The Eucharist is unbiblical

[TER]

Do you not see that my metaphor comment was nothing more than using your own argument against you?
Do you not see that that's all I've been doing since the beginning?
That is the point of dragging homosexuality into this. The exact same arguments used against the Eucharist are used in favor of homosexuality.
Do you genuinely not understand that I'm not making the pro-homosexuality argument at all?
Given that I'm asking these questions for the fifth time now, I can't help but think you're not making any attempt to read what I write.

I'll try a fifth time, though:

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

Jmdrake, can you answer his questions?

[RJB]

It's only important as a control mechanism. If you believe that you must receive the sacraments to receive grace then you are bound to a particular group of men that are the ones "entrusted" to administer it, whether they are actually trustworthy or not.

You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Not as bad as Kevin's but a visit to the Liturgy could clear things up. Experience trumps an internet discussion.

It's not a control mechanism, but rather, it is community involvement. In Orthodoxy, the prayer of the priest is worthless without the congregation stating "Amen." The priest is on the receiving end of grace as well. He is not the distributer.

Grace is not limited to the 7 major sacraments. Grace is a free gift from God that is received through the sacraments of course, but it is also received with private prayer, fasting, just believing, etc.

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, can you answer his questions?

I never saw him ask a relevant one. But I will try to answer for your sake. It's quite obvious to anyone not playing games that when Leviticus was talking about "men having sex with men" that's what it was talking about. You can actually see that happening if you want to. Don't take my word for it TER. Turn "safe search" off on Google and type in "men having sex with men" if you really are unsure if that was metaphor or not. By contrast have you ever been to a communion service where it was clear to anyone who didn't believe that you were really eating human flesh and drinking human blood? Ever? Just once? There are two possibilities. Either there is something metaphysical that "only believers" can perceive, or Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Even your fellow Eastern Orthodox believer heavenlyboy realized that fishamor isn't using the term "metaphor" correctly. So, if you want to rephrase his question into an intelligent one, I'll try to answer it.

Edit: TER I'll go further. I actually did answer his question already by pointing out that the link he gave didn't attempt to deny that Leviticus was speaking literally against men sleeping with men. Rather his link claimed that this didn't matter because that was only a law for the Jews. Then his link claimed, with flimsy evidence, that the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality should be limited because they either involved idolatry (he ignores the fact that idolatry involved both heterosexual and homosexual prostitution and Paul only singled out the homosexual acts as "unnatural") and a claim based only on extrabiblical tradition that the other acts of homosexuality proscribed in the New Testament really only applied to married men sleeping with boys. I put that part in bold because the argument fishamor linked to only kind of works if you go away from sola scriptura. Finally fishamors link admitted that it really didn't have a strong argument, but fished with the cultural "Well we don't tell women to cover their heads or keep quiet in church".

So, like I already told fishamor, his link didn't make the arguments he apparently thought it did. Nor were his links anything "new". I engaged fishamor in discussion because I have had discussions with gay friends and family, had never heard a "It's just a metaphor" argument, and I was sincerely wondering if fishamor had an argument that I hadn't heard before. Sadly I was disappointed.

So no. There is no comparison between the arguments over the Eucharist and the arguments over homosexuality. Those who don't believe the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus are not saying "Well we believe it once was the literal body and blood of Jesus, but due to cultural change we no longer think that is applicable" or "Well it's the body and blood of Jesus when He was a little boy but not when He was an adult" or any other argument similar to the ones fishamor's link gave.

[jmdrake]

You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Not as bad as Kevin's but a visit to the Liturgy could clear things up. Experience trumps an internet discussion.

It's not a control mechanism, but rather, it is community involvement. In Orthodoxy, the prayer of the priest is worthless without the congregation stating "Amen." The priest is on the receiving end of grace as well. He is not the distributer.

Grace is not limited to the 7 major sacraments. Grace is a free gift from God that is received through the sacraments of course, but it is also received with private prayer, fasting, just believing, etc.

My understanding of Orthrodoxy is from people like you and TER. So just for clarification. Someone who decides "Because my local priest is evil I will no longer the local church and simply pray by myself or start my own church" has just as much access to grace as the person who still goes to the priest with the apostolic succession? Because that's not what I got from what TER said.

[RJB]

My understanding of Orthrodoxy is from people like you and TER. So just for clarification. Someone who decides "Because my local priest is evil I will no longer the local church and simply pray by myself or start my own church" has just as much access to grace as the person who still goes to the priest with the apostolic succession? Because that's not what I got from what TER said.

It's not the priest. They aren't God. All of them are sinners; some much worse than others. It's the Christian community and yes the priest is a part of it.

From my own experience, when I told myself I'd pray on my own without attending church, I didn't.

[jmdrake]

It's not the priest. They aren't God. All of them are sinners; some much worse than others. It's the Christian community and yes the priest is a part of it.

From my own experience, when I told myself I'd pray on my own without attending church, I didn't.

Okay. I'll rephrase my question. You have to churches, only two, in your town. One is a church that you believe has a valid claim to apostolic succession. The other makes no such claim. One church the priest is an active child molester. The other church is non-denominational and, as far as you know, is run by a man with a real relationship with God. Do you believe you are "missing out on grace", even a little bit, if you choose the non-denominational church?

[TER]

jmdrake, thank you for the replies, but it doesn't seem to me that you have yet answered fisharmor's question. It seems from your earlier post that you referenced Google. Are you presenting Google to be the pillar and foundation for the truth?

But perhaps I can try to reword while we wait to see if fisharmor drops in. (Forgive me fisharmor if I do a poor job of it.)

The question fisharmor is asking is:


1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?

[TER]

Okay. I'll rephrase my question. You have to churches, only two, in your town. One is a church that you believe has a valid claim to apostolic succession. The other makes no such claim. One church the priest is an active child molester. The other church is non-denominational and, as far as you know, is run by a man with a real relationship with God. Do you believe you are "missing out on grace", even a little bit, if you choose the non-denominational church?

These exceptional cases do not necessarily give the answer to the general way a believer in Christ should seek Christ. In your example above, of course it would be understandable for someone who does not have the correct orthodox understanding of the mysteries of the faith to choose the 'non-demoninational' parish, and that molesting priest will have to answer for that. If I can understand that, and I can forgive the lost parishoner on account of their lack of knowledge of the treasures of the Church, then I image God Who is much more merciful and loving than I can if He desires so. No one is limiting God here.

But we should not allow the extreme cases fear us into complacency or allow us to relativize or minimize the fundamental apostolic declarations of the faith.

[RJB]

Okay. I'll rephrase my question. You have to churches, only two, in your town. One is a church that you believe has a valid claim to apostolic succession. The other makes no such claim. One church the priest is an active child molester. The other church is non-denominational and, as far as you know, is run by a man with a real relationship with God. Do you believe you are "missing out on grace", even a little bit, if you choose the non-denominational church?

I can't answer for anyone else, but before I left the Roman Catholic Church, I let my kids go with their friends from the homeschool group to the local Baptist Church school on Wednesday nights instead of the Catholic education that same night because the Baptist actually taught the importance of Jesus in their lives a lot better than the Catholic program. The Catholic Church I was at was mostly teaching how to be a good person-- which you can learn at the YMCA, public school (sometimes) or where ever. If I teach my children anything, it will to be to have Christ first in their lives.

For worship, I do find services quite empty without the Eucharist. If the local Orthodox Church was that bad, I'd go to one out of town.

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, thank you for the replies, but it doesn't seem to me that you have yet answered fisharmor's question. It seems from your earlier post that you referenced Google. Are you presenting Google to be the pillar and foundation for the truth?

But perhaps I can try to reword while we wait to see if fisharmor drops in. (Forgive me fisharmor if I do a poor job of it.)

The question fisharmor is asking is:


1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?

I referenced Google tongue in cheek to prove to you that there really are men who have sex with men in case you were unaware of that fact. Again, in the verses in question it was not an issue of a different interpretation but rather cultural relevance. Fishamors source grudgingly admitted that both the Old Testament and the New Testament were against same sex relations but that it doesn't matter because of changing culture or because of extra biblical tradition. In other words, fishamor's source was using the type of arguments I've seen you make against sola scripture (extra biblical tradition) or the argument the Catholic church seems to be making now with regards to homosexuality (new cultural relevance). If I don't agree with you on the Eucharist, why would I agree with such a line of reasoning with regards to homosexuality? Now if you want to find an argument where someone actually is making a different interpretation of the verses themselves, rather than going outside of the Bible through "tradition" or through cultural relevance, maybe you should do a little Googling and get back with me.

[jmdrake]

These exceptional cases do not necessarily give the answer to the general way a believer in Christ should seek Christ. In your example above, of course it would be understandable for someone who does not have the correct orthodox understanding of the mysteries of the faith to choose the 'non-demoninational' parish, and that molesting priest will have to answer for that. If I can understand that, and I can forgive the lost parishoner on account of their lack of knowledge of the treasures of the Church, then I image God Who is much more merciful and loving than I can if He desires so. No one is limiting God here.

But we should not allow the extreme cases fear us into complacency or allow us to relativize or minimize the fundamental apostolic declarations of the faith.

Pay attention to what I put in bold. I'm not talking about someone who "does not have the correct orthodox understanding". This person could have been raised Orthodox all his life. Should that person go to the church where he knows the priest is molesting little boys? This isn't a hypothetical. It happened at least in the RCC context. And I'm not even asking what someone should ultimately do. I'm asking if you believe someone is missing out on grace, even a little bit, for deciding that taking communion from a child molester priest is just too much. It's an easy yes or no question.

[jmdrake]

I can't answer for anyone else, but before I left the Roman Catholic Church, I let my kids go with their friends from the homeschool group to the local Baptist Church school on Wednesday nights instead of the Catholic education that same night because the Baptist actually taught the importance of Jesus in their lives a lot better than the Catholic program. The Catholic Church I was at was mostly teaching how to be a good person-- which you can learn at the YMCA, public school (sometimes) or where ever. If I teach my children anything, it will to be to have Christ first in their lives.

For worship, I do find services quite empty without the Eucharist. If the local Orthodox Church was that bad, I'd go to one out of town.

I'm glad you are open minded. And I'm glad you enjoy the services you attend including the Eucharist. But I feel like I'm pulling hens teeth here. I'll rephrase the question. Forget the child molesters. Let's say as a psychological experiment, an Orthodox Church you attended allowed a Baptist minister to dress up as an Orthodox priest and give the communion. I know that would never happen. But let's say that it did. The ceremony happened exactly the way you were expecting it to happen. The only difference is the person officiating had not actually received apostolic succession. Do you believe you would have missed out on even a little bit of grace?

[RJB]

I'm glad you are open minded. And I'm glad you enjoy the services you attend including the Eucharist. But I feel like I'm pulling hens teeth here.

Relax.

I'll rephrase the question. Forget the child molesters. Let's say as a psychological experiment, an Orthodox Church you attended allowed a Baptist minister to dress up as an Orthodox priest and give the communion. I know that would never happen. But let's say that it did. The ceremony happened exactly the way you were expecting it to happen. The only difference is the person officiating had not actually received apostolic succession. Do you believe you would have missed out on even a little bit of grace?

I really don't know how to answer that hypothetical. The Liturgy is not a dress up or a performance. It's the purest form of worship. Not just the priest, but the congregation have to be on the same page. It's the whole Church, including the worshippers who is Apostolic.

I honestly don't know if I would get less grace-- That's God's gift, not the priest's. If my heart was sincere and I didn't know the difference-- probably the same. I don't know how to quantify Grace. If anything, I would go to a different Orthodox Church.

[TER]

Pay attention to what I put in bold. I'm not talking about someone who "does not have the correct orthodox understanding". This person could have been raised Orthodox all his life. Should that person go to the church where he knows the priest is molesting little boys? This isn't a hypothetical. It happened at least in the RCC context. And I'm not even asking what someone should ultimately do. I'm asking if you believe someone is missing out on grace, even a little bit, for deciding that taking communion from a child molester priest is just too much. It's an easy yes or no question.

That parishoner should call the police, that's what they should do. You are still stuck in the rare and extreme circumstance. But the answer to your question again is that they should contact the police and contact the bishop. That is the way the Church has handled criminal and serious evil behaviors of priests.

With regards to the example before, I think the difficulty is getting you to understand the basis premise which fisharmor and I are trying to explain to you, which is why I reworded the questions.

1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?

[RJB]

That parishoner should call the police,

No kidding!

[TER]

I referenced Google tongue in cheek to prove to you that there really are men who have sex with men in case you were unaware of that fact.

As you are a friend to me, can I ask you to treat me with an ounce of respect (not a lot, just a little) so that you do not have the urge to post sentences like that and accuse me of being a fool? These things may work in depositions, but between friends, it only leads to hurt feelings.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yep. It's a control thing. The priest, even if the ones who's lifestyle shows they are not worthy to be priests, are "entrusted" because of "apostolic succession". So it doesn't matter if the only priest is utterly wicked. He's been "blessed" through "apostolic succession".

It actually does matter if the priest is wicked. When this is so, it is the duty of the laity to contact the appropriate authorities and deal with it. It is incorrect to put scare quotes around (entrusted) and (apostolic succession). You really need to talk to a local priest. He can explain to you how the sacraments work and show you documentation of his apostolic succession. I could write a wall of text about the eucharist, but I doubt you'd read it-so it would be a poor investment of my time and energy. If you'd like some literature, I can recommend some to you (others here probably can as well).

[jmdrake]

As you are a friend to me, can I ask you to treat me with an ounce of respect (not a lot, just a little) so that you do not have the urge to post sentences like that and accuse me of being a fool? These things may work in depositions, but between friends, it only leads to hurt feelings.

Ok. My apologies if that sentence was too harsh. Here is the non-harsh translation. Nobody is making the argument that when the Bible is talking about homosexuality it is speaking metaphorically. Nobody with the possible exception of fishamor. But even he isn't making that argument. I know you are intelligent so I'm surprised you latched onto that argument when even fishamor admitted it was silly. So if you want to make an argument about metaphors why don't we pick a different topic? How about creation? Some people actually believe the creation week is metaphor. I believe it's literal. What say you?

[TER]

If anything, I would go to a different Orthodox Church.

And because of the corruption on this world, which ordained priest too are susceptible to as imperfect vessels of God's grace, there comes times when a person must leave a fellowship of believers because of the poor shepherding or heretical teachings of the local presbyter. If those acts are illegal and dangerous to others (or the Church in general), then the local police authorities should be contacted. This is how the Church purges itself of wayward and dangerous teachers to keep pure and undefiled the teachings handed down not by the Church.

The Church depends on no single man then Jesus Christ Who is the God-Man and the Head of the Church, and when evil men assume positions of leadership and prominence and begin to teach heresy because of their own false interpretations apart from the unity of faith of the believers (the ekklesia), that is, to the teachings handed down to them (paradosis, as St. Paul would say), then the process is to excommunicate them to keep pure the faith, the unity of the brethren, and the holy offering on the altar which is the Holy Eucharist. And also to protect the very heretical teacher lest by communing of the very Body and Blood of Christ they pass greater judgment on themselves.

[jmdrake]

That parishoner should call the police, that's what they should do. You are still stuck in the rare and extreme circumstance. But the answer to your question again is that they should contact the police and contact the bishop. That is the way the Church has handled criminal and serious evil behaviors of priests.

Except this isn't a "rare" circumstance. It's one ripped from all too real headlines. And there are less extreme circumstances that are still pretty bad. I knew a RCC lady that told me her priest took another woman's husband. He was eventually removed but not immediately. No way to call the police on that one as the action was not illegal. The reason the abuse scandal became a scandal is the church didn't handle it. Again, that's RCC and not EO. I don't know if EO had any of the same problems. If you didn't, great. But I was making a general point about apostolic succession and the Eucharist. Both RCC and EO claim both.

With regards to the example before, I think the difficulty is getting you to understand the basis premise which fisharmor and I are trying to explain to you, which is why I reworded the questions.

1) Whose interpretation of y verses are you using to support your case regarding x?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones with different interpretations regarding x?

Okay. I have a question "as a friend". Since you were getting offended at the way I responded to you on this, why are you sticking with this same silly line of questions? And from a "deposition" point of view I've already answered this question multiple times now so it's rude of you to keep asking it.

Edit: And once again I addressed fishamor not as an attack on you or your church but rather a sincere question as to if he had a different point of view of the Bible and homosexuality than what I had heard. He didn't. You are making something out of nothing.

[jmdrake]

It actually does matter if the priest is wicked. When this is so, it is the duty of the laity to contact the appropriate authorities and deal with it. It is incorrect to put scare quotes around (entrusted) and (apostolic succession). You really need to talk to a local priest. He can explain to you how the sacraments work and show you documentation of his apostolic succession. I could write a wall of text about the eucharist, but I doubt you'd read it-so it would be a poor investment of my time and energy. If you'd like some literature, I can recommend some to you (others here probably can as well).

HB, has there been a time when you posted something to me that I didn't read it? I don't think so. No I'm not going to take the time to go and talk to a priest about this because frankly the subject isn't that important. But I don't make a habit of ignoring anything anyone directs to me. I've even answered TER's repetitive questions based on fishamor's admitted silliness multiple times now.

[TER]

Ok. My apologies if that sentence was too harsh. Here is the non-harsh translation. Nobody is making the argument that when the Bible is talking about homosexuality it is speaking metaphorically. Nobody with the possible exception of fishamor. But even he isn't making that argument. I know you are intelligent so I'm surprised you latched onto that argument when even fishamor admitted it was silly. So if you want to make an argument about metaphors why don't we pick a different topic? How about creation? Some people actually believe the creation week is metaphor. I believe it's literal. What say you?

I would rather we stick with the Holy Eucharist since this (as a Christian) is a much more important topic then whether God made the cosmos in seven days or in billions.

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
and
2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?

[RJB]

why are you sticking with this same silly line of questions?

"...like pulling hens teeth." is the line you used earlier when the situation was reversed.

[jmdrake]

Relax.

I'm not tense. I just don't see what the question seems so hard for some.

I really don't know how to answer that hypothetical. The Liturgy is not a dress up or a performance. It's the purest form of worship. Not just the priest, but the congregation have to be on the same page. It's the whole Church, including the worshippers who is Apostolic.

I honestly don't know if I would get less grace-- That's God's gift, not the priest's. If my heart was sincere and I didn't know the difference-- probably the same. I don't know how to quantify Grace. If anything, I would go to a different Orthodox Church.

Okay. That's an answer. If grace is dependent only on God and the sincerity of your heart then maybe, just maybe, this whole Eucharist thing doesn't really mean anything. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It think it doesn't. For those who believe the emblems are representative of Christ, they are blessed. For those who believe it's really the body and blood of Christ, they are blessed. For those who want the assurance that the person officiating can trace his lineage back to the apostles, they are blessed. For those who are happy knowing merely that the person officiating is a professed Christian, they are blessed. Anything beyond that is a control mechanism.

[RJB]

No I'm not going to take the time to go and talk to a priest about this because frankly the subject isn't that important.

It must be important to you on some level to have invested as much time as you have to this thread.

[jmdrake]

"...like pulling hens teeth." is the line you used earlier when the situation was reversed.

Except I answered the question. The questions posed to me weren't simple "yes or no" questions. They were essays. I gave several essays. I'm not sure how many TER wants.

[jmdrake]

I would rather we stick with the Holy Eucharist since this (as a Christian) is a much more important topic then whether God made the cosmos in seven days or in billions.

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
and
2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?

Really? I answered that question before fishamor posed his. This is getting tiresome and redundant. Before I answer this yet again I will ask you a question. Recently you debated my position that the original church fathers, the apostles, longed for us each to have the Holy Spirit on an individual basis. On what authority do you base that belief?

[TER]

Except I answered the question. The questions posed to me weren't simple "yes or no" questions. They were essays. I gave several essays. I'm not sure how many TER wants.

Just a simple answer to this, since these remained unanswered and was the main point of fisharmor a from the beginning though you missed it:

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?
and
2) What makes your interpretation more authoritative over the ancient teachings of the Church Fathers going back to the first century and unquestioned or even debated for 1600 years after them?

[jmdrake]

It must be important to you on some level to have invested as much time as you have to this thread.

You could only come to that conclusion by cutting out most of my response to HB. I told him that I don't make a practice of ignoring posts directed at me. Are you wishing I would start that?

[TER]

Really? I answered that question before fishamor posed his. This is getting tiresome and redundant. Before I answer this yet again I will ask you a question. Recently you debated my position that the original church fathers, the apostles, longed for us each to have the Holy Spirit on an individual basis. On what authority do you base that belief?

By their writings and their witness.

Where do you get your interpretation that Christ is speaking in metaphors with regard to the versus in John 6?