How/why does the cross save?

[Dee123]

Here is how I look at it. Yeshua became a man and was going to die by the fact that he became a man either way. Whether it be the cross or when the sun goes pop. The mechanism of his death is of absolutely no use for salvation what so ever. the fact is that he did die as a man and was raised as a man. The resurection is our act of salvation not death. The death was merely part of a human life. No miracle in death what so ever.

The importance of the cross: a spectacular method of propegating a message through the ages. If Yeshua died like anybody else we may not even know about him. But to institute comunion, die on the cross for all to see and then be dead on the sabbath and rise from the dead ties all respectable religion of the time together and by a natural consequence has all those with faith looking were they should look. Whether it be the people of the scriptures or Mithraism. All eyes of faith are on Yeshua!

I picture a God that knows all things. He wants to save us. He knows that we need to say in our minds and heart… that ONE is my God. That ONE is the true God. He sits on the sidelines knowing that if he becomes a man at one time few if any will say there he is. But at another time he knows that the entire planet will have the opportunity to say… my knee touches this ground for YOU are the living God thank you for being as a man so I may know you and be saved.

I noticed that you say you’re an Orthodox Catholic…does that mean Ukrainian or Byzantine Catholic?
Anyway, the death DOES mean something…after all, St. Paul says that he/ we must proclaim the death of Christ…also, baptism unites us with the death and the resurrection of Christ…since Christ took upon Himself all of our sins and all the sins of everyone in the world, when he died, He put to death the power of Sin. So, when we are baptized, isn’t the power of sin put to death within us? That doesn’t mean we don’t sin. I think it means that through Christ, by God’s grace, it is possible to overcome our sin and put our selfishness, our selfish desires to death—however, it’s hard and it can take a lifetime…
Also, the manner of death definitely meant something…God chose to die the most horrible death possible…for our sakes and to show us how much He loves us…I still don’t understand it all…

 

[Pax]

It has been shown by science that all the material in your body gets exchanged within a definite time period. But just think about it. If you go to Mass every week for 50 years makes about 2500 Masses in your lifetime. 2500 times a gulp of wine makes up quite a volume of fluid!!! It does get exchanged and you do excrete it all!

Romanism disproved.

This make absolutely no sense at all, and neither proves or disproves anything concerning any article of faith. My goodness!!!

 

[Pax]

Please don’t get personal with me. I didn’t mean to get flippant, it is just that I simply cannot understand how Romanists claim that by repeating hoc est corpus meum in the Mass that Jesus Christ, the Lord Creator of the universe turns into multiple hosts, all containing His body, blood, soul, humanity and divinity (is Romanism a politheistic religion???). And also, again, Romanist theologians themselves argued about whether the host (that is, Jesus) is totally absorbed into the body at Mass (why not even mix some poison into it, will you still eat it, because hypothetically it turns into Jesus’ body - most certainly not!!!). They even gave it a Latin name to this specific theological question.

I only mentioned Hinduism in that we can support Hinduism the same way we can Romanism based on your logic.

An explanation for Malachi 1 is that the beleivers offer up all that they have symbolically to Jesus, that is, they offer themselves to him, because He offered Himself up for us. Therefore shall His name be great amongst not only the Jews but the Gentiles as well. So fitting.

Read Mark 14: Jesus speaks about the fruit of the vine, even though transsubstantiation is supposed to have already taken place - which goes to show that it in actual fact it diod not during the Last Supper… sorry.

God bless.

You’ve asked that I not get personal…try not using remarks that are insulting to Catholics. Such terms as Romanish and ridiculous comments and insults such as comparing the Eucharist to polytheism will get you up close and personal in a hurry.

I’m willing to start over if you are.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

…
I only mentioned Hinduism in that we can support Hinduism the same way we can Romanism based on your logic.

This is an absolutely false assertion for which there is absolutely no evidence.

An explanation for Malachi 1 is that the beleivers offer up all that they have symbolically to Jesus, that is, they offer themselves to him, because He offered Himself up for us. Therefore shall His name be great amongst not only the Jews but the Gentiles as well. So fitting.

Thanks for looking at scripture. The problem is that there is nothing in Malachi 1 that fits your exegesis. First of all there is nothing in it that suggests anything symbolic. Likewise, believers cannot be what is spoken of as offering themselves up because “believers” themselves are imperfect and their offering would not be a pure offering because of it. Likewise, scripture uses the term offering or oblation in Malachi 1 which is a priestly term of sacrifice. Catholics have the pure offering/sacrifice of Jesus in the mass.
I think you simply made up this interpretation.

Read Mark 14: Jesus speaks about the fruit of the vine, even though transsubstantiation is supposed to have already taken place - which goes to show that it in actual fact it diod not during the Last Supper… sorry.

God bless.

I’ve read Mark 14 and your statement makes no sense whatsoever and proves nothing. Once again, Mark 14 ties into the fourth cup and the consummation of the Last Supper/Passover meal. Please read the following article it will help a great deal:

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp

God bless.

 

[Pax]

*Precisely, my dear friend. The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products. You just disproved Romanism. The wine in the Mass is water laced with organic material found in grapes. Therefore it is wine and not the blood of Christ which had red blood cells in it and not organic plant matter in it.

A. Does blood contain water? Are red blood cells organic matter?

I give an alternative explanation to Jesus’ words in the Bible - aha, so you are interpreting Scripture in your own way without the magisterium of your church? At least you have been reformed this far. Good show.

A. ROFL. My words are exactly what the Church teaches. We teach that Jesus means what He says and that the Epistles must be examined in light of Jesus words, not the other way around.

Look: This is my body: does this mean that Jesus plucked a swath of His own flesh out of Himself? He took the bread and said that it is His body. Jesus is made out of bread??? It is so obvious that this must be taken figuratively…

A. You can’t get past the appearance to see the truth can you? Jesus also said that He was the manna that Israel ate in the desert. I suppose you discount that also.

To use another example, If God can appear as a burning bush to Moses, why cannot
Jesus appear as bread and wine? Why do you seek to limit the Creator of the universe in what He can do?*

1. Blood contains lots and lots of water and red blood cells are organic. But Jesus didn’t have the fruit of the vine for blood, He was a human being.
2. So that means that Jesus fell from the sky and the Israelites ate Him all up when they were wandering in the desert. You can’t get past your literalism to see the truth, can you?
3. God is a bush? Don’t you mean that God was speaking from within the burning bush?
4. God is Spirit, haven’t you read the Scriptures? Not matter (e.g. manna, bush, bread or wine, etc…).

I see the problem. You look at the spiritual and miraculous carnally. You must discern spiritually to understand the spiritual and miraculous. The sacramental real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is miraculous and cannot be understood, appreciated, or believed carnally. Mysteries such as the Trinity and Incarnation cannot be appreciated, understood, or believed carnally either.

You need a primer on the Eucharist. Again what I am about to give you is an abbreviated lesson and explanation:

Jesus was born in Bethlehem which means house of bread.

Jesus was laid in a manger which is a feeding trough.

Jesus works three miracles prior to the discourse on the bread of life in John 6.
The three miracles are the changing of the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, the feeding of the five thousand with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and finally Jesus walks on water. There are no parables or metaphors ahead of the discourse on the bread of life.

These three miracles are a preparation for the discourse in John 6 to enable the listeners to believe Jesus words in the discourse. The first two miracles demonstrate what Jesus can do with food, and the third shows what he can do with his body. The connection to food and his body in this series of miracles is illuminating. Then we look at the discourse itself and find that Jesus compares giving his body and blood as true food and true drink to the miraculous food of manna in the desert. The manna was true food and it was a miracle. Likewise, Jesus references another miracle in the discourse in verse 62. When the Jews did not believe Jesus promise of the Eucharist, he asked, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” This reference is to his later ascension into heaven. Thus Jesus has compared his promised miracle of the Eucharist to an OT miracle of food and to a future NT miracle of his bodily ascension. Jesus clearly connects food and his body in two miracles. This is very illuminating.

Likewise, Jesus does not speak in parables subsequent to the discourse on the bread of life until there are mentions of miracles in general and a specific reference to Jesus healing the blind man using his spittle and earth to make a salve of clay to cure the blindness[Jn 9:6]. Once again, Jesus uses common material in a miracle. It isn’t until Chapter 10 that we see any parables. Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in John 6 and the fact that the discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles and contains references to two miracles within it proves that he is speaking of a miracle in his promise of giving his body and blood as true food and true drink.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

This, however, is only the beginning of how we know Jesus is speaking literally and not figuratively. In the discourse Jesus tells the disciples four different times and in slightly different ways that his body and blood are true food and true drink and that as such they give eternal life. Jesus uses two greek terms. One is phago and the other is trogo. The former is a generic term “to eat.” The latter is much more graphic and means “to gnaw or chew.” Jesus goes from the weaker term to the stronger term in emphasizing his meaning to the disciples.

Here is the sequence:

1. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.**ate/phago] **
2. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.eat/phago]
3. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."**[eats/phago] **
4. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”**[eat/phago] **
5. So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;**eat/phago] **
6. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.**[eats/trogo] **
7. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
8. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.[eats/trogo]
9. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.[eats/trogo]
10. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." [eats/trogo]

It is also important to note what is said in verse 51. It says “and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Jesus tells us that the bread that is true food that he will give us is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross for our salvation. If the bread of life that is true food is Jesus flesh that will hang upon the cross then it must be literal and cannot be metaphorical. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically about giving us his body as true food, then he had to be talking metaphorically about his body being hung upon the cross for our salvation. No one believes the latter and no one should therefore doubt the former. You simply can’t have it both ways.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

The OT prefigures the NT and is less than the good things that come in the NT. The manna is true food but is a lesser miracle than the Eucharist and this is made clear by the comparison in the discourse. Likewise, the ascension of the NT is a true miracle and it is compared with the greater miracle of the Eucharist.

In verse 63 Jesus says “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” He is not telling us that his flesh avails nothing for it is his flesh that will hang upon the cross for our salvation. He is using the term flesh the way Paul does. It means human effort avails nothing. Attempting to carnally understand in a weak “fleshy” manner will not lead to belief in his promise. His words are spirit and life and require a spiritual man with spiritual discernment to understand and believe. Jesus rightly says that his words are spirit and life. One simply needs to read the words he spoke and believe them in faith rather than understanding them and then walking away like the disciples did. If they had misunderstood Jesus and were walking away Jesus would have explained his meaning. This is the only occasion that Jesus let anyone walk away, and he would not have done so if they misunderstood him.

The words of Jesus at the Last Supper could not be more clear and they coincide with the literal message of John 6. One cannot nuance Jesus words “This is my body.” Likewise, Paul reiterates the literalness of Jesus words in 1 Cor 10:16-17 when he says,

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Then again in 1 Cor 11:23-30 Paul says this:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, 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 as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Please notice that Paul uses the same literal words of Jesus which he quotes from the Last Supper as revealed to him by Jesus. He does not make any reference to symbolism. Likewise, he says that if you receive the Eucharist unworthily that you will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, and that if you eat and drink without “discerning” the body that you eat and drink judgment upon yourself. This can only be true of something literal. You cannot eat and drink judgment upon yourself by way of a symbol. It simply makes no sense.

And one more point that ties into Malachi. Paul indicates that the Eucharistic cup is a participation in the blood of Christ, and that the bread which we break, is a participation in the body of Christ. It’s all literal and it is the pure sacrifice that we offer.

I hope this begins to help.

 

[csmatyi]

This is an absolutely false assertion for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Thanks for looking at scripture. The problem is that there is nothing in Malachi 1 that fits your exegesis. First of all there is nothing in it that suggests anything symbolic. Likewise, believers cannot be what is spoken of as offering themselves up because “believers” themselves are imperfect and their offering would not be a pure offering because of it. Likewise, scripture uses the term offering or oblation in Malachi 1 which is a priestly term of sacrifice. Catholics have the pure offering/sacrifice of Jesus in the mass.
I think you simply made up this interpretation.

No. If it is pure, then it cannot be topped. It cannot be bettered. But the Roman Mass is repeated over and over again. Therefore not perfect, not pure. What about all the OT sacrifices prior to Jesus and the Last Supper and the advent of the Roman Mass?

I’ve read Mark 14 and your statement makes no sense whatsoever and proves nothing. Once again, Mark 14 ties into the fourth cup and the consummation of the Last Supper/Passover meal. Please read the following article it will help a great deal:

Read again: Mark 14, 22-25: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. (note: this is when transsubstantiation is supposed to take place for the very first time when Jesus turns into the very piece of bread that He is holding in His own hands…) And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine (note carefully: post-“transsubstantiation”), until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. "

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp

God bless.

Polytheism:

Again, follow the logic:
According to Romanism:

1. Jesus appears wholly in the host of the Mass.
2. Until the present day many billions of hosts have been consecrated and digested by papists all over the world.
3. Since Jesus is present in the host, therefore He is present in many billions of hosts served up until the present day.
4. Since Jesus is God, this would mean many gods in many billions of hosts.
   Conclusion: polytheism.

 

[csmatyi]

I beleive I’d do better without a primer on the Eucharist.

I see the problem. You look at the spiritual and miraculous carnally. You must discern spiritually to understand the spiritual and miraculous. The sacramental real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is miraculous and cannot be understood, appreciated, or believed carnally. Mysteries such as the Trinity and Incarnation cannot be appreciated, understood, or believed carnally either.

I understand your line of argument. When it doesn’t make sense logically, make a lazy argument and just say that the phenomenon which you are speaking of must be understood spiritually. Well, why can’t I just say that therefore Jesus must be talking about His body being food in a symbolic sense!? You are being carnal in saying that you have to devour Jesus’ physical body, which doesn’t help a bit!

You need a primer on the Eucharist. Again what I am about to give you is an abbreviated lesson and explanation:

Jesus was born in Bethlehem which means house of bread.

Jesus was laid in a manger which is a feeding trough.

Jesus works three miracles prior to the discourse on the bread of life in John 6.
The three miracles are the changing of the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, the feeding of the five thousand with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and finally Jesus walks on water. There are no parables or metaphors ahead of the discourse on the bread of life.

These three miracles are a preparation for the discourse in John 6 to enable the listeners to believe Jesus words in the discourse. The first two miracles demonstrate what Jesus can do with food, and the third shows what he can do with his body.

This is fantastic. Jesus walked on the water in the form of a loaf of bread!!!??? You’re simply arbitrarily taking Scipture out of context to fit your preconceptions based on your Romanist tradition! This only means your tradition is false!

The connection to food and his body in this series of miracles is illuminating. Then we look at the discourse itself and find that Jesus compares giving his body and blood as true food and true drink to the miraculous food of manna in the desert. The manna was true food and it was a miracle. Likewise, Jesus references another miracle in the discourse in verse 62. When the Jews did not believe Jesus promise of the Eucharist, he asked, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” This reference is to his later ascension into heaven. Thus Jesus has compared his promised miracle of the Eucharist to an OT miracle of food and to a future NT miracle of his bodily ascension. Jesus clearly connects food and his body in two miracles. This is very illuminating.

Right. But what you’re simply doing is taking everythin in the NT connected with bread and then projecting it onto Jesus. This isn’t exegesis. It’s taking everything wildly out of context! By the way, didn’t Jesus say that He would come back to Earth just as He left it when He ascended into Heaven (And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. [Acts 1:10-11])? But you papists say that Jesus appears as a host in the Mass. It is so painfully clearly obvious in this way that transsubstantiation is utterly baseless and false.

Likewise, Jesus does not speak in parables subsequent to the discourse on the bread of life until there are mentions of miracles in general and a specific reference to Jesus healing the blind man using his spittle and earth to make a salve of clay to cure the blindness[Jn 9:6]. Once again, Jesus uses common material in a miracle. It isn’t until Chapter 10 that we see any parables. Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in John 6 and the fact that the discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles and contains references to two miracles within it proves that he is speaking of a miracle in his promise of giving his body and blood as true food and true drink.

no, this is taking everything out of context to fit your presuppositions.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

Polytheism:

Again, follow the logic:
According to Romanism:

1. Jesus appears wholly in the host of the Mass.
2. Until the present day many billions of hosts have been consecrated and digested by papists all over the world.
3. Since Jesus is present in the host, therefore He is present in many billions of hosts served up until the present day.
4. Since Jesus is God, this would mean many gods in many billions of hosts.
   Conclusion: polytheism.

I am beginning to think that you are more interested in trying to insult people than to think intelligently about much of anything.

The terms Romanism, Romanish, and Papist are insults. Although you should not use them, I am glad that you did. They demonstrate where you are coming from and they prove that you are unable to look at anything objectively. You apparently prefer hatred over truth. Now let’s consider what you’re saying here.

You seem to have difficulty with the concept of Jesus providing himself (body, blood, soul, and divinity) to those that believe him and in him. Your lack of faith in what God can and will do is a sad commentary on how you would limit God. When God said “let there be light” there was light. In Isaiah 55:9-11 we read the following:

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

When God says something it happens. When Jesus says that He will give us his body and blood as true food and true drink he means what he says. When Jesus says that this bread that he will give us as true food is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross, he means it. When Jesus says "this is my body…this is my blood…, he means it. When God says something it happens.

Now, hopefully you are beginning to appreciate what God wants to do, can do, and will do. You seem hung up on the Lord giving himself to each of us in the Eucharist and you make the absurd remark that this is polytheism. Let me say that this is a colossal error on your part. Your reasoning must likewise apply to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus you must believe in polytheism by your own logic. All of this is utter nonsense.

 

[Pax]

I beleive I’d do better without a primer on the Eucharist.

Of course you would say that because you have closed your mind to the Catholic Church and Scripture. You prefer only your own specialized and truncated version that suits your itching ears.

 

[Pax]

csmatyi

You said the following which is in the red font.

I understand your line of argument. When it doesn’t make sense logically, make a lazy argument and just say that the phenomenon which you are speaking of must be understood spiritually. Well, why can’t I just say that therefore Jesus must be talking about His body being food in a symbolic sense!? You are being carnal in saying that you have to devour Jesus’ physical body, which doesn’t help a bit!

Nice…instead of refuting what is presented, you have decided to simply call my argument lazy. You can make the claim that Jesus was speaking spiritually but it is only a claim. I provided many reasons from scripture to show why Jesus words are to be taken literally. The fact is that you are thinking carnally and not spiritually. I am not being carnal in explaining and demonstrating that Jesus words were to be taken literally. Scripture makes it clear that he was speaking literally and the primer given to you proves it.

This is fantastic. Jesus walked on the water in the form of a loaf of bread!!!??? You’re simply arbitrarily taking Scipture out of context to fit your preconceptions based on your Romanist tradition! This only means your tradition is false!

Please show me where I stated or suggested that Jesus walked on water in the form of a loaf of bread. You are the one who is arbitrary. You are not only arbitrary but you are being capricious and dishonest in making false claims about what I have given you. I have not taken anything out of context nor have I provided you with something to fit “my preconceptions based on Romanist tradition.” I gave you scripture which is a lot more than you have done. Your blindness has come through again…you seem to think that something is automatically false if it comes from a Catholic or the Catholic Church. Get serious!

Right. But what you’re simply doing is taking everythin in the NT connected with bread and then projecting it onto Jesus. This isn’t exegesis. It’s taking everything wildly out of context! By the way, didn’t Jesus say that He would come back to Earth just as He left it when He ascended into Heaven (And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. [Acts 1:10-11])? But you papists say that Jesus appears as a host in the Mass. It is so painfully clearly obvious in this way that transsubstantiation is utterly baseless and false.

You simply do not comprehend what you are reading. Please go back and examine what was given to you. I gave you the context and I gave you the content of the scriptures. How is it that you can’t even make sense of the Eucharist and the Ascension. The Eucharist in no way contradicts seeing Jesus return in glory at the end of time in the same way that He ascended into heaven. These are not mutually exclusive truths, and there is absolutely no logical reason to say that they are.

this is taking everything out of context to fit your presuppositions.

I’m sorry but you reject everything including the context because it fits your presuppositions.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi all. I am new to this forum, but thought I would just jump in with a question. I am a Catholic with a couple of questions? So, hopefully someone can help me out.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that I do not have a good understanding of how and why the cross/resurrection is efficacious towards our salvation. So, if someone could explain how and why the cross saves, that would be great. Now, as understand it, the cross was not technically a necessity in our salvation and that God could have chosen another way to merit us salvation. Instead, the cross was an “appropriate” means of our salvation. But how and why?

I believe that, in essence, Jesus’ suffering and death were absolutely necessary for salvation. There was no other way.

Years ago, I was like you. I suddenly realized that I could not answer the question, “In what sense did Jesus suffer die for me?” I spent decades looking for the answer to this one question, and I found it. Here is what I found:

God’s perfection is such that God is “extremely” everything that He is.

So, God is “extremely” loving, “extremely” sovereign and “extremely” just.

Extremely loving God desired to create loving love objects – us!

But, God is extremely sovereign. So, God can’t create “equals” to Himself. That would violate God’s sovereignty – His “God-ness,” so to speak.

There is a problem: To make us capable of a love relationship with God, we have to be self-aware. But self-aware beings who are created in their essence, without more, are insecure to their core. As a consequence, we suffer from concupisence – a raging desire to “cure” the insecurity by sin.

So, oddly, God’s sovereignty requires that created self-aware beings be below God, and therefore sin-prone if something more is not done. This is the concept portrayed by the sin story part of the Adam and Eve myth in Genesis 2 and 3: The children of Eve are “sin machines.” As the Bible expresses the idea in such a charming way, we are “desperately wicked.”

So, without more, our creation is incomplete.

We needed a “final ingredient” – grace.

But grace amounts to a “ticket to Heaven” – to being able to walk up to God and shake hands with God’s perfection in a special way.

So, here God’s “extreme justice” kicks-in: Extremely just God’s extreme justice rebels nastily at the concept of “free grace,” like so: “No! Absolutely not! There are no freebies. There are no ‘pennies from Heaven’! These human sin machines are disgusting, wicked, foul-smelling, gutter-dwelling pigs! There’s no way they are going to get grace for free! SOMEONE has to pay the price for grace, and it can’t be one of these imperfect, sin-prone pigs! If they pay the price, they’re just getting what they deserve! So, someone perfect has to pay!”

In a sense, God the Son, being filled with love,. responds to His Own justice by raising His hand and saying, “I WILL!!! I’LL PAY!!!”

And God the Father, being filled with love, responds to this offer by saying, “I lovingly accept your offer, and so I lovingly offer you up to suffer the human price exacted by our Own justice by suffering torture and death.”

And so, in effect, Christ came and paid the price necessarily exacted by God’s Own extreme justice for grace.

There is the answer to your question.

 

[Pax]

csmatyi

You said the following which is in the red font.

Read again: Mark 14, 22-25: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. (note: this is when transsubstantiation is supposed to take place for the very first time when Jesus turns into the very piece of bread that He is holding in His own hands…) And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine (note carefully: post-“transsubstantiation”), until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. "

Why in the world do you insist on making poorly though out and illogical remarks like this and then assume that it proves something? I have given you some information concerning the structure of the Passover meal and even gave you a link to an article on the subject which outlines the significance of the four cups. Now please note that Jesus did not consecrate as his blood each cup during the course of the Passover/Last Supper. Jesus consecrated only one cup for purposes of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The fourth cup is the closing cup of the Last Supper and it is not consumed in the upper room. That cup was not consecrated for purposes of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This is very significant but it implies nothing concerning the Eucharist, but everything about the Passover sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation and when it was completed.

The New Covenant Passover with Jesus as the Lamb is completed upon the Cross when Jesus tastes the bitter wine on the hyssop reed (same reed used to put blood on the door posts at the first Passover). It is then that Jesus says “It is finished”, and gives up his Spirit. It is for this reason that Jesus is called “the lamb of God.” It is for this reason that Jesus is seen by John in the Book of Revelation as “the lamb that has been slain” standing before the altar. Jesus died once upon the cross, but He stands before the altar in eternity making his death on the cross of eternal benefit.

We are given the great gift of participation at the altar in receiving the Eucharist. Paul makes it very clear what is going on this regard in 1 Cor 10:15-22 where he says:

I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Please note that Paul is comparing the “participation in the blood of Christ” which is the Eucharist to the blood sacrifices and the consuming of blood in rituals made to pagan gods. Both involve blood. One is true and holy and one is false and evil. Notice the terms “the cup of the Lord” and the “cup of demons.” Connect the dots.

 

[csmatyi]

The terms Romanism, Romanish, and Papist are insults. Although you should not use them, I am glad that you did. They demonstrate where you are coming from and they prove that you are unable to look at anything objectively.

Hey, look, papists call Reformed Christians Calvinists and Evangelicals Lutherans left and right. Interesting hypocrisy, don’t you think? First take the board out of your own eye first. We’d appreciate it. By the way since the Romish church declares itself to be the only one true church (see Benedict XVI’s declaration in July 2007), then you shut yourself out of ecumenism and thus, Catholicism. You are not Catholic! Only exclusvist sectarian!

You seem to have difficulty with the concept of Jesus providing himself (body, blood, soul, and divinity) to those that believe him and in him.

I most certainly do. To me it is obvious that the host does not have any face, eyes, ears, nose or limbs. It is not Jesus. That is a wicked lie.

Your lack of faith in what God can and will do is a sad commentary on how you would limit God. When God said “let there be light” there was light.

This is interesting for one reason: you quote the creation account. The great majority of Catholics say that to take this literally is balderdash. Second of all, if God says in the Bible that He is Spirit, then He is Spirit. If He is incarnated in the form of His only begotten Son Jesus, then that means he takes human form. Also, my argument from Acts 1,10-12 simply went passed you. God just simply doesn’t take the form of a candy bar or any old material object. I also quoted to you Mark 14,22-25, where I simply outlined to you that in time Jesus says that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine after transsubstantiation has taken place. I am only quoting to you our Lord’s words. To this you reply it is nonsense. Please don’t call your religion a Biblical religion.

When God says something it happens. When Jesus says that He will give us his body and blood as true food and true drink he means what he says. When Jesus says that this bread that he will give us as true food is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross, he means it. When Jesus says "this is my body…this is my blood…, he means it. When God says something it happens.

Right. Right. THIS (meaning the bread in His hands) is my body. But you obviously miss the point again. How does transsubstantiation come into play? This means the bread in Jesus’ hands, and not the multiple quadrillion pieces of bread supposedly transsubstantiating or mutating into His body made up by a theologian called Radbertus only in the 9th century, and opposed by other theologians like well-known Duns Scotus prior to him. Transsubstantiation doesn’t occur, it cannot be - substantiated!!

 

[csmatyi]

Why in the world do you insist on making poorly though out and illogical remarks like this and then assume that it proves something? I have given you some information concerning the structure of the Passover meal and even gave you a link to an article on the subject which outlines the significance of the four cups. Now please note that Jesus did not consecrate as his blood each cup during the course of the Passover/Last Supper. Jesus consecrated only one cup for purposes of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The fourth cup is the closing cup of the Last Supper and it is not consumed in the upper room. That cup was not consecrated for purposes of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This is very significant but it implies nothing concerning the Eucharist, but everything about the Passover sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation and when it was completed.

The New Covenant Passover with Jesus as the Lamb is completed upon the Cross when Jesus tastes the bitter wine on the hyssop reed (same reed used to put blood on the door posts at the first Passover). It is then that Jesus says “It is finished”, and gives up his Spirit. It is for this reason that Jesus is called “the lamb of God.” It is for this reason that Jesus is seen by John in the Book of Revelation as “the lamb that has been slain” standing before the altar. Jesus died once upon the cross, but He stands before the altar in eternity making his death on the cross of eternal benefit.

We are given the great gift of participation at the altar in receiving the Eucharist. Paul makes it very clear what is going on this regard in 1 Cor 10:15-22 where he says:

**"I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. **

Just as an aside. Isn’t it interesting that Paul appeals to man’s own sense and judgment that he is to judge the meaning of Scripture for himself? No need for the magisterium of the church…

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Yes, precisely, we are participants. But again, how does transsubstantiation come into play here? Roman dogma states much more than this, that taking the host preserves us from future evil. As a former papist I took the host many many times as did my fellow high school students. This didn’t stop one of them from slapping me across the face… Why is participating in the blood and body of Christ the same as digesting it (which has no effect because it can be taken fully in vain) and the bread transforming into the body of Christ? Participating in the body and blood of Christ means simply to accept and confirm and reconfirm our membership in Christ and citizenship in Heaven as it is possible only through His sacrifice on the cross which we remember and commemorate every Sunday. (it’s sort of like a reminder mechanism because mortal humans are forgetful, even beleivers).

Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? "

Please note that Paul is comparing the “participation in the blood of Christ” **which is the Eucharist **

I’m sorry, how do you connect the dots here? Don’t you think that drinking blood is somewhat carnal and cannibalistic?
to the blood sacrifices and the consuming of blood in rituals made to pagan gods. Both involve blood. One is true and holy and one is false and evil. Notice the terms “the cup of the Lord” and the “cup of demons.” Connect the dots.

 

[Pax]

Hey, look, papists call Reformed Christians Calvinists and Evangelicals Lutherans left and right. Interesting hypocrisy, don’t you think? First take the board out of your own eye first. We’d appreciate it. By the way since the Romish church declares itself to be the only one true church (see Benedict XVI’s declaration in July 2007), then you shut yourself out of ecumenism and thus, Catholicism. You are not Catholic! Only exclusvist sectarian!

You’re not being very thoughtful. When I visit my separated brothers and sisters in Christ over at CARM, and when I speak with people of other faiths I only refer to them by an appropriate appellation that is in keeping with their own identification. You have been told what is insulting and yet you come to our house and continue to do it. This says something about you. It really doesn’t matter if some Catholics have acted like you do. I will not engage in it and neither should you.

You are obviously clueless about ecumenism. You just made another mental and logical error. Please think before you waste keystrokes.

Pax: You seem to have difficulty with the concept of Jesus providing himself (body, blood, soul, and divinity) to those that believe him and in him.

Really…please supply the data to support your contention which is flawed no matter what the case. Once again, you are not thinking. Catholics are free to believe in a strict 7 day creation account or they have the liberty to interpret Genesis in a non-literal sense. Here are some of the things that Catholics must absolutely believe about Genesis:

1. God created everything out of nothing. (Catholics must therefore accept that God created the light in the void. This is in accordance with my quotation from Genesis regardless of your silly contentions.)
2. God created man in His image and likeness.
3. God created the first man and woman. They are the original parents of the human race.
4. Adam and Eve sinned and were the cause of the fall inherited by all mankind.

When God says something it happens. When Jesus says that He will give us his body and blood as true food and true drink he means what he says. When Jesus says that this bread that he will give us as true food is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross, he means it. When Jesus says "this is my body…this is my blood…, he means it. When God says something it happens.

Right. Right. THIS (meaning the bread in His hands) is my body. But you obviously miss the point again. How does transsubstantiation come into play? This means the bread in Jesus’ hands, and not the multiple quadrillion pieces of bread supposedly transsubstantiating or mutating into His body made up by a theologian called Radbertus only in the 9th century, and opposed by other theologians like well-known Duns Scotus prior to him. Transsubstantiation doesn’t occur, it cannot be - substantiated!!

You happen to know two names from history, but that’s apparently about all. Let’s start with scripture first, and then we’ll head into the history which is extremely important and something that you could learn from.

You used the phrase “multiple quadrillion pieces of bread.” In an earlier post I quoted 1 Cor 10:15-21 which apparently fell of deaf ears. I will quote it again here:

“I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

Please read the entire passage prayerfully and then think about the portions I emphasized. Scripture demolishes your carnal thinking.

 

[Pax]

Now let’s look at the history. The Catholic Church defined many theological truths over time. You seem to have problems with transubstantiation which is the approved theological explanation used by the Church to remove any wiggle room for heretics that would veer from the truth. Please understand that it is the definitive explanation of the theological truth of the Eucharist which has been the belief within the Church since the Last Supper. The term was coined to describe that truth and was first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079).

The first known usage of the term Trinity is by Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270.

The Trinity is a true and proper term and so is Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation describes the reality of the “real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.” So when do we see the unequivocal mention of the “real presence” in language that makes it clear that this is literally Jesus body and blood and not simply bread and wine. I already gave you a primer on the Eucharist in scripture and there is no need to repeat that again.

So let’s look at the early Christian historical writings. Check out the following quotes:

**Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-117) **in his letter to the Church at Smyna

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes.

Justin Martyr (AD 110-165) “And this food is called among us Eucharistia (The Eucharist) , of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels have delivered unto us which was enjoined upon them…” (First Apology, Ch LXVI)

**Irenaeus (AD 120-202) **“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptable, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity” (Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch XVIII)

**Tertullian (AD 145-220) **“Our flesh eats the body and blood of Christ so that our soul is filled with God. Therefore what He joins together in His work cannot be separated in His reward”

Augustine (AD 354-430) “Receive in this bread that which was hanged on the cross; receive in this cup that which was poured from Christ’s side. For he will gain death, not life, who thinks Christ is a liar” (Ad neophytos)

“We however, take into our believing hearts and mouths the Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ with His flesh given us to eat and His blood given us to drink” (Contra aversarium legis et prophetarum, Bk 2, Ch 9)

Chrysostom (AD 347-407) “The table of the Lord takes the place of the manger, for in it lies the body of the Lord, not indeed wrapped in swaddling clothes but clothed with the Holy Spirit” (Oratio de philogonio)

(**Regarding 1 Cor.10:16)…"**That which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and that is what we participate in" “When we hold that cup in our hands we glorify God and stand amazed at the ineffable gift, namely, that He shed this very thing, and not only shed it but also distributes it to us all” (Homily 24 on First Corinthians)

So what should I believe…you or scripture and the early Christian writings along with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church since Pentecost?

I certainly do not believe you or your uninformed and bigoted comments which lack biblical, historical, and logical support.

 

[Pax]

You spoke of cannibalism. The following is taken from an article on the CAF library which I would suggest you peruse in order to educate yourself on the Catholic faith.

The article says the following:

If we took Jesus’ words literally, wouldn’t that imply cannibalism?

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

Please think about this carefully and prayerfully.

Likewise, you might also look into history and discover that the Romans accused the early Christians of practicing cannibalism because of the Eucharist. I believe this was reported by Pliny the Younger(A.D. 61-113)

 

[csmatyi]

This says something about you. It really doesn’t matter if some Catholics have acted like you do. I will not engage in it and neither should you.
You are obviously clueless about ecumenism. You just made another mental and logical error. Please think before you waste keystrokes.

The terms Lutheran and Calvinist were spread by Romanists throughout history and popularized by them so much it stuck, am I not correct?
Btw why do you call them seperated brethren? If you are one, then what could possibly seperate you? If you are of different ways entirely then why do you call them brethern? The term you use is an oxymoron.
The Romish church does hold that it is the one true church, and that it is her essential right that cannot be lost. Therefore you call for unity in the bosom of the Romish church which is hypocrisy and arrogance to the fullest.

You happen to know two names from history, but that’s apparently about all. Let’s start with scripture first, and then we’ll head into the history which is extremely important and something that you could learn from.

No, I have read into the history of this (see Webster, Dowling, Uhlman). I can also quote to you the same number of theologians who have the opposite opnioin of the Eucharist. If I have the time I will quote them for you. But just the fact that the term transubstantiation first came into use only in 1079 goes to show that at least this teaching was in dispute and that transubstantiation was not fully accpeted up until the 2nd millenium.

You used the phrase “multiple quadrillion pieces of bread.” In an earlier post I quoted 1 Cor 10:15-21 which apparently fell of deaf ears. I will quote it again here:

“I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

Then this means, literally taken that we are one body, right? All of us have one single and the same body? Preposterous. You still haven’t answered my challenge from Mark 14,22-25 and Acts 1,10-11. These two passages totally flout transubstantiation. Jesus was the manna which fell in the wilderness? How in the wide world would this support transubstantiation? Baseless and flawed logic. Does this mean that the manna would replace the Paschal feast? No, therefore the manna bread cannot have such a ritualistic role in the religious lives of the Jews. Because if it did, then the falling of the manna from the sky would have to continue repeatedly in order for it to have a ritualistic role. Malachi 1: please read Psalms 4 and 5 were the Psalmist exhorts the reader to bring up his own offering to the Lord. Of course, the reader doesn’t always have to be a priest, whereas in the Mass the person who offers up the bread is. Therefore we have a contradcition, therefore your arguments for transubstantiation are again baseless and unbiblical.