I agree with most of this, but it seems rather a glaring omission, especially on the topic on menstruation and the reception of communion, on the part of Mr. Ford, that he misreads the prohibitions given to Christians at the council in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15:20 which lists food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals AND BLOOD. The logic of the prohibition of receiving communion during menstruation is along the lines of the prohibition of receiving it if the communicant has had sexual relations the previois night. Neither are related to personal culpability per se, but that there is a direct connection between death and the emission of either semen or menstrual blood, and that since death is contrary to life, the two should not mix in the Eucharistic supper. You will not see communion offered at a memorial service for similar reasons. Jewish laws of ritual impurity had a basis in spiritual reality, and it is clear that retaining the prohibitions listed above is meant as a reduction to the essentials, not as a rejection. Also, the relationship between husband and wife most resembles that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father just as Eve proceeded from the side of Adam. The ontological unity between them is equivalent to the ontological unity of the Father and Son, as Trinitarian theology reveals, so St. John's statement is still correct, but slightly open to gay and pedo interpretations which we can clearly see that most of the Catholic clergy has liberally imbibed.
📙 FREE eBOOK on the wisdom of modern Orthodox Christian elders:
social.protectingveil.com/freebook1
I agree with most of this, but it seems rather a glaring omission, especially on the topic on menstruation and the reception of communion, on the part of Mr. Ford, that he misreads the prohibitions given to Christians at the council in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15:20 which lists food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals AND BLOOD. The logic of the prohibition of receiving communion during menstruation is along the lines of the prohibition of receiving it if the communicant has had sexual relations the previois night. Neither are related to personal culpability per se, but that there is a direct connection between death and the emission of either semen or menstrual blood, and that since death is contrary to life, the two should not mix in the Eucharistic supper. You will not see communion offered at a memorial service for similar reasons. Jewish laws of ritual impurity had a basis in spiritual reality, and it is clear that retaining the prohibitions listed above is meant as a reduction to the essentials, not as a rejection. Also, the relationship between husband and wife most resembles that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father just as Eve proceeded from the side of Adam. The ontological unity between them is equivalent to the ontological unity of the Father and Son, as Trinitarian theology reveals, so St. John's statement is still correct, but slightly open to gay and pedo interpretations which we can clearly see that most of the Catholic clergy has liberally imbibed.
???!
the words are of deep meaning, but the reality is a disaster.
No