Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Do you partake of both the blood and body of Christ or just some infrequent symbolic gesture? Do you wash anyone's feet as was commanded at the last supper?
We have no more right to infer that all are obliged to drink of the cup because the Apostles were commanded to drink of it, than we have to suppose that the laity are required or allowed to confect the bread and wine because the power of doing so was at the last Supper conferred on the Apostles or required and allowed to bind and loose sins because that too was given to the Apostles?
The charge of withholding the cup by some Protestants is completely disingenuous because in their own practice and in their own doctrines have destroyed the intrinsic virtue of the Sacrament by giving to their followers nothing but symbolic bread and wine. The difference between them and Catholics is that under either form we give the entire substance, the Real Presence, while under two forms Protestants give only the shadow.
Again, not only are you at odds with Catholicism, but with nearly all of Christendom too. Protestant theologian Gottfried Leibnitz wrote his Systema theologicum; "It cannot be denied that Christ is received entire by virtue of concomitance, under each species; nor is His flesh separated from His blood." [Systema Theol., p. 250.] Martin Luther himself was so clearly convinced of the completeness of the Real Presence in both species that he was an uncompromising advocate of communion under only one kind. Luther wrote: "If any Council, should decree or permit both species, we would by no means acquiesce; but, in spite of the Council and its statute, we would use one form, or neither, and never both." [De formula Missae.]
Now I ask that you drop this inane line of argument because the longer it goes the more foolish and vindictive you appear. Remember, this is not about who is right, it is about what is right.
Peace be with you.
I take communion. It is what it is.
Do you wash anyone's feet as was commanded at the last supper?
The Catholic church doesn't do that as part of the communion service either. Talk about inane.
The rest of the argument to justify the Church's disobedience to the clear instructions of Christ is nothing but rationalization and justification, which goes to show that it can excuse anything and that there is nothing, no matter how outlandish or outrageous or disobedient, that some Catholics will not condemn as long as the church hierarchy decides it.
• "He is only a CINO."
This does not have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat (considering what does, this is seen as irrelevant by some traditionalists)
• "He is only speaking as a private theologian, and (according to the interpretation of another private theologian) is contradicting extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the church there is no salvation"...") or Vatican Two's interpretation of it.
Which means different official things (even as to it being infallible) to different Roman Catholics. And as every papal or conciliar definition or condemnation leaves a certain margin for interpretation, private judgment has to complete what public pronouncements left unstated.
• Once a thesis or treatise is censured "theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success, but that demonstration is not de fide." (Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” Professor at Fordham University and Professor Emeritus at The Catholic University of America, [Sapientia Press: Naples, FL, 2007], 42-43); (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/official-interpretation-of-private.html)
And presuming one has correctly judged a teaching to be non-infallible, Donum Veritatis allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and humbly withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching."
Due to deficiencies or comprehensiveness of the Roman Catholic magisterium, much of the practical work of apologetics is left to lay apologists, though in times past such were disallowed from such debates as occur here, but wherein we often find a testimony to liberalism or variance which they themselves attack evangelicals for:
Robert Sungenis recently stated Rome's scholars are worse than Protestant liberals. Jimmy Akin recently chastised the interpretation of his priest saying, "This isn't exegetical rocket science." Steve Ray had some similar problems with a priest and concludes the church is "Always reforming, always in need of reform." Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Tim Staples says he went to a mass in which the priest led the church in "the wave." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. Karl Keating states, "Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays." Jim Burnham stated on Catholic Answers that Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.
I could go on and on. I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible. Then there are the big issues, like evolution. If you want to see diversity of opinion, simply try and nail down a Catholic apologist or a Catholic theologian on it. You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn't such a bad guy.
Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. I've got to believe by this point that Mr. Madrid is aware that this is a false argument. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/09/reminding-patrick-madrid-of-romes.html)
Then you have the Catholic schisms resulting from the Roman Catholic attempts to accommodate her loss of secular power and souls in the modern world of greater ideological freedom.
• Vatican Two was described by Cardinal Suenens as "the French Revolution in the Church" and Y. Congar likened it to the October (1917) Revolution in Russia.[5]...
As to the documents themselves, there are sixteen of these, and all sixteen are consider to be "established synodally" - that is to say, agreed upon by the majority of the Fathers present at the council. These sixteen documents are entitled "Constitutions", "Decrees", and "Declarations", distinctions which in the practical order are meaningless. Despite the "pastoral" nature of the Council, two of these are labeled "dogmatic". In total then number some 739 pages of fine print and reading through them requires, as Father Houghton has remarked, "a sufficient supply of anti-soporifics". (Vatican I runs to 42 pages of large print, and the Council of Trent to 179 pages).[17] Their tone is "prolix in the extreme" and as Michael Davies states, "much of their content consists of little more than long series of the most banal truisms imaginable."[18]...
Yet the council is important, for it introduced into the bosom of the church a whole host of "new directions" that are bearing fruit in our days...
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980)....
"The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. Thus every affirmation of the power of bishops is accompanied in a manner which is almost tedious by the insistence upon the authority of the Pope...
It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)
• Congar and the theologian “prison inmates” like him became the “guards” at Vatican II. Overnight we had theologians who’s ideas had been formally condemned by the Church, being the overseers of the new schemas of the Council. Many probably do not know that almost all of the schemas for the Council were completed, or at least had been outlined before the Council ever started. Those schemas, which were written in the same vain as those of the prior popes, were all completely trashed in favor letting these new theologians rewrite them all. In the end you had a smorgasbord character to all most of the VII documents because these modernists would write up the document and then the orthodox bishops would fight to keep in some of the old theological wording as well. That is one of the reasons for the “this and that” leitmotif of the documents. http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-sspx-and-archbishop-lefebvre-are.html
"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. - John 13:14-15
The washing of feet is done every year at the Holy Thursday Mass. You seem pretty casual about disobeying that command.
(Whatever it is you take, it isn't Communion)
Peace be with you
1 Corinthians 11:23-28 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Both the bread and the cup are necessary parts of the communion service as commanded by Christ.
The Catholic church did not serve the cup to the laity as part of the communion service for a long time and there is recently a intent to return to that.
A simple google search of the topic *no wine at communion* will bring it up.
Jesus did not combine the two. Both are part of the communion service as practiced and commanded by Jesus.
To not follow the clear commands of Jesus is disobedience to Him.
Your feeble attempts to paper and prevaricate over your error isn't working. Those who know the truth can see right through it. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind or damaging the Church so I can only presume you are posturing for the gallery of on lookers. They too will make up their own minds. You can rage on, but the determinate factor is not who posts last in this subject, it is who posted the truth and in that regard you have already lost this fight.
Peace be with you.
Once a year. What a joke.
If it's to be considered part of the communion service, it ought to be done every time communion is served.
But then the masses would be over 45 minutes and people would get really edgy at that.
Most can't even force themselves to arrive and leave on time, much less agree to stay LONGER.
Who ever said it was or is supposed to be considered as part of the "Communion service" (Properly named the Liturgy of the Eucharist or the Communion Rite).
As for frequency, the faithful are obligated to receive Communion once within their lifetime and at least on an annual basis thereafter. (kinda like that good old fashioned foot washing).
Peace be with you.
I never claimed to be acting within the rules. In basketball we would call that in intentional foul. I just saved the thin skinned the trouble of tattling.
Accusing me of lying is not a good defense of anyone. I never said that the cup was always available to the laity, I am only saying that the cup was NEVER absent from the Liturgy as was suggested.
You are smart enough to connect the dots.....what public health crisis broke out in Europe at the same time the Church restricted the cup to the laity? FYI - Bishops still have the authority to suspend the practice when public health is at risk. It happened in this country in some diocese during the H1N1 Pandemic scare.
(So I can attribute your leaving the Church at age 16 to an act of teenage indiscretion and defiance?)
Peace be with you.
I'm sure many other Catholics remember it that way as well.
No one denies that the priest drinks all he wants, that wasn't the point. Some priests poured more than others, I noticed. But not once did the congregation get offered it.
And hence the problem with alcoholism with the priests.
Jesus said he was leaving an example of humility by the foot washing and that it was his example to be followed. So the foot washing never was part of the last supper ceremony as it was the braking of bread and taking the wine that was to be done “in remembrance” of him.
The few times foot washing is mentioned is not in connection with the last supper but the kind and pious acts of faithful widows. (1 Tim. 5:10)
Foot washing is not part of the remembrance or memorial meal.
I stopped responding to this for the same reason and because it's the same Christ in both the consecrated bread and wine,it's not two separate Sacraments .Thus the commandment is fulfilled when Catholic/Orthodox receive Christ in either - we still receive The Body, Blood Soul and Divinity Of Christ.
That's just an excuse. There are disposable plastic cups that are used widely within non-Catholic denominations for hygiene reasons.
I'm sure the cup manufacturers would not object to the added business from the Catholic church should they decide to celebrate communion with the laity the way Christ commanded without drinking out of communal cup.
The bread remembers the body.
The cup remembers the blood.
Jesus distinguished between the two and commanded that both be partaken of.
Nobody has any right or authority to change what Jesus commanded.
For this reason,I will not grieve the Holy Spirit in me and will not bother to respond to you.I will however pray for you at Adoration in the Kateri Chapel at the Auriesville Shrine of Martyrs Tomorrow. My prayer will be for you to repent for the mistake of leaving the Catholic Church before you die.
I wish you a Blessed evening!
Eat the bread. Drink the cup.
The bread recognizes the broken body. The cup recognizes the shed blood.
Two distinct parts of the Last Supper by Jesus' teaching and instruction.
Sheesh, whatever happened to taking what Jesus said literally?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.