/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>569499

Highly unlikely. If a cyber church were to work, it would operate much like FaceBook with a series of connections to various humans. There something spiritual when a Christian is personally with their siblings, and I don't see that in a cyber church.

You cant take digital Blood and Flesh of Christ, so no.

>>569519

but without a blessing, it's just wine and bread?

information are important, not the carrier.

>>569519

Maybe you can't

Some churches broadcast their services on the radio, but no one considers listening to that program the same as "going to church". You miss out on the communal aspect, as well as things like the Eucharist as >>569519 noted.

>>569499

There's supposed to be something metaphysical happening when you gather a bunch of people with similar intent. It's like memes, but instead of emotional imagery you're physically present and taking part in holy rituals.

>>569527

Sacrament to be valid (or just to be in the first place) needs valid form and matter. Valid form is words "This is my body/blood" but valid matter is as much important. And valid matter for Eucharist is real bread from actual wheet and real wine from actual grapes. So no cybereucharist, ever. Nor cyberorders where you have to lay actual hands. Nor valid baptism where there have to be water. No chrism, no confirmation. And no last rites, same reason. But theorically you could have cybermarriage and cyberpeance (bu to second one you have to have valid priests).

>>569499

Unless you live in Saudi arabia, I don't think it's a good idea

>>569499

I say with how the left, the sjws, and (((them))) are doing everything to screw over Christianity and the Church, cyber churches are going to be the norm.

However, it won't be like OP and others say.

It will just be an "underground movement" type of thing. I can see the people of the churches making private online groups through secure instant messaging services like Tox to hold sermons and communion. Stuff like baptism will be held in real life as normal, but if churches are shut down, there might be something like a church version of a safe house where it will happen.

For the stuff that is strictly online, it's going to be like now, but perhaps things that are more extreme than Anonymous message boards/chan boards. Most likely it will be deep web/dark web…Just to escape the all seeing eye of the beast that is internet surveillance.

>>570222

why not just hook yourself up into a computer and supplement the chemicals your body produces when accepting the communion while watching a mass on repeat?

>>570005

Noice

>>570222

yeah so what if you print out wine and bread? is that much different than baking? you still end with same product.

what matters is what happens after, transubstantiation etc.

>>570267

No. Just no.

>>570241

>Unless you live in Saudi arabia, I don't think it's a good idea

But Anon, that's quite literally Europe in a few years.

>>570222

>This is not a very optimistic viewpoint.

This is realism viewpoint. Harsh truth is infinitely better than sweet lie. Not to mention that we are at edge of fifth age so future is all but optimistic

>We have 3D printing now. Perhaps 3D food printing will be a thing in the future. Could the priest not trigger the algorithm which causes your 3D food printer to print wine and bread?

I don't think that you understand how 3D printing works. To 3D print for example bread you would need to have dough in it. Not to mention that printer would have to be united with oven. And you really cannot print wine or any liquid. Now even if you do it, and even if you ignore that such mass produceing of comunicates is really disrespectful towrds Christ, who deserve that things consecrated to him being real first fruits, that youw would still have to had actual, valid priest that would hold with his actual hands bread and wine and with his actual lips say "This is my Body, this is my Blood"

>>570267

Because we are anathema to foolish materialist that think that things is sum of it's part and do not have it's own essence.

>>571119

There are still more good churches than bad ones, mostly rural. And cyber church would have no sacraments save penance (if it would be run but actual priest) and marriage and thus could not be even named church.

Not to mention that this whole taqiyya attitude, "I will prented to be of world while being Christian in secret, not even existing place" is disgusting on fundamental level. If blessed in heaven were able to sorrow those who lived during persecutions would cry upon state of your soul.

>>577084

>I don't think that you understand how 3D printing works. To 3D print for example bread you would need to have dough in it. Not to mention that printer would have to be united with oven.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. We'll be using an assortment of atoms to dynamically generate bread

>And you really cannot print wine or any liquid.

See above. We may need additional equipment to transition between solids, gases, and liquids, but that's all part of the design.

>Now even if you do it, and even if you ignore that such mass produceing of comunicates is really disrespectful towrds Christ, who deserve that things consecrated to him being real first fruits, that youw would still have to had actual, valid priest that would hold with his actual hands bread and wine and with his actual lips say "This is my Body, this is my Blood"

Don't worry. We'll have Vatican III and make it so that the priest can press the button.

>>577101

>That's where you're wrong, kiddo. We'll be using an assortment of atoms to dynamically generate bread

Then it would not be bread. Just as gluten-free bread is not bread. And how dust and light that angels take on earth to be visible are not bodies.

>See above. We may need additional equipment to transition between solids, gases, and liquids, but that's all part of the design.

See above. Also, what did I tell about us and materialist being anathema to each other?

>Don't worry. We'll have Vatican III and make it so that the priest can press the button.

<He bought Sedememers bs

No council can change dogma. No council can change form and matter of Sacraments since they were made by Christ.

>>577110

yikes

>>577275

The church is not only a place.

You talk about rituals and the eucharist but in early christianity they were not be.

What is more important, clericalism or faith?

>>577325

>You talk about rituals and the eucharist but in early christianity they were not be.

So, the apostles were at the Last Supper…what exactly did they do after the death and resurrection of Christ to honor the "do this in remembrance of me"? Share cheetos?

>>577128

>Then it would not be bread. Just as gluten-free bread is not bread. And how dust and light that angels take on earth to be visible are not bodies.

<It has identical composition as a real piece of bread we use as a template – right down the last atom.

<It's not bread.

>See above. Also, what did I tell about us and materialist being anathema to each other?

But once the priest does the rite, it becomes more than mere bread. It becomes the body and blood of Christ. What is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven. God will uphold the cyber-mass.

>No council can change dogma. No council can change form and matter of Sacraments since they were made by Christ.

We're not changing the form. We're just having the priest prepare the bread in a slightly different way. If Novus Ordo is valid, this is valid.

>>577329

>We're not changing the form. We're just having the priest prepare the bread in a slightly different way. If Novus Ordo is valid, this is valid

blasphemy is a sin

>>577328

>do this in remembrance of me

or do you really think that bread is the body of Christ?

>>577329

><It has identical composition as a real piece of bread we use as a template – right down the last atom.

><It's not bread.

If you get and do the same to Human body guess what - it would not be human body. Essential part of human body's essence is that it's generated by other human bodies.

Essential part of bread essence is that it is made out of wheat and water.

>But once the priest does the rite, it becomes more than mere bread. It becomes the body and blood of Christ. What is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven. God will uphold the cyber-mass.

But still, it is not real bread. And without real matter there is no sacraments.

And even if it was real bread you will still have actual priest, actually ordained by actual bishop that laid his actual hands upon soon-to-be-priest actual hands and gave him actual chalice, who would with his actual hands hold this bread and with acutal voice say "This is my body"

>We're not changing the form. We're just having the priest prepare the bread in a slightly different way. If Novus Ordo is valid, this is valid.

NO still uses valid matter and still have valid form. with valid priesthood. Cybvermass would not.

>>569519

Transubstantiation is a lie though. It’s literally only bread and wine and anyone who has ever taken communion knows this.

>>577343

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Yes.

>>579901

You have no life in you, how shall you be risen up?

>>577259

Why yikes?

>>579901

Do you believe God can do anything?

Jesus tells us it is his flesh and blood, therefore it is true.

Also, transubstantiation =/= transformation.

>>580200

So you're not a Christian.

>>580200

Holy shit a Muslim.

>>580202

>Jesus tells us it is his flesh and blood

He never said that

>>580206

>what is metonymy?

>>580208

John 6

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

He isn't being poetic here. Jesus lost followers for this radical statement, before when Jesus said "I am a door" his followers did not take him literally, because it was obvious he was being poetic. Here though it is obvious he is speaking literally.

>>580212

That passage doesn't say anything about bread or wine. You read that in

Also, don't forget that next verse

<The flesh profiteth nothing.

>>580217

>taking a single line of scripture out of context

>>580224

The context is the Jewish reaction to His words. The flesh is what they thought He was saying. He is saying that to eat His flesh in a carnal manner, like local presence would be, would be worthless, a man would be no farther from hell by cannibalizing Christ.

>>580225

>The context is the Jewish reaction to His words.

Those words are: Eat my flesh

Those words are: Spirit and life.

Ergo "my flesh"=/="flesh" i.e. worldly and carnal understanding that you now trying to impose unto spiritual persons.

QED

>>580235

Transubstantiation necessitates carnal eating. I don't care about the contrived nonsense required to get around that, so that it switches between flesh and bread when convienent, that is a simple fact. If bread becomes flesh and then you eat it, that is carnal eating, period.

>>580236

"is" means "represents", it's a metonym.

>>580238

>"This is my body"

>"So this represents your body. Ok, Jesus"

>>580238

>Transubstantiation necessitates carnal eating. I don't care about the contrived nonsense required to get around that, so that it switches between flesh and bread when convienent, that is a simple fact. If bread becomes flesh and then you eat it, that is carnal eating, period.

We know. That's the whole point. Jesus literally says gnaw, chew my Body so we do.

Carnal understanding does not equal to everything carnal, you little gnostic.

>>580236

I'm going to sound dumb, but how can bread be his body, if he was a human man, he can't literally mean that it's his body, so it must have another meaning.

>>580236

I’m not a fan of this image, it implies that Jesus words are easy to understand and obviously literal. Considering both some of the things Jesus said and the fact that Cathodox generally don’t go for Protestant hyper-literalism, I don’t see why transubstantiation is the obvious conclusion. It may be the right answer, but it is not obvious, and I really wish people would stop proof texting the Bible. Nothing about scripture is obvious or can simply be assumed easily.

>>580236

I’m not a fan of this image, it implies that Jesus words are easy to understand and obviously literal. Considering both some of the things Jesus said and the fact that Cathodox generally don’t go for Protestant hyper-literalism, I don’t see why transubstantiation is the obvious conclusion. It may be the right answer, but it is not obvious, and I really wish people would stop proof texting the Bible. Nothing about scripture is obvious or can simply be assumed easily.

>>580255

Transubstantiation

>>580263

John 6, 1 Corinthians 11 and early church witnesses like Ignatius or Justin are sufficient

>>580247

>context isn't important to me

>>580252

>We know. That's the whole point.

The flesh profiteth nothing.

>Jesus literally says gnaw, chew my Body

No, He doesn't. Words are defined by their context.

>>580247

"Ye are the salt of the earth"

"Ye are the light of the world"

"I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman"

"I am the door"

What did He mean by this? Let's not pretend that Jesus NEVER spoke in metaphors.

>>580274

>"Ye are the salt of the earth"

Have you ever licked yourself. You are clearly salty

>"Ye are the light of the world"

White ppl only

>"I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman"

Vine was a popular app during 30AD

Great discussion lads but what does it have to do with OP's topic

>>580280

Whether or not communion can be done without a physical church

>>580270

>The flesh profiteth nothing.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=DRA&quicksearch=the+flesh&begin=47&end=73

Educate yourself.

>No, He doesn't. Words are defined by their context.

He changed from phago, which means eating to trogon which means chew, gnaw and have no poetical usage neither in Scripture nor ancient greek poetry

>>580274

Yes but the Lord didn't double down on the literal meaning of his other metaphors. Look at John 6. If He had just said the following passage, it would be more like the metaphors you mentioned:

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

But instead He goes on, becoming even more explicit when the Jews are repulsed by His saying:

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

>55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

None of the metaphors you gave were that explicit. It would be like if He spoke of Himself as the door and then continued on to say that His hands are doorknobs and His ears are hinges. What's the point of extending the metaphor any further than the first few verses if the Lord did not mean what He said? Besides that, if the Eucharist were truly just bread and wine, then how could it cause sickness to those who partake of it unworthily, as Paul says:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

It wasn't until the reformation that the practice of treating the Eucharist as being less than the true body and blood of Christ emerged. So if the Lords says it's His body, if Paul says it's His body, if the early Church says it's His body, if all of Christendom up until the reformation says it's His body, then how do you draw the conclusion that God allowed his people to take an offhand remark He had accidentally overemphasized so far as to mistakenly make it the integral part of their worshiping Him for one and a half millennia?