SPLIT: My church uses grape juice--am I bad for receiving it?

[Steven_John]

Dear Brother Kevin,
I have no authority to speak for the Catholic church but would like to share with you what i understand.
Vat ii brings declaration of Catholics acknowledging G-ds real living presence in all humans.
It shows greater bonds between Herself and those who are closer to Her understanding of G-d.
Yes She claims to hold inflatable teachings many are in common with others.

She also claims to be humble before men and growing Her understanding of G-d in the world and the world its self. She changes as understanding increases ie the world is no longer flat. In days past if a priest did a terrible act to a child and claimed to be sorry they saw no reason to hand them over to the secular authority, today how ever She in many places mandates they are to be handed over.

It does not deny that G-d is the true judge but acknowledges handing them over to the secular authority helps victims heal, men are entitled to justice here. I guess it also acknowledges in the past a priest on behalf of The Church can not truly discern who is truly repentant and has had The Spirit purify them.

Some still “beat their chests” i am in The Only Church while many others are confessing sinners acknowledging we all seek perfection and best they know The Catholic Church is the closest as to their understanding of G-d and He will and is bringing forth the perfection sought.

This is very relevant to this thread, in my grand dads day The Catholic Church would not allow a Catholic to even step into a protestant place of worship let alone partake in sacraments or emblems. She is not exactly like that today i can remember a Catholic priest refer to an Anglican minister as his brother priest.

I live in a world where the secular embraces junk that is offense to G-d, sad any claiming to be “the Church” would push away others who see these offenses because of other difference.

I will stand with and for My Fathers goodness in any other human for the glory of My G-d knowing that in doing this we will all grow in unity and have strength to correct the injustice of the secular world. If we do this we are loving our enemies and helping them out of what they dont understand is bad for us all.

Praise be to G-d for His goodness in Vat II.

 

[Steven_John]

Look I’m not going to sit here and argue with you on this. Now I do commend you on your strong faith but the Church is Christ and he can guide anyone he wants to guide. Now it seems to me you want to start some kind of back and forth arguement on this, so if thats what you want then find someone else because God didn’t only give the CC to spread his good news, to spread his word, he gave it to others as well, he just gave it to us a little later on. Could be because he is not pleased with the way things have been done.

In relation to “christians”
My understanding is a little different, but very close, i dont see at as give later on, Catholics acknowledge baptism in other Christians as still coming for the same apostles. They dont re baptize as it is the same source not a later one.

The One True Church has had divisions by men but what Our Father joins no man can divide. The same spirit is present in His truth in any humans regardless to the religion name they choose to identify their relationship with Him and creation.

Blessings to you and yours

 

[guanophore]

So God is everywhere correct?

Are we being testy? I don’t expect God to conform to my beliefs I conform to his but on the other hand, you want us to conform to your belief but then again, you say yours is the true religion. Well here I go again, I don’t think God minds because I don’t believe God to be so petty.

You know, with this line of thinking one could find all those “petty” ordinances in the Mosaic law about food, clothing and health behaviors easy to set aside. It is a good thing that the Jews did not consider obedience to God’s exact specifications “petty”.

 

[guanophore]

Keep in mind that that is the OT not the NT.

Yes, of course. But the NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Jesus earnestly desired to celebrate the Passover with His disciples. They did it exactly in the manner that proscribed in the Law. Now, you are saying that it is not important to “do this” in the same way that He did it. It seems that your opinion of what is called for ranks above what Jesus commanded.

One other thing, we are all sinners, so to say that God hates the sinner is saying he hates everyone. Its the sin not the sinner that God hates.

Since sin separates us from God, when we are in a state of sin, we are at emnity with God. I agree, He loved all who had become enslaved in sin, and sent His only begotten son to save us.

He does hate sin, though, and when His own fall into sin, He hates them committing those sins.

Anyway, hate is not the opposite of love. No one can hate that about which they do not care.

 

[Steven_John]

Yes, of course. But the NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Jesus earnestly desired to celebrate the Passover with His disciples. They did it exactly in the manner that proscribed in the Law. Now, you are saying that it is not important to “do this” in the same way that He did it. It seems that your opinion of what is called for ranks above what Jesus commanded.

Peace and blessings, i dont want to weigh in on discussion but i am curious of what you say do you observe passover as Yeshua (pbwh) did exactly in the manner proscribed by the law?
The older i get the more keen i seem to get for doing this. I dont say it is important to all but from your post it may be to you.

Shalom

 

[guanophore]

Look I’m not going to sit here and argue with you on this. Now I do commend you on your strong faith but the Church is Christ and he can guide anyone he wants to guide.

This is quite true.

So, that begs the question, why would Jesus guide someone in the opposite direction of what He already revealed to the Apostles? To disciples for 2000 years?

  God didn't only give the CC to spread his good news, to spread his word,

Actually, He did. He only founded One Church. All the others were founded by men.

he gave it to others as well, he just gave it to us a little later on. Could be because he is not pleased with the way things have been done.

Those who are not in union with the Church founded by Christ appointed themselves - yes, much later on.

As Janet noted in the post above, God is displeased with all sin. And although sinners are always in need of reform, the doctrine and commandments of Jesus are NOT in need of reform. The problem was when the reformers thought that the doctrine needed to be revised, because those in custody of it were corrupt.

 

[guanophore]

I have no authority to speak for the Catholic church but would like to share with you what i understand…

She claims to hold inflatable teachings…

 

[Steven_John]

Oh wow i am no scholar hey, infallible*

 

[rev_kevin]

The commandment He gave at the Last Supper to “do this” in His memory only applies to those who were in communion with Him at that time, and those who would be in communion with HIm through their Word. Those who seek to obey His commandments out of Love for Him (they are not burdensom) do not look for ways to avoid doing exactly what He commanded by substituting ideas they think are as good, or better.

It is not necessary that you follow Jesus’ commandments in this regard. When He said “unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood, you will have no life in you”, He was talking only to His disciples. This is the manner He set up to connect them to Himself, the Vine.

The pattern of this is reminiscent of what the Serpent said in the Garden to Eve. “Did God really say…?”

“Oh, He did not REALLY mean THAT! He just knows if you do it your way…”

Yes, but if you think it is not possible for Him to consecrate any matter He wished, you are wrong. He could have used goat’s milk if He wanted. He used the Passover meal, because He is the Lamb that was to be slain for the sins of the world. He fulfilled the Passover in His own flesh. The Passover calls for wine, and the Apostles understood this, and followed this.

Modern American Evangelicals seem to think they have the perogative to change that which God set up. Catholics do not see themselves with that perogative. When deviation from what we received from the Apostles occurs, we consider that to be “a different Gospel”. If we fall for it, then we are anathema.

You can worship God in the way you see most fit. This is what religious freedom is all about.

Catholics are bound to worship Him in the way HE sees fit. This is what it means to worship in Spirit and in Truth.

So God isn’t omnipresent?
Ok so he was only talking to his disciples when he said unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will have no life in you. So if it was only for his disciples then why do you eat his body and drink his blood if it was just meant for them? You are not one of the original 12 that you say is only for them?

Ok I see you can’t answer the question.

Ok the Passover calls for wine. But inorder for wine to be fernented it must contain yeast which is a sign of sin. Now there were ways they were able to preserve grape juice back then that would last a year. Now since yeast is a sign of sin it stands to reason that grape juice had to have been in the passover cup, Pure, unadulterated “blood of the grape” is the only proper symbol for the pure, saving blood of Jesus.

 

[rev_kevin]

You know, with this line of thinking one could find all those “petty” ordinances in the Mosaic law about food, clothing and health behaviors easy to set aside. It is a good thing that the Jews did not consider obedience to God’s exact specifications “petty”.

So is God omnipresent?

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes, of course. But the NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Jesus earnestly desired to celebrate the Passover with His disciples. They did it exactly in the manner that proscribed in the Law. Now, you are saying that it is not important to “do this” in the same way that He did it. It seems that your opinion of what is called for ranks above what Jesus commanded.

Since sin separates us from God, when we are in a state of sin, we are at emnity with God. I agree, He loved all who had become enslaved in sin, and sent His only begotten son to save us.

He does hate sin, though, and when His own fall into sin, He hates them committing those sins.

Anyway, hate is not the opposite of love. No one can hate that about which they do not care.

So God hates those that sin?

 

[rev_kevin]

This is quite true.

So, that begs the question, why would Jesus guide someone in the opposite direction of what He already revealed to the Apostles? To disciples for 2000 years?

Actually, He did. He only founded One Church. All the others were founded by men.

Those who are not in union with the Church founded by Christ appointed themselves - yes, much later on.

As Janet noted in the post above, God is displeased with all sin. And although sinners are always in need of reform, the doctrine and commandments of Jesus are NOT in need of reform. The problem was when the reformers thought that the doctrine needed to be revised, because those in custody of it were corrupt.

Why did God take so long before sending his son?
Why did God take so long before he flooded the earth?

Yes it is true there is only one Church and that Church is Christ himself.

 

[Janet1983]

Keep in mind that that is the OT not the NT. In Mark 2 verses 13-17 is the story of when Jesus eats with sinners. Now here Jesus calls a sinner Levi or Matthew to be one of his disciples. To me this don’t sound like God hates the sinner, if God hates sinners then why would He want someone who he hates to be one of his Sons disciples? Its the sin that God don’t like not the sinner. Then Jesus goes on to eat at Levi’s house with other tax collectors and sinners. Once again this don’t sound like God hates the sinner. If he hated the sinner he would not allow his Son to go to a sinners house and dine with them. Now even the Pharisees objected to him eating with sinners by saying to his disciples, “Why does he eat with such scum?” Now what was Jesus’ reply to this? “Healthy people don’t need a doctor–sick people do. I have come to call sinners, not those who think they are already good enough.” If God hated the sinner why would he have his Son save the sinner.

See he don’t hate the sinner its the sin he hates and that is what he came to save us from. If God hated the sinner he would have not sent his Son to die on the cross for our sins. Notice the word OUR, meaning us, meaning the sinner. That is love for the sinner. To offer his Son to a sinner so his sins may be forgiven is pure love not hate. While dying on the cross one of the criminals, sinner, asked for Jesus to remember him when he went to heaven and Jesus told him you will be with me in paradise. Does that sound like someone who hates the sinner? Even when he was being mocked while dying on the cross Jesus said to God Forgive them because they don’t know what they do. Once again there is no hate for the sinner but for the sin. If there was hate for the sinner Jesus would not have said that instead he would have said Father curse these sinful people for what they have done to me. But he didn’t he showed love and mercy on them.

One other thing, we are all sinners, so to say that God hates the sinner is saying he hates everyone. Its the sin not the sinner that God hates.

Thank you. You did help me out a lot.
I just looked at all of these passages and I could not put them together with God’s love in passages like Romans 5:8.
What to do however with those verses out of the OT?
If anything, might this be revealing God’s perfect standard as opposed to His mercy towards those who have been saved?

 

[guanophore]

So God isn’t omnipresent?

Strawman.

Ok so he was only talking to his disciples when he said unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will have no life in you.

Yes.

So if it was only for his disciples then why do you eat his body and drink his blood if it was just meant for them? You are not one of the original 12 that you say is only for them?

Those who were trained and authorized by Christ taught faithful men who were able to instruct others also. Through this Apostolic Succession, those who believed upon Jesus through their word were privileged to come into unity with them.

Ok I see you can’t answer the question.

You never asked any question, Kev. You just asserted that your perception of what was “ok” is more important than what Jesus taught and did.

St. Justin Martyr, ca. A.D. 150, wrote: “No one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…” For the first several hundred years of church history, non-members were forbidden to even be present at the sacramental ritual; visitors and catechumens (those still undergoing instruction) were dismissed halfway through the liturgy, after the Bible readings and sermon but before the Eucharistic rite. The ancient Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is still used in the Eastern churches, contains a reference to this practice, although it is not followed at this time.

Ok the Passover calls for wine. But inorder for wine to be fernented it must contain yeast which is a sign of sin.

Jesus uses the metaphor of yeast to talk about sin. Yeast is not inherintly sinful. Yeast is also used to show how the Kingdom of God grows (rising mysteriously from within).

Now there were ways they were able to preserve grape juice back then that would last a year. Now since yeast is a sign of sin it stands to reason that grape juice had to have been in the passover cup, Pure, unadulterated "blood of the grape" is the only proper symbol for the pure, saving blood of Jesus.

Ok Kev. I commend you to your beliefs. You probably think the wine a cana is grape juice also. I understand that this is a Baptist tradition, and important for you to hold, over and against the facts of history.

 

[MartinJordan]

Was grape juice served at the Wedding at Cana? I believe it was wine and Jesus had NO problem allowing more and best wine for the guests.

MJ

 

[rinnie]

I have heard the expression, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” Though it is not a biblical statement per se it is widely accepted…

What then, do we do with the following passages?

Psalm 5:5
“The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”

Psalm 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 16:5
Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Proverbs 17:15
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

These verses all express God’s hatred for sin, but in these cases also for the sinner.
This question has been bothering me for quite a while and I trust that you might be able to give me an answer…

Well this is quite simple. If God not only hated the sin, but also the sinner who would have a chance of getting into heaven? If God hated sin and the sinner why did he die for our sin then?

God tells us that if we want to have eternal life in him we must REPENT. Now why would he say that if he hated the sinner. I mean think about it, why would a righteous man need to repent?

The whole reason for God to make himself Man was to die for our sins because we could not quit giving into sin.

God loves us, but he hates when we sin because sin not only hurts us, it hurts eachother. But God loves us so much that he is willing to forgive our sin. But it is his love, and the dying for us on the cross that wipes our sin away. But we must do our part also and repent and confess and quit that sin so we can become one with him once again as in our Baptism.

Alot of the scripture you quote has nothing to do with A person who Loves God and repents. A proud in heart, think about that, what does that mean. A proud in heart is not a sinner, a proud in heart is a person who will not repent, and admit his sin, and turn back to our Lord.

You are speaking of people who do not accept God or believe in God, not who sins. A person who accepts sin and rejects the truth is not of God. But as I believe you can agree we can still believe in God and unfortunately not always reject sin. But it is when we admit the sin, ask for forgiveness and repent and quit the sin that we are forgiven. A proud person would not admit, not repent, nor ask for forgiveness.

 

[rinnie]

Was grape juice served at the Wedding at Cana? I believe it was wine and Jesus had NO problem allowing more and best wine for the guests.

MJ

Exactly. And remember what Jesus said to his Mother when she asked him to change the Water into wine. He said my time as not come yet.]

But it was to show what would happen. He changed water into wine at the wedding, but he changed WINE into HIS BLOOD at the Last supper.

Now think about that, there is simple proof right before their eyes what he could do. Many did not see what he did at the wedding, but some did. They saw right before their eyes him change simple water into wine, The same way we see every Sunday him change Simple Wine into his Blood at the Feast, the Last Supper at the Mass in the Eucharist.

Think about this, there was a REASON that the wedding ran out of wine.

 

[Erich]

Yes it is true there is only one Church and that Church is Christ himself.

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible one?

 

[Erich]

God didn’t only give the CC to spread his good news, to spread his word, he gave it to others as well, he just gave it to us a little later on.

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are entrusted with the care of the Gospel message. Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession. The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative (which is what happened nearly 500 years ago).

 

[rev_kevin]

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible one?

Christ founded one church and he is the church. This church lives all of his believers, all who believe he is the savior.