The Eucharist is unbiblical

[jmdrake]

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?

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?

Edit: And before you ask any more questions you need to go back and read post #26. That was not meant as an insult but you took it as one for some odd reason. You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But Jesus did not explicitly say "I want you to take this literally". In fact He said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and are life." Why do you think Jesus said that? I use the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. There were post apostle first century Christians that disagreed with each other.

[TER]

I admit I may have missed your answer to the questions:

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?

Could you give me the post number which you answered them?

[jmdrake]

I admit I may have missed your answer to the questions:

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?

Could you give me the post number which you answered them?

You must have responded while I was editing my last post.

Edit: And before you ask any more questions you need to go back and read post #26. That was not meant as an insult but you took it as one for some odd reason. You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But Jesus did not explicitly say "I want you to take this literally". In fact He said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and are life." Why do you think Jesus said that? I use the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. There were post apostle first century Christians that disagreed with each other.

[jmdrake]

//

[RJB]

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

I wasn't dodging the question. As I said, I don't know how to quantify Grace.

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.

You are asking questions to quantify a spiritual experience. The internet holds much knowledge but it doesn't give the experience the Divine Liturgy does...

It's like an atheist can read the bible and theorize what it's like to be a Christian, but he doesn't know what it feels like to repent and feel an almost physical removal of the weight of sins from his shoulders. He doesn't know what the peace and the feeling of the Holy Spirit in his chest feel like. The same is with someone understanding the Eucharist over the internet. As I said before, It's not dress up, pretend, or a performance. It's the purist form of worship and must be experienced with a heart open to God to be fully understood.

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.

Maybe, but somewhere there is a "pillar and foundation of the Truth" that is unshakable. As I said earlier, Liturgy is not a performance. It's serious worship.

[TER]

You must have responded while I was editing my last post.

Edit: And before you ask any more questions you need to go back and read post #26. That was not meant as an insult but you took it as one for some odd reason. You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But Jesus did not explicitly say "I want you to take this literally". In fact He said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and are life." Why do you think Jesus said that? I use the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. There were post apostle first century Christians that disagreed with each other.

Can you find can me ANY post apostolic first century Christian, or second century, or third, or fourth, or (you get the idea) which disagrees about the literalness regarding the Holy Eucharist being the Lord's very Body and very Blood?

Have you ever read ANY Church Fathers exegesis regarding the words of Christ that 'the flesh profits nothing' which uses the verse in the way you do?

Why is your interpretation more correct or authoritative than ALL the Christian teachers and writers of the first 1600 years?

[acptulsa]

1) Whose interpretation of the verses in John are you using to support your case regarding whether Christ is being metaphorical?

He could be using his own...

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?

Firstly, I would ask what makes his interpretation any less authoritative. It's an argument he can't really make. But I can, so excuse me butting in. Secondly, I don't believe the orthodox interpretation has gone unquestioned and un-debated all that time. If you'll recall, it wasn't necessarily healthy for a European to question Catholic orthodoxy in an open manner during that time.

Indulgences went publicly unquestioned during that period, too, but I doubt you'll use that as an argument in their favor.

I believe a good clergy can do good things. But in religion as in government and pretty much everything else under the sun, when humans are introduced to the mix so is the devil. We are not perfect. Which is why I said what I did to hb earlier. Why would we entrust what is of God to human authority, and trust only God to handle what God seems content to leave up to human authority?

I'm not criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy. I have considerable respect for it, if only because I respect your opinion. But I hope you can understand what hb seems to have trouble with--to understand it and respect it is not to automatically find it to be perfect for oneself.

We sup on the bread and drink of the cup in remembrance of Him. Is that insufficient? Hasn't He done enough for us without continually growing new flesh and carving it off for us every time we have Communion? Could it possibly be important for Him to do so?

You are being a bit redundant, my friend. Why would Mr. Drake, myself and others believe Jesus was being rhetorical on that day? Because it does not say in the gospels that He miraculously transformed the bread into meat or the wine into blood. And it does not say He tapped Himself or carved Himself up before supper.

He gave up his earthly form, left it to rot for three days, and moved back into it anyway. He sacrificed enough flesh for our benefit, in my opinion. I don't need a miracle every third Sunday to maintain faith, and kissing 'relics' comes too close to idolatry for my tastes. I'm trying not to make a statement of my preferences sound like criticism. I guess I'm just doing what you, TER, were doing after jmdrake (and not disrespectfully, imo) used a standard rhetorical device on you. I'm just looking for a little respect.

For me and Mr. Drake. I am unlikely to discount his very intelligent and sensible discourse just because some rustic from back before the Dark Ages expressed an opinion which was canonized into dogma. Sorry. I do appreciate tradition. I do. But not if I feel it's coming between my Creator and myself. I understand that you don't consider this tradition an impediment to faith. But, my friend, if God had made us all the same, it would be a mighty boring world.

[jmdrake]

Can you find can me ANY post apostolic first century Christian, or second century, or third, or fourth, or (you get the idea) which disagrees about the literalness regarding the Holy Eucharist being the Lord's very Body and very Blood?

Have you ever read ANY Church Fathers exegesis regarding the words of Christ that 'the flesh profits nothing' which uses the verse in the way you do?

Why is your interpretation more correct or authoritative than ALL the Christian teachers and writers of the first 1600 years?

Are you going to continue to ignore my questions to you after I have answered your questions? That's rude.

[heavenlyboy34]

He could be using his own...



Firstly, I would ask what makes his interpretation any less authoritative. It's an argument he can't really make. But I can, so excuse me butting in. Secondly, I don't believe the orthodox interpretation has gone unquestioned and un-debated all that time. If you'll recall, it wasn't necessarily healthy for a European to question Catholic orthodoxy in an open manner during that time.

Indulgences went publicly unquestioned during that period, too, but I doubt you'll use that as an argument in their favor.

I believe a good clergy can do good things. But in religion as in government and pretty much everything else under the sun, when humans are introduced to the mix so is the devil. We are not perfect. Which is why I said what I did to hb earlier. Why would we entrust what is of God to human authority, and trust only God to handle what God seems content to leave up to human authority?

I'm not criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy. I have considerable respect for it, if only because I respect your opinion. But I hope you can understand what hb seems to have trouble with--to understand it and respect it is not to automatically find it to be perfect for oneself.

We sup on the bread and drink of the cup in remembrance of Him. Is that insufficient? Hasn't He done enough for us without continually growing new flesh and carving it off for us every time we have Communion? Could it possibly be important for Him to do so?

You are being a bit redundant, my friend. Why would Mr. Drake, myself and others believe Jesus was being rhetorical on that day? Because it does not say in the gospels that He miraculously transformed the bread into meat or the wine into blood. And it does not say He tapped Himself or carved Himself up before supper.

He gave up his earthly form, left it to rot for three days, and moved back into it anyway. He sacrificed enough flesh for our benefit, in my opinion. I don't need a miracle every third Sunday to maintain faith, and kissing 'relics' comes too close to idolatry for my tastes. I'm trying not to make a statement of my preferences sound like criticism. I guess I'm just doing what you, TER, were doing after jmdrake (and not disrespectfully, imo) used a standard rhetorical device on you. I'm just looking for a little respect.

For me and Mr. Drake. I am unlikely to discount his very intelligent and sensible discourse just because some rustic from back before the Dark Ages expressed an opinion which was canonized into dogma. Sorry. I do appreciate tradition. I do. But not if I feel it's coming between my Creator and myself. I understand that you don't consider this tradition an impediment to faith. But, my friend, if God had made us all the same, it would be a mighty boring world.

This is a common misunderstanding. It's so common I thought I'd chime in and address it. I made a thread about this a while back full of information that clears things up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols

ttyl, brother. ~hugs~

[jmdrake]

TER, just for you I did some research and found this:

http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/

Now I doubt this will sway you. That's not even my intent. But even going back to the church fathers you revere, one can find ammunition to refute transubstantiation. But again, feel free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe. I'm not Kevin. I'm not condemning you for your beliefs. I just disagree with them.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria flourished at the close of the second century when he succeeded Pantaenus in the catechetical school of Alexandria. It is believed by some that Clement compiled his “stramata” (miscellaneous writings) about the time he was 40 years old. If true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.

Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). In these works Clement goes far beyond simple explanations and examples. His thoughts build one upon another in a continuous development of Christian instruction. Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.

[COLOR="#0000CD"] “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.

Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. The explanation is consistent with Paul’s teachings about putting off the old man and putting on Christ. (Eph. 4:21-24, Col. 3:9-10) But even if Catholics were to read just a few lines further beyond the quote, they would find words that would challenge their assumptions.

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (ibid)

The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

Giving a little context to the quote presented on Catholic websites, however, does little or nothing to sway a devout Catholic. When I presented the added context to one Catholic, he reacted with, “I admit I am completely bewildered by the Clement of Alexandria quotes you present I do not understand them and they seem to be very figurative, but they are not denying the real presence there either.” (Emphasis mine) Well, yes they do. If the doctrine hinges on Jesus’ words, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood” being literal, then Clement is indeed denying the real presence doctrine.

From a Catholic apologist at “StayCatholic.com” I received this:

“It looks like he is saying that he believes in the “Real Presence” but that he can also see some symbolism in it as well. Remember he said: “Hear it ALSO in the following way.” The word also obviously includes both views. This wouldn’t necessarily constitute a contradiction. Even in Scripture we have passages that have meanings on a number of levels.” (Emphasis his)

Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language. I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors. And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)

Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid)

And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid)

Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)

Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)

Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth. Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.

The before mentioned apologist from StayCatholic.com also presented a bit of a disclaimer. He said, “The Church would have a problem with him [Clement] if he denied the “Real Presence.” And he hasn’t done that.”

Clement indeed does deny the real presence in his writings and the Catholic Church does have a problem with him. From the time the Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint. But Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius. Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

So what are the Catholic Church’s issues with Clement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols.

The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

From Schaff’s introductory note to Clement of Alexandria – After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

It is interesting how easily Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

In plain English, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.” And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

And leading up to this explanation, Origen expounded in more detail:

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’” (ibid)

There are several reference from Origen that demonstrate his understanding of the eucharist and the bread of life discourse, and none of them agree with Catholic doctrine. However, it is not uncommon for Catholic apologetics sites to use references from Origen that are used to support the real presence doctrine. These references, however, are far from their context and taken from writings of doubtful authenticity known as Origen’s homilies. Unable to rely on the homilies for the topic of real presence in the eucharist, it’s no wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia decided to pass over Clement and Origen.

[acptulsa]

Are you going to continue to ignore my questions to you after I have answered your questions? That's rude.

You know what our problem is, my friend? We protest too much. Thank God we came along in a time when we could get away with it.

This is a common misunderstanding. It's so common I thought I'd chime in and address it. I made a thread about this a while back full of information that clears things up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols

ttyl, brother. ~hugs~

I remember the thread. I thought I was careful not to make any accusations, but merely to comment upon my own tastes. If I didn't make that crystal clear, I apologize.

[jmdrake]

This is a common misunderstanding. It's so common I thought I'd chime in and address it. I made a thread about this a while back full of information that clears things up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols

ttyl, brother. ~hugs~

Note he didn't say icons were idolatry. He said they "come to close to idolatry". I hope you understand the difference. In one of these threads I mentioned that a Catholic friend jokingly offered to bury a statue of St. Jude in our back yard when we were having trouble selling our house. I believe you when you say that you are not falling into idolatry through images or statues, but some people do. You can say it's their fault, but without the images and statues being used in worship the temptation wouldn't be there. I recall Paul saying there were some things he thought were okay but wouldn't do because it might cause someone else to stumble.

[TER]

Thank you for answering my questions.

He could be using his own...

I would say you are correct on the first part, though he might use someone else's interpretation as an authority. I just don't whose yet because he hasn't answered.

Firstly, I would ask what makes his interpretation any less authoritative. It's an argument he can't really make. But I can, so excuse me butting in.

Then please do. Why is your interpretation more authoritative then a first century Christian?

Secondly, I don't believe the orthodox interpretation has gone unquestioned and un-debated all that time. If you'll recall, it wasn't necessarily healthy for a European to question Catholic orthodoxy in an open manner during that time.

Of course you are rcorrect. The history of the Church is filled with moments of crisis when certain factions developed regarding someone's interpretation over another. Debates have occured from the beginning of the life of the Church, for example we see such an instance in the Acts of the Apostles when the first Council was held in Jerusalem regarding circumcision. This is the biblical, apostolic way in which disagreements and different interpretations were to be approached and handled. This synodical process has not ceased for 2000 years. At times, it even led to schism, which is what was necessary in order to keep pure the apostolic teachings.

I believe a good clergy can do good things. But in religion as in government and pretty much everything else under the sun, when humans are introduced to the mix so is the devil. We are not perfect. Which is why I said what I did to hb earlier. Why would we entrust what is of God to human authority, and trust only God to handle what God seems content to leave up to human authority?

Why don't we stop judging the Church's history from our limited knowledge and understanding and for once let the Church's history judge us?

God established a real Church in this world. His Body in the world. Sanctified by the Holy Spirit and lived through the communion of the faithful baptized in Christ. God knew what He was doing, and the fruits of it are that 2000 years later, the Name of Christ is glorified across the globe, in all hours of the day. We are not Arians because of the Church God entrusted with His Spirit. We are not Marcionists because God has established a human-divine organism to protect from heretical teachings. God had a very good reason to establish a Church to be the 'pillar and foundation' for the truth, and it has served quite well in spite if the sinfulness of men within and without it.

I'm not criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy. I have considerable respect for it, if only because I respect your opinion. But I hope you can what hb seems to have trouble with--to understand it and respect it is not to automatically find it to be perfect for oneself.

The faith of the Church is perfect for all who humble themselves and have faith.

We sup on the bread and drink of the cup in remembrance of Him. Is that insufficient? Hasn't He done enough for us without continually growing new flesh and carving it off for us every time we have Communion? Could it possibly be important for Him to do so?

Apparently it was important, which is why He didn't say to the disciples who left on the day John 6 happened "hey, you don't have to really believe Me. It's not really my Body and Blood I command you to eat. Of course I am only being metaphorical. Instead, the all loving, all merciful, yet all righteous Lord let them leave and become seperated from Him. So apparently, it must have a decent amount of significance for the One Who sat with sinners to allow these doubting disciples to leave Him.

You are being a bit redundant, my friend. Why would Mr. Drake, myself and others believe Jesus was being rhetorical on that day? Because it does not say in the gospels that He miraculously transformed the bread into meat or the wine into blood. And it does not say He tapped Himself or carved Himself up before supper.

He gave up his earthly form, left it to rot for three days, and moved back into it anyway. He sacrificed enough flesh for our benefit, in my opinion. I don't need a miracle every third Sunday to maintain faith, and kissing 'relics' comes too close to idolatry for my tastes. I'm trying not to make a statement of my preferences sound like criticism. I guess I'm just doing what you, TER, were doing after jmdrake (and not disrespectfully, imo) used a standard rhetorical device on you. I'm just looking for a little respect.

For me and Mr. Drake. I am unlikely to discount his very intelligent and sensible discourse just because some rustic from back before the Dark Ages expressed an opinion which was canonized into dogma. Sorry. I do appreciate tradition. I do. But not if I feel it's coming between my Creator and myself. I understand that you don't consider this tradition an impediment to faith. But, my friend, if God had made us all the same, it would be a mighty boring world.

I would like to answer more but I must go to bed as I have a very important and busy day tomorrow. I will get back to your other points. With regards to the Holy Eucharist, I will leave you with the words of Christ when He spoke to St. Thomas who doubted Christ being bodily resurrected from the dead : "Do not be unbelieving, but be believing.' Good night my friend.

[jmdrake]

Apparently it was important, which is why He didn't say to the disciples who left on the day John 6 happened "hey, you don't have to really believe Me. It's not really my Body and Blood I command you to eat. Of course I am only being metaphorical. Instead, the all loving, all merciful, yet all righteous Lord let them leave and become seperated from Him. So apparently, it must have a decent amount of significance for the One Who sat with sinners to allow these doubting disciples to leave Him.

He came back and said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and they are life". I've pointed that out and asked you what you thought of that. If you answered that question, I haven't seen your answer. When Jesus told the disciples "Lazarus is sleeping" then clarified by saying "Lazarus is dead" most people took that to mean that Jesus used sleep as a metaphor.

[acptulsa]

Then please do. Why is your interpretation more authoritative then a first century Christian?

It isn't.

"Do not be unbelieving, but be believing.'

Am I a non-believer because when I 'do this in remembrance' of Him, the bread tastes like bread and the wine tastes like Welch's grape juice...?

[TER]

He came back and said "The flesh profits nothing. My words are Spirit and they are life". I've pointed that out and asked you what you thought of that. If you answered that question, I haven't seen your answer. When Jesus told the disciples "Lazarus is sleeping" then clarified by saying "Lazarus is dead" most people took that to mean that Jesus used sleep as a metaphor.

Good night jmdrake. Please continue to look for support from reading the early Christian writings, it will serve you well. With regards to what 'figurative' means in the Hellenistic and Judaic theology of 'symbols', we can continue that hopefully tomorrow. I will only leave you with my assurance (whatever it is worth to you) that St. Clement was quite orthodox in his belief regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist even if there was symbolism involved. In fact, the very fact that he is a Saint of the Church testifies to it.

[jmdrake]

Good night jmdrake. Please continue to look for support from reading the early Christian writings, it will serve you well. With regards to what 'figurative' means in the Hellenistic and Judaic tautology of 'symbols', we can continue that hopefully tomorrow. I will only leave you with my assurance (whatever it is worth to you) that St. Clement was quite orthodox in his belief regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist even if there was symbolism involved. In fact, the very fact that he is a Saint of the Church testifies to it.

Good night. But I've already found enough support to prove the point that it's debatable whether all early Christians believed the way you think they did. And the fact that the EO church has Clement as a saint doesn't negate the fact that the RCC church expressed concern about his interpretation of communion.

Edit: And you still didn't answer the simple question of why did Jesus clarify His statement in John 6 with "The flesh profits nothing."

[TER]

It isn't.

That is a very good position to take and shows that you are capable of learning from the saints. God bless you my friend.

Am I a non-believer because when I 'do this in remembrance' of Him, the bread tastes like bread and the wine tastes like Welch's grape juice...?

No, the disbelief is that because you taste bread and grape juice, it cannot be His Body and His Blood. How was it that the Manna which descended in the deserts of Sinai tasted differently for each person, according to their faith? But Christ is the True Bread and the True Manna and by His Holy Spirit fills all of creation, and if the Creator of the world says that the bread and the wine is now His Body and His Blood and that we should eat of it in order to find life, we should take it just as serious as the Apostles and every Christian did for the centuries following it.

[TER]

Good night. But I've already found enough support to prove the point that it's debatable whether all early Christians believed the way you think they did. And the fact that the EO church has Clement as a saint doesn't negate the fact that the RCC church expressed concern about his interpretation of communion.

Please, share more of this support which you believe is enough. I don't think you will find any and the ones you think you will will not, which is why pretty much every scholar of early Christianity affirms that the universal and apostolic belief according to the historical evidence available is that the Holy Eucharist was considered to be the Real Presence (the parousia) of Christ.

But I am encouraged that you are using the writings of the Church Fathers to see how the early Church interpreted the Lord's teachings. This is very good.

[jmdrake]

That is a very good position to take and shows that you are capable of learning from the saints. God bless you my friend.

I don't know of anyone who takes the position that his interpretation is more authoritative than the 1st century Christians. I don't take my interpretation over that of Richard Dawkins. I just don't agree with anything he says with regards to religion. There seems to be this zero sum game going on here. Either someone accepts your interpretation of what early post apostolic Christians believed as the best interpretation, or that person somehow things he's smarter than early 1st century Christians.

[jmdrake]

Please, share more of this support which you belief is enough. I don't think you will find any and the ones you think you will not, which is why pretty much every scholar of early Christianity affirms that the universal and apostolic belief according to the historical evidence available is that the Holy Eucharist was considered to be the Real Presence (the parousia) of Christ.

I thought you were going to bed. Digest and respond to what I've already given you before making demands for more. And answer the question of what Jesus meant by "The flesh profits nothing" and why you don't see that as a clarification of Jesus the same way Jesus' statement that "Lazarus is dead" was clarification of His metaphor that "Lazarus is sleeping." You say you don't want this to be like a deposition but you keep acting like a lawyer. (Asking questions and never answering those posed to you.)

[TER]

I thought you were going to bed. Digest and respond to what I've already given you before making demands for more. And answer the question of what Jesus meant by "The flesh profits nothing" and why you don't see that as a clarification of Jesus the same way Jesus' statement that "Lazarus is dead" was clarification of His metaphor that "Lazarus is sleeping." You say you don't want this to be like a deposition but you keep acting like a lawyer. (Asking questions and never answering those posed to you.)

I want to go to sleep but you are making it difficult! Ignore me already!

How bout this, tonight I will digest the things you wrote about and you go search the writings of the Church Fathers, including the first century Apostolic Fathers, to see how they regarded the nature and importance of the Holy Eucharist. Tomorrow we can share what we learned!

But seriously now, I have to go to bed. Good night my friends. May our good and loving Lord grant us peaceful rest and bless us tomorrow and all the days of our lives.

[Kevin007]

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.

you are right about that. Can you show me in the NT where Jesus or anyone said you recieve grace through these sacraments?

[Kevin007]

All the grace we will ever need is received the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do,” when they are understood in a biblical context, the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/seven-Ca...#ixzz3GwG6BIJk

[Kevin007]

Practice from Tradition	Orthodox	Catholic
disown the devil before baptism	yes	no
thrice immersed	yes	no
Drink milk and honey after baptism	no	no
don't bath for a week after baptism	no	no
kneeling in worship is forbidden	yes	no

SCORE What percentage of the oral tradition in 200 AD do Orthodox and Catholic keep today? Worse still, the traditions of Orthodox and Catholic today contradict each other!

50%

0%

As you can see from the chart above, neither Orthodox or Catholic keep the oral tradition of the 2^nd century AD. Catholics keep none of it and Orthodox keep 50% of it! Worse still, both these church fight with protestants that you must use their oral tradition but the Orthodox and Catholic oral traditions DIFFER WITH EACH OTHER!!! · IF ORAL TRADITION IS AUTHORATIVE, HOW ARE OUTSIDERS SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH OF THESE TWO ORAL TRADITIONS IS CORRECT? The solution is that oral tradition is worthless and what we are left with is the BIBLE ALONE.



Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law".


Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?


http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

[heavenlyboy34]

Good night. But I've already found enough support to prove the point that it's debatable whether all early Christians believed the way you think they did. And the fact that the EO church has Clement as a saint doesn't negate the fact that the RCC church expressed concern about his interpretation of communion.

Edit: And you still didn't answer the simple question of why did Jesus clarify His statement in John 6 with "The flesh profits nothing."

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so pardon me if I don't understand you correctly. The RCC is schismatic. How the RCC regards the EO eucharist is considered irrelevant to the EOC.

[Kevin007]

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]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so pardon me if I don't understand you correctly. The RCC is schismatic. How the RCC regards the EO eucharist is considered irrelevant to the EOC.

The point that TER was making is that it's "obvious" that Clement supported transubstantiation. But the RCC, which agrees with EO on transubstantiation, seems to question Clement's adherence to it. So my point is that people who agree with TER's ultimate position disagree apparently with his conclusion with regards to Clement. In other words its not just protestants saying that some early Christians may not have been 100% on board with transubstantiation. So the schism is irrelevant to this point.

[robert68]

This thread sucks.

Yes indeedy, ma'am. ~hugs~

If others here were like you and at least one of your OC comrades in this forum, they’d post of huge picture of a crying baby in response to that, but that's beneath them.

[robert68]

From your rep: "run along, child. This thread is over your head."

You project well. 45,000 posts of cheerleading, rep announcements, speaking foul, and hugging. My goodness.

I happen to know some members of the EOC. They're decent, clean mouthed, and respectful to others. We get along great and have for years. They're not like you and 2 certain other OC's at RPF's. You would embarrass them.