10 Misconceptions of the RCC

[OldRegular]

Just to make my point previously. This is what I mean from "all directions". We were just talking about Mary now its about the one true Church. And this btw is a good question. One I've asked myself about as well. I will explain it in the way I understand it. First point is that the Catholic Church doesn't presume to judge on God's behalf. God will save those whom he wills to save. And Catholics don't presume to identify those whom God chooses. What the Church does know (believe) is that Jesus built his Church by establishing the Apostles in the Faith. He taught them and gave them the faith which they preached. Catholics call that the deposit of faith. They were sent out (the meaning of Apostles) and established churches throughout the known world. Catholics believe that all these churches are unified in faith as it was given by the Apostles as they were all taught the same faith by those apostles. The Catholic Church teaches that from that time to the present there has been an unbroken line (Apostolic Succession) of Churches maintaining that faith in its fullness as the Universal Church (the meaning of Catholic). That the saving faith which the Apostles taught is held in perpetuity by that Church. There were decenters who didn't uphold that faith and thus it came to a head in 325 AD when Arius pulled at least half of the Church away from what it had always believed and thus the Nicean Creed was established to define what was orthodox teaching and what wasn't with regard to that particular heresy. It was important to put the in the creed that there is One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church to distinguish it from the heretical churches. And it has kept that moniker ever since. Since Catholics believe this is the Church then that the salvation presented by Christ is only known fully by that church thus salvation is through the Catholic Church and other churches to the extent that they agree with Catholic Teaching have at least that extent of the truth that leads to salvation. No Catholic should then say whether or not a particular protestant will be saved or not rather hold that God certainly is the the judge of that and in as much as they adhered to the truth kept in perpetuity bythe Catholic Church are to that extent accessing the graces provided in adhering to that truth.
For protestants there is no visible church rather there is only the invisible church and thus as long as you hold a "saving faith" no matter where you find yourself on the Christian spectrum you're "saved". But this cannot be really known except by God and the person who has the "saving faith". Thus the discussion then becomes for protestants that since one is saved by faith alone what must them be the absolute minimum which one is to believed to be saved? And then the "essentials" are spoken of and there is no real general agreement which "essentials" are to minimum-ly be believed to be saved.

How can a Roman Catholic talk about saving faith. There is no such thing as saving faith in the RCC. The Canons of Trent among others spell out what a person must do to be saved and it is not by faith alone. So to the RCC there really can be nothing called "saving faith".

Explain the following from the viewpoint of Saving Faith! Lot of the Accursed there but no Salvation!

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/trent.htm

Canons of the Council of Trent

Canons concerning the Most the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Canon 1.If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Canon 2.If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.

Canon 4.If anyone says that after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but are there only in usu, while being taken and not before and not after, and that the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain, let him be anathema.

Canon 5.If anyone says that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result from it, let him be anathema.

Canon 6.If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

Canon 7.If anyone says that it is not lawful that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a sacred place, but immediately after consecration must necessarily be distributed among those present, or that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick, let him be anathema.

Canon 8.If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.

Canon 9.If anyone denies that each and all of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have reached the years of discretion, to communicate every year at least at Easter, in accordance with the precepts of holy mother Church, let him be anathema.

Canon 10.If anyone says that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself, let him be anathema.

Canon 11.If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend theecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species, let him be anathema.

Canon 4.If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.

Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass

Canon 1.If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.
Canon 2.If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

Canon 4.If anyone says that by the sacrifice of the mass a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or that the former derogates from the latter, let him be anathema.

Canon 5.If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema.

Canon 6.If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.

Canon 7.If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.

Canon 8.If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.

Canon 9.If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

 

[OldRegular]

The Canons of Trent on Justification
I have bolded a couple of interesting statements. Recall that these Canons have never been revoked by the Roman Catholic Teaching Magisterium or the pope.

From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

CHAPTER VII
IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[30]

The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]

For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[41]

This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.

Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[42]

Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are commanded, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe[43] given them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and may have life eternal.

 

[OldRegular]

No Salvation Outside the RCC

From:http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/rcchurchandrcfaith.html

I have bolded some significant facts!

Salvation And The Roman Church
No Salvation Outside the Church of Rome


Pope Boniface VIII (1302 A.D.)

So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’... Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation (From the Bull Unam Sanctam. Found in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), Volume VI, pp. 25-27).

The Council of Florence

The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, and almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church (44Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), p. 230, #714).

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216 A.D.)

By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved (From the letter Eius exemplo. Found in Denzinger, p. 166, #423).

Pope Clement VI (1342-1352 A.D.)

No man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved (From the letter Super quibusdum. Found in Denzinger, p. 204, #570b).

Pius IX (1846-1878 A.D.)

For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God...But the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well- known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom ‘the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,’ cannot obtain eternal salvation (From the Allocution, Singulari quadem. Found in Denzinger, pp. 416, 425; #1647, 1677).

The Council of Trent

Seventh Session: Decree Concerning the Sacraments

For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification...it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified.

Canon I: If anyone saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or that they are more, or less, than seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order and Matrimony; or that any of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema.

Canon IV: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; - though all (the sacraments) are not necessary for every individual: let him be anathema.

Canon VIII: If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed.), pp. 118-121).

Vatican I

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end...The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith.

If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.

If, then, any should deny that it is by institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.
This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III; Chp. 4, pp. 266-71).

Vatican II

This sacred Synod turns its attention first to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon sacred Scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. For Christ, made present to us in His body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique Way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn. 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.

The mission of the Church concerns the salvation of men, which is to be achieved by belief in Christ and by His grace. Hence the apostolate of the Church and of all her members is primarily designed to manifest Christ’s message by words and deeds and to communicate His grace to the world. This work is done mainly through the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, which are entrusted in a special way to the clergy (The Documents of Vatican II (Chicago: Follett, 1966), Walter M. Abbott, S.J., General Editor.

 

[Alive in Christ]

No, venerating is NOT worship. One may ONLY worship the Lord God!!

Yes,the Catholic church DOES engage in goddess worship regarding the sinner Mary.

It is blatant.

They engage in silly little word games in order to dupe its victims.

 

[Walter]

Yes,the Catholic church DOES engage in goddess worship regarding the sinner Mary.

It is blatant.

They engage in silly little word games in order to dupe its victims.

No, you are wrong, words have meaning. Does the word 'sacrament' mean the same thing as 'ordinance'? Silly little word games??

 

[DHK]

No, you are wrong, words have meaning. Does the word 'sacrament' mean the same thing as 'ordinance'? Silly little word games??

No it doesn't. A sacrament is a means of grace. The RCC considers baptism as a means of grace. That is heresy. Baptism is simply a symbol, a step of obedience in the Christian faith. There are no sacraments in the Bible. But there are ordinances. The word means command or even "law" just as we have ordinances today (in our cities)

Dulia simply means respect or honor.
You give dulia to Mary, but you give much more. You worship her.
The Bible says "Honor thy father and mother." Do you give dulia to your father and mother. Do you pray to them as you pray to Mary, petition them as you petition Mary, bow down in front of statutes or pictures of them while praying to them (especially if they have passed on). If they are not old enough you might think of your grandparents or great grand parents in this respect for they also would be included in this same command.
No, you give dulia, the reverence, the adoration, to Mary; that adoration which is being robbed from God. God is a jealous God. He alone is worthy of such adoration. Any adoration given to another is idolatry.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Canons of Trent on Justification
I have bolded a couple of interesting statements. Recall that these Canons have never been revoked by the Roman Catholic Teaching Magisterium or the pope.

From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

The RCC sees salvation as a co operation between god and man, in that thru the Cross of Christ there is the Grace to save sinners, but to havce THAT actually applied towards us requires wapter baptism, and all other Sacraments of God to assist us to get spirutal perfected enough through willful participation in order to be right enough for God to be avtually able to see us and declare us worthy to be saved now!

 

[OldRegular]

No, you are wrong, words have meaning. Does the word 'sacrament' mean the same thing as 'ordinance'? Silly little word games??

Words do have meaning and the words of the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC trump the Word of God. Those words of the Teaching Magisterium tell us that Salvation is not by the Grace of God but by the grace of the Roman Catholic Communion. I have presented only a few of those words above and you cannot refute them and the Teaching Magisterium of the RCC will not refute them! And that is the sad truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

From:http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/rcchurchandrcfaith.html

I have bolded some significant facts!

think vatican II made the official view now of the RCC that salvation is still residing within the RCC on earth, but that God will save those of us in protestant churches and even in other religions IF we are true to how we view religion, and IF we are ignorant to the RCC teachings/dogmas!

 

[OldRegular]

As to your first point read my response to EWF. As to your 2nd response the Catholic Church teaches the Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ just as God chose Israel to be the nation in which Jesus was born. There is no concoction. In fact what we believe about Mary is clearly seen in scripture.

There are three essential facts about Mary in Scripture:

1. She was a virgin betrothed to Joseph.

2. She was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus Christ.

3. She married Joseph and they had additional children.

Essentially everything the RCC teaches about Mary is pure fiction and most is heretical!

 

[OldRegular]

I don't know where you get your ideas but if they are not consumed they are put in the tabernacle.

Again you are wrong. The Eucharist is very sacred and it isn't a "magic act" or a "trinket gimic" it is exactly what Jesus told his disciples it was. His body and his blood which was given for them and us. Jesus didn't say this is like my body or this is like my blood. He didn't say if you meditate on what I said you have life in you he did say that unless you eat (trogo from trogain) my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. In fact I find it funny that you take the Catholic view and ask "do you not hold anything sacred?" When in fact we hold a lot of things sacred. It is protestantism that has made a lot of Sacred things common and thus lost a lot of the teaching of the ancient church.

So you admit that in the Eucharist you are sacrificing Jesus Christ again, and again, and again, and again and on, and on, billions, and billions, and billions of times!

 

[OldRegular]

Been a while since I have posted on this board and I guess people have forgotten about my background. I was a Baptist attending a EV. Free church (that had formerly been PCUSA and left because of the liberal agenda) and have made my way to the Catholic faith.

And you wind up in the most liberal of all communions. The RCC Teaching Magisterium decided long before the dark ages that to dominate the world they had to bring the world into the church. The first thing that had to go was salvation by Grace alone. To make up for that they have been making up "stuff" ever since starting with baptismal regeneration. Somewhere along the way they added the nuns, the so-called brides of Jesus Christ. I suspect this was a "wink and nod" to the "vestal virgins" of the pagan temples. Error begets error begets heresy and what do we have? The RCC!

The only thing I can commend the RCC for is their stand against abortion. Of course many of the leaders in the abortion movement are baptized RCC!

I know some good people who are members of the RCC. I have no doubt that in spite of their sins and in the midst of all the trash they have been taught, practice, and believe God is able to break through and save them. Why not? He saved some self-righteous Pharisees, He saved the thief on the cross, He saved Saul, the eunuch, and pagan Gentiles; He broke through my sin and saved me, why not them!

 

[DHK]

The only thing I can commend the RCC for is their stand against abortion. Of course many of the leaders in the abortion movement are baptized RCC!

Recently the Pope made an ecumenical plea to the Jews and Muslims (and anyone else) who would stand with them against abortion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you admit that in the Eucharist you are sacrificing Jesus Christ again, and again, and again, and again and on, and on, billions, and billions, and billions of times!

No because its a re-presentation. Just like how the Jews viewed the Passover as the commemoration. We are partaking in that one and same sacrifice that occurred 2,000 years ago. The thing about God is that he is not bound by space and time. So at each mass it is Calvary that we are placed at. Not a new sacrifice but the exact same one. Which is what Jesus meant when he said to make it a commemoration. To re-present it. Not create new sacrifices each time.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How can a Roman Catholic talk about saving faith. There is no such thing as saving faith in the RCC.

This just isn't true. There is a saving faith. However, Catholics have a more full understanding of what faith is than is generally accepted among protestants. It is more than a gut felt belief about something. True Faith is a belief which is acted upon at the very least.

The Canons of Trent among others spell out what a person must do to be saved and it is not by faith alone. So to the RCC there really can be nothing called "saving faith".

Explain the following from the viewpoint of Saving Faith! Lot of the Accursed there but no Salvation!

This shows your unfamiliarity with what is actually written in the canons. Generally with regard to any Church council they arise when specific issues are raised. And the council answers those issues specifically. The thing is when something has been consistantly believed in the church and then a new teaching tries to displace it then a council is held to deal with the situation and it upholds the Orthodox teachings that the new teaching tries to displace. In the case of Trent and the canon's you posted the new idea to displace the old in this specific set of canons was the question regarding the Eucharist. You could not hold to an idea that opposed consitent Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist and remain a Catholic.

 

[annsni]

No because its a re-presentation. Just like how the Jews viewed the Passover as the commemoration. We are partaking in that one and same sacrifice that occurred 2,000 years ago. The thing about God is that he is not bound by space and time. So at each mass it is Calvary that we are placed at. Not a new sacrifice but the exact same one. Which is what Jesus meant when he said to make it a commemoration. To re-present it. Not create new sacrifices each time.

It is not a representation if it is the literal body and blood of Christ.

 

[Walter]

It is not a representation if it is the literal body and blood of Christ.

Ann, TS didn't mean the elements of bread and wine which are consecrated in the sacrament are only symbolic but that the mass re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary. The mass is not re-sacrificing Jesus over and over again like many people on the board keep saying.

However, there is a sacrifice that happens over and over again at mass. That is one of ourselves. An example of this is in the eucharistic prayer in the Book of Divine Worship (Anglican Use Catholic Churchs): 'and here we offer and present unto you, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto you . . . . '.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not a representation if it is the literal body and blood of Christ.

I think you misunderstand me. re-presentation not a representation meaning symbolic. Its as I mentioned before breaking down time and space and colapsing it at the point and time of Calvary if that is better understood by you. Not new sacrifices put presenting that same sacrifice Jesus made a re-presentation.

 

[DHK]

I think you misunderstand me. re-presentation not a representation meaning symbolic. Its as I mentioned before breaking down time and space and colapsing it at the point and time of Calvary if that is better understood by you. Not new sacrifices put presenting that same sacrifice Jesus made a re-presentation.

"re-presentation" and "re-sacrifice" are just a play on words, like "dulia" and "latria" are. They are a dichotomy of the same meaning. They both mean a re-sacrifice just as the latter both mean worship. They are given in that way so that the Catholic can "say" they are not re-sacrificing the blood and body of Jesus Christ AGAIN, when in reality they are--over and over again, as any of the older 18th, 19th, and early 20th century Protestant commentator will attest to. Albert Barnes is one of the most common ones. As long as you believe in transubstantiation you are re-sacrificing the blood and body of Christ all over again. You are just calling it be a different name, and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of others. It doesn't work.

 

[OldRegular]

No because its a re-presentation. Just like how the Jews viewed the Passover as the commemoration. We are partaking in that one and same sacrifice that occurred 2,000 years ago. The thing about God is that he is not bound by space and time. So at each mass it is Calvary that we are placed at. Not a new sacrifice but the exact same one. Which is what Jesus meant when he said to make it a commemoration. To re-present it. Not create new sacrifices each time.

The passover was the passover each time it was celebrated. The passover was eaten!

If the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ it is nonsense to insist that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice. Furthermore, would not the eating of the body and blood of Jesus Christ be considered cannibalism?