Zone1 The Greater Sin

[Meriweather]

1. Jesus put no restrictions on communion, just telling His disciples to do it in remembrance of Him. You did that.

When Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him", many of his disciples left him. If one believes this, there is no restriction. If one does not believe it, there is a restriction as Paul teaches we are not to eat and drink unworthily. So, yes, there are restrictions and should be. It is not well for the soul to consume what one does not believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ as what is done in the Catholic faith.

Now, if you faith eats bread and drinks wine that remains simple bread and wine in memory of Jesus, nothing wrong with that. It is just not what is happening in the Catholic Church.

Again, if you were asked to stay off a Tribe's sacred ground, would you? If you were to visit a Hindu Temple or a Indian Orthodox Catholic Church, would you remove your shoes? The Catholic Eucharist is the actual living body and blood of Christ! I'm betting you would remove your shoes out of respect, but would still maintain all have the right to receive the Catholic Eucharist without belief and without confession. In other words, receiving the Eucharist, in your opinion, doesn't even deserve the respect of staying off sacred land or removing one's shoes. respect.

2. Why do you compare communion, something the Lord set up as a COMMUNAL act of worship, to sacred Native American areas that are OFF LIMITS to visitors? Communion is supposed to be open to ALL believers, it is one thing that should unite, NOT separate us.

I am comparing the different beliefs of Communion. The original tradition was one was receiving the actual body and blood of Christ! (It's why we were accused of being cannibals even back then.) Protestants broke away claiming no Transubstantiation place and Communion (eating bread, drinking wine) is ONLY done in MEMORY of the Last Supper. Which tradition do you follow? If it is the second, why can you not respect the first? People left Jesus over this; people left the Catholic faith over this. But you insist you can march your own beliefs into the Catholic faith and then accuse Catholics as the ones at fault! Unbelievable!

 

[Meriweather]

The fact that you cannot allow a non-Catholic to celebrate a sacrament that is meant to UNITE us is why you stand accused of being exclusionary and believing you are superior.

Did she celebrate the Sacrament of Confession before receiving? Did she celebrate/participate in the Mass (or merely watch as an observer)? This has nothing to do with "superiority"! It has everything to do with not causing someone to sin by partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ when they do not believe they are partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ. You cannot seem to comprehend this.

She wanted to be in unity with her Catholic friends during a special moment that the Lord gave us to remember Him. The Catholics prefer their rules and regulations to being in unity with other believers in remembering Him. And then you wonder why you are accused of thinking you are superior to other believers.

We remember Christ all throughout the Mass. The fact that she believed that there was only one special moment is the problem. There are no "rules and regulations" only faith. Faith that one, in receiving communion, will be partaking the Body and Blood of Christ. Faith that one, before first partaking, holds equal belief and has received the Sacrament of confession. Again "superiority" has nothing to do with any of this. It is all centered in FAITH that we are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Notice how you dance around this, the vital point, and conflate it with "superiority" and "unwelcome".

That is total BS and unworthy of someone who claims to be of faith. Do better to represent Christ, not yourself or your denomination. That is your downfall, that you put your denomination above the Body.

I represent Christ. I proclaim in the Catholic Eucharist one receives the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Do you proclaim this? Or, is that your own downfall?

 

[hadit]

When Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him", many of his disciples left him. If one believes this, there is no restriction. If one does not believe it, there is a restriction as Paul teaches we are not to eat and drink unworthily. So, yes, there are restrictions and should be. It is not well for the soul to consume what one does not believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ as what is done in the Catholic faith.

Now, if you faith eats bread and drinks wine that remains simple bread and wine in memory of Jesus, nothing wrong with that. It is just not what is happening in the Catholic Church.

Again, if you were asked to stay off a Tribe's sacred ground, would you? If you were to visit a Hindu Temple or a Indian Orthodox Catholic Church, would you remove your shoes? The Catholic Eucharist is the actual living body and blood of Christ! I'm betting you would remove your shoes out of respect, but would still maintain all have the right to receive the Catholic Eucharist without belief and without confession. In other words, receiving the Eucharist, in your opinion, doesn't even deserve the respect of staying off sacred land or removing one's shoes. respect.


I am comparing the different beliefs of Communion. The original tradition was one was receiving the actual body and blood of Christ! (It's why we were accused of being cannibals even back then.) Protestants broke away claiming no Transubstantiation place and Communion (eating bread, drinking wine) is ONLY done in MEMORY of the Last Supper. Which tradition do you follow? If it is the second, why can you not respect the first? People left Jesus over this; people left the Catholic faith over this. But you insist you can march your own beliefs into the Catholic faith and then accuse Catholics as the ones at fault! Unbelievable!

Can you finally get it through your thick skull that at no point was my wife demanding or insisting on anything at all? She was ready to celebrate communion with the Lord and the nosy Catholic woman got her panties in a bunch and told her she couldn't. My wife, instead of insisting on or demanding anything, chose to leave and not cause an issue. If the Catholics want to take their ball and go home, that's their choice. If they don't want to celebrate communion with icky outsiders, that's their choice. Just don't expect the rest of us to agree with you being exclusive.

Would you celebrate communion in a non-Catholic church, knowing that they are doing as Christ commanded, eating and drinking in remembrance of Him, or would you turn up your nose and claim it's not "real" communion because they didn't first say it was going to transform before everyone's eyes into actual flesh and blood?

 

[hadit]

Did she celebrate the Sacrament of Confession before receiving? Did she celebrate/participate in the Mass (or merely watch as an observer)? This has nothing to do with "superiority"! It has everything to do with not causing someone to sin by partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ when they do not believe they are partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ. You cannot seem to comprehend this.

Oh, I comprehend very well. You have set up restrictions around celebrating communion that serve to divide, not unite the Body of Christ. You think that someone has to do things the Catholic way before celebrating communion. You can't comprehend that someone would take the time during a service to prepare her heart and be ready to celebrate. It has to be your way or no way. Tell us, when the Coptic church reunited with the Catholic, as you have claimed, did the Catholic church change any of their beliefs, or did the Coptic church have to do all the changing?

We remember Christ all throughout the Mass. The fact that she believed that there was only one special moment is the problem.

Again, with the BS. She appreciated the entire service, was worshipping the Lord and was looking forward to the culmination of communing together with fellow believers and Him. Those "fellow believers" chose to deny her that special moment. Perhaps that's one of your problems, that you don't regard communion as a very special moment.

There are no "rules and regulations" only faith. Faith that one, in receiving communion, will be partaking the Body and Blood of Christ. Faith that one, before first partaking, holds equal belief and has received the Sacrament of confession. Again "superiority" has nothing to do with any of this. It is all centered in FAITH that we are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Notice how you dance around this, the vital point, and conflate it with "superiority" and "unwelcome".

I notice that you continue to insist my wife was demanding that her beliefs be honored by the Catholic church, something that is totally false when she acted out of respect for those around her instead of demanding that she celebrate with them.

I represent Christ. I proclaim in the Catholic Eucharist one receives the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Do you proclaim this? Or, is that your own downfall?

I proclaim that Jesus took bread and wine and gave it to His disciples, telling them to eat and drink in remembrance of Him until the day when He eats that meal again with us in the Father's house. Tell us, do you insist that He's going to serve His own body and blood when we're face to face with Him in heaven?

 

[ding]

Why the "rules" that arbitrarily exclude believers in the first place? This is one reason why Catholics are accused of being exclusionary, of considering themselves superior to other believers. "I know Jesus put no restrictions on celebrating communion, but we're special so we set up rules to keep you guys out".

And no, she had no problem with arbitrary, exclusionary rules. She left the service, went to her car and hasn't gone to Catholic service since. And why should she when she is clearly not wanted?

You say arbitrary I say thoughtful. It's for good reason it's not done casually. Besides not your faith, not your business. The fact that you think it's arbitrary shows you have never put any thoughtfulness into your considerations.

 

[Donald H]

You say arbitrary I say thoughtful. It's for good reason it's not done casually. Besides not your faith, not your business. The fact that you think it's arbitrary shows you have never put any thoughtfulness into your considerations.

Regardless of the thoughts (and prayers) the stars really did fall from the sky.

As we now know they sorta do every day!

The bibles can be right if you think they're right! It's called faith!

 

[BreezeWood]

Why the "rules" that arbitrarily exclude believers in the first place?

You say arbitrary I say thoughtful. It's for good reason it's not done casually. Besides not your faith, not your business. The fact that you think it's arbitrary shows you have never put any thoughtfulness into your considerations.

oh -

the crucifiers and their freedom of religion - bing and meriweather ... they sing the church's tune who knows best their book of forgeries and fallacies unrepentant for their crimes recorded throughout the centuries.

 

[ding]

Regardless of the thoughts (and prayers) the stars really did fall from the sky.

As we now know they sorta do every day!

The bibles can be right if you think they're right! It's called faith!

Laughing leads to crying. Marinate on that.

 

[ding]

oh -

View attachment 1036393

the crucifiers and their freedom of religion - bing and meriweather ... they sing the church's tune who knows best their book of forgeries and fallacies unrepentant for their crimes recorded throughout the centuries.

What's your religion ever done?

 

[ding]

Why the "rules" that arbitrarily exclude believers in the first place? This is one reason why Catholics are accused of being exclusionary, of considering themselves superior to other believers. "I know Jesus put no restrictions on celebrating communion, but we're special so we set up rules to keep you guys out".

And no, she had no problem with arbitrary, exclusionary rules. She left the service, went to her car and hasn't gone to Catholic service since. And why should she when she is clearly not wanted?

I wouldn't expect you to even try to understand it. You're too busy grinding your axes. So of course you see it as arbitrary. Suffice it to say you aren't the first adherent of an insignificant religion to unjustly attack the dominant religion of the land. It's standard practice for socialists.

 

[hadit]

I wouldn't expect you to even try to understand it. You're too busy grinding your axes. So of course you see it as arbitrary. Suffice it to say you aren't the first adherent of an insignificant religion to unjustly attack the dominant religion of the land. It's standard practice for socialists.

Let's see if we can find where the wheels fell off your tricycle.

"insignificant religion"
"dominant religion"

Do you not realize that Catholic and non-Catholic are mere branches of the same faith? How odd that you don't understand that.

"attack"

There's no attacking going on. There is exposing of things Catholics are doing that are not Biblical and that are detrimental to the Body of Christ. Perhaps you are feeling more than a little defensive.

"socialists". Again, quite odd given that we are not talking about political economic systems. Are you sure you're in the right thread?

I think the wheels fell off quite early in your screed.

 

[ding]

Let's see if we can find where the wheels fell off your tricycle.

"insignificant religion"
"dominant religion"

Do you not realize that Catholic and non-Catholic are mere branches of the same faith? How odd that you don't understand that.

"attack"

There's no attacking going on. There is exposing of things Catholics are doing that are not Biblical and that are detrimental to the Body of Christ. Perhaps you are feeling more than a little defensive.

"socialists". Again, quite odd given that we are not talking about political economic systems. Are you sure you're in the right thread?

I think the wheels fell off quite early in your screed.

My wheel are just fine. I'm not the one seeking religious conflict and acting like an ass in the process.

 

[hadit]

My wheel are just fine. I'm not the one seeking religious conflict and acting like an ass in the process.

You might want to check that again.

 

[ding]

You might want to check that again.

It seems to me that you worship what a book says until it doesn't suit your purposes.

2 Timothy 2:23-26, 2 Timothy 2:14, Matthew 12:25, Matthew 18:15-16, Romans 14:1-23, Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 3:3, 1 Corinthians 13:1-2, 1 John 4:20-21, Proverbs 6:16-19, Proverbs 28:25, Galatians 5:15, Galatians 5:19-21, Titus 3:10, Jude 1:19, Ephesians 4:3-6, Ephesians 4:31-32, Colossians 3:12-14, 1 Corinthians 12:25, 1 Peter 3:8, Philippians 2:1-2, John 17:20-23, Mark 3:24-25, Luke 11:17 and James 3:16.

 

[ding]

I'm just following what the book says.

1 Timothy 5:20

 

[hadit]

I'm just following what the book says.

1 Timothy 5:20

Did you bother to read the very next verse?

 

[ding]

Did you bother to read the very next verse?

Did you bother to read any of the passages cited before that post?

Does your church allow gay marriages because if not isn't that arbitrary? Why don't you change your religious practices to be more accommodating?

You pointy nosed, righteously indignant types makes me ashamed to be a Christian.

 

[hadit]

Did you bother to read any of the passages cited before that post?

Does your church allow gay marriages because if not isn't that arbitrary? Why don't you change your religious practices to be more accommodating?

You pointy nosed, righteously indignant types makes me ashamed to be a Christian.

Interesting, "righteously indignant" because I believe communion should be open to all believers. Odd, very odd. Tell me, are you the attack squirrel now, hoping to distract me?

 

[ding]

Interesting, "righteously indignant" because I believe communion should be open to all believers. Odd, very odd. Tell me, are you the attack squirrel now, hoping to distract me?

No. I'm fulfilling my obligation to God by bringing your error to you. What you do with it is between you and God now. Instead of reading the bible to confirm your biases try reading the bible to fix your flaws. That's what it's there for.

 

[hadit]

No. I'm fulfilling my obligation to God by bringing your error to you. What you do with it is between you and God now. Instead of reading the bible to confirm your biases try reading the bible to fix your flaws. That's what it's there for.

Of course it is. The Word is useful for correction. We know that, which is why we focus on the Word and not so much on man's traditions.