Why water into wine?

[aspen]

wow, really

praying to someone other than God is ok

There is nothing in the Bible that forbids prayer to others. Congering, necromancy, spiritualism, witchcraft and worshipping people is forbidden

 

[perrero]

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

Get used to that kind of slick response.

 

[tabletalk]

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.

"
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."

I think the answer is yes. Many Protestant churches use the word Elder instead of Bishop, the Elders and Deacons have authority over the entire local church, the Eucharist is presented by the Pastor/Elder or his representative, and when we gather to worship God then Jesus Christ is present: so we are the Catholic Church.

 

[Marymog]

"
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."

I think the answer is yes. Many Protestant churches use the word Elder instead of Bishop, the Elders and Deacons have authority over the entire local church, the Eucharist is presented by the Pastor/Elder or his representative, and when we gather to worship God then Jesus Christ is present: so we are the Catholic Church.

Hi Tabletalk,

As long as the Protestant recognizes the Eucharist as having the Real Presence of His body and blood then they are Catholic like......not Catholic.

My two cents worth....Mary

 

[aspen]

Hey Mary, Did you get 'A Cloistered Walk' and time to look it over? If you have any questions about oblates, I can do my best to answer them

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Ummmm, that's NOT what you demanded of me.
YOU said the following:
"I am still waiting for a reference for Catholics receiving the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church."

I presented you with the evidence - and now you're rejecting it.

Sooooo, this is how the game is played?? I keep presenting evidence and YOU say it's not good enough?
Are you ever going to tell me HOW I "manipulated" history like you accused me of doing??

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

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.


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.

I have to disagree with you on several points.

First of all - EVERY point about the Church described by Ignatius is the SAME as the Catholic Church if today. Which part are you saying is "different" than the Catholic Church of your youth??

Secondly, word of mouth when it comes to Sacred Tradition can be trusted because it has NEVER changed.
Sacred Tradition regarding the Sacraments has never changed - so why do you think the name has??

In another 2nd century document called The Death of Polycarp, we read the following:
“When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came.”

If the word "Catholic" was being used only as a description here and NOT as a title - it would make absolutely ZERO sense.
It would read like this:

IF this was a mere description, the literal translation would be rendered as: “… the throughout whole catholic church throughout the world.”

This rendering of the words is gibberish in Greek OR English. This is clear evidence that the Church established by Jesus and the Apostles was indeed called the "Catholic Church" – as a title– by the end of the 1st century and beyond.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

And I've been waiting for several weeks now on multiple threads for YOU to tell me why you keep quoting a Catholic Canon of Scripture?

WHO told you what you were quoting is Scripture?

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

No - he used it as a TITLE.
Read post 967 . . .

 

[aspen]

Ummmm, that's NOT what you demanded of me.
YOU said the following:
"I am still waiting for a reference for Catholics receiving the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church."

I presented you with the evidence - and now you're rejecting it.

Sooooo, this is how the game is played?? I keep presenting evidence and YOU say it's not good enough?
Are you ever going to tell me HOW I "manipulated" history like you accused me of doing??

And now the slippery semantics begin!

My original statement was: "We are no[t] even allowed to receive the Eucharist in orthodox churches." Post 916. This is a true statement - Orthodox Churches do not allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist in their churches.

You decided to challenge this statement by presenting a Catholic viewpoint on an Orthodox dogma.

I've already acknowledged that the Vatican tells us we can receive the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches. How is this meaningful for Catholics, if the Orthodox Church doesn't allow it? Mainline Protestant Churches do not condemn their members from receiving the Eucharist in Catholic Churches either, but they would be going against Catholic dogma if they decide to do it. As far as Catholics are concerned, how are they supposed to receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church if it is not offered?

The Orthodox Church does not consider the Catholic Church as an authority or even an equal. They believe they are the earliest form of Christianity and that Roman is not in communion with St. John Paul the Great statement which refers to the Catholic and Orthodox churches the right and left lungs of Christ's Church.

 

[Stranger]

Has anyone noticed that in the book of Revelation that the Roman Church is not mentioned? There are 7 churches used to describe the condition of the Church, and the Roman Church is not one of them. Seems that if the Roman church was Catholic or universal, it would have been mentioned. I mean this is the revelation of God to the risen Christ to John. But it is not mentioned. The Roman Church is not universal, is not Catholic. It is nothing but a local church who wants to govern all the churches.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

"
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."

I think the answer is yes. Many Protestant churches use the word Elder instead of Bishop, the Elders and Deacons have authority over the entire local church, the Eucharist is presented by the Pastor/Elder or his representative, and when we gather to worship God then Jesus Christ is present: so we are the Catholic Church.

And your Protestant churches would be wrong. Presbyter and Episkopos are NOT the same thing.
Presbyter is where we get the word "Priest" and Episkopos means "Bishop".

Also, the "Eucharist" that Ignatius are describing is not your average, "symbolic" Protestant version.

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).

THIS describes the Holy Eucharist that we Catholics celebrate.
Ignatius is describing the same Catholic Church that exists today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Has anyone noticed that in the book of Revelation that the Roman Church is not mentioned? There are 7 churches used to describe the condition of the Church, and the Roman Church is not one of them. Seems that if the Roman church was Catholic or universal, it would have been mentioned. I mean this is the revelation of God to the risen Christ to John. But it is not mentioned. The Roman Church is not universal, is not Catholic. It is nothing but a local church who wants to govern all the churches.

Stranger

Gee, I HATE to point out the obvious to you - but John was writing about the Seven Churches of ASIA.
Notice that there is also no mention if the Church in Jerusalem or Corinth or Thessalonica or Antioch or Philippi or a lot of other places.

Please do your homework before responding . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

And now the slippery semantics begin!

My original statement was: "We are no[t] even allowed to receive the Eucharist in orthodox churches." Post 916. This is a true statement - Orthodox Churches do not allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist in their churches.

You decided to challenge this statement by presenting a Catholic viewpoint on an Orthodox dogma.

I've already acknowledged that the Vatican tells us we can receive the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches. How is this meaningful for Catholics, if the Orthodox Church doesn't allow it? Mainline Protestant Churches do not condemn their members from receiving the Eucharist in Catholic Churches either, but they would be going against Catholic dogma if they decide to do it. As far as Catholics are concerned, how are they supposed to receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church if it is not offered?

The Orthodox Church does not consider the Catholic Church as an authority or even an equal. They believe they are the earliest form of Christianity and that Roman is not in communion with St. John Paul the Great statement which refers to the Catholic and Orthodox churches the right and left lungs of Christ's Church.

Actually - this is yet another one of your false claims.

Although the Orthodox Church doesn't submit to the authority of the Pope - it was never a case of them believing that the Catholic Church was inferior. Their argument was always about the Bishop of Eome being one among EQUALS - not superiors.

As with ALL anti-Catholics and dissidents - you never seem to do your homework before posting . . .

 

[amadeus]

I have to disagree with you on several points.

First of all - EVERY point about the Church described by Ignatius is the SAME as the Catholic Church if today. Which part are you saying is "different" than the Catholic Church of your youth??

I was not going by you had posted of his, but by my own experience. All of the masses were in Latin when I attended. Reading of the Bible by laity was discouraged at my parish even though I have come to understand that that was not the position of Pope Pius XII. Women played no part in the service except in music when I was attending. I know that is no longer the case. The Bible was not at that time read during a two year period as is apparently the case now.

Secondly, word of mouth when it comes to Sacred Tradition can be trusted because it has NEVER changed.
Sacred Tradition regarding the Sacraments has never changed - so why do you think the name has??

When I attended only the priests drank wine. That has also changed. You believe that Sacred Tradition has never changed, but I do not. Since neither one of us was an eyewitness we had best leave it alone.

In another 2nd century document called The Death of Polycarp, we read the following:
“When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came.”

If the word "Catholic" was being used only as a description here and NOT as a title - it would make absolutely ZERO sense.
It would read like this:

IF this was a mere description, the literal translation would be rendered as: “… the throughout whole catholic church throughout the world.”

You don't need to convince me. But, I would ask what language his writings were in. As a student of German and Spanish and a little Latin, I know that languages differences can be considerable and translations don't always work as well as people might hope that they do.

This rendering of the words is gibberish in Greek OR English. This is clear evidence that the Church established by Jesus and the Apostles was indeed called the "Catholic Church" – as a title– by the end of the 1st century and beyond.

The evidence is not clear to me. You say that it is for you and I guess that is well for you because it is part of your faith. It is not part of mine.

 

[BreadOfLife]

wow, really

praying to someone other than God is ok

Yup - YOU do it all the time on this forum whenever you ask somebody a question.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was not going by you had posted of his, but by my own experience. All of the masses were in Latin when I attended. Reading of the Bible by laity was discouraged at my parish even though I have come to understand that that was not the position of Pope Pius XII. Women played no part in the service except in music when I was attending. I know that is no longer the case. The Bible was not at that time read during a two year period as is apparently the case now.

The Bible was not read?
The entire Mass is taken straight out of the Scriptures. The first part of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Word, where there are two readings and a before the Gospel is read.

Female Lectors are not a matter of Sacred Tradition.

When I attended only the priests drank wine. That has also changed. You believe that Sacred Tradition has never changed, but I do not. Since neither one of us was an eyewitness we had best leave it alone.

Nobody drinks wine at the Mass. We drink the Blood of Christ.
Not every parish around the world makes the cup available - and nobody is obliged to drink from it because the Body and Blood of Christ are present in BOTH species.

You're conflating Sacred Tradition with minor traditions and disciplines.

You don't need to convince me. But, I would ask what language his writings were in. As a student of German and Spanish and a little Latin, I know that languages differences can be considerable and translations don't always work as well as people might hope that they do.

Ignatius wrote in Greek, as did most educated people in the 1st century

The evidence is not clear to me. You say that it is for you and I guess that is well for you because it is part of your faith. It is not part of mine.

It would be clear to me if I were an educated atheist.
Facts aren't a matter of opinion. They are what they are.

 

[aspen]

Actually - this is yet another one of your false claims.

Although the Orthodox Church doesn't submit to the authority of the Pope - it was never a case of them believing that the Catholic Church was inferior. Their argument was always about the Bishop of Eome being one among EQUALS - not superiors.

As with ALL anti-Catholics and dissidents - you never seem to do your homework before posting . . .

And with all legalists, you shift the conversation back to scoffing and mocking.

You were wrong, you can't admit it

I accept your special way of apologizing

There! I walked you through it and we can move on

 

[BreadOfLife]

And with all legalists, you shift the conversation back to scoffing and mocking.
You were wrong, you can't admit it

I accept your special way of apologizing
There! I walked you through it and we can move on

I'm wrong about what, exactly?
Can you elaborate?

 

[perrero]

wow, really

praying to someone other than God is ok

Yup - YOU do it all the time on this forum whenever you ask somebody a question.

Am I the only one in this thread that recognizes this statement as the most ridiculous one ever, apart from BoL who made it?