ChristiansUnite Forums

There are some Christians who are awake to what is going on, but there are many Christians today who believe everything is just fine. Everyone loves everybody else. The Christians, Mormons, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems are all serving the same God, but in different ways.

I just couldn't .

Of course you can. Christian is Christian. Fairly tales about idol worship and the like don’t change the truth.

No, because I would only get the symbol that represents His body. The Lord's supper also had a symbol to remember Christ's shed blood and in Roman catholicism only the priest gets to partake of that emblem.
Whereas the Bible says Christ told the apostles to partake of both and there was no special partaking of one emblem by any one person. Therefore the catholic pattern for communion is not according to the word of the Bible. Therefore not according to God. It has been somewhat adulterated by uninspired men over the centuries.

Ollie

The Roman Catholic Institution in their Canon laws state:


" If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, let him be accursed."

That's when the priest walks out holding up the cookie in the monstrance, which looks like a sunburst, and people come up and kiss it and adore it. And if any Protestant would say,

" hey, that's idolatry," that Protestant is to be accursed.

Now to sum this up, the Roman Catholic Institution teaches that you must believe that the bread, or host, consecrated in the mass actually becomes Jesus Christ and it is to be worshipped as God Almighty.

It holds firm, just as strong today, as it did in the time of the Middle Ages, that anyone who ridicules it, or says that it only represents Christ, is damned. The Vatican II Council re-affirmed this. Pope John XXIII said, " I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent."

That Canon law is in effect today!

Um... but you forgot to add that this is how the early church felt about it, too. ::)

As for the monstrance, well, that is seperate from the Lord's Supper.

Nope, give me one scripture from the early Church that says that?

You don't study Early Church history, do you? It is a fact, not a topic of debate.

BTW: I was referring to the belief that the lord supper should be taken serously, not the monstrance. The monstrance is about as biblical as using a computer. ::)

Umm,  RCC canon law wouldn't apply to a protestant, would it?  Canon law can only apply within a church.

fine, up to here,
It doesn't say (AFAIK) that it must be worshiped.

To answer the original question:

No.  Because RCC rules don't allow me nor anyone else who isn't a member of the RCC, an Eastern-Rite Catholic church or an Othodox church to recieve.

If they did, I would.

Where in the BIBLE does it say this? I cant understand how people think that we are supposed to live by anything but what the BIBLE says. Does it say that we are supposed to live by God's words.... and canon law, the pope's words, Kenneth Copeland's words, or Captain Kangaroo's words? Nope. I don't see it in the scripture, which is Jesus- who is the Word made flesh. Perfect.

BTW, the only thing that can curse me is God Himself , and this:

The Unpardonable Sin
Mark 3:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"-- 30because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."

And for the 3rd time, i post these scriptures, to back up what i am saying (copied and pasted from the Passion debate):

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

"And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's  word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD  of hosts our God." (Jer 23:36

John 1.14. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth."

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private  interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of  God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet 1:20-21)

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye  received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word  of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that  believe." (1 Th 2:13)

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy  lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy  name." (Psa 138:2)

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the  word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Pet 1:23)

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is  called The Word of God." (Rev 19:13)

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with  manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know  that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the  mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deu 8:3)

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall  not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  " (Mat 4:4)

"In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise  his word." (Psa 56:10)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD  is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him."  (2 Sam 22:31)

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy  righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psa 119:160)

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is  the word of God:" (Eph 6:17)

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any  twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints  and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."  (Heb 4:12)

Making the word of God of none effect through  your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."  (Mark 7:13)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of  sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (2 Cor 2:17)

Quote Ambassador4Christ from the thread Antichrist Today:

Teaching that the elements of the Lord's Supper are actually transformed into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is an abomination and an Antichrist

My Answer is to your question is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To those RCC members:

Have you read the RCC history?
 
how about on August 22, 1572 The bloody St. Bartholomew
massacre?

or

the 1641 Ireland massacre-October 23.

What about the sacrament, do you kneel before the sacrament? I didn't ask if you believed I asked do you kneel before it?

Every church more than about 50 years old has got some horror stories under it's belt.  The only reason the rest haven't is that they haven't yet had the time.   RCC has more than most because its been around longer than any (except the Orthodox) and is far, far, bigger.

You are right every Church has some hurror stories.
But why did the RCC side with Hitler?

Hitler said:

"I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted. That is why I have turned away from Ludendorff and that is why I reject that book by Rosenberg. It was written by a Protestant. It is not a  party book. It was not written by him as a party man. The Protestants can be left to argue with him....As a Catholic I never feel comfortable in the Evangelical Church or its structures. That is why I will have great difficulty if I try to regulate affairs of the Protestant Churches. The evangelical people or the Protestants will in any case reject me. But you can be sure I will protect the rights and freedoms of the Churches and not let them be touched, so that you need have no fears about the future of the Church."

Hitler was also ready to discuss with the Bishop his views on the Jewish question: "As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic Church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc, becouse it knew what the Jews were like. I don't put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representative of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service."

HopeAndFaith- While the bible is the true word of GOd, it cannot be read out of concect. The writings of the Early Church are meant to complament it. If you believe lies to "Sola Scriptura," Which can't even be proven with the bible alone, then stop wasting my time by trying to debate.

tony350- What is your point? Everyone makes mistakes. Hitler? A Christian? Lets think about that for a second...  ::)

Besides, you haven't even cited that quote. You can just as easily have made it up. Now, Hitler did pledge to care for the Christain Churches only a few weeks after becoming chancellor (March 23, 1933) because he considered the Churches, Protestant and Catholic I might add, to be the most crucial elements in the preservation of Germany's national heritage.

The Catholic Church was opposed in principle to the policies of Hitler and the Nazi Party. As a result, many clergy in Germany were arrested, brutalized, and even sentenced to concentration camps for refusing to accept Nazi policies. Ofcourse, I cannot revise history, so you have to keep in mind that some clergy were cowed into submission and said nothing when arrests and oppression were committed before their very eyes. Silence is different from approval, despite the obvious moral implications of both.

There were, as well, very significant efforts on the part of the Church to speak out against Nazi policies. Pope Pius XI issued in 1937 the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, smuggled into Germany and read from every Catholic pulpit in March 1937. This condemnation of the Nazis provoked Hitler's anger, but an even more stinging denunciation was in the works when Pius died on February 10, 1939. Over the next six years, hundreds of German priests and nuns were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Other heroic German figures were Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, archbishop of Munich, Father Rupert Mayer, and Canon Bernhard Lichtenberg. The last two died in concentration camps. Faulhaber survived several assassination attempts and never ceased to condemn Hitler for his atrocities against Christians and Jews.

While the evangelicals where enjoying their comfort and peace, millions of Catholic nuns and priests died in concentration camps or Nazi prisons. Catholics and other Sacramental Churches where being brutally murdered. All that I said above can be proven, if you ever bother to look it up. None of these Rome and Hilter conspericy theory lies.

I have not double checked this fact, but it has been said that Rome saved more Jews then the Allies. Of course, don't quote me. Look it up for your self! The Vatican churches, basilica, and Church properties were opened to give shelter; there were fifteen thousand Jews at Castel Gandolfo alone, and thousands more at nearly two hundred different sites!

Hello Tibby,

I am not trying be mean. Let that be known now ok?
I know everyone makes mistakes, thats a fact of life.
That quote you wanted is from "The Nazi Persecution of the Churches" by J. S. Conway, pgs. 25,26 and 162.

The Catholic Church was opposed in principle to the policies of Hitler and the Nazi Party?

The three big defenders of the Roman Catholic faith were Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All three had concordates with the Vatican. When the Nazi war machine swept through the Balkans on the way to attack Russia, Yugoslavia had become a Nazi occupied country. The Pope despised the Russian Orthodox members. They were called Serbains and they were
marked for death in Yugoslavia. They were giving one choice,
to convert to Catholicism or die. The communist party was created by the Vatican to destroy one of her greatest enemies, the Russian Orthodox Church. The communist had double-crossed the pope and refused to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church members and at last, Pope Pius XII had created a machine to do what the communists had failed to do, butcher every Orthodox Church member and their clergy.
The Catholic priests changed their robes for the uniforms of the dreaded Ustachi killer squads and led the most barbaric, brutal raids upon the people and practiced satanic torture never before known in this century. We are not talking 800 years ago. We are talking 1940.

The whore of Revelation showed her fangs, tore her enemies to shreds and clevery covered up her crime. All this is documented in many books, including Catholic Terror Today by Avro Manhattan.

next page.....

Franz Von Papen, another powerful Nazi, who was instrumental is setting up the concordat between Germany and the Vatican had this to say " The third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy."

Signing the concordat is cardinal pacell (later to become Pope Pius XII) by 1933 he was the Vatican secretary of state.
Franz Von Papen, a sinister Nazi and devout Roman Catholic who was Hitlers ace diplomat and the Vaticans agent in helping to bring Hitler to power.

The little known Vatican prelate, Montini, later to become Pope Paul VI.
all those were in the signing.

Look at the past, and now. Has Rome changed?

When the RCC dumps the mass, the veneration (of worship) of Mary, when they throw away their rosaries and repent from claiming that Mary was free from original sin, when they admit they cooked up the idea of purgatory, and when the priest of Rome concede to the priesthood of all believers,and tons of other false teachings......

then maybe we can believe they have changed.

When World War II ended, the Vatican had egg all over its face. Pope Pius XII, after building the Nazi machine, saw Hitler losing his battle against Russia, and he immediately jumped to the other side. General Eisenhower saved his neck. Pope Pius XII should have stood before the judges in Nuremburg.

Too many people knew that the Vatican was responsible for World War II so it was time for a face lift. The Vatican II Council came into existence and they put on a new face lift. She wiped her mouth with her bloody hands and said "I've changed. Now I like the Protestants. I'm not going to call them heretices any more but searated brethren, she told the Protestants to forget the past.........just like in France and Ireland remember?

J. S. Conway? Jack Chic uses this guy as a source.

So then, tell me, if what J. S. Conway says is true, then why did the Nazis murder countless Catholics for being Catholic? He is making a mockery of the death of countless Christians and Jews with these Asinine conspiracy theories. You think Rome helped the Nazis? Well, they Jews Rome aided in freeing disagree. Pope Pius XII deplored the Nazi belief, and clearly stated that. I have given you dates and times. Conway has given you a few guesses formed out of Circumstantial evidence and his anti-catholic bias

I give up.  ??? :-[

Believe what you want.

Just read history and you will know.

But how can you be a part of the Lord's Supper and part of the RCC at the same time? One cannot!

Half of the stuff in the RCC is man-made and not in the Bible.

But again, believe what you want friend.

God's Word....every word is true, now put  the Bible against the RCC and you will see.

Im done on this topic.

I do read history. Church History, modern history, and everything in between. I would suggest you do the same before you start attacking your brothers in Christ again.

I was not attacking you. I was trying to show you. :)
Are you a RC?
If so, you still can't see it's a cult?

Can you serve God and the RC at the same time?

Tibby, you seem to be forgetting; you should only believe "history" that supports your preconcieved prejudices.  Forget common sense and academic credentials - go for the conspiracy theory every time.

Your heart is the the right place. But I have seen what you are showing me, and I have reseached it from both sides.



I am not Roman Catholic, I’m a member of a separate rite. But, being from South Louisiana, and knowing the history of the Church (the true history, not the revisionist garbage) I hold a special place for the RCC.



Of course. Why shoulding you be able to, Tony?



 ;) ;D ;D Thats right, I totally forgot  ;D Sorry guys, I was looking at all the angles. My bad... ;)

My ever-lovin'-word!  Can we get more biased?  Each portion posted here, though biased, is nonetheless based upon historical truth.  Were there members of the Nazi elite that were Catholic?  Yes.  Did the Catholic church support the Nazi regime.  Initially, yes.  Were there priests and supporters of catholicism persacuted under Nazi rule?  Yes.  

So what have we learned?  We're all human.  What may begin with good intent, may not end up in a good way.  Like the old adage says, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  Hitler was a sinner.  The Pope is a sinner.  I am a sinner.  Same boat.  Different prognosis of outcome.  

1Co 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

If the bread and wine are mere symbols we would have Paul here professing idolatry in that we could be damned by treating a mere symbol unworthily.  We know Paul did not practice idolatry andf we know that only by treating God unworthily are we at risk of damnation so the Jesus the Christ must be truly present in the bread and wine, or as He referred to them - His body and blood.

Here are some others from the early Church to show that was their understanding too.

"They (heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
 
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185
 
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119
 
"He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419
 
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:352

I have read the history of the Church and yes there were some mistakes made by members of the Church.  All that proves is that men sin.

But there are mistakes made by the members of all Churches and considering the Catholic Church has been around between 4 times and 100 times longer than most Protestant Churches the number of errors is relatively small.

Still those errors should be denounced and corrected and the Church does attempt this throughout it's history.  The thing to remember is that alot of the errors spread around by others are in fact not true, as in the case of your story of the relationship with Hitler you post below.  I will post the truth to disporve that old myth in another post directly answering yours so look for it to learn the truth.

I just don't see how a God fearing Christian can do the ones below:

the mass,
the veneration (of worship) of Mary,
when they throw away their rosaries and repent from claiming that Mary was free from original sin,
purgatory,
and when the priest of Rome concede to the priesthood of all believers etc...

And serve God too.
Yeah we all sin. But once that person knows its wrong they shouldn't do it anymore. Yet the RCC has/still does those above. They still do it today. In plain view.

Michael,

You have taken the passage you use for support out of context.  Consider the passage in full here:


You said:


The unworthy treatment isn't of the elements of the Lord's Supper (and the subsequent transubstantiation belief that you would come from), but of the body of Christ - the Church.  Contextually, you have people treating the rememberance of Christ's payment for our sin through the broken body and shed blood, as though it were simply a Baptist Fellowship!  Which, of course, always has food!  What's worse, is that they would do so when they were ready.  If a member of that local body came late, he had nothing with which to share because they'd ate it all already.  One was hungry, and another drunk.  Point being, Christ's body is not to treat it's members thusly!  Doing so, makes one unworthy of the sacrifice they claimed to be remembering when they ate those meals.  They then, profaned the blood and body of Christ, not only by incorrectly approaching that rememberance, but by doing so knowingly and without care by excluding members of that body from participating.  

Unfortunately, you will not agree with this.  Namely because the basis of your arguement is catholic dogma, tradition, and the quotes of those men you posted.  You can't twist the scriptures, my friend, to fit this teaching.

They didn't that is an old wives tale told by Catholic haters and anyone who knows history doesn't believe it.

I notice that none of your quotes have a reference to where they come from.  How is that you can trust that they are not made up?  How do you know that Hitler really said those things?  You don't unless you can verify the source.

Read the following and get a true representation of what was going on back then from an unbiased source.

++++++

Blaming the wartime pope for failing to stop the Holocaust from the Vatican is a neat bit of revisionist history.
Newsweek, March 30, 1998: By Kenneth L. Woodward
"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas.... He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all." --Editorial, The New York Times, Dec. 25, 1941

"A full exploration of Pope Pius's conduct is needed.... It now falls to John Paul and his successors to take the next step toward full acceptance of the Vatican's failure to stand squarely against the evil that swept across Europe." Editorial, The New York Times, March 18, 1998

How the times--and the Times--do change. During the second world war, Pope Pius XII was lauded for his singular efforts to halt the carnage. And for years after, he was praised for the church's efforts in saving an estimated 700,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps--mainly by issuing false baptismal certificates to Jews, disguising some in cassocks and hiding others in cloistered monasteries and convents. But last week, after the Vatican issued its long-awaited mea culpa for failing to do more, critics of the church greeted the Vatican's statement with the sound of one hand clapping. As the Times's editorial suggests, they are demanding nothing less than a moral outing by the Vatican of Pius XII.

Something shameful is going on. That Pius XII was silent in the face of the Holocaust; that he did little to help the Jews; that he was in fact pro-German if not pro-Nazi; that underneath it all he was anti-Semitic--all are monstrous calumnies that now seem to pass for accepted wisdom. Most of these accusations can be traced to a single originating source: "The Deputy," Rolf Hochhuth's 1963 play that created an image of Pius as moral coward. That Golda Meir, later a prime minister of Israel, and leaders of Jewish communities in Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Romania and the United States thanked the pope for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews is now considered irrelevant. That he never specifically condemned the Shoah is all that seems to matter.
In fact, Pius XII was neither silent nor inactive. As the Vatican's secretary of State in 1937, he drafted an encyclical for Pope Pius XI condemning Nazism as un-Christian. The document was then smuggled into Germany, secretly printed there in German and read from Roman Catholic pulpits. The Nazis responded by confiscating the presses and imprisoning many Catholics. In his 1942 Christmas message, which The New York Times among others extolled, the pope became the first figure of international stature to condemn what was turning into the Holocaust. Among other sins of the Nazis' New Order, he denounced the persecution "of hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction."

The Nazis understood the pope only too well. "His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for," declared the Gestapo. "Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews. He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

In February 1942, Protestant and Catholic leaders of Nazi-occupied Holland prepared a letter condemning the deportation of Jews to death camps in "the East." But only the Catholic bishops, "following the path indicated by our Holy Father," read the letter aloud from the pulpit despite threats from the Nazis. As a result, occupation forces swept Holland's Catholic convents, monasteries and schools, deporting all Jews who had converted to Christianity--something they had not done before. When word of this reached Rome, the pope withdrew a four-page protest he had written for the Vatican newspaper and burned it. As the 11 volumes on the war years published by the Vatican archives make clear, Jewish as well as Christian groups pleaded with the pope not to make a public protest because it would only intensify the Nazi persecution.

Stop just making claims from your supposed personal knowledge of the subject and provide some sources for these supposed concords and what they may have contained if in fact they did exist.  

Provide some proof of what you claim about the Pope's supposed relationship with the Russian Orthodox as they are far outside the mainstream understanding of anyone who is in or knows anything about the two Churches.

Provide an unbiased secular historian to support your fantasy stories about priests in uniform.

Or admit that you hate Catholics enough to spread lies about them without waiting for a shredd of substantiation.

Why give up if what you say is true?  Is it because he has been providing sources to back up his statements and you have been relying on us simply taking your word for it?


I suggest you read the history, but try reading it from an unbiased source.


Is that exactly 50% or more or less?  Or is this just another one of your wild claims that you really have no support for?

I saw your posts about understanding the Catholic Church and began to develop a response to their lengthy set of erroneous representations of what the Church really teaches, but then when I looked to post some of it your threads seemed to be gone.

I will offer to discuss any point your want to pull out of them or any concern you have about the teachings of the Catholic Church and either show you where you misunderstand what the Church really teaches or that it is actually in agreement with what is taught in the scriptures.

I am waiting and I will not give up on you.


I have and I will in front of you with quotes and referenced sources.  It won't be like you have done - making claims from darkness with no support.

Guess what - your saying there is historical truth in each of our posts doesn't mean it is so.  If someone wants to claim something about two organizations relationship in a derogatory fashion then they better be prepared to support it with unbiased references and no rely on it being common knowledge.  


That may or may not be true, but Tony was claiming much more than that - he was claiming that the Catholic elite sided with the Nazi's.


I claim that is a Protestant lie and challenge you to prove it with an independent secular source or stop spreading it and the hatred it engenders.

Ok.  Apparently you've missed the point.


Don't care.  Seriously!  Why is this such a big deal?  And did I ever claim to be the authoratative word of God?


And did I ever once agree with Tony?


Don't have a source.  Heard it in a documentary on the History Channel once.  And I'm not spreading hatred.  My point was that at that point in history, the Catholic Church didn't know what the Nazi regime was intending to do.  Many of the German people did not know what the Nazi regime was doing.  Yes, they had inclination, but no hard facts.  The people chose to close their eyes.  The Catholic Church simply attempted to keep an inroad to a highly unstable political situation.  I'm not saying they were supporting the Nazi's.  I'm saying that in the end, we are all sinners.

Maybe I did that is entirely possible but I still don't see it after this post.




No but your attempt at mediation (at least that is how I took it) seemed to indicate that both sides had a point.  I don't agree at least Tony never supported his in any way approaching a proof.  So for you to indicate that there were elite nazi's who were Catholics appeared to be a support of his unsupportable claim, that in turn there were elite catholics who were practically nazis.



Then you are going from memory and certainly should not be expressing it as a fact since your own memory may not be reliable and the source the history channel used may not be as good and reliabel as you once took it to be.


Yes to spread unsupportable untruths about any group is spreading hatred.  If you had said that the Jews controlled the banking system in the world and so prevented certain people from getting loans, that would be spreading rumors.  If you went further and admitted you had no source for it but a vague recollection of somebody on a tv show once said something like that then you would not be sure it was even true yourself and to spread a lie about someone is to spread hatred.


That point did not come out and I will take your word for the fact that, that is what you intended.   Though even this claim is questionable as the Catholic Church came out very early against the Nazis.


Oh but that is exactly what you said in your previous post.

You said - "Did the Catholic church support the Nazi regime.  Initially, yes."

But like I said once you explained it more fully I see what you intended and do not have as much a problem with your statements as I had initially.

Michael, do you ever stop listening to yourself long enough to hear the other guy?  Why are you insisting that I am bashing the Catholic church?  All I said was that they attempted to not abandon their followers in Germany, and so kept the...


Unless, of course, you propose that the Catholic Church would drop their followers like hotcakes in such a political environment to show their disagreement with that regime's idealogy...


Forgive me.  Didn't realize we were in the process of reshaping history here... ::)


So instead, I should swallow the Catholic side of things, as that is the only believable truth, and spread that alone?  BTW, I do take offense at your concept of my "spreading" hate.  Your opinion.  NOT[/b] fact.  You yourself said...


I attempted to mediate a ridiculous argument between proposed brothers in Christ.  And yes.  Both sides do have a point.  The problem is that both sides are so adamantly biased in their viewpoints that they see no other viewpoint.  "No Catholic could ever have been a Nazi!" "ALL Catholics helped stoke the ovens in Auschwitz!"  (Made those up...ok?)  Do you have any idea how biased you both sound? And in attempting to put this into perspective, I've been lumped in with the Catholic haters.  Again Michael, do you ever stop talking long enough to hear the other guy?  Because you have not heard me.  You've proceeded with your preconceived notion of what I'm saying.  You've heard neither what I've said, nor the demeanor in which they were said.

Yes I do that is why I always quote the other individual and address my response to that quote.


Because you are perpetuating untruths and refuse to document them with a source or else abandon them.


If you will note once you explained that was your intended meaning I said I did not have a problem with that.  But that is not how your post started out.


No the goal is not to reshape it, that is why when one accuses another of an historical misdeed we need to do more than rely on our memory.  Too many of the prejudices aroudn today originated from people generalizing from their memory or personal experience.


No you should not repeat anything you cannot defend or support with unbiased references, like I did with the newsweek article and like Tony did not.

The old adage of if you have nothing intelligent to say keep your mouth shut so no one will know could easily be extended to if you have nothing verifiable to say then don't say anything.  That simple rule would prevent a world of prejudices from forming.


One of the first lessons in understanding prejudice is that those who are being prejudiced against get to decide when it is occurring.  You cannot rely on those doing the hating to ever recognize it or admit it.  So my and other Catholic's opinion makes it fact.


It is possible that the other side has a point but it is not a foregone conclusion.  Until Tony provides some proof (or you do for that matter) I am not willing to concede even that much, because you find that what you have conceded to in the past has a way of rearing its ugly head under a different form and stated differently and more viciously with the proviso that you can't possibly disagree as you have already accepted this as true.  That is why your hinting that elite nazis were Catholics tended to support Tony's claim that elite Catholics were nazis.  A slippery slope to be sure but still one to be avoided.


I admit my bias that is why I never ask anyone to take my word for anything.  I always provide a source to back up my cliams.  Similarly if someone else provides a source to support their claim I will look at it and if it is unbiased and reliable I will see their side of the argument.  Tony not only didn't provide an unbiased source, nor a reliable source, he didn't provide a source at all.  So from my point of view their is no other side to the argument except one based on personal opinion, bias and hatred.


You were "lumped in" because you hold to an opinion that is derogatory toward the Church and admit you have no support for it.  That is the basis of all prejudice and prejudice is hatred.


I have heard what you said as is evidenced by my replies being directly aimed at specific quotes from your posts.  On the other hand your characterizations of me have not been based on any quotes from my posts, prefering instead to claim some underlying tone in my messages as proof of these characterizations without providing even examples of them.

Finally, I do grant that I may have missed the demeanor of your posts and am sorry for that (an I admitted it in a previous post which you seem to have conveniently forgotten) but it is often hard to get that from a written message.  But not all of your posts were about calming the disagreement, you weighed in with your own opinion in places and offered no more support for it than did Tony and by that you have affected the tone of your message to one side, the side that is antiCatholic without basis.  I hope you can see that as well as I can see the intended demeanor of your posts.

My reply to most of waht you said would have be be "So... that doesn't prove one way or the other that they are CHristian" Now, with that last comment, you have provne your lake of knowledge of the Catholic Church. You see, the term "Priest" given to clergy is just that, a term. This doesn't mean the Laymen aren't part of the priesthood of believers. There are Clergy Priest, and layman, who still act as the holy priesthood of christ.

By the way, veneration and worship are to different things. Stop blowing thing our your nose and calling them facts. Have you ever bothers to ASK a Catholic about these things? Or does all your info come from anti-Catholic hate-mongers?



Ok, then I ask you one question. WHY? In a court of law, Motive isn’t required for conviction, but this is a logical debate, and logical dictate we draw motive for this. What reason would the Roman Catholic Have to following things that you claim go against the teachings of Christ? Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd? It seem kind of counter productive? Do you then they just make up things for the fun of it? DO you thiink the Pope sat around and said to his Cardenials:

"Hey guys, lets start saying the lord's supper is the body and blood of Christ, but you gotcha8 off the Protestants! And to make it worst, lets tell them we believe that we always thought this!"

I find it hard to believe they just made mass up because a few Bishops were board.

I suggest again that would talk to a few Catholics in a friendly setting before you run off and are running your mouth again. I’d be happy to explain it all on PM, if you would be willing to listen.  I’m sure your local Priest would be more then happy to set a date with you and talk about the RCC, and about the issue you have about it. Get both sides.

Can you partake of the Lord's Supper with Catholics?
Yes   2 (22%)
No   7 (77%)
     
Total Votes: 9  

I wonder who voted yes>>>>>>>>>LOL ;D

Thats one of lifes big mysteries, ain't it? Oh, some mysteries may never be solved. ;D

I certainly hope it wasn't the Catholics as they should never encourage anyone to bring down judgement on themselves for receiving unworthily, not discerning the body and blood of our Lord.

I know I voted no.

Michael.  You are a blithering baffoon.  Sorry.  But that's the truth.  You see what you want and fail to accept what is truth.  I'm done with you.

Truly, these words were posted by a man who know all about this issue. ::) :P ;D

I still love you, Allinall ;D

Ya know what Tib?  I love you too man!  Imagine that.  And you're a Catholic!   :D  Oooooh fine.  I suppose I should ask forgiveness from Michael and all y'all for my childish tantrum.  Will you all forgive me?

Aw, no problem, bro. :)

Mysteries??

2 Th 2
7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

While it may be a mystery to some; It is no secret to believers who believe all that is written.



Petro

Mr. Tibbs wrote:

Ahh - Brother Tibby;  I think that may have been better stated:
"Oh, some mysteries may never be solved while we still reside outside of heaven."

Sooooo many "Earthly" mysteries will be made clear to us when we are in His presence...
It just makes you want to jump up with a big Halleluiah!   ;D

And here I was, thinking sarcasm didn’t have to be semantically correct! ;D :P

AllInAll,

I forgive you - but you don't need my forgiveness.  

You will have to do a lot worse to really get to me.  I was hardly offended at what you said.  

A blithering buffoon is a step above alot of the things I have been called.   ;D

I am more concerned with people misconceptions of the teachings of the Catholic Church than I am about how they feel about me.  I am completely aware of how I come off sometimes and so peoples reactions are never a suprise to me.  

Believe it or not, I do try to be more sensitive in my responses, but find it hard to convey my disagreement with an idea in written correspondence without resorting to absolutes in rebuttal; when in polite face to face conversation I would not have to be so adament.  

So forgive me too if I have seemed overbearing in my defense.

I think your pushing it now  ;D Take the apology, that might be a good as it gets ;D ;D ;D lol j/k

Everything seems to get re-hashed here at one point or another. The following will hopefully clarify some of the misunderstandings about the papacy during WWII. I highly recommend doing searches on the names mentioned and profiling the individuals. You'll find it well documented and substantiated. It is written by Jimmy Akin:

On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Eugenio Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."[iii] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.

The Germans were likewise displeased with the reigning pontiff, Pius XI, who showed himself to be a unrelenting opponent of the new German "ideals"—even writing an entire encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), to condemn them. When Pius XI died in 1939, the Nazis abhorred the prospect that Pacelli might be elected his successor.

Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "[iv]

Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[v]
A few weeks after Pacelli was elected pope, the German Reich’s Chief Security Service issued a then-secret report on the new Pope. Rabbi Lapide provides an excerpt:

"Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press."[vi]

Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XI’s defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."[vii]

The Pope secretly worked to save as many Jewish lives as possible from the Nazis, whose extermination campaign began its most intense phase only after the War had started. It is here that the anti-Catholics try to make their hay: Pius XII is charged either with cowardly silence or with outright support of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews.

Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction—a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth.

The play appeared in 1963, and it painted a portrait of a pope too timid to speak out publicly against the Nazis. Ironically, even Hochhuth admitted that Pius XII was materially very active in support of the Jews. Historian Robert Graham explains: "Playwright Rolf Hochhuth criticized the Pontiff for his (alleged) silence, but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XII generously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today, after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sided presentation offered the public, the word ‘silence’ has taken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for ‘indifference,’ ‘apathy,’ ‘inaction,’ and, implicitly, for anti-Semitism."[viii]

Hochhuth’s fictional image of a silent (though active) pope has been transformed by the anti-Catholic rumor mill into the image of a silent and inactive pope—and by some even into an actively pro-Nazi monster. If there were any truth to the charge that Pius XII was silent, the silence would not have been out of moral cowardice in the face of the Nazis, but because the Pope was waging a subversive, clandestine war against them in an attempt to save Jews.

"The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who keenly felt the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to ‘an unknown destination.’ "[ix] The negative consequences of speaking out strongly were only too well known.

"In one tragic instance, the Archbishop of Utrecht was warned by the Nazis not to protest the deportation of Dutch Jews. He spoke out anyway and in retaliation the Catholic Jews of Holland were sent to their death. One of them was the Carmelite philosopher, Edith Stein."


While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.

The desire to keep a low profile was expressed by the people Pius XII helped. A Jewish couple from Berlin who had been held in concentration camps but escaped to Spain with the help of Pius XII, stated: "None of us wanted the Pope to take an open stand. We were all fugitives, and fugitives do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had protested, Rome would have become the center of attention. It was better that the Pope said nothing. We all shared this opinion at the time, and this is still our conviction today."[xi]

While the U.S., Great Britain, and other countries often refused to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate during the war, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. What is more, the financial aid Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars—dollars even more valuable then than they are now.

In late 1943, Mussolini, who had been at odds with the papacy all through his tenure, was removed from power by the Italians, but Hitler, fearing Italy would negotiate a separate peace with the Allies, invaded, took control, and set up Mussolini again as a puppet ruler. It was in this hour, when the Jews of Rome themselves were threatened—those whom the Pope had the most direct ability to help—that Pius XII really showed his mettle.

Joseph Lichten records that on September 27, 1943, one of the Nazi commanders demanded of the Jewish community in Rome payment of one hundred pounds of gold within thirty-six hours or three hundred Jews would be taken prisoner. When the Jewish Community Council was only able to gather only seventy pounds of gold, they turned to the Vatican.

"In his memoirs, the then Chief Rabbi Zolli of Rome writes that he was sent to the Vatican, where arrangements had already been made to receive him as an ‘engineer’ called to survey a construction problem so that the Gestapo on watch at the Vatican would not bar his entry. He was met by the Vatican treasurer and secretary of state, who told him that the Holy Father himself had given orders for the deficit to be filled with gold vessels taken from the Treasury."[xii]

Pius XII also took a public stance concerning the Jews of Italy: "The Pope spoke out strongly in their defense with the first mass arrests of Jews in 1943, and L’Osservatore Romano carried an article protesting the internment of Jews and the confiscation of their property. The Fascist press came to call the Vatican paper ‘a mouthpiece of the Jews.’ "[xiii]

Prior to the Nazi invasion, the Pope had been working hard to get Jews out of Italy by emigration; he now was forced to turn his attention to finding them hiding places. "The Pope sent out the order that religious buildings were to give refuge to Jews, even at the price of great personal sacrifice on the part of their occupants; he released monasteries and convents from the cloister rule forbidding entry into these religious houses to all but a few specified outsiders, so that they could be used as hiding places. Thousands of Jews—the figures run from 4,000 to 7,000—were hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses. Unknown numbers of Jews were sheltered in Castel Gandolfo, the site of the Pope’s summer residence, private homes, hospitals, and nursing institutions; and the Pope took personal responsibility for the care of the children of Jews deported from Italy."[xiv]

Rabbi Lapide records that "in Rome we saw a list of 155 convents and monasteries—Italian, French, Spanish, English, American, and also German—mostly extraterritorial property of the Vatican . . . which sheltered throughout the German occupation some 5,000 Jews in Rome. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo; sixty lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and half a dozen slept in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute."[xv]

Notice in particular that the Pope was not merely allowing Jews to be hidden in different church buildings around Rome. He was hiding them in the Vatican itself and in his own summer home, Castel Gandolfo. His success in protecting Italian Jews against the Nazis was remarkable. Lichten records that after the War was over it was determined that only 8,000 Jews were taken from Italy by the Nazis[xvi] —far less than in other European countries. In June,1944, Pius XII sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, and was able to halt the planned deportation of 800,000 Jews from that country.

The Pope’s efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."[xvii]

Other Jewish leaders chimed in also. Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, sent a note of thanks to the papal nuncio on April 7, 1944: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."[xviii]

The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, also made a statement of thanks: "What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism."[xix]

After the war, Zolli became a Catholic and, to honor the Pope for what he had done for the Jews and the role he had played in Zolli’s conversion, took the name "Eugenio"—the Pope’s given name—as his own baptismal name. Zolli stressed that his conversion was for theological reasons, which was certainly true, but the fact that the Pope had worked so hard on behalf of the Jews no doubt played a role in inspiring him to look at the truths of Christianity.

Lapide writes: "When Zolli accepted baptism in 1945 and adopted Pius’s Christian name of Eugene, most Roman Jews were convinced that his conversion was an act of gratitude for wartime succor to Jewish refugees and, repeated denials not withstanding, many are still of his opinion. Thus, Rabbi Barry Dov Schwartz wrote in the summer issue, 1964, of Conservative Judaism: ‘Many Jews were persuaded to convert after the war, as a sign of gratitude, to that institution which had saved their lives.’ "[xx]

In Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII’s throwing the Church’s weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, "The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000."[xxi] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

This fact continued to be recognized when Pius XII died in 1958. Lapide’s book records the eulogies of a number of Jewish leaders concerning the Pope, and far from agreeing with Jack Chick that he deserved death because of his "war crimes," Jewish leaders praised the man highly:[xxii]

"We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims" (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).

"With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history” (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

"More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror" (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion).

Finally, let us conclude with a quotation from Lapide’s record that was not given at the death of Pius XII, but was given after the War by the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."[xxiii]

My thanks!  And...been there.  Been called those.   ;D
 

I forgive ya.   :)  We all get that way sometimes my friend.  And again.  Been there... :)

Wow, this just isn't true.  

I know you wrote this over a year ago, and I haven't honestly read the entire thread, but I can't walk away from such an outrageous misconception.  

First, neither one is a "symbol."  It's the real mystical body and blood of Christ.  The Eucharist is not something that represents Jesus.  It IS Jesus.  This concept can be hard for us to wrap our minds around, but it's the reality of it.

Second,  Communicants take part in both the body and blood.  Some churches don't have enough eucharistic ministers to distribute it at all masses, and so there are masses where it's not available, but it's just plain wrong to say the priest is the only one who gets the wine.  I get it at mass every day of the week.  It always saddens me when this kind of misunderstanding is spoken as if it were absolute truth.  I hope this isn't something your pastor has taught you, Ollie, because whoever told you this is misinformed.  

When the wine is not given out at communion, the reason is logistical, not doctrinal.

"It always saddens me when this kind of misunderstanding is spoken as if it were absolute truth.  I hope this isn't something your pastor has taught you, Ollie, because whoever told you this is misinformed."

No a pastor has not told me this. It is not a misunderstanding. There are ways to learn other than word of mouth or hearsay. I experienced it in the Roman Catholic Church. The lay people got bread, not the juice of the fruit of the vine. The priest only took that.

Welcome to the site. Nice to have you.
ollie

Goodness Gracious...This poll is running 4-8 AGAINST :o

And I thought I had a big problem with Catholics.

By Lord's Supper I'm assuming the poll means Communion.

What's wrong with taking communion with a Catholic?

Phil -
I think it's the other way around - I don't have a problem with taking communion with a Catholic - but as a protestant, I'm forbidden Catholic communion unless I convert.

At least that's how I always understood it.  ???

The only rule for accepting communion where I worship is to be right with Jesus.  You could be a purple two-headed non-practicing homosexual tattooed anomaly from the deepest jungles of Lower Ecuador (Catholic) and you’re welcome to communion in our house – as long as you’re right with the Lord.  :)
JN

Hmmm...I've been to Catholic weddings and funerals, but now that you mention it, I don't remember them offering Communion. I know you have to get baptisted to be wed in a Catholic Church (both my brothers did), but I hadn't realized about Communion.

I guess the Catholics are a racist lot! ::)