Maybe it's time for the RCC to enter the 20th century.
There are these.....
http://www.victorychurchproducts.com/Communion-Cups/products/2/0/7?gclid=CJC3oYr1vLACFYFo4AodGxDaqQ
Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Leviticus 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.
Sin offerings are NOT to be eaten. Period.
And this..... Leviticus 7:26-27 26 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
It’s a red herring and is not pertinent to the discussion.
I refuse to get drawn into it for that reason alone.
The argument that not answering means that an assumed answer is a given is a manipulation technique. It is baiting, plain and simple.
Not playing.
Looking at this statement under the bright light of the Scriptures that the Catholic church claims it owns by virtue of writing, editing, protection and preservation, and reception, reveals the spiritual bareness of the newadvent pronouncement.
“Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved — viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary”
(Utraquist simply means “both” here and given the level of writing in the rest of the article stands out out as a pretentious Latin fossil).
“...if we assume the doctrinal points involved....”
Of course! Anything makes sense if only we assume enough but on what basis can anyone assume that is which is purportedly going to be demonstrated by some evidence to be so?
And if we can assume a mouse why not a whale and be done with it?
“.. viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds,...”
That's a ocean of assumption packed into a thimble since the “Divine precept” was “keep doing THIS (bread and wine, eat and drink)in remembrance of me”. Not half of “this” but an inclusive “this”.
“the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species...”
Thus another assumption that the bread and wine, species, are to this degree equivalent or perhaps with the bread somewhat more necessary as no one has suggested taking the wine only to avoid untoward events from trying to swallow a hard wafer.
Yes it is in the blood that life resides and must be poured out for forgiveness of sins not unleavened bread.
If either bread or wine would do we're at a loss to explain why Christ used both and said to “keep doing THIS”.
“.... the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined”
Only by tossing the Scriptures into either the guillotine or the rack may it be said that those entitled to drink of the cup could be denied it by fiat when Jesus said both were necessary for eternal life.
“..not divinely determined...”? Please.
“...the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception...”
Thus may all the dense and dark hedgerows of unscriptural clap-trap that encircle the laity be reduced to one sturdy pale: Do the laity (or some distinct fraction of it) have a God given right and obligation to “keep doing this in remembrance of me” or is it an optional call? Something akin to a spectator sport? You can cheer on the team but stay off the field? So no cup for you since you might spill a drop and whoever heard of straws?
“Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it”
Examine in the above just what is meant by “Catholic discipline”.
Imagine Jesus being told by the disciples that gathering up the fragments of bread after the crowds ate that doing so was ‘unsanitary, inconvenient and would just take too long. They may have been told to do but they felt justified in just saying NO. Imagine that and that's the gist of what is said above. You may (or may not)have an obligation to partake of the wine but convenience decides.
“Catholic discipline”: “There's no way Christ can offer wine to 5000 with shaky handed old people and squirmy babes so we'll forbid it.” Bread yes, wine no.
“when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.
And so has absolutely defrauded the laity by pretending there was an obligation on their part to partake of either when in fact the Catholic doctrine was that “they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque.”
Back to the simple question: Were the laity ever obligated to partake of the bread and wine? If they were...who can deny either to them and if not they've been led to partake unworthily.
“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”.
More careful avoidance of the obvious. Jesus had just compared and contrasted himself with the manna, the bread from heaven that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness. No wine fell from heaven with that “bread” but lest anyone suppose otherwise Jesus says plainly four times in a row, vss. 53,54,55,56, flesh AND blood, i.e., bread AND wine, not flesh OR blood, not bread OR wine.
“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way”
More assumptions. If you do not bend the knee to the “IN TRUTH THERE IS NO WINE” deep thinkers then surely you are imposing “ But such literalism, extravagant in any connection,” upon Jesus words, which like all speech can contain wide degrees of literalness even in a single sentence. And to make sure the ITTISNW will even assume a title for the anti-ITTISNW, “UTRAQUIST”!
Consumption is consumption no matter the mode or fine distinctions between the acts of eating and drinking.
“We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds”.
But the priests are so bound? Either the laity are required to “keep doing this” or they are not, no communion “light” to be found in the Scriptures.
Maybe it's time for the RCC to enter the 20th century.
There are these.....
http://www.victorychurchproducts.com/Communion-Cups/products/2/0/7?gclid=CJC3oYr1vLACFYFo4AodGxDaqQ
Seems that the concern about spilling the cup is unwarranted.
Jesus bled out all over the ground when He died. If some wine gets spilled, the biggest problem would be stains on the carpet or a puddle on the floor. Easily remedied.
In the new version it’s the flesh that counts not all that bleeding.
The RCC takes the one verse but doesn’t want the rest of that passage understood.
John 6:54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. Now let’s go to the next verse where Jesus begins to explain.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.
Notice where He said “this is the breadwhich came down out of heaven? Jesus was not talking about His physical flesh. Jesus said His words are spirit, not flesh.
John 6:63 The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life,
It’s the spirit that giveth life, not the flesh.
2 Cor. 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Follow the letter as the RCC teaches but remember what 2 Cor. 3:6 says.
Or one could just see it as such a preposterous obfuscation and simply ignore the question not giving it any credence.
The prophets are usually humble people who love God very much and the exception a great sinner at the time who God chooses to help all of us come to believe.
On what basis are their words considered true?
The messages line up with magisterial teachings, oral tradition, prophecy given the saints and Scripture, which is (right now) non-Catholic Christian's lone authority.
How have they received their *revelations*?
Doesn't Scripture say something about hearing a voice behind thee. The prophets usually hear an "interior" revelation and a few actually hear God's voice and a third, not many, Our Lord and the Blessed Mother appear to them.
Have they been correct 100% of the time as required by God?
God always reveals the truth, that's one 100% but some prophecy already given is changed by man's believing, changed by mankind's prayers and actions. One of the major reasons God speaks to us, to every generation through prophets.
Why should we accept their words as true?
The words in prophecy make explicit God's revelation. prophecy helps the faithful live more fully in a certain period of history.
For that matter, why should we accept them at all?
No one is required to believe private revelation -prophecy-. If they don't, it's their loss. Do not reject your own Protestant messenger. Glynda's messages are shared on a two Catholic sites I know of, her messages line up with Catholic prophecy though not as explicit and that is for a reason. Does this mean Catholics are more open to God's messages? I hope not, it saddens God.
~ The sites are besides her own, shared in the OP.
www.catholicbinder.com
Yahoo Groups - Seers 2
“Getting that last whiff of wine out the plastic might be a problem since down to the tiniest fraction the “real presence” is there in the wine and if a tiny spill is “irreverence” imagine what tossing a particle of wine into the trash would be.”
~ ~ ~
This same mocking discussion continues, why? Protestants
REJECT Jesus is truly present in the consecrated host and
wine.
It will take God Himself, to show you personally during
the Great Warning. Pride is so strong, many will still
say no.
Three things to change on, most important, belief in the
Eucharist, accepting Mary’s help and confession of your
sins to a priest.
Just repeating to help because we (Catholics) love you all.
XXO.
“It will take God Himself, to show you personally during
the Great Warning. Pride is so strong, many will still
say no.”
If you truly believe that then why are you sending these posts to me? If “it will take God Himself”, what do you think you’re going to accomplish?
“Or one could just see it as such a preposterous obfuscation and simply ignore the question not giving it any credence.”
~ ~ ~
True, and using simple words, non-Catholic Christians say
things that make no sense. I wish Protestants could see without any God given authority, their beliefs contradict Scripture who they proclaim is their only authority!
On “making sense” there is one fallen away Catholic lady
here who is Protestant now, this is the reason most of her
posts aren’t replied to plus all of her replies, are a mock of the true faith.
So, if I told you that God told me something, you’d believe that as well?
And that lady, whoever she is, who I never heard of before, isn’t MY own Protestant messenger. I’m not obligated to accept what she says just because someone else says she’s Protestant.
So, you know what makes God sad?
Really?
About that land in FL, I’ll cut you a really good deal.
Here’s why they don’t make sense to Catholics.
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When Catholics stop listening to the “wisdom of man” put out by the Vatican they’ll begin to “make sense”.
>>I wish Protestants could see without any God given authority, their beliefs contradict Scripture who they proclaim is their only authority!<<
Well, here’s the “God given authority” for all who will listen.
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16,17
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Notice that “no distinction” between the apostles and the lay? The RCC claiming “without any God given authority” applies to anyone but the Vatican is total nonsense and contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. I certainly wouldn’t rely on them.
>> On “making sense” there is one fallen away Catholic lady here who is Protestant now, this is the reason most of her posts aren’t replied to plus all of her replies, are a mock of the true faith.<<
Fallen away? LOL I think the admonition to “come out” of the false “religion” of Catholicism in no way could be described as “fallen away”. Those who have “come out” of the Catholic “religion” have found truth and have become part of the body of Christ rather than some humanistic “religion”.
stpio: It will take God Himself, to show you personally during
the Great Warning. Pride is so strong, many will still
say no.
“If you truly believe that then why are you sending these posts to me? If “it will take God Himself”, what do you think you’re going to accomplish?”
~ ~ ~
I am replying to your posts and joining in the discussion with everybody.
You ask very good questions. My answer....
I hope people will remember this FR thread when the Great Warning (the awakening) happens. It will help confirm to disbelievers, yes, all that the Catholics tried to share is TRUE.
Three things to not change on....
Trusting Jesus alone for salvation, accepting the HOLY SPIRIT'S *help*, and confessing my sins to GOD since HE is the one I've sinned against.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Cynical Bear: Notice that “no distinction” between the apostles and the lay? The RCC claiming “without any God given authority” applies to anyone but the Vatican is total nonsense and contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. I certainly wouldn’t rely on them.
~ ~ ~
Taking one verse again, isolating it, taking it out of context. You nor I have the authority to interpret Scripture. God gave that authority to the Church. Private Judgment is heresy. Look at the fruit of Private Judgement.
Acts 15:8-9
And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put NO difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Notice verse 9. Protestantism is “rot” with differences,
your beliefs are inconsistent.
Catholicism does that all the time to support their doctrines.
No Catholic is in any position to cast stones over that when their whole church bases its papacy on ONE verse, taken out of context.
So show me how it’s taken out of context. The context is that the disciples were discussing putting the gentiles under the law like Catholics try to put people under the law. The “context” applied rather well to our discussion. True believers don’t listen to the RCC.
>> You nor I have the authority to interpret Scripture.<<
Oh but we do.
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Even the Bereans were commended for not just taking mans word but to search the scriptures to see if what they said was true. Search the scriptures and you, as we have, will see that the RCC is not to be trusted. It’s obvious to anyone searching for truth that we are indeed told to “search the scriptures” with obvious implications that we would be able to “interpret scripture”.
>> God gave that authority to the Church.<<
Show me from scripture the source of that.
>> Private Judgment is heresy.<<
Not according to scripture as proven in the above passage in Acts.
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.