of Consecration: This is My Body, God does respond and the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. Is God moved by the prayers of the priest?
Click to expand...
Yes. It was Christ himself that said, “Watever you ask of the Father in my Name, He will give it to you.” (have heard the recent translation as “whatever you ask of Me in My name, I will give it to you.” God responds to man, the Holy Spirit comes upon the altar and the gifts of bread and wine and moves them to become Christ in the form of bread and wine… God obeys (or maybe better) responds to the plea of man. Incredible!

This whole thread is a bit arcane at best. It’s like my saying last night I watched the movie “Casablanca” on my TV set and the OP is saying I didn’t watch the movie, I watched the television set. The Eucharist is a matter of faith in Christ’s words. Accept it and don’t worry about what those who don’t believe, think.
 
Last edited:
We often say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west even though we now know that such appearances are due to the rotation of the Earth. It is easier, and perhaps feels more poetic. We often speak similarly of God, though all actual movement is in the creature and not God Himself.

When we say God is “moved” by prayers, it must be understood that He is not actually changed in any way by such prayers, but that God has accounted for the prayers that are made in His one eternal act of creation, made from all eternity. In such way the prayers are not in vain and there is not actual movement in the divine nature.

Please be aware not everyone is a theologian or is always up to speaking as one. If I ever say the sun rises in the east it’s not because I believe the sun circles the earth, but am speaking to the relative change that I perceive. It is similar when I speak of God moving or responding, though unlike the sun, God certainly has intention and will. And I suppose it is possible to speak of responding from all eternity without signifying a change.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top