Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, not yet, we are searching for him, and are as ready as we will ever be. While we just don't use Holy Water, it is used in our Exorcism rite; it's preparation is also clearly instructed within the rite; as is the use of Holy images, incense, and particularly prayer.Yep, that’s a demonaic. Did you have the opportunity to get him in for an exorcism? I would suggest, after obtaining legal advice*, training ushers to throw holy water on anyone who menaces the congregation as it is known to stun demons and it might give you time to free the victim.
It is difficult to debunk when debunking is met with a wall of bunk. It is soon time to take St. Paul's advice and shake the dust off of my feet and move on.So debunk it.
That’s wise but I have to stay as long as we are viewed as second class citizens and not Christian enough.It is difficult to debunk when debunking is met with a wall of bunk. It is soon time to take St. Paul's advice and shake the dust off of my feet and move on.
Attacking the Catholic church would be claiming it's an apostate church, a synagogue of satan, the pope is the antichrist etc. None of that is going on here.Attacking the Roman Catholic Church is morally wrong because of the problem of anti-Catholic persecution (so is attacking the Protestant or Orthodox churches), but if one wishes to attack all churches, that’s an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence.
Yeah that looks to be a bit of a mess too.Kind of like the reformed protestants, who disagree and just start another Church, or form a cult of personality.
The discussion is about unity. Protestants aren’t wanting the Catholic communion. Unity revolves around respect for the faith of fellow believers, not wanting what the other has. As you say, it is a tenant of the Nicene Creed, a show of solidarity with the body of Christ. It’s pretty obvious who is and who is not interested in unity, but it is one of the things Christ expects of His followers.The Roman Catholics aren’t the ones wanting access to other people’s communion.
Belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is an article of faith in the Nicene Creed - which does not necessarily mean the Roman Catholic Church, but the idea of the Church Catholic, however you define it: most Evangelicals tend to believe it is an invisible entity of all believers, or consists of the local church. And the New Testament does speak of a single Church - the Body of Christ. Catholic means “according to the Whole”, and thus whoever claims their church is Catholic, whether Protestant, such as Lutherans and Anglicans, or Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East, is actually saying their particular church is a part of the entire church - but they will disagree on what the entire church is, with the definition varying between each of the groups I just mentioned (except for “Branch Ecclesiology” which is known to exist, in several cases without official endorsement, in all of the above, which does not mean it is correct, but it is popular. I am not endorsing it but merely informing about it. But what everyone must acknowledge is the Scriptural reality of one Body of Christ - the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, even if they disagree on its nature, relationship to specific denominations or identity.
As a historical note:
I would say until the 20th century most laity regarded their church as representing the Church Catholic either exclusively or in an idealized state, even if this was not its official doctrine or the view of its founder (for example, Martin Luther defined the Church based on orthopraxis rather than connections to Lutheranism so churches other than Lutherans could be entirely Catholic and Orthodox according to the Lutheran model, but an extreme mistrust of non-Lutheran churches began to appear in the 18th and 19th century likely in reaction to the forced union of Lutheran and Calvinist churches and the Pietist movement, although the most pro-Lutheran book I have simply refers to churches of other beliefs as “Heterodox” leaving open the possibility of an Orthodox church compatible with Lutheranism existing. Since that time, we’ve seen some conservative Anglicans who left the Episcopal church and some conservative Lutherans in a state of full communion, which means more than, for example, the ELCA being in full communion with the UMC or the ECUSA, since the ELCA is part of the Lutheran World Federation which has a great many members which are in direct communion with, or are the result of mergers between, Lutheran and Calvinist churches, and which are what the Lutherans call “crypto-Calvinist.”
I was asking a question, not giving an answer. And yes I didn't have a clue as to what you were talking about until you just explained the situation some. How would I deal with a situation like that? How am I supposed to know that when I don't know what the details of the situation are?This hardly even qualifies for an answer; you really don't have a clue. The individual misrepresented himself to Pastor; the devil is the father of lies. How would you deal with a situation like this? Crap your pants? Sorry, but I am feeling goaded and am losing patience; even our Lord lost patience with those who missed the point (the money changers).
My brother in Christ, citing general scripture without comment or exegesis as a defense does not in any way help you debunk what the previous poster was promoting. Please be specific and I will be happy to engage.
Okay then why is the Eucharist being called invalid when Protestants partake of it?You heard wrong,
Exactly, Catholics do not seek to receive bread and red juice.The Roman Catholics aren’t the ones wanting access to other people’s communion.
I cannot recall the creeds ever saying "I believe in one holy catholic apostolic and invisible church", can you?Belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is an article of faith in the Nicene Creed - which does not necessarily mean the Roman Catholic Church, but the idea of the Church Catholic, however you define it: most Evangelicals tend to believe it is an invisible entity of all believers, or consists of the local church.
According to the whole would be a bad fit for a good number of Protestant organisations.And the New Testament does speak of a single Church - the Body of Christ. Catholic means “according to the Whole”, and thus whoever claims their church is Catholic, whether Protestant, such as Lutherans and Anglicans, or Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East, is actually saying their particular church is a part of the entire church - but they will disagree on what the entire church is, with the definition varying between each of the groups I just mentioned (except for “Branch Ecclesiology” which is known to exist, in several cases without official endorsement, in all of the above, which does not mean it is correct, but it is popular.
It helps if they give some thought to what the scriptures say about sacraments, governance, and doctrine. It is not as if the scriptures say nothing about it.I am not endorsing it but merely informing about it. But what everyone must acknowledge is the Scriptural reality of one Body of Christ - the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, even if they disagree on its nature, relationship to specific denominations or identity.
The Catholic Church is engaged in discussions with many other churches, and as far as I know no one insists on receiving communion in a Catholic mass if their own sacramental theology denies the real and physical presence.As a historical note:
I would say until the 20th century most laity regarded their church as representing the Church Catholic either exclusively or in an idealized state, even if this was not its official doctrine or the view of its founder (for example, Martin Luther defined the Church based on orthopraxis rather than connections to Lutheranism so churches other than Lutherans could be entirely Catholic and Orthodox according to the Lutheran model, but an extreme mistrust of non-Lutheran churches began to appear in the 18th and 19th century likely in reaction to the forced union of Lutheran and Calvinist churches and the Pietist movement, although the most pro-Lutheran book I have simply refers to churches of other beliefs as “Heterodox” leaving open the possibility of an Orthodox church compatible with Lutheranism existing. Since that time, we’ve seen some conservative Anglicans who left the Episcopal church and some conservative Lutherans in a state of full communion, which means more than, for example, the ELCA being in full communion with the UMC or the ECUSA, since the ELCA is part of the Lutheran World Federation which has a great many members which are in direct communion with, or are the result of mergers between, Lutheran and Calvinist churches, and which are what the Lutherans call “crypto-Calvinist.”
The point that's being made is "other people's communion". Where does scripture endorse separate exclusive communions? Did not Paul speak against division when addressing communion in 1 Corinthians 11?The Roman Catholics aren’t the ones wanting access to other people’s communion.
If not bread then what? And it's non-alcoholic wine. But really the main thing is at the church I attended you'd be viewed as a fellow Christian welcomed with open arms and quite welcome to partake in communion with us.Exactly, Catholics do not seek to receive bread and red juice.
No doubt, but I would not partake.If not bread then what? And it's non-alcoholic wine. But really the main thing is at the church I attended you'd be viewed as a fellow Christian welcomed with open arms and quite welcome to partake in communion with us.
“The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being.” (CCC §1325)The point that's being made is "other people's communion". Where does scripture endorse separate exclusive communions? Did not Paul speak against division when addressing communion in 1 Corinthians 11?
The summation of 1 Corinthians 11 is:“The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being.” (CCC §1325)
“Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation… have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery… It is for this reason that Eucharistic inter-communion is not possible.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church §1400
1. 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 — Unworthy Reception
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord… For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.”This is the most direct warning. Paul insists that communion must be approached with self-examination and spiritual discernment. Many churches interpret this to mean that only those in a state of grace and doctrinal unity should receive the Eucharist.
Which Christian churches hold to.2. 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 — Communion as Ecclesial Unity
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body…”This passage links Eucharistic participation with visible unity in the Body of Christ. It implies that communion is not merely a personal act of devotion but a public sign of ecclesial membership and doctrinal concord.
Christian churches hold to that as well. Although the Protestant ones consider apostolic teaching to be from the gospels and epistles written by the Apostles which are considered scripture.3. Acts 2:42 — Apostolic Fellowship and Teaching
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”The early Church’s Eucharistic life was inseparable from fidelity to apostolic teaching. This suggests that communion presupposes doctrinal alignment, not merely individual belief.
Which would mean someone in a church stirring up division and dissent among the congregation. There probably isn't a single church that won't ask a trouble maker to leave. Controversy, disagreements and clashes exists within the Catholic church though. Even among the clergy. For example, there were Catholics who considered Francis to be an illegitimate Pope, or at least disagreed with things he said and his institution of the Pachamama ritual. Were they told to leave because they held that belief, or would they have only been told to leave if they started stirring up trouble within a parish?4. Titus 3:10 — Avoiding Division and Heresy
“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.”While not directly about communion, this passage supports the idea that persistent doctrinal dissent or schism warrants exclusion from ecclesial fellowship—including sacramental participation.
Not required for salvation.There are actions normally required for salvation which are done in churches, such as baptism and the Eucharist,
What that comes down to is someone else besides God has to be involved in bringing about salvation. Some person has to baptise you in order for you to be saved. Some person has to consecrate bread and wine for you to eat and drink before you're saved. There must be a human intercessor involved.Not required for salvation.
Jesus saves; no one and nothing else, Acts 4:12, John 1:12, John 14:6, Ephesians 2:5, 8.
A person could become a Christian but die before they can be baptised, or receive communion. They would still be saved.
Fortunately God doesn't agree with that.What that comes down to is someone else besides God has to be involved in bringing about salvation. Some person has to baptise you in order for you to be saved. Some person has to consecrate bread and wine for you to eat and drink before you're saved. There must be a human intercessor involved.
If you can't find a human being to baptise you and consecrate bread and wine for you, after you've repented and belived in and put your faith in Lord Jesus for salvation, you're toast if you die before then.
Do you believe baptism is required for salvation?What that comes down to is someone else besides God has to be involved in bringing about salvation. Some person has to baptise you in order for you to be saved. Some person has to consecrate bread and wine for you to eat and drink before you're saved. There must be a human intercessor involved.
If you can't find a human being to baptise you and consecrate bread and wine for you, after you've repented and belived in and put your faith in Lord Jesus for salvation, you're toast if you die before then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?