RC claims to Idolatry in the Mass

Bob,

While your argument makes sense, it is not entirely valid. YES, your argument is from a Catholic book, and it makes a point, but the point is not thought out entirely clearly. Granted, this example is true in SOME CASES, but it is not THE CASE.

When I, and other faithful Catholics partake in the Eucharist, we SEE, SMELL, TASTE, etc BREAD. But, as faithful Catholics, we believe that it is not bread at all; it is the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Thus, our worship and adoration is for our Lord, not bread.

This is a concept that many non-Catholics purposefully or innocently cannot understand. Simply to, for instance, bow to an image/statue, is not to NECESSARILY worship that image or statue. I'm sure that some do, although this is clearly WRONG. What a faithful Catholic is doing, is showing reverance to the object of that statue, not the statue itself. If it's a statue of Jesus, we are reverencing JESUS, not the statue of Him, because these statues help us focus on the Heavenly reality.

In the same way, we believe that there is no bread in the Eucharist; it IS the Body of Christ. Therefore, although we show reverence to what looks like bread, our entire devotion is to Jesus Christ.

Again, I see the case being made; I simply believe that it is faulty. This is demonstrated by attending a Mass. It is at the point of consecration that we kneel, because we believe at this time, Jesus becomes present. We don't show reverence in the same way to the bread beforehand, because it is only bread. It does not change in appearance, but our reverence certainly changes. This, hopefully, can help you see that it is not the IMAGE we SEE that we reverence, but THE LORD is whom we reverence.

 

This is where your argument falls apart, because anybody who believes in the Bible must believe the clear words of Christ regarding the Real Presence. Otherwise they are actually believing a late-invented tradition of men, derived from the desire to eliminate the need for an ordained priesthood.

 

I see the error of the Roman mass as being very similar to the error of the Protestant memorial meal. Both are setting up an idol of human work in order to please God.

Also can those sects that have made Baptism and the Holy Supper into human works still be considered Christian? Yes, if enough of the Word of God remains so that men may be brought to the knowledge of their sins and to faith in the forgiveness of sins, which Christ has gained for all men.

 

Bob, let me begin by asking you to either reproduce the "quote" as originally stated or let us know exactly what changes you are making and what your purpose is in changing it. I sincerely doubt that the original text which you are "quoting" contained the CAPS and " " which are presenting here. BTW, is the above "quote" the complete sentence or merely a part of it? Without a period at the end, it is difficult to know.

Without a context, it is difficult to determine exactly what the author's point is. I find it very unlikely that your representation of the author's point is correct. I sincerely doubt that the author wrote his commentary on a portion of the Catholic Catechism with the intent that it was for the edification of a non-Catholic audience.

Further, rather than saying "as a non-RC who believes in the Bible" it would be more correct to say "as someone who holds a personal interpretation of the Bible that does not agree with the teachings of the Church on the Eucharitst".

My first thought is that you have failed to lay the ground work for this discussion.

What constitutes a pagan practice?


BTW, the flip side of the coin is that if our Lord is present in the Eucharist in the fullness of Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity, then one who does not believe such would be guilty of failing to discern the Body.

 

Good luck with that one, Bob.

So you are going to "find that the RCC tradition regarding the bread is 'error'"?

All you will have to work with is individual fallible interpretation of Scripture - so you will not be able to "prove" your belief on this issue is correct and the Church thereby in error.

Unless of course, you want to make a claim of infallible knowledge or some such thing.

You will have to entertain yourself on this one, Bob. Count me out.

 

Why is it a given? It is, certainly, an historic fact, but why a given? Non-Catholic Christians accept great parts of the Catholic faith (much more than they reject), that too is a "given." Why, in non-Catholic eyes, does the Catholic Church get so much right? if it a false or apostate religion?

 

I think we spend too much time and effort pulling specks. Let's move on. This poor horse has been thouroughly beaten.

 

What John said.

Parenthetically, I am a non-RC Christian who does not reject the Catholic teaching on the nature of the Eucharist.

I don't neccesarily accept it in exactly the way the RCC teaches, but I fail to see any point in Scripture where Jesus, Paul, or any other writer said, "This bread is... umm, wait, of course, I mean it represents, you understand... My body, which is broken for you..." Pretty clearly, the intention of Jesus was that the elements be considered synonymous with His Body and Blood. Now, whether the change is substantive or in some intangible manner is really of no consequence.

This fact is very clear: the elements may or may not "be" the physical Body and Blood... but you had better treat them that way. Thus kneeling at the point of consecration is a very safe practice I would think.

Bowing to a statue, even acknowledging that it is a representation and not a god, is a whole other ball of wax, but I'm frankly sick of talking about it.

 

I don't think a statue automatically proves that you are worshiping ' . . . other gods . . . ' [Exodus 20:3] but it could be a grave sin. In the case of Mary, for Catholics, they believe she is co-redemptrix with Christ and, if I am not mistaken, they pray to her for watch-care and perhaps even grace.

I had asked my wife if she ever found a statue of an Old Testament prophet or a New Testament apostle, to please buy it for me to put on my office desk. I saw one once and regretted not buying it. One Christmas she bought me a three foot statue of Moses with the Law in both arms. I like it. I do not pray to him for grace or help to keep the laws of God.

We Protestants complain about Catholics and their myriad of statues in and outside the doors of their churches and in and in front of their homes, but I wonder how God views many Protestants who always had a Solomon's head of Christ in their living room. I know my parents always had one. Again, we did not worship it but, at least to me, it was a reminder of what He had and has done for me at the Cross.

Haven't we as Protestants stepped over the line by having Solomon's head of Christ in our homes and/or in our churches? I have seen pictures of Christ that take up the entire wall directly in back of the pulpit. After all, does not the Lord God mean what He has said in Exodus 20:4?

'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

I sincerely hope that we are both not at fault in the eyes of the Lord by having our religious pictures, images and relics scattered around our world, which He made, and also erected before His sacred and Divine Presence. After all, isn't there a subtle hint in Exodus 20:3-4] that He is to be our only Mediator. [I Timothy 2:5-6; I John 2:1] I hope I am not sinning against the Lord my God.

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

Well, I'd be stunned if the crucifix on my office door was displeasing to the Lord, but I certainly appreciate your careful approach to the question.

My final comment was in response to this from GraceSaves:

My view is that there is virtually no difference in worshipping the statue or the representation.

In the polytheistic Roman Empire, it was generally accepted that the gods they worshipped had no human form; however, it was a common practice to place images in the various temples to represent these gods. These images were the focal point, as I understand it, of the sacrifices and such, even though everyone accepted that the statues were not the gods themselves.

My sources on this have slipped my mind, so I could be far off base on this. If correct, though, it's kind of an obvious case of idolatry for these ancient Romans, and perilously close to it for Catholic Christians. In any case, there's this big log in my eye right now, and danged if I don't need to go and get it out because it's getting harder and harder to reach the keyboa

 

Yes, clearly the PCUSA and ELCA consider the issue of "no consequence". This is basis of altar and pulpit fellowship between the two denominations and the basis of all previous Reform/Lutheran unions. Of course, this is completely contrary to the Lutheran Confessions!

 

I guess not too many Protestants and other non-Catholics are going to 'fess up' to the 'graven images' that we have in our homes. Apparently, this is a theological bronco that no one wants to ride. I guess the tiny sheep that Jesus holds in His arms will still remain on our walls. But the question remains, how does the Lord feel about our 'graven images?' [Exodus 20:4] Or aren't these graven images?

 

Mny of those images are seen with a steeple on top. Anybody ever hear of architectural evangelism? Jesus told his disciples to make disciples not to have an attitude and practice of build buildings and the people will come. I have seen a number of those buildings rot and be rebuilt. I have also seen the doors of those buildings closed and sold to the highest bidder. It is happening right now in America.

Why is it that so many people seem to think that if they build a building the people will come? Rick Warren who pastors Saddleback Community Church never built one building until 10,000 people were in attendance.

 

I know a priest in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania who refused to give a member of his church the 'body and blood' of our Lord, even though he heard her confession in the hospital. She even had a life threatening disease, but he said that she had missed the masses and until she proved herself he would not give her Communion. As a Christian minister I question the wisdom of his decision.

Also, if a Roman Catholic person has been divorced, he or she cannot take the Eucharist ever again, if he or she remarries. I question the wisdom of this church rule. But, if a Catholic pays a fee to the bishop, he or she can get a special dispensation and then God somehow forgives the sin of divorce. Then the Eucharist can be received by the communicant.

Either the Lord forgives any kind of sin or He does not. And if he forgives the sin of divorce then the person should be able to receive the bread and wine, the holy sacrament.

Like I said, the divorced cannot receive the body and blood of the Lord, if they remarry. Some Catholic priests who were and are pedophiles not only receive the sacrament, but minister it to others. It sure seems like a double standard to me. It must be another exception or dispensation for the men in black. I wonder if the pedophile priest who was murdered in the prison was allowed to receive the Eucharist. Probably. After all he was not married and divorced.

 

I simply don't believe this story as you relate it.

Well, Ray, you certainly managed to get this one wrong! Read about Decrees of Nullity and get back to us. Nothing at all to do with divorce.

Ahem, divorce is not a sin. It is a civil procedure that has no effect on a sacramental marriage. You may want the Lord to allow bigamy, but that doesn't make it right.

Ray, Ray, Ray. Been itching to talk about pedophile priests again, have you? Find me one single "pedophile priest" who not only had sinned, but made clear his intention to continue in the same sin, and yet was granted absolution.

Tell the truth, Ray. Are you even interested in the truth when it comes to things Catholic?