C
CWBetts
Guest
you keep saying the same thing ad nauseum. But stll no real argument. Just becuse you say it does not make it fact.
- Status
H
Hisalone
Guest
Faith comes by hearing.
It is not me that says so but Jesus.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Taking “prrof texts” out of context does nothing. By extracting passages out of context, I can prove that God does not exist. Your arguments have lest substance than a fogbank
H
Hisalone
Guest
You couldnt find a translation from the greek that backs you up?
H
Hisalone
Guest
Show me where that has been done.
Surely Catholics take John 6 and 1Corintians 10 out of context and read more into the text than is there.
T
TomaszA
Guest
The scripture you mentioned had nothing to do with eating and drinking one’s body and blood, and you did not even bother to reference them.this is what I love about message boards
You can completely ignore my scriptures so you can post yours.
All of Gods word is truth, Meaning you cant pick and choose.
T
TomaszA
Guest
I haven’t seen any Protestant make an analysis of John 6 other than partially quoting verse 63 out of context (And this was responded to in post** #69**.)
Other than scripture, Catholics have the benefit of Apostolic origin and tradition. Although we may be ecclesiastically separated from our brothers and sisters in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, we all uphold this ancient and Divine teaching. I would not depart from Apostolic teaching for an opinion spawned by a German who lived some 500 years ago.
One example of an ancient affirmation of the Real Presence:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
The above letter was written by St Ignatius of Antioch, who at the age of 50 was sentenced to death by lions for the Christian Faith.
B
brkn1
Guest
I thought the RCC replaced “DO” with “OFFER”, but that is not in your collection of definitions here.
In any case, you can not perform something in the “memory” of the actual thing, if the something is supposed to be the same thing “remembered”. There is no need to remember something that is present.
S
steve_b
Guest
Since one of the definitions mentioned, is “to ordain”, and ordained priests offer sacrifice, I don’t see a supposed conflict that you think is there.
Add to that all the other definitions mentioned, and you can see the Catholic Church is correct.
brk:
Huh???
E
Ethan_Enoch
Guest
In Greek text I’m looking at it’s “ἐκχυννόμενον”, the present passive participle, “It is shed” or “it is being shed.” In the Vulgate it’s “effunditur” which is also present tense, as opposed to “effundetur” which would be future, so I’m not sure where the translators “shall be shed” from.
B
BJRumph
Guest
He’s making a valid point:
Why is Christ instructing his disciples to do this ceremony “IN MEMORY” of Him, if He , by the same words, is actually present as per the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
IF He is really present, as the Church teaches, then why are we called to remember someone, who is right there? If He is not there, or more importantly to the point, that He does not expect anyone to believe He is physically/literally there when they do it, then giving the purpose of performing the rite of being ‘in memory of me’ makes a LOT more sense than Him asking us to do it in memoriam while He is right there.
Why is Christ instructing his disciples to do this ceremony “IN MEMORY” of Him, if He , by the same words, is actually present as per the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
IF He is really present, as the Church teaches, then why are we called to remember someone, who is right there? If He is not there, or more importantly to the point, that He does not expect anyone to believe He is physically/literally there when they do it, then giving the purpose of performing the rite of being ‘in memory of me’ makes a LOT more sense than Him asking us to do it in memoriam while He is right there.
T
TomaszA
Guest
The biggest problem is that immediately before saying,* “Do this in remembrance of Me,”* He says, **“This is my Body.” ** Not: this “represents” me, or even omitting the phrase entirely to establish a joyful get together of Christians to celebrate Jesus. It’s clear that something more marvelous and mysterious is taking place.
As for why “Do it in remembrance of Me” I think the answer is quite simple. The Mass calls to mind Christ’s sacrifice by making it present under the Sacramental Veil. The fact that we remember what He did for us in no way denies the fact that He is really present! Furthermore, it reveals something still more mysterious. The Primary Minister of the Mass (or any Sacrament for that matter) is Jesus, not the priest! The priest serves as an instrument of Christ and therefore a minister in the secondary sense only. Thus it makes sense that the Lord said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” because He is making the Consecration possible, the priest is only His instrument.
Once again, I think it’s necessary to remember that the Real Presence has always been upheld and believed by the Church of God. I say Church of God because this is not a belief particular to the Church of God in Rome, it is a belief shared by those who lived in Byzantium, the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, etc it is quite plainly the universal belief of the People of God that Christ is truly present at the Altar. The dissent of a 15th century German is not going to make us depart from what has always been believed.
Those who reject this doctrine rely on isolating partial quotes out of context.
God bless,
Tomasz
H
Hisalone
Guest
Good point why is the Douay Rhiems the only translation that is not in the present tense?
bible.cc/mark/14-24.htm
C
CWBetts
Guest
Well said:thumbsup:
B
brkn1
Guest
There are many pagans that use the same argument to defend their superstitions and gross idolatries. “It has always been done this way.” That does not make it true.
The mass is said to remit “venial” sins in a “bloodless sacrifice”, but the Holy Bible is clear that “without the shedding of blood is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22). This clear statement contradicting the efficacy of the mass proves that the claims for the mass are unbiblical.
Jesus said “I am the bread of life.”; not “I will become, at times, the bread of life.”
Jesus told the woman at the well that “true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth” since “God is a Spirit.”
You seem to prefer keeping the main part of your worship on a physical (substantiated) level. Jesus is a literal piece of bread, although He is only a symbolic door, vine, etc.
Jesus died for our sins once at Calvary and He physically went back to the Father. He will not physically return until the Second Coming promised. The Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus to take His place until Jesus returns physically. Jesus is physically in Heaven right now as our High Priest and Mediator. Jesus said that it was expedient for us that He goes away to the Father. Jesus was speaking in the physical sense, since He is always spiritually with those that are His sheep.
H
Hisalone
Guest
What is it that we are to remember? Is it the breaking of bread or is it the passion that Christ is about to undertake?
Is it not to remember what He did for us? That our sins and the penalty for those sins were placed on Him. That His blood purchased our freedom our redemption.
It is turning our affections on Him and believing what He did that His presence enters us, we ingest Him.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace brkn1,
We call the Mass a “clean oblation” or “bloodless sacrifice” because it is the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross under the Sacramental Veil. The fact that Christ presents Himself under two separate species (Body and Blood) reveals a real sacrifice.
If something is universally believed by Christians and it dates to antiquity, it’s clearly a belief explicitly handed down by the Apostles.
The problem with your statement is that the Mass is not a separate sacrifice. The Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary made present under the Sacramental Veil. Thus the power to remit venial sin stems from Sacrifice on the Cross.
We call the Mass a “clean oblation” or “bloodless sacrifice” because it is the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross under the Sacramental Veil. The fact that Christ presents Himself under two separate species (Body and Blood) reveals a real sacrifice.
I simply believe what my Lord wants me to believe, what the Church of God has always believed.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace Hisalone,
We commemorate what He did for us, the Sacrifice of the Cross.
No. It is Christ saying, “This is my Body… take it and eat!”
B
brkn1
Guest
You can not “commemorate” “the Sacrifice of Calvary MADE PRESENT”.
“Made present” eliminates all need or even the idea of “commemorate”.
We are told to “Do this in remembrance…”; not “Do this to make present…”.
You are preaching another gospel not found in scripture, unless you twist the truth. There is no “explicitly handed down” words of the apostle to defend your claim. The “breaking of bread” would have been described as “eating of Jesus” in Scripture, if explicit were the case.
- Status