Bread Worship

[DHK]

So you are saying that Jesus was ripping off the pagans when he said this is my body? Interesting.

Who is to say that the Pagans haven't ripped off God? It is well documented that many pagan religions can trace their origins back to half truths based on Divine revelation. Your statements about the early church do not match with historical records, part of the Christian persecution was based on the charge of supposed cannabilism. A charge that would not have come about if the christians believed it was a glorified coffee and donut fellowship hour.

Your answer is very flippant and hardly worth an answer when you show no respect or reverence for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of Lords--who so loved the world that he came and died for it. Your charge is "that he ripped people off." I would call that blasphemy. And I will just stop there.

 

[Chemnitz]

Your answer is very flippant and hardly worth an answer when you show no respect or reverence for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of Lords--who so loved the world that he came and died for it. Your charge is "that he ripped people off." I would call that blasphemy. And I will just stop there.

Funny, I never said he ripped anybody off. Merely asked if that was what you were saying. In fact, I believe that pagans have ripped off God.

 

[D28guy]

Lori4dogs,

"What is sad is that you have no understanding of what the Church of Rome teaches about Mary, the Mass, the Rosary, etc."

Do you believe the moonies, Hari Krishnas, Scientologists, and other cultists who say to outsiders..."oh, you just dont understand what we *really* believe, and what our group is *really* about"?

Actually, it is those like myself who DO have an understanding of what is going on in the Catholic Church. In adition to being born and raised as a Catholic, I have spent much time in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Catechism, The Council of Trent teachings, the official Catholic Church website, watching the priests and Catholic apologists teach on EWTN, etc etc etc.

They are among the most cunningly decepetive decievers I've ever seen.

"That church does not, nor ever has taught people to worship Mary."

Yes they do. She is referred to as the "Queen of Heaven" and the "Queen of the Universe". She is viewed as being omnipresent. Pope John Paul II prayed to her and entrusted the enter world into her care, and entreater her to save all the lost. Their are sites in various parts of the world where demons have masquaraded as Mary. Catholics by the millions travel the world to those sites to worship Mary, hoping they might be granted a vision or apparation from the goddess Mary.

In many countries across the world statues of Mary are "high and lifted up" and paraded through the streets of the city, as thousands of people are in rapturous extacy as they engage in their goddess worship.

I know what the Catholic apologists say. The decievers of the Catholic church have decided that they can decieve people more if they tell them "Why, we dont *worship* Mary, we *venerate*(wink) her". They say..."See? Its a completly different word!"

Just calling it by a different name. Could your children get away with that, Lori? How many times have kids...when caught stealing something...shuffle their feet nervously and say "Oh, I didnt steal it...I borrowed it! See?"

You can not wiggle out of something, by just calling it a different name, Lori. If I shot and killed one of your dogs, and you confronted me, would you be OK with me saying "Oh, I didnt kill your dog, Lori. I "blifted" it. See? Its a completly different word!"

How would that fly?

The Catholic Church has spent the better part of the last 1700 years carefully cultivating Goddess Worship, and turning her victims into Goddess worshippers.

"You need to forget what you think you know and actually do some reading. I suggest you try reading the Catholic Catechism or visit a Catholic apologetics sites such as http://www.catholic.org to find out what the church actually believes. I'm not a Roman Catholic but I believe in being fair."

As I noted above, I have been doing that for a long long time. The more I check out Catholic aplogetics, the more clear their idolatries and blasphemies become.

"I used to think just like you do now when I was a Baptist. I started visiting this board and learned over the years what that church actually teaches."

Be very careful, Lori. Be very very careful. They have had 1700 years to perfect the deception. And btw...just because I'm saying these things in such a straightforward manner doesnt mean I'm implying that they deliberatly gather and plot to decieve.

THEY are decieved. And they have become very good at propagating the deceptions.



None of this pleases me. It grieves me in my heart and I wish it were not so.

But it is.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[mrtumnus]

That is the contradiction. When the RCC came into existence in the fourth century during the time of Constantine so did idolatry. You have just demonstrated that transubstantiation is a copy cat pagan practice. It was never practiced in the NT, or by early believers. It was always symbolic in nature. It is metaphorical in nature just like Jesus saying, "I am the door." But when the RCC let paganism into the Church, then Christianity, so-called, became paganized.
And thus your form of pagan transubstantiation.

Actually Justin Martyr demonstrates quite well (written over 100 years before Constantine is even born) that the pagan practice is a copy cat of the Christian Eucharist. Interestingly enough, his "Apology" was written in defense of Christianity, which was being charged with 'cannibalism' among other things.

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

 

[lori4dogs]

D28Guy

Hello Mike:

Thanks for responding to my post. Although we have gotten a bit off topic on the subject of the Eucharist, I hope that we can discuss these issues over time.

Just as I did not start out believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist I also saw things regarding the Roman Church as you presently do. I now know a lot of Catholics in my area and believe them to be truly born again. Where I live the Catholic Churches are deeply committed to evangelization. Several of my friends were saved in Catholic Churches. I am sorry that your experiences in that church have been so negative.

You might want to give some thought about what you accuse that church regarding "worshipping Mary". It is very presumptious to say that they don't really mean 'veneration' when they say they do. The church has bent over backwards in its catechism to instruct people in the difference between veneration and worship (adoration).

I also take issue with what you call 'vain repetition' of prayers in praying the rosary. Repetitious prayers are not the issue but ones recited vainly. I will leave that judgement to God as only He knows the heart of the person praying. The rosary is a form of contemplative prayers. I never even had a clue what that was as a Baptist.

As I said, we are definately off the topic here but I look forward to discussions with you regarding teachings of the RC that you find so offensive. Thanks for the time you took in responding to my post.

 

[cowboymatt]

There is an old Baptist expression which says 'the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it. Well for some reason, Baptist just don't want to believe it when it comes to the Lords Supper. One reason I believe the words Christ spoke are not in metaphoric language as they are in "I am the vine, you are the branches" is because it is clear in another passage. Others have clearly explained in this thread why the words of institution do no fit this metaphoric view you want to embrace.

If the Bible were not clear enough itself, the Early Church Fathers make it clear that they believed the bread and the wine were more than mere symbols. Does I Cor. 10:16 not make it clear that the Lords Supper is not just a symbolic observance? DHK's explanation still assumes that the elements are merely symbolic. Nothing in the text would lead us to think that without first assuming it to be so. DHK also poo-poo's the Early Church Fathers. That is unfortunate.

You, and many others, have claimed that there is definitive evidence that the Church Fathers all agreed regarding the Lord's Supper. This simply isn't true. Check out this excerpt from a website intended for Catholics curious about becoming evangelicals:

It is simply not true that the church “always believed” the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Please study the following quotations; they prove that some Church Fathers considered the Eucharist as the figure, sign, symbol and likeness of the body and blood of Christ.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.)

For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. (Theodoret, Dialogue II, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

For the Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body. (Augustine, Against Adimant.)

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III.)

He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood. (Augustine, on Psalm 3.)

We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica.)

To You we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you, unto the remission of sins.” (Anaphora, quoted in Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, II, p 132.)

Offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.)

Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries. (Pope Gelasius, de Duabus Naturis).

Thus some influential Church Fathers considered the bread and wine as sacred symbols of the body and blood of Jesus. Others did not. The view of other Fathers (Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, etc) were similar to, and later developed into, the doctrine of transubstantiation. There wasn’t a unanimous understanding among the Fathers on the nature of the eucharistic elements.[SOURCE]

The last sentence in the quote is very instructive for the purposes of this thread.

In other words, to denigrate the metaphor position by stating that it didn't start until Zwingli is wrong. It has been around for a very long time, and it finds some support from very import early theologians, such as Tertullian and Augustine.

 

[mrtumnus]

You, and many others, have claimed that there is definitive evidence that the Church Fathers all agreed regarding the Lord's Supper. This simply isn't true. Check out this excerpt from a website intended for Catholics curious about becoming evangelicals:



The last sentence in the quote is very instructive for the purposes of this thread.

In other words, to denigrate the metaphor position by stating that it didn't start until Zwingli is wrong. It has been around for a very long time, and it finds some support from very import early theologians, such as Tertullian and Augustine.

Hi cowboymatt. I don't have time to research all of these by any means, but I did take a quick look at the two by Augustine.

Regarding the reference to Psalm 3, in context this is not a disseration on Augustine's belief in the Eucharist, but merely a quick reference in which he uses the term 'figure' while discussing something else.

Regarding the first in the confessions, it appears that Augustine does indeed take John 6 to mean figuratively.

However, there is an abundance of evidence that he did not believe "This is my body" to be taken figuratively at all. There are many quotes that support his belief in the real presence in the Eucharist. So read in the context of his works, concluding that Augustine supported the idea that the bread and wine are mere symbols would be incorrect.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Said,
"That church does not, nor ever has taught people to worship Mary."

Go to Spain or Portugal, and tell those people this. Just make sure you have planned an escape route, or you will be dead.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Someone said this thread has gone off topic. Topics like this one should inevitably go 'off topic', simply because it is not even discussable from the Bible and the Bible only; other authorities are in charge in cases like this. Then, as far as I am concerned, the discussion is born still. Much the better for it! But think people would accept? no; they go off-topic to keep it alive artificially - with cunningness, that is.

 

[Matt Black]

Eusebius was not a real Christian. He openly advocated lying and deception to further the cause of the newly formed Roman Catholic church under Constantine.

Take, for example, Eusebius who was an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg].
In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity" (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

Eusebius also did not believe in the Lordship of Christ or the Trinity. When Constantine picked Eusebius to make up 50 bibles for the newly formed Roman catholic church, Eusebius used the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts which don't have 1John 5:7 (KJV) because he didn't believe in the trinity. So the main reason for the Alexandrian corrupted manuscripts being mixed into the modern bibles and the catholic bibles is because of Eusebius. He refused to use the majority text, textus receptus because of 1John 5:7.
If Eusebius said, Ignatius was all right, then that is good reason to think he was not allright. Because Eusebius was not a real Christian.
To be a real Christian requires repentance of sins like lying and belief in the Lordship of Christ. Eusebius lacked both.

That information about Eusebius can be found among these references:

References:
CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112
Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick
For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria read these books:
WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies,
2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503
GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O. Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box 7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the eye opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401

Please explain exactly how Constantine 'founded' the Roman Catholic Church, using unbiased contemporary source documents ie: not whackos like Jack Chick.

PS No Greek MS of the Johannine comma exists prior to the 16th century, so you're wrong about that too. The first Latin version of the comma is found in the Bible produced by that arch-Catholic, Jerome, the Vulgate.

Do try us with some facts in instead of leftfield opinions...

 

[Eliyahu]

If anyone claim that the Bread is turned to be Flesh, he or she must be believing like these Jews:

John 2
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

 

[Chemnitz]

Cowboymatt, the person who posted those quotes didn't do their homework. Augustine's use of sign is very specific, he goes into great detail in defining his meaning in his work on Christian Doctrine, you can check it out at www.ccel.org. Usually, when Augustine is talking about signs and figures, he is talking about words, or as he says things which conjure up ideas in our minds of which the cheif is words which is our major concern for that is what Holy Scripture is made up of. I suspect somebody did a word search or saw this quote and didn't think that maybe he wasn't a closet baptist and meant something other than contemporary usage.

 

[lori4dogs]

Said,
"That church does not, nor ever has taught people to worship Mary."

Go to Spain or Portugal, and tell those people this. Just make sure you have planned an escape route, or you will be dead.

So you are saying the Catholic Church in Spain and Portugal teaches that people should worship Mary? If you are going to make this claim then you should be able to provide evidence. Can you?

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

If anyone claim that the Bread is turned to be Flesh, he or she must be believing like these Jews:

John 2
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

What always amazes me is the way these people spiritualize the Bible everywhere else and criticized fundamentalists for literalism and then literalize various texts that are obviously to be taken figuratively, spiritually, or metaphorically.

Satan is a great deceiver. Some people sure make his work easy. In fact, they seem to help him deceive themselves.
:tear: raying:

 

[DHK]

Actually Justin Martyr demonstrates quite well (written over 100 years before Constantine is even born) that the pagan practice is a copy cat of the Christian Eucharist. Interestingly enough, his "Apology" was written in defense of Christianity, which was being charged with 'cannibalism' among other things.

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

New Flash: There is no "Christian Eucharist," only a pagan one. The RCC "eucharist" is pagan. We celebrate the Lord's Table with bread and wine (grape juice to be precise--but we will leave that for another discussion).
The bread is symbolic of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The wine is symbolic of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That doesn't change no matter what others say.

The word "Eucharist" as used by the RCC is not in the Bible. There is a Greek word similar to Eucharist in the Greek. But it in no way resembles any part of a Communion Service or the Lord's Table. I will summarize some of it for you.

1. eucharistos is used only once (Col.3:15), translated as "thankful."

2. eucharistew is used 39 times.
12 times it is translated as "thank."
1 time is it is translated as "be thankful."
26 times it is translated as "give thanks."

3. eucharistia is used 15 times.
9 times it is translated as "thanskgiving."
3 times it is translated as "giving of thanks (incl 1Cor.14:16)
2 times it is translated as "thanks."
1 time it is translated as "thanfulness."

To get the RCC concept of "the Eucharist" out of the Greek word "eucharistos" is absurd. It isn't in the Bible. Thus Justin Martyr doesn't prove a thing does he? There is no Eucharist in the Bible, only "giving of thanks" and being thankful. Those are great concepts but they have nothing to do with the unsciptural concept of transubstantiation.

 

[Chemnitz]

New Flash: There is no "Christian Eucharist," only a pagan one. The RCC "eucharist" is pagan. We celebrate the Lord's Table with bread and wine (grape juice to be precise--but we will leave that for another discussion).
The bread is symbolic of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The wine is symbolic of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That doesn't change no matter what others say.

The word "Eucharist" as used by the RCC is not in the Bible. There is a Greek word similar to Eucharist in the Greek. But it in no way resembles any part of a Communion Service or the Lord's Table. I will summarize some of it for you.

1. eucharistos is used only once (Col.3:15), translated as "thankful."

2. eucharistew is used 39 times.
12 times it is translated as "thank."
1 time is it is translated as "be thankful."
26 times it is translated as "give thanks."

3. eucharistia is used 15 times.
9 times it is translated as "thanskgiving."
3 times it is translated as "giving of thanks (incl 1Cor.14:16)
2 times it is translated as "thanks."
1 time it is translated as "thanfulness."

To get the RCC concept of "the Eucharist" out of the Greek word "eucharistos" is absurd. It isn't in the Bible. Thus Justin Martyr doesn't prove a thing does he? There is no Eucharist in the Bible, only "giving of thanks" and being thankful. Those are great concepts but they have nothing to do with the unsciptural concept of transubstantiation.

The term eucharist in reference to Holy Communion originated from the eucharistic prayer (Prayer of THanksgiving) given just prior to the words of institution. It eventually overtime was used to synonymously with communion. Some Lutheran liturgies retain a version of this prayer in their communion services.

 

[mrtumnus]

New Flash: There is no "Christian Eucharist," only a pagan one. The RCC "eucharist" is pagan. We celebrate the Lord's Table with bread and wine (grape juice to be precise--but we will leave that for another discussion).
The bread is symbolic of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The wine is symbolic of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That doesn't change no matter what others say.

The word "Eucharist" as used by the RCC is not in the Bible. There is a Greek word similar to Eucharist in the Greek. But it in no way resembles any part of a Communion Service or the Lord's Table. I will summarize some of it for you.

1. eucharistos is used only once (Col.3:15), translated as "thankful."

2. eucharistew is used 39 times.
12 times it is translated as "thank."
1 time is it is translated as "be thankful."
26 times it is translated as "give thanks."

3. eucharistia is used 15 times.
9 times it is translated as "thanskgiving."
3 times it is translated as "giving of thanks (incl 1Cor.14:16)
2 times it is translated as "thanks."
1 time it is translated as "thanfulness."

To get the RCC concept of "the Eucharist" out of the Greek word "eucharistos" is absurd. It isn't in the Bible. Thus Justin Martyr doesn't prove a thing does he? There is no Eucharist in the Bible, only "giving of thanks" and being thankful. Those are great concepts but they have nothing to do with the unsciptural concept of transubstantiation.

I understand that your views of this are that the belief in the real presence is pagan. However, I was responding to your comment that:

Originally Posted by DHK
That is the contradiction. When the RCC came into existence in the fourth century during the time of Constantine so did idolatry. You have just demonstrated that transubstantiation is a copy cat pagan practice. It was never practiced in the NT, or by early believers. It was always symbolic in nature. It is metaphorical in nature just like Jesus saying, "I am the door." But when the RCC let paganism into the Church, then Christianity, so-called, became paganized.
And thus your form of pagan transubstantiation.

So while you may believe this is indeed pagan, you cannot also assert that this came into being in the fourth century with Constantine. The references of the majority of the early believers are clear they took it literally, as was noted by the quote on the first page of this thread by Ignatius of Antioch and the one I provided from Justin Martyr. So from your perspective, the early believers who were being martyred for Christ were pagans already, and fell into paganism immediately upon the death of the apostles.

 

[cowboymatt]

Cowboymatt, the person who posted those quotes didn't do their homework. Augustine's use of sign is very specific, he goes into great detail in defining his meaning in his work on Christian Doctrine, you can check it out at www.ccel.org. Usually, when Augustine is talking about signs and figures, he is talking about words, or as he says things which conjure up ideas in our minds of which the cheif is words which is our major concern for that is what Holy Scripture is made up of. I suspect somebody did a word search or saw this quote and didn't think that maybe he wasn't a closet baptist and meant something other than contemporary usage.

You may be right and I, frankly, don't have the time to check it all out.

The point, though, is that it is not correct to say all the church fathers agreed about this or about almost anything (other than the Trinity and the efficacy of Jesus' death). There was a difference of opinion.

 

[D28guy]

Lori4dogs,

"Just as I did not start out believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist I also saw things regarding the Roman Church as you presently do. I now know a lot of Catholics in my area and believe them to be truly born again."

I agree that there are some Catholics who are born of the Spirit and are in Christ. However, its very difficult to be born again while in the Catholic Church due to Gods gospel of pure grace, through faith alone, has been replaced with a false gospel of works. But there are indeed *some* saved people in the CC.

"Where I live the Catholic Churches are deeply committed to evangelization."

But if they are in lock step with Rome they are ingaging in evangelism using a false gospel that can not save.

"Several of my friends were saved in Catholic Churches."

God still works miracles.

"I am sorry that your experiences in that church have been so negative."

I didnt consider my experience growing up Catholic to be negative UNTIL I heard the true gospel, embraced Christ, and was born again. After that, I simply couldnt understand why NOBODY in the Catholic Church ever TOLD ME ABOUT THE GOSPEL!!

I now know why. They vigorously condemn the true gospel as being false, while propagating a false gospel as if it were true..

"You might want to give some thought about what you accuse that church regarding "worshipping Mary". It is very presumptious to say that they don't really mean 'veneration' when they say they do. The church has bent over backwards in its catechism to instruct people in the difference between veneration and worship (adoration)."

Lori, the Catholic Church plays this little word game...(we dont WORSHIP Mary, we VENERATE *wink* her) regarding their idolatrous worship of Mary. These are just little word games, and nothing more. They can call it "veneration" until they are blue in the face, and it will still be worship.

As I said earlier in my earlier post, if I shot and killed one of your dogs, and then told you: "I didnt KILL your dog, Lori. I *clopped * it. See? I didnt kill it at all. Thats a completly different word!"

Would that make your dog any less dead?

One doesnt engage in worship when they decide to CALL it worship, Lori. They engage in worship when the worship takes place. And when Catholics bow to statues of Mary, expect miracles from her, pray to her, consider her to be omnipresent, call her the "Queen of the Universe", the "Queen of Heaven", take pilgrimages to sites all around the world to hope for a visitation or apperition from their "Queen", have city wide clebrations as the worhipers are in rapturous extacy as they carry their molded image of Mary "high and lifted up"...THAT....IS....WORSHP. I couldnt care less what the Catholic Church *calls* it. What they call it is 100% irrelavent.

"I also take issue with what you call 'vain repetition' of prayers in praying the rosary. Repetitious prayers are not the issue but ones recited vainly. I will leave that judgement to God as only He knows the heart of the person praying. The rosary is a form of contemplative prayers. I never even had a clue what that was as a Baptist.

The problem with the rosary is that the primary focus is MARY, as opposed to GOD. I believe the ratio is something like 10 or 15 vain repititions of the "Hail Mary" to every 1 vain repetition to God.(the Our Father)

If Mary is not treated as a goddess, what are they doing praying 10-15 prayers directed to MARY, to every 1 prayed to God???


God bless,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

New Flash: There is no "Christian Eucharist," only a pagan one. The RCC "eucharist" is pagan. We celebrate the Lord's Table with bread and wine (grape juice to be precise--but we will leave that for another discussion).
The bread is symbolic of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The wine is symbolic of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That doesn't change no matter what others say.

The word "Eucharist" as used by the RCC is not in the Bible. There is a Greek word similar to Eucharist in the Greek. But it in no way resembles any part of a Communion Service or the Lord's Table. I will summarize some of it for you.

1. eucharistos is used only once (Col.3:15), translated as "thankful."

2. eucharistew is used 39 times.
12 times it is translated as "thank."
1 time is it is translated as "be thankful."
26 times it is translated as "give thanks."

3. eucharistia is used 15 times.
9 times it is translated as "thanskgiving."
3 times it is translated as "giving of thanks (incl 1Cor.14:16)
2 times it is translated as "thanks."
1 time it is translated as "thanfulness."

To get the RCC concept of "the Eucharist" out of the Greek word "eucharistos" is absurd. It isn't in the Bible. Thus Justin Martyr doesn't prove a thing does he? There is no Eucharist in the Bible, only "giving of thanks" and being thankful. Those are great concepts but they have nothing to do with the unsciptural concept of transubstantiation.

Oh I see: so Ignatius and Justin were pagans, then? So these pagans were dragged to their martyrdoms for their pagan beliefs by other pagans, were they? I guess Christ was wrong when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand", was he?