Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
The priest is a human being who offers in place of Christ (the Orthodox say as an icon or image of Christ), but he also partakes, because he is no Christ and because he needs Christ just like the rest (and some would say even more than the rest!). Jesus did not need communion. The priest does.
Yes. And so do the faithful in Eastern Churches. Only the Latin Church offers its faithful the host but no chalice. Don't ask me why. As a Catholic.
Would it proper for the Priest to drink the wine if the "Church" believed Jesus did not?
Yes. The chalice was offered to the followers of Christ. The Church understand it to be a sacrament. As far as the Church is concerned, Christ is God. He doesn't need a sacrament. God lacks nothing and needs nothing. Humans do.
Sigh; very true...
Yes. And so do the faithful in Eastern Churches. Only the Latin Church offers its faithful the host but no chalice. Don't ask me why. As a Catholic.
That practice, as far as I know, only became popular in certain American dioceses that also, completely coincidentally of course, engaged in post Vatican II nonsense including guitar Masses, pro abortion nuns, liberation theology preachers. It is either entirely corrected or nearly corrected as BXVI imposes orthodoxy upon the Augean stables that house the USCCB.
This is rare and not the norm from my experience,dear kosta. I travel quite a bit and have gone to many,many different Latin Churches and I can say that over 90 percent or more offer the Chalice during daily Mass and I have never once not seen the Chalice offered at Sunday Mass
You have an advantage over me in that you can claim "...all deny that there is any distinction at all between those two words, capital "C" or not." while I cannot disprove it given your "exception" out. Further, you speak Greek while I do not.
Let's make it as simple as possible:
My native language (English) makes a distinction between Catholic (noun) and catholic (adjective.
Am I to understand you make no distinction between capitalization, nouns, and adjectives.
(You write very well in English and I marvel at your apparent ability to switch seamlessly between the inferior (English) and superior (Greek).
I repeat; "You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?"
Pretend for the moment that you live in a country where English is the dominant language.
Doubletalk!
CCC
1566 "It is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred office; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father." From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength.
The Priest acts "...in the person of Christ". The Priest drinks the wind----Jesus drinks the wine. Simple!
I will have to take your word for it. My experience has been a little different. I watch Catholic Mass on EWTN, both daily and Sunday as well as papal and other hierarcichal Masses (for informational purposes) and they never offer the Chalice to the faithful.
For all the hoopla over the Novus Ordo Mass, I have actually seen the Cup offered to the faithful in a daily Mass in the Naval Hospital Jacksonville, Florida, but the wine was white!
The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) which has been instituted by Pope St. Gregory I (the Great) certainly never offered the Chalice to the faithful (only the clergy) since its inception at the end of the 6th century, until 1967, when the Novus Odro was implemented as the "ordinary" Mass.
Why are you quoting form the CCC? I was referring to the Eastern Churches which make no such claim, and do not follow the CCC.
Your issues are with the Latin Church. I don't know the Latin Church. I am not Catholic, I was baptized Orthodox as an infant and reverently practiced Orthodox Christianity until a few years ago and a such am qualified to comment on Orthodox practice.
You asked me a question and I answered it from the Eastern Orthodox point of view, which I hold to be the only catholic view.
For your information, the two Churches are not in communion.
I know, and that is a particularly Western, post Reformation (and to an extent even post 1053) conceit. Capital C or lower case c, Catholic or catholic, again in a religious context, always meant the same thing, the fullness of the Christian Church. Now today we speak of The Church (as we always have) and "ecclesial groups" but the terms "catholic" and "Catholic", for the overwhelming majority of Christians mean, appropriately, the same thing, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Let me add, meaning no offense to anyone in particular and certainly no one on this thread, that it is unfortunate that on FR over the years, a Roman Catholic poster, or two, has intentionally created the impression that the "catholic" church which +Ignatius referred to is the Roman Catholic Church exclusively. That is either the product of insufficient catechesis coupled with an excess of enthusiasm or an out right lie. I tend to believe the former.
"(You write very well in English and I marvel at your apparent ability to switch seamlessly between the inferior (English) and superior (Greek)."
And all the more marvelous when one remembers that I am merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants! :)
"I repeat; "You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?
Pretend for the moment that you live in a country where English is the dominant language."
OK. In a religious context, there is still no difference. Sorry.
Correct, thank you for noticing this important distinction.
Of course, the problem then is aren't the Ten Commandments part of "The Law"? By that thinking, I guess God says go ahead and steal, lie, murder, etc. - since that stuff is under "The Law", and as long as you do good deeds, you will be okay
We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are Jewish law, but rather because Jesus repeated them (most of them) to us, expanded them and explained them (Mt 5-7). Not stealing, etc. is a good idea and violating the Ten Commandments is a sin, but you are not saved by merely obeying them as law.
what the following verse means under that kind of logic: Titus 3:5
"ουκ εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη", -- not by the works of justice -- explains the same principle. You are nto saved by obeying law but by "exceling in good works" (Titus 3:8).
count-your-change: As you say ‘MOST’ are not but neither do we elevate Josephus or Pliny to the authority of Inspired Scripture
Right. The fact that Mary remained virgin is a historical fact. It is not a fact known from scripture. It is simply a fact; how do you "elevate" it?
if there is disagreement between the secular historians and Scripture [we don't] raise these writers to a position of superiority, do we?
The scripture reflects historical facts also. If there seems to be a disagreement we have to find an explanation one way or another. In this case, there is no contradiction between the virginity of Mary and the scripture, so the issue does not arise. The contradiction is only between the way some modern readers, who often read as if the scripture were written by modern English speakers, interpret the scripture, but not with the scripture itself.
Your interpretation of Scripture is revealingly false and anyone who can read can see that. For the record, here is the passage:
Titus 3:3-8
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
So, no, the verses certainly do not say that we are saved by "excelling in good works". Rather, those who ARE saved, justified by grace, should be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good because these teachings are true and are profitable for everyone who are members of the body of Christ.
As I have said before, go right ahead and rely upon your good works to save you - they won't, but you have been warned - and I will rest upon the grace of God. Because, you see, saying you accept the gift of grace but insisting that your works are what ensures your salvation is not really accepting the gift of grace. You are really casting aside grace.
Interesting. Something that I have not experienced for at least 8 years in several of the more, shall we say, liberal, parishes. I have no knowledge of anything further. Do you have a reference?
Interesting. I have not noticed.
For all the hoopla over the Novus Ordo Mass, I have actually seen the Cup offered to the faithful in a daily Mass in the Naval Hospital Jacksonville, Florida, but the wine was white!
Huh? What kind of diocese is this?
The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) which has been instituted by Pope St. Gregory I (the Great) certainly never offered the Chalice to the faithful (only the clergy) since its inception at the end of the 6th century, until 1967, when the Novus Odro was implemented as the "ordinary" Mass.
This is certainly beyond my experience. Do you have a link to its history?
I checked the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Communion under both kinds") which says that the 12th century is when bread-only reception was instituted in the West, but variant practices existed prior to that in all of Christendom.
The Greek word “eos” is used as a conjunction in Matthew 1:25, it connects two phrases, Mary was a virgin and when that ended just as “eos” is used as a conjunction in verse 17.
But it’s not surprising that a reliance upon the distorted views of marital relations that some the so-called “church fathers” held would produce a narrative of an ever virginal Mary no matter what the Scriptures said otherwise.
Who needs the Scriptures when you have that work of fiction and fraud, The Infancy Gospel of James? That’s your “historical fact” source.
Alex, the above mentioned individual writes "But it’s not surprising that a reliance upon the distorted views of marital relations that some the so-called “church fathers” held..."
It never ceases to amaze me that 21st century Protestants claim to know the scriptures better, and have superior understanding of Middle Eastern marital relations than the 2nd and 3rd century Middle Eastern Christian apologists.
The Church bases its understanding of what those people wrote in their own cultural milieu and language they actually spoke, which is the same language and cultural milieu that produced the scriptures.
Forgive me if I sometimes get confused between "Catholic" and "Catholic".
I am aware you frequently speak from the perspective of the Orthodox but you also slip into "Catholic speak".
Perhaps a disclaimer would help poor old fools such as me understand where you are coming from at a particular time.
FWIW I believe the Orthodox Churches have remained much more faithful to the practices of the relatively old Christian practices than that of the Latin variety. That said, I also believe they would be unrecognizeable to the "early" Christian Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.