C
coleraine
Guest
umm…do you guys hear that? i think the heritic alarm just went off.
- Status
R
rien
Guest
Oh come on. I am not Catholic but even I can realize the church does not teach it as a re-sacrifice.
It is a re-presnetaion of the one sacrifice which is eternal and beyond time = as you day. Its eternal. Present to Chritians today as much as to the Apotles 2000/ A miracle indeed from a Chritian perspective…Catholics, correct me if I got that wrong but I don’t think so.
Basically you got it right. Even if you may not necessarily believe it, at least you have the courtesy of not misrepresenting what we believe.
By the way, the post you quoted meant basically what you said.
D
Dauphin
Guest
That’s exactly what I’m saying…
J
Jacob_Fenton
Guest
“Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Gen. 9:4)
When Jesus says “my words are spirit and life” He means His words are spiritual AND physical!!
Of course, there is nothing unchristian about partaking in Jesus’ blood! First off, things change in the new covenant. This is a basic understanding. If they didn’t, Peter and Paul were wrong ALSO about eating unclean animals- something forbidden under the old covenant, but okay under the new.
So also, as the scriptures say, we are part of the Body of Christ. How are we part of it? By the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments which are the visible signs of unity and grace.
I also purpose this verse as a problem for many who try to interpret Holy Communion as only a rememberance:
“On that day…all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.” (Zech. 20-21)
Why is this verse a problem? Because almost ALL Scripture scholars agree that this whole passage referrs to Christ’s kingdom.
IF Jesus’ sacrifice is not only complete, but FINAL, why will there be sacrifices needed in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
Yet, we Catholic and therefor apostolic Christians present a more biblical way of underastanding Jesus’ words and Paul’s for it was he who said that we fill what is lacking in Christ.
Finally, Protestantism is at its very core a child of Rationalism. The modern Protestant asks, “How could Christ have held his own body in his hands at the Last Supper?”
The early church fathers wrote that this was impossible to understand rationally but that it was nonetheless true. It was a mystery and they gloried in the impossibility of it all; like the feeding of 5000, the impossible is no problem for God.
C. S. Lewis makes some interesting points, however in his books (he was a firm believer in transubstantiation) and he goes so far as to explain how this idea works. Lewis explains the transubstantiation of elements in a metaphor he uses in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. In it, the children meet a star who looks like an old man. The skeptical child explains that the old man cannot be a star because they are gases.The star explains that Narnian reality is different but even in our reality, stars are not just exploding gases. Gases are merely the elements of which the stars are made.
Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t two thousand years ago. We receive His forgiveness today because His sacrifice is perpetual. We celebrate this perpetual sacrifice because Jesus told all Christians to as often as we gather to remember Him.
You should have gone to Post #1 for that. We are now on page 10.
K
kenmd
Guest
He forgave them because of their faith in Him. And do not try and patronize me, of course Christ knew of the people’s sins.
D
Dauphin
Guest
Exactly! They were not forgiven by their faith, but by Christ who knew their sins.
Now, please explain how Christ expected his apostles to know the sins of those they were forgiving without a confession of those sins. Perhaps he temporarily granted them telepathy?
So what’s the problem? We were not talking about Christ. We were talking about the apostles and what they wrote after Christ them.
They said repent. They also said confess. The Bible says so, so we simply obey.
M
mercygate
Guest
Confession/absolution is absolutely in Scripture but off topic here. The Marian dogmas are not specifically delineated but derive from points that are implicit in scripture. This line of discussion is off topic here.
M
mercygate
Guest
Sacred Tradition is the lived experience of the Gospel through the Teaching mission of the Church.
The Church has the promise of Christ Himself – to the Eleven at the Last Supper – that he will send the Holy Spirit to guide them [inspire] into all the truth. Hence our confidence in the teaching mission of the Church, bolstered by Christ’s promise at His Ascension to be with those same Eleven “all days.”
Although the magisterial teaching of the Church is indefectible, it is not of the same character as the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. The indefectibility of the Church essentially assures the Sacred Scriptures, since it is the Church that wrote them and identified which writings would be included in the table of contents of the Bible.
The indefectibility of the Church, i.e., her ability to teach without error, reposes in Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell willl not prevail against her.
Off topic here.
M
mercygate
Guest
Hey, guys! Start another thread.
Yeah. Although, ultimately, I think this thread is about ajk19 more than anything else. The drift in topic came from his bait-and-switch early on. I’d probably like it to remain in its present state so that he can continue to get answers.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It had better be; it’s the source of the Scriptures!
G
Gamera
Guest
“The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.” CCC 1545.
G
Gamera
Guest
Which is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.
“Christ Jesus [is] the one mediator between God and men,” CCC 1544.
“Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers,” CCC 1545.
“Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church a kingdom, priests for his God and Father. The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly.” CCC 1546.
“Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ” CCC 1548.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
A
ajk19
Guest
No it doesn’t, if it did people would not be confessing their sins to mere men, but to God. There is no mediator alive on this earth, not you, not I, not a priest, no one but the Son, period.
H
HailMary
Guest
You might have a point but it is God himself who instituted the Sacrament so your statement is mute.
A
ajk19
Guest
If he did, then he is contradicting himself and His word, and that is not possible.
- Status