ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Rosenritter]

Every sentence that says "X is Y" is a metaphor?

By definition, every sentence that says "X is Y' could be a metaphor, and scripture expressly tells us that Christ spoke often with parable and metaphor.

Matthew 16:6-8 KJV
(6) Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
(7) And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
(8) Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

Not only did Jesus speak with parable and metaphor, but it seems that he even expected his disciples to first consider the metaphor and greater meaning before accepting a statement as literal. Would you have taken his statement in verse 6 and interpreted it as literal? It would certainly be very plausible in the literal sense, unlike "This is my body."

What is said about how He spoke to His future Apostles?

His apostles were regularly confused by his use of parable and metaphor. Sometimes he took them aside to explain a specific meaning further, sometimes he did not. Do we need examples, or does memory suffice?

I agree. I just disagree that the scriptures concerning the Eucharist are "obviously" metaphorical.

A metaphor compares to dissimilar things with a statement of equivalence. For example,

"an alligator is a reptile" = literal statement (true)
"an alligator is a fish" = literal statement (true under the biblical definition of "fish")
"an alligator is a bird" = literal statement (clearly false)
"an alligator is a devouring pit of hell which is never satisfied" = an obvious metaphor

Let's consider different examples:

Jesus is God = literal statement
Jesus is the Rock = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not a hunk of mineral
Jesus is the chief cornerstone that the builders rejected = obvious metaphor, Jesus is not a literal cornerstone
Jesus is the head of the church = obvious metaphor, Jesus is not the portion of the body from the neck up of the church
Jesus is the Lamb of God = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not a literal lamb
Jesus is the bread of life = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not literally bread
(pointing to bread) "This is my body" = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not literally bread

Lacking any sort of statement that Jesus is imparting special revelation such as "I tell you a truth" or "Verily, verily" why should that one statement be interpreted literally when so many other like statements are accepted as metaphor?

And the Orthodox churches. And why? Because we're all Pagans/Gentiles, and the Church has long welcomed "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," that is, all those things, whether they are of Pagan/Gentile origin or not, that do not conflict with the Word of God/the Christian faith.

Disagreeing. We are specifically told to "keep ourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21) and to beware being spoiled by "philosophy" and "traditions of men. (Col 2:8) and to not worship God as the heathen do (Jeremiah 10:2, Matthew 6:7). If we were actually talking about things pure and innocent I might agree, but idolatry fashioned after the pagan traditions of old is not "pure and innocent."

Pagans/Gentiles are God's children, and while their paganisms are all false at the end of the day, nonetheless "elements of truth and grace" are found among them. Consider Paul. He by virtue of His Apostolic teaching authority, entered into the Christian scriptures, these Pagan/Gentile words: "in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being," and, "we are also his (God's) offspring" (Ac17:28KJV). These words were penned by rank Pagans/idolaters, who nonetheless, by virtue of them being "His offspring," were able to devise things that were not in conflict with the Word of God, and in this case, were even quite in keeping with it.

Paul quoted the philosopher to gain the attention of his audience of philosophers, just like I might quote from a Catholic source to gain the attention of a Catholic audience. That should not be viewed as a blanket endorsement.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a fallacy, as is equating correlation and causation without additional evidence.

The practice was well established within pagan mystery religions, it was (not) clearly implemented in scripture, and the only biblical support depends on taking one statement that makes perfect sense in Christ's typical metaphorical style of speech and stretching it into an absurd literal statement. We don't have time and space to go into the full study and history of wafer worship in this post, but I suspect some of what you just requested is in those links (following) that you just disregarded.

It's imo immaterial when the Church decides to celebrate the Lord's birthday. I don't consider it blameworthy to declare 'adverse possession' of an abandoned Pagan/Gentile annual holiday, and claim it as a Church feast day. Is it a big deal for you?

It's an example (among others) of the pattern of the Catholic church meshing with the pagan traditions rather than putting forth a pure Christianity. What would you say about a different example, such as Samhain when the spirits of the dead are thought to roam the earth? Is there really a good justification for claiming this day as "Hallowed Eve" rather than condemning the pagan practice all together?

Post hoc fallacy, and correlation and causation again. Unless you can show that the Church was actually influenced by these? Right now I feel like you're reading between lines, and it is not warranted.

I don't think that's a fallacy. One can read the bible through entirely without ever coming up with a hint of the "Divine Presence" doctrine, but it is well defined by pagan traditions, and as you admitted before, it is idolatry on its surface unless God is literally bread.

And in such case, is he literally a rock, literally a cornerstone, literally a lamb, or literally a lion? Shall we worship rocks, stones, lambs, and lions also? He is literally a gate or a door? Is he literally a vine? If I were to pray to plants and use "I am the vine, you are the branches" as justification, would you not rightly accuse me of twisting the scriptures to justify idolatry?

So it's a lack of scriptural specificity as to the bishops' role in the Church, that supports your apparent belief in the 'cessation of bishops' then? 'Feels like 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater,' but maybe that's overstating it a bit.

I do not believe that bishops have the authority to overrule the scripture. I support the legitimate function of bishops, but I do not believe that the Catholic government has the authority to declare which bishops are legitimate and which are not.

So it Is what priests are for, it's just that they're also for more than just that?
If there is no altar, then there is no need for priests. Protestant ecclesial communities typically, but not always, lack any altar, because they don't believe in the Real Presence.

I never thought about it that way before, but let's accept that for now. The Protestant communities would accept that the sacrifices have "ceased to be offered" because that sacrifice does "make its comers perfect" (Hebrews 10:2) because Christ was "once offered" to bear the sins of many (Hebrews 9:28) and as such there is no need for an altar to offer additional sacrifices. But regardless of Protestant reasoning that is my reasoning.

OK.

How do you interpret 1st Corinthians 5:10 KJV's apparent disapproval of the notion that the Church should "go out of the world," and 2nd Corinthians 6:17 KJV's "come out from among them, and be ye separate?"

In 1 Cor 5:10, Paul says "do not company with fornicators" but acknowledges that we live in a world of fornication. Verse 11 says not to keep company with such that engage in such.... but (my explanation) how can we preach to the sick unless we "do not altogether" (verse 10) keep some company with those that need the gospel?

Or translating in another way, Keep ourselves pure so that we might lift them up, but if we are dragged down how can we be be acceptable before God and preach the words of life to them?

Also, who under the Old Covenant was permitted to partake of the offerings made upon the altar?

To partake of the offerings of the temple? or to offer offerings upon an altar? From the text I cannot be certain whether David gave the offerings himself or whether a priest was used without mention.

1 Chronicles 21:26 KJV
(26) And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.

But this is beside the point, because we are not under that old covenant. Noah built an altar unto the Lord without a priesthood (Gen 8:20) and Abram built an altar to the LORD without the presence of Melchizedek (Gen 12:7). Perhaps you might say that Noah and Abram themselves were priests, and to this I would also say that each of us Christians are also called priests of God (directly so by scripture.)

I disagree that the Church integrates herself "into" these things, as if she is subject to them. Did Paul integrate his teaching "into" Pagan/Gentile "beliefs" in Acts 17:28 KJV? I think rather that he 'appropriated' them.

The practice of Paul and the practice of the Catholic doctrines and traditions are quite different. To the early church they are warned "abstain from pollution of idols" whereas the Catholic church instituted idols anew, in the form of bread claiming to be God Himself and relics reputed to have magical powers.

Did Paul say that they should worship the statue to the "unknown God?" to the contrary, he rejected idol worship both concerning it and any alleged "Eucharist" bread.

Acts 17:24-25 KJV
(24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

That status would be a "temple made with hands" just like the bread "made with men's hands." If God was literally the wafer and distributed through hands of the priests, then he would be in a temple "made with hands" and "worshiped with men's hands."

Manna came down from heaven and was not made with hands. Can you say that about the Eucharist wafers? And they ATE the manna, they never worshiped it, and God made sure that any that was kept would be destroyed by worms which prevented idolatry.

In what way do you think that the bishops "were somehow conquering and subduing the people," and do you have any source, biblical or otherwise, that supports it?

Are you unfamiliar with excommunication (of an individual) or of an entire nation (say France, for example) and how this has been used to subdue peoples and bend them to the will of the ruler of Rome? Just for an easy example that you can find in any history book. The people are ruled over and kept under power and control. Or how about the Inquisitions? Or the murders of the bible translators and the burning of the scriptures? Or the burning of those who had been proven to memorized passages in the common tongue?

I don't read "the doctrine of the Nicolaitans" as being "in reference to the doctrine of Balaam," since Revelation 2:15 KJV says that, "them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans," are distinct from "them that hold the doctrine of Balaam" (Rev2:14KJV); "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans...."

It is possible for both descriptions to be applicable at the same time, as they are easily complementary.

Isn't that one of the descriptions of the Church, that we are a kingdom of priests? And where in Hebrews 8:1-2 KJV, Christ is called "minister," so Paul calls himself "minister" in Romans 15:16 KJV, though he is of course distinct from Christ.

It says that we are all priests and that Christ is our head and our high priest. This is contrary to the Catholic priest / laity structure that says only some are priests and the head of the church is the Pope.

Right, no argument.
For centuries, the blood of the saints was not on the saints' own hands, but upon the hands of Pagans/Gentiles. And Jews.

Then enters the Catholic church and now the saints are being slain by the Church of Rome.

And so we agree to disagree, since I see it consistent with the Real Presence.
In context, yes, I believe that I do.

Really? You also believe that Jesus is a literal rock, a literal lamb, and a literal vine?

If you cannot, will not, or otherwise do not, see the absence of any words indicating metaphor/symbol/figure, as at least allowing for literalness, then we just have to continue to agree to disagree, since this question, to me, on its face, is answered by simply reading the texts in question concerning the Eucharist.

Paul specifically says that our God is not worshiped or fashioned with mens' hands. The Eucharist wafer is fashioned and worshiped with men's hands. That is literal refutation of any literal interpretation of "this is my body" and the Catholic Eucharist... unless you think that Paul speaking in metaphor and didn't actually mean that in the literal sense?

Also, if the bread and the cup are as you believe, symbols, figures, metaphor, then why, have you ever wondered, are we to consume them? Why wouldn't the elements of the Eucharist be treated instead like the shewbread was in the temple? Just curious if you have thoughts on that.

Forgive me if I do not understand your question, but there seems to be a basic fact missing from its premise. The shew bread was eaten by the priests which is also confirmed in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Mark 2:25-26 KJV
(25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
(26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?


The bread is symbolic of Christ's body which was broken for us, the wine is symbolic of his blood that was shed for us, and his body and blood are symbolic of the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, and that sacrifice is symbolic of the forgiveness of sins. It's one solid chain of symbols and none of it makes any sense within the Christian doctrine unless these are indeed symbols.

Once on a radio question and answer session, I heard a catholic priest address the question, "Did Jesus have to die on a cross for our sins" and he said "No" and clarified "God could have chosen any method he wished to forgive our sins." He was correct, it was certainly God's prerogative to choose how He wanted to communicate the gospel of redemption.

And as such consider the absurdity of a doctrine that literally consuming the body of God gives eternal life. We receive eternal life because God wills to give us eternal life. Partaking of the bread is a symbolic act, not the actual taking of life itself. Anything other teaching would be idolatry, assigning literal power and godhood to bread, to items that are fashioned and worshiped with the hands of men.

Given that God has taken so many measures to prevent that idolatry be even hinted at in times past, why would his character suddenly change now? The manna from heaven was consumed by worms, he had the brazen serpent destroyed, he did not allow his likeness to be made of silver or gold, but now ... we are to think he lives inside (or actually IS) handmade bread?

 

[7djengo7]

It's not a double standard. Peter was named, He gave Simon a new name. He also made Peter the leader of His Church. Versus instituting the Eucharist. They are different contexts.

Yeah, it's a double standard you use. Here's the Douay-Rheims at Matthew 16:18 :

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You, if I'm not mistaken, take the phrase "this rock" to denote Peter. Do you not? So, you're a hypocrite for denying that Peter was literally a rock, while you go about claiming that a piece of bread is literally Jesus, and that others are wrong for not believing that a piece of bread is literally Jesus.

 

[7djengo7]

I have no trouble with that conclusion, since I only grant there is ambiguity in the scriptures in question, because of, and on the behalf of, all of you who deny the Real Presence.

If, by your phrase, "that conclusion", you are referring to the truth I stated, that the texts, themselves, are unambiguous, then, indeed, you obviously do have trouble with that truth, seeing as how you just, in that same sentence, contradicted it by claiming that "there is ambiguity in the scriptures in question..."

 

[7djengo7]

I had written:

Unless, of course, you are specially pleading just for the eucharist Scriptures when you assert that they are ambiguous.

You responded to that by saying:

I grant that they [sic] ambiguous for your sake. I don't find them to be ambiguous.

Just in case you're either mistakenly, or dishonestly, trying to imply, here, that I have said, or thought, that the eucharist Scriptures are ambiguous, I remark that I, for one, have never once said, or thought, that the eucharist Scriptures are ambiguous, and I've consistently denied that they are ambiguous. They are unambiguous, and they are figurative.

Since you say, here, that you "don't find them to be ambiguous", then, when you wrote

Let's see. There are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe in the Real Presence, and there are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not believe in the Real Presence.

That's proof positive of ambiguity.

what, exactly, were you declaring to be ambiguous? Wherein lies this "ambiguity" of which you pretend to have "proof positive", since you agree that the Scriptures in question are not ambiguous--since you agree that if there be any ambiguity, it is not in the Scriptures in question?

 

[7djengo7]

I had written:

You believe (or, at least, pretend to believe) that ["the ancientest Christian traditions believed in the Real Presence"], whereas others do not believe that ["the ancientest Christian traditions believed in the Real Presence"], nay, many deny it.

To which you reacted by saying:

Who? You said "many," and I'll grant that you're one of them, so give me one more name of a person who denies that "the ancientest Christian traditions (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) believed in the Real Presence."
After you cite a source that shows that many deny it, then I'll still ask you, And that does what for your position?

You need to ask "Who?", really? Why, exactly, are there apologists for the doctrine of transubstantiation who apparently feel a need to bother with trying to prop up their claim that Christians of the first four or five centuries held and taught the doctrine of transubstantiation?

For instance,

Many Protestant apologists claim we Catholics present a partial picture of the early Fathers with regard to the Eucharist. Both Tertullian and St. Augustine, they will claim, did not believe in the “Real Presence,” as Catholics refer to the teaching of the Church on Transubstantiation.

And, again,

Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Now, to think that Rome invented transubstantiation is necessarily to deny that the earliest Christians believed and propagated transubstantion.

"And that does what for your position?" you wrote. I do not know what, if anything, you think you were asking me, there. Do you mean "What does stating the truth do for the truth?" You are the one who expressly stated,

I am impenetrable.

Since you're impenetrable to truth and reasoning, then my reasoning and stating the truth obviously does little or nothing in your eyes.

 

[7djengo7]

I had written:

So, for the proposition, P, the fact that one person believes P while another person does not believe it (or even denies it) makes P ambiguous? Really?

To which you responded:

Isn't that the definition of the word?

Isn't what the definition of what word?

Why don't you give one or two examples of propositions that you would say are NOT ambiguous? If you are saying that the fact that a proposition is both believed and not believed makes it ambiguous, then you are necessarily implying that every single proposition you believe is ambiguous, and that every single proposition taught by your Magisterium is ambiguous.

 

[Idolater]

I had written:



To which you reacted by saying:



You need to ask "Who?", really? Why, exactly, are there apologists for the doctrine of transubstantiation who apparently feel a need to bother with trying to prop up their claim that Christians of the first four or five centuries held and taught the doctrine of transubstantiation?

For instance,



And, again,



Now, to think that Rome invented transubstantiation is necessarily to deny that the earliest Christians believed and propagated transubstantion.

"And that does what for your position?" you wrote. I do not know what, if anything, you think you were asking me, there. Do you mean "What does stating the truth do for the truth?" You are the one who expressly stated,



Since you're impenetrable to truth and reasoning, then my reasoning and stating the truth obviously does little or nothing in your eyes.

The ancientest Christian traditions (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) believed in the Real Presence [of Christ in the Eucharist].

The Real Presence and Transubstantiation are not synonymous. The relationship between them is that Transubstantiation is a footnote to the Real Presence. The Real Presence is what I said was undisputed.

Here's where you say, "Oh, it's another case of my sloppy reading, where I've again wasted your time." Take care.

 

[Idolater]

Matthew 12:48-50 KJV
(48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
(49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
(50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Is there a REAL Presence of Mary in his disciples?

Apples and oranges context. Weak analogy, false parallel. This isn't the institution of the Eucharist.

 

[Idolater]

By definition, every sentence that says "X is Y' could be a metaphor, and scripture expressly tells us that Christ spoke often with parable and metaphor.

Matthew 16:6-8 KJV
(6) Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
(7) And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
(8) Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

Not only did Jesus speak with parable and metaphor, but it seems that he even expected his disciples to first consider the metaphor and greater meaning before accepting a statement as literal. Would you have taken his statement in verse 6 and interpreted it as literal? It would certainly be very plausible in the literal sense, unlike "This is my body."

Fair enough. So what is your thought on John 6:52 KJV then, as regards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

His apostles were regularly confused by his use of parable and metaphor. Sometimes he took them aside to explain a specific meaning further, sometimes he did not. Do we need examples, or does memory suffice?

No, you're right, they did get confused. But we're not just talking about the Gospel accounts' narrative, but also the 1st Corinthians 11:23-24 KJV instruction, along with 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV, which does make trivially perfect sense if the Real Presence is in view, but needs explanation if the Real Presence is fictional. Like with all the passages that concern the Eucharist, really.

A metaphor compares to dissimilar things with a statement of equivalence. For example,

"an alligator is a reptile" = literal statement (true)
"an alligator is a fish" = literal statement (true under the biblical definition of "fish")
"an alligator is a bird" = literal statement (clearly false)
"an alligator is a devouring pit of hell which is never satisfied" = an obvious metaphor

Let's consider different examples:

Jesus is God = literal statement
Jesus is the Rock = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not a hunk of mineral
Jesus is the chief cornerstone that the builders rejected = obvious metaphor, Jesus is not a literal cornerstone
Jesus is the head of the church = obvious metaphor, Jesus is not the portion of the body from the neck up of the church
Jesus is the Lamb of God = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not a literal lamb
Jesus is the bread of life = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not literally bread
(pointing to bread) "This is my body" = obvious metaphor, Jesus is clearly not literally bread

Lacking any sort of statement that Jesus is imparting special revelation such as "I tell you a truth" or "Verily, verily" why should that one statement be interpreted literally when so many other like statements are accepted as metaphor?

I disagree that these are all parallel to the Last Supper, but I'll meet you halfway. I see now clearly that your approach to mining the Christian faith is to consider the Scripture as 'head and shoulders' above all else wrt reliability and authority, and that proper use of inductive logic is the only extrabiblical thing that you're permitted to employ in your endeavor, as logic is merely an inherently consistent system of evaluating validity, and has nothing to add or say itself, but only can ensure that your derivation through induction is validly and licitly done. And as such, if a thing is not explicitly mentioned in the Scripture, then beyond interpolation (extrapolation is too shaky), you aren't able to confidently affirm that it is part of the Christian faith, and so you are warranted in dismissing it as un- or not Christian.

And all I can say is that that idea is not scriptural. You are practicing a methodology that either you or someone else developed independent of Scripture, and are now imposing, not upon Scripture, but upon your understanding of the one Christian faith, which I think you would agree is, as is Christ, the same in the beginning as it is today and as it will be until Kingdom Come.

Disagreeing. We are specifically told to "keep ourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21) and to beware being spoiled by "philosophy" and "traditions of men. (Col 2:8) and to not worship God as the heathen do (Jeremiah 10:2, Matthew 6:7). If we were actually talking about things pure and innocent I might agree, but idolatry fashioned after the pagan traditions of old is not "pure and innocent."

Nobody is arguing that idolatry should be appropriated, since idolatry is on its face contrary to the Word of God and to the Gospel. That's a straw man. And as regards how Christians worship God, the Christian way has been Mass, right from the start, which centers around the four things in Acts 2:42 KJV.

Paul quoted the philosopher to gain the attention of his audience of philosophers, just like I might quote from a Catholic source to gain the attention of a Catholic audience. That should not be viewed as a blanket endorsement.

Acts 17:28's Scripture now. Do you disagree? That was my point. It wasn't just quoted. It is now Christian.

The practice was well established within pagan mystery religions, it was (not) clearly implemented in scripture, and the only biblical support depends on taking one statement that makes perfect sense in Christ's typical metaphorical style of speech and stretching it into an absurd literal statement.

You didn't address your logical fallacies. What you said is logically void. And this "absurd literal statement" comment, is you just taking another opportunity to express your personal view of the Real Presence.

We don't have time and space to go into the full study and history of wafer worship in this post

Let's come up with a more deliberately incendiary offensive way to refer to it.

, but I suspect some of what you just requested is in those links (following) that you just disregarded.

You yourself don't read links posted by others, so how about we stop playing the hypocrite. If you have a point or points, just make them, don't make me go get a cookie because you can't be brief about the points this or that web page might make.

It's an example (among others) of the pattern of the Catholic church meshing with the pagan traditions rather than putting forth a pure Christianity.

Who among today's Christians gets it most right in your view? How do you feel about the Amish, or the Mennonites? Do you most identify with those who celebrate no Christian holidays, not even Easter? Also, I do not grant that the Church has done anything other than appropriation of Pagan/Heathen/Gentile/Savage customs, and only those that do not conflict with the Word of God.

What would you say about a different example, such as Samhain when the spirits of the dead are thought to roam the earth? Is there really a good justification for claiming this day as "Hallowed Eve" rather than condemning the pagan practice all together?

It is All Hallowed Day's eve. All Hallowed Day is a Christian holy day/holiday. I don't know anything about Samhain, but I do know that Halloween costumery is not instructed by the Catholic bishops. There's no sin in not celebrating Halloween.

I don't think that's a fallacy.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a fallacy.

One can read the bible through entirely without ever coming up with a hint of the "Divine Presence" doctrine

One can. And also, "one can read the Bible through entirely" and instead "come up with" the Real Presence.

, but it is well defined by pagan traditions

You haven't shown that. You've shown nothing but correlation, and no causation. Post hoc fallacy, like I said.

, and as you admitted before, it is idolatry on its surface unless God is literally bread.

I've admitted it because it's plainly true. If the Real Presence is fictional, made up, non-Christian, then it is catastrophically idolatrous. There's no hope, if the Real Presence is false, because Christ's Apostles appointed the bishops who taught it to the whole Church. So if that wasn't the idea that Christ was teaching to His Apostles; if that wasn't what the Apostles taught; then Christianity right out of the gate fatally faltered, and Christ is therefore a fraud, His Resurrection a lie, and His Apostles were imbeciles.

There's no other option. You just simply cannot "believe in" Him, and have Him wind up the Church and let her go, and right away she plunges into abject idol worship, and that, right in the heart of her Mass.

Your view is morose. Your view of the Church, the Body of Christ, is that she is dead on her feet, and has been, since the second century at the latest, but apparently, it must have been in the first century still, when every bishop somehow succumbed to the same disastrous error.

And in such case, is he literally a rock, literally a cornerstone, literally a lamb, or literally a lion? Shall we worship rocks, stones, lambs, and lions also? He is literally a gate or a door? Is he literally a vine? If I were to pray to plants and use "I am the vine, you are the branches" as justification, would you not rightly accuse me of twisting the scriptures to justify idolatry?

It still isn't the same as instituting the Eucharist. The context is all different.

I do not believe that bishops have the authority to overrule the scripture.

Me either. Nothing in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' for instance, conflicts with Scripture, even though there are things in there that are not Apostolic, and so they do not have the same weight, still none conflict.

I support the legitimate function of bishops

Like teaching, and celebrating Mass?

, but I do not believe that the Catholic government has the authority to declare which bishops are legitimate and which are not.

The Scripture does that. The bishops are those who were made so, by the imposition of the Apostles' own hands, or by bishops. Especially once the Apostles had all died.

I never thought about it that way before, but let's accept that for now. The Protestant communities would accept that the sacrifices have "ceased to be offered" because that sacrifice does "make its comers perfect" (Hebrews 10:2) because Christ was "once offered" to bear the sins of many (Hebrews 9:28) and as such there is no need for an altar to offer additional sacrifices. But regardless of Protestant reasoning that is my reasoning.

OK. You do realize that it is by virtue of your protestation against the pastorate of Peter in Rome that makes you, ipso facto, 'Protestant,' correct? Even if you don't identify as 'Protestant,' that you are by definition Protestant, if you reject the papacy as the Body of Christ's supreme/seniorest pastorate?

In a survey, you'd likely be termed a Protestant.

In 1 Cor 5:10, Paul says "do not company with fornicators" but acknowledges that we live in a world of fornication. Verse 11 says not to keep company with such that engage in such.... but (my explanation) how can we preach to the sick unless we "do not altogether" (verse 10) keep some company with those that need the gospel?

I agree with that.

Or translating in another way, Keep ourselves pure so that we might lift them up, but if we are dragged down how can we be be acceptable before God and preach the words of life to them?

I agree with that too.

So I think this dispute boils down to our disagreement over the admittedly pagan customs and traditions that the Church is now in some form practicing and approving. I say we have appropriated them, and not before stripping them of anything that offends the Gospel. You say that the Church is corrupted by them. And that's where we are.

To partake of the offerings of the temple? or to offer offerings upon an altar?

Partake.

From the text I cannot be certain whether David gave the offerings himself or whether a priest was used without mention.

1 Chronicles 21:26 KJV
(26) And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.

But this is beside the point, because we are not under that old covenant.

We are all priests, in some sense. Only priests could lawfully eat the shewbread. That's another reason why we Christians are priests, because instead of just the clergy partaking of the altar, we all do (ideally anyway).

Noah built an altar unto the Lord without a priesthood (Gen 8:20) and Abram built an altar to the LORD without the presence of Melchizedek (Gen 12:7). Perhaps you might say that Noah and Abram themselves were priests, and to this I would also say that each of us Christians are also called priests of God (directly so by scripture.)

Right, and the Real Presence demystifies this call. Your view shrouds this call with a question mark.

The practice of Paul and the practice of the Catholic doctrines and traditions are quite different. To the early church they are warned "abstain from pollution of idols" whereas the Catholic church instituted idols anew, in the form of bread claiming to be God Himself

You're begging the question.

and relics reputed to have magical powers.

That's mischaracterization.

Did Paul say that they should worship the statue to the "unknown God?" to the contrary, he rejected idol worship

Right.

both concerning it and any alleged "Eucharist" bread.

Begging the question again.

Acts 17:24-25 KJV
(24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

That status would be a "temple made with hands" just like the bread "made with men's hands." If God was literally the wafer and distributed through hands of the priests, then he would be in a temple "made with hands" and "worshiped with men's hands."

Not if the Real Presence is true. What you say is only true, if and only if the Real Presence is false. Do you see that?

Manna came down from heaven and was not made with hands. Can you say that about the Eucharist wafers? And they ATE the manna, they never worshiped it, and God made sure that any that was kept would be destroyed by worms which prevented idolatry.

The Manna was a type of Eucharist, for sure, as was the shewbread in the temple, which only the Levitical priests could eat.

Are you unfamiliar with excommunication (of an individual) or of an entire nation (say France, for example) and how this has been used to subdue peoples and bend them to the will of the ruler of Rome? Just for an easy example that you can find in any history book. The people are ruled over and kept under power and control. Or how about the Inquisitions? Or the murders of the bible translators and the burning of the scriptures? Or the burning of those who had been proven to memorized passages in the common tongue?

Well, I've already made it clear that I disapprove of what happened once the Church was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, and I reiterate that here also. The bishops never should have agreed to that scheme. But I can't fault them too hard, given that it meant an end to the previous three centuries of Christians being hunted like animals and tortured so horrifically that I really can't even picture some of the barbarism that they were killed with. It must have been an answer to many, many prayers, and a bright and shining light at the end of their tunnel, at the time.

What about before Constantine? Do you have examples of the bishops between the Apostolic era and the early 300s "conquering and subduing the people," or is it just after the Church became entangled in civil power writ large?

It is possible for both descriptions to be applicable at the same time, as they are easily complementary.



It says that we are all priests and that Christ is our head and our high priest. This is contrary to the Catholic priest / laity structure that says only some are priests and the head of the church is the Pope.

No. The Head of the Church is Christ. In order to validly celebrate the Mass, one must be validly ordained, through the biblical imposition of hands. Receiving the Eucharist is also priestly. The bishops are authorized and authentic celebrants and teachers, so long as they celebrate and teach validly. When they do so, they act on Christ's behalf, and in a way, as Christ, as the Apostles also acted, in a way, as Christ.

Then enters the Catholic church and now the saints are being slain by the Church of Rome.

"Now?" Where?

Really? You also believe that Jesus is a literal rock, a literal lamb, and a literal vine?

He was instituting the Eucharist when He said, "This is My body." Etcetera.

Paul specifically says that our God is not worshiped or fashioned with mens' hands. The Eucharist wafer is fashioned and worshiped with men's hands. That is literal refutation of any literal interpretation of "this is my body" and the Catholic Eucharist... unless you think that Paul speaking in metaphor and didn't actually mean that in the literal sense?

This is begging the question again, because it's only true If and Only If the Real Presence is false. And there are a lot of problems with the Real Presence being false, that I delineated above.

Forgive me if I do not understand your question, but there seems to be a basic fact missing from its premise. The shew bread was eaten by the priests which is also confirmed in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Mark 2:25-26 KJV
(25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
(26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

Correct.

The bread is symbolic of Christ's body which was broken for us, the wine is symbolic of his blood that was shed for us, and his body and blood are symbolic of the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, and that sacrifice is symbolic of the forgiveness of sins. It's one solid chain of symbols and none of it makes any sense within the Christian doctrine unless these are indeed symbols.

That's clearly your view, and you can't show this word "symbolic" anywhere in Scripture, which, I admit, isn't fatal to your view, but it is still a fact that we find nowhere Christ or His Apostles talking about the Eucharist as symbolic.

Once on a radio question and answer session, I heard a catholic priest address the question, "Did Jesus have to die on a cross for our sins" and he said "No" and clarified "God could have chosen any method he wished to forgive our sins." He was correct, it was certainly God's prerogative to choose how He wanted to communicate the gospel of redemption.

And as such consider the absurdity of a doctrine that literally consuming the body of God gives eternal life. We receive eternal life because God wills to give us eternal life. Partaking of the bread is a symbolic act, not the actual taking of life itself. Anything other teaching would be idolatry, assigning literal power and godhood to bread, to items that are fashioned and worshiped with the hands of men.

Given that God has taken so many measures to prevent that idolatry be even hinted at in times past, why would his character suddenly change now? The manna from heaven was consumed by worms, he had the brazen serpent destroyed, he did not allow his likeness to be made of silver or gold, but now ... we are to think he lives inside (or actually IS) handmade bread?

The shewbread literally symbolized the Presence of God in the temple, in the Old Covenant, under the Levitical priesthood. I personally find it gratifying---presuming that the Real Presence is true---that 'this bread' is the literal Presence now of God, in the temple that is the Church, in the New Covenant.

 

[7djengo7]

The ancientest Christian traditions (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) believed in the Real Presence [of Christ in the Eucharist].

A tradition is not a person, and only persons believe things; traditions don't believe things. Contrary to any falsehood you may wish to assert (and, as a matter of course, baldly), the truth is that neither Jesus Christ, nor any of the persons who wrote the New Testament, believed or taught that one or more pieces of bread became/becomes/will become Jesus Christ.

The Real Presence and Transubstantiation are not synonymous.

What's your point? Are you saying that the phrase, "The Real Presence", and the word, "Transubstantiation", are not synonymous? I, for one, never thought, nor stated, that they are.

The relationship between them is that Transubstantiation is a footnote to the Real Presence.

That's gobbledygook.

 

[7djengo7]

Rosenritter wrote:

We don't have time and space to go into the full study and history of wafer worship in this post,

and you reacted to that by sardonically saying:

Let's come up with a more deliberately incendiary offensive way to refer to it.

Are you saying that the phrase, "wafer worship", is offensive? If so, how could you (with any reason) be even the least bit offended by it? Is the word 'wafer' what offends you? If so, why does it offend you? Would "bread worship" be an inoffensive alternative? If so, then why would "wafer worship" be offensive, while "bread worship" is inoffensive? If it's not the word 'wafer', then what is it, exactly, that offends you about the phrase, "wafer worship"? That it's alliterative? That it's alliterative without the two, initial letters 'w' having been capitalized? Is it the word 'worship' that offends you, there? What is your complaint?

Or, were you, with no specific reason, just carping at Rosenritter out of a general feeling of hostility toward those with whom you (as you claim) "agree to disagree"?

 

[glorydaz]

Rosenritter wrote:



and you reacted to that by sardonically saying:



Are you saying that the phrase, "wafer worship", is offensive? If so, how could you (with any reason) be even the least bit offended by it? Is the word 'wafer' what offends you? If so, why does it offend you? Would "bread worship" be an inoffensive alternative? If so, then why would "wafer worship" be offensive, while "bread worship" is inoffensive? If it's not the word 'wafer', then what is it, exactly, that offends you about the phrase, "wafer worship"? That it's alliterative? That it's alliterative without the two, initial letters 'w' having been capitalized? Is it the word 'worship' that offends you, there? What is your complaint?

Or, were you, with no specific reason, just carping at Rosenritter out of a general feeling of hostility toward those with whom you (as you claim) "agree to disagree"?

I can understand why someone would be offended by the term "wafer worship".
It's a snarky comment...designed to elicit offense.


I would venture to say that Catholics don't worship the Eucharist...just as they don't worship Mary. Or not. I can't speak for Catholics even though I used to be one. I always saw taking communion as symbolic.

 

[Rosenritter]

Apples and oranges context. Weak analogy, false parallel. This isn't the institution of the Eucharist.

It's a perfect analogy because Jesus says his disciples ARE his mother and his brethren, which invokes the same conditions (not in the obvious context of a parable, a statement of equivalence) which you used to interpret that the bread was literally his flesh.

You might say it is obvious that the disciples aren't his mother and brethren, and by the same token it is obvious that the bread was not literally his flesh. His flesh was literally on his bones when he said that.

 

[Rosenritter]

Fair enough. So what is your thought on John 6:52 KJV then, as regards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

No, you're right, they did get confused. But we're not just talking about the Gospel accounts' narrative, but also the 1st Corinthians 11:23-24 KJV instruction, along with 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV, which does make trivially perfect sense if the Real Presence is in view, but needs explanation if the Real Presence is fictional. Like with all the passages that concern the Eucharist, really.

* My thought is that those that turned away wrongly thought that Jesus speaking literally.

* No special explanation is needed. The 1 Corinthians passages invoke the gospel account of Christ's Passover, where he applied the broken bread and wine as symbols for the sacrifice he was about to make as the Passover Lamb. As he hadn't yet been slain, they were symbolic of what was to come. He still had his own flesh and blood on his own body.

I disagree that these are all parallel to the Last Supper, but I'll meet you halfway. I see now clearly that your approach ...

Spoiler

to mining the Christian faith is to consider the Scripture as 'head and shoulders' above all else wrt reliability and authority, and that proper use of inductive logic is the only extrabiblical thing that you're permitted to employ in your endeavor, as logic is merely an inherently consistent system of evaluating validity, and has nothing to add or say itself, but only can ensure that your derivation through induction is validly and licitly done. And as such, if a thing is not explicitly mentioned in the Scripture, then beyond interpolation (extrapolation is too shaky), you aren't able to confidently affirm that it is part of the Christian faith, and so you are warranted in dismissing it as un- or not Christian.

And all I can say is that that idea is not scriptural. You are practicing a methodology that either you or someone else developed independent of Scripture, and are now imposing, not upon Scripture, but upon your understanding of the one Christian faith, which I think you would agree is, as is Christ, the same in the beginning as it is today and as it will be until Kingdom Come.

Thank you for the acknowledging that I am trying to be consistent. But as for "not scriptural" isn't my method to interpret scripture by scripture? For example, Jesus said he was the "bread that came down from heaven" but did they ever teach that there was "Real Presence" in the manna which literally came down from heaven? And if God was not "Real Present" in bread literally from heaven, Paul also says that God cannot be contained in that made with hands. My idea (and methodology) is scriptural.

Nobody is arguing that idolatry should be appropriated, since idolatry is on its face contrary to the Word of God and to the Gospel. That's a straw man. And as regards how Christians worship God, the Christian way has been Mass, right from the start, which centers around the four things in Acts 2:42 KJV.

You admitted that the 'Real Presence" doctrine did meet all the qualifications for idolatry if "Real Presence" could not be established. More than admitted actually, you laid that on the table voluntarily.

Acts 17:28's Scripture now. Do you disagree? That was my point. It wasn't just quoted. It is now Christian.

You didn't address your logical fallacies. What you said is logically void. And this "absurd literal statement" comment, is you just taking another opportunity to express your personal view of the Real Presence.

Please show (demonstrate and prove) the alleged logical fallacy. What is "logically void?"
1. The Real Presence concept is practiced by pagan mystery religions.
2. The Real Presence concept is not clearly implemented in scripture.
3. The Real Presence concept does depend on taking one statement as literal that makes no common sense as literal but makes perfect sense as metaphor.
4. (adding to above) The Real Presence concept certainly resembles idolatry on its face (your admission).
5. (adding to above) The Real Presence concept does not have support from other scriptural practices that would have superior claim to "Real Presence application (Jesus said he is the manna from heaven, there was no Real Presence in the manna which decayed.)

You yourself don't read links posted by others, so how about we stop playing the hypocrite. If you have a point or points, just make them, don't make me go get a cookie because you can't be brief about the points this or that web page might make.

OK. Here's an excerpt: http://mtc.org/eucharst.html One of the oldest ceremonies of the Pagan religions, doctrine of transubstantiation not openly published until 800+ AD, not officially Catholic dogma until 1215 AD.

Spoiler

PAGAN ORIGIN

The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.


Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

Please consider that God has specifically stated that he does not want to be worshiped as the heathens do (see Jeremiah 10).

Who among today's Christians gets it most right in your view? How do you feel about the Amish, or the Mennonites? Do you most identify with those who celebrate no Christian holidays, not even Easter? Also, I do not grant that the Church has done anything other than appropriation of Pagan/Heathen/Gentile/Savage customs, and only those that do not conflict with the Word of God.

It is All Hallowed Day's eve. All Hallowed Day is a Christian holy day/holiday. I don't know anything about Samhain, but I do know that Halloween costumery is not instructed by the Catholic bishops. There's no sin in not celebrating Halloween.

I think Christians do well to eschew pagan customs, rituals, and superstitions all together. Easter is not sacred: it's named after a pagan goddess and associated with fertility symbols (eggs, bunnies) etc. Non-Christians (that I know personally) know this and see a copycat religion that is about the ancient (pagan) traditions, not about Christ.

You don't know about Samhain? It's the old word for Halloween, from the druids from which it was adopted. The entire observance should have been avoided and abolished, not given the Catholic church stamp of approval.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a fallacy.

Which was not the argument. But when Catholic traditions copy the pagan religions, and the only source is from the pagan religions (the tradition is not in scripture) then it would be the Catholic burden of proof to show that they were NOT derived from the pagan source.

One can. And also, "one can read the Bible through entirely" and instead "come up with" the Real Presence.
You haven't shown that. You've shown nothing but correlation, and no causation. Post hoc fallacy, like I said.[/quote]

See above two paragraph sample, quoted. Link provided for further reading. I cannot paste whole research documents here. The scripture doesn't give any such clear command, but the support is very strong from pagan tradition. If it was a true Christian observance it should be as strong or stronger defined in scripture (if it was even mimicked by pagans at all.)

I've admitted it because it's plainly true. If the Real Presence is fictional, made up, non-Christian, then it is catastrophically idolatrous. There's no hope, if the Real Presence is false, because Christ's Apostles appointed the bishops who taught it to the whole Church. So if that wasn't the idea that Christ was teaching to His Apostles; if that wasn't what the Apostles taught; then Christianity right out of the gate fatally faltered, and Christ is therefore a fraud, His Resurrection a lie, and His Apostles were imbeciles.

I've boldfaced the part in your logic above that goes awry. See previous documentation, the doctrine wasn't taught to the church by the apostles.

There's no other option. You just simply cannot "believe in" Him, and have Him wind up the Church and let her go, and right away she plunges into abject idol worship, and that, right in the heart of her Mass.

Hypothetically then, why not? That is, don't we have example aplenty that men easily wander into idolatry almost instantly? Yes, they had the resurrection of Christ, but Israel had the parting of the Red Sea and the destruction of the world superpower Egypt. Yet they built the golden calf and the whole tribe of Dan plunged in idolatry almost instantly when they entered the promised land.

Your view is morose. Your view of the Church, the Body of Christ, is that she is dead on her feet, and has been, since the second century at the latest, but apparently, it must have been in the first century still, when every bishop somehow succumbed to the same disastrous error. It still isn't the same as instituting the Eucharist. The context is all different.

I highlighted the part above that goes awry. My view of the Church and the Body of Christ is that she is scattered throughout the world as salt and light, not that it is an institutionalization like the church that calls itself Catholic. In other words, the Catholic Church is not the body of Christ, but there may be members of the body of Christ within the Catholic church.

What may seem morose is that the Catholic church seems to line up with every description of the woman that rides the beast. But should it be, if our faith is in Christ and not in men?

Me either. Nothing in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' for instance, conflicts with Scripture, even though there are things in there that are not Apostolic, and so they do not have the same weight, still none conflict.

For purposes of this discussion I do not know the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

OK. You do realize that it is by virtue of your protestation against the pastorate of Peter in Rome that makes you, ipso facto, 'Protestant,' correct? Even if you don't identify as 'Protestant,' that you are by definition Protestant, if you reject the papacy as the Body of Christ's supreme/seniorest pastorate?


In a survey, you'd likely be termed a Protestant.
I agree with that.
I agree with that too.

noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

I am not defining myself as Protestant, as it implies following another set of defined principles. I do not have allegiance to Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or so forth. I might agree with particular principles or beliefs shared by some Protestants or some Catholics but that does not make me Protestant or Catholic.

And it's nice that we have some agreement on some things.

So I think this dispute boils down to our disagreement over the admittedly pagan customs and traditions that the Church is now in some form practicing and approving. I say we have appropriated them, and not before stripping them of anything that offends the Gospel. You say that the Church is corrupted by them. And that's where we are.

When the pagans and Catholics can agree that they are not that different from each other, that they both pray to gods (saints) and they have the same practices in worship that doesn't help preach Christ. I am not speaking hypothetically, I am speaking thinking of real people (pagan and Catholic) that said they were in agreement in this way. The pagan also later said that Catholic and Christian were different things. So, if the question is "corrupted" vs "enhanced?" I'd say corrupted. Poison taints that which is pure, the purity does not destroy the poison.

Right, and the Real Presence demystifies this call. Your view shrouds this call with a question mark.
You're begging the question.
That's mischaracterization.
Right.
Begging the question again.
Not if the Real Presence is true. What you say is only true, if and only if the Real Presence is false. Do you see that?

No, all wafer Eucharist bread is literally made with hands or machines. It does not descend from heaven, any more than a silver idol that is reputed to house a literal god descends from heaven. That bread is an edible work of the hands, the silver is in inedible work of the hands. It doesn't matter if one purports that it becomes possessed with a real god or Gods.

The Manna was a type of Eucharist, for sure, as was the shewbread in the temple, which only the Levitical priests could eat.

The manna was consumed of worms. It is prophesied that the flesh of Christ should not see corruption. It was simply food.

Well, I've already made it clear that I disapprove of what happened once the Church was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, and I reiterate that here also. The bishops never should have agreed to that scheme. But I can't fault them too hard, given that it meant an end to the previous three centuries of Christians being hunted like animals and tortured so horrifically that I really can't even picture some of the barbarism that they were killed with. It must have been an answer to many, many prayers, and a bright and shining light at the end of their tunnel, at the time.

What about before Constantine? Do you have examples of the bishops between the Apostolic era and the early 300s "conquering and subduing the people," or is it just after the Church became entangled in civil power writ large?

I haven't studied early bishops in depth, but power structure and control are a natural human tendency and corruption. And please remember, I consider the church to be the people in Christ regardless of where they are located, not a brand name (like Roman, Presbyterian, etc).

No. The Head of the Church is Christ. In order to validly celebrate the Mass, one must be validly ordained, through the biblical imposition of hands. Receiving the Eucharist is also priestly. The bishops are authorized and authentic celebrants and teachers, so long as they celebrate and teach validly. When they do so, they act on Christ's behalf, and in a way, as Christ, as the Apostles also acted, in a way, as Christ.

Question: what befalls someone who NEVER takes a mass ceremony? I mean never ever. Or at least not never ever from an "ordained" priest?

"Now?" Where?

Like the way the church wrote on (positively) on "the persecution of heretics?" Like Tertullian? Or tried reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

He was instituting the Eucharist when He said, "This is My body." Etcetera.

And how do you distinguish this from instituting some other invented Latin word for worship of vines, rocks, lambs, etc?

This is begging the question again, because it's only true If and Only If the Real Presence is false. And there are a lot of problems with the Real Presence being false, that I delineated above.

No, it's not. Worshiping that which is fashioned with hands IS idolatry, we are commanded not to do it specifically, and you are asking for a special exception to this well established rule repeated in both old and new testaments. God never states an exception.

Correct.
That's clearly your view, and you can't show this word "symbolic" anywhere in Scripture, which, I admit, isn't fatal to your view, but it is still a fact that we find nowhere Christ or His Apostles talking about the Eucharist as symbolic.

You also have no place where you can show that the bread and wine are defined as literal flesh and blood. Such a statement as "this is my flesh, this is my blood" would be symbolic by default (else it would be cannibalism, which was understood as very evil by all mankind.) Given this understanding, you should be able to show explicit undeniable statement that "this is actually literal" if it was actually literal.

The shewbread literally symbolized the Presence of God in the temple, in the Old Covenant, under the Levitical priesthood. I personally find it gratifying---presuming that the Real Presence is true---that 'this bread' is the literal Presence now of God, in the temple that is the Church, in the New Covenant.

But consider, didn't they give the shewbread to David to eat, him and his soldiers, as if it was in reality simply food?

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosenritter wrote:

and you reacted to that by sardonically saying:

Are you saying that the phrase, "wafer worship", is offensive? If so, how could you (with any reason) be even the least bit offended by it? Is the word 'wafer' what offends you? If so, why does it offend you? Would "bread worship" be an inoffensive alternative? If so, then why would "wafer worship" be offensive, while "bread worship" is inoffensive? If it's not the word 'wafer', then what is it, exactly, that offends you about the phrase, "wafer worship"? That it's alliterative? That it's alliterative without the two, initial letters 'w' having been capitalized? Is it the word 'worship' that offends you, there? What is your complaint?

Or, were you, with no specific reason, just carping at Rosenritter out of a general feeling of hostility toward those with whom you (as you claim) "agree to disagree"?

I admit to using alliteration, but the form of the wafer itself is from the Egyptian Osiris worship. If they were imitating the Christian tradition from Jesus and the apostles, it would be more likely they would be breaking unleavened bread as would have been used with the Passover.

So I did specifically mean wafer because the word had additional implication beyond "bread."

 

[7djengo7]

Fair enough. So what is your thought on John 6:52 KJV then, as regards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Here is John 6:48-58 KJV:

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

If we are to understand, from John 6:48 KJV, that Jesus is literally bread, then, what, exactly, are we to make of transubstantiation? Is transubstantiation, then, a conversion of bread into bread? Is transubstantiation a conversion of some bread that is not Jesus into some bread that is Jesus? Is transubstantiation a conversion of bread that is not "that bread of life" into bread that is "that bread of life"?


In v. 51, Jesus said:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

But, on catholic.com, we read:

In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains.

So, it seems, from this, that, in eating the Eucharist, whatever the communicant is eating, he/she must not be eating bread, since, after the priest's consecration of the element, no bread remains (as per Rome). And, since no bread remains upon transubstantiation, then, it must follow that "that bread of life" does not remain (if "that bread of life" literally means bread). So, in eating the Eucharist, the communicant is obviously not eating "that bread of life" of which Jesus spoke in John 6:51 KJV. Jesus said you have to eat that bread of life to live forever, but, according to Rome, thanks to transubstantiation, nobody's eating bread when eating the Eucharist.

How can Jesus, Who declared Himself to be "that bread of life", be "entirely present" upon transubstantiation, when bread no longer remains?

In one post, you wrote:

Eh, I read Ignatius writing about the Gnostic Docetists in AD 107, saying that it is because they don't believe Christ Jesus came literally in the flesh, that they also reject the belief that it is literally the body and blood of Christ that is offered upon the Church's altars, and that Christians consume when they partake of the Lord's table. So that means to me, that at least Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch (the 3rd bishop of Antioch), believed (and presumably taught) that the Lord was being literal when He said, "This is My body," and, "This is My blood;" not a symbol, and not figurative. I find full agreement with that tenet in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel also.

So, the question is, when Jesus said, "the bread that I will give is my flesh", do you take what He said literally? That Jesus' literal flesh is literally bread? If Jesus' flesh is literally bread, then you must contradict yourself insofar as you also say that, upon transubstantiation, there is only Jesus' flesh, but no bread.

 

[7djengo7]

I can understand why someone would be offended by the term "wafer worship".
It's a snarky comment...designed to elicit offense.


I would venture to say that Catholics don't worship the Eucharist...just as they don't worship Mary. Or not. I can't speak for Catholics even though I used to be one. I always saw taking communion as symbolic.

I just don't see why Idolater, himself, would be offended by it. Here is what he wrote:

And it's fatal, because we adore the Eucharist, which is worship---if Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, then we're all idolaters, and the Church was all idolatrous until the Reformation.

Right there, he admits he worships what he calls "the Eucharist". So, why would he be offended when someone else simply states the same thing he, himself, admits? I just can't figure it out.

 

[glorydaz]

I just don't see why Idolater, himself, would be offended by it. Here is what he wrote:



Right there, he admits he worships what he calls "the Eucharist". So, why would he be offended when someone else simply states the same thing he, himself, admits? I just can't figure it out.

Yeah, I realized that too late, didn't I? :e4e:

 

[7djengo7]

Yeah, I realized that too late, didn't I? :e4e:

I had just quite recently noticed it, myself!

And, as to the word 'wafer' in "wafer worship", I don't see why he would be offended at that, either. I glanced through Google's returns on a search of the terms 'eucharist' and 'wafer' together, and it seems there's no shortage of reference to Rome's eucharist hosts as "wafers". One thing I noticed, while scrolling through them, made me laugh: "Snackrament: Why communion wafers have mass appeal". That cracked me up. Top-notch, clever wordplay--the sort I wish I'd have come up with.

 

[Rosenritter]

I had just quite recently noticed it, myself!

And, as to the word 'wafer' in "wafer worship", I don't see why he would be offended at that, either. I glanced through Google's returns on a search of the terms 'eucharist' and 'wafer' together, and it seems there's no shortage of reference to Rome's eucharist hosts as "wafers". One thing I noticed, while scrolling through them, made me laugh: "Snackrament: Why communion wafers have mass appeal". That cracked me up. Top-notch, clever wordplay--the sort I wish I'd have come up with.

http://www.holycrossrochester.org/index.php?section=488

Ministry > Evangelization > Why do you worship wafers?

Question:Why do you worship wafers?

Answer:While most Protestants believe the Last Supper was significant and often agree that communion is important, they don’t believe that Jesus literally meant He wanted us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. They argue that Jesus used many symbolisms about Himself—He called Himself a door, a vine, etc. And since eating human flesh is cannibalism, they argue that Jesus could not have been speaking literally in John 6. The Eucharist, however, is a unique and miraculous reality in which we consume the entirety of the living Christ—although his natural condition is veiled by the sacrament.

Although all the faithful in the Church have always believed in the concept of transubstantiation, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council dogmatically defined the concept: that while the outward appearances of bread and wine remain (the taste, touch, smell and looks), their inward realities or substance has become the living Christ. Because Jesus is truly present - body, blood, soul and divinity - we adore the Eucharist with profound reverence.

This church site doesn't deny worshiping the wafer: rather it defends worshiping the wafer and doesn't argue that the term is incorrect, although it does chose the more magnificent sounding "we adore the Eucharist with profound reverence."