RC claims to Idolatry in the Mass

[BobRyan]

The Faith Explained pg 351
(A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II)

If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”

The point made is that IF you are viewing the RC mass as a non-RC who believes in the Bible - then you must consider that they are practicing idolatry.

I am inclined to believe them regarding the view that a non-RC "must" have view of their practice.

Some have concluded that these kinds of pagan practices make Cahtolics "non-Christian" - I do not agree with that.

However it does raise some questions:

#1. How do you view their claim above - that they are practicing idolatry IF the bread is NOT in fact turned into Christ HIMSELF - but merely represents Christ?? Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?

#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.

Ideas? Thoughts?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

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.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Faith Explained pg 351
(A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II)

If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”

The point made is that IF you are viewing the RC mass as a non-RC who believes in the Bible...

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.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

#1. How do you view their claim above - that they are practicing idolatry IF the bread is NOT in fact turned into Christ HIMSELF - but merely represents Christ?? Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?

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.

#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.

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.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Faith Explained pg 351
(A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II)

If He would not really be present under those appearances (bread), the worshipers Would be ‘adoring’ a mere piece of bread, AND Would be Guilty of idolatry”

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.

The point made is that IF you are viewing the RC mass as a non-RC who believes in the Bible - then you must consider that they are practicing idolatry.

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".

Some have concluded that these kinds of pagan practices make Cahtolics "non-Christian" - I do not agree with that.

However it does raise some questions:

#1. How do you view their claim above - that they are practicing idolatry IF the bread is NOT in fact turned into Christ HIMSELF - but merely represents Christ?? Do you accept the FE conclusion about the implication of such an error?

#2. If that practice or if praying-to-the-dead etc are considered "pagan" then how much "paganism" can a Christian denomination "get by with" and still be Christian.

Ideas? Thoughts?

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.

 

[BobRyan]

The quote - is exact aside from capital lettering. (Hopefully Trying2Understand can still read the words - although some are in upper case.)

Most of the RC reponses have been "what if the RCC is right - then we are ok". And of course - we agree that IF the RCC traditions on this topic are correct - then there is no issue of idolatry. And the book FE also takes that view as well (obviously).

The point of the thread is to investigate the fact that what is being practiced is idolatry IF you find that the RCC tradition regarding the bread is "error". (which most non-Catholic groups consider to be the case).

What then can the non-RC conclude? The FE article makes the point clear and simple. The ONLY conclusion in that case - is that the RCC is promoting idolatry. And I for one - agree with the FE on that point. (Even though Trying2Understand would like to pretend that this is just too hard a concept to understand).

However, just because the RCC is promoting that error does not mean that I do not consider Catholics to fail to be Christians.

This opens the door for the discussion on "how much paganism is too much"?

I am "presuming" from the RC responses here - that THEY would NOT consider such an "error" to be within the bounds of a Christian. That IF they found that the RCC was indeed in error on this point - and thus agreed with the FE article on the "implications of such an error" - THEN they would not consider the RCC to be a Christian organization. Is that the case?

AS for Christ insisting that His flesh was literal food in John 6 long before dying on the cross --- only the unfaithful disciples in John 6 took that view of His words.

His "own summary" was that "Flesh is literally worthless" and that the WORDS of Christ were that which brought eternal life - NOT taking literal mouthfulls of his flesh as He stood teaching the people.

But - I am sure that is a very difficult concept "for some" and might be reserved for another thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

GraceSaves said --
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.

Yes - I agree that is the story and if it were true - then the problem of idolatry is solved.

My point was that you have to alrady "be Catholic" to view it that way.

Therefore - for non-Catholics - such as most of those on this board - the FE consideration of the "implications of the RCC being in error on that point" are very "significant" since that is in fact our position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The point of the thread is to investigate the fact that what is being practiced is idolatry IF you find that the RCC tradition regarding the bread is "error". (which most non-Catholic groups consider to be the case).

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.

 

[BobRyan]

It is "a given" that non-Catholics would find the RC teaching about the bread and their practice of adoring it to be "in error". Nothing "new" there.

The question that can be answered depends on your starting point.

#1. If you are Catholic - and you already "see the point" made in the FE about how a non-Catholic must view your practice... what "degree of freedom" should they (non-Catholics) allow for such "idolatry" before considering that "some idolatry is not Christian"?

In other words - if some "other group" starts worshipping trees as though they ARE Christ for some reason that these non-Catholics would "also considere to be error" - would Catholics recommend to a non-Catholic that this new error be "Accepted as Christian" just as they should accept Catholic practices as "Christian" even though they (the non-Catholics) would see them to be in error.

i.e. - would you give others the same "degree of freedom" in "error" that you would expect non-Catholics to give you?

#2. If you are NOT catholic - then the question is - do you agree with the FE's own conclusion on their practices IF one is convinced (as most non-Catholics are) that the RCC is in error?

And - how "Far" can a church go into areas that you are calling "idolatry" or "pagan" and still be "a Christian Denomination"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
It is "a given" that non-Catholics would find the RC teaching about the bread and their practice of adoring it to be "in error". Nothing "new" there.

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?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Ideas? Thoughts?

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

 

[tragic_pizza]

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

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:

Simply to, for instance, bow to an image/statue, is not to NECESSARILY worship that image or statue.

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

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
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. [/QB]

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!

...in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. Apology to the Augsburg Confession

 

[Ray Berrian]

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?

 

[gb93433]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
It is "a given" that non-Catholics would find the RC teaching about the bread and their practice of adoring it to be "in error". Nothing "new" there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MikeS said --
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."

True - but remember - the "New Covenant" is "defined" by the traditions of the Catholic church to be "confined" to the "Catholic Mass" and hence - no "open communion".

Even the RCC sees the Catholic Mass as "distinctly different" from the non-Catholic communion service.

To "pretend" that a non-Catholic would not "notice" that these are "very different" is to give the non-catholic "less" awareness than the Catholic Church gives itself.

MikeS said --
Why, in non-Catholic eyes, does the Catholic Church get so much right? if it a false or apostate religion?

An apostate church is one that WAS right but then apostatized into error. The One True Hebrew nation church went into apostacy (read Mark 7 first 11 verses) and was already there by the time Christ began His ministry. That does not mean that "everything they taught" was error.

In fact - the Christian Church today STILL holds to a literal 7 day creation week, the literal fall of man, literal creation, literal Garden of Eden etc etc. All this was taught by the ONE TRUE Hebrew Nation Church - and although they did go into apostacy they held to these truths until very recent times.

Just because a church goes into error does not mean that "everything it teaches will be error".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?