Pentecostals, “Non-Denomenationals,” and plain old Baptists all have one thing in common: they all deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Two things about this bother me.
First, they think that anyone who believes in the Real Presence is a crypto-Roman Catholic. What they tend to ignore that a plethora of Protestants (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etcetera), Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox (including Assyrian and Indian Orthodox Christians who clung onto the doctrine even though they were cut off from the West for centuries) hold to some doctrine of the Real Presence. That means the whole Christian world does not consider it “idolatry” or “superstition,” and this includes almost all of Protestantism.
Second, Catholics believe that all Protestants reject the Real Presence. The above paragraph should be enough to show that this is not the case.
The Credo-Baptists have no problem believing that just as the whole Church got it wrong on baptism, they also got it wrong on the Real Presence. Their reason? The Bible says so.
However, lets evaluate what the Bible actually says about the Eucharist:
Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body” (Matt 26:26; see also Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and 1 Cor 11:24).
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying,“Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:27; see also Mark 14:23-24, Luke 22:20, and 1 Cor 11:25).
It certainly appears that Jesus is speaking literally. “Well, Christ is just using an expression,” they might retort. Does this hold any water? Would Jesus institute an ordinance that proclaims His death until He comes in a deliberately confusing way? When we look to the Bible, we can see that the “Jesus was making a metaphor defense” does not hold any water.
The Real Presence in 1 Cor 10. Many Credo-Baptists get selective amnesia when they read 1 Cor 10-14 and I’m not sure why. The verses affirm the Real Presence, the wearing of head coverings for women, the necessity of not spurting out in “tongues” without interpretation, and other things that the supposed Sola Scriptura crowd choose to ignore for questionable reasons. So, the following might have never popped out to some of them before:
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (1 Cor 10:14-21).
There’s a lot here we need to unpack.
- In bold, we have a affirmation of Christ’s literal presence in the Eucharist. This begs the question: if we hold to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, why do we ignore that every time the Bible brings up the Eucharist it always speaks literally and never once suggests it is a metaphor?
- In the underlined, we have a comment that is easy to read past but perhaps is the most convincing Scripture behind the doctrine of the Real Presence.
How so? In ancient sacrifices, priests generally killed animals (though in some cases people) to propitiate the vengeful gods they believed in. This is very similar to the Old Testament’s presentation of an animal sacrifice.
In ancient Israel, the Priest would get an animal and instruct the person who brought the sacrifice to lay his hand on it. The Scripture says of the priest, “He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf” (Lev 1:4). In Lev 16:21-22 the same laying of hands on the animal is explicitly for the purpose of transferring the sin of the people onto it.
So, whatever the significance of the laying of hands (whether it be to dedicate the sacrifice or to transfer sins), after killing the animal it is then eaten. This is how one partakes of the sacrifice and attains its benefits.
With this in mind, let’s look at the underlined. Paul is clearly contrasting sacrifices. Those in Israel “who eat the sacrifices are sharers in the altar.” In the exact opposite way, the Gentiles eat sacrifices given to demons, and thereby share in idolatrous altars. Because of this, the Christian cannot eat the sacrifices to idols because he cannot partake both of these and the Christian sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the elements by eating it. Paul is conflating the Jewish sacrificial system with that of the Eucharist.
This is where the Credo-Baptist has to concede defeat. Paul’s point here does not make sense if the bread and the wine are mere symbols, because Paul is saying the reason one cannot literally partake in a sacrifice to demons is because one literally partakes in a another sacrifice given to God the Father. Or, are we to pretend that the sacrifices to demons are likewise metaphorical?!? We know better!
An Observation Concerning 1 Cor 11:27. With this in mind Paul’s admonishment in the very next chapter to not partake in the Eucharist “in an unworthy manner” makes sense. According to Paul those that do “shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). Again, if the bread and wine is not Christ’s flesh and blood, how can partaking in the elements wrongly incur the guilt of Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Wouldn’t they incur the guilt of profaning something else?
The Eucharist in John 6. This chapter is usually thought of among baptists as one that concerns soteriological disputes. However, in the same chapter are some pretty plain affirmations of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:51-54).
The standard Credo-Baptist objection to this is, “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst’ (John 6:35). This means that eating His flesh and blood is a metaphor for belief.”
In some ways, dealing with such argumentation is difficult because absolutely everything can be “allegorized.” So, what indications do we have that what Jesus said was not intended as an allegory?
John 6:35 speaks of not only hunger, but also thirst. In John 4, we learn that Christ gives us living water that will cause us to never thirst. John 6:35 is likely referencing living water, not Jesus Christ’s blood. Jesus, however, speaks specifically of drinking His blood (and not water) in John 6:53. This shows that Jesus Christ was not simply using metaphors of food and liquids to describe faith, because if this were so he would have stuck to the same metaphors. Being that He failed to, the metaphor thesis also fails.
Further, John 6:35 does not suggest that John 6:51-54 cannot be taken literally. Can’t one who has faith in Christ logically come to Him in the Real Presence? In fact, this is absolutely essential…
The Real Presence and Protestant Soteriology. Keeping 1 Cor 10 in mind, it appears to me that the altar we approach reflects the inclinations of our hearts. When we approach the Lord’s Table by faith we reach our hands out to the sacrificial Lamb. We grasp His very flesh and blood and in so doing we walk in the footsteps of the Israelites that did so with all their sacrifices.
If I did not have faith in Jesus Christ, I would have no desire to lay my hand upon that sacrifice. However, when we place our hands upon the literal sacrifice, this transfers over our sins onto that sacrifice. I don’t know about you, but I want to transfer over my sins to that cross!
Credo-Baptists take issue with this because they think it means that Jesus’ sacrifice 2,000 years ago was insufficient, because we continually seek to participate in it today. Jesus Christ was “offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” (Heb 10:12) and He is not sacrificed continually. Got Questions gives a good summary of this: “There is no mention that the act of the crucifixion, which occurred within the confines of a linear timeline, is somehow free of that timeline to be as eternal as God Himself.”
Yet, it is actually central to Protestant soteriology that Jesus Christ can be sacrificed once 2,000 years ago, but have us participating in that sacrifice into the present day. This means Got Questions’ contention does not hold water.
Why? Don’t Protestants by faith trust that God came into this world, lived a perfectly righteous life, fulfilled all the requirements of the Law, and became sin for us on the cross so that we may become the righteousness of God? In effect, aren’t we anachronistically participating in Christ’s sacrifice by faith, even though it happened 2,000 years ago?
If we have no participation in Christ’s sacrifice, then our sins are not transferred over to Him, His righteousness is not made ours, and we remain in a damnable position.
The Credo-Baptist has no problem affirming that all the sins they ever committed and will ever commit were anachronistically transferred onto the cross. So, they already concede that they participate in the crucifixion though it happened 2,000 years ago. They are not doing good works (or sacraments) that merit them justification. Rather, a double imputation of our wickedness onto Christ from the present to the past and His righteousness onto us into the present takes place.
If this is so, then the presence of Christ’s literal flesh and blood, outside of time, is also possible. In fact, literally placing our hands upon Christ so that we can participate in that sacrifice from 2,000 years ago is necessary so that we can enjoy its benefits, just like any other sacrifice.*
Closing Comments. In six different passages that speak of the Eucharist there is not a single indication whatsoever that the bread and the wine serve as mere metaphors. In fact, it is highly suggestive in John 6, 1 Cor 10, and 1 Cor 11 that the literal interpretation is logically consistent and exegetically makes more sense.
Furthermore, we can answer Credo-Baptists’ chronological objections by showing that there is nothing inconsistent with there being a one-time sacrifice in the past that allows for present day participation.
*We participate in this sacrifice the moment we believe. Presuming we don’t die right away like the thief on the cross did, we continue our participation in Jesus’ sacrifice by placing our hands on His flesh and blood, and then feeding upon it just as God’s people have always done with their sacrifices. In this way Jesus Christ is not sacrificed again and again, but rather in remembrance of Him we reach out to Him again and again.
God is gracious in how He makes Himself accessible to us. He is in the Eucharist, He speaks to us in the Scripture, and He dwells within us in the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we are conferred all the righteousness of Jesus Christ upon belief, but this does not mean we should deliberately avoid the grace of His presence where He can be found, correct?
Just as He can be found in the Scripture, He is found in the Eucharist. And, we should seriously reconsider our position that Jesus Christ is not really present in the elements. It Biblically does not make sense, it chronologically presents just as many problems as the doctrine of double imputation, and it robs Christians of an additional means of assurance that Jesus Christ died for their sins once and for all on the cross.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Good post! God Bless, SR
1. Protestants do not believe Jesus Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist. If they did, they would worship. But they don’t, because they don’t believe that Jesus Christ is present there-in.
2. Your explanation is an example of Protestant private interpretation. Why are you asking Catholics for advice when you obviously care not a whit what the Catholic Church teaches?
1. The Scripture teaches that all believers are in union with Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Do you worship Christian people you walk across?
2. Everything is some form of private interpretation. In the article on Shameless Popery, we see things that no one would find in any of the church fathers. Interestingly enough, you did not lob that accusation there.
The real presence doctrine denies the humanity of Christ. A human being cannot be in more than one place at once and the real presence doctrine demands that Jesus be in more than one place at once. If Jesus is not truly a human being then He cannot represent us.
Not exactly, it is not like most of Protestantism experienced a gross oversight. The historical reformed position is that Jesus Christ’s divine nature is present in the Eucharist, but His human nature is not. This means that there is no contradiction between the Council of Chalcedon and the doctrine of the Real Presence (a doctrine that everyone who attended the Council of Chalcedon affirmed.)
How can Jesus be in the Eucharist if His human nature not be present? Jesus has 2 natures and not one.
Good question. The Scripture says, “God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). If Christ is literally in believers, that does not mean His human nature is in all of them. Rather, His divine nature is communicated to them. This is standard reformed theology, it is fine to disagree with it, but I just want to point out there is no logical contradiction in it.
If the Lord’s supper passages are taken literally then it leads to all kinds of absurdities. The literal interpretation demands that His disciples become cannibals. At the supper there is no indication that His disciples thought He was speaking literal because if He had they would have protested since it was forbidden to eat human flesh and drink blood.
Is St. Paul talking absurdities when He writes to the Corinthians (10:16), and as Craig referred to in the post above? :
[16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. [18] Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? [19] What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? [20] But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.
(Notes from the Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Bible):
[16] Which we bless: Here the apostle puts them in mind of their partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, ver. 21, that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils by eating of the meats sacrificed to them.
[17] One bread: or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. For it is by our communicating with Christ, and with one another, in this blessed sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together.
Interestingly enough that’s what happened in John 6. The Jews leaped to the conclusion you just did and were repulsed. It is my understanding that we eat Jesus’ flesh and blood while simultaenously not being cannibals.
If Christ is literally in the host then that would mean the host is God. It would also mean that Jesus has another nature besides human and deity but now bread and wine. Correct?
Again, the guys who came up with the categories you are using here concerning CHrist’s nature (in the Council of Chalcedon) also adhered to the Real Presence, so every single bishop did not have a firm grip of logic, or perhaps you misunderstand their position and the ramifications of it. Calvin’s answer to your question is that Christ’s divine nature (which is spirit) is in the elements. He does not share His nature with bread and wine in the sense that Christ is not literally made of bread and wine.
There’s a lot to chew on here, Craig, but I’ll need to read it a few times to try to get a good idea of the distinctions that you make between the Catholic doctrine and your ideas. After a first reading I like the depth of analysis that you go to. Even if everything isn’t the same as Catholic teaching, at least it is sufficient to offer seeds of thought for future election and study.
After one is convinced of the ‘Real Presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist, other implications follow. Reading quotes from the early Church Fathers, and even some more modern Saints, can give an idea of how others express their Christian faith in the Real Presence. For most people, though, it is frequent Holy Communion that is the expression of love for the Lord in the Eucharist. I have had an experience in the past where I had a mild depression which I couldn’t ‘shake off’, so to say, for 2 or more days, which is pretty rare for me. After this persistant annoyance, even though I felt that I had committed no sin, I just happened to attend a daily Mass. Even after all of the prayers said, the Our Father, the Readings of the Gospel, Psalms etc… still the annoyance continued. Then at Communion time, I went up as usual, not even thinking about my slightly saddened state, and received Holy Communion. I walked back to my pew and began to pray. Then, I realized something. Where was my annoyance, my mildly depressed spirit? I had it even as I was walking up with others to Communion? When I recollected myself I felt completely normal, happy, at peace, inspired etc… I can’t explain it because formerly I tried to remedy it by reading the Bible, praying, reading lives of Saints, etc.. all of which were interesting, but did not work. The Eucharist, that day, on the other hand, solved the problem. I think it was a gift from the Lord, just because I took the time to go visit Him? I also meditated on the event many times, and thought that maybe it’s just being in His close proximity, spirit and flesh, that can help us. Thus the incredible value of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Best to you,
– Al
Concerning your healing, God is indeed gracious. I appreciate you sharing that story.
“Reading quotes from the early Church Fathers…can give an idea of how others express their Christian faith in the Real Presence.”
In my reading of the Fathers, I have honestly found that they appeared to view the efficacy of the Eucharist much more like Protestants than Catholics. They obviously adhere to the Real Presence and Cyprian indicates that early on they had a priesthood and dealt with the Eucharist accordingly. However, there are quite a few mentions of the Eucharist being a memorial, but none of the ECF that I know of mention that sins are forgiven in it, and specifically venial sins as compared to all sins including mortal. In the Eastern (and Oriental) Church, they tend to partake in the Eucharist less frequently and view it as more of an aid to grace which helps the live righteously rather than a means to literally wipe the sin slate clean every week. Even these doctrines I have not been able to find in the ECF, though I gather that they are all differing applications of something early on as Ignatius called the Eucharist “the medicine of immortality.”
God bless,
Craig
And the fact that the Eucharist is offered by Christ as “Food” and “Drink” indicates that it something that is essential to both spiritual survival and general health and well being. Every symbol has it’s particular meaning, and we shouldn’t overlook the obvious. The Eucharist should be a topic of focus for every Christian, as it was also stated to be the ‘new covenant’. To overlook the immense significance of this would be foolishly negligent for a serious Christian.
That might be stretching it a bit. THe language is suggestive, sure. Job says, “I have not departed from the command of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12). Is daily Scripture reading needed for spiritual survival and general health? A lot of people will say, “Yes, of course.” Just something to think about.
Maybe these ECF’s are stretching it a bit also:
“Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”
– St. Augustine
“Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side… whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament.”
– from the writings of St. Augustine, Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410 {original translation}
“O Lord, we cannot go to the pool of Siloe to which you sent the blind man. But we have the chalice of Your Precious Blood, filled with life and light. The purer we are, the more we receive.”
– St. Ephraem
I hunger for the bread of God, the flesh of Jesus Christ …; I long to drink of his blood, the gift of unending love.
– St. Ignatius of Antioch
“Jesus taught a new sacrifice which the Church received from the Apostles and offers throughout the whole world.”
– St. Irenaeus (d. 202)
“If Christ did not want to dismiss the Jews without food in the desert for fear that they would collapse on the way, it was to teach us that it is dangerous to try to get to heaven without the Bread of Heaven.”
– St. Jerome
“How many of you say: I should like to see His face, His garments, His shoes. You do see Him, you touch Him, you eat Him. He gives Himself to you, not only that you may see Him, but also to be your food and nourishment.”
– St. John Chrysostom
“Of the sacrifice which we offer in every place, that is, of the bread and chalice of the Eucharist, Malachias has prophesied.”
– St. Justin, 2nd Century Martyr
“He is The Bread sown in the virgin, leavened in the Flesh, molded in His Passion, baked in the furnace of the Sepulchre, placed in the Churches, and set upon the Altars, which daily supplies Heavenly Food to the faithful.”
– St. Peter Chrysologus (400-450)
I was making reference to your presuming upon why God chose bread and wine, not the real presence itself. I think you misunderstood.
“Is daily Scripture reading needed for spiritual survival and general health? A lot of people will say, “Yes, of course.” Just something to think about.”
After thinking…I would say that those who say ‘yes, of course’ clearly have little or no knowledge of early Church history. It should be considered by all that daily scripture reading was not available for the vast majority of Christians until the invention of the Gutenberg press in 1440 AD.
Some monk’s and ecclesiastic’s in the first few centuries had access to Sacred Scripture in the first few centuries, but even then, it was usually limited to individual books of the NT, such as a single Gospel or a few letters of St. Paul. Scripture in the early Church was so rare, and costly to manufacture and transcribe, that it took someone as wealthy as Emperor Constantine, to have the first 50 copies of the Scriptures to be made and distributed for the early Churches of Constantinople:
From Wikipedia..
“The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.”
________
Therefore, if daily Scripture reading was indeed “needed”, or a requirement for salvation, then very few Christians indeed would have been capable of salvation in those early centuries of Christianity. Add to the equation that few people in the world at that time could read or write, and some of the barbarian nations didn’t even have an alphabet.
What WAS necessary, though, was the attendance at the early Christian liturgies and sacraments, wherein the Scriptures were indeed read to the congregation, even as it is still read at the Catholic Mass of our present day.
Job did hunger for God’s word more than food. Obviously, he did not have access to it in the “Bible,” so it would be anachronistic to say that he hungered for Scripture. The same would be true for those that lived during a time of limited literacy and access to books. However, for those of us that do hunger for God’s word more than our food (something that I am not always like to be honest), then that means approaching God in the Scripture or wherever His words are preached.
One other note.
Remember in the Gospel account of Lazarus who had died? If anyone loved the Lord, it was certainly these three friends of Christ, Sts. Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Note that the miracle was worked when Jesus was present in His flesh, that is, in his close physical proximity to Lazarus and his family. These saints were undoubtably praying for Lazarus during his mortal illness, but this did not prevent his death. But the physical closeness of Christ DID effect his cure and resurrection from the dead. The same happened with the woman who had an issue of blood. It was the touching of Jesus’ physical body that effected the miracle, even though we understand that she would not have attempted this were it not for her strong faith. Listen to what Jesus said after she had merely touched His clothes:
“And Jesus said: Who is it that touched me? And all denying, Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the multitudes throng and press thee, and dost thou say, Who touched me?
[46] And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. [47] And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. [48] But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.” (Luke 8:45)
So, this also might be something to consider regarding of the real presence, and power, of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
– Al
Peter’s shadow also had healing qualities (Acts 5:15) 🙂
Al Williams said – The Eucharist should be a topic of focus for every Christian, as it was also stated to be the ‘new covenant’. To overlook the immense significance of this would be foolishly negligent for a serious Christian.
Me – so true. The ancient Christian Churches focus on the Eucharist. And they don’t think it’s just a symbol. They actually adore it in some form or fashion And have been doing this since the fathers were alive. None of the early Fathers spoke against what Protestants would call idolatry. Something to think about for those who interpret the Fathers as thinking otherwise. It’s sad that so many Protestant denominations moved away from the Eucharist.
One thing that I have asked Catholics and have never been able to get a good answer to is whether there is any claim to the Eucharist forgiving sins in the early church, or the terminology of “worship” applied to it.
Good question. Off hand I’ve seen adoration used for sure but can’t recall worship. I think I have read early Christians saying the Eucharist sanctifies or something similar. Maybe that’s where the forgiving of venial sins comes from.
I’ll have too look into it.
Thanks!
Craig, I won’t be able to answer many of your questions, because somethings in history are hidden from us. However, as historical detectives, we can often piece certain mysteries together through circumstantial evidence.
Concerning Eucharistic theology, and why we might not have many comments on it by the ECF’s, it might be because this was one of the last things taught to Christian Catechumens in the first few centuries of Christianity. It was secretive in this respect, and often was not taught until after Baptism. So, logically, that which was kept from anyone who was not a baptized Christian, would certainly not be taught in public letters, etc. for anyone to read, such as pagans and heretics.
If anything, we can conclude that this demonstrates to a high degree how important this Sacrament was to the early Church Fathers. So important as to not reveal it even before Baptism.
One side note. When we read the History of the Church, we note that the early Church was in many ways more strict,and serious about the faith, than we often find the Church of the present day. This is why Constantine was only baptized on his death bed. He feared that he might commit mortal sin after his baptism.
Best to you.
Pertinent quote:
“Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.” – St. Augustine
Two things. You need a citation and further, it is not a reference to worship 🙂
Interesting. So Would you say it’s ok to have adoration of the statue of Mary? What do you think Augustine mean by his statement?
I think he means what I see in Protestant churches, even the ones that do not teach the Real Presence. People may have the wrong doctrine, but when they hold that bread and wine they reverence the Eucharist, dear I say adore His flesh and blood. So, Augustine may be speaking more to the attitude one holds towards the Eucharist then specifically worship.
For what it is worth, Catholics adore Mary, but they in theory DO NOT worship her. So you are well aware that there is a difference between adoration and worship.
Here’s the rest of Augustine’s quote. I apologize for the caps. It’s cut and paste… I see where in this context adore may not mean worship, but again if it is the body soul and divinity of Christ, how can one refuse to worship Him? This, to me, would show a lack of faith. Like the disciples said in John 6 “this is a hard saying, who can listen to it”?
“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)
Thanks for the fuller quote.
“I see where in this context adore may not mean worship, but again if it is the body soul and divinity of Christ, how can one refuse to worship Him?”
That is a perfectly logical inference, but not a necessary inference as the Holy Spirit is worthy or worship, but we do not worship people who have the Holy Spirit even though Deity dwells within them. So, I think it is a matter of what is appropriate. There may be a reason why in the Early Church, there are no recorded instances of the Eucharist being explicitly worshipped, at least that I know of.
This is from St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 333 – 397 A.D.) at the end he mentions how the wine that becomes the blood of Christ and that it redeems the people. I would take this to mean that it forgives sins. How do you read it?
St Ambrose – You may perhaps say: “My bread is ordinary.” But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the things said beforehand, they are said by the priest; praises are referred to God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other persons; but when the time comes for the confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words but the words of Christ. Therefore it is the word of Christ that confects this Sacrament….Before it be consecrated it is bread; but where the words of Christ come in, it is the Body of Christ. Finally, hear Him saying: “All of you take and eat of this; for this is My Body.” And before the words of Christ the chalice is full of wine and water; but where the words of Christ have been operative it is made the Blood of Christ, which redeems the people. (The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23)
Again, thanks for the citations. Are you and Al Williams the same person?
Hi Craig, No, we’re not the same person. But I’m glad that CK likes ECF quotes like I do! Maybe were just brothers in Christ.
– Al
I wish some of the Catholic readers here would comment on the commentary I am doing through Romans. Romans 5 is a relatively short one, and I extensively use the Fathers.
Craig said – That is a perfectly logical inference, but not a necessary inference as the Holy Spirit is worthy or worship, but we do not worship people who have the Holy Spirit even though Deity dwells within them. So, I think it is a matter of what is appropriate. There may be a reason why in the Early Church, there are no recorded instances of the Eucharist being explicitly worshipped, at least that I know of.
Me – therein lies the crux of the issue at hand. Catholics and I think you will see with the Fathers, say the Eucharist IS Christ. That is why we worship the Eucharist. He doesn’t dwell in the Eucharist like let’s say God in the Arc of the Covenant. If we had the Arc we would simply venerate it.
Excellent article Craig. I can confess that although intellectually I know most Protestants have some degree of belief in the Real Presence, I almost always assume otherwise. Thanks for the reminder Craig. BTW I will try to take you up on a Catholic reading your exegesis on Romans 5.
God bless.
Sounds good, I appreciate the feedback!
“For what it is worth, Catholics adore Mary, but they in theory DO NOT worship her. So you are well aware that there is a difference between adoration and worship.”
Hi Craig, you are not correct in this statement. This is an accurate Catholic explanation of the veneration and honor we give to Mary:
“The devotion we show to the Blessed Virgin is not the same we show to God. As Catholics, we don’t worship or adore Mary since worship and adoration are meant for God alone (latria), however, being that she is the great Mother of God, we give her honor and veneration in a higher degree (hyperdulia) than the saints who we give recognition and reverence (dulia).
To avoid against excess and defect, as the faithful we must refrain from false exaggeration towards the Blessed Virgin. By following the Magisterium, who has the final word on all matters of faith and morals, we will come to know authentic doctrine in regards to the many teachings on the Blessed Virgin Mary given to us throughout the centuries. The knowledge of authentic knowledge protects us from the extremes when it comes to the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “…True devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God…” (From a commentary on Lumen Gentium Part III no 67)
Thanks for the correction. I was unaware of what the word “adore” was translated into latin. Do we know what Latin word Augustine actually used (latria, dulia, etc?)?
Now that takes some digging! 🙂
The Roman Catholic church may claim not to worship Mary but approved prayers by the church show otherwise. Consider:
“Most Holy, Immaculate Virgin and my Mother Mary! To thee who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, the Hope, and the Refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all”.
The Glories of Mary by ST. ALPHONSUS
That’s is one adorable Mary!
Hmmm. What part is worship? None of those things indicate she’s is God or that we worship her. What part offends your sensibility?
Art it can actually be simplified a lot. “Hey, Catholics, do you worship Mary?”….Response, Nope. Problem solved. Anything more by the inquirer is judging the heart (a sin) and projection. Now, obviously, we as Catholics can explain to help the inquirer understand better. But it’s really that simple. If we worshipped Mary, we’d say so. You can find a lot of detail on this if you have a true desire to learn. I recommend a book by Tim Staples, Behold Your Mother.
God bless!
I’ll take a look at Romans 5…but I can’t get to it until tomorrow.
– Best to you,
Al
CK,
You have no problem with Mary being “the Advocate, the Hope, and the Refuge of sinners”? Where in Scripture does it even hint at Mary having this kind of position in the life of a Christian?
Here are some more statements from the same work:
“Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Immaculate Queen and Mother, the refuge and consolation of all troubled souls! I kneel here before thee with my family and choose thee for my Lady, Mother, and Advocate with God.
I dedicate myself and all who belong to me to thy service forever. I beg thee, O Mother of God, to receive us into the company of thy servants. Take us under thy protection. Help us in life and at the hour of our death.”
This is the kind of thing that should only be said to God and not some mere creature. This kind of thing involves worship.
Where in Scripture does it say Mary is your advocate? Where do the Scriptures say she is your mother?
Art I will follow up with your questions and explain what those prayers actually mean.
In the meantime show me in Scripture where it says Hebrews is inspired and belongs in the bible. Where in Scripture does it specifically say that the book of Wisdom is not inspired?
Not everything you believe in is in scripture! Just a thought. 🙂
Are you aware of the number of tests that were used to determined if a book belonged in the NT canon? It was quite a detailed process.
Who wrote the book of Wisdom?
That’s my point. Early Christians had to go to outside written Scripture. That’s why we have to also go to the early church fathers to get a better understanding of what Christ and the Apostles taught.
We don’t know who wrote Wisdom (it was written 50 years before the coming of Christ) but it was included with the bible along with 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc..until the Reformation at which time Luther removed them. As a matter of fact he also tried to remove James and other NT books because verses were being used against him in theological debates.
Heck, we don’t know who wrote Hebrews!
P.S. Read the Book of Wisdom. If time is tight just read chapter 2. You’ll see why Early Christians thought it was inspired but Jews didn’t. Let me know your thoughts on it. It gives me goose bumps.
True we don’t know who wrote Hebrews but there are other reasons why Hebrews is in the canon such as it tells us the truth about Christ. Hebrews is comparable to Romans No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
The problem with the OT apocrypha books is that none claim to be written by a prophet and they contain errors. The RC did not officially accept them as Scripture was not until Trent and even then there were many who were against accepting them as such.
Your right about Hebrews but that in itself does not make it inspired. There were other 1st Century books that did this and did not make the “cut” and others that barely made it such as Revelation (if memory serves me right).
Esther does not claim to be written by a prophet and we are fairly certain Song of Songs was not. Neither of them even mention God. What makes them inspired?
Trent made it “official” but it was always part of the cannon. As far as errors, who decided they contained errors? How do you know Luther’s theology was not in error? They were used against Luther to prove his theology wrong and so he waved the books away as containing errors. He tried to do the same thing with some NT books. See a pattern? He didn’t like Maccabees because it supports praying for those who died. Guess what, early Christians prayed for those who died.
There were some Christians such as Luther who thought James, Hebrews, Revelation did not belong in the bible. Does that still make those books suspect?
Either way, you are going outside written scriptures for these answers. Specifically Luther and his interpretation of what “he” considers scriptural.
Song of Songs was written by Solomon who was a godly man early in his life. When he took over the throne after David the Lord spoke to him and gave him wisdom. There is considerable similarity between vocabulary and syntax between Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes which was also by Solomon.
Esther is more complex and it would require a lot of discussion. Needless to say what guides the formation of the canon is the Spirit of Christ.
The OT apocrypha was considered deuterocanonical which means second canon. Books in this canon were in doubt by many as being Scripture. Even Jerome was against including them as were a number of important leaders during Trent. They were ok for reading but no doctrines were to be grounded on them.
There are historical errors in some of these books and there are also theological errors.
Praying for the dead is something that the NT never teaches. Just because early Christians may have does not mean it was right.
It is true that James, Hebrews, Revelation did take longer to be included in the NT canon. By the 4th century they were considered Scripture.
Luther was not infallible. No man nor church nor institution is. Only the Lord Chris twas infallible.
Do you consider the prayers to Mary that your church prays to be scriptural given that in the NT there are no prayers to her? Do you consider the prayers to Mary to be scriptural?
Actually Song of Songs was not written by Solomon. It claims it but scholars agree it was was written long after Solomon died. Look it up.
Jerome argued against including deuterocananical but interesting enough he never said it was because it contained theological errors. You would think that would be number one on his list. Some fathers wanted to include Hebrews and some didn’t. Can you point me to a CF that said no doctrines should be grounded on them?
Atheist point to historical errors in your bible to try to prove its not inspired. As you know, the bible is not to be read as you would a history book. That’s not its purpose. As you also know, theological errors is subjective based on ones interpretation.
Art said – Praying for the dead is something that the NT never teaches. Just because early Christians may have does not mean it was right.
Me – it doesn’t mean its wrong either, which is the reason I brought up the cannon. You believe in things outside written Scripture as inspired. Being a bible alone Christian give me a verse that says we must look to written Scripture ONLY. Profitable means “helpful” not “only”.
Art said – It is true that James, Hebrews, Revelation did take longer to be included in the NT canon. By the 4th century they were considered Scripture.
Me – but Luther didn’t think much of them. He was wrong. How do you fallible Luther didn’t get other thing wrong?
Art – Luther was not infallible. No man nor church nor institution is. Only the Lord Chris twas infallible.
Me – we agree on Luther and you and me. God protected the authors of Scripture, so they were infallible while writing at least. If you believe the Apostles did not teach error on faith and morals when speaking then they were infallible then. If the men that put the bible together for us were not protected from committing error then we have no real assurance other than tradition of men that the bible is inspired. I believe Jesus left us a church and its protected from teaching error on faith and morals. And yes I believe there were bad popes.
Art – Do you consider the prayers to Mary that your church prays to be scriptural given that in the NT there are no prayers to her? Do you consider the prayers to Mary to be scriptural?
Me – considering she was probably alive I’m not surprised there are no prayers to her. We do see in Revelation 5:8 & 8:4 that those in heaven do receive our prayers and deliver them to Jesus. So yes, I do believe its scriptural. Throw in Early Christian practice and Maccabees and I’m doubly sure.
Tell me how often do you reflect on Mary and how she magnifies the Lord?
It is worth noting that whoever wrote Song of Songs was a prophet, for he accurately predicted Jesus Christ’s passion before it happened. It is also worth noting merely having an accurate prophesy does not make something Scripture. Virgil predicted that a divine man would “Reign o’er a world at peace” and “The serpent too shall die” (Fourth Eclogue). It’s something worth thinking about.
Craig said – It is worth noting that whoever wrote Song of Songs was a prophet, for he accurately predicted Jesus Christ’s passion before it happened. It is also worth noting merely having an accurate prophesy does not make something Scripture. Virgil predicted that a divine man would “Reign o’er a world at peace” and “The serpent too shall die” (Fourth Eclogue). It’s something worth thinking about.
Me – so that kind of puts us back to square one. But you have to take a second look at the Book of Wisdom and consider the posibility that it was written by a prophet based on your criteria. The author predicted Jesus’ Passion more clearly than any other inspired book by a long shot.
Please read Chapter 2 of Wisdom and you’ll see why so many Early Christians thought it was inspired and why the Catholic Church still does.
I am not taking sides on the issue, I gave a defense of both sides. Personally, I think Wisdom and Baruch especially stand out, but the early church lacked a consensus on these books unlike the Canon.
Craig – but are you saying that there must be consensus in order for to a book as inspired?
Not at all. The Canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. Hence, we may not accurately recognize which books are infallible. For example, many Eastern Fathers did not recognize the Book of Revelation. So, the book does not become less infallible just because it is not recognized. The same can be said of the Deuterocanon, as many orthodox thinkers (i.e. Pope Gregory the Great for example) did not recognize some of its books. If those books are indeed Scripture, it shows how the books can be infallible even though they are not always recognized as such.
“To be” inspired
I don’t understand your point.
Modern day scholar say all kinds of things against what the church has believed for centuries. I would have to see the facts why I should not believe that Solomon did not write Songs.
Jerome in his preface to the Vulgate says that they are not to “apply to establish any doctrine”. If Jerome was against them then there is no reason to think that he did not have theological reasons for them.
Certainly the Bible is to be read as history. Those events that it records as history are said to have happened in history.
The Bible records a lot of theological errors. It does not say these things are true though. Jesus was constantly pointing out the errors of the leaders for example.
So we agree that the Scriptures do not teach praying to the dead. It does teach that the only proper prayer is to God alone and in the name of Christ. Since no one knows the nature of the afterlife then its foolish to do so. This is also where the doctrine of purgatory becomes a problem. Can someone who is in purgatory hear your prayers and do something about them?
Finally, Scripture says that God-Christ hears our prayers. No need to pray to the dead for anything.
No need for the men who decided on the canon to be protected from error or to be infallible. Christ can and does work through fallen men to accomplish His purposes.
Those prayers mentioned in Rev 5:8 and 8:4 says nothing about prayers being said directly to any human being.
Mary no longer has anything to do with this world. Mary was used by God to bring Christ into the world and raise Him. This was a special task that God equipped her for. She was blessed by God. What the RC has done with its Marian dogmas is turn her into something that Christ nor His apostles ever taught.
Art – Modern day scholar say all kinds of things against what the church has believed for centuries. I would have to see the facts why I should not believe that Solomon did not write Songs.
Me – do, you will be surprised.
Art – Jerome in his preface to the Vulgate says that they are not to “apply to establish any doctrine”. If Jerome was against them then there is no reason to think that he did not have theological reasons for them.
Me – yes, but later in life he became a defender. From Wikipedia (but it has a reference).
In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).
Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon would be settled —the judgment of the Church, rather than his own judgment or the judgment of Jews, though he wondered why one would sanction the version of a heretic and judaizer.
Do you ever wonder why the ancient Christian churches (Eastern Orthodox, Coptic) include the Deuterocanonical books? How is it that they all got it wrong but Luther got it right?
Art – Certainly the Bible is to be read as history. Those events that it records as history are said to have happened in history.
Me – I disagree. In order to understand what an author intended in order to understand Scripture correctly. Just because an inspired author mentioned history doesn’t necessary mean he is trying to give us a history lesson. In Tobit the author tells us that the hero is fictional. He’s not trying to give us a history lesson.
Art – The Bible records a lot of theological errors. It does not say these things are true though. Jesus was constantly pointing out the errors of the leaders for example.
Me – I disagree. The OT does not have theological errors. People interpret it incorrectly till this day. Jesus pointed out how rabbis where hypocrites and/or may have interpreted something incorrectly. As a matter of fact Jesus told the Jews to do what the rabbis told them but not act like them.
Art – So we agree that the Scriptures do not teach praying to the dead.
Me – I agree. We only pray to those that are alive in heaven.
I would like to clarify something though. When we pray to someone other than God it we mean request or to ask (old English ie. “Dear sir, pray pass me the butter or pray tell me what you did this summer). Type the word pray in Word and look up the synonyms. When we pray to God its worship and we only worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It can be confusing to non-Catholics.
Art – It does teach that the only proper prayer is to God alone and in the name of Christ. Since no one knows the nature of the afterlife then its foolish to do so. This is also where the doctrine of purgatory becomes a problem. Can someone who is in purgatory hear your prayers and do something about them?
Me – by requesting a friend to pray for you, you are going to someone other than God alone. You are taking a detour. I don’t need to know the nature of the afterlife. Scripture tells us those in heaven and earth are part of the Body of Christ and as members of that body we should pray for one another.
Since we are talking about purgatory…Tell me Art, if you were to die right now do you think you are pure enough to get into heaven as you are now? I’d say no one on earth is pure enough. So whatever purification we go through to get to heaven is purgatory.
What you fail to see is that the people in heaven and purgatory are more alive than you and me. There are no dead people there. Christ is the God of the living. The only people that are dead are those that die outside His body.
MT 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, 32 `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (St. Luke’s Gospel 20:38 adds”for to him all are alive” or “for all live unto him”)
Also, as you’ve seen in Revelation, no one seems dead. And as James says 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” I’d say saints in heaven are very righteous. Wouldn’t you agree?
Art – Finally, Scripture says that God-Christ hears our prayers. No need to pray to the dead for anything.
Me – I agree, that’s why we don’t pray to the dead. They’re earthly bodies are dead but the saints in heaven are alive.
Art – No need for the men who decided on the canon to be protected from error or to be infallible. Christ can and does work through fallen men to accomplish His purposes.
Me – I’m confused by this statement. If Christ works through fallen men to accomplish His purpose and his purpose is to make sure they don’t teach error, then they are being protected by God from making errors.
Art – Those prayers mentioned in Rev 5:8 and 8:4 says nothing about prayers being said directly to any human being.
Me – Rev 5:8 8 “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” This shows the elders offering to God the prayers of the Saints on earth.
Who do you think the twenty-four elders are? They represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven.
Rev 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” Hmm…This looks like angels offering prayers on our behalf. So you are right, these are prayers being delivered by angels.
Art – Mary no longer has anything to do with this world. Mary was used by God to bring Christ into the world and raise Him. This was a special task that God equipped her for. She was blessed by God. What the RC has done with its Marian dogmas is turn her into something that Christ nor His apostles ever taught.
Me – I disagree. That’s like saying the Apostles don’t have anything to do with this world today. We can learn a lot by reflecting on their lives and committing our lives to Christ like they did.
Speaking of things Christ nor His apostles ever taught…You still haven’t given me a verse that states we must use written Scripture alone for everything pertaining to faith and practice. If you can’t, you really should think about where you received this tradition from.
As you can tell, I enjoy history and for the life of me I don’t even know how Sola Scriptura was even feasible before the invention of the printing press. Come to think of it, how was it possible when probably over 90% of Christians were illiterate? Based on your view of history, Christians didn’t even know for sure which OT books were inspired until 1,500 years after the crucifixion!
To be fair, the Magesterium is written down so your 90% of Christians is illiterate argument does not make sense. The literacy of people does not affect the nature of the authority of a source of information.
Where did Jerome say that it was right to establish doctrine on the Old Testament apocrypha? Where does it say he changed his mind about this? Keep in mind that “…the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God” i.e. the Old Testament writings which did not include the Old Testament apocrypha.
Just because a lot of churches accept the Old Testament apocrypha doesn’t mean they don’t contain errors. If they contain errors then they can’t be inspired-inerrant Scripture. Here are some errors: “The Book of Tobit or Tobias is about a pious Jew who is deported to Nineveh. Blinded by bird dung, he sends his son Tobias to collect a debt. During the journey Tobias acquires the gall of a fish that restores his father’s sight.
Estimated to be from the third century B.C.E., Tobit has a serious chronological flaw, among other problems. It says Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes (997 B.C.E.) and was on the scene when the tribe of Naphtali was deported to Ninevah (740 B.C.E.). That would mean he lived more than 257 years. But Tobit 14:1-3 gives his age as 102 when he died.
The fact of two authors brings confusion to the Book of Baruch. The first five chapters are made to look as if Baruch wrote them. The sixth chapter is presented as a letter written by Jeremiah. Baruch is said to live in Babylon (1:1, 2) although the Bible says he went to Egypt. In his preface to the Book of Jeremiah, Jerome said, “I have not thought it worthwhile to translate the Book of Baruch.” http://www.yrm.org/apocrypha.htm
Are you saying that there are historical errors in the 66 books of the Bible (excluding the Old Testament apocrypha)? Are there historical errors in the gospels for example? If so, where?
There are theological errors in the apocrypha. Here are a couple of many: “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins…Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).
Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
Tobit 12:9 states that “alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.” But the Bible states that “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). n atonement for the soul.”
A person who has died is dead. A person whose soul is separated from his physical body is dead. Also, you have no way of knowing the state of anyone who has died except the Lord Christ. You don’t know if a loved one is in heaven or not. Even if purgatory were to exist you would not know if a person there can hear your prayers and do anything about them.
Asking another human being here in this world who can be made aware of your prayer requests is not the same thing as praying to someone who has died. The living person here can be made aware of your requests but the dead cannot. You can only imagine they have.
If I were to die today I would expect to be in heaven. It would not be based on anything I have done to deserve it but on the finished work of Christ who died for all my sins and His blood cleanses me from all sin.
The doctrine of purgatory is unbliblical and a denial of the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a denial of the sufficiency of His life and death. The doctrine of purgatory tells you that His life, death and resurrection was not enough to pay the price for your sins in full. It makes Colossians 2:13-14 and I John 1:7 a lie.
Christ does not protect men from making errors. If that were true then Peter would not erred and Paul would have not rebuked him for doing so in Galatians 2:11-14.
No prayers are being said to anyone directly in Revelation. Revelation 5:8 is clear about this.
It is a good thing to reflect on what the Scripture says about various people. It’s quite another to claim these people who died 2000 years are still working in this world today.
All that we have from Christ and the apostles is found only in the New Testament. If you think there are other sayings of the apostles and Christ then they should have been in the New Testament. Now, do you have an official list by your church of these traditions that tells us what apostle said this or that and when?
Btw- it is true that John says “ Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25. However, we have no record of what these other things were. So this does not help your case.
Can you define Sola Scriptura for me? I want to make sure we both understand what it is.
Jesus also said He was a gate, water, a door, and a vine. Which is it?
Any cross references with those other terms?