Featured Is it idolatry?

Walpole,

Three brief things.

[1] I don't think that you really want an answer. I think you are using the above question to prove that Protestants are flawed or wrong or hypocritical. I don't say that judgingly. I've employed the same questioning technique to do the same thing and I've seen people on every message board I've ever been on do the same thing. People don't always want answers to their questions. They makes statements and prove points and show others at fault. C'est la vie, Walpole. Just saying that to show you have been given good answers and rejected them with no critical reasoning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



[2] Your second question changes the whole scope of what you are talking about in your first question. I told you that we as Protestants don't treat the Lord's Supper in the manner that you've stated. You said you didn't care what we did. That told me all I needed to know about your quest here. You came here to "tell us" what we believe and then when we correct you, you stand hip-deep in your error of us and refuse to listen. The contents of the first question is valid. There are some Catholic people who adore, revere, and venerate to the point of kissing and treating as holy mere physical objects. That IS idolatry. The classic definition. And there are probably some Protestant people who do the same things with their objects of religion in their homes. Maybe not kissing them, but putting them in places of "honor".

For Protestants, what we consume just a piece of bread and a plastic cup of grape juice from the grocery store. It's going the way of all things consumed the way that Jesus described it in the Bible when talking about what makes us defiled or not. That cracker and grape juice is no more the body and blood of Christ than a pencil is. It goes in our mouths and comes out of the body as waste - as Jesus said in Matthew 15. We do not respect, venerate, adore, hold as holy, or revere the cracker and the grape juice. You claim that we do venerate it. Your claim is wrong. We are remembering Christ, his death, and his sacrifice for our sins and reflecting on our own sin and repenting of it. We aren't concentrating on that cracker/juice. We focus on Christ who is NOT in the cracker and NOT in the juice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



[3] If you REALLY want an answer as to whether or not the Lord's Supper is idolatry or not, you are going to have to seek the Lord, Himself on this matter. Do you really believe Jesus Christ would institute idolatry? It sound like you do as you claim not to understand why it is NOT idolatry.

Jesus Christ had this meal with his disciples before he died to give instructions on how to repeat this AS A MEMORIAL after he was gone. As I told you in my first post on the first page. The Old Testament of FULL of the people forgetting and forgetting and forgetting. And God commanding them to eat the Passover meal to NEVER forget. When you forget what God and Jesus Christ has done for you - you fall prey to the devil.

THAT'S WHAT THE LORD'S SUPPER IS ABOUT. Just like what the Passover meal was and is about. It's about keeping Christ in the forefront of one's mind and to do that corporately with other Christians.

Go to God with this burden you have. And if it is really NOT a burden and you are only trying to make us look like idolaters - I can't help you with that and neither can anyone else here.

 

No. As I stated, I believe this is spoken of in tge context if a covenant.

Cor 11:22 affirms this was not a gathering to eat a cracker and drink a thimble of wine. It was a meal. The passage you reference evidence this as Paul's prohibition was not the meak itself but the focus of the meal (some ate well, others not so much).

Years ago I brought the subject up to a priest. I said that the practice of communion as practiced by the Catholic Church is borrowed from 1st century Roman paganism. The priest acknowledged this (which surprised me). His explanation was this pagan ritual was purified by the Church when adopted as communion.

I respect the explanation, although I believe the practice wrong. I respected the honesty of the priest most of all.

Scripture does not offer enough information to cover every aspect of the Supper. We know what Christ said (which does not explain it as an ordinance or sacrament). We know it was (in Scripture) a supper. But that's about it.

I suggest the supposed purpose for the Supper influences our interpretation of the elements. All we are told is it is a remembrance. So here Scripture is not dogmatic either.

 

Don't forget that by this time Jesus has already told the Disciples what was going to occur.

 

Roman paganism was more a matter of patriotism. Christians were afforded tge opportunity to partake of the host (to eat of the meat and drink of the wine as an act of worship and participation with the god). Rome did not object to Christianity because it worshipped God. It objected because they did not worship their gods.

The pagan worship is very close to the RCC sacraments. The idea was that the gods worked through ritual (or sacrament) as a means.

In and of itself this proves nothing - which is fine as that was not my intention. God does use yhings that are meaningful to the surrounding culture (we can see this in Hebrew vs ANE practice).

Regardless, I think it at least obvious that Roman paganism influenced RCC interpretation of the sacraments. We cannot ignore that over two centuries passed between the early church and the arrival of the RCC.

 

In a way, there was a type of religion (I believe an original knowledge of God) pre-ANE as we know it. The Hebrew faith occured from within an ANE context. The Christian faith is, of course, derived from a pre-Hebrew faith (Abraham).

The RCC faith is a third century amalgamate of Roman paganism and Christianity. The question people cannot agree on is whether or not this amalgamation is divinely construsted or a corruption of the Christian faith. I believe the latter to be the case (I believe the RCC was born apostate by its very nature).

But a lot depends on authority. If Scripture is the source then there are issues for the RCC. BUT if the RCC is the authority then only it's interpretation of Scripture is applicable and only secondary to the RCC itself.

 

The ultimate question is authority (and even with agreement here interpretation varies).

The authority for the RCC is the RCC (not Scripture). The authority for Protestants is, generally, Scripture. But then there is still the issue of interpretation.