Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the Catholic Church, the wine is not merely symbolic, but it actually becomes the Blood of Christ.
Disposable communion cups are not a fitting vessel for the Blood of our Lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
I had always perceived that as symbolic...not literal.
In the Catholic Church, it is very much literal!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
At some masses the priest would dip the wafer in the cup before giving communion. But that did not happen in every Catholic mass I attended.
Yes, the practice of intinction is standard in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. It is also allowed in the Latin Rite, but is very rarely done.
I see no reason to presume that everything Jesus wanted us to know is written in the Gospels. If that were the case, then why establish a Church? Why appoint Apostles? What about all the people who can't read (which back then was nearly everyone)?
Jesus gave us a living authority, a Church.
Your lack of presumption allows you to open the door to false prophets.
Jesus established His church, the body of Christ, to save souls through the preaching of the gospel. Jesus gave us all we need to accomplish that goal.
Jesus chose His apostles to bear witness to His life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and teachings.
What about the people who couldn’t read, which was most of them? They could hear, couldn’t they? And many in the first century saw the miracles the apostles performed. The purpose of the miracles was to confirm that the word the apostles preached was from God. (Mark 16:20)
Yes, the practice of intinction is standard in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. It is also allowed in the Latin Rite, but is very rarely done.
When I received communion with the wafer dipped in the cup..it was juice, not blood.
I always took it to be symbolic.
The Bible is very clear on drinking blood of your own kind.....
You are assuming without textual evidence that women were receiving Communion
Of course women took Communion. That's not the point. The point is that we don't have evidence from the text of women receiving Communion, nor is it directly commanded by Christ or anyone else in the text.
In order to conclude that women are to receive Communion, you must be appealing to a tradition outside the text itself.
Not true. It is inferred by the mountain of evidence we have of the role of women in the first century church. The Bible teaches in three ways: commands, examples and necessary inferences.
Quote:
Your criticism only applies to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and not the Catholic Church as a whole. The cup has never been withheld from the laity in the Eastern Rites as far as I know.
I know firsthand it was withheld in the Catholic Churches in the US.
Do you take the cup every Lord’s Day?
Quote:
My personal feelings regarding any particular practice of the Church are irrelevant. My duty as a Christian is to humbly submit to the Authority Christ has established.
Have you humbly submitted to the command of Jesus to take the bread AND THE CUP to remember Him. After all, He did establish that rite the night He was betrayed.
This Catholic has never added that word or heard that word added by anyone. Wow.
As an x Catholic, I heard it said many times by Catholics, and continue to hear it from Catholics on this and other forums. I suppose it’s their way of subtly justifying their many traditions.
Your lack of presumption allows you to open the door to false prophets.
I believe that we are to hold fast to the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
From my perspective, it is those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church who preach another gospel since they depart from the message of Paul and the Apostles. They are the false prophets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Jesus established His church, the body of Christ, to save souls through the preaching of the gospel. Jesus gave us all we need to accomplish that goal.
Jesus chose His apostles to bear witness to His life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and teachings.
What about the people who couldn’t read, which was most of them? They could hear, couldn’t they? And many in the first century saw the miracles the apostles performed. The purpose of the miracles was to confirm that the word the apostles preached was from God. (Mark 16:20)
I believe that we are to hold fast to the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
From my perspective, it is those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church who preach another gospel since they depart from the message of Paul and the Apostles. They are the false prophets.
Agreed.
The Catholic Church went beyond the Bible though with their own set of rituals and rules based on their interpretation of the Bible.
There are 45,000 distinct Christian denominations in the world. Who is telling the true story ?
All we have is the Bible and man's interpretation of it. That alone does not make them false prophets.
Miss Kate first of all when Paul is telling Timothy all scripture Paul is specially talking about the old testament scripture, as the New Testament wasn’t fully written yet .
Some translations say useful as you quoted here but others say profitable .
No where in those verses does it say sufficient or scripture alone and other verses from the apostle paul himself back that view .
Verses like
2 Thessalonians 2:15, NIV: So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Paul didn’t just say written word , he also said apostolic oral tradition here as on par and equal with the written word.
I don’t dispute that every word the Holy Spirit spoke through His penmen was written when Paul wrote 1 Timothy. But what you’re not taking into consideration is that the oral teachings were also Scripture.
Quote:
If sola scriptura is correct Paul would have specifically told Christians to only follow the written word and not oral teachings . In fact he specially told Christians to follow both oral and written teachings .
According to Paul the word of God is both apostolic written words (Bible ) and oral tradition (apostolic oral teachings passed down from the apostles to the apostolic fathers to future Christians
The oral teachings of the apostles were God breathed. The words the apostolic father’s wrote were not God breathed, though they are interesting to read, and they give us insights into the early church.
Quote:
Scripture certainly has the power to do all the things that this verse says. But look more closely at what Paul is saying. You will agree, I am sure, that the writings we call the New Testament were not yet collected together as Scripture when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy. So when Paul speaks of Scripture in this verse, he is certainly referring to the Old Testament and not the entire Bible as we now have it. In fact, in verse 15 he refers to the “sacred writings” with which Timothy has been acquainted from childhood. This can mean only the Old Testament.
As soon as a gospel or epistle was completed, it was sent off to a congregation, who would in turn read it aloud, copy it, and send it to another congregation. There is internal evidence of this. Every congregation had copies of the gospels and epistles not long after they were written. The entire New Testament had been written by the close of the first century. For the Catholic Church to claim it gave us the Bible is beyond ridiculous. If you’ve read the church fathers, you would note that they often quoted from the gospels and epistles, proving that the claim of the Catholic Church gave us the Bible to be false. There was no Catholic Church as we know it in 325 AD, and the Jews gave us the Old Testament, not the Catholic Church. I suggest you look at the actual evidence from the Scriptures themselves and from the pre Nicene fathers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
