• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

about the Catholic Church

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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".
Originally posted by Living4Him:

Why do some believe that Christ is sacrificed again and again in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all? Heb 10:10
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.

From http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Bread2.htm

The Didache 14, 1 (C. 90 - 150 AD):
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one...For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord and my name is the wonder of nations’ (Malachias 1, 11,...)."

St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 44, 4 (C. 98 AD):
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7, 1 (C. 110 AD):
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 (C. 155 AD):
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus...The Apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which are called Gospels, have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took bread and, having given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My Body.’ And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks, He said, ‘This is My Blood.’ And He imparted this to them only."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4, 17, 5 (C. 180 AD):
"He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said, This is My Body. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the world…concerning which Malachy, among the twelve prophets thus spoke beforehand: From the rising of the sun to the going down, My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name and a pure sacrifice…indicating in the plainest manner that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and at that a pure one."

St. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel 22 (220 AD):
"For when the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished…the abomination of desolation will be manifested, and when he (the Antichrist) comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which are now offered up to God in every place by the gentiles."

St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized [Ref. Unknown] (C. 373 AD):
"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so as long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected."

St. Ambrose of Milan, Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 38, 25 (Inter C. 381-397 AD):
"We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the Body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible to us, He whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered."
Clearly the sacrifice is offered “again and again” rather than “once for all” in the RC system.


What about historic RC Catechisms?

Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):
The doctrine thus defined is a natural inference from the words of Scripture. When instituting this Sacrament, our Lord Himself said: This is my body. The word this expresses the entire substance of the thing present; and therefore if the substance of the bread remained, our Lord could not have truly said: This is my body.

In St. John Christ the Lord also says: The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The bread which He promises to give, He here declares to be His flesh. A little after He adds: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. And again: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Since, therefore, in terms so clear and so explicit, He calls His flesh bread and meat indeed, He gives us sufficiently to understand that none of the substance of the bread and wine remains in the Sacrament…

…We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: Do this for a commemoration of me.

The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of His body
AND BLOOD.

[\quote]

There is no question about this sacrifice being “created” as real wine is “changed” into “blood”. The mumbo jumbo double-speak that would call the “wine-changed-to-Blood” an “unbloody sacrifice” is meant to persuade the peasants of the dark ages – but ill-suited for the informed thinking people of today.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):

No. 1333:
At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body AND BLOOD. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread..." "He took the cup filled with wine..." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and BLOOD of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.

No. 1336:
The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalised them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6) The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?" (John 6): the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

No. 1364:
In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

No. 1367:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."
Again the rambling rationalizing keeps saying that the “body AND BLOOD” that are created are an “unbloody” sacrifice having no blood. The conflicted double-speak could not be more obvious as they try to “get out” of the problem of the “ONE sacrifice. The IT IS FINISHED sacrifice. The event that was “ONCE for ALL”.

It is also clear that the RCC insists that the mass “IS A SACRIFICE” its only concern is to try to get THOSE sacrifices created in the mass – to be joined to and be the same as the ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice at the cross. They make no bones about trying to solve that glaring problem. But they also confess that they OFFER A SACRIFICE that is NOT as the sacrifice of Christ was OFFERED at the cross. The freely confess that in sacrifice at THE CROSS event and the sacrifices offered at all the Eucharist events differ in the manner of offering and we readily agree the the manner of offering is different."

In Christ,

Bob

[ March 17, 2005, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
No - there is no compatability with works salvation.

It all comes down to that.

Is it "do" or "done"?
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.
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 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
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.
 

Living4Him

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

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"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
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by daktim:
I just don't get it. You sound like you are the only authority on Catholic church teaching, and you refuse to believe any testimony from anyone who is a former Catholic and disagrees with your conclusions on what the Catholic church purports to teach.
I am not the authority on what the Catholic Church teaches, they are - and all are not, and that is why I refer to them and why none of you can prove yourself right by using the Catholic Church.


If you could prove yourself right with links, you would have. I wonder if you actually looked?


It appears that you and many others here are so entrenched with hate that you can't see that MAYBE you were/are wrong about what and why the Catholic Church teaches what it teaches.


One who delights in ignorance and argues without proof is a fool. Who wants to be a fool? Not I. I therefore go to the authority on the Catholic Church when studying the Catholic Church - which is the Catholic Church. When I want to learn about Islam, I go to an authority on Islam and that is Muslim websites about their faith. When I want to learn about Hinduism, I go to a website about Hinduism....

I do not take ex-'whatevers' word for what 'whatever' church teaches, because they could have misunderstandings about what 'whatever' teaches and why... especially when the particular group in question has millions on millions of people who disagree with the ex-'whatever'. ALWAYS when the offical 'whatever' websites prove the ex-whatever wrong. As you have been proven wrong on your knowledge of the Catholic Church teachings.


That's what I don't get, I have never claimed to be an authority and I have repeated given reference to their own websites that SHOWS they are the authority on what THEY teach.


Ignorance is not bliss. Get educated.

Are you doing the will of the Father by telling people what isn't true of the Catholic Church teachings? No, you're not.


God Bless,
Sirach
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
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.
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by C4K:
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.
Brother,

To know if any church errors biblically to be able to justly point it out, we must know it.

A question you might want to ask is "are you always right in your interpretation of scripture?".

If you think you are, then you believe you are infallible - which is what the Catholic Church teaches it is. If you think you are not always right, then what right do you have to say that your interpretation of Scripture is better than another Christian's interpretation of Scripture?

Who's guideline of interpretation do we go by?
Some say we agree on the important things, but who decides what is important?

If we can't agree on these things, then how can we judge if anyone is "in error" - We can justly say that they have a different interpretation of Scripture.

Once we come to this logical conclusion, then we can help everyone come closer to Christ through love and respect of our neighbor.

I know many Catholics who have centered their life on Christ... as I know many Baptists, Presbyterians, etc... who have also centered their life on Christ...

Do we really have a right to say that they are "wrong" or can we justly say that they have a different interpretation of Scripture?

If we believe ourselves to be infallible in the meaning of the Scriptures, then how can other Christians believe wholeheartedly the same that they are infallible? Someone has to be wrong - and I for one don't think it wise to judge other churches on rumors from people who demostrate that they don't even know the fundementals of whichever faith is being discussed.

Wouldn't you agree that to be best to answer "errors" that we actually know what the errors truly are? "From the horses mouth, not from the ex-rider who hates the horse."


Christ rejoices in truth, so I seek the truth.

Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach
 

Living4Him

New Member
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.
 

daktim

<img src =/11182.jpg>
Originally posted by Sirach:
If you could prove yourself right with links, you would have. I wonder if you actually looked?
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.


That is not the Catholic Churches fault for you not taking the responsibility to know your faith. We all have a responsibility to know our faith. Any priest that preaches contradictary to what the Catholic Church official teachings are, is breaking a vow to God - or is ignorant of the teaching. The Catholic Church cannot be blamed for those who are wrong about Catholic Church teachings.
"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
 

BobRyan

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

Originally posted by Living4Him:

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..
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.


Originally posted by Living4Him:

How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious?
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".

Originally posted by Living4Him:

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

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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

Matt 16
6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
.

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).

John 6
24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus.
25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "" Rabbi, when did You get here?''
26 Jesus answered them and said, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.[/b]
Jesus sees that already they are drawing the wrong lesson and already they are going into error focused on Earthly literal gain, literal food, literal power - advancing in this life not the next. The focus Christ sets is on “gaining LIFE” eternal
27 ""Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.''
28 Therefore they said to Him, ""What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?''
29 Jesus answered and said to them, ""This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.''
Christ says the key is NOT in biting fish or biting bread – or miracles, but in “believing Christ” as the true Messiah (Christ). But their response is “do another miracle” Make bread like Moses – make it fall from the sky.

Consistently Christ begins to focus the people on that which is needed to obtain Eternal Life. All of the “eating” and/or “drinking” He speaks of is directed to the singular goal – that of obtaining Eternal Life!

30 So they said to Him, "" What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
31 "" Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, " HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'''
32 Jesus then said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.''
Again Jesus directs them AWAY from the literal bread – and says that the LESSON of the manna is the real secret to Eternal life. Eating literal bread, literal manna only gains you a day’s worth of benefit – but if you learn the LESSON of the manna (the one that God gave) you get Eternal life. Deut 8:3 “Man does not live by bread alone – but by Every Word that comes from the MOUTH of God”. His teaching, His Word is set as “the key” to life. This is “already true” at the time He is speaking.
Christ points out "He WHO EATS my FLESH HAS eternal life" – presently. HE does not argue that “in the future when someone eats my literal flesh they will then get eternal life” That “in the future eat my flesh” concept is not in the chapter.

John has established the context for Christ coming down out of heaven – as the WORD that became FLESH.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So in John 6 the theme continues

John 6
33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.''
34 Then they said to Him, ""Lord, always give us this bread.''
35 Jesus said to them, "" I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
Focus is on “coming to Christ” and “Believing in Him” already not waiting for some future day to do it. (Still no mention of biting Him yet). And “all agree” that even THEN right then and there the faithful follower was under obligation to come to Christ AND believe His word – Already. Already the “Word that became FLESH” was there and must already be accepted.

In Christ,

Bob
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I tend toward the Catholic side of the spectrum as to the nature of the elements, though not to such an extreme; that is, I would argue that Jesus' words were literal but that no substantial change need occur for said words to be literal. My assumption is that you lean more toward the ordinalist side. The question is, Bob, with all possible respect, what if it is nonCatholics like you and I who are wrong about the nature of the Eucharist? Would we be guilty not of idolatry, but of profaning the Body?
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.
 

Living4Him

New Member
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.
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by daktim:
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.
Quotes taken out of context, or from sources that do not fully explain the Church's teachings.

The Catholic Church teachings ARE NOT contrary to their interpretation of Scripture.

To say that they are is to show you do not know what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to their interpretation of Scripture.

Until you can study with an academic point of view, your hatred for them will continue to blind you to what the Catholic Church teaches.

The Catholic Church has a different interpretation of Scripture than you do. Their interpretation has a perfect harmony (as St. Augustine said) with the Old Testament and the New in regards to their teaching.

I have yet to find a contradiction between their interpretation of Scripture and their teachings.


To understand what any other faith believes and why we must studying what they believe the scriptures to mean and their teachings. We cannot apply our interpretation to their teachings to get a proper view of what they teach and believe.

Common sense, and a little logic.

What you are doing is like a math teacher trying to apply mathmatic principles to English class. Of course it's not going to make sense.

It would almost be comical if you weren't so hateful.

God Bless,
Sirach
 
S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Clearly the sacrifice is offered “again and again” rather than “once for all” in the RC system.
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.

</font>[/QUOTE]The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrifice of the Mass happened in 33 AD.

They say read John 6, and pay close attention to John 6:66

Here is what they have to say about it:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm#v

1364
In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

1366
The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:


[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190


God Bless,
Sirach
 
Top