Sacrifice and Catholic teaching

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Don’t you mean “The Tradition of the Church that Jesus personally founded while he walked the earth is not as important as my private interpretation of Scripture”?

Jesus never founded the RC church, this is a myth!

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Catholics believe it. That is all that matters

Roman Catholics believe this, so what? The Holy Bible which they claim to follow, does NOT! The Word of Almighty God is of the HIGHEST Authority, not some "teachings" from mere men!

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

It's how you view the words written. Obviously you are getting a different view than Catholics.

RC "dogma" is very rarely based on the Holy Bible, some guy who is their "leader" invents something, like the "immaculate conception" of Mary, another teaching never found anywhere in the entire New Testament, and it is believed on by people who care little about what the Bible teaches!

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

You are reading the scripture wrong. You are getting your very own private view of it.

my private views are based on the Infallible Word of Almighty God, not on the teachings of some guy who heads the RC church, who claims "infallibility" for himself!

 

[Antig]

Roman Catholics believe this, so what? The Holy Bible which they claim to follow, does NOT! The Word of Almighty God is of the HIGHEST Authority, not some "teachings" from mere men!

As a Catholic, I truly believe that what we believe is very much Biblical. It has been pointed out to you in this thread yet you decide not to agree. I have no issue with that. You are free to think what you like.

'Mere men' can be translated as people who open up a Bible and decide to translate what they see to suit themselves. Sola Scripture is two words for that.

 

[Antig]

RC "dogma" is very rarely based on the Holy Bible, some guy who is their "leader" invents something, like the "immaculate conception" of Mary, another teaching never found anywhere in the entire New Testament, and it is believed on by people who care little about what the Bible teaches!

Again, you can believe what you want. Entirely up to you. I believe in Catholicism. Blessings to you.

 

[Antig]

my private views are based on the Infallible Word of Almighty God, not on the teachings of some guy who heads the RC church, who claims "infallibility" for himself!

Once more, you can think what you like. I am not the one getting all heated about it. I am very happy with my belief in Catholicism. Blessings

 

[Albion]

Please educate yourself before spreading falsehoods.

You are claiming, I take it, that the re-presentation idea is not of recent origin in the RCC, but that's not exactly so. The Church's position--as it is with a number of other doctrines--allows for a variety of interpretations. By that it is not meant that onlookers find different possible meanings in the statements, but that the Church itself permits several different views.

Such is the case with this one where there are three or four, but, as I was saying, the resacrificing of Christ was taught routinely until recently when the "show the original sacrifice to the Father once again" slant became more common.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Very much acceptable to a Catholic

Yes, that happens a lot, and I'm glad you put it that way.

It helps others gain a truer understanding why Catholics believe some things "Denomination Specific" that no one else believes.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I am very happy with my belief in Catholicism.

The 'label' you chose (if you chose it), apparently, does not reflect your "Denomination Specific" "happy beliefs" then, and has led to a little confusion, or more.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Catholics believe it. That is all that matters

"Denomination Specific"(ly). See? Other Christians claim, by Scripture, it is false.

 

[concretecamper]

You are claiming, I take it, that the re-presentation idea is not of recent origin in the RCC, but that's not exactly so.

You are gonna need to come up with something more than "but that's not exactly so". We will be waiting.

The Church's position--as it is with a number of other doctrines--allows for a variety of interpretations

Does it surprise you protestant interpret Ccatholic doctrine differently? You guys do it with the Bible all the time

By that it is not meant that onlookers find different possible meanings in the statements

It certainly does.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

You are gonna need to come up with something more than "but that's not exactly so". We will be waiting.

Does it surprise you protestant interpret Ccatholic doctrine differently? You guys do it with the Bible all the time

It certainly does.

The main issue is that Catholic dogma is based more on human teaching rather than the Word of God.

 

[concretecamper]

The main issue is that Catholic dogma is based more on human teaching rather than the Word of God.

You are entitled to your opinion. At least you don't feel the need to post falsehood about what the RCC teaches as other have on this thread.

However, based on the Last Supper Narrative, the prefigurements in the OT (Melchizadek, Passover lamb, Manna, etc), The Book of Revaltions, and the actions of the early Church, i find the Mass has solid biblical roots.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The main issue is that Catholic dogma is based more on human teaching rather than the Word of God.

The problem is that, at least some of them, believe their human teaching IS the word of God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you quote from a single Scripture, where it says, "The bread and wine become the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ."?

Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is the cup of the New Testament in My blood", St. Paul says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break participation in the body of Christ?"

When one has been irreverent toward the bread and the wine of the Eucharist they have not sinned against mere bread and wine, but against the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:27).

We do not receive mere bread and wine, we partake of the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ--it is Christ Himself present for us "in and under" (as we Lutherans say) these gifts of bread and wine.

Can you quote a single Scripture where it says the bread and wine are merely symbols of Christ's flesh and blood?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

Catholics say, that the "sacrifice of the mass", is a representation of Calvary, not a re-sacrifice. But the breakdown of what is happening during the consecration, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, sounds like a separate sacrifice to me. Here is a discussion I was having with a Catholic friend of mine-

" This statement is from the Catholic encyclopedia. You might say "its not cannon" but not everything the priest and seminary teach is in the cannon, and to discover the subtle differences you have to read the encyclopedia. Written by priest and important "theologians". You need a lawyer to read it. The exposition of "the sacrifice of the mass" is Pages long. But I found that this summary sums up what they believe about it. It states-

• the twofold consecration must show not only the relative, but also the absolute moment of sacrifice, so that the Mass will not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself a real sacrifice;
• the act of sacrifice (actio sacrifica), veiled in the double consecration, must refer directly to the sacrificialmatter — i.e. the Eucharistic Christ Himself — not to the elements of bread and wine or their unsubstantial species;
• the sacrifice of Christ must somehow result in a kenosis, not in a glorification, since this latter is at most the object of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself;
• since this postulated kenosis, however, can be no real, but only a mystical or sacramental one, we must appraise intelligently those moments which approximate in any degree the "mystical slaying" to a real exinanition, instead of rejecting them.

#1 And most important-the only "moment of sacrifice" was the last beat Jesus' heart made on the cross. If there is in the mass a definite "moment of sacrifice" that is a symbolic re-sacrifice.

#2 This is proven in the next statement-"the Mass will not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself a real sacrifice;" This says that it does not just relate to calvary, but is "In Itself a real sacrifice". Direct contradiction.

#3 The term "Mystical slaying" forever changed my comfort in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

#4. In the Eucharistic prayers said before the consecration, the priest says, "May my sacrifice and yours be acceptable to God" Again, another separate sacrifice

#5. If by cannon definition the sacrifice is the same as on Calvary except that it is unbloody, then why was I taught from preschool that it was actually the very blood of Christ, NOT a symbol?"

How can Catholics allow this to be in the Encyclopedia?

All of this just means that every Mass is the one same sacrifice that took place on Calvary. Protestants just aren't sure what to do with the Eucharist. Some almost throw it out the door altogether, or just treat it as an occasional memorial picnic, while Reformers and mainstream Protestant Churches originally held it with practically the same reverence as that held by the EO, CC, and Early Church Fathers, as a sacrament and with varying commentary on just what it is, but some form of a Real Presence had been commonly taught.

 

[fhansen]

Notice also that Catholic posters put on the defensive rarely prove any critic to be wrong.

There hasn't been anything like an attempt at a counter-argument offered on this thread, for instance, just denial and personal attacks. To the reader, doing that amounts to writing, "I've got nothing."

And likewise those opposing Catholic teaching rarely prove any critic to be wrong.

 

[Albion]

...and if you believe that, you have bought into a creation of the human imagination.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is the cup of the New Testament in My blood", St. Paul says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break participation in the body of Christ?"

When one has been irreverent toward the bread and the wine of the Eucharist they have not sinned against mere bread and wine, but against the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle says.

We do not receive mere bread and wine, we partake of the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ--it is Christ Himself present for us "in and under" (as we Lutherans say) these gifts of bread and wine.

Can you quote a single Scripture where it says the bread and wine are merely symbols of Christ's flesh and blood?

-CryptoLutheran

It is nothing short of blasphemy to say that Jesus actually enters a wafer and wine millions of times every week. Like water baptism is no more than outward testimony of the inner cleaning of sins when the sinner repents. The Lord's Supper represents the body and blood of Jesus