The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

[Zenas]

There were no parenthetical explanations concerning the Eucharist,
First, because there is no such thing as "Eucharist" in the Bible, the entire conversation ought to be rendered moot.
Second, concerning the elements of the Communion Table, they are purely symbolic as Jesus meant them to be. Throughout the entire chapter He spoke in metaphors. It is odd that you can recognize some metaphors and not others.
Jesus said "I am the door." Is it a metaphor, or is it literal as the RCC believes the "Eucharist" to be? I believe the answer is obvious to all.
The same is true when he says:
I am the bread of life. A loaf perhaps? What was Christ saying?
He was using metaphors, as we, as well as parables.
Here is what he specifically says:

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

The Roman Catholics that I know fall into that category.

There was no murmuring in the crown when Jesus referred to Himself as the door, the good shepherd, the light of the world, etc. However, there was murmuring and protest when He talked about eating His body and drinking His blood. Some of His disciples even left, and He said nothing to correct their misunderstanding.

 

[Zenas]

Where does it say they did?

A description of Jesus:
Matthew 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
--No resurrection body here. But he was different.
I expect the same would hold true for Elijah and Moses.
Give proof that Moses was raised from the dead. Moses was buried. Nowhere in the Scripture does it say he arose from the dead.

The whole event was supernatural. God is able to do the supernatural and he did without violating that which is written in His Word.

I believe you are arguing from silence here. It says "appearing in glory", nothing about appearing in the spirit.

As for Moses, Jude 9 tells us that Michael and the devil disputed over his body. Why would they be disputing? Only one reason--one or the other would have the body. The one who got it certainly did not remain with it on earth, so we have to conclude that Moses was taken up. Since he appeared with Christ, we can safely assume that Michael got the body.

 

[DHK]

There was no murmuring in the crown when Jesus referred to Himself as the door, the good shepherd, the light of the world, etc. However, there was murmuring and protest when He talked about eating His body and drinking His blood. Some of His disciples even left, and He said nothing to correct their misunderstanding.

This is the east. The language (if spoken to Jews would be Hebrew), and if spoken to a wider audience, Greek. Both languages are more explicit than English, and they knew what he meant. He was speaking of a life of sacrifice. They didn't turn away because of some absurd idea of "cannibalism." They knew he didn't mean that. They knew that he was speaking of sacrifice. If one is going to follow Christ he must be willing and able to sacrifice.
He must be willing to die--physically and spiritually.
He must be willing to deny himself.
He must be willing to take up his cross daily. A cross is used for execution.
In the words of Paul (1Cor.15:31), "I die daily."

The world wants a life of ease not of sacrifice, and so they left him.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There was no murmuring in the crown when Jesus referred to Himself as the door, the good shepherd, the light of the world, etc. However, there was murmuring and protest when He talked about eating His body and drinking His blood. Some of His disciples even left, and He said nothing to correct their misunderstanding.

That is not true, when he claimed to be the door and good shepherd in John 10 there were many who murmured at this and accused him of speaking like a devil and as a mad man:

Jn 10:19 ¶ There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

 

[DHK]

I believe you are arguing from silence here. It says "appearing in glory", nothing about appearing in the spirit.

As for Moses, Jude 9 tells us that Michael and the devil disputed over his body. Why would they be disputing? Only one reason--one or the other would have the body. The one who got it certainly did not remain with it on earth, so we have to conclude that Moses was taken up. Since he appeared with Christ, we can safely assume that Michael got the body.

I am not arguing from silence. You don't understand my argument.
I didn't say they appeared in "spirit." I am saying that the body they had, whatever kind of body it was, was not their resurrected body, just as Christ did not appear in his resurrected body. The disciples did see them. They saw them in "their glory." Whatever that means, we are not entirely sure. It was not an earthly body, and it was not their resurrection body. It was some kind of temporary body that God gave them for that period of time. It was a supernatural event.

As for Moses, don't read too much into that passage. They argued over his body. I could argue over the body of my grandfather, though he is dead. Many people argue over a dead relative whether or not to allow it to be an organ-donor. They could argue about the body without having possession of the body. What do you envision here? That Michael had the arms and Satan had the feet, and there was a tug-of-war? I think not!
Having a dispute does not infer ownership. It was God that buried the body, hence the ownership is God's, and I will stick with that. The nature of the dispute we are not told. Thus you are reading into Scripture something that is not there.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which means you have no point! You used SCRIPTURES to demonstrate that you might possibly have a SCRIPTURAL exception against the SCRIPTURAL general principle stated in the I Corinthians 15 passage but then you make a giant LEAP from scripture to NOTHING but presumption to argue that the non-scriptural account of the assumption of Mary may be an exception to the same scriptural general rule. Hence, your basis for argumentation has shifted from scripture to interpet scripture unto tradition to interpet scripture. This is the modus operandi of Roman hermeneutics to defend all of its non-scriptural traditions.

However, like infant baptism, Cardinals, papal infalibilty when speaking ex-cathreda, the presumptuous false tradition of the assumption of Mary is known by its fruits - or the reasons given by Rome to support it and defend it.

I have dealt with Roman Catholics long enough to know their method of defending unbiblical traditions as dogma. They first take the scriptures that would either repudiate their traditions either in precept or in principle and turn other scriptures against those precepts or principles, thus elminating the Scriptures as final authority and conclude it does not contradict the scriptures therefore that gives it a basis to be regarded as doctrine.

I don't care if you have a Catholic Pope locked up in your basement. The Fact is that I Cor. Does not deal with exceptions such as Enoch and Elijah. No explination for them. So you must hold that there is a generalization like when scriptures say the whole world and it means only the whole roman empire. Yet in both cases scriptures don't comment on the exceptions. So are you accusing scriptures of lying since both Enoch and Elijah have not died? Whether in their glorified bodies or not they haven't died. They've both lived beyond the limited 120 mark which was also beated by an old woman in Asia who is 130. Did God Lie? So why are you applying a principle for everyone that is more of a generalization?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The immaculate conception of Mary is used by Rome as supportive argument in its defense of the assumption of Mary. They believe because she was redeemed from birth and kept from committing any personal sin throughout her life time that this made her worthy in part for sharing in the resurrection/glorification with her Son because she was to be raised as "Queen of heaven OVER ALL THINGS" (Catechism of the Catholic Church - 966).

Where is this found in Scripture? The same place the assumption of Mary is found in Scripture. The idea that all of this presumptive dogma (immaculate conception and assumption and co-redemptrix) is the basis for her to rise to the level of "QUEEN OF HEAVEN OVER ALL THINGS" is simply astounding.

Surely, such a highly exalted position among heavenly creatures could not go unnoticed by God in all of the the scriptures as this is paramount not merely as co-redemptrix but a co-ruler with Christ.

In this you are wrong I believe. I believe the reason for the doctrine is generally the same as it was during the Nestorian debate. How to deal with the Nature of Jesus Christ. The Nestorian debate ended with Theotokos or Mother of God to show that Jesus was indeed God rather than a man possessed by God or some weird amalgamation of God and man. So then they got to over thinking as Rome is well known for. Well if the Virgin was the carrier of the Living God for 9 months then its inconceivable that she was engaged in sin or somehow that made the "ark" of the living God unholy. And we know that anyone who even touched the ark of the first covenant would die. Then it stood to reason that the ark of the very incarnate God should be any less holy. Therefore, there must have been an immaculate conception of the Holy Vessle of the Lord. And if immaculately conceived then why suffer the torments of death? Surely death would not apply? Thus the assumption. So, despite your belief of the development of the doctrine I believed it developed from a view of Who Christ is to needing to have a Holy Ark which gave us immaculate conception and the assumption is born from having an immaculate conception. The fact that your development is back wards shows how little you understand what you are arguing against.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Dude, I just explained that if you take this verse as you have you invalidate all of scripture because neither Enoch, nor Elijah have died. And you can argue that they will but in reality you can't find a verse that specifically says their names and that they will die. You have to infer it and its a limited thing since its in apocalyptic literature which is symbolic anyway. So in the end you don't know if Elijah or Enoch with ever die. We only know at this point they haven't.

Dude ya didn't read it to close did ya? Don't jump into error because it "seems" logical.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dude ya didn't read it to close did ya? Don't jump into error because it "seems" logical.

Ok, I read it. The assumption of Mary is different than the dormition of mary. One is Catholic the other is Orthodox. Orthodox believe she died and was raised. Catholics believed she was assumed into heaven before death like Elijah and Enoch. So Glorified bodies are irrelevant to the specific issue at hand. You have an argument agianst the dormition but even then its limited because did Moses have a glorified body at the transfiguration? He was clothed in white and glowed. Its worth looking at.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't care if you have a Catholic Pope locked up in your basement. The Fact is that I Cor. Does not deal with exceptions such as Enoch and Elijah. No explination for them. So you must hold that there is a generalization like when scriptures say the whole world and it means only the whole roman empire. Yet in both cases scriptures don't comment on the exceptions. So are you accusing scriptures of lying since both Enoch and Elijah have not died? Whether in their glorified bodies or not they haven't died. They've both lived beyond the limited 120 mark which was also beated by an old woman in Asia who is 130. Did God Lie? So why are you applying a principle for everyone that is more of a generalization?

How did you know I locked the old Ant-Christ up in my basement??? I thought nobody knew that but me!!!

Your argument is nonsense and you are missing my point. My point is that SCRIPTURE is the basis you have for making them an exception to the general principle of SCRIPTURE in 1 Cor. 15! If the SCRIPTURE said nothing about the departures of Elijah and Enoch you would have no basis to say there is a possible exception to the SCRIPTURAL rule in I Cor. 15. BTW it is your assumption that Elijah or Enoch were glorified becuase the SCRIPTURE does not say they were and so you really don't have any exception to the general rule in I Cor. 15.

Be that as it may. You have NO SCRIPTURE to even suggest that the assumption of Mary is a reality. So, what you have done with Elijah and Enoch you did upon the basis of interpreting INSPIRED scripture but what you have done in regard to Mary has NOTHING inspired as its basis. You just as well to have argued that Mary wore Nike's and drove a motorcycle into heaven as that has as much credibility as the assumption.

Your basis for argumentation has made a great LEAP from scripture to NOTHING as the basis of doctrine. NOTHING validates NOTHING.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In this you are wrong I believe. I believe the reason for the doctrine is generally the same as it was during the Nestorian debate. How to deal with the Nature of Jesus Christ. The Nestorian debate ended with Theotokos or Mother of God to show that Jesus was indeed God rather than a man possessed by God or some weird amalgamation of God and man. So then they got to over thinking as Rome is well known for. Well if the Virgin was the carrier of the Living God for 9 months then its inconceivable that she was engaged in sin or somehow that made the "ark" of the living God unholy. And we know that anyone who even touched the ark of the first covenant would die. Then it stood to reason that the ark of the very incarnate God should be any less holy. Therefore, there must have been an immaculate conception of the Holy Vessle of the Lord. And if immaculately conceived then why suffer the torments of death? Surely death would not apply? Thus the assumption. So, despite your belief of the development of the doctrine I believed it developed from a view of Who Christ is to needing to have a Holy Ark which gave us immaculate conception and the assumption is born from having an immaculate conception. The fact that your development is back wards shows how little you understand what you are arguing against.

Your Argument is with the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph #966 as they are the ones who use these things as supportive arguments for the assumption of Mary not me! They are the ones who argue that this gave her a standing equal to the Son in heaven as "QUEEN OVER ALL THINGS." Your argument is with those who produced this Catechism, not me, as I only quoted their words.

His own body was the "tabernacle" or container of the divine nature and therefore the immaculate conception is PHILOSOPHICALLY unnecessary plus it is UNBIBLICAL. This whole thing is nothing more than philosophical speculation without a shred of Biblical support.

Mary claims the need of a "Savior" and no sinless being needs a Savior. The Roman Catholic interpretation of her salvation infers that Mary understood that she was "redeemed at birth" or else her claim for a "Savior" makes no sense viewed from the Roman Catholic angle. Is there any inspired account of such knowledge passed down to her from her parents or from God to her??? No! Pure speculation. The scriptures do make it clear she had other children and they were not by virigin birth and so the whole Catholic PHILOSOPHICAL speculation is proven to be false by the Scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok, I read it. The assumption of Mary is different than the dormition of mary. One is Catholic the other is Orthodox. Orthodox believe she died and was raised. Catholics believed she was assumed into heaven before death like Elijah and Enoch. So Glorified bodies are irrelevant to the specific issue at hand. You have an argument agianst the dormition but even then its limited because did Moses have a glorified body at the transfiguration? He was clothed in white and glowed. Its worth looking at.

Angels take the appearance of human bodies also in Scripture when made visible to men. The Scriptures plainly say that God "buried" the body of Moses. The scriptures nowhere say that either Elijah or Enoch received glorified bodies. The Bible simply says that God took Enoch and he was not. The Bible simply says that a heavenly chariot took Elijah. Anything more than that is GUESS WORK.

Jesus is said to be the "firstborn" not "second" or "thirdborn" but "FIRSTborn" and "firstfruit" from the dead - meaning he was the first to receive a glorfied body after death. Elijah and Enoch are never said to have received glorified bodies anywhere in scripture and thus there is no foundation that Mary is an exception.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your Argument is with the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph #966 as they are the ones who use these things as supportive arguments for the assumption of Mary not me! They are the ones who argue that this gave her a standing equal to the Son in heaven as "QUEEN OVER ALL THINGS." Your argument is with those who produced this Catechism, not me, as I only quoted their words.

His own body was the "tabernacle" or container of the divine nature and therefore the immaculate conception is PHILOSOPHICALLY unnecessary plus it is UNBIBLICAL. This whole thing is nothing more than philosophical speculation without a shred of Biblical support.

Mary claims the need of a "Savior" and no sinless being needs a Savior. The Roman Catholic interpretation of her salvation infers that Mary understood that she was "redeemed at birth" or else her claim for a "Savior" makes no sense viewed from the Roman Catholic angle. Is there any inspired account of such knowledge passed down to her from her parents or from God to her??? No! Pure speculation. The scriptures do make it clear she had other children and they were not by virigin birth and so the whole Catholic PHILOSOPHICAL speculation is proven to be false by the Scriptures.

You misapply the catachism. They only show connections in their theology not the development of their theology. And even in the section you mention it states

Step(1)"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, Step (2)was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and Step (3)exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:


In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

Bolded mine. So we see even in this short passage a clue to the development of the doctrine. Which starts with the Nature of Christ and goes to a holy ark (immaculate concieved) then to a ever living experience (assumption) in exultation (Queen). You see how the development works. I attribute it to over thinking.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Angels take the appearance of human bodies also in Scripture when made visible to men. The Scriptures plainly say that God "buried" the body of Moses. The scriptures nowhere say that either Elijah or Enoch received glorified bodies. The Bible simply says that God took Enoch and he was not. The Bible simply says that a heavenly chariot took Elijah. Anything more than that is GUESS WORK.

Jesus is said to be the "firstborn" not "second" or "thirdborn" but "FIRSTborn" and "firstfruit" from the dead - meaning he was the first to receive a glorfied body after death. Elijah and Enoch are never said to have received glorified bodies anywhere in scripture and thus there is no foundation that Mary is an exception.

There is no foundation otherwise either. The only real argument you have is that if a general rule applies then exceptions to the rule must be indicated in scripture. However, if the incidents occured after scripture was writen then the argument is a non sequitur.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You misapply the catachism. They only show connections in their theology not the development of their theology. And even in the section you mention it states
Bolded mine. So we see even in this short passage a clue to the development of the doctrine. Which starts with the Nature of Christ and goes to a holy ark (immaculate concieved) then to a ever living experience (assumption) in exultation (Queen). You see how the development works. I attribute it to over thinking.

The author(s) of the catechism are giving more than logical sequences but are using the logical sequences to argue for a developed doctrine by these sequences. Absolute proof that more than a logical sequence is provided are the words:

"so that she might be" which indicate the author is using the sequences in developing an argument for the doctrine of assumption.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The author(s) of the catechism are giving more than logical sequences but are using the logical sequences to argue for a developed doctrine by these sequences. Absolute proof that more than a logical sequence is provided are the words:

"so that she might be" which indicate the author is using the sequences in developing an argument for the doctrine of assumption.

I think that you make more of "so she might be". that phrase seems consequential of the previous occurances.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is no foundation otherwise either. The only real argument you have is that if a general rule applies then exceptions to the rule must be indicated in scripture. However, if the incidents occured after scripture was writen then the argument is a non sequitur.

I can't figure out whether you cannot read or you just want to be unnecessarily contentious. I just provided a scriptural foundation that says Jesus was the "FIRST" born from the dead or the first to receive a glorified body and the "FIRST" fruit from the resurrection. That would imply that Enoch and Elijah were not the "FIRST" to receive glorified bodies. Second, Paul's next order of those to receive glorified bodies is at "his coming." Hence, that denies Mary a glorified body in the GAP between His glorified body and those at "his coming."

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

Perhaps you have not noticed that I am making my arguments USING SCRIPTURE in regard to specific statements "FIRST" and "AFTERWARD.... at His coming." These are not complex words but they are very definitive TIME words.

However, what Scriptures do you have that present, defend or justify the assumption of Mary? NOTHING! Do these scriptural terms and statements at the very minimum give an inference that scriptures do not recognize any kind of glorification of any body between the "FIRST" born and "AFTERWARD tey that are Christ's at His coming"? YES! Do they explicitly deny any such glorification in the gap between the "FIRST" and "AFTERWARD at his coming"? YES! If you take "FIRST" as "FIRST" and if you take "AFTERWARD" at his coming" to mean that after the "FIRST" the next are those "AT HIS COMING."

To say this is not a comprehensive statement is false:

"EVERY MAN in his OWN ORDER"

So for you to say the scriptures do not present any evidence to deny the assumption of Mary is false.

You have no such explicit evidence to prove ANY EXCEPTION to this explicitly stated scripture as this text is inclusive of "EVERY MAN." I was simply being generous in my consideration of Elijah and Enoch but there is NOTHING said about them concerning receiving glorified bodies before Christ - NOTHING

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think that you make more of "so she might be". that phrase seems consequential of the previous occurances.

Certainly it is consequential but at the same time the writer is developing a case for her being the "QUEEN OVER ALL THINGS" and everything preceding this conclusion is sequential to support coming to this conclusion which is heretical and based on the same NOTHING as everything leading up to it is based upon NOTHING.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Certainly it is consequential but at the same time the writer is developing a case for her being the "QUEEN OVER ALL THINGS" and everything preceding this conclusion is sequential to support coming to this conclusion which is heretical and based on the same NOTHING as everything leading up to it is based upon NOTHING.

Obviously he makes a case for that point but note how its used in the sentence."to be more conformed into the image of Christ" Thus the begining of the doctrine stems from what is believed about Christ and thereby putting restrictions on what must be to maintain holiness which as I've stated is over thinking the whole issue. Which is one of the problems I have with Rome. Rome, I believe, tends to make mountains of mole hills.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I can't figure out whether you cannot read or you just want to be unnecessarily contentious. I just provided a scriptural foundation that says Jesus was the "FIRST" born from the dead or the first to receive a glorified body and the "FIRST" fruit from the resurrection. That would imply that Enoch and Elijah were not the "FIRST" to receive glorified bodies. Second, Paul's next order of those to receive glorified bodies is at "his coming." Hence, that denies Mary a glorified body in the GAP between His glorified body and those at "his coming."

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

Perhaps you have not noticed that I am making my arguments USING SCRIPTURE in regard to specific statements "FIRST" and "AFTERWARD.... at His coming." These are not complex words but they are very definitive TIME words.

However, what Scriptures do you have that present, defend or justify the assumption of Mary? NOTHING! Do these scriptural terms and statements at the very minimum give an inference that scriptures do not recognize any kind of glorification of any body between the "FIRST" born and "AFTERWARD tey that are Christ's at His coming"? YES! Do they explicitly deny any such glorification in the gap between the "FIRST" and "AFTERWARD at his coming"? YES! If you take "FIRST" as "FIRST" and if you take "AFTERWARD" at his coming" to mean that after the "FIRST" the next are those "AT HIS COMING."

To say this is not a comprehensive statement is false:

"EVERY MAN in his OWN ORDER"

So for you to say the scriptures do not present any evidence to deny the assumption of Mary is false.

You have no such explicit evidence to prove ANY EXCEPTION to this explicitly stated scripture as this text is inclusive of "EVERY MAN." I was simply being generous in my consideration of Elijah and Enoch but there is NOTHING said about them concerning receiving glorified bodies before Christ - NOTHING

I think you make too much of that passage of scripture. Scripture as you've pointed out notes that Jesus is the first of the resurrection but this isn't the case. many people were ressurected before Christ. So, in this sense I think you misapply scripture. Certainly Jesus is the prime ressurection. As far as Glorified bodies, I brought up Moses and Elijah at the Mount of Transfiguration to show that this also is also problematic for you perspective. I'm not trying to be intentionly contentious but I of course think the scripture at this point is being mistreated.