about the Catholic Church

Take it up with the RCC.

The RC position is that all these church Fathers are speaking of the mass – and a real sacrifice happening in the Mass – and NOT a remembrance or memorial of a once-for-all sacrifice “finished” at the cross.

Clearly the sacrifice is offered “again and again” rather than “once for all” in the RC system.


What about historic RC Catechisms?

 

L4H you have done a good thing to connect John 6 to the Eucharist. Certainly sound exegesis would demand that we recognize that John 6 forms the context and basis for understanding Christ's words at the last supper since He is going back to the SAME point He made in John 6.

Indeed - John 6 is the key and context to this entire discussion for there instead of a brief sentence or two you have over half the chapter dedicated to spelling this out for us.

How very "exegetically sound" of you to pull this into the discussion.

I applaud your approach.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do the priests drink all the wine?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

If a priest, yea a bishop also, is guilty of pedophilia, are all of their Masses null and void?

Corollary: From which Apostle did pedophilic bishops get their holy orders?

Also: whence cometh the orders to "cover-up" such illicit excursions of the "priesthood"?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

It is, I think, a little of both, and that's the thing we Evangelicals have forgotten. Christ has done all He could to purchase our salvation, yes. But if we "accept" that gift, and do nothing with it, we are lost.

And, once again, the key to do-ing is love. </font>[/QUOTE]Basically would agree with that. If we do not "do" then nothing has really been "done" in our lives. Sacraments in the RCC are not observed as a result of salvation, but to to acheive salvation. Of course, their are genuine beleivers in the church, I don't think we can deny that, but the doctrine of works to acheive the charis of God are contrary to Scripture.

 

This is a straw man. If we start into the study of "sinner-priests" we will soon find that no group has a monopoly on these vile sins.

 

Bob,

No, it is not.

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; John 6:32–71).

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

When I prepared my son to receive his first communion last year, it was stressed over and over to the children that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. It is also stressed that the Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. It is that same sacrifice, not another, Heb 10:12.

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice on the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of GOD, offered once.


Bob, you need to read all the documents in their entirity. By using snippets, you will not see the whole picture.

Check out newadvent.org for deeper explanations.

 

"Strawman"

The rhetorical questions point out the absurdity of a corrupted priesthood purveying absolutions and sacrifices as a means of salvation through the philosophical and legalistic system called " the holy see", which is in actuality is unholy and blind--from birth.

All of those "born again" are saints/priests who offer spiritual sacrifices.

Jesus Christ is the only high priest--forever--Order of Melchizadec. There is none other name in heaven or in earth whereby we must be saved.

Does a mother of harlots beget anything but harlots?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I disagree, pointing out Biblical error is a part of doing the will of the Father, whether that source of error is Catholic, Baptist, or any other group.

 

Can someone please explain why it is hard to except the doctrine of the Real Presence, yet not hard to believe that God allowed incest for hundreds of years and then decided in Lev. that it is an abomination?

What happened with God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow?

Also, looking at the KJV, do you take these verses literal....

2 Kings 18:26-28 (King James Version)

26Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews' language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

27But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

28Then Rabshakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria:

Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

 

In case you haven't noticed, BobRyan and others have done a wonderful job inserting links and posting what those links say. They have more than adequately documented that the RCC teaches doctrines contrary to Scripture based on their own sources.

"Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited tehm: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 23:1,2

"Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; As I live, saith the LORD GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and not my flock; Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the LORD GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them." Ezekiel 34:7-10

"And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." Nehemiah 8:5-8

Looks to me that God and you disagree on who the responsibility rests if the pastors aren't doing their job.

In Christ,
daktim

 

This was seen clearly in the quotes just given where we see DIFFERENCEs between the ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice offerred on the cross and the many many ongoing sacrifices in the RCC.

The RCC admited that the "way they are offerred is DIFFERENT".

The RCC also admits that these sacrifices are ongoing and that the mass is itself A SACRIFICE and not simply a "memorial" done in "REMEMBERANCE" of Christ.

Indeed the claim is that they are sacrificing Christ as they "CONFECT" the body and blood of God for another event - an event at which they sacrifice him.

As has already been pointed out with Cain and with Annanias and Saphira - failure to "confect God" was not the only way to have worship and offerings in "an unworthy manner".

I am simply pointing out that they "claim two things at once" and they can not be fit together. You simply take "one of the claims" about the sacrifice as if that is the only one made.

The EACH MASS EVENT is in fact - another sacrifice for the RCC insists that at EACH Mass Christ His Sacrificed!

In Christ,

Bob

 

In John 6 flesh and blood – summary

Christ argues for turning away from an earthly literal temporal focus – and up to a heavenly spiritual focus that obtains eternal life.

1. Christ argues the case that Moses Made in Deuteronomy about the spiritual Bread that came down out of heaven.
2. Moses points out that the “main lesson” is that “man does NOT live by BREAD alone but rather by the Word of God”
3. John has set the stage for this discussion in John 6 – in chapter 1 where it is stated that “The Word became FLESH and dwelt among us”.
4. And in Matt 16 Christ points out the flaw in taking the symbol of bread and leaven too literally. He shows it to symbolize the TEACHING Word

.

Interesting that in John 6 the same connection is made to the feed of the 5000 as we see in Matt 16. And the same emphasis on bread – (bread coming down from heaven in the case of John 6).

 

Well here "again" it gets down to "details that matter".

When you ask about the RCC being correct - do you mean "what if we NEED an RC priest with the majic powers to turn the bread into God?". If that is true - then our NOT having an RC priest means the bread is just as we say "a MEMORIAL" of the death of Christ rather than an 'actual sacrifice' of God "again".

If you mean that the bread "becomes" in some way "god" but without needing the majic powers of the RC priests - then even the RCC is wrong and you are saying that any jo-schmo on the street when celebrating the Lord's supper is able unwittingly to pull-God-into-an-active-sacrifice rather than a memorial. Pretty horrendous thought - but you could "speculate that". Certainly that is not what the RCC claims can happen - so you would be "on your own" out on that limb.

In the mean time - what if the Bible is right? How about that option?

In 1Cor 11 we are told that "AS often as you drink the cup and drink this bread you do SHOW THE LORDS DEATH until he comes" and "Do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" is the valid way to think of it.

In that case Heb 10 is correct - and the ONE time offering on the cross was a "ONCE FOR ALL" single event that put a STOP to ALL sacrifice and offerings.

But that is "just if the Bible is true".

Anyway - I agree that it is fun to speculate about all those non-Bible options. As long as we know that that is really what we are doing. </font>[/QUOTE]I'd dispute the idea that, first, anyone preparing the Lord's Supper, by whatever name you call it, is practicing "majic." The liturgy/words of the Institution are certainly not a magic spell; I would caution you to beware of blasphemy in your passion to be correct.

To your comment that, if priestly consecration is unneccesary, then "any Joe Schmo" would unwittingly "pull-God-into-an-active-sacrifice" - that's assuming that the Eucharist is a resacrificing of Christ for the sin of mankind, which it is not. It is both a memorial and an active participation, on any number of levels, in the Body of Christ. Simply making this an argument about the precise nature of the elements misses the point, which is that we many become one in the Body of Christ, and one of the ways we demonstrate this unity is through breaking the Bread together. Perhaps this, and not neccesarily the literal substance of Christ in the elements, is truly one of the means by which God chooses to bestow His grace upon is in this manner. I don't know.

Finally, I'd argue that a carefully conservative interpretation of Scripture would be much less ordinal/memorial than you seem to believe. When Jesus instituted this sacrament, His language was in no way representative language; rather it was literal. "This is My body..." He said, "This is My blood..." Only as we Protestants began trying to distance ourselves from Catholicism did this idea of a purely ordinal tradition.

 

Bob,

I noticed that you are SDA. How would it be if I went around to different sites and not understood what the SDA really taught, but I came here and told you how you are wrong and I really know what they teach?

You would like that I had completely lost my mind.

I'm apologize, but I do know and understand what the RCC teaches about the Real Presence and no matter how much I tell you what the Church really teaches, you claim to be the expert.

I have experienced communion in the IFB church as the little crackers and grape juice and now for the past year, as the Real Presence in the RCC and there is no comparision. My faith in God, my love for Jesus My Lord and Savior, and my spiritual walk is much deeper and greater because of the Real Presence.

I will never deny or walk away from the Real Presence.

 

More interesting study:

Read "Out of the Labyrinth" and "Soul of a Priest" by L.H. Lehmann. Available online: at www.maranathamedia.com.

Selah,

Bro. James