[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / cafechan / hypno / ita / kpop / leftpol / newbrit / russian ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 7aa9b2b14608393⋯.jpg (30.1 KB, 649x592, 649:592, 74bba98f94f17bc76c174556cb….jpg)

0f41fb No.562862

>catholic laymen only get the body in communion since only the priests get the blood

>he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, ALL OF YOU

why? not trying to trolle, just want to understand why

49c6cf No.562869

>>562862

This hasn't been true in forever


49c6cf No.562872

>>562862

MIght have been something Vatican 2 clarified but it's been the correct way for a while now.


5157e8 No.562875

>>562862

1. Whether or not the church service has the wine isn’t a rule. Some services/parishes serve bread and wine, some serve just bread. There isn’t a hard and fast rule that laity gets the bread and clergy gets the wine

2. This is because the host is considered to have the substance of both the body and the blood. So even if you only get the bread, you are getting both body and blood.

t. lapsed


335f07 No.562878

>>562862

>ALL OF YOU

LATINS, FEED YOUR KIDS


66de1d No.562879

>>562878

you're our kids too ;)


45a4da No.562882

>>562875

Come back home friendo


0f41fb No.562898

>>562875

>2. This is because the host is considered to have the substance of both the body and the blood. So even if you only get the bread, you are getting both body and blood.

why even have the blood then? weird


03c4ff No.562922

>>562879

>Uses a liturgy younger than my grandfather

>YOU'RE OUR KIDS REEEEEEE


335f07 No.562924

>>562922

Something something spirit of vatican 2

Something something muh based latin mass


66de1d No.562927

File: 085865aa6ecf861⋯.png (303.08 KB, 589x577, 589:577, eo.png)

>>562922

>muh liturgy

I see that you're an orthoprot.

The TLM was never abolished, don't be so naive my child ;)

>>562924

>he doesn't think the latin mass is based

success breeds jealousy I see, but let's not derail this thread ;)


335f07 No.562931

File: cda4a6e90e327b9⋯.png (11.75 KB, 241x263, 241:263, latinMutt.png)

>>562927

>orthoprot

pathetic

>we have a BASED liturgy, just not in the vernacular

>sure its a tiny minority of the masses, but it hasn't stopped happening

Even our Bestern Rites churches do a better job than you guys, and lots of people hate them for not being legit enough

>u jelly

Nah, my buttholes the correct size and my faith hasn't deformed into neo-liberalism


03c4ff No.562934

>>562927

Did i say the TLM was abolished? my point is still correct that what is served in nearly every parish is novus ordo


03c4ff No.562936

>>562934

also wtf is an orthoprot?


335f07 No.562939

File: 0089f95316b76f7⋯.png (1.31 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, ClipboardImage.png)

>>562934

Just wait till based gen z finishes seminary, then the Latin church will have a traditionalist revival

>>562936

Dumb Ordodogs were the first to schism from the seat of Peter, which not all bishops sit on don't listen to the Church Fathers, so that means there Protestants right!?!?!11/!/?!!/

Words don't have meanings


66de1d No.562953

File: 13d5e89c953e00d⋯.jpg (129.96 KB, 621x481, 621:481, Joseph de Maistre activate….jpg)

>>562931

>>562939

NO when done right is perfectly fine. Using a racist meme as an insult is your own condemnation. Pic of the girl is some feminists making a dumb music video, nothing to do with "gen Z finishing seminary". I honestly don't care about discussing with shitposting orthoprots. You hated the Church when you were protestants, and you still do. Nothing has changed except the extent to which you can justify to yourself your hatred for the One True Church.

While everyone hates the Church for their own personal, petty reasons many times opposed to each other, among which are you, simply nobody cares about your schismtic sect. Because I understand this I am not mad at you, and I still love you, may Christ show you the error of your ways someday.


335f07 No.562954

File: 40fbc2393d136c5⋯.png (1.46 MB, 1918x985, 1918:985, TypicalLatin.PNG)

>>562953

>Orthos just hate the pope

diapers

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

3ab381 No.562955

>>562927

>>562931

>>562939

>>562953

>>562954

Depending on where you are, you're either posting this on Saturday or on Sunday.

Either way, you are desecrating either the Sabbat or the Lord's Day, two days holy to the Lord.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."

You should honestly be banned for this. Go pray and get ready for tomorrow or today's service instead of sinposting.

>inb4 "y-you're just taking the moral high ground"

And what if I am? You know I'm right. The scriptures condemn you. You can act retarded during the rest of the week if that makes you happy.


335f07 No.562956

File: 8aa01e9efda6333⋯.png (299.57 KB, 1820x810, 182:81, ReportingMyOwnPost.PNG)

File: dc39d51448666d9⋯.png (298.99 KB, 1811x800, 1811:800, ReportedMyOwnPost.PNG)

>>562955

>You should honestly be banned for this.

Lets see


3ab381 No.562957

>>562956

Change that to "shitposting on a Sunday."


c664b4 No.562958

>>562875

This. Since the body of Christ contains His blood as well, you can the host without the blood. Although I don't see the harm in taking both


2d489f No.562964

>>562954

>no gay sex with hats on in the tabs

smh


3b7e24 No.563030

>>562958

Jesus gave commands about both the wine and the bread. If you're only giving the other, you're obeying Jesus halfway, which means disobeying Jesus. This is just one example of the Catholics not taking the Bible seriously.


b09e9f No.563034

>>562953

the virgin rhetoric

>>562954

the Chad touché


28de04 No.563127

>the Apostles

>laymen


b87b5e No.563133

>>563127

Pretty sure your church says they weren't priests until Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me"


12ac95 No.563153

I fail to see the point here. Both are offered to all in a state of Grace.


6cfa50 No.563155

>>562862

Because the Roman Catholic religion wasn't founded until more than 10 centuries after the death of Christ and they're wrong.


7ac6bb No.563180

>>562862

It has to do with respect. Many parishes do offer the blood for laity to drink, but some parishes don't for fear of the precious blood being spilled on accident. The last thing a pastor wants to do is have to clean Jesus off the floor with a mop. It's disrespectful. And, theologically speaking, the presence of Christ in full body, blood, soul, and divinity is present in the host alone, and in the wine alone, so when taking from one of the two you receive the spiritual effect of both, so it's not required to take both. That's also how people who abstain from alcohol or gluten, for medical or other reasons, are still able to take communion without health risk: by simply taking the other.


1e08f3 No.563206

File: 0e7cd02e3ade5c3⋯.jpg (11.76 KB, 235x325, 47:65, saintthomasseeshowyoumakeb….jpg)

Hus, czech your sources.

From council of Trent, session XXI.

The Doctrine Of Communion Under Both Kinds And The Communion Of Little Children

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding, has thought fit that, since relative to the awe-inspiring and most holy sacrament of the Eucharist various monstrous errors are in different places circulated by the wiles of the evil spirit, by reason of which, in some provinces, many are seen to have fallen away from the faith and obedience of the Catholic Church, those things which relate to communion under both forms and to that of little children be explained in this place. Wherefore, it forbids all the faithful of Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach or preach on these matters otherwise than is explained and defined in these decrees.

CHAPTER I

LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES

This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church,[2] declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, <salva fide>, that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,[3] yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>,[4] also said: <He that eateth this bread shall live forever>;[5] and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,>[6] also said: <The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world>;[7] and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>,[8] said, nevertheless: <He that eateth this bread shall live forever.>[9]

CHAPTER II

THE POWER OF THE CHURCH CONCERNING THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

It declares furthermore, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, <salva illorum substantia>, the Church may, according to circumstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers. The Apostle seems to have clearly intimated this when he said: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;[10] and that he himself exercised this power, as in many other things so in this sacrament, is sufficiently manifest, for after having given some instructions regarding its use, he says: <The rest I will set in order when I come.>[11] Wherefore, though from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both forms has not been infrequent, yet since that custom has been already very widely changed, holy mother Church, cognizant of her authority in the administration of the sacraments, has, induced by just and weighty reasons, approved this custom of communicating under either species and has decreed that it be considered the law, which may not be repudiated or changed at pleasure without the authority of the Church.

1 Is. 11:2.

2 Council of Constance. Sess. XIII (Denzinger, no. 626); cf. infra,> can. 2.

3 Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19 f.; I Cor. 11:24f.

4 John 6:54.

5 Ibid., 6:52.

6 Ibid., 6:55.

7 Ibid., 6:52.

8 Ibid., 6:57.

9 Ibid., 6:59.

10 See I Cor. 4:1.

11 Ibid., 11:34.


1e08f3 No.563208

File: 4a6a21d3ded9b94⋯.jpg (132.65 KB, 650x487, 650:487, CouncilofJersualmAD50color….jpg)

>>563206

CHAPTER III

CHRIST, WHOLE AND ENTIRE, AND A TRUE SACRAMENT ARE RECEIVED UNDER EITHER SPECIES

It declares, moreover, that though our Redeemer at the last supper instituted and administered this sacrament to the Apostles under two forms, as has already been said, yet it must be acknowledged that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament are received under either form alone,[12] and therefore, as regards its fruits, those who receive one species only are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation.

CHAPTER IV

LITTLE CHILDREN ARE NOT BOUND TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION

Finally, the same holy council teaches that little children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for having been regenerated by the laver of baptism and thereby incorporated with Christ,[13] they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in some places it at one time observed that custom. For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation.

Canons On Communion Under Both Species And That Of Little Children

Canon 1. If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist,[14] let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only,[15] or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species,[16] let him be anathema.

Canon 4. If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion,[17] let him be anathema.

The two articles proposed on another occasion but not yet discussed,[18] namely, whether the reasons which moved the holy Catholic Church to decree that laymen and priests not celebrating are to communicate under the one species of bread only, are so stringent that under no circumstances is the use of the chalice to be permitted to anyone; and whether, in case it appears advisable and consonant with Christian charity that the use of the chalice be conceded to a person, nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions, and what are those conditions, the same holy council reserves for examination and definition to another time, at the earliest opportunity that shall present itself.

12 Cf. Sess. XIII, chap. 3 and can. 3.

13 Tit. 3:5.

14 Cf. <supra>, chap. I.

15 Ibid., chap. 2

16 Ibid., chap. 3; Sess. XIII, chap. 3 and can. 3.

17 <Supra>, chap. 4

18 Cf. pp. 85 f.

And as for record, in Saturday I attended wedding of my cousin and I ate flesh and drunk blood of our Lord


1e08f3 No.563212

>>563209

First of all, you are to be anathemised.

Second of all, any real argument?

Third of all, the whole clue of this session and end of OP argument is John 6:52-59


49c6cf No.563227

>>563206

>>563208

But why would you do that though? What were said just causes? Plague?


397f87 No.563234

>>562862

They justified it at the council of constance, maintaining that flesh contains blood, so if the bread becomes flesh, then it also contains blood.


1e08f3 No.563262

>>563227

Probably. But first and foremost it was done because bread and wine are transubstained in the same body, blood and soul and divinity. And it may give rise to Core rebelion vol. 145463623 Plus wine was not cheap and faithful was many. And of course, it easier to shed of floor.

>>563234

It's wrong though. Constance said that under both kinds there is both blood and flesh (and soul and divinity)


3b7e24 No.563287

>>563234

It doesn't contain blood if it's kosher flesh. Or at least it doesn't contain most of the blood.

I've seen a Catholic on this board say in all seriousness that if the eucharist bread is given to hand, the worshiper doesn't get the entire body because some atoms will rub off in the layman's unsanctified hand, which is different from a priest's sanctified hand. Catholicism claims to be a very rational faith, but complicated rationalizations aren't the same as rationality. I think the more clear-headed approach is to look at what the Bible actually says.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / cafechan / hypno / ita / kpop / leftpol / newbrit / russian ]