Peter 1st Pope

Im sorry you dont like them , you certainly dont have to read them however I happen to agree with what I post . What fruit of the Spirit would that tone you and Catholicconvert take with people here be , as I am unfamiliar with it . The rock (lowercase) of abraham was faith , not abraham the man , it was his faith in God , like the foundation was peters confession of faith in Christ - the foundation itself being Christ but the building block was faith in the gospel , all EARLY church Fathers agree - please see the link to the Fathers I posted earlier . Paul even states that one does not say they are of this man or of that man but of Christ. Peter called Christ the rock as well . Please read context . Just because your church says its so , doesnt mean its so .

 

Certainly not and shame on your implication of such since what I meant is what I said . Tell me why internet Catholic apologists have to twist what everyone says ? Please read my post untill you understand what I said instead of putting words in my mouth and if you cannot be respectful to me , please dont look for any further response from me .

 

Perhaps a message I wrote a few months ago would be good for you to read, which I will paste-in here:

NOTE: Where you see">>" and ">" denotes quoting from a previous conversation...

THE EUCHARIST

What does Chapter 6 start out with? The multiplication of the loaves (and fishes) of course! By performing the miracle of multiplying this small bit of food (certainly against nature, I am sure you would agree) I propose to you that Jesus was setting them up for what was to occur later (and why John wrote his gospel the way he did.) Jesus is speaking of food. As we have previously discussed, we both agree that by this act, Jesus further establishes His own divinity. He "credibility" of being who He is claiming is reinforced. Which means that what he says further must have greater weight.

(And in between, we have Jesus "walking on water" in the discourse that has Jesus traveling with his companions to Capernaum, across the Sea of Galilee.

And then guess what? The crowds came in boats to follow to where Jesus was! They were interested in what He had to say! Is He indeed, the Messiah? Is He who He is claiming to be. And just maybe he will "feed us again" is performing another miracle! (I'm setting this all up for what I am about to say here.)

In verses 24 thru 26, we read (Taken from the Catholic NAB):

[blockquote]When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. And when they found him across the sea they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus answered them and said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled."[/blockquote]

Notice that the theme of food is still with us....

Reading further, we notice that Jesus takes the opportunity to speak of not working for food that perishes but for food that "endures for eternal life" (verse 27) in what I consider a most skillful "easing-in" of a profundity that will be rejected by many. But here is how He does it:

Verses 32-33:

[blockquote]So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life tro the world."[/blockquote]

Christ goes all the way back to the Old Testament to see a foreshadowing of what is to come as the "true bread."

Notice further that there is nothing that can be taken literally here. The natural tendency is to see this "bread" as a metaphor for "something that will save us" most likely Christ Himself.

And as we well see, nothing truer then "Christ Himself" can be said!

In verse 35 of John chapter 6, we read:

[blockquote]...whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.[/blockquote]

Now, what do we see starting with verse 41?

[blockquote]The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."[/blockquote]

...and they go on to note that they knew him from his youth, his family, wondering how it is that He says, "I have come down from heaven." (verse 42)

In John 6:48 I am that bread of life. Just like He also said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine" in other places of scripture. These are obvious metaphors, but the "bread" metaphor just may not be. Could "bread" be something just a bit more literal here?

We read in verses 49 through 51:

[blockquote]I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."[/blockquote]

Oops, something quite disturbing here! He speaks of "eating" what is identified and His own "flesh"!

And now we come down to an interesting question:

Why did the Jews desert Him here, as well as some of His own disciples?

Verse 52:

[blockquote]The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'[/blockquote]

Do you see a questioning of his deity here? And did they really understand the implications of exactly what this "bread" was, His own flesh, that they did not take Him literally here?

They may have questioned exactly who He is, such as His divinity. But that is not the main objection here, including those who would join the Jews is objecting to Him.

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

To what were they originally reacting to, as we see in verse 42 which I give again:

[blockquote]The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'[/blockquote]

Get it yet? They questioned, "HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" (The body of His disciples were still "intact" up to this point.)

Now, are you ready for this, sir? What was the thing that Christ said after the above "quarreling among themselves"? Do you not agree that the Jews took Christ literally in that they were to "eat" His body? Now, if they were mistaken, and if Jesus really meant to use the term "his body" im a metaphor or figurative sense, could He not then correct them? Could He not simply say, "No, no, I mean that figuratively, not my actual body!"

So now, let's see what Christ actually said in verses 53 thru 56:

[blockquote]Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.[/blockquote]

Is that not a statement that hits you over the head like a club? Does it not only affirm what the Jews suspect (a literal interpretation) but why some of His own disciples join with the Jews and leave him?

Look at verses 60 to 62:

[blockquote]Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them. "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the son of Man ascending to where he was before?[/blockquote]

In other words, if you don't believe Jesus now, why would you believe if you saw Him ascending back to heaven? Why is this saying so hard if Jesus was only speaking metaphorically or symbolically about the eating and drinking of His body and blood? Instead of a simple explanation, why the reaffirmation of his "hard saying?"

And now, verse 63:

[blockquote]It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.[/blockquote]

Some Protestants point to this verse as Christ correcting the impression of what he just said. The problem with this is what happened later in verse 66:

[blockquote]As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.[/blockquote]

Well, I thought verse 63 explained all that! It obviously did not!

Why don't we see an affirmation of the defecting disciples, with a "oh, I get it now! You were only speaking figuratively and not actually!" But no, they depart from Him!

What Christ is saying in verse 63 is that only the Spirit can understand, the flesh cannot understand it. Christ explains why His words are rejected - the flesh rejects it! If they have had the Spirit, they would have at least taken His words at face value, even while they may not have understood exactly how they were to "eat" His body and drink His blood - Something that became plain as day at the Last Supper!

Even the apostles, including Peter, stayed with him, so the Spirit was at least active to that extent. And I love the words of Peter as he answers Jesus' question, "Do you also want to leave?" (verse 67)

"Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

AMEN TO THAT!

>Disciples and Jews:

>Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not.

>"believed not" what? that He was bread - or did not believe in
>His claim to Deity?

That they were to "eat his body and drink His blood" in a literal sense! They simply did not understand where Jesus was going with all of this! All cleared-up with the disciples who stayed with Him and His apostles as the events of the Last Supper unfold!

>>If you mean that it is literally Christ's body and blood
>>under the appearance of bread and wine, you would have
>>it right.

>How can something be "literally" under the appearance of
>something else?

That is a wonderful question, sir! This is something theologians have been wondering about since the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted! And the answer is, I simply do not know - it is a mystery! All I know is, God did it that way, and I believe it!

>"literally" for the purpose of re-sacrificing what Christ said
>was finished and said He had accomplished once for all?

Oh no, not that canard! Christ was the sacrificial Lamb of God in that one event in human history that is celebrated at every Mass, not as a re-sacrifice, but as a continuing sacrifice that has no time dimension. And what He accomplished once and for all is that supreme sacrifice, which we celebrate daily! All though out what remains of human history, Christ's sacrifice is represented, Christ becomes present on the altar in the form of bread and wine now His body and blood, all made available when He said the words, "It is finished!"

>>Because there is no change in the bread and wine that
>>can be discerned by our natural senses. [/i]

>then there is no change... it is symbolic of His body and
>blood.

No, there is a change out of faith that we cannot discern with the human senses! And as verse 63 explains, the "flesh cannot understand this" so you are not alone, sir!

>>If your definition of "literal" here means the literal
>>natural flesh and blood of Jesus, you would be wrong.
>>Catholics certainly do not believe that.

>maybe you do not believe that - but there are millions of
>catholics who do... a few right here on this board.

Do you actually think that some Catholics think that the Eucharist is the actual "natural" flesh and blood of Christ?

I invite them to speak up right here and now if they do!

>>Even Simon Peter remained faithful, certainly not
>>understanding what Christ said, commenting, when asked if he
>>wanted to leave too, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have
>>the words of eternal life."

>Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that
>Christ, the Son of the living God.

OK.................

>here's the rest of Peter's statement in comparison to the
>one's who do not believe in the previous verses. THAT's why
>they stayed - they believed in His deity.

Of course, and only God can do what He is claiming to do, can he?

>>Peter, in his lack of understanding as well as the
>>apostles,

>they understood -

>Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that
>Christ, the Son of the living God.

And again, they stay with Him because He is the Son of the living God! But that does not explain the awesome words about His own body and blood that must be consumed to have eternal life!

>>Note carefully that Christ never said "I am the bread" or
>>"I am the wine (chalice)." Bit difference, right?

>why is that? Because He was comparing to the manna - He had
>just finished feeding 5000 physically. What better time than
>to explain to them the higher importance of spiritually
>feeding them - using something they understood and was
>recorded in the OT... manna.

No, Christ contrasted His "food" as a saving food that is everlasting, compared with the food that only fills the tummy.

And again, please note that Christ said, "THIS (the bread he is holding in His hands) is (a declaration of what it is) my body!

He does not say, "this represents by body," or "this is a symbol of my body," but "THIS IS MY BODY! A profundity that brought me into the Catholic Church when I first believed! It was the Coup de grace that evaporated all other objections I had for Christ;s true church!

>He said I am the spiritual Bread - much like the physical
>bread your fathers ate...

And of course, He said nothing of the kind! He never used the phrase, "I am the spiritual bread."

>Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
>profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you,
>they are spirit, and they are life.

Already explained! Of course the flesh will not understand, but the Spirit will! Sorry, but I like my exegesis better! And besides, the context below that verse indicates that, else why do the disciples who left Him not come back with a "oh, now we undetstand! You were only speaking figuratively!"

Not in scripture, sir..................

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

I am confused as to why almost all discussions about anything within the RCC turn into a eucharist debate ? This was a thread about peter being a pope wasnt it?

 

Wputman , drinking blood is forbidden in the NT as well as the OT , sorry that alone blows your excegis. Christ was the word become flesh , and is no longer flesh now but his word is with is . The word is our spiritual food . Christ said he was the door too and if we believed we would have springs of living water flowing up from our bellies too , can you post a photo of that for me since you think his references are physical?

 

Oh and a couple more questions , if the wine is literal blood , why did Christ say he wouldnt partake again of THIS fruit of the VINE untill he partook in heaven with the disciples? Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.

Tell me also if He intends to drink BLOOD in heaven with them? Why would he drink his own blood? We also have this to contend with as well :

Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it's similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, he shall eat his words.

We also have the meaning in greek which doesnt agree with you :

The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL. The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit.

 

Ray , yes , Christ entered in once and OBTAINED eternal redemption - the mass is nothing more than a recrucifixation which is warned against already in the NT .

Wputman- I am not a "sir" - I am female , thanks .

 

Sorry, but the subject came up and I simply could not resist!

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Of course it is!

Real natural human or animal blood, that is.

Here is a real mystery:

The Eucharist is the body and blood under the form of bread and wine. It is not the "natural" flesh, as in human flesh, or the "natural" blood, as in human blood, but what was once bread but is no longer bread by His body, and what is once wine but is no longer wine by His blood.

Both the species look, feel, taste, digest like their unconsecrated species (called the "accidents") and science can never tell the difference between the Eucharist so consecrated and the breae and wine, in their natural form, unconsecrated/

It is a leap of faith, Christ demanded of the Jews in John 6! And it was such a leap of faith, even some of His own disciples abandoned him!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Amen !

Wputnam : Matthew 15:16 So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?

Tell me does Christ only dwell in the catholic for say 15 minutes? Because what is taken in the mouth is eliminated , yet what is done through Christ in the Spirit is permanent .

Christ said it best here about "traditions of men" Matthew 15:7Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8"These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."'

 

"Ray is saying, 'I believe the Catholic church admits to the recrucifixion of Christ in every mass. "

First of all you don't believe it is possible.
Second of all if you can find a catholic statement that teaches this I am all ears.
It is not what we teach. It's a bold faced lie. A misrepresentation of Catholic teaching to degrade and distort another's faith. It is bearing false witness which is a commandment last I checked and you are guilty of it. So is dear Angel for Christ. You violate God's laws with reckless abandon.

The teching of the Catholic Church is that the Eucharist is a re-presentation (reeee-presenetation not to be confused with a REPresentation, meaning that that sacrifice is made present today.) of that same sacrifice on Calvary. That is not what your words say and I ask you to retract them. If you do not of course God will judge you. He wrote the 10 commandments not I. Even if our Catholic faith were not true (which it is) it still does not give you license to mispresent it. I ask you to present conclusive evidence that what you say is what we believe or be convicted of your sin.
I will pray that you repent of your sin.

Blessing though

 

Certainly not and shame on your implication of such since what I meant is what I said . Tell me why internet Catholic apologists have to twist what everyone says ? Please read my post untill you understand what I said instead of putting words in my mouth and if you cannot be respectful to me , please dont look for any further response from me . </font>[/QUOTE]If you can't stand the heat better stay out of the kitchen dear.
YOu guys wrote the book on twisting. See your response to rays post above. I am glad you are here. It has become boring refuting the same old arguements from the same old anti-catholics. I believe I did answer your wil webster post above. Jesus is the Rock. I am all for that and so were the fathers. There is no conflict with Peter being the rock also any more than the apostles were the foundation and Christ was the foundation. Christ is the light and we are to be the light. See a patern. Probably not.

Blessings

 

Heat is one thing , outride rudeness and ad hominen attacks are another , does respect mean anything to you? Here is what the bible says :
1 Peter 3
14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you are blessed. "And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled." 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

Another ad hominem attack i see. My post was accurate , this thread has been reduced to an off topic discussion and I also quote scripture to support my veiw , where is yours? Since when am I "you guys?"

Let me know in advance if you intend to discuss issues or personalities - pre- assuming what I am or am not will get you nowhere fast , unless you really arent after an intelligent discussion after all , but merely a way to vent frustration at an inability to scripturally respond to the issues at hand . I have no intention of discussing anything with someone who quickly reduces each post to " basher - hatefilled- anticatholic-etc.. " in order to mask the issue. I havent seen anyone here so far attacking anyone personally because of their beliefs other than you and catholicconvert and if that is to be your witness , you are doing for more harm for your own church by your own testimony of strife , than you could possibly be defending it .

Actually no you really didnt , you presupposed my answer like you just did , which makes a response from me unnessesary since you have already assumed I am incapable of answer . Again , there is no need for me to point the errors in the RCC when a couple members slinging arrogance and haught and a poor witness speaks louder than anything I could possibly say . God bless and let me know if there is any need for me to continue a discussion with you.

 

"There shall arise false prophets....if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect....wherefore if they shall say unto you, ....behold, he is in the SECRET CHAMBERS; BELIEVE IT NOT." Matthew 24:24, 26.

The Catholic priest does and says precisely this. He says that the bread is Christ and puts the bread into the monstrance, a secret chamber. Christ says, BELIEVE IT NOT!

The mass is a sacrifice without blood. Yet the Bible says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." (of sin). We do not need to sacrifice Christ again. His sacrifice 2,000 years ago is sufficient.

Christ alone on the cross "made reconciliation for the sins of the people" Heb. 2:17.

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 1 Corinthians 5:19.

"For if, when we were enemies, WE WERE RECONCILED to God by the death of his Son." Romans 5:10.

"God, who HAS RECONCILED us to himself, by JESUS CHRIST." II Cor. 5:18.

"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet NOW HATH HE RECONCILED." Colossians 1:21.

"Now where remission of these is, there is 7 NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN." Hebrews 10:18.

"Nor yet that he should OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN... For then must he OFTEN have suffered since the foundation of the world : but now 10ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Hebrews 9:25, 26.

Catholic priests performing the "mass resacrifice" is a waste of time and of no value in taking away sins.

"Who needs not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people's : for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself. Hebrews 7:27.

 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia about what the sacrifice of mass is :

And

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia , yes mass does entail a "recrucifixtion" of Christ since the preists are offering anew what Christ already did .

Seems you owe Ray an apology and myself

Here is a link for those who wish to deny what mass really is :

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

 

Let's see, the term you used is "recrucifying."

When I went to that link, I clicked on the "edit" and then "search" buttons to search for that word in the text. It did not pop up at all!

Now, I have bleary eyes this time of night, so would you please go back and do a copy/paste of what the text said that backs up your claim that the Catholic Church "recrucifys" Christ at every Mass.

In the eyes of God, the sacrifice of His Divine Son was timeless, past, present and future all wrapped up into one, but in the earthy time bound world, to express the timelessness of Christ's sacrifice is to REPRESENT it at each Mass! It is not a different sacrifice each time, but a representation of the same sacrifice, the one and only sacrifice of Calvary, at every Mass, not only every day of the year, but thousands of times each day around the world!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Oh come on , thats getting really deep there , what is a sacrifice in the eyes of God for sin? What was the sacrifice of Christ? It was the shedding of His blood on the cross .
he is being re-sacrificed at every mass yes according to the catholic encyclopdia .

The mass is crucifying Christ anew because He is offered to God AGAIN and Again , and again .

Spin Spin Spin

This directly contrdicts Gods word who said it was offered ONCE FOR ALL .

 

Wputnam? You missed this part of that definition:

How was Christ slain? Crucifixion , so what is mass? A daily recrucixiction of Christ .