Orthodox communion does not draw the onus upon it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tantum_ergo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crazzeto said:
I sense a certain failure to consider scripture and a complete entity here, I’m sorry Andrew but you’ve failed to adiquatly explain the passage I’ve provided. Basically you keep falling back on Eastern tradition in some vein attempt to prove the Catholic Church “of Satan”.

The Catechism on the Eucharist: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Paragraph 1390

Fully annotated 🙂
Click to expand...
**Please do not try to put words into my mouth… I never accused the Roman Catholic Church of being “of Satan”… and I never would.

If you read the quote you provide from your catechism, it clearly states that to offer the body AND blood together at Eucharist is “more complete” than the commonly accepted practice in the Roman Church.

If the offering is described thus, then isn’t your RC practice less than complete? And why offer a less than complete Eucharist? Please explain - based upon scripture, and NOT the innovated Roman Catholic tradition.**
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
it clearly states that to offer the body AND blood together at Eucharist is “more complete”
Click to expand...
For the record, it says “the sign… is more complete… the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” It does not say that the Eucharist itself is.
 
aspirant said:
For the record, it says “the sign… is more complete… the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” It does not say that the Eucharist itself is.
Click to expand...
**Sure… that’s what your catechism says. The sign is more complete… or appears more clearly.

Christ actually did not say any of this - he said take BOTH.

Your catechism also says you don’t offer both most commonly in the Roman Rite because of “pastoral reasons”…

A passing reference to an actual explanation. What are these pastoral reasons???**
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
**Sure… that’s what your catechism says. The sign is more complete… or appears more clearly.

Christ actually did not say any of this - he said take BOTH.

Your catechism also says you don’t offer both most commonly in the Roman Rite because of “pastoral reasons”…

A passing reference to an actual explanation. What are these pastoral reasons???**
Click to expand...
I think you mis-read the CCC yet again, both are almost always offered (at least out side of extrodenary circomstance, like H1N1 paranoia). But it is the teaching of the Western Church that both are received in the taking of the “bread”. Given 2 Tim 3:16, and you inabillity to explain why Paul states we’re guilty of both when we take either one I’d say the Western tradition is formed upon a very solid foundation, one might say that of a Rock 😉
 
crazzeto said:
I think you mis-read the CCC yet again, both are almost always offered (at least out side of extrodenary circomstance, like H1N1 paranoia). But it is the teaching of the Western Church that both are received in the taking of the “bread”. Given 2 Tim 3:16, and you inabillity to explain why Paul states we’re guilty of both when we take either one I’d say the Western tradition is formed upon a very solid foundation, one might say that of a Rock 😉
Click to expand...
**Actually your own catechism says that most commonly only the bread is offered in the Roman Rite - so who fails to read correctly??? Not I.

What are the “pastoral reasons” cited in the catechism??? It cites no scriptural justification (probably because there isn’t one).

Your reading of Paul is just wrong - and I’ve explained what he was actually referring to. He was simply injuncting against taking any part of the Eucharist in vain - NOT telling the Church to pick one and run with it!

Perhaps you might care to explain why your interpretation of Paul (erroneous) overrides the very specific words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper? I know many Catholics are simply enthralled by Paul (we EO are not so enthralled), but overriding his Lord and Master??? Really? That’s just bizarre!!!

IMHO - and that of the majority of Christians worldwide (Orthodox and Protestant) your position here is the shaky one… and if you consider that to be a solid foundation - no wonder your Rock is based upon a single fallible person - and not the consensus of the Church based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.**
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
**Actually your own catechism says that most commonly only the bread is offered in the Roman Rite - so who fails to read correctly??? Not I.

What are the “pastoral reasons” cited in the catechism??? It cites no scriptural justification (probably because there isn’t one).

Your reading of Paul is just wrong - and I’ve explained what he was actually referring to. He was simply injuncting against taking any part of the Eucharist in vain - NOT telling the Church to pick one and run with it!

Perhaps you might care to explain why your interpretation of Paul (erroneous) overrides the very specific words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper? I know many Catholics are simply enthralled by Paul (we EO are not so enthralled), but overriding his Lord and Master??? Really? That’s just bizarre!!!

IMHO - and that of the majority of Christians worldwide (Orthodox and Protestant) your position here is the shaky one… and if you consider that to be a solid foundation - no wonder your Rock is based upon a single fallible person - and not the consensus of the Church based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.**
Click to expand...
I assume your familiar with 2 Tim 3:16? All scripture is the Word of God… No scripture “overrides” any other scripture, but if your’e theology violates any part of scripture (as it is all the Word of God) then you have a problem with your theolgy.

Fortunetly, for the Eastern Church there’s no problem offering both species (in fact it’s a very good thing to have them both there), as a Latin Rite Catholic who has attended Mass all over the world I can tell you, they’re both there in Latin Rite Masses out side of the case of perceived health risk.

However, I do have a problem when you try and quote a particular section of scripture, with out considering the whole book.
 
aspirant said:
Right. Please don’t misquote in the future. Thanks. 🙂
Click to expand...
**I did not misquote - I was paraphrasing… accurately.

Tell me the actual difference between a more complete sign - and a more complete Eucharist?

Tell me what pastoral reasons are given for the less than complete sign of the Eucharist being offered?

Tell me what Our Lord Jesus said about the Eucharist? - and please, don’t misquote Him!**
 
crazzeto said:
I assume your familiar with 2 Tim 3:16? All scripture is the Word of God… No scripture “overrides” any other scripture, but if your’e theology violates any part of scripture (as it is all the Word of God) then you have a problem with your theolgy.

Fortunetly, for the Eastern Church there’s no problem offering both species (in fact it’s a very good thing to have them both there), as a Latin Rite Catholic who has attended Mass all over the world I can tell you, they’re both there in Latin Rite Masses out side of the case of perceived health risk.

However, I do have a problem when you try and quote a particular section of scripture, with out considering the whole book.
Click to expand...
**It’s pretty clear that you guys are all over the place on this issue…

Some say we usually have both, some say we usually don’t… some say the Eucharist is a “sign” - some say it’s the actual body AND blood all in one - and some say it’s actually seperate.

Hmmmmm… you really need to get your house in order on this fundamental sacrament of the Church.

When you guys departed from the original Apostolic Church practice - we were worried.

We were right to be worried.

Why don’t you just do as you used to do (which is what we EO still do) - and offer both always, just like Jesus said to do? Why not?**
 
From my perspective, the problem appears to be that your hostility toward Catholicism prevents you from even understanding what Catholics saying. 😦
 
aspirant said:
From my perspective, the problem appears to be that your hostility toward Catholicism prevents you from even understanding what Catholics saying. 😦
Click to expand...
**Well… you don’t know me, and if you did you would know how ridiculous your assertion here is.

It is impossible to know what “Catholics saying” sic - when you don’t actually say anything, never answer any questions directly and seek to put words into others mouths!

If you actually answered any of the many questions asked, we might have something to talk about.

Actually, I really like most Catholics - it’s just you and crezzeto who I find incredibly annoying.**
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
P.S. Leavened bread was the rule (even in the territory of the Roman Bishopric) until Schism… the Roman Bishops themselves partook of leavened bread in the Eucharist - even though some of their flock habitually did not. This was never an approved practice of the United Apostolic Church, however.
Click to expand...
If it was happening then it was approved by the Bishop of Rome (so whether he partook of leavened bread does not signify), furthermore, in the Gospel of Matthew, the apostle describes “the Lord’s Supper” like so "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread . … "

Note: Your statement said that the bread (leavened) and wine was always used in communion (pre-schism), and I just proved that this statement is misleading in that, no, leavened bread was not always used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top