Church being stupid again

[virividox]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/19/communion.denied.ap/index.html

the church is being retarded again

[SilentPanda]

[stoid]

Yet another reason I'm Lutheran and not Catholic. :rolleyes:


That's just sad really.

[emw]

Reassign pedophile priests to new parishes? Sure.

Offer a rice substitute host to allow a girl who wants to participate fully in the rituals of her religion to do so without risking her life? That's against policy.

[Mr. Anderson]

There is a time to uphold tradition and times to make exceptions.....

The individuals making these decisions need to ask themselves what it is they're trying to do here. I think someone is missing the big picture....

D

[iLikeMyiMac]

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whether it is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
I doubt that the gluten contained in one Communion wafer is enough to kill her. I think the promise of eternal life outweighs the risk that she would take if would partake in the Eucharist. This doctrine has been thought over for many years (probably at the Council of Trent) and I'm sure the Church has good reasons for invalidating her Communion.
BTW virividox, watch your capitalization. church and Church are different things.

[ChrisFromCanada]

And another reason i am Protestant. Some of the traditions that the catholic church hold are just silly. I believe that the core of your church should be at faith and not worrying about all the technicalities.

[Abstract]

Giving organized religion another black eye to those who think all such organizations are dumb.

The Pope, if he has any sense left in him, should just accept the girl's communion. Willing to believe in the religion and practice it's rituals is already a sign of her belief and faith in her beliefs. What more would God ask for in a believer? :rolleyes:

God: "NO WHEAT? You're going to hell!"

[ChrisFromCanada]

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whether it is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
I doubt that the gluten contained in one Communion wafer is enough to kill her. I think the promise of eternal life outweighs the risk that she would take if would partake in the Eucharist. This doctrine has been thought over for many years (probably at the Council of Trent) and I'm sure the Church has good reasons for invalidating her Communion.
BTW virividox, watch your capitalization. church and Church are different things.

I just can't understand people that seem to think that god who loves is really going to say to this girl who is trying to accept him into her life sorry because you diddn't eat wheat during communion you are going to hell. It just seems ridiculous to me. Sometimes the catholic Church angers me :mad:

[ChrisFromCanada]

...The Pope, if he has any sense left in him, should just accept the girl's communion...

ANOTHER reason why I dislike the catholic Church the pope is not god. God ultimately decides who is going to receive eternal life not the pope!

[bousozoku]

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whether it is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
I doubt that the gluten contained in one Communion wafer is enough to kill her. I think the promise of eternal life outweighs the risk that she would take if would partake in the Eucharist. This doctrine has been thought over for many years (probably at the Council of Trent) and I'm sure the Church has good reasons for invalidating her Communion.
BTW virividox, watch your capitalization. church and Church are different things.

Good reasons, indeed.

I suppose they have a procedure already in print describing what to do with people who die during the ritual, from the ritual. I would hate to think that the church (don't yell at me) would force her to die by eating the wafer and then, pronounce her condemned to hell because she didn't complete the ritual.

[iLikeMyiMac]

I just can't understand people that seem to think that god who loves is really going to say to this girl who is trying to accept him into her life sorry because you diddn't eat wheat during communion you are going to hell. It just seems ridiculous to me. Sometimes the catholic Church angers me :mad:
Its doctrine and has been around for a long time and is not easy too change without a bunch of guys dressed in red robes and hats and the Pope talking about it for several years.
I'm sure that a reason why they declared her Communion invalid has something to do with wheat being necessary for Transubstantion and Real Presence.

[12ibookg4]

The diocese has told Haley's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion
if the girl only drinks the wine/blood it still counts as recieving Communion, whether or not she eats the wafer. so instead of worrying about the wafer being wheat or rice, she can just have the wine and it will be a valid Communion

[12ibookg4]

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whether it is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
I doubt that the gluten contained in one Communion wafer is enough to kill her. I think the promise of eternal life outweighs the risk that she would take if would partake in the Eucharist. This doctrine has been thought over for many years (probably at the Council of Trent) and I'm sure the Church has good reasons for invalidating her Communion.
BTW virividox, watch your capitalization. church and Church are different things.
Its doctrine and has been around for a long time and is not easy too change without a bunch of guys dressed in red robes and hats and the Pope talking about it for several years.
I'm sure that a reason why they declared her Communion invalid has something to do with wheat being necessary for Transubstantion and Real Presence.
I think you are getting too caught up in the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law and that is something that Jesus warned about.

[macsrus]

There is a time to uphold tradition and times to make exceptions.....

The individuals making these decisions need to ask themselves what it is they're trying to do here. I think someone is missing the big picture....

D

I do not intend to debate whether or not one believes in God...or...which God... or... any topic other than Christianity.....and Communion... Because that is the only subject that this article really applies to.

So that being said here is what I see as the Proper outline of this discussion


1. The question is whether or not something can be substituted other than what the Bible authorizes for Communion

2. The Bible is the authority on all matters of Christianity and derives that authority by claiming to be Gods inspired word.

So if one is to debate tenants of Christianity of which Communion is... one must look to the Bible to see what was authorized...

During the Last supper Mathew 26:17 - 29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

LUKE 22: versus 7-22
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."
"Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked.
He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, and say to the owner of the house, `The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'
He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there."
They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."


Notice that it does not say wine.... and also notice that it doesnt say alcoholic wine
Therefore the Catholics Church's requirement for Alcoholic wine... is NOT Biblical

Now lets turn to the BREAD ..... what kind of BREAD is required?
The Bible clearly says unleavened BREAD.....

Some may say but the BREAD was made of wheat.... WAS IT?

LETS see....

All of Yahweh’s seven annual Feasts or moedim (appointments) revolve around the harvest cycle of cereal grains and other produce. This is clear with the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, which occur at the BARLEY harvest (Ex. 9:31).
Then comes the Feast of Firstfruits, also known as Pentecost in the New Testament. Penecost occurs seven weeks after Unleavened Bread and represents the firstfruits of the wheat harvest made into two loaves of bread that were waved (Lev. 23:17).

So as can be clearly seen the Biblical BREAD was made from BARLEY.... NOT wheat...

So the Catholic Churches REQUIREMENT for Wheat bread is not Biblical...

Now... The BIBLE also did not require the Bread to be Barley just like it didnt require it to be wheat....

The requirements were for it to be bread and most important for it to be UNLEAVENED...

So lastly the girl should be allowed to comply with Biblical doctrine and partake of Communion with rice bread thats unleavened..

And the Catholic Church should quit teaching error and correct their error in their method of practicing communion

[Counterfit]

ANOTHER reason why I dislike the catholic Church the pope is not god. God ultimately decides who is going to receive eternal life not the pope! That's right, the pope is not God. But who said he was? It certainly isn't part of Catholic doctrine.
I'm wondering why the wine/blood isn't acceptable for them, is she (the mother) afraid of her (the kid) taking a bit more than a sip? ;)

[jsw]

I was born and raised a Catholic, made it all the way through Confirmation, was in the church youth group, etc. I'm now agnostic. Or an atheist. Depends on my mood. In any event, things like this are part of the reason I left the Church. To believe that God would want his believers to risk the life - or at least the health - of one of his followers - and a child at that - just so they can participate in a ritual seems to me to imply a God who is more concerned with following the rules and making his people "dance" than in being loving. Not a God I choose to believe in, nor a religion.

It never ceases - even after so many examples - to amaze me how people will do or advocate something in the name of religion that they would never even consider doing or advocating if it weren't part of that religion.

Saying this girl cannot be a Catholic unless she risks her health sickens me. I don't see how it's far removed from those religions that forbid medical help; seems like every week I read a story on how some child died because his or her parents decided not to take their gravely ill child to a doctor because they'd prefer to leave him/her "in God's hands".

[macsrus]

I was born and raised a Catholic, made it all the way through Confirmation, was in the church youth group, etc. I'm now agnostic. Or an atheist. Depends on my mood. In any event, things like this are part of the reason I left the Church. To believe that God would want his believers to risk the life - or at least the health - of one of his followers - and a child at that - just so they can participate in a ritual seems to me to imply a God who is more concerned with following the rules and making his people "dance" than in being loving. Not a God I choose to believe in, nor a religion.

It never ceases - even after so many examples - to amaze me how people will do or advocate something in the name of religion that they would never even consider doing or advocating if it weren't part of that religion.

Saying this girl cannot be a Catholic unless she risks her health sickens me. I don't see how it's far removed from those religions that forbid medical help; seems like every week I read a story on how some child died because his or her parents decided not to take their gravely ill child to a doctor because they'd prefer to leave him/her "in God's hands".

I hear you and agree....
But it isnt Christianity that does those things... Its people with their own agendas...who do it in the name of their paticular twist of Christianity...

[Counterfit]

Notice that it does not say wine.... and also notice that it doesnt say alcoholic wine
Therefore the Catholics Church's requirement for Alcoholic wine... is NOT Biblical Hmm, last time I checked, "fruit of the vine" = wine. And I doubt that non-alcoholic wine even existed then. Read this: Ephesians 5:18
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit All wine was alcoholic back then.

[jsw]

I hear you and agree....
But it isnt Christianity that does those things... Its people with their own agendas...who do it in the name of their paticular twist of Christianity...Agreed. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." pretty much summarizes all I think you need to know and is the basis of my set of ethics. The rest is a bunch of power plays.

[jsw]

Hmm, last time I checked, "fruit of the vine" = wine.Last time I checked, "fruit of the vine" = grapes.

[homerjward]

im presbyterian and we have regular wheat wafers at communion, and also glutenfree ones for those who cant have gluten. we also have welch's grape juice instead of wine. it seems to me that trying to force the girl to eat gluten goes against everything God stands for, like love and tolerance and such

[Abstract]

To believe that God would want his believers to risk the life - or at least the health - of one of his followers - and a child at that - just so they can participate in a ritual seems to me to imply a God who is more concerned with following the rules and making his people "dance" than in being loving. Not a God I choose to believe in, nor a religion.


Yeah, what's with this, "Dance puppet, dance....risk your health and life....and I will allow you into heaven" crap? Goodness. From what I know about the Bible, I don't really believe that God is anything like Osama Bin Laden. :rolleyes:

Sure, you can say that the girl should be wiling to eat at least a bit of the cracker for the Communion, because how much of a problem can it cause. Of course, these are the same people who don't have this disease themselves, or have to watch their own child suffer from this deficiency. Its easier to suggest it than to actually make your child eat a cracker that will risk damage to her gastrointestinal tract. Some people just don't understand how such damage to the walls of the GI tract pose a risk to a person's life.

I hope the little girl and family come to their senses and realise that this isn't humane. Even if she wouldn't "die" from eating a bit of this cracker, its the principal of it that I stand against.

[LethalWolfe]

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whether it is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.
I doubt that the gluten contained in one Communion wafer is enough to kill her. I think the promise of eternal life outweighs the risk that she would take if would partake in the Eucharist. This doctrine has been thought over for many years (probably at the Council of Trent) and I'm sure the Church has good reasons for invalidating her Communion.
BTW virividox, watch your capitalization. church and Church are different things.


Death? Unlikely. Seriously ill? Yes.

My sister, who is in her early 30's, suffers from the same disorder and things as simple as trace amounts of gluton in shampoo can give her a painful rash and stray bread crumbs in butter (from when you butter toast/bread and then use the "dirty" knife to get more butter) can make her ill for a few days. Injestion isn't even required. She can have a topical reaction from merely touching things made with gluton.

I can only imagine the reactions that someone so young would have. And for what? Over a technicality that doesn't even exist?

Excellent post, by the way, macsrus.

homerjward, unfortunetly the Church today is largely a church of man "weilding" God's word as they see fit. The Church, more often than not, reminds me of those that hated Jesus instead of those that followed him.


Lethal

[macsrus]

Hmm, last time I checked, "fruit of the vine" = wine. And I doubt that non-alcoholic wine even existed then. Read this: All wine was alcoholic back then.


AS to the comment about "fruit of the vine = wine"

Are you aware of the fact that that term ("fruit of the vine") is used 7 times in the Bible....
Only once in the New Testament... And it should be interesting that Jesus chose those words instead of "onus" for an example...
And it should also be interesting that his word choice was almost the same as him calling himself the true vine...

And just to let you know all 6 in the old testament refer to the whole fruit being included in the drink...(Not wine in any of those cases)

And I doubt that non-alcoholic wine even existed then. Read this: All wine was alcoholic back then.

Not so... While I do not attempt to deny that the ancients had a thorough undestanding of making (alcoholic)wine... They also had a common practice of making (non-alcoholic)wine...

The ancients on many occasions intentially boiled the grapes to stop any chance of fermentation..

I will site a few of thousands of examples

Homer wrote extensively on boiled wines and the diluting of such.
Hippocrates wrote of Thracian wines that were made from boiled fruit of the vine... and the diluted by 20 parts water to allow it to be drunk.
Horace spoke of innocent wines that did not go to the head.
Virgil wrote of boiled wines that dont dull the senses.
The Spartans boiled all their wines to prevent fermentation and then stored them for years...
The ancient Egyptians Boiled wine until it had the thickness of honey... and then stored it.... so that it could be diluted later for drink....

Also the reading of ephesians is just as well translated.... AS

be not drunk with wine wherein is excess but be drunk with the spirit.

and also as ...
be not filled with wine wherein is excess but be filled with the spirit....
Do NOT make the assumption that the word translated drunk means intoxicated.... It doesnt.


I could spend days debating you on whether the word wine in the new and old testaments refered/refers to alcoholic/non-alcoholic wines and when and where it does....
Unfortunately for the modern reader... We used the english word wine to mean both alcoholic and non-alcoholic in the Translation from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to English

BUT what you decided to try to make your points on was really off topic....
because the real arguement was about the BREAD and no interpretation of scripture can support the Catholic Churches wrong doctrine on it

Lastly...
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments
of men.

[Rower_CPU]

For future notice, religious topics should be posted in the political forum.

Thanks :)

[Krizoitz]

I love how people are so quick to bash the Catholic church.

OK, look, here is the thing. All we know right now is that the local authority (the priest) made a decision on his own and his superiors saying he doesn't have the right to do that.

You are all so quick to say, lets change this, lets change this.

We are talking about the most significant ritual in Christian tradition and especially in Catholic teaching. Its not just something you just go and change beccause you feel like it.

Hopefully this can be worked out, but it might take a little bit of time. As it should. We are talking about God and salvation here, and we should take our time with something significant like this.

[macsrus]

I love how people are so quick to bash the Catholic church.

OK, look, here is the thing. All we know right now is that the local authority (the priest) made a decision on his own and his superiors saying he doesn't have the right to do that.

You are all so quick to say, lets change this, lets change this.

We are talking about the most significant ritual in Christian tradition and especially in Catholic teaching. Its not just something you just go and change beccause you feel like it.

Hopefully this can be worked out, but it might take a little bit of time. As it should. We are talking about God and salvation here, and we should take our time with something significant like this.

Actually That is the problem.....
If the Catholic Church was not teaching a doctrine decided upon by a council... and if they just simply returned to what the bible actually teaches on Communion... Then there wouldnt be a problem for the girl...

[edesignuk]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/19/communion.denied.ap/index.html

the church is being retarded as usualThat's better.

[LethalWolfe]

I love how people are so quick to bash the Catholic church.

OK, look, here is the thing. All we know right now is that the local authority (the priest) made a decision on his own and his superiors saying he doesn't have the right to do that.

You are all so quick to say, lets change this, lets change this.

We are talking about the most significant ritual in Christian tradition and especially in Catholic teaching. Its not just something you just go and change beccause you feel like it.

Hopefully this can be worked out, but it might take a little bit of time. As it should. We are talking about God and salvation here, and we should take our time with something significant like this.


Does it say in the Bible that you must use wheat? Or is that just an assumption because wheat is commonly used?


Lethal

[edesignuk]

church and Church are different things.
What!? :confused:

Church smurch, who cares...:rolleyes:

[macsrus]

Does it say in the Bible that you must use wheat? Or is that just an assumption because wheat is commonly used?


Lethal

If you read my rather lengthy earlier post... I completly smash the entire wheat theory......

[macsrus]

For future notice, religious topics should be posted in the political forum.

Thanks :)
How about moving all of the posts of people who have political adds and commentary in their signatures... to the political forman as well...

I really get tired of seeing the political signatures

[edesignuk]

How about moving all of the posts of people who have political adds and commentary in their signatures... to the political forman as well...

I really get tired of seeing the political signatures
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=74903

[virividox]

okay i thot this was just a interesting tidbit of news, i didnt think this would stir up a hornets nest.

honestly if God can forgive people who murder, rape, lie, cheat, and steal, or people like Paul who persecuted christians, i dont think he would get too miffed about this girl eating a rice-based host.

granted the church has their traditions, but common the whole communion thing is symbolic, the host is blessed and becomes christs body, just like the wine is christs blood; but it doesnt REALLY change (at least chemically or physcically) so either way if she eats wheat, tofu, or rice the point is its symbolic. forget it

the church is retarded, there are many great priests and religious leaders but as an organization they suck

[Bobcat37]

Great post macsrus. Things like this is why I left the Catholic Church and am now just a plain ol Christian at a Bible Church.

I believe religion is futile and does not save you, merely faith does. At my current church the BIBLE is the ultimate authority on things, not a council or people like the Pope (and to the person who said that Catholic's don't believe the Pope is God, they do in fact believe he is infallible, which is close enough to "God" in my opinion, and ridiciulous too, once again going against the MANY Bible verses that say ALL men have sinned.)

[skunk]

I believe religion is futile and does not save you, merely faith does. At my current church the BIBLE is the ultimate authority on things, not a council or people like the Pope (and to the person who said that Catholic's don't believe the Pope is God, they do in fact believe he is infallible, which is close enough to "God" in my opinion, and ridiciulous too, once again going against the MANY Bible verses that say ALL men have sinned.)
So. You have faith in a loosely translated selective version of history which has been heavily edited in order to reinforce a political agenda? Sounds familiar!

[Chane]

okay i thot this was just a interesting tidbit of news, i didnt think this would stir up a hornets nest.

honestly if God can forgive people who murder, rape, lie, cheat, and steal, or people like Paul who persecuted christians, i dont think he would get too miffed about this girl eating a rice-based host.

granted the church has their traditions, but common the whole communion thing is symbolic, the host is blessed and becomes christs body, just like the wine is christs blood; but it doesnt REALLY change (at least chemically or physcically) so either way if she eats wheat, tofu, or rice the point is its symbolic. forget it

the church is retarded, there are many great priests and religious leaders but as an organization they suck

Actually, the Catholics *believe* that what they are eating is the body and what they drink is the blood. It's not symbolic. A theology teacher of mine once admitted to being a cannibal because he is Catholic.

[skunk]

Actually, the Catholics *believe* that what they are eating is the body and what they drink is the blood. It's not symbolic. A theology teacher of mine once admitted to being a cannibal because he is Catholic.
Be that as it may, if it's the body of Christ, it might as well be rice as flour. Or doesn't the hocus-pocus work without gluten?

[SilentPanda]

So. You have faith in a loosely translated selective version of history which has been heavily edited in order to reinforce a political agenda? Sounds familiar!

From http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#4 :

Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. Well, if the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are not made from translations, but from original Greek text found in ancient manuscripts.

We know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies--over 5,000.
2. The words among those copies are in agreement with each other--99.5% agreement.
3. The copies were found very close to their original date of authorship--see link at end of this section.

When one compares the text from one manuscript copy to another, the compatibility is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog'--sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."

What about discrepancies? The variations among the manuscripts are "so rare that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, 'The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book--a form that is 99.5 percent pure.'"

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."

The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad.

[takao]

Actually, the Catholics *believe* that what they are eating is the body and what they drink is the blood. It's not symbolic. A theology teacher of mine once admitted to being a cannibal because he is Catholic.

funny i always thought (and believed) that it was symbolic... sometimes it seems that the catholic church in the US teach completly different things than the church over here

sometimes i am amazed ....why not let the kid take a small sip of the wine instead ? problem solved and no useless discussion about grape-juice, grapes, wine-grapes,wheat, rice, evil catholics, stupid that, dumb rule here,yada yada....

[iLikeMyiMac]

What!? :confused:

Church smurch, who cares...:rolleyes:
church (not capitalized) is the building where some people go on Sundays.
Church (capitalized) is the worldwide Church.
So if in this thread someone says the church is stupid they would be refering to the building where the girl reveived Communion but if they said the Church is stupid they that would mean the universal Catholic Church.

[iLikeMyiMac]

funny i always thought (and believed) that it was symbolic... sometimes it seems that the catholic church in the US teach completly different things than the church over here

sometimes i am amazed ....why not let the kid take a small sip of the wine instead ? problem solved and no useless discussion about grape-juice, grapes, wine-grapes,wheat, rice, evil catholics, stupid that, dumb rule here,yada yada....
Some light reading (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407501.htm) for you?
I was always taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and it is not just a symbol.

[takao]

church (not capitalized) is the building where some people go on Sundays.
Church (capitalized) is the worldwide Church.
So if in this thread someone says the church is stupid they would be refering to the building where the girl reveived Communion but if they said the Church is stupid they that would mean the universal Catholic Church.

nitpicking ...but i'm used to that 'church' is used for catholic church
in german there is only one word ("die Kirche") and it's used for the catholic church _and_ the building

[boz2004]

IMHO: Organized religion is based on beliefs and not ideas... belief is founded on faith, alone... an idea is founded on faith and forethought... as much as I hate to say it, so long as they choose to remain a part of the Catholic church, the family will have to adhere to the tenets of it's beliefs... it's a lot easier to change an idea, but people will die for their beliefs...

Reckon I'll just stick to my own ideas until something better comes along :cool:

[skunk]

From http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#4 :
The fact that most of the manuscripts agree with each other has little bearing on the selection process or the political agenda. It was the political agenda which dictated the selection of texts and ensured a uniformity of content. And the NT was NOT originally written in Greek.

[takao]

Some light reading (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407501.htm) for you?
I was always taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and it is not just a symbol.

hm present of _spirit_ and _not body_ as far as understood it ...
you know i'm not a diehard catholic ..i rarely visit church ..never read the bible (just a few parts of it in school) and i take most of the things more 'symbolic' (in the metaphorical way)..i belive in the things behind it not the 'in your face' part (do i dare to say 'opium fürs volk')


(let's not forget: the church is hirarchically structured for a reason)

[SilentPanda]

The fact that most of the manuscripts agree with each other has little bearing on the selection process or the political agenda. It was the political agenda which dictated the selection of texts and ensured a uniformity of content. And the NT was NOT originally written in Greek.

What language was the New Testament written in?

And from http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#7 :

There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were previously mentioned as credible sources, two of them having been Jesus' closest followers. The other New Testament authors were considered trustworthy as well: James and Jude (half-brothers of Jesus, who initially did not believe in him), Peter (one of the 12 apostles), and Paul (whom Jesus made an apostle after his death and resurrection). The church knew about these men and their association with Jesus. Moreover, what they wrote was consistent with what people had heard and seen themselves regarding Jesus, and had passed on to their children.

When other books were written and appeared hundreds of years later (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, though Peter had long since died), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as phonies, as forgeries.

Another example is the Gospel of Thomas (which Mohammed references in the Quran). The Gospel of Thomas was written around 140 A.D., long after Thomas had died. Though it bore some similarities to the New Testament's authentic Gospel of Matthew, it also contained wildly different messages. The descriptions of Jesus did not fit anything the early church knew to be true of Him.

Here is one example which shows the contrast between the New Testament Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. Throughout the New Testament Gospels, Jesus treated women with a dignity not typical of the Middle Eastern culture in Jesus' day. Jesus taught women as well as men, spoke against divorce laws which were unfair to women, was kind toward women (even to those of questionable character), and appeared first to women after his resurrection, entrusting to them the message that he was alive. Jesus' respect toward women cut against cultural norms, and was one issue that angered the religious leaders of His day. Yet the Gospel of Thomas contains a completely contradictory statement attributed to Jesus: "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." And: "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."

As books like the Gospel of Thomas were written and circulated among the early church, it was not difficult for people to discern the forgeries. False writings like these and the gnostic gospels countered the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.

Eventually an official list of New Testament books became necessary for the following reasons: 1) As Christians were being martyred books were being destroyed (so, which ones to protect?); 2) in translating the books into Syriac and Old Latin, a listing of authoritative books was important; 3) false books and false teachings were always challenging the church and leadership needed to be clear. In A.D. 367, Athanasius formerly listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list.

[skunk]

What language was the New Testament written in?

As I recall, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But it was a long time ago. I'm a bit hazy..

[SilentPanda]

As I recall, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But it was a long time ago. I'm a bit hazy..

True. But we're talking the *written* language of the Bible which was indeed Greek.

[ChrisFromCanada]

im presbyterian and we have regular wheat wafers at communion, and also glutenfree ones for those who cant have gluten. we also have welch's grape juice instead of wine. it seems to me that trying to force the girl to eat gluten goes against everything God stands for, like love and tolerance and such

Agreed!

[Krizoitz]

funny i always thought (and believed) that it was symbolic... sometimes it seems that the catholic church in the US teach completly different things than the church over here

sometimes i am amazed ....why not let the kid take a small sip of the wine instead ? problem solved and no useless discussion about grape-juice, grapes, wine-grapes,wheat, rice, evil catholics, stupid that, dumb rule here,yada yada....

Its called transubstantiation and its a basic Catholic teaching, although some Lutheran groups (Missouri Synod) believe it as well.

If you read the article you'd know that they did say she could just take the wine, but her mother believes she should be allowed the full experience. Again we have to wait and see.

[Krizoitz]

At my current church the BIBLE is the ultimate authority on things, not a council or people like the Pope (and to the person who said that Catholic's don't believe the Pope is God, they do in fact believe he is infallible, which is close enough to "God" in my opinion, and ridiciulous too, once again going against the MANY Bible verses that say ALL men have sinned.)

*sigh* here we go again. Papal infallibility doesn't mean that the Pope can't make mistakes. Its something that has only been used a few times in history and is actually quite limited inscope.

As to your point about the Bible being the ultimate authority, thats not contradictory to what the church teaches. But the Bible isn't an instruction manual, it doesn't have a list of rules. Lots of churches believe that the Bible is the authority, but what happens when one group interprets it one way and another group another way? Which one is right? Some groups don't allow dancing because of one reading of the Bible, other don't drink any alcohol.

The Bible is an incredibly complex document. Its not an easy thing to understand. Sure there are some basics, love God, be good, etc, but there is a whole lot of meaning and teaching in there. The Catholic church feels that in doctrinal matters its important to make sure those decicions are only made after careful thought and study.

I mean think about it, if you want to learn math you don't just pick up a calculus text book and start reading. The best approach is to find someone to teach you, someone who has studied math and learn from them. Same with the Bible. The Catholic church feels its something that should be decided by people who spend their lives studying it and that it shouldn't be something you decide lightly or on the spur of the moment.

[Ugg]

*sigh* here we go again. Papal infallibility doesn't mean that the Pope can't make mistakes. Its something that has only been used a few times in history and is actually quite limited inscope.


He sure effed up this time, yet again, of course.

Link (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,314173,00.html)

The article from Der Spiegel (in German) says that the Vatican was well aware of the sexual shenanigans and child porn at the St. Pöltener seminary in Austria.

Kriz, let's face it the Church as you know it is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's society. Stop apologizing and try to effect some change before it totally dies out.

[Krizoitz]

He sure effed up this time, yet again, of course.

Link (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,314173,00.html)

The article from Der Spiegel (in German) says that the Vatican was well aware of the sexual shenanigans and child porn at the St. Pöltener seminary in Austria.

Kriz, let's face it the Church as you know it is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's society. Stop apologizing and try to effect some change before it totally dies out.

This is irrelevant to the current discussion and in German, so it really doesn't help me much. Now if you can find me an English version that might be helpful.

[macsrus]

As to your point about the Bible being the ultimate authority, thats not contradictory to what the church teaches.

Not So....

The Catholic Church also weighs Tradition and man made creeds.... as equals to Scripture....

This revelation God has given to all people for all ages is preserved in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the handing on of the Word of God, which Jesus entrusted to the apostles; the apostles and their successors, guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord identified as the Spirit of Truth, have preserved, expounded, and preached these revealed truths. An example of Sacred Tradition is the Nicene Creed. Together, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form one deposit of revelation, "for both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 9).



But the Bible isn't an instruction manual, it doesn't have a list of rules. Lots of churches believe that the Bible is the authority, but what happens when one group interprets it one way and another group another way? Which one is right? Some groups don't allow dancing because of one reading of the Bible, other don't drink any alcohol.

You really answer your own question here...
The group who wants to drink alcohol will develop a faith that allows it...
The same for the one who wants to dance...
That is the reason for the 1000's of denominations.... because Every man does what is right in his own eyes...


But to the honest man who is seeking after righteousness... instead of satisfing his own lusts... The bible isnt subject to interpretation.....
People who wish to pick and choose their faiths only appear to make it so...

If anyone is really trying to seek God and will follow the Bible as his only guide...He will develop the same doctrine as any other following that path..

Unfortunatly most do not... Because of their own sin and disbelief....

Anyone with med intelligence can read and fully understand all doctrine....
It doesnt compare to a calculus book at all..... It really is very simple stuff...

[Neserk]

The bible isnt subject to interpretation.....




ROFLMAO! That has to be the most hilarious statement I've seen ever. Of course it is subject to interpretation. GEesh, it wasn't even written in English and we don't know what many of the Greek and Hebrew words even mean! We can only make educated guesses.

*wipes tears from eyes from laughing so hard*

[takao]

He sure effed up this time, yet again, of course.

Link (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,314173,00.html)

The article from Der Spiegel (in German) says that the Vatican was well aware of the sexual shenanigans and child porn at the St. Pöltener seminary in Austria.

Kriz, let's face it the Church as you know it is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's society. Stop apologizing and try to effect some change before it totally dies out.

haha thanks for the link... i guess thats finally it for Krenn...

but i have to disagree with you on the 'irrelevant thing' in austria the church is still one of the biggest owners of land besides the cities and the 'Bund'

[macsrus]

ROFLMAO! That has to be the most hilarious statement I've seen ever. Of course it is subject to interpretation. GEesh, it wasn't even written in English and we don't know what many of the Greek and Hebrew words even mean! We can only make educated guesses.

*wipes tears from eyes from laughing so hard*

Im happy you find it funny....

But the statement is still true.... It isnt subject to interpretation...( Not in regards to doctrine)

And as to not knowing what the Original Greek and Hebrew words mean/meant this is false...
There is so much of a written record on this one you should not find it hard to prove yourself wrong... any casual study will enlighten you.


There is more historical copies of biblical writtings than any other ancient text...
The agreement between them is mind boggling....

But since you missed it.......
My point was on doctrinal teaching.... And doctrinal teaching is very easy... It is only those who choose to disregard plain teaching who differ on it. ....

The reason they differ is because they simply dont like the lesson(it doesnt suit their agenda.... and it would expose their sin)

[Ugg]

haha thanks for the link... i guess thats finally it for Krenn...

but i have to disagree with you on the 'irrelevant thing' in austria the church is still one of the biggest owners of land besides the cities and the 'Bund'

Wow, I didn't know that! Is it just churches they own or other regular property as well? Seems hard to believe in this day and age but then I was shocked at how much property the Boston diocese owned as well.

[takao]

Wow, I didn't know that! Is it just churches they own or other regular property as well? Seems hard to believe in this day and age but then I was shocked at how much property the Boston diocese owned as well.

yeah but the "bund" and all it's little small daughter like postal service railway own a lot more than the church ;)

you know all those monasteries (is that the right word ?) are easly forgotten..some of them are 'small' like some inner city ones with around 50 nuns and mid sized buildings
personally in innsbruck i live beside one where they have around 10-15 brothers but it's in the inner city ...
my aunt was in one in styria where they were 20 nuns in a huge, 800 year old castle used as monastery..they not only have a very huge forest with many animals, no they have great gardens with hundreds of apple trees (and other fruits) (i guess somewhere there are pictures on the internet)´
i mean in insbruck alone you can literally see 3 churches standing side a side: first you have another monastery with it's own church,then the church for the 'normal' people and another own church for the jesuits and then just hudnred meters further away you have a chapel and another 50 meters and you will find another church oh and don't forget the cathedral in the inner city etc etc.
i can't really talk about lack of choice ;)

[Bobcat37]

And as to not knowing what the Original Greek and Hebrew words mean/meant this is false...

Yeah he's right, people study the original text all the time. This is for instance how I can say that in the original Greek text, in the Ten Commandments, it does NOT say "Thou shalt not kill", the word used for kill actually means murder, which is different. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone, killing someone is just killing someone, it could be justifiable or not. (Like as self-defense let's say? Most peoeple agree that could be justifiable)

[Neserk]

Im happy you find it funny....

But the statement is still true.... It isnt subject to interpretation...( Not in regards to doctrine)

And as to not knowing what the Original Greek and Hebrew words mean/meant this is false...
There is so much of a written record on this one you should not find it hard to prove yourself wrong... any casual study will enlighten you.


There is more historical copies of biblical writtings than any other ancient text...
The agreement between them is mind boggling....

But since you missed it.......
My point was on doctrinal teaching.... And doctrinal teaching is very easy... It is only those who choose to disregard plain teaching who differ on it. ....

The reason they differ is because they simply dont like the lesson(it doesnt suit their agenda.... and it would expose their sin)


Hardly. I've done a more than casual study of the New Testament and the Old. I have a Masters degree in it. There is more interpretation than not. As I stated previously we do not even know what some words mean, we can only make educated guesses and scholars don't even agree on those. Hence all the various translations. The fact that you aren't even aware of this is very enligtening to which version of "Christianity" you subscribe to. It is pretty pointless to have any discussion about the bible with you because you pretty much have your mind made up that you are right any one who disagrees with you do so to "suit their agenda."

[Neserk]

Yeah he's right, people study the original text all the time. This is for instance how I can say that in the original Greek text, in the Ten Commandments, it does NOT say "Thou shalt not kill", the word used for kill actually means murder, which is different. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone, killing someone is just killing someone, it could be justifiable or not. (Like as self-defense let's say? Most peoeple agree that could be justifiable)


And this relates to what Jesus says how?

And I guess we have interpretation right there... When is killing, murder and when is not?

[Hi_Its_Satan]

Be that as it may, if it's the body of Christ, it might as well be rice as flour. Or doesn't the hocus-pocus work without gluten?

Dang, I gotta remember to tell that one next week at JC's poker night.

Seriously, in times like these people argue rice versus wheat?

Glad I live in Vegas, you people are just no fun anymore.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually, the Catholics *believe* that what they are eating is the body and what they drink is the blood. It's not symbolic. A theology teacher of mine once admitted to being a cannibal because he is Catholic.

I never got to the theologian process (i was a pre-divinity student), but yes, i was taught that i was receiving the body and blood of Christ during communion. It is the dogma of the Catholic Church that drove to me that supported the basic Christian beliefs.

At least in some of the Catholic Churches I went to they supported the concept that "wine" was not consistent to those that were recovering alcoholics. To have someone that has an intolerance to the products used in the host is wrong. As we grow to a world that has greater sensitivity to certain food groups, we need to be more inclusive.

IMO, God would not care if it it were grape juice (or even water) and some form of bread. As Catholics (or Christians) it should not matter whether the Body and Blood of Christ are remembered as water and saltines. It is important that we do it in remembrance of the sacrifice for our sins.