Can a Christian lose their salvation

[Right Divider]

The confected Eucharist is the holy-of-holies and Who we're always kneeling toward at Catholic Mass. Kneel, kneel, kneel, kneel; all the kneeling is toward Jesus, or it's supposed to be anyway (there's some confusion out there about precisely what the kneeling's for, so you might see things incongruent with this explanation for genuflection (knee-bending) among actual Catholics at Mass, it's just because there's a lot of muscle memory among Catholic parents toward their children sometimes, and they hand on the faith not only intellectually but physically, and folk explanations for a lot of the devotions (such as genuflection or kneeling) have arisen, but they are not accurate and the only accurate reason for devotions is the explanations given by the founder of the devotion, if there is one, and these accounts are interpreted through the lens of originalism, meaning the words don't have any positive meaning at all just as such, but must cohere with the context in which the authors originally wrote or spoke them).

False religions are crazy and somewhat hilarious.

And even though Jesus is God, He looked like a man.

Jesus did not just "look like a man"... He was a man. A man who was and is also God.

And we just think the same about the Eucharist. It's completely the same.

"This is My body," Jesus said, and, “51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world. ... Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. ... Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

You need to abandon your false religion and learn the truth, the mystery of Christ... the new creature... etc.

Before it's too late.

 

[Derf]

Seems like a nice Protestant (partisan) dictionary definition.

Maybe. Cambridge dictionary.

The confected Eucharist is the holy-of-holies and Who we're always kneeling toward at Catholic Mass. Kneel, kneel, kneel, kneel; all the kneeling is toward Jesus, or it's supposed to be anyway (there's some confusion out there about precisely what the kneeling's for, so you might see things incongruent with this explanation for genuflection (knee-bending) among actual Catholics at Mass, it's just because there's a lot of muscle memory among Catholic parents toward their children sometimes, and they hand on the faith not only intellectually but physically, and folk explanations for a lot of the devotions (such as genuflection or kneeling) have arisen, but they are not accurate and the only accurate reason for devotions is the explanations given by the founder of the devotion, if there is one, and these accounts are interpreted through the lens of originalism, meaning the words don't have any positive meaning at all just as such, but must cohere with the context in which the authors originally wrote or spoke them).

btw don't go to Mass unless you're escorted by a Catholic. Even if you're interested, just stay away.

Why? Wasn't the veil into the Holy of Holies torn, signifying that we are all able to access the mercy of God without going through a high priest?

And are you saying we aren't able, if not Catholic, to discern the Lord's body? See below for how.

Will we be cursed or some such?

If you really want to check out the Mass, then you should instead go to Adoration, which is when Catholics, in a church or chapel, adore a fragment of reserved host (the host is what the bread is called, but we still call it host or the host when it's the Eucharist (the Eucharist is not real until the unconsecrated host is consecrated, this is the confection). At Adoration, the Eucharist is put in a monstrance, which is like an elaborate, exorbitant picture frame, but the picture in the frame is just a host, a circular cracker (wafers). The Eucharist doesn't have to be a wafer, it can be regular old bread, just as long as its ingredient list is specifically basic (like flour, water and salt, something like that), but the wafers or crackers are just efficient and convenient and valid.

And even though Jesus is God, He looked like a man. And we just think the same about the Eucharist. It's completely the same.

If it's completely the same, then the bread and wine would have characteristics of the thing that they are, just like Jesus had characteristics of both God (miracles, knowledge beyond human capacity, never fails in keeping the law, for instances) and of man (flesh, bone, 5 fingers on each hand, He bleeds when His skin is pierced, etc.). Thus, we should be able to test the elements to see if they have three natures, including bread/wine (easily accomplished), God-ness (not necessarily easy to accomplish, since God doesn't do miracles on demand), and human-ness. I expect, even without hurting anyone too terribly, that we could do a pretty reasonable taste test to make sure that the bread tastes like human flesh, and the wine tastes like human blood, at least after transubstantiation.

 

[7djengo7]

The confected Eucharist is the holy-of-holies and Who we're always kneeling toward at Catholic Mass. Kneel, kneel, kneel, kneel; all the kneeling is toward Jesus,

And even though Jesus is God, He looked like a man. And we just think the same about the Eucharist.

During Mass, isn't Jesus supposed to look like a little, round wafer of bread engraved with a plus sign?

the host is what the bread is called, but we still call it host or the host when it's the Eucharist

It's not bread all along? It would seem strange to hear it said that the host, a piece of bread, stops being bread upon certain of the priest's actions, and at that moment starts being Jesus, instead of being bread. It would seem strange because we (Protestants) are sometimes scolded for not taking Jesus' words in John 6:35 "literally", when He says "I am the bread of life". I mean, it seems like we're being asked to believe that a piece of bread (upon the priest's special utterance) ceases to be what it is -- bread -- only to, at that moment, become the bread of life. Why would bread need to stop being bread in order to be bread? Yet, if I'm not mistaken, Rome demands the bread be thought to cease being bread upon its consecration by the priest.

 

[Idolater]

False religions are crazy and somewhat hilarious.

Jesus did not just "look like a man"... He was a man. A man who was and is also God.

Don't quote Catholicism to me; I am Catholic.

You need to abandon your false religion and learn the truth, the mystery of Christ... the new creature... etc.

Before it's too late.

Maybe. Cambridge dictionary.

Why? Wasn't the veil into the Holy of Holies torn, signifying that we are all able to access the mercy of God without going through a high priest?

A Levitical high priest. Vs. the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.

And are you saying we aren't able, if not Catholic, to discern the Lord's body?

No. I said go to Eucharistic Adoration instead of Mass, so clearly not.

See below for how.

Will we be cursed or some such?

It's just not FOR you. You'll be cursed with feeling unwelcome, which you certainly will be, when it comes time to receive Holy Communion.

The liturgy of the Eucharist is only for Catholics in full communion. Anybody not fitting that description is positively dis-invited and uninvited and unwelcome from going to receive Holy Communion. So it's uncomfortable for Christians who aren't Catholic, and there's no need for this discomfort, since Mass really isn't FOR you anyway. So instead go to Adoration, where you are welcome, because it's not the sacerdotal rite, but instead we bask in His glow and holiness and love, and there's no consumption of the Victim. It's not Mass.

If it's completely the same, then the bread and wine would have characteristics of the thing that they are, just like Jesus had characteristics of both God (miracles, knowledge beyond human capacity, never fails in keeping the law, for instances) and of man (flesh, bone, 5 fingers on each hand, He bleeds when His skin is pierced, etc.). Thus, we should be able to test the elements to see if they have three natures, including bread/wine (easily accomplished), God-ness (not necessarily easy to accomplish, since God doesn't do miracles on demand), and human-ness. I expect, even without hurting anyone too terribly, that we could do a pretty reasonable taste test to make sure that the bread tastes like human flesh, and the wine tastes like human blood, at least after transubstantiation.

During Mass, isn't Jesus supposed to look like a little, round wafer of bread engraved with a plus sign?

Search "Eucharistic miracles".

It's not bread all along? It would seem strange to hear it said that the host, a piece of bread, stops being bread upon certain of the priest's actions, and at that moment starts being Jesus, instead of being bread. It would seem strange because we (Protestants) are sometimes scolded for not taking Jesus' words in John 6:35 "literally", when He says "I am the bread of life". I mean, it seems like we're being asked to believe that a piece of bread (upon the priest's special utterance) ceases to be what it is -- bread -- only to, at that moment, become the bread of life. Why would bread need to stop being bread in order to be bread? Yet, if I'm not mistaken, Rome demands the bread be thought to cease being bread upon its consecration by the priest.

Then perhaps you prefer the Lutherans' competing theory of the Real Presence "consubstantiation", when the bread is joined with Christ, instead of the bread changing into Christ. But I know you don't prefer that theory either, since you think it is merely a symbol, like all Baptists and descendants of Baptists, who have always taken the Lord's Supper to be symbolic and representative only. It doesn't perturb you that all Christians for 1500 years believed in the Real Presence. It doesn't bother you that all the earliest records show that the Church believed in the Real Presence from very early on, which means that if your view is right, then the whole entire Church plunged into error, and such grave error that we Catholics are literally worshiping a piece of bread as God.

If.

 

[Derf]

Don't quote Catholicism to me; I am Catholic.

Hopefully not like Fauci "is science."

A Levitical high priest. Vs. the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.

I thought that the work of the Melchizedekian high priest was fully accomplished.

No. I said go to Eucharistic Adoration instead of Mass, so clearly not.

I'm not ready to adore something that isn't happening.

It's just not FOR you. You'll be cursed with feeling unwelcome, which you certainly will be, when it comes time to receive Holy Communion.

Sounds rather un-catholic (little "c").

The liturgy of the Eucharist is only for Catholics in full communion. Anybody not fitting that description is positively dis-invited and uninvited and unwelcome from going to receive Holy Communion. So it's uncomfortable for Christians who aren't Catholic,

Isn't the whole idea of catholicism that we all recognize each other as part of the body of Christ?

and there's no need for this discomfort, since Mass really isn't FOR you anyway. So instead go to Adoration, where you are welcome, because it's not the sacerdotal rite, but instead we bask in His glow and holiness and love, and there's no consumption of the Victim. It's not Mass.



Search "Eucharistic miracles".


Then perhaps you prefer the Lutherans' competing theory of the Real Presence "consubstantiation", when the bread is joined with Christ, instead of the bread changing into Christ. But I know you don't prefer that theory either, since you think it is merely a symbol, like all Baptists and descendants of Baptists, who have always taken the Lord's Supper to be symbolic and representative only. It doesn't perturb you that all Christians for 1500 years believed in the Real Presence. It doesn't bother you that all the earliest records show that the Church believed in the Real Presence from very early on, which means that if your view is right, then the whole entire Church plunged into error, and such grave error that we Catholics are literally worshiping a piece of bread as God.

If.

Worth reading about the early fathers' views: https://blog.tms.edu/did-the-early-church-teach-transubstantiation

 

[7djengo7]

Then perhaps you prefer the Lutherans' competing theory of the Real Presence "consubstantiation", when the bread is joined with Christ, instead of the bread changing into Christ. But I know you don't prefer that theory either, since you think it is merely a symbol, like all Baptists and descendants of Baptists, who have always taken the Lord's Supper to be symbolic and representative only. It doesn't perturb you that all Christians for 1500 years believed in the Real Presence. It doesn't bother you that all the earliest records show that the Church believed in the Real Presence from very early on, which means that if your view is right, then the whole entire Church plunged into error, and such grave error that we Catholics are literally worshiping a piece of bread as God.

None of what you wrote looks even the least little bit like an attempt to answer any of the questions I posed against the claim that Rome's priest causes a piece of bread to stop being bread and to start being the bread of life.

such grave error that we Catholics are literally worshiping a piece of bread as God.

Jesus said "I am the bread of life", no? Is Jesus literally the bread of life? Is the bread of life Jesus said He is literally a piece of bread? Are you literally worshiping the bread of life?

Jesus is already the bread of life without needing any man He created to cause a piece of bread that He is not to stop being the bread that it is and to start being bread that it is not/start being bread that He is.

Was Jesus in the form of a talking wafer when He, as per John 6:35, stood there speaking to the people and said, "I am the bread of life"?

And, why the plus sign engraved on Rome's host wafers? Why + instead of †?

 

[7djengo7]

And even though Jesus is God, He looked like a man.

Even as He stood there preaching to the crowd, "I am the bread of life", He looked like a man, and not like a little, round wafer of bread. Wouldn't you agree?

When in history, according to Rome, did Jesus for the first time look like a little, round wafer of bread, instead of like a man?

 

[Right Divider]

Don't quote Catholicism to me; I am Catholic.

I wasn't "quoting Catholicism", you religious retard.

And, yes, we know that you are a Cathoholic. You and my mother-in-law would get along great.

Again, I urge you to abandon your false religion and join the body of Christ.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Don't quote Catholicism to me; I am Catholic.

That's not Catholicism.

That's just fact.

A Levitical high priest. Vs. the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.

Right. Jesus is the High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," but not for the Body of Christ.

There are no more creatures after Melchizedek himself, as far as the Bible is concerned, who are members of that priesthood.

Notice how Paul never mentions him.

We in the Body of Christ have no high priest. Israel does.

The order of Melchizedek replaced the Levitical priesthood for Israel.

The Body of Christ is not Israel.

Thus, the "Catholic" belief that priests are of the order of Melchizedek is a false belief.

As RD said, you need to abandon your false religion and learn the truth, before it's too late.

No. I said go to Eucharistic Adoration instead of Mass, so clearly not.

It's just not FOR you. You'll be cursed with feeling unwelcome, which you certainly will be, when it comes time to receive Holy Communion.

The liturgy of the Eucharist is only for Catholics in full communion. Anybody not fitting that description is positively dis-invited and uninvited and unwelcome from going to receive Holy Communion. So it's uncomfortable for Christians who aren't Catholic, and there's no need for this discomfort, since Mass really isn't FOR you anyway. So instead go to Adoration, where you are welcome, because it's not the sacerdotal rite, but instead we bask in His glow and holiness and love, and there's no consumption of the Victim. It's not Mass.

It should be uncomfortable for anyone, not just protestants. Catholics are just indoctrinated to believe that such things are the right way to do things, when they're not

Search "Eucharistic miracles".

Not a real occurrence.

Bread is bread.

Jesus is Jesus.

Jesus is not literal bread.

Bread is not literally Jesus

It's delusional to think that He is.
It's delusional to think that it is.

Then perhaps you prefer the Lutherans' competing theory of the Real Presence "consubstantiation", when the bread is joined with Christ, instead of the bread changing into Christ. But I know you don't prefer that theory either, since you think it is merely a symbol, like all Baptists and descendants of Baptists, who have always taken the Lord's Supper to be symbolic and representative only.

This is the correct way to view it.

It doesn't perturb you that all Christians for 1500 years believed in the Real Presence.

So what?

It doesn't bother you that all the earliest records show that the Church believed in the Real Presence from very early on,

Doubtful.

At best.

which means that if your view is right, then the whole entire Church plunged into error, and such grave error that we Catholics are literally worshiping a piece of bread as God.

Yes, the whole of the Roman Catholic Church plunged into error.

I won't go so far as to say that you're worshipping the bread.

But you are certainly placing a higher value upon it than it deserves.

But back to the point regarding the RCC:

If.

The Bible goes back further than the RCC. Go to the Bible for your doctrines first.

 

[Idolater]

Hopefully not like Fauci "is science."

lol no. I am Catholic, and I know my faith, which is called Catholicism, and is firstly an organization of offices, and also is a creed.

I thought that the work of the Melchizedekian high priest was fully accomplished.

The New Covenant was dedicated by His own blood, no?

Sounds rather un-catholic (little "c").

Sounds like you have an opinion on the matter. The two offices of the One Church are held by men who also have views. Don't they have the right to do what they want with their own things? Meaning, they are the custodians of the faith. The political power to administrate the faith belongs to their offices, and Christ and His Apostles instituted and established those two offices (the papacy and the office of bishop 1st Timothy 3:1).

Isn't the whole idea of catholicism that we all recognize each other as part of the body of Christ?

The whole idea of Catholicism is that God is real, Jesus is God, we have /are souls, etc. "that we all recognize each other as part of the body of Christ" has a lot of antecedents which need to be established first, don't you think? Before we can say it's "the whole idea", no?

Worth reading about the early fathers' views: https://blog.tms.edu/did-the-early-church-teach-transubstantiation

Partisan.

The Scripture supports the Real Presence prima facie with high initial plausibility. The defeater is that it's metaphorical, which also has high initial plausibility, but even John 6 aside, Ignatius of Antioch's contention against the docetists (which is mentioned in your link) defeats that defeater roundly. He doesn't just say the docetists are wrong because Jesus was only being metaphorical, he said Jesus not being metaphorical defeats the docetists.

Please do, btw, refute or debunk my narrative in the following thread, beginning with the first two posts, I am not saying you are welcome to do it; I am begging you to do it. Please refute my claim in that thread, that the Evangelical, Baptist notion that the Real Presence is ontologically and metaphysically void and untrue and fake /fiction, was itself defeated, right here at TOL.

Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

Finito doneski DOA, in February 2016, over five years ago. It was an impromptu battle royale debate, many participants (many of whom have ceased participating on TOL, which I don't think is coincidental), during which a group of Catholic users and an Orthodox user and a...

theologyonline.com

 

[Right Divider]

lol no. I am Catholic, and I know my faith, which is called Catholicism, and is firstly an organization of offices, and also is a creed.

You are a ROMAN Catholic. You guys don't get to steal a perfectly good word.

The New Covenant was dedicated by His own blood, no?

The new covenant is between the SAME TWO parties as the old covenant. Your false religion as lied to you (don't feel bad, most Protestant denominations are equally confused about this issue).

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

Confirmed by the writer of the book to the HEBREWS:

Heb 8:7-13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:7) For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (8:10) For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (8:13) In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.​

​

That the RCC has tried to steal Israel's place is just plain wrong.

Again, dump your false religion and join the saved in the body of Christ.

 

[Derf]

lol no. I am Catholic, and I know my faith, which is called Catholicism, and is firstly an organization of offices, and also is a creed.


The New Covenant was dedicated by His own blood, no?

Yes, and fully accomplished.
[Heb 7:22 KJV] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. (New Covenant)
[Heb 7:23 KJV] And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
[Heb 7:24 KJV] But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
[Heb 7:25 KJV] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
[Heb 7:26 KJV] For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
[Heb 7:27 KJV] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Sounds like you have an opinion on the matter. The two offices of the One Church are held by men who also have views. Don't they have the right to do what they want with their own things? Meaning, they are the custodians of the faith.

Are they the custodians of the faith? And do you mean by that, that they are the ones that hold the keys of the kingdom of God? Or was Peter merely an elder, like so many others, including those he wrote to.
[1Pe 5:1 KJV] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
[1Pe 5:2 KJV] Feed the flock of God (be a pastor to them) which is among you, taking the oversight (be a bishop to them) [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
[1Pe 5:3 KJV] Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
...
[1Pe 5:5 KJV] Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

The political power to administrate the faith belongs to their offices, and Christ and His Apostles instituted and established those two offices (the papacy and the office of bishop 1st Timothy 3:1).

I just don't see the papacy described in 1 Tim 3:1. More like what Peter was talking about, which is a bishop. If you say the papacy is just an elevated bishop, look back at how Peter wrote in 1 Pet 5:3.

The whole idea of Catholicism is that God is real, Jesus is God, we have /are souls, etc. "that we all recognize each other as part of the body of Christ" has a lot of antecedents which need to be established first, don't you think? Before we can say it's "the whole idea", no?

Not if you insert the papacy

Partisan.

Sometimes increasing partisanship comes from figuring more of the truth. Check your own partisanship before you complain about others'.

The Scripture supports the Real Presence prima facie with high initial plausibility. The defeater is that it's metaphorical, which also has high initial plausibility, but even John 6 aside, Ignatius of Antioch's contention against the docetists (which is mentioned in your link) defeats that defeater roundly. He doesn't just say the docetists are wrong because Jesus was only being metaphorical, he said Jesus not being metaphorical defeats the docetists.

None of us here have suggested that Jesus was metaphorical in his humanness. But He was certainly metaphorical in His speech at times. To suggest that He was always being literal is foolish. Check out those wings! (Ok, maybe just children of a city.)
[Luk 13:34 KJV] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Please do, btw, refute or debunk my narrative in the following thread, beginning with the first two posts, I am not saying you are welcome to do it; I am begging you to do it. Please refute my claim in that thread, that the Evangelical, Baptist notion that the Real Presence is ontologically and metaphysically void and untrue and fake /fiction, was itself defeated, right here at TOL.

I read through it before. I couldn't even see anything that wasn't self-debunking, so I didn't bother much with it.

Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

Finito doneski DOA, in February 2016, over five years ago. It was an impromptu battle royale debate, many participants (many of whom have ceased participating on TOL, which I don't think is coincidental), during which a group of Catholic users and an Orthodox user and a...

theologyonline.com

Sigh...I'll go look again.

 

[Derf]

Please do, btw, refute or debunk my narrative in the following thread, beginning with the first two posts, I am not saying you are welcome to do it; I am begging you to do it. Please refute my claim in that thread, that the Evangelical, Baptist notion that the Real Presence is ontologically and metaphysically void and untrue and fake /fiction, was itself defeated, right here at TOL.

Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

Finito doneski DOA, in February 2016, over five years ago. It was an impromptu battle royale debate, many participants (many of whom have ceased participating on TOL, which I don't think is coincidental), during which a group of Catholic users and an Orthodox user and a...

theologyonline.com

Yeah, I remember looking at your thread that was referring to the other thread. Your thread didn't have anything to debunk, it was just you stating an opinion about what happened in the other thread. And the other thread wasn't any easier to gain anything from without a lot of schlogging through useless posts. So I'll consider your thread self-refuted, unless you want to actually talk about a particular post.

 

[Idolater]

... the whole of the Roman Catholic Church plunged into error.

I won't go so far as to say that you're worshipping the bread.

Let me explain in intimate detail "how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church":

You are clueless as to how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church.

The consecrated host has all the accidents of bread (except for if Eucharistic miracles are ontic or obtain). What happens when someone breaks the host and crumbs fall on the floor? First, the host long ago was redesigned to minimize crumbs, that's why it's now a "wafer" or "cracker", made from wheat flour, water, and (I believe) salt, it's in part to minimize crumbling.

Crumbs are inherently minimally probable in the modern (i.e. going back many centuries) host design, because of the Real Presence or True Presence. If we didn't believe Christ is Really Present in the consecrated host, then hosts wouldn't be minimally-crumbling wafers or crackers.

But if a particle of consecrated host falls on the floor or ground, and the particle is discernibly host, meaning it's big enough that it's obvious or apparent, meaning there's high initial plausibility it's host, then you have to appropriately and reverently dispose of that particle because Christ is still present, but if the appearance of the particles are not obviously prima facie host, then the Real Presence has left. This is why priests put consecrated hosts which have been soiled for example (not fit for consumption), into water overnight to dissolve and disintegrate them before disposing of the matter by pouring into the Earth.

The above is attributed to Aquinas, but most every priest I've ever heard of subscribes to this metaphysic as well. This is how Catholic ministerial priests conceive of and understand the Eucharist metaphysically.

So all's to say, that in your words (not ours), we're certainly and definitely "worshiping the bread", which means we're definitely and surely, in your words, all idolaters. In our words we're worshiping Our Lord (and your Lord).

 

[Idolater]

Even as He stood there preaching to the crowd, "I am the bread of life", He looked like a man, and not like a little, round wafer of bread. Wouldn't you agree?

When in history, according to Rome, did Jesus for the first time look like a little, round wafer of bread, instead of like a man?

More interestingly, what about when He was an embryo? Many different creatures look alike as embryos in very early gestation. When Our Lord was a one-week old embryo He probably looked like a cow or chicken or pig or gorilla embryo at a similar stage of gestation, but wasn't He really God even then?

But you also have to consider that as soon as He was recognized in the breaking of the bread, in Luke 24, He disappeared. That's unsurprising for those of us who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whereas you all Baptists and Baptist-adjacents and Baptist descendants find it surprising that He just up and disappeared at that point. Like you don't get the point. Because you don't believe. Him. Literally. Not that you don't believe IN Him (because I know you do), but that you don't believe Him. Why did He just up and disappear as soon as He was recognized in the breaking of the bread, in Luke 24? Our answer: the Real Presence. Yours: It's a mystery.

Right?

“ 30 And as he was dining with them, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and began handing it to them. 31 At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from them. ”

 

[Idolater]

None of what you wrote looks even the least little bit like an attempt to answer any of the questions I posed against the claim that Rome's priest causes a piece of bread to stop being bread and to start being the bread of life.

Rome's priest doesn't, but the Church's priesthood, the office, does. The man who validly holds the office has the right to exercise the supernatural power to confect the Eucharist, but that supernatural power is assigned to the office by God, and the power itself obviously is God's (being supernatural). One of the earliest controversies was what to think about a priest who is an unbeliever; is his Eucharist still valid? The answer is yes, because so long as the priest is validly exercising the power of the office, then the power is metaphysically exercised, and the Eucharist is confected; it has nothing to do with the faith of the celebrant.

Jesus said "I am the bread of life", no? Is Jesus literally the bread of life? Is the bread of life Jesus said He is literally a piece of bread? Are you literally worshiping the bread of life?

I would say that He said both that the bread or loaf is His body, and also His flesh (in John 6 σάρξ /sarx), which is interesting because Paul for example distinguishes between our body and our flesh, he indicates there is at least for now a distinction between them, but clearly with Jesus there is no distinction between body and flesh for Him. "This is My body" and "This is My flesh" are the same to Him, when He's pointing at the Eucharist.

Jesus is already the bread of life without needing any man He created to cause a piece of bread that He is not to stop being the bread that it is and to start being bread that it is not/start being bread that He is.

That's your opinion, and it doesn't change the ontology here, as I know you know. Saying it or believing it either doesn't make it so. Fact is, if the Real Presence is ontic, then it's because Jesus decided to make it so. And we're pretty far from being able to judge such a choice. And if it IS real, then the whole idea of the Eucharist being a metaphysically real sacrifice becomes far more important to us as well.

Was Jesus in the form of a talking wafer when He, as per John 6:35, stood there speaking to the people and said, "I am the bread of life"?

I mean, this is the section I find baffling to read through, knowing the Real Presence is proposed and available, and not at least acknowledging that it lends credence to it being true:

“ 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world. ... Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. ... Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. ”

And, why the plus sign engraved on Rome's host wafers? Why + instead of †?

Did you know an upside down cross is St. Peter's cross? It means the Devil can't have the upside down cross, it's already claimed by the Church as our property (like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the Filioque, etc.). But a cross on its side? Maybe that's the Devil's cross, the "knocked over" cross or something.

idk. Something to chew on.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, and fully accomplished.
[Heb 7:22 KJV] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. (New Covenant)
[Heb 7:23 KJV] And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
[Heb 7:24 KJV] But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
[Heb 7:25 KJV] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
[Heb 7:26 KJV] For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
[Heb 7:27 KJV] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Are they the custodians of the faith? And do you mean by that, that they are the ones that hold the keys of the kingdom of God? Or was Peter merely an elder, like so many others, including those he wrote to.

All of that is true.

[1Pe 5:1 KJV] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
[1Pe 5:2 KJV] Feed the flock of God (be a pastor to them) which is among you, taking the oversight (be a bishop to them) [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
[1Pe 5:3 KJV] Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

And you know here that you're parting ways with the Dispensationalists in this thread because they don't think Peter was writing to the Body of Christ. They don't even think Acts 20 is about the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) for some reason, because it mentions shepherding and flocks and sheep.

...
[1Pe 5:5 KJV] Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.


I just don't see the papacy described in 1 Tim 3:1. More like what Peter was talking about, which is a bishop. If you say the papacy is just an elevated bishop, look back at how Peter wrote in 1 Pet 5:3.

It's not. It's categorically a different office from bishop, there have even been popes who weren't bishops before they were popes. The papacy is in the custody of the bishops, the bishops elect the popes, and the popes have the right to exercise the powers of the papacy (the keys), some of which are supernatural (like infallibly defining dogma ex cathedra 'from the seat' as in the seat or see of Peter, cf. the 'seat of Moses') and some are political (like appointing diocesan bishops and establishing canon law and deciding disputes).

Not if you insert the papacy

Sometimes increasing partisanship comes from figuring more of the truth. Check your own partisanship before you complain about others'.

Red herring. You'd let me know as soon as I was guilty of appealing to a partisan source, or making an illicit appeal to a partisan authority. And since none of you have done that yet, I know I haven't yet done it either.

None of us here have suggested that Jesus was metaphorical in his humanness.

I know, but the docetists did, and that Gnostic heresy persists even today in Islam (Jesus only appeared to be crucified in the Quran). When Ignatius uses the Real Presence to defeat docetism he shows by contrast what the earliest Church actually believed about the Eucharist, and how they understood the literal words of Christ at the Last Supper–the first Eucharist ever. The Last Supper accounts (and all four of them), John 6 and 1st Corinthians 10-11, and the earliest Church's witness (the accounts of Bp. Ignatius and Pope Clement), altogether constitute a preponderance of evidence that the prima facie meaning of "This is My body" and "This is My blood" is some form of Real Presence theory.

Your and other Baptist-like defeaters are defeated by this preponderance of evidence. Meaning your defeaters have very low plausibility in the final analysis.

You want to keep clinging onto them; OK, fine. It's your right to exercise the power to cling onto these defeaters, which appear to me to be defeated. It seems highly improbable that your view is correct, but obviously nobody can stop you from holding to it anyway.

But He was certainly metaphorical in His speech at times. To suggest that He was always being literal is foolish. Check out those wings! (Ok, maybe just children of a city.)
[Luk 13:34 KJV] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Do you think that was only something He meant during His Earthly ministry as a Man, or do you think He's there speaking about the then prior 1000 years or something like that? I mean, was He saying this as the Man Jesus, or as God the Logos?

I read through it before. I couldn't even see anything that wasn't self-debunking, so I didn't bother much with it.

Sigh...I'll go look again.

Don't bother. I addressed the most salient post already above in my reponse to JR.

 

[Derf]

This reply to JR? There are no valid points being made here, only how you treat the "host" once the assumption of correctness has already been made.

Let me explain in intimate detail "how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church":

The consecrated host has all the accidents of bread (except for if Eucharistic miracles are ontic or obtain). What happens when someone breaks the host and crumbs fall on the floor? First, the host long ago was redesigned to minimize crumbs, that's why it's now a "wafer" or "cracker", made from wheat flour, water, and (I believe) salt, it's in part to minimize crumbling.

Crumbs are inherently minimally probable in the modern (i.e. going back many centuries) host design, because of the Real Presence or True Presence. If we didn't believe Christ is Really Present in the consecrated host, then hosts wouldn't be minimally-crumbling wafers or crackers.

But if a particle of consecrated host falls on the floor or ground, and the particle is discernibly host, meaning it's big enough that it's obvious or apparent, meaning there's high initial plausibility it's host, then you have to appropriately and reverently dispose of that particle because Christ is still present, but if the appearance of the particles are not obviously prima facie host, then the Real Presence has left. This is why priests put consecrated hosts which have been soiled for example (not fit for consumption), into water overnight to dissolve and disintegrate them before disposing of the matter by pouring into the Earth.

The above is attributed to Aquinas, but most every priest I've ever heard of subscribes to this metaphysic as well. This is how Catholic ministerial priests conceive of and understand the Eucharist metaphysically.

Do you think Jesus had His disciples clean up so festidiously after the first Supper? If not, why not, since it is unlikely they had predesigned the "host" for that supper.

So all's to say, that in your words (not ours), we're certainly and definitely "worshiping the bread", which means we're definitely and surely, in your words, all idolaters. In our words we're worshiping Our Lord (and your Lord).

By dissolving him in order to dispose of him properly? That's just odd.

 

[Idolater]

This reply to JR? There are no valid points being made here, only how you treat the "host" once the assumption of correctness has already been made.

All right. Then go look again. I was trying to save you time.

Do you think Jesus had His disciples clean up so fastidiously after the first (Last) Supper?

Yes.

If not, why not, since it is unlikely they had predesigned the "host" for that supper.

By dissolving him in order to dispose of him properly? That's just odd.

You could burn Him or bury Him, I think those are both appropriate also, but I'm not as sure on the burying. I'm pretty sure on the burning. I'll try to check the Canon Law, see if there's something in there about the proper disposition of inedible Eucharist.

 

[Derf]

All right. Then go look again. I was trying to save you time.

But that was the "most salient point."

Yes.


You could burn Him or bury Him, I think those are both appropriate also, but I'm not as sure on the burying. I'm pretty sure on the burning. I'll try to check the Canon Law, see if there's something in there about the proper disposition of inedible Eucharist.

I don't think I want to bury Him who will never die again, nor certainly burn Him who deserves my worship. Plus, both of those things, including "dissolving", are speaking of types of corruption, which He certainly wouldn't be experiencing now.

All of this comes from a weird idea made weirder by treating the bread you eat like God.