G
GottaGo12345678
Guest
You are incorrect in your personal assessment,which I will demonstrate from Scripture; yet you will still not believe.
- Status
L
LionHeart777
Guest
The article I quote from (directly below) touches on something similar I heard from Tim Staples on Catholic Answers Live once:
"The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God using the elements of bread and wine. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (that is, Jerusalem) and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek,’ that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. We must look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine. The Mass meets that need.
Furthermore, ‘according to the order of Mel-chizedek’ means ‘in the manner of Melchizedek.’ (‘Order’ does not refer to a religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only ‘manner’ shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine. A priest sacrifices the items offered—that is the main task of all priests, in all cultures, at all times—so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed." (catholic.com//library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp) (accessed 9/ 12/ 09)
Here are 2 early witnesses to the (bloodless) Sacrifice of the Mass. Notice how they linked this (unbloody) Sacrifice w/ a prophecy in Malachi:
"Justin Martyr
‘God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist’ (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
‘He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles’ (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189])." (catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp) (9/ 12/ 09)
The Orthodox Christians also view the “Divine Liturgy” (what Latin-Rite Catholics call the Mass) as a “bloodless Sacrifice” see here for example.
As an Orthodox Christian relayed in a call to a local station here, it was not until Zwingli that the bread & wine came to be seen as merely symbolic; Luther didn’t even hold that position.
Regarding you objection regarding Jesus:
As I hope you can see now, such an action by Jesus wouldn’t fit with what I have shown you above.
Peace,
Nick
L
LionHeart777
Guest
allow me to correct myself, I should have capitalized Bread and Wine in this case I think. That is because after the common elements have been consecrated, they become the Word, as the Church and some ECF’s I have read teach.
L
Luke65
Guest
I don’t. I do everything Jesus commands me to do. I eat His Body and drink His Blood. I believe His Word, which tells us to obey His Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. And when I fall short I confess my sins to one of His priests, who have received the power and authority to forgive sins in His Name in the “laying on of hands” by an apostolic authority (c.f. 2 Timothy 1:6). I believe everything God has revealed to us, and I try to do everything He commands, which according to you is because I don’t believe.
Oh no, don’t tell me Protestants have been editing the Bible again! Nope…
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28 NIV)
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” " (1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NIV)
And we do. Do you?
You’re making that up. Where is that in the Bible?
You’re making that up. As we’ve already seen, the priests, including the High Priest, consecrating the bread and wine, making them into the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Bible and in the earliest Church writings. It’s also in early heathen writings where they mock Christians for believing they are eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of God, just like they do today, and just like you are doing.
Do you see us eating human flesh and drinking human blood?
“The words I have spoken to you are Spirit”. So, have you “received the Holy Spirit”?
L
Luke65
Guest
Oh no, don’t tell me Protestants have been editing the Bible again! Nope…
Acts 8 (NIV)
14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
20Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!”
And that is the Sacrament of Confirmation. We “receive the Holy Spirit” in the “laying on of hands” by an apostolic authority. So, have you “received the Holy Spirit”? What Simon the sorcerer was willing to pay for, you guys aren’t even interested in.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Perhaps you are not following the dialogue. Let me bring you up to speed:
The claim was made (I think by Randy Carson) that Peter was the first to preach to the Samaritans.
My response was Acts 8 which state Philip went first to preach the word.
Here is an excerpt from Acts 8:
Acts 8:
5 “Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them.”
6 With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing.
7 For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured.
8 There was great joy in that city…
12 but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized.…
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, (notice this is in the past tense) they sent them Peter and John, (notice it is not just Peter, but also John)
15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit,
16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
So I repeat my assertion** it was Philip who first preached to the Samaritans**, not Peter.
Maybe it is you who is trying to rewrite the Bible, as even Randy acknowledge this fact from Scripture.
L
Luke65
Guest
Obviously you need to be brought up to speed on your own conversation. Randy already acknowledged that he misspoke, and should have said that Peter confirmed the Samaritans, to which you responded, “Catholics state things as fact without any proof”. Then when I show you the proof, like a typical Protestant, you don’t admit that you were wrong. Just like you didn’t admit that you were wrong about Paul being the first to preach the Gospel in Rome. And you apparently are still not interested in “receiving the Holy Spirit” in the Sacrament of Confirmation, so you will continue in your obstinate and error-filled ways.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I would really like these questions answered, either by those they are originally addressed to or anyone else.
Please:
nuntym:
**Which one is the correct translation? Why do you think so? **
Randy Carson:
What is the date of Peter’s first visit to Rome, according to the RC? **
Thank you.
Please:
Please compare this same story in Mark 15:46 in the Peshitta.
**Which one is the correct translation? Why do you think so? **
Randy Carson:
**
What is the date of Peter’s first visit to Rome, according to the RC? **
Thank you.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Is English a second language for you?
Seriously, I am trying to figure out why you can’t seem to understand what I write.
The original question was who first preached to the Samaritans. It was Philip, not peter.… even Randy acknowledged this fact from Scripture.
Ginger
L
Luke65
Guest
That question was already answered:Is English a second language for you?
Seriously, I am trying to figure out why you can’t seem to understand what I write.
The original question was who first preached to the Samaritans. It was Philip, not peter.
Ginger
To which you replied:
So I showed you the documentation - Acts 8, where St. Peter confirmed the Samaritans.
P
panevino
Guest
“For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would” (Gal. 5:17).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
GG-
You have been a member of this forum for one week, and you are already qualified to correct me on what arguments Protesants make against the Papacy in this forum?
Tell you what, why don’t you get back to me on this in a year or so, okay?
Another assertion frequently refute in this forum.
Perhaps you might consider that a mature oak tree does not resemble the acorn from which it springs. The Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter, the rock, and the Apostles may not resemble the Church you find in the New Testament, but then that is to be expected. Jesus gave us this example:
Matthew 13:30-32
31He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”
So, when you see differences between the infant Church and the Catholic Church today, just reflect upon the fact that you do not really resemble the babe that nursed at your mother’s breast many years ago.
Eh, sonny? You’ll have to speak up a bit…I’m kinda deef.
Seriously, my friend, maybe you should reflect upon the fact that I may have spent more time studying this stuff than you have. I’m a convert, after all…sheesh.
Thanks. I will.
You’re right…all these things are right off the pages of scripture, and I will be happy to cross swords with you on any point anytime. Please, I beg you, pick your pet topic and start a thread…
There is an attraction…the attraction is that logic and history tell us that this is true.
Same to you, my friend, same to you.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Are you kidding? Are you deliberately twisting my posts?
“Casting lots” is not the issue; the point that I made concerned Peter’s infallible and authoritative interpretation of an obscure passage and his application of that passage to the office of Judas.
But again, you divert the discussion down another rabbit trail.
What about the testimony of the 20+ Protestant scholars, Ginger? The ones that admit that Peter is the rock?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I beg to differ.
Acts 8:14-17
14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized intoc] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
What do you know of the Sacrament of Confirmation, Ginger?
Does it not bring someone into full communion with the Church? Does it not convey the Spirit? Does it not complete the initiation begun at baptism?
Looks to me like Peter and John were confirming or completing the initiation of the Samarian believers.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And I clarified as you already know since you responded to my clarification by posting additional argumentation of your own.Perhaps you are not following the dialogue. Let me bring you up to speed:
The claim was made (I think by Randy Carson) that Peter was the first to preach to the Samaritans.
My response was Acts 8 which state Philip went first to preach the word.
Here is an excerpt from Acts 8:
Acts 8:
5 “Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them.”
6 With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing.
7 For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured.
8 There was great joy in that city…
12 but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized.…
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, (notice this is in the past tense) they sent them Peter and John, (notice it is not just Peter, but also John)
15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit,
16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
So I repeat my assertion** it was Philip who first preached to the Samaritans**, not Peter.
Maybe it is you who is trying to rewrite the Bible, as even Randy acknowledge this fact from Scripture.
Don’t play games…
G
Ginger2
Guest
The Scriptures say Peter and John went together to pray for the Holy Spirit.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
To my knowledge, the Church does not have an official position on this.
However, I thank you for implicitly acknowledging Peter’s multiple visits. Peter was most certainly in Rome prior to his martyrdom there as his own letter suggests (cf. 1 Peter 5:13).
The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:
Activity and death in Rome; burial place
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
- That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
- St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
Finally, I would direct your attention to the writings of the Early Church Fathers who spoke of Peter in Rome. Their testimony is documented at the site linked above.
So, what do you think of their testimony about Peter’s role in building up the Church at Rome?
G
Ginger2
Guest
Is there a reason you only look at parts of a response rather than considering the entire post?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Sorry, Ginger…you cannot claim that the Psalm applies to the Messiah and then somehow extract from that the idea that everyone understood that the Messiah’s betrayer would be replaced.
You’re reading that idea back into the text.
The Jews of the first century had no thought that their Messiah would die upon a cross…much less that his betrayer’s office or “bishopric” would be filled by someone else.
Peter interepreted this passage under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But, again, what about the work of the 20+ Protestant scholars who say that Peter, not Peter’s confession, is the Rock in Matthew 16:18?
Hmmm?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, they did, and this is what Catholics understand as the Sacrament of Confirmation.
After the Samaritans accepted the Gospel, their entrance into the Catholic Church was completed by the annointing of the Apostles. Their successors, our bishops, continue to follow their example.
Progress has been made here today. :extrahappy:
- Status