On This Rock I Will Build My Church

[Strong in Him]

if you say so

Why would you judge that I have an entitlement mentality when all I said was that I am a Christian just as Catholics are and therefore should be able to take communion?

Jesus told his disciples to "do this in memory of me"
He did not say "if you are in a Catholic church", "if you have an ordained minister present", "if you have the right theology about this meal", "if you use real wine/bread and not juice/a wafer" or anything else.

Did church leaders believed they were entitled to add liturgy and other traditions to Christ's words?

 

[concretecamper]

Why would you judge that I have an entitlement mentality when all I said was that I am a Christian just as Catholics are and therefore should be able to take communion?

because it has been explained to you numerous times using Scripture, Tradition, and the Church fathers and you persist in your whining.

An entitlement mentality is a state of mind in which an individual comes to believe that privileges are instead rights, and that they are to be expected as a matter of course.
Entitlement mentality - Conservapedia

 

[Strong in Him]

because it has been explained to you numerous times using Scripture, Tradition, and the Church fathers and you persist in your whining.

An entitlement mentality is a state of mind in which an individual comes to believe that privileges are instead rights, and that they are to be expected as a matter of course.
Entitlement mentality - Conservapedia

I'm not whining.
I'm asking you to explain to me, using Scripture, why I am (apparently) forbidden from taking communion in a Catholic church.
Where, in Scripture, does Jesus say that?
Where, in Scripture, does God forbid it and say that I will be punished if I try to receive?

I don't expect to receive communion in a Catholic church - I accepted long ago that you are not that charitable. But that doesn't stop me from being sad that this is the case, and annoyed that if the tables were reversed and you were in my church for communion, you'd be welcomed with open arms. Because our minister says that the Lord's table is open to all who love the Lord, and it is the Lord who invites people to his table.
THAT'S the privilege - that we deserve nothing from God yet he invites us to eat his body, drink his blood and have fellowship with him.

 

[concretecamper]

 

[Strong in Him]

How rude.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

since you'll only be receiving normal bread and wine at any of these places, sure, go for it.
no, it is not part of, it is the Universal Church.
it would be awesome if you attend Mass. But you cannot receive the Eucharist because it is the flesh and blood of our Savior. St. Paul issued a warning about this in 1Cor. 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

Oh. What you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church which is the sole universal Catholic church while other churches are not. Okay.

Also, you are saying that anyone participating in Eucharist outside of the Roman Catholic Church is partaking of the elements unworthily. Okay then.

That shows that you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church that Jesus instituted. That is what I suspected all along. I was just waiting for you to actually say it.

 

[pescador]

The Catholic church unfortunately claims to be the only true church. They think that gives them the right to refuse the bread and wine to non-Catholics. How arrogant and sad!

There is nothing in the Bible that substantiates this arrogance! None of the people at the "last supper" were (obviously!) Catholics, including Judas -- who ate the bread and drank the cup (and ate the lamb) with Jesus.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sadly, I think probably not, because I have been denied communion by Catholics - even though I was baptised, a Christian and a child of God, just as much as they were.
It's a brave person who tells one of God's children that they can't take part in a service, instituted by the Son, to honour the Father.

Our Roman Catholic friends have done their best to sidestep their belief that their church is the only true church, in spite of a number of inferences they have made on the thread that supports their belief. I guess they are giving lip service to the rest of us because they don't want to alienate themselves and lose credibility.

 

[pescador]

Unfortunately, the Catholic denomination makes the false claim that it alone is the one true church, even though there is no mention of that denomination anywhere in the Bible.

If someone from NT times stepped into a Catholic church today and observed the rituals, costumes, liturgy, communion, etc. they would believe that they were witnessing something very close to the Old Covenant practices. Additionally, they (including Peter) would undoubtedly be refused the bread and wine.

 

[apollosdtr]

yep
Hard to believe... but just a few minutes ago, I was ready to say Jesus is the rock... even after studying it a time or twelve.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait [is] the gate and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter is part of a rock, in the Greek. The rock in the next verse is a mass of rock.
Jesus words are THE rock... not "a rock".

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house: and it fell not, for it was founded upon the rock.

Jesus' words came from the Father... so, Jesus tells us that those who believe on Him... actually believe on the Father.

John 12:44-50 49 For I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a Commandment: what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His Commandment is Life Everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak.

(excuse the logic-os... this is a new thought for me)

That Jesus renamed Simon as Rock is particularly significant because "rock" is used a number of times in the Bible to describe God. The Aramaic name Jesus gave to Simon means "Rock" in Aramaic, it is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek text.

{ I don't want to derail this thread... so I answered the question of bible-language... over here:
Greek Bible }
______________________________
Actually, the size of a rock is its definition, in the New Testament.

4074 Petros = apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock.
4073 petra = feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.
3037 lithos = apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):--(mill-, stumbling-)stone.

Now... if I were a skeptic, I'd have to wonder whether the Cephas-people were trying to call Peter a stumbling-stone... simply by using that word for him. Especially if there is any interpolation ever done by scribes.

 

[timothyu]

Unfortunately, the Catholic denomination makes the false claim that it alone is the one true church

Not to mention the splintering within Catholicism, where the Roman church stood in the shadow of the Byzantine church thanks to Constantine. But I suppose Paul's near East churches held some sway also.

 

[timothyu]

The Aramaic word for rock, kêfâ is petra, feminine, which means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring. Translated from Aramaic the word Peter in Greek is kêfâs adding an s to the original Aramaic to make it masculine, petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not to mention the splintering within Catholicism, where the Roman church stood in the shadow of the Byzantine church thanks to Constantine. But I suppose Paul's near East churches held some sway also.

Also interesting is the fact that the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other and that brought about the great Schism between the Western and Eastern churches. So much for Apostolic succession right there. The debate is whether it is the Western church based on Rome or the Eastern church based in Constantinople has Apostolic succession, because if Apostolic succession is viable, then either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox church could claim it.

 

[timothyu]

then either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox church could claim it.

Yes but at the time of Constantine the Roman side of the Empire had lost the civil war to the Greek side of the Empire, so held little standing. But more interesting is the Jews of the original churches, both east and west were neither Latin or Greek. That partisan thinking came with Gentiles, not Apostles.

 

[Valletta]

{ I don't want to derail this thread... so I answered the question of bible-language... over here:
Greek Bible }
______________________________
Actually, the size of a rock is its definition, in the New Testament.

4074 Petros = apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock.
4073 petra = feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.
3037 lithos = apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):--(mill-, stumbling-)stone.

Now... if I were a skeptic, I'd have to wonder whether the Cephas-people were trying to call Peter a stumbling-stone... simply by using that word for him. Especially if there is any interpolation ever done by scribes.

The original Aramaic name is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek Biblical text, Kepha, transliterated as Cephas, means Rock in Aramaic. You are being confused by the Greek translation, Jesus spoke Aramaic. "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church."

 

[concretecamper]

Oh. What you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church which is the sole universal Catholic church while other churches are not. Okay.

well there can't be 2 universal Churches.

Also, you are saying that anyone participating in Eucharist outside of the Roman Catholic Church is partaking of the elements unworthily. Okay then.

not at all. That is not what I said or Paul meant.

That shows that you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church that Jesus instituted. That is what I suspected all along. I was just waiting for you to actually say it.

well Christ only founded one Church, not many.

 

[Valletta]

Unfortunately, the Catholic denomination makes the false claim that it alone is the one true church, even though there is no mention of that denomination anywhere in the Bible.

If someone from NT times stepped into a Catholic church today and observed the rituals, costumes, liturgy, communion, etc. they would believe that they were witnessing something very close to the Old Covenant practices. Additionally, they (including Peter) would undoubtedly be refused the bread and wine.

A lot of the mass is right there in the Bible in Revelation, that is true. Jews were the original converts. I would not refer to what Catholics priests or Jesus Himself wore as "costumes." People have very different dress and customs around the world. Peter would receive a great welcome in a Catholic Church.

 

[Lost4words]

Yet another Catholic bashing thread!

 

[concretecamper]

Our Roman Catholic friends have done their best to sidestep their belief that their church is the only true church, in spite of a number of inferences they have made on the thread that supports their belief.

not at all. Ask a simple question and you will get a simple and. Lace your question with superfolous silly stuff and you will get confusing answers.

I guess they are giving lip service to the rest of us because they don't want to alienate themselves and lose credibility

I've told you what the Church teaches. If you can't see beyond your bias to hear, that's not my fault

 

[Valletta]

Also interesting is the fact that the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other and that brought about the great Schism between the Western and Eastern churches. So much for Apostolic succession right there. The debate is whether it is the Western church based on Rome or the Eastern church based in Constantinople has Apostolic succession, because if Apostolic succession is viable, then either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox church could claim it.

The Catholic Church is based on Jesus, as is the Eastern Orthodox. Apostolic succession in the East is recognized by the Catholic Church. As I have said, contrary to your assertions about Catholics, non-Catholic Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ and we look forward to seeing many non-Catholics in Heaven. People believe that their own faith is the true faith, this should surprise no one.