OK. I think rather that they rightly thought it, and due to perhaps what He said in comparison with Lev17:10KJV, Lev17:12KJV, and Lev17:14KJV. So Christ appeared to them to be teaching contrary to the Word of God---them not recognizing Him as God Himself, so their contention was of course invalid.
OK. But then you do admit therefore that partaking of the bread and of the cup unworthily is grave sin? And what do you suppose that the penalty for this grave sin is?
Then who is your bishop? You're reading about bishops in the New Testament, and from where I'm sitting, it looks like you subscribe to something like the 'cessation of gifts,' only instead it's the cessation of bishops. You also seem to me to be substituting "Scripture" in, for example, 1st Timothy 3:15 KJV, where instead it reads that it is the Church, and not the Scripture, that is "the pillar and ground of the truth." This of course doesn't say that the Scripture isn't also true, but it does move the Christian faith beyond the written letter, and into the living pastorate, who, nonetheless, are powerless to contravene the Scripture.
They wouldn't, since the manna prefigured the Eucharist.
You certainly base your view, in your understanding of Scripture, as do I; no argument here. We differ in our understanding of Scripture.
Correct.
Yes.
Invalid.
Was.
Begging the question. Invalid.
There are multiple statements in John chapter six also.
Begging the question.
It resembles forms of it, I grant it. I also grant that these forms of idolatry resemble the Real Presence. These two are logically equivalent, but in setting out both of them, we avoid any hint of begging the question, as to whether one copied the other, or if they instead are independently derived. For example, pagan flood myths resemble the story of Noah, and the story of Noah resembles pagan flood myths.
Begging the question again. Catholicism believes that the manna, the shewbread, and the passover/Pasch are figures of, and fulfilled in, the Eucharist.
Transubstantiation is a footnote to the Real Presence, that is how they are related to each other. The Real Presence was believed from the first, while transubstantiation 'per se' was authorized later. Also, Orthodoxy does not believe in Catholic transubstantiation, but they most certainly believe in the Real Presence, and always have, just as has Catholicism.
See above, that transubstantiation and the Real Presence are not synonymous. And the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' is clear that salvation requires but faith alone in Christ.
It was definitively held by at least Bishop of Antioch Ignatius in AD 107.
Which means that the Church authorized it as authentic/Apostolic. Not everything that Apostles taught was right away uniformly recognized as such, due to the nature of the Apostles' ministry. They traveled all around the Mediterranean, to Greece, to Egypt, to Italy, and beyond, and they always taught the men they chose as bishops, and while certainly most every major point of the Christian faith was widely known, taught, believed, and practiced, it was not always known what every Apostle taught to every bishop, until all bishops gathered together and shared their stories with each other, comparing one Apostle's tradition with all the others that had been passed on through word-of-mouth from one bishop to the next, in each of theirs respective Apostolic lineage.
A pejorative, fyi.
'All very interesting as such. My problem with your view isn't the facts, it's your reading between the lines and making veiled fallacies, such as the Post Hoc Fallacy. None of these facts means that Christ Himself and His Apostles, didn't teach the Real Presence.
Then right here is evidence that the resemblance to European and Middle Eastern paganism could just be coincidence and independent of each other. Certainly the Church didn't copy Mayan or Incan pagans.
Fine. Since it is the words of the Lord Himself that supports the Church's belief in the Real Presence, I don't think that this qualifies as worshiping Him "as the heathens do [their 'gods']," since we're just taking His words literally.
Clearly. And I continue to maintain that the Catholic Church does not teach anything that contravenes or contradicts the Word of God.
Easter is the annual celebration of Christ's Resurrection, which is distinguished from the Eucharist, which celebrates His Resurrection at least each Sunday, the day upon which He rose. In fact though, many churches celebrate the Eucharist daily, if not at least on Saturdays and other Christian holy days, or on holy days' eves.
A problem of catechesis first and foremost, and after that, one of branding, probably. Also, an artifact of the Reformation, when the idea that the Real Presence is false, first reared its head, so far as can be known from all history. What I mean is that the Church right now is quite frayed in what we all believe and profess, so that non-Christians don't know definitively what are and what are not the articles of the authentic Christian faith.
I've heard of it, but don't know about it, no.
Ah.
All Hallows' Day (today 'All Saints' Day') is a Christian holy day. Halloween is the night before All Saints' Day.
When did Halloween costumery get "the Catholic Church stamp of approval?" And more than that, when did the Catholic Church instruct Halloween costumery? I know that she does not forbid it.
You say that pagans believed something resembling the Real Presence, before the Church did, and that therefore the Church copied it from pagans. So what was your argument then, if not 'post hoc ergo propter hoc?'
See? This is also begging the question, since you presume that the Church copied pagans.
There is no pagan source for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The operative word there is "Christ," and He is taught only by the Church.
Begging the question, since this is only true if your view is the truth, that the Church copied pagans in the belief in the Real Presence.
This is begging the question, since I believe that it does, and have given my reasons for it, and you've not defeated them.
There is zero support for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in pagan tradition. Again, the operative word is "Christ."
And I say that it essentially couldn't be more strongly defined than what we have; the literal words of our Lord, taken literally.
I didn't claim that pagans mimicked the Church. It is instead likely that they are two independent things. But besides, there are many pagan traditions that resemble the Christian faith, such as deities who rise from the dead. Are you saying that therefore Christ's Resurrection is fictional, since the notion appears in pagan traditions, before AD 33? I don't think that you are, but your line of argument supports this claim also, along with your rejection of the Real Presence as being authentically Christian.
That wasn't the point. The point was that the Apostles chose all the first generation of bishops, and they all uniformly, according to your view, plunged into fatal error, in, according to your view, wrongly teaching and practicing the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And as I've continued to say, this is merely a literal reading of Mt26:26KJV, Mk14:22KJV, Lk22:19KJV, and 1Co11:24KJV. We disagree about whether His words are to be taken literally, but I can't agree with you that the Apostles did not teach the Real Presence, since it depends upon your own view being the truth, which, again, is begging the question.
But to repeat, my point here was that the men who did teach the Real Presence, were all chosen by the Apostles, so if the Real Presence is false, then they the Apostles must have been nincompoops, and I don't accept that possibility.
Well, I guess, really, you're your own answer to the question, because that is what you believe.
Then we're getting into what it means when Christ promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church (Mt16:18KJV). I believe that while what you say about idolatry was true in the Old Covenant, that the New Covenant is impervious to this tendency. I believe that the bishops' instruction in the Christian faith is preserved from error, such as them teaching that abject idolatry ought to be committed right in the heart of the Christian Mass.
That's a false dilemma.
I just follow the Scripture when it talks about the office of Bishop, and bishops are still around today. Since I accept that there is an authentic pastorate, I accept hierarchy in the administration and life of the Church, because there is some way in which bishops are higher than non-bishops within the Church, and, those whom I believe are the authentic bishops, teach that that way is in their authority to teach the Christian faith.
I believe that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, and especially with the conditions that Catholics authentically believe in Christ, and that other Christians who believe in Christ (I call us "Catholics on the way to full communion") are also individual members of the Body/Church, though 'imperfectly' so, because we do not share Communion. So the Body of Christ is composed of probably everybody who you would think should be considered bona fide Christians, and while you're repelled by the language used, I think we agree on the underlying idea expressed, in different language.
lmk which passages you're thinking of, so that we can discuss it.
OK. Here's a link in case you ever want to see what the Catholic bishops all authoritatively and uniformly teach.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
(There's an alphabetical index at the bottom, in case you wanted to see what they teach on particular matters.)
Well, OK. I was offering up the particular belief that historically separates Catholics from other Christians, at least in the West (Orthodoxy is not nearly as popular in the West as in the East, although, the Orthodox also reject the papacy as supreme pastorate of the Church, and have done so since the year 1054, when the Catholic and Orthodox churches separated). The reason that I focus particularly upon the rejection of the popes as supreme pastors of the Church, is because all other differences in belief descend logically from either the acceptance or rejection of this single belief.
If it were actually the case that Catholicism believes and teaches that Christians pray to "gods" when we pray to Saints, then I would agree with you, but since this isn't the case, this is a straw man.
I can't speak for what every individual Catholic believes, but I can speak for what the Catholic bishops authoritatively teach, and they do not teach that praying to Saints is praying to "gods."
That is a direct result of the Reformation---of Protestantism---in the West.
And my position is that the poisonous contamination is removed, when/before the Church has appropriated pagan customs. There's nothing left in them that offends the Word of God, and that by design.
Well, we disagree, because I think that it does matter, and very much so.
It didn't, and it doesn't.
It prefigured the Eucharist, along with the shewbread, and the passover/Pasch.
Corruption is inevitable when there is real power involved. The bishops didn't have much in the way of power before Constantine, in fact it was the opposite, the bishops were frequently those Christians with the largest targets on their backs whenever their pagan neighbors and rulers capriciously and wantonly and criminally decided that it was time for yet another culling of the Christian herd, through horrifically cruel and unusual punishments, sometimes done publicly as a spectacle. Some Christians were dismembered but kept alive, while their pieces and parts were fed to wild animals right in front of them, just as one example, all for refusing to engage in idolatry. It'd be a terrible irony, and one that I reject, if all these glorious martyrs were themselves engaging in idolatry all along, in believing in the Real Presence.
I object to your characterization of Catholicism as "a brand name," but otherwise, we agree, and so does Catholicism. Orthodoxy, though, as an aside? I'm not sure what the Orthodox believe about who is and who is not a bona fide Christian. Catholicism makes believing in Christ the sine qua non of being an authentic Christian, whether or not we are Catholics.
Well that describes me, so far. What befalls me? I am missing out on a gift from the Lord, through which we are able to commune with Him and with each other in a unique, and a uniquely Christian, way.
I asked you, "'Now?' Where?" This answer means to me, "Not 'Now.' Back
then." But I didn't ask about back then, because when I wrote, "'Now?'" I was quoting
you. So are you 'walking back' your "now?"
Which sacrament(s) involves the "worship of vines, rocks, lambs, etc?" Different context. Apples and oranges.
lain: