# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Question: Does desecrating the Eucharist "harm" God in any way?

## eduardo89

*Question: Does desecrating the Eucharist "harm" God in any way? * 




> 29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. 30 *I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me;* 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go hence.
> The "ruler" or "prince" of this world is Satan. Jesus asserts that Satan has no power over Him. I imagine that Satan would have wanted to use all his angelic power to destroy the human nature to which the Word of God was united to in the person of Jesus, but couldn't, not because God prohibited it by some decree, or because Jesus was surrounded by protective angels, no, not at all, but because even Satan understands the abyss between the Creator and the creature, that the abyss between him and God persisted even after the incarnation, and that such an action would have been less than futile. Ridiculous, in fact, and the devil hates to be held in ridicule. To this day, the impossibility of  Satan destroying God in the Flesh, of not even influencing Him through temptation, drives the devil into a furious rage to this day.

----------


## wizardwatson

I just consider all that mocking God.

No different than the crown of thorns or writing 'King of the Jews' on his crucifix.




> Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I find the popularity of "paradox" to be somewhat annoying.  The article blatantly contradicts itself.  If doing good subtracts from Jesus' suffering on the cross, than doing evil adds to it.  Period.

----------


## fisharmor

> The second evil these poor sinners effect is making their hatred against us, believers, clear and manifest, with the object of humiliating us, reducing us to impotence and maybe even making us hate them at which point we would have become them. That's the only clear and present danger I see in these desecrations, not as an expansion of the reign of darkness as such, but the temptation to follow them into deep, dark sin.




Of course this makes it seem like it's only those who manifestly hate Christ that pose this danger.... which of course is true, because outside of a few people pretty much universally derided as angry old traditionalist cranks, Christendom hasn't had much official comment on this event which happened in earnest in a New York city Episcopal church.

----------


## eduardo89

> Of course this makes it seem like it's only those who manifestly hate Christ that pose this danger.... which of course is true, because outside of a few people pretty much universally derided as angry old traditionalist cranks, Christendom hasn't had much official comment on this event which happened in earnest in a New York city Episcopal church.


+rep.

Sadly, those occurrences aren't only happening in Anglican/Episcopalian communities but throughout Christianity. It is very sad to see how reverent worship has become nothing more than a joke and an social club.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> +rep.
> 
> Sadly, those occurrences aren't only happening in Anglican/Episcopalian communities but throughout Christianity.* It is very sad to see how reverent worship has become nothing more than a joke and an social club.*


+a bunch.  It's especially disheartening that so many church communities have "praise bands" instead of choirs or traditional church musicians.  It turns a service into more of a pop concert rather than a time of worship.

----------


## eduardo89

> +a bunch.  It's especially disheartening that so many church communities have "praise bands" instead of choirs or traditional church musicians.  It turns a service into more of a pop concert rather than a time of worship.


How did we go from this:



to this:

----------


## James Madison

> +a bunch.  It's especially disheartening that so many church communities have "praise bands" instead of choirs or traditional church musicians.  It turns a service into more of a pop concert rather than a time of worship.


It helps attract young people, who are leaving the church in droves. You can only evangelize third worlders for so long...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

^^ 
IDK for sure, but I think that began as a way to bring youths and people who don't care for religion one way or another into church.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It helps attract young people, who are leaving the church in droves. You can only evangelize third worlders for so long...


Dang, ya beat me to it. :/ Thanks, though. ~hugs~

----------


## eduardo89

> It helps attract young people, who are leaving the church in droves. You can only evangelize third worlders for so long...


Except it doesn't. Look at what has happened to church attendance in the past century now that low-church liturgies are the norm. This appeal to modernism has been an utter failure.

----------


## James Madison

> Except it doesn't. Look at what has happened to church attendance in the past century now that low-church liturgies are the norm. This appeal to modernism has been an utter failure.


It think it's the other way around. Modernism is a response to low church attendance, not the cause of it. Regardless, the pews are emptying and the church's days are numbered. I have yet to decide if this is good or bad.

----------


## TER

> It helps attract young people, who are leaving the church in droves. You can only evangelize third worlders for so long...


I just read a good article about how this consumeristic western ideology of trying to sell the faith by trying out the newest fads is what is killing Christianity in the western world.  It is in accordance with this age of relativism but it lacks depth and fails to keep those they attracted in the first place.  Indeed, a recent Protestant workshop just convened where there was much discussion in returning to more liturgical and sacramental worship.

The truths and beauty of the faith are not a product to be sold and revamped every couple of years (or worse, every time the fashion and music changes!).  We are not to conform what is holy worship with the world, just as we are not to conform ourselves to the world.  This jumping from fad to fad only serves to commercialize the faith and cheapen what is supposed to be divine worship.  

I will try to find the article.  It explains it much better then I can.

----------


## otherone

IDK.
I went to some pretty hippie masses in the seventies and early eighties....then the Grim Ministerium  showed up and took away our real bread and made us eat the God that sticks to the roof of one's mouth.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It think it's the other way around. Modernism is a response to low church attendance, not the cause of it. Regardless, the pews are emptying and the church's days are numbered. I have yet to decide if this is good or bad.


This is purely anecdotal...

The last church I attended (non-denominational) a few years ago dealt with complaints about modernism by making the early service traditional and the late service modern.  The place was/is full during the early service and mostly empties out for the contemporary service.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I just read a good article about how this consumeristic western ideology of trying to sell the faith by trying out the newest fads is what is killing Christianity in the western world.  It is in accordance with this age of relativism but it lacks depth and fails to keep those they attracted in the first place.  Indeed, a recent Protestant workshop just convened where there was much discussion in returning to more liturgical and sacramental worship.
> 
> The truths and beauty of the faith are not a product to be sold and revamped every couple of years (or worse, every time the fashion and music changes!).  We are not to conform what is holy worship with the world, just as we are not to conform ourselves to the world.  This jumping from fad to fad only serves to commercialize the faith and cheapen what is supposed to be divine worship.  
> 
> I will try to find the article.  It explains it much better then I can.


Well said!  It's a terrible mistake to cater simply to popular markets just to increase church attendance.  Indeed, Christian Churches have traditionally relied on donations in order to preserve the traditions of the faith without having to be concerned about popularity/profit.

----------


## Suzanimal

> It helps attract young people, who are leaving the church in droves. You can only evangelize third worlders for so long...


I agree, I used to only go to Traditional Mass but I go to Teen Mass now (my boys are in Life Teen) and I'm starting to enjoy it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree, I used to only go to Traditional Mass but I go to Teen Mass now (my boys are in Life Teen) and I'm starting to enjoy it.


HEATHEN!!!11!!  (j/k   )

----------


## Deborah K

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the "desecration" of the Eucharist, except to say that the thought of it offends my sensibilities because of its meaning.  But as far as the music and environment changing over the years, I doubt that offends the Lord.  I like to think that he is smiling down on everyone who opens their hands and hearts, and turns their faces up toward him, closes their eyes with genuine love and reverence, while rejoicing in song.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> +a bunch.  It's especially disheartening that so many church communities have "praise bands" instead of choirs or traditional church musicians.  It turns a service into more of a pop concert rather than a time of worship.





> How did we go from this:
> 
> 
> 
> to this:





> I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the "desecration" of the Eucharist, except to say that the thought of it offends my sensibilities because of its meaning.  But as far as the music and environment changing over the years, I doubt that offends the Lord.  I like to think that he is smiling down on everyone who opens their hands and hearts, and turns their faces up toward him, closes their eyes with genuine love and reverence, while rejoicing in song.


I was going to say something similar.  Unless someone can find a Bible verse that prohibits "loud" music it just strikes me as legalism.

----------


## TER

> I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the "desecration" of the Eucharist, except to say that the thought of it offends my sensibilities because of its meaning.  But as far as the music and environment changing over the years, I doubt that offends the Lord.  I like to think that he is smiling down on everyone who opens their hands and hearts, and turns their faces up toward him, closes their eyes with genuine love and reverence, while rejoicing in song.


I do not want to give the impression that there is something wrong with concerts of praise and worship, with music and bands and such.  Such celebrations can be good and beneficial.  They should not, however, replace the divine liturgical service of the Holy Eucharist, which is an icon or image of the Heavenly worship.  This is worship which is eternal and timeless, initiated by the Lord, taught by the Apostles, passed down from generation to generation and looking always towards the eschaton and last day in the culmination of the ages.  The greatest glimpse we see of heavenly worship is in the Book of Revelation, and this too is the worship of the Church and the meeting point of the Church Militant here on earth with the Church Triumphant in the Kingdom of God.  The Divine Liturgy of the apostolic Church prays the same prayers today, with the same hymns and rituals, as it has since the first centuries, conforming not to the spirit of the times but to the heavenly worship of God.  

We can enjoy all things in Christ which bring glory to God, and guitars and drums and hip hop music all can point us to Him, but not as a replacement of the Holy Eucharist which is the central and binding worship of our faith - not only here in this world, but together with all the saints in the Heavenly Kingdom.

----------


## Crashland

> +a bunch.  It's especially disheartening that so many church communities have "praise bands" instead of choirs or traditional church musicians.  It turns a service into more of a pop concert rather than a time of worship.


I do know sometimes people can lose the focus off God in a setting like that, but also consider:

Worship is an attitude of the heart, not a song or a particular style. If it is so bad for a song of worship to be pleasing to the ear or an enjoyable or engaging experience, why bother sing at all? Might as well just sit in quiet meditation instead (not that there's anything wrong with that either).

Phil 4:8
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things"

Anything you do with your talents for the glory of God is a form of worship. David danced. Sing unto the Lord a new song (Ps 144:9), I don't think it matters whether on the ten-stringed lyre, or with an organ, or with an electric guitar. It is, in a sense, a social club -- you are all God's children aren't you? Go celebrate it together!

There is a time and a place for different kinds of worship.

----------


## eduardo89

> I agree, I used to only go to Traditional Mass but I go to Teen Mass now (my boys are in Life Teen) and I'm starting to enjoy it.


You should go back to the Tridentine Mass, so much better than that Novus Ordo modernism. The Novus Ordo Mass has stripped away so much of what it meant to be Catholic, it's very sad.

----------


## eduardo89

> I do not want to give the impression that there is something wrong with concerts of praise and worship, with music and bands and such.  Such celebrations can be good and beneficial.  They should not, however, replace the divine liturgical service of the Holy Eucharist, which is an icon or image of the Heavenly worship.  This is worship which is eternal and timeless, initiated by the Lord, taught by the Apostles, passed down from generation to generation and looking always towards the eschaton and last day in the culmination of the ages.  The greatest glimpse we see of heavenly worship is in the Book of Revelation, and this too is the worship of the Church and the meeting point of the Church Militant here on earth with the Church Triumphant in the Kingdom of God.  The Divine Liturgy of the apostolic Church prays the same prayers today, with the same hymns and rituals, as it has since the first centuries, conforming not to the spirit of the times but to the heavenly worship of God.  
> 
> We can enjoy all things in Christ which bring glory to God, and guitars and drums and hip hop music all can point us to Him, but not as a replacement of the Holy Eucharist which is the central and binding worship of our faith - not only here in this world, but together with all the saints in the Heavenly Kingdom.


+rep

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I was going to say something similar.  Unless someone can find a Bible verse that prohibits "loud" music it just strikes me as legalism.


It's part of Holy tradition.  Nothing "legalist" about it.  In fact, among various types of orthodox churches, you'll find different types of chant and song.  Russian parishes tend to prefer four part harmony that sounds much like Western styles of choral music.  Antiochian and other parishes mostly use Byzantine style chant and song.  The point is to focus the mind on worship rather than to be artistic or pop-sounding.  Omitting instruments prevents possible distractions from the Word in song by complicated timbre structures.  

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do know sometimes people can lose the focus off God in a setting like that, but also consider:
> 
> Worship is an attitude of the heart, not a song or a particular style.* If it is so bad for a song of worship to be pleasing to the ear or an enjoyable or engaging experience, why bother sing at all?* Might as well just sit in quiet meditation instead (not that there's anything wrong with that either).
> 
> Phil 4:8
> "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things"
> 
> Anything you do with your talents for the glory of God is a form of worship. David danced. Sing unto the Lord a new song (Ps 144:9), I don't think it matters whether on the ten-stringed lyre, or with an organ, or with an electric guitar. It is, in a sense, a social club -- you are all God's children aren't you? Go celebrate it together!
> 
> There is a time and a place for different kinds of worship.


If it takes focus off the meaning of the text, why bother to sing at all?  (see what I did there?  )

ETA: btw, I speak with more authority than most, having been once a performer in a praise band and currently a choral singer in a Byzantine choir.

----------


## eduardo89

> It's part of Holy tradition.  Nothing "legalist" about it.  In fact, among various types of orthodox churches, you'll find different types of chant and song.  Russian parishes tend to prefer four part harmony that sounds much like Western styles of choral music.  Antiochian and other parishes mostly use Byzantine style chant and song.  The point is to focus the mind on worship rather than to be artistic or pop-sounding.  Omitting instruments prevents possible distractions from the Word in song by complicated timbre structures.  
> 
> You have much to learn, grasshopper.


My personal favourite is Mozarabic chant.

----------


## Crashland

> If it takes focus off the meaning of the text, why bother to sing at all?  (see what I did there?  )
> 
> ETA: btw, I speak with more authority than most, having been once a performer in a praise band and currently a choral singer in a Byzantine choir.


Right -- I don't see how you can have it both ways though, or half-way. Is there no place for using music, or dancing as a form of worship in and of itself? Studying scripture is not the only way to worship God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Right -- I don't see how you can have it both ways though, or half-way. Is there no place for using music, or dancing as a form of worship in and of itself? Studying scripture is not the only way to worship God.


Choral works and chant are music. (the voice is the oldest instrument in history!) I don't see what you mean there.  I agree that scripture is not the only way to worship-holy tradition gives us many ways!   I don't see any role for dance of any sort in liturgy...I've seen "sacred dance" done in a church many years ago, but it added nothing to the worship-it was just a display.  Sacred music-even more modern stuff like gospel-is not so much "performed" as simply "sung".  Performance art has entertainment as its purpose, while liturgical music has expressing faith and focusing on prayer as its purpose.

You're right-you can't have it both ways.

----------


## PierzStyx

> How did we go from this:
> 
> 
> 
> to this:


I don't see a single difference between the last two and the top three. The bottom two in fact did the same thing the top three did, appropriate cultural dress for the sacrament. The top three just stole from European cultures and added those additions to the ceremony so long back that it is common and familiar to us now. The last two are just doing the same thing but from different cultures. The second to last looks like it has adopted native African masks and symbols while the last are Native Americans adapting their own symbols and dress. That feather head dress is no different in concept from the Pope's miter nor are those masks any different from the Pope's robes.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't see a single difference between the last two and the top three. The bottom two in fact did the same thing the top three did, appropriate cultural dress for the sacrament. The top three just stole from European cultures and added those additions to the ceremony so long back that it is common and familiar to us now. The last two are just doing the same thing but from different cultures. The second to last looks like it has adopted native African masks and symbols while the last are Native Americans adapting their own symbols and dress. That feather head dress is no different in concept from the Pope's miter nor are those masks any different from the Pope's robes.


Just for some context, the second last one is from Minnesota and everyone except the 'priest' is actually a puppet.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Right -- I don't see how you can have it both ways though, or half-way. Is there no place for using music, or dancing as a form of worship in and of itself? Studying scripture is not the only way to worship God.


The song of the righteous is a prayer unto God. But not all music may be appropriate to worship in a formal capacity such as at church. I often find rock music way more distracting than as a help to get in tune with the still small voice of God.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Just for some context, the second last one is from Minnesota and everyone except the 'priest' is actually a puppet.


Well, I agree that does make it a bit weird.

----------


## Crashland

> Choral works and chant are music. (the voice is the oldest instrument in history!) I don't see what you mean there.  I agree that scripture is not the only way to worship-holy tradition gives us many ways!   I don't see any role for dance of any sort in liturgy...I've seen "sacred dance" done in a church many years ago, but it added nothing to the worship-it was just a display.  Sacred music-even more modern stuff like gospel-is not so much "performed" as simply "sung".  Performance art has entertainment as its purpose, while liturgical music has expressing faith and focusing on prayer as its purpose.
> 
> You're right-you can't have it both ways.


I wouldn't think of it as performance art for entertainment though. It is one of many means through which you can experience worship. Music evokes emotion. To a lot of people having a contemporary style that they can more actively engage with helps them to connect with God. I mean, look at all the ways they worship in Kenya:




They aren't performing for entertainment, it is for God's glory. It is an active, often physically engaging style of worship and it is meant to be a church community thing. I don't really see contemporary American worship as being a whole lot different. I'd be willing to say it doesn't go far *enough*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wouldn't think of it as performance art for entertainment though. It is one of many means through which you can experience worship. Music evokes emotion. To a lot of people having a contemporary style that they can more actively engage with helps them to connect with God. I mean, look at all the ways they worship in Kenya:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't performing for entertainment, it is for God's glory. It is an active, often physically engaging style of worship and it is meant to be a church community thing. I don't really see contemporary American worship as being a whole lot different. I'd be willing to say it doesn't go far *enough*.


To each his own...that^^ strikes me more as a themed party-like the sort of thing that would happen after the service.  I don't mind church functions at all.  People do that all the time.  I just feel that _liturgy_ should be focused on prayerfulness-which is the point of assembling in a service.

----------


## Crashland

> To each his own...that^^ strikes me more as a themed party-like the sort of thing that would happen after the service.  I don't mind church functions at all.  People do that all the time.  I just feel that _liturgy_ should be focused on prayerfulness-which is the point of assembling in a service.


I think they are both valid. Liturgy, yes I think I would agree, but I'm not necessarily on board with the purpose of assembling in a service being prayerfulness - although it could very well be. Prayerfulness imo is something it wouldn't be too much harder to do on your own just you and God. Bringing people together for a service, the purpose could include prayerfulness, fellowship or discipleship, spiritual teaching, celebration, public testimony or anything else that might benefit the spiritual health of the church community

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think they are both valid. Liturgy, yes I think I would agree, but I'm not necessarily on board with the purpose of assembling in a service being prayerfulness - although it could very well be. *Prayerfulness imo is something it wouldn't be too much harder to do on your own just you and God.* Bringing people together for a service, the purpose could include prayerfulness, fellowship or discipleship, spiritual teaching, celebration, public testimony or anything else that might benefit the spiritual health of the church community


Ah, but the classical view is that worship life is not a "me and Jesus moment"-it is a community affair.  We are brothers and sisters in Christ.  The "individualist" (or whatever you want to call it) view is very new.  Solo worship is important (many have "prayer corners"), but liturgy is the center of Christian life.

----------


## Kevin007

> Except it doesn't. Look at what has happened to church attendance in the past century now that low-church liturgies are the norm. This appeal to modernism has been an utter failure.


why are we surprised? The Bible says in the end times people will be lovers of THEMSELVES.

----------


## James Madison

> why are we surprised? The Bible says in the end times people will be lovers of THEMSELVES.


When have people _not_ been lovers of themselves?

----------


## eduardo89

> When have people _not_ been lovers of themselves?


Never.

----------


## otherone

> why are we surprised? The Bible says in the end times people will be lovers of THEMSELVES.


awwww...c'mon....self-love is perfectly natural....

----------


## Kevin007

> When have people _not_ been lovers of themselves?


not to the degree of today.

----------


## RJB

> awwww...c'mon....self-love is perfectly natural....


That police officer in Starbucks (from that article posted) would agree.

----------


## mosquitobite

I have a question since so many here think that there is only one way to worship. 
When I attended Roman Catholic services, we had a Hymnal that had close to a thousand or more songs in it.  Yet, we always sung the same dozen.  It must not have just been my church either because I think it was Suzi who posted three of the songs I remember well from my youth in the song thread.  So why print a huge hymnal full of choices when we're just going to sing the same half dozen songs anyways?  


And I'll also say this: David danced.  So if I want to dance while I worship, I have good company.   And I'll continue to do so.

----------


## eduardo89

> I have a question since so many here think that there is only one way to worship.


Who said that?

----------


## James Madison

> not to the degree of today.


"Those darn kids with their loud music and baggy pants."

Seriously, dude? You have the combined knowledge of every generation that has ever lived and can say _unequivocally_ that our generation is the most self-absorbed?

----------


## mosquitobite

> How did we go to this:


You did.

----------


## Crashland

> I have a question since so many here think that there is only one way to worship. 
> When I attended Roman Catholic services, we had a Hymnal that had close to a thousand or more songs in it.  Yet, we always sung the same dozen.  It must not have just been my church either because I think it was Suzi who posted three of the songs I remember well from my youth in the song thread.  So why print a huge hymnal full of choices when we're just going to sing the same half dozen songs anyways?  
> 
> And I'll also say this: David danced.  So if I want to dance while I worship, I have good company.   And I'll continue to do so.


This. Anything you do that is for God's glory is a form of worship. You can praise God by studying the Word, by praying, or by singing a song, or dancing, or painting a picture, or doing good works

----------


## eduardo89

> You did.


I didn't say there is only one way to worship. I said I disagree that form of liturgy. I find it lacks the reverence and solemnity which the worship of God deserves. I didn't say it's false worship.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have a question since so many here think that there is only one way to worship. 
> When I attended Roman Catholic services, we had a Hymnal that had close to a thousand or more songs in it.  Yet, we always sung the same dozen.  It must not have just been my church either because I think it was Suzi who posted three of the songs I remember well from my youth in the song thread.  *So why print a huge hymnal full of choices when we're just going to sing the same half dozen songs anyways?* 
> 
> 
> And I'll also say this: David danced.  So if I want to dance while I worship, I have good company.   And I'll continue to do so.


Could've been a prolific hymnographer.  Directors usually pick songs for specific reasons, and they don't need to change except for special occasions.  It's totally different from concert music, which is generally expected to have variety.  

Orthodox churches also only use a few songs which are sung every week except for special occasions-like the choruses at the gospel and epistle reading.  In the Eastern tradition, this practice is designed to focus the mind on worship instead of frequent novelty.  I can't speak for the Western tradition, so I'll leave that to my Catholic brothers.

ETA: there are occasionally new songs or new arrangements of old songs prescribed, which makes rehearsal especially important.

----------


## Crashland

> I didn't say there is only one way to worship. I said I disagree that form of liturgy. I find it lacks the reverence and solemnity which the worship of God deserves. I didn't say it's false worship.


How are you using the term "liturgy"? What exactly do you mean by it

----------


## eduardo89

> I can't speak for the Western tradition, so I'll leave that to my Catholic brothers.


Modern Catholic Masses have a variety of hymns and musical styles. It's one of the reasons I dislike the Novus Ordo Mass so much, it's become like a Protestant service. The Church should go back to Gregorian chant. 




> Aside from its intrinsic beauty, one should also appreciate its historical value and, more importantly, its liturgical value and purpose. In chant, the solemnity of the text is raised to an exalted level by being cantillated, or intoned, to a musical line. The rhythm of chant is free and is governed more by the rhythms of speech than by imposed musical patterns. The melody is indicated by small signs above the text, sometimes square or diamond-shaped notations called neumes, first written down in the tenth century. It was not until the end of the eleventh century that the pitches were accurately written using a system of letters. The first few chants of the Church were sung in Hebrew and then in Greek.
> 
> ...
> 
> Prayer, meditation, reverence, awe, and love — Gregorian chant carries them in rhythm and melody. More than any other music with lyrics, chant is "heightened speech." In chant the music and prose are perfectly integrated. Its function is to add solemnity to Christian worship. In sacred music, the text is at the heart of the composition.
> 
> ...
> 
> The last 40 years have left an indelible mark on our liturgies. It is a mark of confusion sprinkled with secularism and other agendas. Many of our liturgies have lost the sense of sacredness. The sense of awe and mystery formerly associated with the Mass is no longer present.
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "Those darn kids with their loud music and baggy pants."
> 
> Seriously, dude? You have the combined knowledge of every generation that has ever lived and can say _unequivocally_ that our generation is the most self-absorbed?


I personally think the Boomers are the most self-absorbed if we want to play the reasoning from parts to whole game...

----------


## eduardo89

> How are you using the term "liturgy"? What exactly do you mean by it


By it's English definition: 
a form or formulary according to which public religious worship, esp. Christian worship, is conducted.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Modern Catholic Masses have a variety of hymns and musical styles. It's one of the reasons I dislike the Novus Ordo Mass so much, it's become like a Protestant service. The Church should go back to Gregorian chant.


Ладно.  Thanks.   I agree that chant is more appropriate.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I didn't say there is only one way to worship. I said I disagree that form of liturgy. I find it lacks the reverence and solemnity which the worship of God deserves. I didn't say it's false worship.


2 Samuel 6:16-23

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 2 Samuel 6:16-23


David was not Christian.

----------


## Crashland

> By it's English definition: 
> a form or formulary according to which public religious worship, esp. Christian worship, is conducted.


Then on what basis do you "disagree with that form of liturgy"? The definition itself implies multiple forms. If it isn't false worship, but you still disagree with it... it's just sort of false worship?
What one considers reverent differs greatly across cultures or even communities within the same culture. Reverent does not necessarily = solemn or reserved.

----------


## eduardo89

> David was not Christian.


Exactly.

And the Eucharist did not exist back then.

----------


## eduardo89

> Then on what basis do you "disagree with that form of liturgy"? The definition itself implies multiple forms. If it isn't false worship, but you still disagree with it... it's just sort of false worship?
> What one considers reverent differs greatly across cultures or even communities within the same culture. Reverent does not necessarily = solemn or reserved.


I never said it is false worship. I just don't see it as the same as partaking in the Mystery of the Eucharist. It is not the same type of worship.

----------


## mosquitobite

> David was not Christian.


Seriously?  

_Seriously?_

So Jews can dance to worship God but Christians can't.



Basically you've just insinuated that even though Jesus came to _fulfill_ the Law, we must now add to it and think like Michal - whom God made barren for her judgment.
mkay...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Seriously?  
> 
> _Seriously?_
> 
> So Jews can dance to worship God but Christians can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically you've just insinuated that even though Jesus came to _fulfill_ the Law, we must now add to it and think like Michal - whom God made barren for her judgment.
> mkay...


Yes, Jews can and do do a number of things differently.  They have almost entirely different traditions and beliefs.  Isn't this common knowledge?  You should attend a synagogue sometime.  
Intro to synagogue:

----------


## mosquitobite

> Yes, Jews can and do do a number of things differently.  They have almost entirely different traditions and beliefs.  Isn't this common knowledge?


If you want to add to the law, by being like Michal - that's your prerogative.

If you feel the need to JUDGE well then you're fitting right in with the rest of the forum I suppose.

Bout time for me to cut it out of my feed I think.

----------


## eduardo89

> Seriously?  
> 
> _Seriously?_
> 
> So Jews can dance to worship God but Christians can't.


I don't think that's what he's saying. A Christian can certain dance to worship, but that is not what is to be done when we celebrate the Mystery of the Eucharist.

Time and place. There is a time for dancing. There is a time for reverence and solemnity.

----------


## Crashland

> I never said it is false worship. I just don't see it as the same as partaking in the Mystery of the Eucharist. It is not the same type of worship.


I agree, it's not the same type of worship. That isn't to say that one is inherently better than the other. I am sure the catholic eucharist is nothing like the worship of the early church...  what makes a meaningful worship for one person might not make for a meaningful worship for another. For example personally when I hear masses sung in Latin no matter how deep the meaning might be I just don't connect with that. Other people maybe it does. And vice versa.

----------


## eduardo89

> I agree, it's not the same type of worship. That isn't to say that one is inherently better than the other. I am sure the catholic eucharist is nothing like the worship of the early church...  what makes a meaningful worship for one person might not make for a meaningful worship for another. For example personally when I hear masses sung in Latin no matter how deep the meaning might be I just don't connect with that. Other people maybe it does. And vice versa.


The Eucharist has been the same since the Last Supper. It has not changed. The liturgy has changed, but the Eucharist has not.

----------


## mosquitobite

> +rep.
> 
> Sadly, those occurrences aren't only happening in Anglican/Episcopalian communities but throughout Christianity. It is very sad to see how reverent worship has become nothing more than a joke and an social club.


You're the one who started this tangent eduardo.  You switched the topic from your OP to this.

----------


## Crashland

> The Eucharist has been the same since the Last Supper. It has not changed. The liturgy has changed, but the Eucharist has not.


The eucharist hasn't changed for protestants either. Only the liturgy.

----------


## eduardo89

> The eucharist hasn't changed for protestants either. Only the liturgy.


Protestants reject the Eucharist.

----------


## Crashland

> Protestants reject the Eucharist.


That's news to me. I've been to dozens of protestant churches they all practice communion... unless you are referring to the different liturgy surrounding it that you don't like?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you want to add to the law, by being like Michal - that's your prerogative.
> 
> If you feel the need to JUDGE well then you're fitting right in with the rest of the forum I suppose.
> 
> Bout time for me to cut it out of my feed I think.


Having and observing holy tradition has nothing to do with the law whatsoever.  WRT "judging", I made no subjective value statements.  Discussing what you say objectively has nothing to do with judging.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's news to me. I've been to dozens of protestant churches they all practice communion... unless you are referring to the different liturgy surrounding it that you don't like?


Protestants reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They see it as merely symbolic. They reject the patristic understanding that the Eucharist *is* Christ, not just a symbol.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's news to me. I've been to dozens of protestant churches they all practice communion... unless you are referring to the different liturgy surrounding it that you don't like?


Protestants most definitely reject the Eucharist.  They consider communion symbolic (and thus don't even use the word "eucharist") rather than the literal body and blood of Christ.  Hence, Protestants have "open" communion(any baptized person can partake) and Orthodox/Catholic Eucharist is "closed" (one must be fully Orthodox/Catholic by birth or conversion to partake).

----------


## Crashland

> Protestants reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They see it as merely symbolic. They reject the patristic understanding that the Eucharist *is* Christ, not just a symbol.


Not interpreting the Bible the same way means they reject the communion? Communion is a very important part of most protestant churches. Having a different doctrine is hardly a rejection

----------


## eduardo89

> Protestants most definitely reject the Eucharist.  They consider communion symbolic (and thus don't even use the word "eucharist") rather than the literal body and blood of Christ.  Hence, Protestants have "open" communion(any baptized person can partake) and Orthodox/Catholic Eucharist is "closed" (one must be fully Orthodox/Catholic by birth or conversion to partake).


The only Church that I know of that practices open communion and does have a valid Eucharistic Sacrament is the Assyrian Church of the East. They allow any baptised Christian to receive the Eucharist. This is the exception, though.

----------


## eduardo89

> Not interpreting the Bible the same way means they reject the communion? Communion is a very important part of most protestant churches. Having a different doctrine is hardly a rejection


I didn't say they reject 'communion.' I say they reject the Eucharist, which is the Flesh, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, fully and substantially present. Protestants reject this.

----------


## Crashland

> I didn't say they reject 'communion.' I say they reject the Eucharist, which is the Flesh, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, fully and substantially present. Protestants reject this.


The word eucharist means thanksgiving and has historically referred to the communion whether open or closed, literal or symbolic. If you mean the Eucharist as a particular doctrine of your church, then sure, they reject it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Not interpreting the Bible the same way means they reject the communion? Communion is a very important part of most protestant churches. *Having a different doctrine is hardly a rejection*


On the contrary.  Protestants deny transubstantiation-critical to the real meaning of the Eucharist.  Reducing it to symbolic "communion" robs it of its meaning as prescribed by Christ himself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The word eucharist means thanksgiving and has historically referred to the communion whether open or closed, literal or symbolic. If you mean the Eucharist as a particular doctrine of your church, then sure, they reject it.


"Eucharist" has a very specific idiomatic meaning to Christians.

----------


## eduardo89

> The word eucharist means thanksgiving and has historically referred to the communion whether open or closed, literal or symbolic. If you mean the Eucharist as a particular doctrine of your church, then sure, they reject it.


The Eucharist, from the night of the Last Supper till today, has always been regarded as the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It was not until the Reformation that the Eucharistic theology began to be rejected en masse. It is this innovative theology that the Eucharist is just a symbol that denies what Jesus Himself said to us. The Eucharist is, and always has been, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, fully and substantially present.

----------


## eduardo89

> On the contrary.  Protestants deny transubstantiation-critical to the real meaning of the Eucharist.  *Reducing it to symbolic "communion" robs it of its meaning as prescribed by Christ himself.*


+rep

----------


## mosquitobite

I follow Paul's teaching from 1 Corinthians 11.  

I do it in remembrance of Him, and I examine myself.

There is no demand that I must fully accept it as the LITERAL body and blood.  You are free to believe that if it makes you feel closer to God and not a cannibal.  I prefer to think of it symbolically, much like the Seder meal Jesus sat down to eat that night was also about remembrance & symbolism.

----------


## Crashland

> The Eucharist, from the night of the Last Supper till today, has always been regarded as the flesh and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It was not until the Reformation that the Eucharistic theology began to be rejected en masse. It is this innovative theology that the Eucharist is just a symbol that denies what Jesus Himself said to us. The Eucharist is, and always has been, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, fully and substantially present.


I would point out that the length of time that a particular belief has been held is not evidence that it is true. Regardless though this is turning into a debate over the catholic vs protestant views on the Eucharist or communion and I don't think I'm up for that tonight.

----------


## Crashland

> I follow Paul's teaching from 1 Corinthians 11.  
> 
> I do it in remembrance of Him, and I examine myself.
> 
> There is no demand that I must fully accept it as the LITERAL body and blood.  You are free to believe that if it makes you feel closer to God and not a cannibal.  I prefer to think of it symbolically, much like the Seder meal Jesus sat down to eat that night was also about symbolism.


Exactly. And since you mentioned the Seder... yes the passover Seder is entirely symbolic. The whole point of each of the items on the Seder plate, including the bread and the 4 cups of wine, is symbolism. If you have ever been to a passover Seder it is hours and hours of symbolism lol

In the passover Seder, the tradition is to take the afikomen, which is a piece of unleavened bread broken from the middle piece of the 3 sections, representing the priest, to wrap it in cloth and hide it, and then bring it back. This is a symbolism that would have resonated *bigtime* with the Jews when Jesus broke the bread and said it was his body -- Jesus who would also be wrapped in cloth, buried and brought back. Same thing with the wine, where earlier in the passover seder there is symbolism about the sacrifice of the lamb, with the blood on the lintel and doorposts so that the plague of death would pass over their homes. The wine and bread representing Jesus' blood and body paints a perfect picture.

You can believe the wine and bread as literal or symbolic, thats fine, but I don't think there is anything in scripture that indicates any particular importance to interpreting it literally over symbolically, or vice versa.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I follow Paul's teaching from 1 Corinthians 11.  
> 
> I do it in remembrance of Him, and I examine myself.
> 
> There is no demand that I must fully accept it as the LITERAL body and blood.  You are free to believe that if it makes you feel closer to God and not a cannibal.  I prefer to think of it symbolically, much like the Seder meal Jesus sat down to eat that night was also about remembrance & symbolism.


No, you don't _have_ to believe anything.  You're free to believe whatever you want.  Just keep in mind that you don't believe what Christ believed or his disciples WRT the meaning of the Eucharist.

If you only take that bit away from 1 Corinthians 11, you haven't gotten the full gospel context.  What Paul says does not contradict what Christ said at the Last Supper at all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I would point out that the length of time that a particular belief has been held is not evidence that it is true.* Regardless though this is turning into a debate over the catholic vs protestant views on the Eucharist or communion and I don't think I'm up for that tonight.


No, but lineage and source of the belief is evidence.  Jesus beats Crashland any day.

----------


## Crashland

> No, but lineage and source of the belief is evidence.  Jesus beats Crashland any day.


Aw, I was hoping to top Jesus on that list. I'll settle for a close second though.

Back to the Eucharist, I would not find it terribly surprising that the church in Rome chock full of Gentiles might not have fully understood the symbolism from the Jewish passover seder which was the context of the last supper.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Aw, I was hoping to top Jesus on that list. I'll settle for a close second though.
> *
> Back to the Eucharist, I would not find it terribly surprising that the church in Rome chock full of Gentiles might not have fully understood the symbolism from the Jewish passover seder which was the context of the last supper*.


No, Roman gentiles would not have likely gotten _all_ the nuances of Jewish tradition (just as no one gets the Jewish literary conventions Matthew mentions unless taught about it)...but so what?  They got it well enough to be in communion with ethnic Christians and Jewish converts for hundreds of years.

----------


## Crashland

How about this question -- if we assume the literal interpretation IS correct, does that mean the Eucharist is only literally true if you believe that it is? Or are protestants swallowing Christ's flesh and blood unknowingly when they practice their communion?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How about this question -- if we assume the literal interpretation IS correct, does that mean the Eucharist is only literally true if you believe that it is? *Or are protestants swallowing Christ's flesh and blood unknowingly when they practice their communion*?


Yes.  If you lie to a priest in order to take eucharist and he finds out, he may forbid you from ever taking the eucharist (even if you convert) or disallow you from partaking for whatever amount of time he feels appropriate after your conversion.  You may find people who are more or less severe-it depends on the priest.  The Eucharist is srs bizniss, as kids say nowadays.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes.  If you lie to a priest in order to take eucharist and he finds out, he may forbid you from ever taking the eucharist (even if you convert) or disallow you from partaking for whatever amount of time he feels appropriate after your conversion.  You may find people who are more or less severe-it depends on the priest.  The Eucharist is srs bizniss, as kids say nowadays.


I was meaning more in the context of protestant churches --- not being administered by a catholic priest. The ones they do all the time where they view it as symbolic.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I was meaning more in the context of protestant churches --- not being administered by a catholic priest. The ones they do all the time where they view it as symbolic.


Ah, I see.  No, Protestants do not accept transubstatiation, and thus simply have bread/wafers and grape juice while reflecting on its symbolic meaning.

----------


## Crashland

> Ah, I see.  No, Protestants do not accept transubstatiation, and thus simply have bread/wafers and grape juice while reflecting on its symbolic meaning.


So really, in your belief both Catholics and protestants are right about the literal or symbolic nature of their own practice. But that protestants are missing out on the literal sense which Catholics enjoy. Does the protestant missing-out in any way affect their salvation, with all else being equal, if they still trust in God?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So really, in your belief both Catholics and protestants are right about the literal or symbolic nature of their own practice. But that protestants are missing out on the literal sense which Catholics enjoy. *Does the protestant missing-out in any way affect their salvation, with all else being equal, if they still trust in God*?


No. They are simply missing out on communing with God.  Salvation is a lifelong process, and there's no one thing or moment that will guarantee it.  OSAS (once saved always saved) is an unbiblical, false, and irrational doctrine.

----------

