Why water into wine?

[aspen]

1. A person who is sick or dying - or even stranded somewhere and has no access to a Catholic Church can receive from an Orthodox Church because it is a validly consecrated Eucharist.
2. Instead of making unfounded accusation that I am "manipulating" history - why don't you SHOW me with some actual evidence??

1. Yes, I read that to - in the CCC. It's the guidelines for nonCatholics to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. I am still waiting for a reference for Catholics receiving the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

2. Until you provide a reference, see above.

 

[perrero]

You have got to be kidding me!
You are actually equating the praying made to God, for salvation, healing, graces, whatever, with the simple conversations that Jesus had with people when he questioned them, challenged them or asked them for something, and conclude that Jesus was praying to the people.
Do you ever read over your own posts to see how ridiculous and deluded they are?

You are taking those 135 verses where Jesus is asking people a simple question, Ex: Mark 8:20 "And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces took ye up? And they say unto him, Seven.", as He was praying to these people.
So when I asked my neighbour to borrow his lawnmower, I'm actually praying to him.
Oh! Precious neighbour of mine, how was the concert last night, Amen!

This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

It's only laughable to a spiritually prideful person like yourself because you refuse to acknowledge that the word "Pray" doesn;t ALWAYS mean "worship."

I have repeatedly presented the definition - and "worship" is a SECONDARY definition.
"Pray" is legal, juridical language that is used in court documents and police reports.

To deny that there are other uses for this word is to show that either, you're not very bright - or that you simply enjoy wallowing in vain denial . . .

Your 135 quotes refer to Jesus asking a question to His followers or the general populace. He doesn't even use the verb "to ask" He just poses the question. Ex.Mat. 6:27 "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" But because "to ask" is part of the Webster definition of the verb to PRAY. You therefore assert that every time Jesus asked a question to someone or some crowd, he was praying to them. Not worshiping them but nevertheless praying to them (asking them something). Thus interchanging the verb "to ask" for "To pray (in your mind), therefore concluding that Jesus prayed (not worship) to all kinds of people. AND then you take the giant leap that it gives us authority to pray (ask not worship) to people who have passed on (people, in whom we have no clue whether they are in heaven or hell) or to saints in heaven.
That's the logic here. Do you need a shovel to dig yourself out?

Now Jesus also would "touch" people when healing them. Mat. 8:3 "And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed." but the verb to TOUCH can also be part of the Webster definition TO FEEL (1. to handle, to touch). Based on your logic I should be able to FEEL everyone I want to touch for healing. Hey, maybe you've enlightened me to what the "laying on of hands is all about". NOT!!!

Recap
Jesus asked questions -- To Ask is within the definition of To Pray -- Jesus therefore prayed to others -- logically we should be allowed to pray to the dead, saints, angels...
Jesus touched people -- To Touch is within the definition of To Feel -- Jesus therefore felt the people -- logically we should be able to feel people when praying for healing, etc.

Do you want to dig any deeper?

 

[amadeus]

How could it not be from God if it's the first Church ever??

I say MEN messed it up, just like we seem to be able to mess everything up.
Or should I say through the influence of the evil one. By "men" I mean "man".
Sorry 'bout that.

Is it the first church ever? How would we know that? How could we know that? Was there no Church in the days when Saul/Paul was raising havoc with the churches? Secular governments did not really endorse Christianity until the time of Constantine, which long after the death of all the original apostles including Paul.

But did not the Word of God reside in the hearts of believers from the day of Pentecost as per Acts chapter two? Was an organized institutional church with an established hierarchy visible to all men required for God's Church to exist?

God's Church, of course, did already exist because the believers existed and they were the Church even if there was no Pope even if there was no longer any High Priest, but Jesus. Should we take any man's word for what happened among men from the last written verse of scripture until now?
We are to trust what... in the traditions or histories of men?

Is it not better to always be led by the Holy Spirit? Even on this final point, of course, men will disagree and argue, but God knows, doesn't He?

 

[perrero]

During the Last Supper, in John 16:12-15, Jesus was instructing the LEADERS of His Church. He gave the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the CHURCH to all truth - NOT the individual. If this were the case, you wouldn't have tens of thousands of bickering Protestant sects teaching different doctrines and ALL claiming to have the "Truth."

Peter was the ONLY one singled out by Jesus and given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven - NOT the other Eleven - and NOT every individual.

I love it when you just switch around words like that.
"The Spirit will guide you (switch out YOU insert the CHURCH -- et voilà abracadabra) in all truth."
The Spirit does not guide the individual but the church. Like I said before; slick.
Except isn't the Pope an individual? Hmm?

I will not get into the keys heresy, that's a whole new can of worms.

 

[perrero]

Then why are they needed to "take" our prayers TO Him?? Can you explain that??
God can see and hear everything.

The only logical explanation is that they were asked by those on earth to take our prayers to God.
That's why this has been the teaching of the Church since the beginning - for 2000 years.

Obviously these are unanswered prayers for whatever reason.
If God chose to hold them in a vial is totally up to Him and if also choose to have those vials held by elders then who am I to question.
The question is not the manner that these prayers are held, it is the prayers themselves.
They would be prayers offered to God Himself and not to anyone else, because those prayers probably don't get beyond your ceiling.
Prayers to anybody else but God is blasphemous and idolatrous, plain and simple.

 

[aspen]

If God chose to hold them in a vial is totally up to Him

But its just indoctrination that forces Catholics to believe He still can receive prayer in this manner, right?

Prayers to anybody else but God is blasphemous and idolatrous, plain and simple.

Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from scripture....... perhaps Luther added it ....nah, it would have his signature behind it, 'alone'......nevermind :)

 

[mjrhealth]

Now, you're speaking of your own . . .

oh Jesus is a harlot you say??? I knew you had issues with Him but that is foolishness....

 

[BreadOfLife]

1. Yes, I read that to - in the CCC. It's the guidelines for nonCatholics to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. I am still waiting for a reference for Catholics receiving the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

2. Until you provide a reference, see above.

Eastern Rites and Orthodox
ROME, 21 JULY 2009 (ZENIT)
Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, Professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

The question is somewhat diverse for the case of Orthodox Churches, which are not in full communion with Rome but which enjoy the apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.

From the Catholic standpoint, a member of the faithful who is unable to attend Mass because there is no Catholic celebration available, may, if he so wishes, attend and receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.

Canon Law 844.2
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid (i.e., the Orthodox Churches).

NOW - stop dodging #2 and show me how I "manipulated" history - otherwise, simply admit that you were wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

oh Jesus is a harlot you say??? I knew you had issues with Him but that is foolishness....

You've shown over and over that you don't belong to Jesus- so don't bring HIM into this.
You can''t reject His Church and claim to belong to Him . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your 135 quotes refer to Jesus asking a question to His followers or the general populace. He doesn't even use the verb "to ask" He just poses the question. Ex.Mat. 6:27 "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" But because "to ask" is part of the Webster definition of the verb to PRAY. You therefore assert that every time Jesus asked a question to someone or some crowd, he was praying to them. Not worshiping them but nevertheless praying to them (asking them something). Thus interchanging the verb "to ask" for "To pray (in your mind), therefore concluding that Jesus prayed (not worship) to all kinds of people. AND then you take the giant leap that it gives us authority to pray (ask not worship) to people who have passed on (people, in whom we have no clue whether they are in heaven or hell) or to saints in heaven.
That's the logic here. Do you need a shovel to dig yourself out?

Now Jesus also would "touch" people when healing them. Mat. 8:3 "And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed." but the verb to TOUCH can also be part of the Webster definition TO FEEL (1. to handle, to touch). Based on your logic I should be able to FEEL everyone I want to touch for healing. Hey, maybe you've enlightened me to what the "laying on of hands is all about". NOT!!!

Recap
Jesus asked questions -- To Ask is within the definition of To Pray -- Jesus therefore prayed to others -- logically we should be allowed to pray to the dead, saints, angels...
Jesus touched people -- To Touch is within the definition of To Feel -- Jesus therefore felt the people -- logically we should be able to feel people when praying for healing, etc.

Do you want to dig any deeper?

Your limited understanding of the English language is nothing short of astounding.
You're trying to make the case that the definition of the word "Pray" can only be defined as a question if the words "to ask" are in the sentence?? This is just asinine.

As I schooled you earlier - the PRIMARY definition of the word "Pray" simply means to ASK, to ENTREAT, to SUPPLICATE or to make a PLEA or REQUEST. I gave you 150 examples of Jesus doing just that - and His questions (pray) were not directed at God.

By the way - in the 2 example above in bold RED - YOU prayed to ME.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is it the first church ever? How would we know that? How could we know that? Was there no Church in the days when Saul/Paul was raising havoc with the churches? Secular governments did not really endorse Christianity until the time of Constantine, which long after the death of all the original apostles including Paul.

But did not the Word of God reside in the hearts of believers from the day of Pentecost as per Acts chapter two? Was an organized institutional church with an established hierarchy visible to all men required for God's Church to exist?

God's Church, of course, did already exist because the believers existed and they were the Church even if there was no Pope even if there was no longer any High Priest, but Jesus. Should we take any man's word for what happened among men from the last written verse of scripture until now?
We are to trust what... in the traditions or histories of men?

Is it not better to always be led by the Holy Spirit? Even on this final point, of course, men will disagree and argue, but God knows, doesn't He?

We know this by the writings of the Early Church.
Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John spoke of the "Catholic Church" in His Letter to the Smyrnaeans - and used it as a TITLE, not a mere description. This letter was written at the beginning of the 2nd century - over 200 years before Constantine's Edict of Milan.

You must remember that there was no postal service, no television or radio, no internet, etc. Everything was based on word of mouth.
For "The Catholic Church" to be used as a title in Ignatius's letter - it was already a long established fact.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole EUCHARIST you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Does the Church described above sound like the Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians or the thousands of Calvinist or "non-denominational" Evangelical churches or Pentecostal or Unitarian or Oneness churches?
NO - it sounds just like the Catholic Church of today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I love it when you just switch around words like that.
"The Spirit will guide you (switch out YOU insert the CHURCH -- et voilà abracadabra) in all truth."
The Spirit does not guide the individual but the church. Like I said before; slick.
Except isn't the Pope an individual? Hmm?

I will not get into the keys heresy, that's a whole new can of worms.

You won't get into it because you'll be fighting a losing battle. The evidence is crystal clear there.

As for the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and NOT the individual - allow me to educate you:
When Jesus preaches to the crowds - He is preaching to each of us individually and collectively.
When Jesus instructs His Apostles - He is instructing the LEADERS (Episkopoi)of His Church.

 

[mjrhealth]

You've shown over and over that you don't belong to Jesus- so don't bring HIM into this.
You can''t reject His Church and claim to belong to Him . . .

I can reject your "church" all i like it is not from God, teh whole thing is based on a lie which started right here,

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

His ' Ecclesia" gathering of people, since that is what Christ is all about, is based on "revelation" just as Jesus was teaching Peter, but you have none. The lie just grew from there. So according to you, for 13 years, you have being calling Jesus a liar, a hypocrite, and God knows what else, since every time you call those who tell you the truth, one of these things you do teh same to Jesus, have you not read,

Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
No ill keep praying for you, and will wait to see you on the other side, it is men like you that God can use to His advantage just like Saul that all started here.

Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Obviously these are unanswered prayers for whatever reason.
If God chose to hold them in a vial is totally up to Him and if also choose to have those vials held by elders then who am I to question.
The question is not the manner that these prayers are held, it is the prayers themselves.
They would be prayers offered to God Himself and not to anyone else, because those prayers probably don't get beyond your ceiling.
Prayers to anybody else but God is blasphemous and idolatrous, plain and simple.

"Unanswered" prayers?? THAT'S your answer??
This empty and inane answer is just mind-boggling.

Rev. 5:8 shows those in Heaven taking our prayers before God and Rev. 8:4-5 shows the Angels in Heaven doing the SAME thing.
Are the angels ALSO taking all of these abandoned and "unanswered" prayers to God so He'll eventually answer them??

You don't have a very high opinion of God, do you?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I can reject your "church" all i like it is not from God, teh whole thing is based on a lie which started right here,

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

His ' Ecclesia" gathering of people, since that is what Christ is all about, is based on "revelation" just as Jesus was teaching Peter, but you have none. The lie just grew from there. So according to you, for 13 years, you have being calling Jesus a liar, a hypocrite, and God knows what else, since every time you call those who tell you the truth, one of these things you do teh same to Jesus, have you not read,

Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
No ill keep praying for you, and will wait to see you on the other side, it is men like you that God can use to His advantage just like Saul that all started here.

Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Hey - I'm not the "Lone Ranger" here - YOU are.
I'm not the one who has abandoned His Church - YOU have.
I'm not the one who think Jesus LIED when He said that the Gate of Hell wouldn't prevail against His Church - YOU are.
I'm not the one who belongs to the online cult "aggressivechristianity.net" - YOU are.

 

[mjrhealth]

Hey - I'm not the "Lone Ranger" here - YOU are.
I'm not the one who has abandoned His Church - YOU have.
I'm not the one who think Jesus LIED when He said that the Gate of Hell wouldn't prevail against His Church - YOU are.
I'm not the one who belongs to the online cult "aggressivechristianity.net" - YOU are.

See nothing to say so shoot teh messenger,

as it says

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

You insist that we must join your church to become part of His, He asks that we join to Him to become part of His church, You are a catholic like your friend MaryMog, talk like, sound like act like "catholics" we are supposed to talk like sound like act like Christ.

For how much longer will you insist on persecuting His "ecclesia" His people

again have you not read

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Still wait to see you on teh other side.

 

[aspen]

Eastern Rites and Orthodox
ROME, 21 JULY 2009 (ZENIT)
Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, Professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

The question is somewhat diverse for the case of Orthodox Churches, which are not in full communion with Rome but which enjoy the apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.

From the Catholic standpoint, a member of the faithful who is unable to attend Mass because there is no Catholic celebration available, may, if he so wishes, attend and receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.

NOW - stop dodging #2 and show me how I "manipulated" history - otherwise, simply admit that you were wrong.

You're kidding right?

Nope.

You are actually offering me the Catholic point of view instead of the Orthodox POV and trying to pass it off as permission by the Eastern Orthodox Churches for Catholics to receive the Eucharist under special circumstances in their churches.

You aren't stupid so this must be some kind of joke or the very manipulation I am speaking of in reference to you.

Peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining never fit so well

 

[amadeus]

We know this by the writings of the Early Church.
Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John spoke of the "Catholic Church" in His Letter to the Smyrnaeans - and used it as a TITLE, not a mere description. This letter was written at the beginning of the 2nd century - over 200 years before Constantine's Edict of Milan.

Of course, "catholic" simply means universal and so we might still ask what was his intention when he used it? There were always some who disagreed with others and we know that there was not an established protestant church early on. This doesn't mean that such a thing was not already in someone's heart for people for the most part have always walked their own ways rather than God's Way. Was God nevertheless able to go forward in His purpose? Absolutely, but what was God's purpose? On that we might still disagree.

You must remember that there was no postal service, no television or radio, no internet, etc. Everything was based on word of mouth.
For "The Catholic Church" to be used as a title in Ignatius's letter - it was already a long established fact.

I was not there and I am not a student of all of those writings although I have read some of them and even have copies of some of them. My point is I cannot confirm why he used the words, Catholic Church. It could be simply that it was a general expression at that time which included anyone who in some measure followed what Jesus had taught.

All of us would probably agree that "word of mouth" is a sometimes good way to pervert the words of the original speaker. By the time it gets to the third person it likely to be quite different than what the 1st person said and even the 2nd person may have badly misunderstood what he heard. Of course, if God was in it, His truth would have remained intact.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole EUCHARIST you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Does the Church described above sound like the Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians or the thousands of Calvinist or "non-denominational" Evangelical churches or Pentecostal or Unitarian or Oneness churches?
NO - it sounds just like the Catholic Church of today.

Yes, it does sound a bit like the Catholic Church I once attended which is quite different than the Catholic Church that exists today. Yet the two, the one of my time and the one of today are similar. Maybe you see it as describing closely the church you know today.

What I know is that God is still looking at people's heart as He always has done without regard to what label, if any, they may have applied to them.

The heart of man who knows nothing of the standing rules or beliefs of any organised church may be pleasing to God. What did Abraham the father of Isaac know of churches or even of the laws to be given through Moses, his descendant?

A church group can be a good thing if it functions in such a way that it teaches people truth in a greater measure than that which they already had. But churches like men can and do often stifle the Holy Spirit and people end up stagnant and dead. This is so in today's Catholic Church as well as in all of the others you have mentioned. But, God will not be stifled in the hearts of people who are really looking for Him.

 

[aspen]

He used the word 'Catholic' because he was describing the only Christian Church in the 'whole world'. Catholic (universal); whole world (the Roman Empire). The world and the church are a lot bigger today.

 

[bbyrd009]

Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from scripture

wow, really

praying to someone other than God is ok