Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

[utilyan]

If you are making the one time sacrifice for sins present "again" in the Eucharist to be received "again", you are redoing the cross.

Had you received that one time sacrifice for sins the first time or not?

Then when you repeat that again, you are redoing the cross as if that one time sacrifice for sins was not good enough the first time you had received it because you are receiving it again.

The Holy Ghost is in you so you do not need to receive it again.

Those that wish to have their sins forgiven can just go to Jesus for that.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

By walking in the light as He did in fellowship with the Father & the Son, is how His blood cleanses us from sins too.

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.......7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The Eucharist does not do that. Jesus Christ is already in you which is why forgiveness is that accessible so that is why the Mass is not necessary because it was never a means to obtain forgiveness or the remission of sins by.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

So believe Him, brother. You don't need the Eucharist nor be a slave to the RCC' system of works to get your sanctfication from when all invitations points to Jesus for life.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

How was this done... ?

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are not going to find such an emphasis for salvation in any of the N.T. instructions to the churches that you find so many of in the Catholic catechism. Truly, the simplicity of the gospel is lost in the catechism.

How many times Does Jesus repeat the sacrifice at the cross when he did communion himself?

Luke
19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.


You would argue here with Jesus Christ. You would tell him, That's not the blood poured out for the new covenant...... Its tomorrow.




1 Corinthians 11

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”


Look Paul says "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" How many times is Paul redoing the sacrifice?

Paul is delivering something here, what is it? These people are already saved.

 

[Walter]

If you are making the one time sacrifice for sins present "again" in the Eucharist to be received "again", you are redoing the cross.

Had you received that one time sacrifice for sins the first time or not?

Then when you repeat that again, you are redoing the cross as if that one time sacrifice for sins was not good enough the first time you had received it because you are receiving it again.

The Holy Ghost is in you so you do not need to receive it again.

Those that wish to have their sins forgiven can just go to Jesus for that.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

By walking in the light as He did in fellowship with the Father & the Son, is how His blood cleanses us from sins too.

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.......7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The Eucharist does not do that. Jesus Christ is already in you which is why forgiveness is that accessible so that is why the Mass is not necessary because it was never a means to obtain forgiveness or the remission of sins by.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

So believe Him, brother. You don't need the Eucharist nor be a slave to the RCC' system of works to get your sanctfication from when all invitations points to Jesus for life.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

How was this done... ?

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are not going to find such an emphasis for salvation in any of the N.T. instructions to the churches that you find so many of in the Catholic catechism. Truly, the simplicity of the gospel is lost in the catechism.

Please listen to this short presentation by Jimmy Akin. He explains how we Catholics are not 're-crucifying' Jesus each mass and gives biblical support for why we celebrate the massl

[Catholic propaganda edited out]

 

[Walter]

Please listen to this short presentation by Jimmy Akin. He explains how we Catholics are not 're-crucifying' Jesus each mass and gives biblical support for why we celebrate the massl

[Catholic propaganda edited out]

Interesting you 'edit' out a short piece that destroys your continual claim that the mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ, but you allow 'Protestant' (Rand from Iconbusters) to constantly post rabid, distorted anti-Catholic propaganda. Of course, any enemy of your enemy is your friend.

 

[Walter]

Interesting you 'edit' out a short piece that destroys your continual claim that the mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ, but you allow 'Protestant' (Rand from Iconbusters) to constantly post rabid, distorted anti-Catholic propaganda. Of course, any enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Looks like you are really scared to look at the truth.

 

[Hark]

How many times Does Jesus repeat the sacrifice at the cross when he did communion himself?

Luke
19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

You would argue here with Jesus Christ. You would tell him, That's not the blood poured out for the new covenant...... Its tomorrow.

And yet the Catholic Church has transubstantiation, all basing on those few verses in John 6th chapter when that event in John 6th chapter wasn't about taking communion, and the event you had referred to above was before the cross and so it could not be His body nor His blood even by transubstantiation.

You insist on symbolism by your reference above, but not for communion now?

I'll leave your quoted Bible reference out of quote so it is easier to read.

1 Corinthians 11

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Look Paul says "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" How many times is Paul redoing the sacrifice?

Paul is delivering something here, what is it? These people are already saved.

For the bread and for the blood, Paul said what Jesus said plainly for what you are to DO that for; twice... in remembrance of Me. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As much as the Catholic churches places such an emphasis on it for other reasons, it is not so plainly stated as such in the N.T. for why they are taking communion.

This is why you should prove everything by the scripture to reprove those things added to what was plainly written to know it is not of Him.

 

[Hark]

Please listen to this short presentation by Jimmy Akin. He explains how we Catholics are not 're-crucifying' Jesus each mass and gives biblical support for why we celebrate the massl

[Catholic propaganda edited out]

Please listen to what I am saying what the Catholic church is saying.

I was wrong in reciting "redoing the cross" as purported the assumed claim by utilyan, in trying to make my point, but...

If the church is making the one time sacrifice for sins "present" to be received "again", that would be the same things as receiving the one time sacrifice for sins "again".

You can only receive the one time sacrifice for sins one time to be forever sanctified for the Holy Ghost to be in you as a Witness that you are saved. You receive that remission of sins by believing in Jesus Christ, and then comes the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. ...48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Peter did not mention any works of catholicism here, but they had received the Holy Ghost BEFORE water baptism and before they even confessed with their mouths!!! They had received the promise of the Holy Ghost simply by believing in Him to receive that remission of sins.

And so there is no receiving Jesus Christ again for He is in us always.

That is why communion is only to be done in remembrance of Him as believers need a reminder of the cost that was given to ransom them.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Bought is past tense. Not in the process of buying. Bought. You are saved. The Holy Ghost being in you is proof you are saved.

 

[utilyan]

And yet the Catholic Church has transubstantiation, all basing on those few verses in John 6th chapter when that event in John 6th chapter wasn't about taking communion, and the event you had referred to above was before the cross and so it could not be His body nor His blood even by transubstantiation.

You insist on symbolism by your reference above, but not for communion now?

I'll leave your quoted Bible reference out of quote so it is easier to read.

1 Corinthians 11

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”



For the bread and for the blood, Paul said what Jesus said plainly for what you are to DO that for; twice... in remembrance of Me. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As much as the Catholic churches places such an emphasis on it for other reasons, it is not so plainly stated as such in the N.T. for why they are taking communion.

This is why you should prove everything by the scripture to reprove those things added to what was plainly written to know it is not of Him.

No sir, None of Communion is based on scripture. ALL SCRIPTURE is based on Communion.

Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY, Good enough for me. You trust your eyes first, that's your choice I trust GOD FIRST.

You worship and take commands from BIBLE? I worship and take commands from Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 11
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.



The reason Christ is denied in John 6 is where most disciples leave Jesus EVERYONE left him but the 12.


John 6

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?


The #1 Reason a person will dump Christ is right here in John 6. He can claim to be God, God's Son, the VINE, The WAY , The TRUTH, the LIGHT. And the disciples don't leave.


55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.



A true glass of water.......is water it really is. Its not make believe.


John 6
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

Now Jesus has done this style of preaching before.

Matthew 9
5“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’?

When questioned if he could actually forgive sins the miracle to point he actually can is he tells the guy get up and walk, so he does.

Now in John 6 when question if one can eat the body and drink his blood, the miracle to point that one actually does is when they see him ascending to heaven.

You don't hear anyone say......well he forgives sins symbolically..... No its the real deal and the miracle is just to emphasize how much of a real deal the forgiveness is.

His ascending to heaven is another miracle again to emphasize how much of a real deal is the real presence of the Eucharist.

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY, Good enough for me. You trust your eyes first, that's your choice I trust GOD FIRST.

Jesus said, "I am the door." Good enough for me. Hollow core or solid? Pass through or dead bolt hardware? Little peek hole to see who is outside or a smaller door within the door?

Jesus said, "I am the way." (Way = οδος = road.) Gravel or blacktop? Two lane or four lane? Expressway or surface feeder?

He also said "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." So, as you want to take it absolutely literally it was the cup and not what was in the cup that was the New Covenant in His blood? Cup. Ceramic or tin? Handle or no?

 

[Hark]

No sir, None of Communion is based on scripture. ALL SCRIPTURE is based on Communion.

His ascending to heaven is another miracle again to emphasize how much of a real deal is the real presence of the Eucharist.

Scripture reproves treating communion in that way.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.....25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

So His Presence is not in the Eucharist.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received.........

So you are not receiving His Presence again in the bread and wine.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

There is no need to receive Him again when He is in you in according to our faith in Jesus Christ.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

If Jesus was talking about communion in John 6th chapter, then you would never need to eat the bread of life again, because He promised you that you would never hunger for it again. Therefore not only is taking the Eucharist contrary to the promise given, communion was not what Jesus was talking about in John 6th chapter.

Those scripture plainly set communion to be done in remembrance of Him only. God cannot judge us by what none of the epistles are telling us to do communion for that the Catholic church is claiming we are to do communion for. Scripture reminds us what communion is for. If it takes a book length catechism to explain what communion is for, then it would have been written so in the N.T. in that same great length, but it was not.

 

[utilyan]

Please listen to what I am saying what the Catholic church is saying.

I was wrong in reciting "redoing the cross" as purported the assumed claim by utilyan, in trying to make my point, but...

If the church is making the one time sacrifice for sins "present" to be received "again", that would be the same things as receiving the one time sacrifice for sins "again".

You can only receive the one time sacrifice for sins one time to be forever sanctified for the Holy Ghost to be in you as a Witness that you are saved. You receive that remission of sins by believing in Jesus Christ, and then comes the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. ...48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Peter did not mention any works of catholicism here, but they had received the Holy Ghost BEFORE water baptism and before they even confessed with their mouths!!! They had received the promise of the Holy Ghost simply by believing in Him to receive that remission of sins.

And so there is no receiving Jesus Christ again for He is in us always.

That is why communion is only to be done in remembrance of Him as believers need a reminder of the cost that was given to ransom them.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Bought is past tense. Not in the process of buying. Bought. You are saved. The Holy Ghost being in you is proof you are saved.

Hark you said: 'If the church is making the one time sacrifice for sins "present" to be received "again", that would be the same things as receiving the one time sacrifice for sins "again".'

That's absolutely true. You are beating a dead horse.

Good thing the Catholic church doesn't do that. You are beating the WRONG dead horse.
Hark I want to give you the tools, so you can look precisely at our teachings and say ok here this is your official teaching, check, you agree with it, check, and this is why its wrong.

Instead of you having to MAKE UP what we believe a belief we would never agree with ourselves.

Here is a LINK.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Its the Catechism of the Catholic church, In other words "its what we teach and believe" really.

There are hundreds of pages in it.......Jeez I know it has to be easy to find ONE THING WRONG.


You might be interested on our section of Justification and how we REQUIRE FAITH.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM


To give an example some entries:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please (God) " and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"]




The hardest thing about defending the Catholic Faith is no one has actually challenged it yet. They challenge what they think it is.

I invite you to get the real dirt on us. Look at something we have wrong in the catechism and bring it up here.

 

[Hark]

Hark you said: 'If the church is making the one time sacrifice for sins "present" to be received "again", that would be the same things as receiving the one time sacrifice for sins "again".'

That's absolutely true. You are beating a dead horse.

You had posted this; but...

Good thing the Catholic church doesn't do that. You are beating the WRONG dead horse.
Hark I want to give you the tools, so you can look precisely at our teachings and say ok here this is your official teaching, check, you agree with it, check, and this is why its wrong.

Instead of you having to MAKE UP what we believe a belief we would never agree with ourselves.

Are you saying that it is NOT absolutely true? I am not sure what you mean by my making things up.

Here is a LINK.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Its the Catechism of the Catholic church, In other words "its what we teach and believe" really.

There are hundreds of pages in it.......Jeez I know it has to be easy to find ONE THING WRONG.

Just a question. What does that mean in bold and underline below. please? From this link:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

"1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant."

Can you at least see why I had posted the way I had done? If you can clear up this misunderstanding, please do, but as it is, making that one time sacrifice for sin "present" in the sacrament is to receive that one time sacrifice for sin again.

You might be interested on our section of Justification and how we REQUIRE FAITH.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM


To give an example some entries:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please (God) " and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"]

The hardest thing about defending the Catholic Faith is no one has actually challenged it yet. They challenge what they think it is.

I invite you to get the real dirt on us. Look at something we have wrong in the catechism and bring it up here.

All believers are in danger of becoming double-minded; saying one thing and then saying something that is contrary or opposite of what was just said. I believe the catechism is in that way.

 

[Walter]

And yet the Catholic Church has transubstantiation, all basing on those few verses in John 6th chapter when that event in John 6th chapter wasn't about taking communion, and the event you had referred to above was before the cross and so it could not be His body nor His blood even by transubstantiation.

You insist on symbolism by your reference above, but not for communion now?

I'll leave your quoted Bible reference out of quote so it is easier to read.

1 Corinthians 11

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”



For the bread and for the blood, Paul said what Jesus said plainly for what you are to DO that for; twice... in remembrance of Me. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As much as the Catholic churches places such an emphasis on it for other reasons, it is not so plainly stated as such in the N.T. for why they are taking communion.

This is why you should prove everything by the scripture to reprove those things added to what was plainly written to know it is not of Him.

Not just based on what is in John, but Paul made it very clear that the cup that is blessed and the bread that is broke IS the very body and blood of Christ. Plus the Early Church made it abundantly clear that they believed that too! The symbolic view was an invention many, many years later.

 

[Walter]

I did provide a link, just a couple of posts before you posted this one. Here is the link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en...t-guide-to-the-eastern-catholic-churches.html

Again, you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is NO Roman Catholic Church and another Catholic Church (or churches). If Churches are in Union with the Pope they are part of the Catholic Church, PERIOD. 'It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).' http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/when-did-the-term-roman-catholic-church-first-come-into-being

DHK, you have been told this over and over for years and are either too dense to understand or you refuse to receive the truth. I think you are so ingrained with what you THINK you know about the Catholic Church that you will never change your mind no matter WHAT amount of proof is provided. Sigh

 

[utilyan]

You had posted this; but...



Are you saying that it is NOT absolutely true? I am not sure what you mean by my making things up.



Just a question. What does that mean in bold and underline below. please? From this link:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

"1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant."

Can you at least see why I had posted the way I had done? If you can clear up this misunderstanding, please do, but as it is, making that one time sacrifice for sin "present" in the sacrament is to receive that one time sacrifice for sin again.



All believers are in danger of becoming double-minded; saying one thing and then saying something that is contrary or opposite of what was just said. I believe the catechism is in that way.

Writings are just writings, If you are witnessing accurate teaching and WRONG practice of that teaching. That is not something NEW.

Story is Jesus was killed by his own folk. Yet Jesus didn't say Pharisees had a false religion, he told people to do what they SAY don't do what they DO because they didn't practice what they preach. (Matthew 23 1-3)

God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called.

The 1330 line has 150 footnote:
150 Heb 13:15; cf. 1 Pet 25; Ps 116:13, 17; Mal 1:11.


Hebrews 13

15Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

1 Peter 2

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Psalms 116 (This was my first time reading 116, I put a little extra the whole thing is very beautiful chapter)
13I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
14I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people.
15Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
16O LORD, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds.
17I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.
18I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people,



Malachi 1
11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

 

[Hark]

Not just based on what is in John, but Paul made it very clear that the cup that is blessed and the bread that is broke IS the very body and blood of Christ. Plus the Early Church made it abundantly clear that they believed that too! The symbolic view was an invention many, many years later.

Not according to the concordance on the Greek meaning of haima and soma.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B46C010.htm

The Greek word "haima" which blood was translated from is defined in two ways:

"of uncertain derivation; blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred:--blood."

The Greek word "soma" which body was translated from is also defined in two ways.

"from swzw - sozo 4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively:--bodily, body, slave."

But since they are both applied to receive in remembrance of Him and not for the remission of sins, it has to be figuratively.

Discern this point; if it was for the remission of sins, don't you think that would be the far more important thing to write about in what communion was for instead of doing it in remembrance of Him?

 

[Hark]

Writings are just writings, If you are witnessing accurate teaching and WRONG practice of that teaching. That is not something NEW.

Well, was I making it up or was that not what the catechism says?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

"1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant."

So if the Holy Sacrifice "makes present" the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior, then what are you doing when you are receiving that one sacrifice of Christ again and again at every Mass?

Story is Jesus was killed by his own folk. Yet Jesus didn't say Pharisees had a false religion, he told people to do what they SAY don't do what they DO because they didn't practice what they preach. (Matthew 23 1-3)

Pharisees were stuck on receiving the bread of life like manna to eat which is why Jesus said why they had not received it because they did not do what He had told them to do in order to receive it; by believing in Him.

God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called.

The 1330 line has 150 footnote:
150 Heb 13:15; cf. 1 Pet 25; Ps 116:13, 17; Mal 1:11.

Hebrews 13

15Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

Hebrews 13:15 is not talking about the one time sacrifice for sins by Christ.

1 Peter 2

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

That is a reality about every believer as lively stones that ARE built up a spiritual house to offer up spiritual sacrifices which is to continue to believe in Him, but those that are disobedient by rejecting the simplicity of the gospel on how they are saved, will be disallowed.

(This was my first time reading 116, I put a little extra the whole thing is very beautiful chapter)

It is a very beautiful chapter. Thanks for sharing it.

I do call your attention to verse 17 as that kind of sacrifices is giving thanksgiving to God.

Psalm 116
13I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
14I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people.
15Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
16O LORD, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds.
17I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.
18I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people,

Let's look at the verse before and after verse 11;

Malachi 1
10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

Is not the Eucharist shutting the door of salvation by the offering in your hand? Is the Eucharist standing between you and the door that it will not allow you to enter in simply by believing in Him?

11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

What would be a pure offering? Thanksgiving to God for having saved us by faith in Jesus Christ.

12 But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

So instead of doing communion in remembrance of Him to be thankful that you are saved, the Eucharist and the wine has become idols and thus has polluted His name, profaning communion as if having received that one time sacrifice for sins by believing in Him was not good enough that you had to receive Him again and again every time you take the Eucharist.

I trust Jesus Christ to do His work more than I trust the Eucharist. Jesus would not give His glory to something else; an idol, to do His work for Him. Same thing with water baptism. Jesus does not need to use water baptism to save anybody that believe in Him.

Something to consider or reconsider as the case may be, but I hope you can see why I still believe the way I do about what catholicism is as it is contrary to the good News in Christ Jesus for when I call Him the Savior, I really mean it. He did it. He saved me by my just believing in Him.

And my believing in Him is a work of God the Father Himself, otherwise, I would never have believed in Him or in His name. John 3:18-21 & John 6:44 & Matthew 11:25-27

 

[DHK]

Interesting you 'edit' out a short piece that destroys your continual claim that the mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ, but you allow 'Protestant' (Rand from Iconbusters) to constantly post rabid, distorted anti-Catholic propaganda. Of course, any enemy of your enemy is your friend.

You have known for a long time that it is against the rules to post links to Catholic Apologetics websites. You have done it in the past and I have edited them out in the past. When the Oneness Pentecostals were here I wouldn't allow them to post any links to any of their websites. At least here you have a link to your Catechism and some reference material. No Apolegetic sites are allowed however. You know that it is against the rules.

 

[DHK]

Again, you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is NO Roman Catholic Church and another Catholic Church (or churches). If Churches are in Union with the Pope they are part of the Catholic Church, PERIOD. 'It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).' http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/when-did-the-term-roman-catholic-church-first-come-into-being

DHK, you have been told this over and over for years and are either too dense to understand or you refuse to receive the truth. I think you are so ingrained with what you THINK you know about the Catholic Church that you will never change your mind no matter WHAT amount of proof is provided. Sigh

It is obvious that you don't agree with those Eastern churches. They don't believe in music and they don't even believe in the use of the rosary. But you say "all Catholics stand united." Are you willing to eat your words yet?

Here it is:

For example, unlike a good Latin parish, in a traditional Eastern Catholic parish you won't find musical instruments, statues, rosaries, or stations of the cross. Indeed, the priest may well have a wife and children, and the church might be without pews or kneelers. In some circumstances, even the Bible might have a larger canon and include Third and Fourth Maccabees. Unity does not mean uniformity.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en...t-guide-to-the-eastern-catholic-churches.html
But there is no unity with that many differences. Even the Canon is different.

 

[utilyan]

Well, was I making it up or was that not what the catechism says?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

"1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant."

So if the Holy Sacrifice "makes present" the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior, then what are you doing when you are receiving that one sacrifice of Christ again and again at every Mass?



Pharisees were stuck on receiving the bread of life like manna to eat which is why Jesus said why they had not received it because they did not do what He had told them to do in order to receive it; by believing in Him.



Hebrews 13

15Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

Hebrews 13:15 is not talking about the one time sacrifice for sins by Christ.

1 Peter 2

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

That is a reality about every believer as lively stones that ARE built up a spiritual house to offer up spiritual sacrifices which is to continue to believe in Him, but those that are disobedient by rejecting the simplicity of the gospel on how they are saved, will be disallowed.



It is a very beautiful chapter. Thanks for sharing it.

I do call your attention to verse 17 as that kind of sacrifices is giving thanksgiving to God.

Psalm 116
13I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
14I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people.
15Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
16O LORD, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds.
17I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.
18I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people,

Let's look at the verse before and after verse 11;

Malachi 1
10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

Is not the Eucharist shutting the door of salvation by the offering in your hand? Is the Eucharist standing between you and the door that it will not allow you to enter in simply by believing in Him?

11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

What would be a pure offering? Thanksgiving to God for having saved us by faith in Jesus Christ.

12 But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

So instead of doing communion in remembrance of Him to be thankful that you are saved, the Eucharist and the wine has become idols and thus has polluted His name, profaning communion as if having received that one time sacrifice for sins by believing in Him was not good enough that you had to receive Him again and again every time you take the Eucharist.

I trust Jesus Christ to do His work more than I trust the Eucharist. Jesus would not give His glory to something else; an idol, to do His work for Him. Same thing with water baptism. Jesus does not need to use water baptism to save anybody that believe in Him.

Something to consider or reconsider as the case may be, but I hope you can see why I still believe the way I do about what catholicism is as it is contrary to the good News in Christ Jesus for when I call Him the Savior, I really mean it. He did it. He saved me by my just believing in Him.

And my believing in Him is a work of God the Father Himself, otherwise, I would never have believed in Him or in His name. John 3:18-21 & John 6:44 & Matthew 11:25-27

Again here there is a difference in priority. We don't do communion for salvation sake, We do it because Jesus told us to. Our motives are Christ centered.


There some pretty basic questions you easily answer YES or NO to clear up our positions.

1 Corinthians 10
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Answer Paul.

 

[Hark]

Again here there is a difference in priority. We don't do communion for salvation sake, We do it because Jesus told us to. Our motives are Christ centered.

There some pretty basic questions you easily answer YES or NO to clear up our positions.

1 Corinthians 10
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Answer Paul.

You judge in context if Paul was treating the bread and the wine as having a presence: an idol.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Isn't the notion of verse 22 above rebukes the Catholic priests that has to be celibate in order to perform the Mass? Does that not infer power to them in making this supposed voluntary of Christ happening to have His Presence in the bread and the wine?

Reads to me that Paul is rebuking the Eucharist and the Mass for making communion about that sacrifice, but made present to be received.