Featured What the RCC endorses

Well that's appalling.

But what can you expect from an apostate church that believes Christ is re-sacrificed week after week...

 

It is not a re-crucifixion of Christ or 're-sacrifice, it is a representation of the one sacrifice 2,000 years ago. The Early Church Fathers spoke of it frequently. If you really want to learn what it is: http://www.catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ


As to what Donhue said of Black Jesus, he didn't exactly condone it, did he? He said it had SOME redeeming qualifies. “If the goal is to lure young people to take a closer look at Jesus, the Son of God, that is noble,” he said, Newsmax reported. “But if so, it is not a good sociological sign: Must we debase Jesus to make him real?
Not exactly an endorsement. And the Catholic Church has said nothing about it. No statement at all. DHK's assertion that the RCC endorses this is a not at all accurate. The Catholic League is NOT the Catholic Church. It is an organization made up of Catholics. And, again the Catholic League is not actually endorsing it.

 

I will not debate the Catholic Eucharist. I have learned enough of it and my opinion of it's utterly blasphemous quality will not be changed.

On the topic of the OP: No he did not explicitly endorse it, yet he said there could be something good, "some redeeming qualities", coming from such blasphemy. To "lure young people" to look at Christ in such a vile way is not at all something to praise. And yes the CL is not an official part of the RCC, in that way the OP was wrong, however the CL has close ties to the RCC.

 

Well, if you really learned 'enough about it' you would not have made the false statement about 're-sacrificing Christ each week'. You know what you WANT to believe about it and will keep that view regardless of the facts. Perfect!

 

I think it is wrong and shows that people have no respect for Jesus. What will help people is contained in the bible.

 

Actually, the Mass IS Jesus being recrucified each time during the sacrament, as that is said to be his literal body and blood. correct?

 

Did you check out the link I provided? It is explained well. No, Jesus is not re-crucified each time during the mass. Re-presentation is not re-sacrifice or re-crucified.

 

What will help people is the gift of the HS. That must come prior to preaching, prior to reading scripture....the indwelling the indwelling.

See the devil knows the Bible .... athiests even read it. Its inert matter without the Spirit and his guidence.....then it comes alive. Isn't that fascinating!

 

Interesting. Unfortunately you are not telling the whole story which makes your comment misleading lets look at the actual comment.

So it is clear that this group does not have an issue portraying Jesus as a black man (because Jesus is for everyone though in actuality he was a Judean probably similar to Arab looking peoples of today. I think the only people who might have a problem with that is the Anglo-Israelism type people) But they certainly have an issue with the mix bag of debasing his character to make him interesting to people. Also in my opinion I believe that this television program not only is sacrilegious but racist by insinuating that black people can only relate to a Jesus that reflects the broken down dregs of inner city black communities. Not only does it demean Jesus but black people as well.

 

And does he also agree with the RCC that if any, like we Baptists, deny that truth, they will be damned?

 

Why would you ask such a question as that to a Catholic?

 

What does taking the mass do for you the shed blood of jesus was not able to do?

 

I think you are trying to combine two separate and distinct events. Transubstantiation occurs when the bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of Christ. The sacrifice of the mass occurs afterward, when these elements are received and consumed by the faithful. In some cases it's hours or days later.

Where Walter said, "It is a representation of the one sacrifice," it may be a little confusing due to "representation" being a homograph. He is not talking about representation, which is the noun counterpart of the verb "represent." Rather he is talking about representation as being a presentation of the same event over and over. It helps if you write is as "re-presentation."

 

More than that, its heresy, as it conflicts with hebrews, about that once and for all time sacrifice?