Inter-denomination restrictions on communion??!

[threeinone]

We Orthodox Christians also believe that it is a piece of bread and wine that is consumed. But just as Christ came in the flesh as fully God and fully man, the Eucharist is both fully bread & wine and the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

John 6:53-56-
"Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.' "

It doesn't sound like he's kidding about his flesh being real food and his blood being real drink. Not at all. And keep in mind that this was said probably months before Christ applied his flesh to bread and his blood to wine at the Last Supper. In John 6, Christ says nothing about bread and wine.

This isn't supposed to be easy. In the same passage, his disciples admitted it was a hard saying (v. 60), and some of them turned away and never came back (v. 66).

This is our belief as Orthodox Christians. However, if people are going to approach the chalice unprepared and not believing that it really is his flesh and blood, then we want to protect them from eating and drinking condemnation unto themselves at the very least. Makes sense to me.

The idea that it really is just a symbol is also a new concept, compared to Church History. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Orthodox belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has never been invented over our 2,000 year history. It was there from the beginning, with the early Church and it hasn't been changed. It's a particularly Modernist idea that the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Jesus spoke in parables and euphamisms and allegories and the such. Maybe I am way off base but when I read the bible, I look for the hidden meanings, the words leading to a higher thought. I believe that reading the bible word for word is dangerous. I am sure that Jesus was not referring to us or the disciples eating His flesh....obviously they weren't. Sure I have had the glorious feeling of receiving Jesus, but not His flesh and not His body which is His flesh. I see no need to use such ideas to refuse Jesus to anybody.

 

[SpiritWalk]

Ok, so I wanted to throw this out there to see if anyone has ever heard of this, and what they think.

My girlfriend recently has a converstation with a Catholic priest who commented that there was some unwritten rule/understanding that communion is only to be taken if you agree with a church's doctrine. E.g. if your Baptist you only take part in a Baptist communion...

Now, I understand that the Catholic church has "guidelines" dictating that non-Catholics cannot take part in communion (something that baffles me) but as a non-denom/charismatic christian how does this apply? I can only take communion at a non-denom/charismatic church? What if I was to attend a different church (e.g. Alliance), using this rationale I couldn't take part in communion.

Has anyone ever heard of this supposed unwritten rule?
How does this sort of idea jive with non-denoms?

Personally I have a lot of reservations on this. Mainly because of Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV)

and for our KJV fans:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

What do you all think of this?

***DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Catholics! I just have never heard of this unwritten rule between non-Catholic churches.***

This is why Im non-denominational! The only doctrines I embrace are the ones God gave and HE said to take communion in remembrance of Him.

another thought.. Its like reading the bible anyone can read the bible but only Spirit reveals its truth.. it might be the same with things like taking communion.. only the Spirit makes it holy... so if any non-believer takes it in church.. its not blasphemous.. thats just a thought anyhow.

 

[threeinone]

This is why Im non-denominational! The only doctrines I embrace are the ones God gave and HE said to take communion in remembrance of Him.

Thank you SpiritWalk

That was the part that I had forgotten....in every church, those words are spoken "in remembrance of Me"....I know in the Roman Catholic Church and I suspect in the Orthodox Church as well...."in remembrance of Me". We receive Jesus in the form of bread and wine in remembrance of Him. "In the form of" are the key words.

 

[irishseventysix]

Jesus spoke in parables and euphamisms and allegories and the such. Maybe I am way off base but when I read the bible, I look for the hidden meanings, the words leading to a higher thought. I believe that reading the bible word for word is dangerous. I am sure that Jesus was not referring to us or the disciples eating His flesh....obviously they weren't. Sure I have had the glorious feeling of receiving Jesus, but not His flesh and not His body which is His flesh. I see no need to use such ideas to refuse Jesus to anybody.

Was Christ speaking in a parable in John 6? Was it just allegory? Because He says that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, and unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood (he says nothing about bread and wine or any substitute at this point). He's saying it's real, not allegorical. That's the difference.

The meaning of the word "remembrance" in Greek means, literally, to bring the past into the present. It's not just reminiscence. We are actually partaking of Him, with the saints, in his presence.

And if people don't acknowledge or confirm those, they aren't prepared to receive it because they don't know what they're receiving.

I don't deny that the Lord has impacted you through taking communion at your church. Far be it from me to shorten our Lord's arms in this regard! However, whether you agree with our theology behind our closed communion or not, my point was to answer the question regarding why it's closed.

And keep in mind that the idea that communion is only a symbol of Christ and not his Real Presence is very new idea in Christendom. So not only are you saying that the first 1,700 years of Christianity (whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) got the focal sacrament of the church wrong, but you're not "bringing the past into the present" when you commune because your communion is different by your own belief than what more than 1,700 years' worth of Christians received. That doesn't make your experience invalid, and it doesn't preclude God's loving work in your life. Not at all. But we Orthodox, as well as Catholics and some high church Protestants, would say that because by your own admission, the communion that you receive is just a symbol, it is not the completeness, the fullness of the communion we receive. Therefore, we are not in communion, and so we won't pretend like we are in our services.

 

[INRI2]

Now, I understand that the Catholic church has "guidelines" dictating that non-Catholics cannot take part in communion (something that baffles me)

I am a catholic and in defence of the catholic church i would like to say a few words.

You all must know that the eucharist is the fullfillment of the Jewish passover or to put it another way the Jewish passover foreshadowed the eucharist.


you have to remember that the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the fullness of faith believes that it is the one true church established by Christ and founded on St Peter, that all who oppose and reject the catholic church reject Christ. (whoever listens to you listens to me, whoever rejects you rejects me also)

Even Christians of the protestant persuation by their disobediance to the church and thus to Christ have segregated themselves from the HOUSE of the lord.

So by guidance of the holy spirit and the instruction of scripture the church does not allow those outside the catholic faith to participate in the catholic "passover."

EX 12:43-46

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. "It (passover lamb, flesh of Christ) must be eaten inside one HOUSE; take none of the meat outside the house.

I do not expect you to agree, My only hope is to shed light so that you may understand.

God bless.

 

[threeinone]

I am a catholic and in defence of the catholic church i would like to say a few words.

You all must know that the eucharist is the fullfillment of the Jewish passover or to put it another way the Jewish passover foreshadowed the eucharist.


you have to remember that the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the fullness of faith believes that it is the one true church established by Christ and founded on St Peter, that all who oppose and reject the catholic church reject Christ. (whoever listens to you listens to me, whoever rejects you rejects me also)



Even Christians of the protestant persuation by their disobediance to the church and thus to Christ have segregated themselves from the HOUSE of the lord.

So by guidance of the holy spirit and the instruction of scripture the church does not allow those outside the catholic faith to participate in the catholic "passover."

EX 12:43-46

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. "It (passover lamb, flesh of Christ) must be eaten inside one HOUSE; take none of the meat outside the house.

I do not expect you to agree, My only hope is to shed light so that you may understand.

God bless.

I reject any church that considers itself the one and only chuch as if Jesus is only for them. The Mormons also consider themselves the one and only church. Kind of makes one wonder.

 

[INRI2]

I reject any church that considers itself the one and only chuch as if Jesus is only for them. The Mormons also consider themselves the one and only church. Kind of makes one wonder.

I have no problem with that, I uphold and would defend your right to accept or rejct the catholic church. What i said was soley for the purpose of letting people undrstand where in scripture the cathoilc church gets its authority to deny people from outside the catholic faith from recieving the passover meal.

"as if Jesus is only for them"

That is not a RCC doctrine, jesus is the light of the world not just the light of Catholics, however I believe that is is those who have seen the light of the world who become catholics


God Bless

 

[threeinone]

I have no problem with that, I uphold and would defend your right to accept or rejct the catholic church. What i said was soley for the purpose of letting people undrstand where in scripture the cathoilc church gets its authority to deny people from outside the catholic faith from recieving the passover meal.

"as if Jesus is only for them"

That is not a RCC doctrine, jesus is the light of the world not just the light of Catholics, however I believe that is is those who have seen the light of the world who become catholics


God Bless

Actually I am Catholic too and I don't think anybody has authority to refuse Jesus to other people. I guess the Catholic church can refuse communion to people but it says something about the Catholic religion, something that doesn't sit very well with me but that really doesn't matter because I haven't been going to church. I don't go to the Mormon church either, or any church that thinks it is the one and only church of God and no one else has anything as close to God or no one else is good enough for their communion. I can't quite deal with putting myself above other people like that as a Catholic.

This is not an argument or anything......it is just how I feel about it.

And I am totally at a loss as to why anyone would God Bless someone not good enough for their communion.,

 

[INRI2]

Actually I am Catholic too and I don't think anybody has authority to refuse Jesus to other people.

Nobody is refusing Jesus to anyone, but their are certain ways of coming to jesus, its no good going to demascus if jesus is in jeruselem, no the point of the matter is there are certain rules laid down by god himself as to how to celebrate the eucharistic passover meal.




"I guess the Catholic church can refuse communion to people but it says something about the Catholic religion."

Then it must say the same something about God too since it is his rules on the passover that we follow.

"something that doesn't sit very well with me but that really doesn't matter because I haven't been going to church."

If you are a catholic and you have problems with the eucharistic teaching of the church it is better that you dont recieve the eucharist, you could still go to church though.

I don't go to the Mormon church either, or any church that thinks it is the one and only church of God and no one else has anything as close to God or no one else is good enough for their communion.

That is as far removed from Catholic understanding as could possibly be, catholics not only see that protestants worship and give glory to Jesus christ they also see that muslims and pagans and hindus and buddists and all sorts of relgions have elements of the true beauty of almight God in them, some more than others, Isalm recognise 1 true god, Pagans celebrate the creation of God, muslims have a better understanding of god but a pagan still has elements of truth a protestant has a better understanding of god because he accepts Christ, the Catholic church is the fullness of truth because it is the Church that God, Jesus Christ himself built.

And there is no catholic who believe that they are better than others or that others are not Good enough to Go to communion, we are justified by our faith... it is Christ himself that picks us up out of the gutter and allows us to come to his supper....Who is worthy to Go to communion, who is worthy to come to Christ?

At holy communion we say.... "lord I am NOT WORTHY to recieve you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" we are the first to recognise our unworthiness and submit ourselves to the will of God in faith, it is in full humility we recieve Christ not in pride, It is you who demands to be counted worthy or feel that you are worthy to Go to catholic communion, yet it is catholics who are first to recognise their unworthiness.

Proverbs 3:34
Jas 4:6
1Pe 5:5

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble

I can't quite deal with putting myself above other people like that as a Catholic.

No catholic puts himself above others, our boast is not in our own self but in Christ.

And I am totally at a loss as to why anyone would God Bless someone not good enough for their communion

I do not say you are not good enough for catholic communion, not saying that at all, I am saying you are not ready, you are MORE THAN WELCOME to come but you must first do the things required.

 

[threeinone]

Actually I am quite ready for communion and there would be no objection to my receiving communiong. You are one person amongst many Catholics. If all were like you, being Catholic would be a joy. The joy I had in being Catholic was constantly assailed by Catholics who took great joy in slinging about their beliefs that they didn't even understand, slinging them about at other people and feeling they were a cut above because they were Catholic. That was when I began enjoying others of other religions rather than Catholic....the others were ordinary people like myself, like all Catholics are ordinary, not a cut above, regardless of what they think. Converts were the worst offenders.

People like you are true Catholic believers and sharers. There are too few.

 

[mont974x4]

The Passover connection is an interesting view.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

The Passover connection is an interesting view.

The Passover connection affects the meaning of Jesus's words ("This is my body.... This is my blood....") at the Last Supper, IMO, esp. if one studies and understands what is said and done at a Passover Seder and the meaning of the words and foods. If the Last Supper was not a Passover Seder, then Jesus's words could have meant one thing, but if it was a Passover Seder, then Jesus's words could have meant a different thing. Matthew, Mark and Luke present it as a Passover meal; John does not, but presents it as a pre-Passover meal in that Jesus's crucifixion in John is shown as taking place during the slaughter of the lambs for that evening's Passover meal. Some church history scholars and churches/denominations regard the Last Supper as a Passover meal, and others do not. Some churches/denominations use leavened bread for communion and others do not. For some, it makes no difference. For those for whom it makes a difference, the use of unleavened bread ties the Last Supper to Passover whereas the use of unleavened bread dissociates it from Passover.

 

[threeinone]

Was Christ speaking in a parable in John 6? Was it just allegory? Because He says that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, and unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood (he says nothing about bread and wine or any substitute at this point). He's saying it's real, not allegorical. That's the difference.

The meaning of the word "remembrance" in Greek means, literally, to bring the past into the present. It's not just reminiscence. We are actually partaking of Him, with the saints, in his presence.

And if people don't acknowledge or confirm those, they aren't prepared to receive it because they don't know what they're receiving.

I don't deny that the Lord has impacted you through taking communion at your church. Far be it from me to shorten our Lord's arms in this regard! However, whether you agree with our theology behind our closed communion or not, my point was to answer the question regarding why it's closed.

And keep in mind that the idea that communion is only a symbol of Christ and not his Real Presence is very new idea in Christendom. So not only are you saying that the first 1,700 years of Christianity (whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) got the focal sacrament of the church wrong, but you're not "bringing the past into the present" when you commune because your communion is different by your own belief than what more than 1,700 years' worth of Christians received. That doesn't make your experience invalid, and it doesn't preclude God's loving work in your life. Not at all. But we Orthodox, as well as Catholics and some high church Protestants, would say that because by your own admission, the communion that you receive is just a symbol, it is not the completeness, the fullness of the communion we receive. Therefore, we are not in communion, and so we won't pretend like we are in our services.

John52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Do you seriously think that this means, that Jesus means, that we should take a piece of his flesh and put it in our mouths and along with it some of His actual blood. You gotta be kidding. I don't know what He means but He doesn't mean that, not in that exact way. He has a spiritual body and He is different than we are.....He is God so when He says flesh, there is no way He means flesh as in our flesh. Want a bit out of my leg?

When I received communion, I received Jesus but I did not chew on His actual flesh or drink His actual blood as in our human terms of flesh and blood. When Catholics say that so proudly, it sounds totally gross. If you don't chew on actual human flesh, you shouldn't say it.

 

[mont974x4]

I'm glad I'm not a Jew or a member of another faith that requires me to eat certain things or not eat other things. I am not a big seafood eater.

I can understand why some make the connection, especially when looking at references to Christ as the lamb etc. but even He didn't say that the Passover Seder had anything to do with communion (unless I missed something, and if I did please share it with me).

It is a heart issuse. I seriously don't believe it matters what type of bread you use or whether you use juice or wine. So long as you are a believer and you take it with the right heart (as Paul wrote) and do it in remebrance of Him (as Christ said) that is all that matters.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

The meaning of the word "remembrance" in Greek means, literally, to bring the past into the present. It's not just reminiscence.

For your study, below (in blue) is every instance of anamnêsis ("remembrance") in the Greek OT (LXX) and Greek NT, so you can see if this is what the word seems to mean in Biblical usage. I'm not making any claims for the word one way or the other, nor making any theological comments, just providing some "raw material" - and some lexical articles - for those of you wanting to study this. The extent to which different scholars say it means a "bringing into the present" versus "remembrance" may or may not be influenced by their theologies; I personally don't know.

ἀνάμνησις, εως, ἡ means of remembering, remembrance, reminder (HE 10.3); εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν as my memorial, in remembrance or memory of me (1C 11.24)​

Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (51). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

390 ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis), εως (eōs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 364; TDNT 1.348—LN 29.11 reminder, remembrance (Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24, 25; Heb 10:3+)​

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK390). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

ἀνάμνησις means “remembrance” or “recollection.” Synon. ὑπόμνησις; cf. Philo Plant., 108. ἀνάμνησις is philosophically distinguished from μνήμη (“memory&#8221 as the “reliving of vanished impressions by a definite act of will”1: cf. Plat. Phileb., 34b; Leg., V, 732b: ἀνάμνησις δʼ ἐστὶν ἐπιρροὴ φρονήσεως ἀπολειπούσης; Aristot. Hist. An., I, 1, p. 488b, 88; Philo Leg. All., III, 91–93; Congr., 39 f.; Virt., 176; Berliner Klassikertexte, 2 (1905), Index, s.v. ἀνάμνησις. The active element in ἀνάμνησις (ποιεῖν … ἀνάμνησιν, e.g., burial inscription in Nicomedia from the imperial period)2 leads on from the signification of a. “recollection in the consciousness” (Philo Vit. Mos., I, 21; Congr., 111; 1 Cl., 53 1; Just. Ap., 44, 11) to that of b. “recollection by word” or “commemoration” (commemoratio), Lys. Or. 2, 39: θυσιῶν ἀναμνήσεις, and c. “recollection by act,” i.e., “an action whereby the object is re-presented in memory”3 (cf. Nu. 10:10, where זִכָּרוֹן before God is accomplished by the blowing of trumpets; and Wis. 16:6).​

Hb. 10:3: ἐν αὐταῖς (ταῖς θυσίαι&#962 ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, “by them there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.” The annual sin offerings made on the day of atonement are inadequate to remove sins (v. 1f.), but serve rather to remind of them by the very fact that they are offered. To the members of the community they make sins present in actu as a hindrance to fellowship with God. This estimate of the sacrifice of the day of atonement is wholly opposed to the Jewish view in spite of Nu. 5:15: θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνῄσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν (cf. Jub. 34:19; Philo Vit. Mos., II, 107: [of the sacrifices of the unrighteous] οὐ λύσιν ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλʼ ὑπόμνησιν ἐργάζονται, Plant., 108).4​

1 C. 11:24 (Lk. 22; 19 KH): τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, v. 25: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Christians are to enact (→ ποιέω) the whole action of the Lord’s Supper—this is the reference of the twofold τοῦτο—in recollection of Jesus, and this not merely in such sort that they simply remember, but rather, in accordance with the active sense of ἀνάμνησις and the explanation in v. 26, in such a way that they actively fulfil the ἀνάμνησις. The making present by the later community of the Lord who instituted the Supper, and who put the new → διαθήκη into effect by His death, is the goal and content of their action in which they repeat what was done by Jesus and His disciples on the eve of His crucifixion.5​

Linguistically εἰς ἀνάμνησιν == לְהַזְכִּיר; ψ 37 ***.; ψ 69 ***.; Wis. 16:6; Just. Dial., 27:4; Lv. 24:7 for לְאַזְכָּרָה, whereas in Ex. 12:14, where the Passover is appointed a day of remembrance of deliverance from Egypt, לְזְכָּרוֹן is rendered μνημόσυνον. Materially, we may refer to the endowment of a feast of the dead εἰς τὴν ἡμῶν τε καὶ Μητροδώρου μνήμην in the testament of Epicurus in Diog. L., X, 18.6 On anamnesis as an act of recollection of the death of Christ in the celebration of the eucharist in the early Church,7 cf. already Just. Dial., 41, 1: εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους; 70, 4: περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου ὃν παρέδωκεν … ὁ … χριστὸς ποιεῖν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ τε σωματοποιήσασθαι αὐτὸν διὰ τοὺς πιστεύοντας εἰς αὐτόν, διʼ οὓς καὶ παθητὸς γέγονε, καὶ περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, ὃ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν εὐχαριστοῦντας ποιεῖν; 117, 3: ἐπʼ ἀναμνήσει τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν …, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τοῦ πάθους … μέμνηνται.​

ὑπόμνησις in 2 Tm. 1:5; 2 Pt. 1:13; 3:18 is substantially identical with ἀνάμνησις in the active sense.
​

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:348-349). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Search Analysis By Lemma

Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database

ἀνάμνησις (4)

noun, accusative ἀνάμνησιν (3)
Luke 22:19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
1 Cor 11:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
1 Cor 11:25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

noun, nominative ἀνάμνησις
Heb 10:3 ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν·

Septuaginta: Morphologically Tagged Edition

ἀνάμνησις (4)

noun, accusative ἀνάμνησιν (3)
Lev 24:7 καὶ ἐπιθήσετε ἐπὶ τὸ θέμα λίβανον καθαρὸν καὶ ἅλα, καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ἄρτους εἰς ἀνάμνησιν προκείμενα τῷ κυρίῳ.
Ps 37:1 Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ, εἰς ἀνάμνησιν περὶ σαββάτου.
Ps 69:1 Εἰς τὸ τέλος, τῷ Δαυιδ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν,

noun, nominative ἀνάμνησις
Num 10:10 καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς εὐφροσύνης ὑμῶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις ὑμῶν σαλπιεῖτε ταῖς σάλπιγξιν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὁλοκαυτώμασιν καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις τῶν σωτηρίων ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν ἀνάμνησις ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν, ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν.

 

[threeinone]

I am a catholic and in defence of the catholic church i would like to say a few words.

Even Christians of the protestant persuation by their disobediance to the church and thus to Christ have segregated themselves from the HOUSE of the lord.

So you think that the Catholic Church is the only House of the Lord. Too bad. Last I heard, Jesus is everywhere, God is everywhere, in every Church that accepts Jesus as Savior. Do you think Catholics are the only ones who accept Jesus as our Savior. The House of the Lord is wherever the Lord chooses to be and sometimes I think it just might not be the Catholic Church. Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[mont974x4]

hmmm calling protestants non-Christians? I will refrain from pointing out the lies and false teaching of the RCC?

 

[threeinone]

hmmm calling protestants non-Christians? I will refrain from pointing out the lies and false teaching of the RCC?

Hey mont

What are you replying to? If you quote something, your posts will be easier to understand. Maybe it is just me tho.

 

[mont974x4]

Sorry, I was responding to the post from INRI2 you quoted.

 

[threeinone]

Sorry, I was responding to the post from INRI2 you quoted.

'Sokay. I figured as much after a bit. All churches believing in Jesus as Savior are houses of God.......3n1