Two More Questions on the Catholic Faith
Indeed, Catholicism is a viperous theology that has bitten its members for far too long. Only the anti-venom of Scripture can cure her ills. But she refuses to take the antidote. We are flabbergasted that the laity refuse to wake up out of their spiritual coma and prefer to be lulled to sleep by all of the RCC's unbiblical doctrines! Let's take another example. The RCC has abrogated the original command to partake of BOTH bread and wine, and instead teach Jesus would be pleased we take either one!
WHAT?! NO WAY.
They even teach that the Savior never even OBLIGATED us to consume both elements. Listen to the madness of the Council of Trent: "This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit...declares that lay people...are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at his last supper instituted this sacrament with the form of bread and wine...nevertheless that institution and tradition do not aim at this, that all believers in Christ are bound by the commandment of the Lord to receive both kinds. Neither is it rightly concluded [from the Last Supper or] from the discourse in John 6...that Communion under both kinds is commanded by the Lord” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).
To be sure, these are not the words of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather of MAD SCIENTISTS on the verge of an explosion in the laboratory. They have completely reversed and thrown under the bus our marching orders to partake of BOTH bread and wine, so it is inconceivable they have been divinely commissioned by Jesus Christ to break his own commandments! The Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35), but the Council of Trent has indeed done just that! No reasons whatsoever, no matter how pious they may sound, can justify mutilating the Lord’s Supper down to the choice of either bread OR wine. Jesus did not give us that option! Consequently, since the magisterium is obviously of the devil, the belief that the Messiah was speaking LITERALLY in John 6 and the Last Supper (as it regards eating his flesh) cannot possibly be true. Instead, all the biblical evidence proves he was speaking metaphorically in those places, and oh....should you deny it, I dare you to invite me to debate the issue
Thank you for raising these two issues with me. There first one concerns the Catholic Church and Scripture and the other concerns what we cal in the Catholic Church 'receiving under both kinds"
As far as Scripture is concerned we must start with where the Bible came from. In the early Church there were many writings about Jesus and some were reliable and others were not. The writings that came from the Apostles were of course widely read but there were questions as to how far we could trust subsequent writings. But fr the first five centuries none of these writings were referred to as the Word of God for Jesus had set up men to teach in His Church (Matthew 28 "Go therefore and teach all nations......}. But the Church in the 6th Century began to look at these early writings and at three councils, two at Carthage and one at Hippo, they sorted out the scrptures that could be trusted and Called them The Word of God, the findings of the Catholic Bishops at these Councils were then ratified by the Pope. That is why the Bible is very much a Catholic Book. All Catholics who attend Church hear the Scriptures read and have done so for Centuries. Indeed those who attend Daily Mass are very much acquainrted with Scripture. There is one major difference however. Since the Bible gets its authority from the Church rather than the Church getting its Authority from Bible we always listen to the priest with respect when he speaks to us on Scripture. After the Reformation the differing Protestant groups met in Geneva to try to hammer out a common interpretation of what the Bible said but they failed, which shows that the interpretation of Scripture is far fro a self evident exercise.
I am rather puzzled by the second question on receiving under both kinds. But let me answer this. If you go into any Catholic mainstream Church on a Sunday you will see the majority of parishioners taking under both kinds. There are a few exceptions and one is myself. But if there is a deacon or other priest giving out the chalice then I do receive under both kinds. I am glad you asked this question because nobody has ever approached me on it. I have no valid objections per se to the receiving of Holy communion under both kinds but HIs Body and Blood are a gift from Jesus and it is he that feeds me - not the community. The priest is there 'in persona Christi" an important teaching many priests themselves deny. He represents Christ and when I receive from a Priest or Deacon then I receive from Christ. But let us take a brief look at the history of this. At one stage in the Church Communion under both kinds was compulsory, but with the building of large cities and the cost of wine affecting poor parishes with large numbers in attendance it was changed. The teaching that the Host itself contains Jesus in his entirety Body, Blood, Sou, and Divinity is not changed by the giving of the chalice.
What also surprised me in your question was the use of the word OBLIGATORY. Does Christ really condemn those who though believing devoutly in his Body and Blood do not take the chalice , as you claim, He expects. I will tell you something, I am too old to kneel or I would because I am receiving The very Jesus, the Real Jesus, the Great God into my own being, indeed I should be prostrate before HIm. Before the majesty of the Eucharist such questions as receiving under both kinds are insignificant..
WHAT?! NO WAY.
They even teach that the Savior never even OBLIGATED us to consume both elements. Listen to the madness of the Council of Trent: "This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit...declares that lay people...are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at his last supper instituted this sacrament with the form of bread and wine...nevertheless that institution and tradition do not aim at this, that all believers in Christ are bound by the commandment of the Lord to receive both kinds. Neither is it rightly concluded [from the Last Supper or] from the discourse in John 6...that Communion under both kinds is commanded by the Lord” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).
To be sure, these are not the words of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather of MAD SCIENTISTS on the verge of an explosion in the laboratory. They have completely reversed and thrown under the bus our marching orders to partake of BOTH bread and wine, so it is inconceivable they have been divinely commissioned by Jesus Christ to break his own commandments! The Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35), but the Council of Trent has indeed done just that! No reasons whatsoever, no matter how pious they may sound, can justify mutilating the Lord’s Supper down to the choice of either bread OR wine. Jesus did not give us that option! Consequently, since the magisterium is obviously of the devil, the belief that the Messiah was speaking LITERALLY in John 6 and the Last Supper (as it regards eating his flesh) cannot possibly be true. Instead, all the biblical evidence proves he was speaking metaphorically in those places, and oh....should you deny it, I dare you to invite me to debate the issue
Thank you for raising these two issues with me. There first one concerns the Catholic Church and Scripture and the other concerns what we cal in the Catholic Church 'receiving under both kinds"
As far as Scripture is concerned we must start with where the Bible came from. In the early Church there were many writings about Jesus and some were reliable and others were not. The writings that came from the Apostles were of course widely read but there were questions as to how far we could trust subsequent writings. But fr the first five centuries none of these writings were referred to as the Word of God for Jesus had set up men to teach in His Church (Matthew 28 "Go therefore and teach all nations......}. But the Church in the 6th Century began to look at these early writings and at three councils, two at Carthage and one at Hippo, they sorted out the scrptures that could be trusted and Called them The Word of God, the findings of the Catholic Bishops at these Councils were then ratified by the Pope. That is why the Bible is very much a Catholic Book. All Catholics who attend Church hear the Scriptures read and have done so for Centuries. Indeed those who attend Daily Mass are very much acquainrted with Scripture. There is one major difference however. Since the Bible gets its authority from the Church rather than the Church getting its Authority from Bible we always listen to the priest with respect when he speaks to us on Scripture. After the Reformation the differing Protestant groups met in Geneva to try to hammer out a common interpretation of what the Bible said but they failed, which shows that the interpretation of Scripture is far fro a self evident exercise.
I am rather puzzled by the second question on receiving under both kinds. But let me answer this. If you go into any Catholic mainstream Church on a Sunday you will see the majority of parishioners taking under both kinds. There are a few exceptions and one is myself. But if there is a deacon or other priest giving out the chalice then I do receive under both kinds. I am glad you asked this question because nobody has ever approached me on it. I have no valid objections per se to the receiving of Holy communion under both kinds but HIs Body and Blood are a gift from Jesus and it is he that feeds me - not the community. The priest is there 'in persona Christi" an important teaching many priests themselves deny. He represents Christ and when I receive from a Priest or Deacon then I receive from Christ. But let us take a brief look at the history of this. At one stage in the Church Communion under both kinds was compulsory, but with the building of large cities and the cost of wine affecting poor parishes with large numbers in attendance it was changed. The teaching that the Host itself contains Jesus in his entirety Body, Blood, Sou, and Divinity is not changed by the giving of the chalice.
What also surprised me in your question was the use of the word OBLIGATORY. Does Christ really condemn those who though believing devoutly in his Body and Blood do not take the chalice , as you claim, He expects. I will tell you something, I am too old to kneel or I would because I am receiving The very Jesus, the Real Jesus, the Great God into my own being, indeed I should be prostrate before HIm. Before the majesty of the Eucharist such questions as receiving under both kinds are insignificant..
Comments
Post a Comment