Featured What the RCC endorses

The elements turn into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus; but the mass is a bloodless sacrifice. This seems to be utterly contradictory nonsense.

The basic problem is our jargon has different meanings going through different paradigms. The important words have different meanings based on different dictionaries, encyclopedias and the traditions of men.

If the standard is the Word of God and the traditions of men, we really have no basis for a rational discussion. This is why "scripture only" is the first point of order.

Errors of doctrine depend on traditions of men to be added to Scripture, which is unique as the source for sound doctrine. Sola Scriptura existed long before Luther tried to reform Rome. Curious: early translators of the Scripture into the common vernacular were executed and their works burned. Somebody was covering up something. The truth of this debate is readily available on the internet. The holy see has confessed to a few of these atrocities.

"God is not the author of confusion"

"Let God be found true, and every man a liar."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

These three sections of the Catechism (emphasis added by me) would tend to show that Walter knows what he is talking about.

 

I didn't expect you to agree with the Catechism but at least you could show Walter the courtesy of acknowledging that he gave a correct portrayal of the doctrine.

 

Which part of the double-speak is correct? This is still a black is white issue.

How many ways can one interpret: "This do in remembrance of Me"?

God is not the author of confusion.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Actually the Catechism says it very well.

 

...back to the corrupted writings of men--not good source documents. The Word of God has not changed. How many times has the Baltimore catechism changed? I was catechized under Pius XII. The rules changed since Vatican II. In fact, there is a group which contends Vatican II and the popes since Vatican II are apostate usurpers without divine sanction.

Will the real holy see please stand up? Now what? Then there are those Orthodox in Istanbul, aka Constantinople. They say none of them folks in Rome got the keys of heaven. Everyone cannot be right--we could all be wrong. Who got the keys that fit the lock?

The mystery of iniquity is already at work.

Will our religion get us through to heaven?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

It is either "presenting" it again and again literally and actually or it is presenting it non-literally and representative. Which is it? If it is actual and literal then it is a re-sacrifice over and over again. If it is non-literal and representative then it is merely figurative representation over and over. Scriptures do not rely upon Greek Philosophy for proper interpretation. When Jesus said "I am the door" that is not a matter of Greek philosophy but purely a common metaphor used in all languages.

Therefore, the mass cannot provide life for anyone then, as the shedding of blood is a metaphorical statement that means his blood was shed UNTO DEATH or else there is no giving of life as the life is only in the blood SHED UNTO DEATH. Hence, if the mass is not Christ dying again and again, neither can the mass be his "sacrifice" or be His blood being shed again and again. Literal life comes from literal shedding of blood UNTO DEATH. Since Rome denies the mass is Christ literally dying again and again, it equally denies the mass is his sacrifice of his life or giving of life.

A "living sacrifice" NEVER sheds his literal blood UNTO DEATH (Rom. 12:1) but Christ shed his blood UNTO DEATH. A living sacrifice is "an unbloody" sacrifice but such a sacrifice cannot save anyone or provide salvation for anyone as "THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD" meaning blood SHED UNTO DEATH!

So the whole doctrine of the mass is a self-contradiction or oxymoron as there can be no life imparted where there is no literal blood shed unto death, and no "unbloody sacrifice" can impart life!

 

Even though it disagrees with the scriptures even?

And what is lacking in the sacrifice of jesus for our sins that has to be supplemented to/added to in the mass?

If one rejects that as being the literal body and blood, and denies that it has ANY effectual grace in it, are they not damned per RCC teachings?

 

Walter,
when I was a catholic I didn't have a clue what that meant, you are correct.
Then one day I woke up (the HOLY SPIRIT woke me up!), I started to read the Bible and compare scripture to "what the church teaches".....the rest is history, I joined a bible believing Baptist church and I am NO longer a catholic.

 

One day I woke up (the Holy Spirit woke me up!), I started to read the bible and compare scripture to what my Baptist church taught me. I joined the Church that compiled the New Testament. Now I'm Catholic. So there we go!

 

what did your Baptist church teach you that was unbiblical?

 

The Church of Rome did NOT give to us the Bible though...

And its doctrines do not line up in agreement with the Bible either!

 

You can say that again and again and again!!! Yea!!! :jesus::applause:

 

A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Settled by who? The Holy Catholic Church!!!! Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?" Guess what Church decided upon the 27 books of YOUR New Testament? Facts are Facts. This is why you guys really HATE early Church history.

 

The Catholic church claims to "confect the body AND divinity of Christ" in the mass. The RCC claims that the priest does not lose his "powers" to confect the body of Christ and forgive sins - even if he is excommunicated for heresy.

The RCC claims that the "new covenant" is limited to the Catholic Mass.

The RCC claims in the book "the Faith Explained" to "worship a piece of bread" IF it is true that the bread is not turned into the actual body and divinity of Christ by the priest.

This is wayy more than a "song of praise and thanksgiving" by their own claims.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There was no such Christian agreement in the first century NOT to read the letters of John and Paul etc - as if they were intent on waiting until some supposed future century when the RCC might come along and "inform" them what to read.

in fact Peter said that people were already reading Paul's letters as "scripture".

The idea that people waited around a few centuries for the RCC to tell them what to read - is bogus.