C
cascherman
Guest
that didn’t tell me anything about how Jesus wanted it.
- Status
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
Well…“kind of”.
The answer is “yes” and “no”.
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
The third defining moment were the Councils of Reunion in which the Orthodox hierarchs accepted union with the See of Rome after a long period of schism.
In 1054, Patriarch Michael Kerularios and Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida had excommunicated each other, thus formalising a schism which had been developing for many years. The Melkite Patriarch Peter III of Antioch rejected the quarrel of the Latin Cardinal and the Patriarch of Constantinople.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church
2
2ndGen
Guest
:crying:BTW not to dance on anyone’s grave but I’ll take a little squabbling among two hierarchs to the clown masses, the desecrating of the Precious Body of Christ by laymen receiving in the hand, the abomination of the Novus Ordo and every other innovation the Latin Church has introduced in the past centuries anyday.
2
2ndGen
Guest
So when Jesus broke the bread and offered the wine,
He had his back turned to The Apostles?
And if you believe that “this” is how Jesus implimented the Thanksgiving Meal (The Eucharist), could you provide any
evidence?
C
cascherman
Guest
precisely what I was trying to procure… haven’t gotten a response yet.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Tell you what…we’ll take turns waiting.
You go on your break…I got this shift…:coffeeread:
2
2ndGen
Guest
Hey Joeseph,BTW not to dance on anyone’s grave but I’ll take a little squabbling among two hierarchs to the clown masses, the desecrating of the Precious Body of Christ by laymen receiving in the hand, the abomination of the Novus Ordo and every other innovation the Latin Church has introduced in the past centuries anyday.
Did Jesus place the unleavened bread in The Apostles mouths when He said “take this”?
Did they “take” it with their mouths?
I was always under the impression that Jesus “gave” them the bread “after” He consecrated it and broke it.
Like this…
youtube.com/watch?v=pMult9-CXgk
Look forward to you answer!
Oh, let me save you some time when you do your research:
Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread,
and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said,
“Take, eat; this is My body.”
If Jesus gave the bread to The Apostles “after” He consecrated it and broke it,
wouldn’t you say that any other manner of receiving communion is “not” the original way
it was done and thus, is an “innovation” to the Sacrament of The Holy Eucharist?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
AD*ORIENTEM
I might add here that a poll thread in Traditional Catholicism had the TLM people without exception say that they would take a TLM in English over a NO in Latin. A real sense of priority.
C
cascherman
Guest
All I’m asking for is a little evidence that Christ prefers your way (Host on the tongue, priest facing the tabernacle at all times) as opposed to our Novus Ordo (laity receiving in the hands and priest facing congregation).AD*ORIENTEM
I might add here that a poll thread in Traditional Catholicism had the TLM people without exception say that they would take a TLM in English over a NO in Latin. A real sense of priority.
Polls mean very little to me when I am looking for evidence from Christ.
Sorry to sound so ‘protestant’ in my debating but you are claiming that any way but your way is wrong and is a ‘clown mass’, well I’m just looking for a little support from Christ OR even the apostles that yours is the only way to go.
As 2nd gen has said, it is hard to believe Christ when instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper (acting as Priest) demanded no one touch the bread except for with their tongue and would not face his apostles.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I’m aware where it is. I’ve been there. And seen the silver star the Latins put in (although it was, always has been, and is, an Orthodox Church), and Napolean started the Crimean War to keep there. That’s not a thousand years ago, and I could bring up to date, but I would find it both tedious and non-productive.
To go back to the OP, France was interferring with the Russians protecting and supporting the Orthodox Catholic Greeks (and Arabs) in the Holy Land and the rest of the Ottoman Empire, including protecting them from al-jazzar (“the butcher”) Valerga, the Vatican I “father” sent to reestablish the Crusader patriarchate.
We’re not the ones claiming perfect unity. There are sinners in the Church, you know. And we don’t claim our leaders are infallible, just our Head (IX XC).
You are the one predicting imminent schism. I just directed you to a more likely crack turning into a chasm. For one thing, once Rome or America go opposite ways, there is nothing to stop that spiral. For a variety of reasons, the Serbian Church and the Antiochean would pull Constantinople and Moscow back from any schism.
What made you think that?
Btw, in Kosovo there are a group of Albanian crypto-Christians: the men go to mosque on Friday, and they have mass (they are under Rome, in seret) in there houses on Sunday. They have done so for generations, which should tell you something of the dynamic going on for the Christians in Kosovo, besides the Serbian Orthodox.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
That sounds like the kind of “Bible only” malarkey one could expect from a member of the Church of Christ. Jesus probably didn’t “do” a lot of things the way we do today, but does that totally negate centuries of Spirit guided Apostolic Tradition?Hey Joeseph,
Did Jesus place the unleavened bread in The Apostles mouths when He said “take this”?
Did they “take” it with their mouths?
I was always under the impression that Jesus “gave” them the bread “after” He consecrated it and broke it.
Like this…
youtube.com/watch?v=pMult9-CXgk
Look forward to you answer!
Oh, let me save you some time when you do your research:
Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread,
and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said,
“Take, eat; this is My body.”
If Jesus gave the bread to The Apostles “after” He consecrated it and broke it,
wouldn’t you say that any other manner of receiving communion is “not” the original way
it was done and thus, is an “innovation” to the Sacrament of The Holy Eucharist?
If that’s what the average Roman Catholic believes then your Church is far more ill than I imagined.
Of course when “Apostolic Tradition” is defined by the whims of one man what do you expect…
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
To look towards God, He would have to look in the mirror, Phillip.
For nearly two thousand years, towards the East, as a symbol of us looking to our Orient, our Dayspring from on high, was the posture of every man who shared in His priesthood. I am still not sure why they must now bow to man instead.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And you have your answer.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
I do indeed “weep for the desolation of so many Christians for whom Christ died.”
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Given the right context, I’m not against the receiving in the hand. We know that it was a, if not the, way of receiving up unti the 6th cent.
They lived in more reverant times, though. No one would have dared to take and sell it on e-bay, for instance (which HAS happened).
Btw, the rational back then was since man was made in the image and likeness of God, his body alone was thought befitting as the instrument of receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Some of the Oriental Orthodox receive in the hand, but they have a cloth in it.
Your example is inapposite: in any concelebration (which the Mystical Supper, as we call it, was), the concelebrants surround the altar, except in the line of the main celebrant and ad orientem.
Such it would be in the Upper Room.
C
cascherman
Guest
you are saying there was an altar in the upper room at the last supper?
E
East_and_West
Guest
Ah. The MP and the EP. One is lusts for power and the other is pro-choice. Oh yeah, that’s a Church we should be seeking communion with. Jeesh…
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Lust for power? Better to just bow in obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, ruler of the Universal Church, mediator of all graces with the power to depose princes, whose feet alone are to be kissed by princes, who can be judged by no one, who is the Vicar of Christ and who “holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”
You’re right, the MP’s lust for power is disgusting.
V
VARC
Guest
2ndGen is arguing a straw man. No Orthodox christian has attacked catholicism on the basis of failure to have “perfect unity” (whatever that is). Rather the greivance with Rome is, and always has been, Rome’s altering of the Nicene Creed without the conscent of the Catholic Church.
And since that controversy, not a few other problems have been created such as universal papal jurisdiction and infallibility. Rome’s actions created the schism. Rome will have to undo those actions if she wants the schism to end.
The last ecumenical meeting between Rome and the Orthodox concluded that, in the Catholic Church, the Roman See held the primacy. The next meeting will discuss the nature of that primacy. I pray that Rome will renounce universal jurisdiction and infallibility as foreign to the Faith of the Fathers but I’m not holding my breath.
- Status