«12. . .2,5062,5072,5082,5092,5102,5112,512. . .2,5142,515»
Hey just want to know when does the Easter vigil end
Awwwwww😭😭😭😭please stay
Yep it it also very sorrowful😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Well, it’s pretty self explanatory. We are a region devoted to the idea that life is precious, and abortion, in all or most cases, must come to an end.
Phydios, Vendellamoore, and Ineva
I think Abortion if your either under 18 or absolutely need to, to save your life, yes should be allowed. but not anyother scenario
Christ is risen from the dead,
trampling down death by death,
and upon those in the tombs
bestowing life!
Happy Easter to all! I have just entered this region with my nation. How are things going?
We thank you for your Stay at RTL, We will miss you.
I hope you change your Mind and come back, fellow friend.
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, Ineva, and Alpine Arc
The simple answer is that Christ used wine.
Do you have a more complicated answer?
I am a Catholic and have a degree in theology from a Catholic faculty. I will take the liberty of giving an answer, although it will certainly not be of the length and detail appropriate to the subject matter. If anyone would like to add something to the answer, or correct me (considering that I am talking about Catholic doctrine), you are welcome.
The main point is precisely that Jesus used wine at the Last Supper. For that reason, the use of wine has always been adhered to since the early Church. At most, you may find it helpful to know that the Catholic Church considers several passages in the Old Testament to be prefigurations of the Eucharist. Of these, the most obvious example is the offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek in the Book of Genesis.
Recently, the use of must has been permitted under certain circumstances in cases of necessity (e.g. the cases of certain priests with a history of alcoholism), but the must does not have to be pasteurised to remove the alcohol, and consequently contains a certain amount of alcohol and is essentially wine. This is not a modern opening ... Thomas Aquinas already stated that must could be used in this way.
Christos anesti! A pleasant surprise to see the Paschal Troparion.
It's because Jesus instituted the sacrament with wine, not grape juice. It's the same reason we use bread and not crackers. He used bread and wine, and so we use it. Another adjacent idea is saying we can baptize people in tea since it has water in it. But should we? No, we shouldn't. Christ used water. Now, if alcoholism is a concern, using a low concentration of alcohol is more permissible than using pasteurized grape juice. My church offers grape juice but I don't use it.
Not sure if you'll see this but I'm heartbroken to see you go, even if I myself am around very seldomly, it was a true pleasure getting to know you and I can't thank you enough for your contribution to the region. As I've grown up many organizations I've been a part of have become dormant and some have ceased altogether as life takes hold and the free time of youth fades away, and while RTL still has a lovely community the overarching point is that regardless of any individual group coming and going, or someone's leaving or staying, none of the larger movements these are a part of have faded, instead they live and grow as we live and grow, and sometimes that growth is in the shedding of old organizations for new ones that better cater to current situations/lifestyle. I hope, in your personal life, another group better able to situate itself in your life can give your pro-life views a home to be nurtured and shared. I know we will all miss you, it's been fun. May God continually keep you and bless you. I will hope God let's our paths cross if you're ever in New Brunswick again, but if not, I hope you will at least say a little prayer for me, and I will try to remember you in my prayers if I ever get to the southern US.
Using that argument, you could make a case against sprinkle baptism, because Christ and his followers did baptism through immersion.
There's no Biblical evidence that Baptism was only immersion. The Didache (written during the time of the Apostles) shows that the early church was already doing sprinkling and pouring Baptism. There is also a verse in scripture, I think Mark 7 (?) which speaks of the Pharisees "washing" their dining couches. The word is the same word for Baptism, Baptizo. The Pharisees absolutely weren't dunking their couches in water. Baptism simply means to wash, it does not mean just mean to immerse.
Another Byzantine Rite enjoyer? I attended the last Italian-Albanian Catholic monastery in Italy for a while. Powerful stuff.
Southern Baptist here. We believe that immersion (of the believer) is the only Scriptural method of baptism, for two reasons:
- The Greek word "baptizó" means "to dip, submerge, immerse in water". Some claim a meaning of "wash", but that does not line up with the second point...
- Baptism is a symbol by which believers publicly profess their joining in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. While pouring and sprinkling may symbolize washing, they cannot symbolize burial and resurrection. Only being "buried" in water and brought up out of it can do that.
Romans 6:3-4
https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm
https://www.gotquestions.org/purpose-of-baptism.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-mode.html
Alpine Arc gave a good answer that hits on the main reason - still, I'll try to elaborate on it (again from a Catholic perspective). With any sacrament, you need 3 things: Form, Matter, and Intent. Form is what is said and done and matter is whatever is required to be present. As an example, for a baptism you would use this form: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” - it would not be valid to use simply "in Jesus name" ala Oneness Pentecostals. The matter would be water - again, it wouldn't be valid if you used club soda instead. We specify to this level to preserve the integrity of the symbolic function of the sacrament. Because the sacraments are physical signs of the spiritual results brought about by their enactment, they must use materials with a fitting symbolic value—both on the natural level and within the context of Scripture. For instance, only plain water can be used for baptism, since baptism brings about spiritual cleansing from original sin and regeneration unto the new life of sanctifying grace—two results that are most aptly represented by the washing and restorative (or life-giving) properties of water.
The matter of the Eucharist is the bread, made from wheat, and unspoiled wine. The form is the words Christ spoken by the priest at consecration. Also, the transition to grape juice came about within the 19th century in a specifically American Protestant context. Up to that point, no Christian community (to my knowledge) used anything other wine. Lastly, someone who doesn't come from a Protestant tradition views Holy Communion/Eucharist as a sacrifice, not a mere symbol alone - for that reason, we use wine in continuity with OT figures like Melchizedek. Typologically, using grape juice for Communion would be inferior to the OT type --> while Christian believers accept that the Eucharist far surpasses any/all sacrifices offered in the OT time period.
I envy you. I'm a Roman Catholic who's been attending a local Byzantine Rite parish for awhile. I'm considering the possibility of canonically switching over (we'll see!) It's quite difficult to find a Byzantine Rite parish here in the South - whether Catholic or Orthodox.
I'm a christian princess but nobody cares
I’m a Christian monarchist, so I wouldn’t say that nobody cares.
Alpine Arc and Briarlands
Thank you for agreeing with me
There are also practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden or quadriplegics. Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them?
To 
Vendellamoore's point, the Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already-established custom. Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]).
Finally, much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not solely baptism by immersion. If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.
Stay strong, princess 💪🏻
It's alright, your highness. I'm a Christian as well. You are welcomed here.
«12. . .2,5062,5072,5082,5092,5102,5112,512. . .2,5142,515»
Advertisement
