Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[metmom]

Do you go to church? Do you have communion there?

For me, yes, and yes.

If it is just a symbol why would you bother?

First and foremost because Jesus commanded us to.

Other than that, it's a good reminder of the sacrifice that HE made for us and what it cost Him and a good opportunity for introspection and letting God speak to you through the Holy Spirit.

[ealgeone]

Do you believe the battle of Lexington and Concord happened?

[metmom]

Context also tells us that eating of blood is forbidden by God and that since Jesus came to fulfill the Law and not break or abolish it, then the restriction on eating blood was still in effect during the Last Supper, therefore Jesus could not have given the disciples blood to drink, and being observant Jews, they would have refused to do so if they thought it were actual, real blood.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Paul - 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 King James Version (KJV)

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.

Guess Paul didn’t have a clue. Who knew?

[verga]

Well, I’ve seen a fair number of FRoman Catholics condemn the idea of sex without the chance for procreation and yet defend NFP.

Who? Give us names or point to a thread.

[rwa265]

Which Catholic faith is correct?

---

The Latin (Western) Catholic Church and the 23 Eastern Rite Churches that are in full communion with the Latin Church. This list has been posted many times, but here it is again.

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Eritrean Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
Russian Greek Catholic Church
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church
Slovak Byzantine Catholic Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

[ealgeone]

Sure seems to be some lively discussion on this thread.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=480255

[metmom]

And they agree on every exact least point of doctrine?

Then why the different names?

If that were Protestant churches, they’d be condemned as different denominations and be given as proof of the fallacy or inadequacy of sola Scriptura.

Should not all the different names of those Catholic churches then be proof of the fallacy or inadequacy of sola ecclesia?

[ealgeone]

What about the estimated over 200 other catholic denominations??

[metmom]

FWIW, I do KNOW that they do NOT agree completely.

I grew up in WNY where the Ukrainian Catholic church is a strong presence and am very well aware that there are doctrinal differences between them and the Roman rite and that the Roman rite does not consider them as correctly Catholic as they themselves are.

And the Ukrainian Catholics know that the Roman rite looks down on them.

[MHGinTN]

Jesus commanding His disciples to commit cannibalism would be absolutely violation of the Laws found in Leviticus. On the night of the Passover meal, the ultimate sacrifice had not yet been made on the cross, so to argue that Jesus would change the laws before paying the price is a typical catholic misdirection which I expect will follow this post.

Please remember, without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin. That doesn't read 'without the consuming of blood', it reads without the shedding of blood, and Jesus analogized that coming sacred act by offering a cup of wine, one of the several used in the Passover ritual. But Jesus did not drink from that last cup, telling His disciples He would not make that celebration again until in the Heavenly Kingdom (see Luke's rendering of the Last Supper scene).

In John's Gospel we read the scene where the legalists, seeking an escape clause whereby they could do something to earn God's Grace or have God owe to them His Grace, Jesus told them the thing required by God is to simply believe in He Whom God has sent for their deliverance. These legalists pressed Him further by trying to insinuate He was instructing His followers to do unlawful things.

Jesus then drove them away by telling them, using a conflation of analogies, that they should consider His flesh as bread indeed, tying His coming down from Heaven for them to the manna which came down each night in the desert. This was too much for too many legalists because they saw only the physical application, not the spiritual Truth Jesus was conveying.

AFTER these literalists left His company, Jesus explained to His disciples what He was doing and why eating his body in the bread would profit nothing, that it is the spiritual act symbolized with the breaking and eating of the bread that profits the Spirit side of man, connecting the will of man tot he Grace of God.

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding the ritual Jesus instituted, where do we assume Paul got his information? Paul knew that the symbolism on a physical plane has spiritual significance in the spirit/soul realm. If Paul had been sticking strictly to the physical cannibalistic ritual the catholic religion asserts to its adherents, would Paul have used the term 'unworthily'? Think about it: when one runs a race, the rewards ceremony is symbolic affirmation of the race, not an actual life or death finality. There were pagan rites of sport that did have mortality issues for winning or not, but Paul is writing to believers, to people who have been born from above, already in the family of Jesus, already possessing eternal life by God's Promise.

To do the remembrance unworthily is understood to being holding onto sin in the life such that making the outward symbolism of accepting Jesus sacrifice makes them spiritually unworthy.

Paul goes even further to tell those who would do this unworthily that they are responsible for NOT OBTAINING the prayed for healings others worthy of His sacrifice obtain when they pray and The Holy Spirit responds to their prayers ... responds not to their taking into the belly but having taken into their soul the Life Jesus offers by The Grace of God in Christ. As Jesus instructed the body profiteth nothing (for eating into the alimentary tract is physical consumption), it is the spirit that quickeneth in the souls and spirit realm, not the belly.

And lastly, the story of Ananias and Sapphira illustrates the results of lying to the Holy Spirit/trying to counterfeit Holy Spirit leadership. They died.

[The Cuban]

Why are you interpreting the Bible for me? Remember Sola Scriptura!

[MHGinTN]

Back from work so soon? LOL

[The Cuban]

Break yo.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, your screen name was not in the “TO” line of post 1591. But since you have called attention to it, did you actually read it all? Did you understand what was written there?

[Syncro]

My post to you:

No, you cannot go where you already are.

But the Holy Spirit can work on your soul, as well as show you what the Bible is saying to you.

But you must desire a relationship with God with all your heart and all your soul.-Luke 10:27

Your reply:

Wow talk about faulty reasoning. So you say the Bible says something it clearly does not and that the HS says something else and that something else is what yoi claim the words mean even though the words say something else but that both are the same exact thing. What????

First of all my apologies for not making it clear I was paraphrasing Luke 10:27 with my last sentence.

My first sentence was meant in the spirit of levity.

My second sentence I believe is true and can be backed up by the Bible.

The Holy Spirit does indeed interpret the Bible and thus is working on our souls.

Luke 10:25-27 for context:

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

I hope that clears up what my original post to you meant.

[Syncro]

It is indeed true, two of which were by the same person.

The first post was mine which received some somewhat off color replies therefore poof all 4 were gone.

[Syncro]

Good post, one example:

This was too much for too many legalists because they saw only the physical application, not the spiritual Truth Jesus was conveying.

AFTER these literalists left His company, Jesus explained to His disciples what He was doing and why eating his body in the bread would profit nothing, that it is the spiritual act symbolized with the breaking and eating of the bread that profits the Spirit side of man, connecting the will of man to the Grace of God.

The first sentence above seems to be what brought into being the false act of the Eucharist which has permeated Catholicism rituals to the extent that it is considered by their leaders as the supreme act of worship.

Some actually spend hours staring at and "adoring" the "host" encased in an elaborate cage.

[kosciusko51]

Sola Scriptura

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith

This excerpt is taken from John MacArthur’s contribution in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

[MHGinTN]

The author is also the interpreter, for those who are in Christ.