This is amusing! Jesus explicitly says the blood is for remission of sins but guess what? Rome never provides the cup to the sinner only the bread. So it is not only a bloodless sacrifice but it is a oxymoronic exercise of futility as the very thing said to be for the remission of sins is withheld from sinners. Only the Priests drink the cup.
Of course this just one oxymoronic characteristics of those who teach that the Lord's Supper is literally for remission of sins.
My dilemma
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Croyant, Mar 3, 2015.
Page 4 of 7
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
If it has changed it would seem to be a change in doctrine, the ever changing monster of the RCC. Thank God the Bible never changes; Christ never changes; the same: yesterday, today, and forever. -
Actually, in this respect, the RCC is no different from groups such as the Mormons, and the SDA with their inspired "prophetess" Ellen White. -
So no, he's not wrong. -
Is it "Time Waits for No One" Or "Time Changes Everything"?
Then there is this:
-
The PRACTICE, not DOCTRINE of offering the cup to the laity began after Vatican II. Most churches here in the U.S. are giving both the host and the cup. There is a big difference in discipline & practice and what you keep calling doctrine. Even the Latin Rite could begin allowing married priests and it would not be a change in doctrine but discipline. Here is evidence for you concerning the administration of the cup to the laity.
"http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/
Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
17. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat . . . take and drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
18. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a "custom" of the Church.28 This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
19. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium: -
The reason behind the Church's decision to withhold the cup from the laity in the 11th Century is fuzzy (meaning few if any people know). Many suspect it was done simply out of expediency. If there is only one priest presiding, it takes a lot longer to offer both species. After all “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of the Eucharistic grace." Catechism Section 1390. The Church now has deacons and, since Vatican II it has brought on lay persons as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, thus making distribution of both species much more efficient.
So why did they change back? The thinking was that if Jesus commanded the people to eat His body and drink His blood, it was not a good idea to attenuate this liturgy. Father Gregory Collins, in his book "Meeting Christ in His Mysteries," put it this way: -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Think about that admission!!! On one hand their DOCTRINE demands it is essential for remission of sins but on the other hand their PRACTICE has not historically agreed with their DOCTRINE and even now they only OFFER it but don't demand their PRACTICE matches their DOCTRINE! Is it, or is it not essential for remission of sins????????
However, their DOCTRINE is straight out of hell and perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. Abraham is given TO US as the PATTERN for remission of sins and imputation of righteous WHICH IS Justification (Rom. 4:5-8) as there is no justification of those still in sins and without righteousness and Abraham was justified as a completed action at the point of faith while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" (Rom. 4:9-10).
Paul explicitly denies Abraham was justified "IN CIRCUMCISION" - v. 10-11 using the Aorist tense of completed action demanding it occurred PREVIOUS to circumcision. Hence, PRIOR TO DIVINE ORDINANCES justification was a completed action at the point of faith.
Only by perverting Romans 4:16-21 does Rome attempt to justify PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION when this text is not dealing with Justification but with the nature or kind of faith involved in the act of justification, which is not PROGRESSIVE FAITHFULNESS but simply taking God at His Word that he is able to obtain the promise rather than a partnership in obtaining the promise.
However, Catholics are spiritually blind and committed to their errors and are incapable exegetes. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Catholics are deceived and deceptive. Here is the evidence to prove it.
1. They claim "without works" in regard to justification refers to Judiasm and becoming a Jew rather than good and bad deeds defined by both conscience and Law. The proof they are wrong is that Paul uses Abraham as the example of "works" who lived 430 years prior to the Law or Judaism - proving it has nothing to do with becoming a Jew or judaism. - Rom. 4:1-6
2. They claim that justification is a progressive action only completed in final judgement after the resurrection but Paul denies justification occurred "in circumcision" but was a completed action "Had" while "in uncircumcision" - Rom. 4:9-11
3. They claim that justification is inclusive of divine ordinances while Paul using Abraham as the pattern of justification by faith for "all who are of faith" both Jews and Gentiles demands it was a completed action PRIOR TO the only divine ordinance given Abraham - Rom. 4:9-11.
-
So as long as you insist on using the name "Catholic" don't expect much respect from those outside the Church of Rome since you are denying and showing contempt for their faith and Salvation.
I believe I could make the argument that the Orthodox Church supersedes the Church of Rome. I am quite certain any Orthodox Church members would be willing to debate you on that subject.
*************************************************************************************************** -
(1) Public revelation is that given to by Christ and His apostles. It is meant for all the faithful of all time. It is the deposit of faith referenced in Jude 3. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It is complete.
(2) Private revelation is sometimes given to specific persons for their own edification. It is beneficial to that person, sometimes even demanding that he or she perform certain works, but it never becomes applicable to the whole Church. It never becomes a part of the deposit of faith.
The Reformers never quite got it as far as private revelation is concerned. For them it seemed to be an either/or situation where if someone received a revelation it ought to apply to the whole Church. Thus they rejected all revelations and in doing so they rejected the command of Saint Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21: "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." -
The American Dream MemberSite Supporter
Hebrews 1 makes it clear revelation is complete in Jesus Christ. Everything we need is in the Bible. There are no more words of faith, words of knowledge, except in the warped theology of charismatics. Supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as tongues, miracles, healings, etc have ceased. God can of course do any, but no man today possesses them except the frauds on TV.
I would be interested to know, since the Lord's Supper in relation to the RCC is being discussed below, I have always wondered how Christ manifested a physical presence in the wafer and wine? How does that work in practical terms? -
You see, if you believe that the Bishop of Rome, the occupier of the Chair of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ; if you believe that the Church whose leader on earth is the Bishop of Rome; if you believe that the Church of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 is the same Church that is today headquartered in Rome, then you will be a Catholic. You will also believe that it is indeed the universal church.
If you don't believe these things, then you will probably find my references to the Catholic Church to be offensive. I'm sorry if it offends but this is a forum for the exchange of ideas. Frankly I find many things said here offensive, not the least of which is the elitist positions taken by the doctrines of grace crowd. -
************************************************************************************************* -
The American Dream MemberSite Supporter
-
Substance can change without the accidents changing, and that is what is known as transubstantiation. This brief article may be helpful in your understanding, although I submit that this is a mystery not susceptible of fully understanding. http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm -
-
-
I just want to say I do not mind at all the derailment, in fact it's the very issue I am trying to get a better understanding of.
So far I would say my beliefs have become a hybrid of both. I am still not totally convinced of salvation by grace alone or the lack of any authority of the Catholic church and the Pope, for instance. To me it looked like an excuse by people who wanted to be freed from the authority of the Catholic church, to instead create hierarchies of their own.
Page 4 of 7