A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[Novocastrian]

the Portugese were trying to unite all that division. Why all this division in the first place?

By conquest, colonialism and ecclesiastical latinisation. That went well.

 

[steve_b]

Position yes, roles no.

A distinction without a difference.
p:

No where does Paul cite Timothy or others elders to transubstantiate the bread and wine.

Paul taught the change occurs

1 Corinthians 11:27

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? iow, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE in the bread and wine?

You cannot become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol of them.
If St. Paul and the apostles teach that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord and the 1st & 2nd century believers wrote that they shared that belief then who are you to deny it? Ignatius Epistle to the Philadelphians ch 4, Epistle to the Smyrnæans ch 7-8, Irenaeus Bk V Chapter 2, are very clear on this. Ignatius was a close friend of St John the apostle. John 6:26-71 Jesus describes in detail what He will establish in the Eucharist
p:

First of all , it is not called “mass”.

Mass and Eucharist, are synonymous
p:

Secondly, it does not say how often, for it is apparently different for some, according to his words, “as some do”.

“on the Day” = Sunday. as in every Sunday. And some are deliberately NOT meeting to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday
p:

Missing a mass is not sin, at least in your quote.

Wrong.
p:

The willful sin is falling away from faith.

The willful sin is the one deliberately done.
p:

You reject the sacrifice (the cross) then there is nothing else, no other sacrifice that can help you. He is not talking of the sacrifice of communion. He is talking about Calvary, having once tasted forgiveness where there is no more offering for sin [snip]

You’re avoiding the points being made.
p:

Declaring unholy what you once declared holy is worthy of fiery judgement. So if you miss mass, the assembling together, cause you now think them unholy, you are in trouble. But if you skip mass/assembling cause you are lazy , or sick or tired or even spiritually sloppy,that is something else and not what he is talking about here.

deliberately avoiding the Eucharist on Sunday is what is being talked about. If one is sick that’s different. If one is lazy, sloppy in faith, etc, they are guilty of this condemnation
p:

No. I am asking why do you put a bat in God’s hand for this when He does not ?

Relativize those passages I gave at your own perile.
p:

Not how you word it. The blood of the covenant, the sacrifice for sin is Calvary.

I gave you the quotes. Jesus said those words instituting the Eucharist.
p:

There is no more offering for sin (vs 18). Hooray ! which we remember by eucharist or giving thanks, a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Do you need a priest to give “thanksgiving” for our High Priest ?

Our high priest instituted the priesthood. When Jesus said “DO” this. Jesus wanted his priests to do exactly what He was doing when He instituted the Eucharist.

Lk 22:19
19 Do ( ποιεῖτε ) this in remembrance of me
p:

Yes, He inhabits the praises of His people,the Royal Priesthood, even when they “remember” in eucharist. A sacrifice of praise continually and forever, before Him

You’re avoiding what’s being said
p:

Perhaps, but that is not what Hebrews is about. The one who calls it unholy, who once called it holy is in big trouble.

That’s not the context
p:

That is right. Once you reject Calvary, you are toast.

That’s not the context
p:

The conclusion, I fear, is made up.

The conclusion is right.
p:

Understand it as part of you tradition, and Church dogma. Not sure I would use Hebrews for it though ,but otherwise very well put together.

Poco, the Catholic Church wrote the NT. I’m trying to help you out here.

 

[steve_b]

Ah, you mean the house of St. Mark’s mother? Guess which Church that traditionally belongs to? I’ll give you a hint: We’ve been talking about it in this thread, and it’s not Rome or the Nestorians’.

Thanks for the hint

To answer “Which Church” I have to ask you a question for clarification. When is the first time in history, the name “Orthodox Church” came into writing? Please give references.
d:

If it’s really about “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints”, why don’t you know basic Christian history?

I guess you don’t like my sources? :console:
d:

The East Syriac/West Syriac division is imperial (no different in that respect than Eastern Romans and Western Romans, which you could hardly call a true division until you began anathematizing each other), having to do with who was within what Empire. The West Syriacs were mostly within Byzantine territories, and the East Syriacs mostly within Persian ones. There was at least some degree of crossover or spill-over. Their doctrinal division dates to the Council of Ephesus and the condemnation of Nestorius, which is not a point that any Chalcedonian would normally seize upon as a “division”, since Rome went along with that decision, too. So I don’t know what kind of point you think you’re making, but you’re not making it very well.

I’m talking about unity behind Peter. That’s the Catholic Church. That’s how you find it. Where Peter is there is the Catholic Church. Isn’t that the topic of the thread?
d:

Funny you should mention that, since St. Peter founded the Church at Antioch, and it is to this Petrine See that the Syriac Orthodox trace their origins. We are in union with the See of Peter and his true successor in the person of HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, thank you very much.

It’s not where Peter was, it’s where he IS. His last see is Rome. Therefore, the see of Peter is Rome.
d:

I appreciate that this is your view, but I disagree. Believe it or not, to those not in union with Rome (and even to a minority of those who are, like many Eastern and Oriental Catholics), the world does not revolve around the Roman Pope and proof-texting designed to justify uniquely Roman claims about him.

Actually I think you would be surprised at how much revolves around the Pope in the world.
d:

I’m sorry that you can’t see any other way for the Church to function because you believe that Jesus Christ gave all authority in the world to the successors of one man in perpetuity throughout the universe despite the fact that He never said anything close to that in anything that is recorded in the Scriptures or the writings of those who learned at the feet of the Apostles,

Re: what Jesus did for Peter

• Who exactly was eliminated from the commission Jesus gave to Peter when He said to Peter feed and rule my sheep? Who was left out of that commission?

Re: those who learned at the feet of the apostles

• Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John, bishop from ~69 a.d. to 1~107 a.d. wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches. Why did he say the Church of Rome holds the presidency?
• Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John as well, said all Churches must agree with Rome because of it’s pre-eminent authority. And he said that comes down from the 2 great apostles at Rome Peter and Paul and faithful men down to his day. Where did Irenaeus get this information? Had to come from Polycarp and Ignatious and other faithful men down to his day.

d:

who somehow stores that preeminence in only one of the three Sees that the ancient Church recognized as being rooted in St. Peter’s evangelism (those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch),

It’s not my words. It comes from Irenaeus Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) vs 1-3

Obviously since Irenaeus is writing “Against Heresies” he’s giving in this instruction the proper way “faithful” people think and act.
d:

but your ignorance and ability to make your faith look bad by being an unflappable ideologue doesn’t change the fact that this is one historical narrative of many, and a rather late one at that.

I do my best to quote my sources. I can’t imagine the flap Ignatius and Irenaeus stirred up in their day. Their writings are still upsetting people today.
d:

You’re going to have to try much better than the ham-fisted psuedo-apologetics that you constantly peddle here that have even caused some of your fellow Catholics to tire of your posts if you want to arouse any response from me beyond bored yawning and further iterations of posts like this one.

You seem well versed in the modern RC take on history, but you might as well be telling it to me in Klingon for as much sense as it makes to me and as much good as it’s doing to represent your faith.

The history I’ve posted hardly qualifies as modern.

 

[pocohombre]

]A distinction without a difference.

No. Paul’s inference is that presbyters and bishops were interchangeable terms. It was not till later that bishop was used for having larger “territory” or even being over presbyters.

Paul taught the change occurs
1 Corinthians 11:27

Understand. Just disagree. Further, that is not what the context is in Hebrews. And my point was that he does not say you need a presbyter to “transubstantiate.”

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? iow, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE in the bread and wine?

You can defile a representation. Apparently the Corinthians were taking part unworthily. That is like saying if I burn the flag am not really defiling our country, it is just a flag. Reality is ( in that all christians concur on this) Christ died in the flesh for our sins, and the symbol for remembrance is the eucharist. The CC adds transubstantiation, and from there are found differing views. back to a third point that is universal is that you can participate unworthily by being "unchristlike’, selfish, toward our brethren in the Body (what the corinthians were doing or holding on to sin)

You cannot become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol of them.

Yes you can , as I noted. I defile my forefathers blood that was shed for this nation’s freedom when I draft dodge for selfish reasons.

If St. Paul and the apostles teach that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord and the 1st & 2nd century believers wrote that they shared that belief then who are you to deny it?

Do they really, and in what way ? Do they talk of fasting before, presented only by a priest, carried only in gold, bending the knee at a monstrance,or putting Him behind a veil when leftover? These things are fine and understandable, just not necessarily apostolic tradition, at least the apostles didn’t do them.

Mass and Eucharist, are synonymousOk.Paul uses neither word, nor do I believe it to be the context in Hebrews for he leaves all symbols behind and speaks directly to Calvary.

“on the Day” = Sunday. as in every Sunday. And some are deliberately NOT meeting to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday

Is this your view or is this a specific CC teaching on this verse? Paul says assemble yes, as some do, BUT exhort one another. Is it possible you can assemble, as in take a pew as some do, but not interact with brethren in a positive manner ? I understand your reading of it, do you understand mine ? Don’t have to agree, just understand another point of view.

The willful sin is the one deliberately done.

Yes, but you are saying Hebrews 10 is dealing with missing Mass and I say that is not the sin he talks about. Vs 29 says,"some have counted the blood of the covenant whereby we are sanctified an unholy thing…hold fast to your faith without wavering (vs 23) . Paul and the bible generally speaks of sanctification thru Calvary, not the act of remembrance.
This is much more than missing Mass, but rejecting everything Christian.

You’re avoiding the points being made.]deliberately avoiding the Eucharist on Sunday is what is being talked about. If one is sick that’s different. If one is lazy, sloppy in faith, etc, they are guilty of this condemnatio

No. Met them head on. Said you put your points up well, just disagree.

Relativize those passages I gave at your own perile.

\ Yes, the bat is in His hands.

I gave you the quotes. Jesus said those words instituting the Eucharist.

Yes, the same words that point to Calvary.

Our high priest instituted the priesthood. When Jesus said “DO” this. Jesus wanted his priests to do exactly what He was doing when He instituted the Eucharist.

The apostles were apostles, and only priests as in the royal priesthood of all believers. It is your assumption Jesus meant only for them to consecrate.

You’re avoiding what’s being said

No, met it head on and you avoided my point.

That’s not the context

Yes, we differ on the context. Regardless, you have not commented on how missing Mass is “counting it (Son of God) unholy” per verse 29 ?

Poco, the Catholic Church wrote the NT. I’m trying to help you out here.

Thank you . I consider my comments to be faithful to our foundation.

 

[pocohombre]

I’m talking about unity behind Peter. That’s the Catholic Church. That’s how you find it. Where Peter is there is the Catholic Church. Isn’t that the topic of the thread?

Ignatius writes where the bishop is there is the church even Christ and he goes on to mention several bishops by name in his letters.It is not just Peter

*]Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John, bishop from ~69 a.d. to 1~107 a.d. wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches. Why did he say the Church of Rome holds the presidency?

Actually 14 letters are found .7 are spurious and 7 are thought to be legit. Then there are two different versions, a long form and a short form for the legit 7. Don’t know if the presidency is found in both forms (making it more legit). Anyways, he also does not mention the name of the ruler of the church (the pope) in his letter to Rome. So he mentions bishops of some cities but does not know the popes name ? Proves nothing but …?

Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John as well, said all Churches must agree with Rome because of it’s pre-eminent authority. And he said that comes down from the 2 great apostles at Rome Peter and Paul and faithful men down to his day.

So Paul was pope ? I would say a church founded by both apostles is quite a distinction that no other church could say. I would therefore say if you line up,agree with them, you are quite safe in the faith. Two is better than one. You are presupposing that he is laying foundation for papacy, though if I were Catholic I would use it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ignatius writes where the bishop is there is the Catholic] -]c/-]C]hurch even Christ and he goes on to mention several bishops by name in his letters.

Fixed.

 

[pocohombre]

Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John, bishop from ~69 a.d. to 1~107 a.d. wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches. Why did he say the Church of Rome holds the presidency?

Here is the excerpt from Ignatius letter to Romans:
"“to the
church that is beloved and enlightened through the
will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith
and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her
that hath the presidency in the country of the region
of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour,
worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of
success, worthy in purity, and* having the presidency
of love*, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the
Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that
in flesh and spirit are united unto His every
commandment, being filled with the grace of God
without wavering, and filtered clear from every
foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our
God in blamelessness…”…“this then was the original primacy of Rome-a primacy not of the bishop but of the whole church, a primacy not of official authority but of practical goodness, backed however by the prestige and the advantages which were necessarily enjoyed by the church of the metropolis”, …comment by the translator Lightfoot vintage.aomin.org/1296CATR.html. It is the presidency of what,the entire church ? No, not according to the letter. It is the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans. Presidency of the region is the implication, not of the world.

 

[steve_b]

No. Paul’s inference is that presbyters and bishops were interchangeable terms. It was not till later that bishop was used for having larger “territory” or even being over presbyters.

Pope Clement bishop of Rome, settled sedition among the bishops in Corinth Greece ~80 a.d.

btw, St John the apostle is still alive and living in Ephesus. He hadn’t written the book of Revelations yet.
p:

Understand. Just disagree. Further, that is not what the context is in Hebrews. And my point was that he does not say you need a presbyter to “transubstantiate.”

The one in charge of a local Church is the bishop. And as the quotes I’ve given in the past say, do nothing in the Church without the Bishop.

Look poco, don’t get caught someday, standing in front of Jesus trying to sell Him on Protestantism. That conversation won’t go well.

The Church Jesus established from the beginning is the Catholic Church. He gave all His promises to His Church. Outside of which there is no salvation.

The links I’ve been providing you are from Catholics. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc etc are all Catholics in the Catholic Church. As are those who taught them… Peter, Paul, James, John, Mathew, Mark, Luke…you get the idea.
p:

You can defile a representation. Apparently the Corinthians were taking part unworthily. That is like saying if I burn the flag am not really defiling our country, it is just a flag. Reality is ( in that all christians concur on this) Christ died in the flesh for our sins, and the symbol for remembrance is the eucharist. The CC adds transubstantiation, and from there are found differing views. back to a third point that is universal is that you can participate unworthily by being "unchristlike’, selfish, toward our brethren in the Body (what the corinthians were doing or holding on to sin)

the flag is a symbol. The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus.
p:

Yes you can , as I noted. I defile my forefathers blood that was shed for this nation’s freedom when I draft dodge for selfish reasons.

We’re talking about the Eucharist, the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus…
p:

Is this your view or is this a specific CC teaching on this verse? Paul says assemble yes, as some do, BUT exhort one another. Is it possible you can assemble, as in take a pew as some do, but not interact with brethren in a positive manner ? I understand your reading of it, do you understand mine ? Don’t have to agree, just understand another point of view.
Yes, but you are saying Hebrews 10 is dealing with missing Mass and I say that is not the sin he talks about. Vs 29 says,"some have counted the blood of the covenant whereby we are sanctified an unholy thing…hold fast to your faith without wavering (vs 23) . Paul and the bible generally speaks of sanctification thru Calvary, not the act of remembrance.
This is much more than missing Mass, but rejecting everything Christian.

I’ve given the passage and the explanation.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11405153&postcount=185
p:

The apostles were apostles, and only priests as in the royal priesthood of all believers.

I’ve shown you with historical documents where you are wrong.
p:

It is your assumption Jesus meant only for them to consecrate.

I’ve given you my sources. It’s not my assumption. You otoh have given me your opinion.
p:

Yes, we differ on the context. Regardless, you have not commented on how missing Mass is “counting it (Son of God) unholy” per verse 29 ?
Thank you . I consider my comments to be faithful to our foundation.

Look at post 185 link above. I answered you.
29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

What’s this referring back to?

“not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near”

This describes coming together celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday… That’s what they did on Sunday. That’s why the language in the entire passage is the way it is. I gave you the references for fuller context. If you don’t read it, then I can’t help you.

 

[steve_b]

Ignatius writes where the bishop is there is the church even Christ and he goes on to mention several bishops by name in his letters.It is not just Peter

He said it much stronger than that.

Epistle to the Smyrnæans ch 8 (emphasis mine)

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

This actually is a good catechism lesson for you. Ignatius being a disciple of John was no doubt taught this from John.

Note:

• Bishop, priest, deacon already mentioned as the leaders of the Church
• Nothing is secure and validly done in the Church, without the bishop. That answers one of your points in another post, about who is qualified to consecrate the Eucharist.
• wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church

It’s what I’ve been saying all along poco, the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus started and gave all His promises to.
p:

Actually 14 letters are found .7 are spurious and 7 are thought to be legit. Then there are two different versions, a long form and a short form for the legit 7. Don’t know if the presidency is found in both forms (making it more legit). Anyways, he also does not mention the name of the ruler of the church (the pope) in his letter to Rome.

The only apostle alive at this point is John. All the others have been rounded up and martyred. Because of the severe persecution at the time to the Church, names in leadership positions were not loosly given. Ignatius is caught, and on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions. He asks the Church of Rome (no names given to protect identities and location ) not to do anything to save him.

All you have to do is look at the quote I gave from Ignatius. He’s not going to break the rule he goes by. That is, do nothing without the bishop. Therefore his letters go to bishops in each location.
p:

So he mentions bishops of some cities but does not know the popes name ?

Oh stop!
p:

Proves nothing but …?So Paul was pope ? I would say a church founded by both apostles is quite a distinction that no other church could say. I would therefore say if you line up,agree with them, you are quite safe in the faith. Two is better than one. You are presupposing that he is laying foundation for papacy, though if I were Catholic I would use it.

Now you know that it’s the Catholic Church that Jesus started. You can’t deny it. One who knows this and won’t enter the Catholic Church or remain in it won’t be saved

That’s why Paul wrote the following

[Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)
btw, dissension / division (διχοστασία) is the Greek word used in both those writings. So we know how Jesus will judge that sin. Therefore one who remains in that sin, (dissension / division διχοστασία from the Catholic Church) as Paul warns, won’t inherit heaven.[Gal 5:21] That’s where [846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846) in the CCC came from.

Ignatius said the same thing Epistle to the Philadelphians ch 2-3

 

[pocohombre]

[Pope Clement bishop of Rome, settled sedition among the bishops in Corinth Greece ~80 a.d.
btw, St John the apostle is still alive and living in Ephesus. He hadn’t written the book of Revelations yet.

Understand CC position on this . Do you understand what the other half of Christendom says on the revered letter ? Have you heard all the rebuttals to CC propositions ?

The one in charge of a local Church is the bishop. And as the quotes I’ve given in the past say, do nothing in the Church without the Bishop.
Except for Antioch I think,where the bishop is gone (Ignatius) and is in the care of Jesus, the" shepherd of us all", says Ignatius.

Look poco, don’t get caught someday, standing in front of Jesus trying to sell Him on Protestantism. That conversation won’t go well.

Ditto reverse ?

The Church Jesus established from the beginning is the Catholic Church. He gave all His promises to His Church. Outside of which there is no salvation.

Tell it like it is per the CC.

the flag is a symbol. The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus.

Per CC teaching the bread and wine are symbols also.

I’ve given the passage and the explanation.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11405153&postcount=185
Ditto

]I’ve shown you with historical documents where you are wrong.

I’ve given you my sources. It’s not my assumption. You otoh have given me your opinion.

You have no opinion ? It is inescapable. Your opinion is that the CC explanation for both scripture and historical documents are the correct ones, AND all other opinions must be wrong. You also assume therefore no one else has “sources” just opinions. We both have sources and opinions.

Look at post 185 link above. I answered you.
29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?
What’s this referring back to?
“not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near”
This describes coming together celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday… That’s what they did on Sunday. That’s why the language in the entire passage is the way it is. I gave you the references for fuller context. If you don’t read it, then I can’t help you.

You gave me two consecutive verses. I gave you at least four from the chapter . Can you deem correctly from just two ? He exhorts to a new way to live because of Calvary (vs 19,20), draw near (to God) vs 22, hold fast to the faith vs 23, consider and encourage others vs 24, assemble together, exhort one another vs 25. Then is “willful sin” vs 26 Why do you assume the willful sin is only about vs,25 and NOT vs 20,22,23,24, ? Hebrews 6:4-6 already speaks of tasting God’s goodness and “falling away”. It is repeated in ch 10 again .It is more than just “missing Mass”.

 

[steve_b]

Do you understand what the other half of Christendom says on the revered letter ? Have you heard all the rebuttals to CC propositions ?

You said “It was not till later that bishop was used for having larger “territory” or even being over presbyters.” So I responded with Clement of Rome, settling sedition among the bishops in Corinth Greece. That was DURING apostolic times.
p:

Except for Antioch I think,where the bishop is gone (Ignatius) and is in the care of Jesus, the" shepherd of us all", says Ignatius.

Amen, but that doesn’t mean Jesus hasn’t made others as shepherds.
p:

Ditto reverse ?

No.
p:

Per CC teaching the bread and wine are symbols also.

Not when they’re consecrated.
p:

Ditto

no
p:

Your opinion is that the CC explanation for both scripture and historical documents are the correct ones,

The CC wrote the NT.
p:

We both have sources and opinions.

Name the source(s) of yours are you quoting from?
p:

I gave you at least four from the chapter . Can you deem correctly from just two ? He exhorts to a new way to live because of Calvary (vs 19,20), draw near (to God) vs 22, hold fast to the faith vs 23, consider and encourage others vs 24, assemble together, exhort one another vs 25.

Look at the words you’re using.

• live because of Calvary
• draw near to God
• hold fast to the faith
• encourage others
• assemble together
• exhort each other

Jesus established the Eucharist. It IS the sacrifice of Calvary represented to the Father. As Jesus said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. [Jn 6]

You can’t draw nearer to God on earth, than consuming Him in the Eucharist. And we are to encourage others to do just that by, becoming members of His OHCAC, and assembling for Eucharist on Sunday. This is the Catholic faith, the faith of the apostles.
p:

Then is “willful sin” vs 26 Why do you assume the willful sin is only about vs,25 and NOT vs 20,22,23,24, ? Hebrews 6:4-6 already speaks of tasting God’s goodness and “falling away”. It is repeated in ch 10 again .It is more than just “missing Mass”.

This was already explained

Heb 10: (all emphasis mine)
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27* but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28* A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Look at the words in red.

• What are they doing when they meet together?
• What day do they meet?
• it’s already in place that deliberately not meeting together is considered a serious sin that brings huge judgement and consequences for those who do it. Why?
• Why for THEM is there no sacrifice for sins who deliberately don’t meet?
• Why do THEY spurn the Son of God by deliberately not meeting?
• Why do THEY profane the blood of the covenant by deliberately not meeting?
• Why do THEY outrage the spirit of grace by deliberately no meeting?

The reason is, after receiving the *knowledge of the truth, *they are deliberately not participating in the celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday. And It’s already a huge sin, and they are being warned of it in the most graphic terms.

• The Eucharist John 6:56-69 instituted by the Son of God
• Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.(i.e. sacrifice for sin)
• Mark 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
• Luke 22:20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
• 1 Corinthians 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

When one deliberately doesn’t celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, those consequences mentioned are the realities and results for that person’s soul. This is why Sunday is a holy day of obligation.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve seen an argument repeatedly deployed on these forums, taken from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:

Some posters here see this as a strong argument for the Roman Catholic Church’s claim * to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

The problem is this: what would you do if someone asked where the Orthodox Church meets? Would you direct him to your local RC Church, or to one in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc.? Or if someone asked where the Evangelical Church meets?

How can this argument be deployed without implicitly recognising that - by the same standard - one must abandon the claim to be orthodox, evangelical, or indeed any other title that is more commonly applied to a separate church?*

Not a problem at all: I would point them to any Orthodox Church or Catholic Church (All rites).

 

[Johnny777]

I’ve seen an argument repeatedly deployed on these forums, taken from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:

Some posters here see this as a strong argument for the Roman Catholic Church’s claim * to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

The problem is this: what would you do if someone asked where the Orthodox Church meets? Would you direct him to your local RC Church, or to one in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc.? Or if someone asked where the Evangelical Church meets?

How can this argument be deployed without implicitly recognising that - by the same standard - one must abandon the claim to be orthodox, evangelical, or indeed any other title that is more commonly applied to a separate church?*

How about guiding them to Christ.

 

[JonNC]

How about guiding them to Christ.

Why would you think the places Novo mentioned arent doing exactly that?

Jon

 

[Johnny777]

Why would you think the places Novo mentioned arent doing exactly that?

Jon

On the Old Covenant ark of testament was inscribed THE NAME, and in Hebrew it is KHA-SHIM.

The name is a definite article that points to the LOGOS, the Angel of the Father’s presence as mentioned throughout the Old Testament.

THE NAME is what is being rallied for by true Christians. God knows the intentions of the heart and knows how much a Christian stands for The Name. If I place another name before or beside THE NAME, I have not placed my heart solely for the cause of THE NAME.

It is all about THE NAME, that alludes to the definite article that identifies the LOGOS as the almighty God and everlasting Father, as declared in Isaiah 9:6.

If I place my denomination before or alongside THE NAME, I am not committed full heartily to THE NAME.

If I am not for THE NAME, then I can not profess to represent THE NAME. There lies the bias of placing denominational preeminence over THE NAME, who is the risen Lord, the Angel of the Father’s presence.

Are we for THE NAME?

If so then, we should not be advertising our denominational names, alongside THE NAME.

As I stated before, God knows the heart and what the heart stands for.

Does your hearts stand for THE NAME, or have you used THE NAME to advertise your denominational name?

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Revelation 3:8
I know thy works:behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it:for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

THE NAME

May Christ bless you

 

[JonNC]

On the Old Covenant ark of testament was inscribed THE NAME, and in Hebrew it is KHA-SHIM.

The name is a definite article that points to the LOGOS, the Angel of the Father’s presence as mentioned throughout the Old Testament.

THE NAME is what is being rallied for by true Christians. God knows the intentions of the heart and knows how much a Christian stands for The Name. If I place another name before or beside THE NAME, I have not placed my heart solely for the cause of THE NAME.

It is all about THE NAME, that alludes to the definite article that identifies the LOGOS as the almighty God and everlasting Father, as declared in Isaiah 9:6.

If I place my denomination before or alongside THE NAME, I am not committed full heartily to THE NAME.

If I am not for THE NAME, then I can not profess to represent THE NAME. There lies the bias of placing denominational preeminence over THE NAME, who is the risen Lord, the Angel of the Father’s presence.

Are we for THE NAME?

If so then, we should not be advertising our denominational names, alongside THE NAME.

As I stated before, God knows the heart and what the heart stands for.

Does your hearts stand for THE NAME, or have you used THE NAME to advertise your denominational name?

THE NAME

May Christ bless you

And? Each one of those communions or communities bear His name - Christian.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

How about guiding them to Christ.

That question raises another question. Namely, are you assuming that the church or denomination they belong to is not guiding them to Christ?

Personally I like Cardinal Kaspar’s statement “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” (Presumably he specified Anglicans because people might assume that the Ordinariates are an attempt to get Anglicans to become Catholic.)

 

[Johnny777]

Let me make it simple for you people.

If I tell you to respond to me quickly when I ask a question, what is the first thing that comes into your mind, in order to give an answer to.

For example:

Which faith do you stand for?

Now don’t take time to think about it, because then you are being dishonest in answering the question.

I have witnessed that many Christians will give the name of their denomination FIRST.

They will say, I am Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Catholic …etc.

You can see now, that what is most cherished in the heart, is the name that pops up quickly when answering this question.

Tell me how many Christians will say, I stand for Christ?

If people respond by saying, look off course we do. Then the question arises, why they didn’t answer using his name first, instead they used their denominational name and then when asked, they ONLY made an inference to his name.

As I stated before friends, Christ knows what is in our hearts. I just gave you this example as a self test.

May Christ bless you

 

[Peter_J]

Isn’t this just the same kind of rhetoric that some Catholics use with respect to the word “Catholic”? (cf the thread title “A stranger asks for the Catholic Church…”)

 

[JustaServant]

Let me make it simple for you people.

If I tell you to respond to me quickly when I ask a question, what is the first thing that comes into your mind, in order to give an answer to.

For example:

Which faith do you stand for?

Now don’t take time to think about it, because then you are being dishonest in answering the question.

I have witnessed that many Christians will give the name of their denomination FIRST.

They will say, I am Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Catholic …etc.

You can see now, that what is most cherished in the heart, is the name that pops up quickly when answering this question.

So what?
I have witnessed people saying Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist. They are all Christian.
What makes you think you are so high and mighty that you feel your non-affiliated answer is the best? What makes you more special than they?