Sacrifice and Catholic teaching

[Antig]

It shows that even Luther can get his theology wrong!

Lol, you are very funny! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Lol

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Scripture and Catholicism go hand in hand. Obviously you see it but refuse to believe it. Instead, you take every opprtunity to attack Catholicism.

Blessings

No they don't! The teachings of the RCC on Mary, for example, have nothing to do with Scripture, like her sinlessness and not dying but taken up to heaven, etc. Which is the theology of man and NOT from any Bible verse. The usual argument used, is that the Bible does not say anything against it! Wow, so we invent endless "doctrines" to suit our fancy!

 

[PeaceB]

If you even care to read at least some of what I have written, you will see exactly why these books were rejected. Jesus Christ Himself only accepted the Books as in the Hebrew Canon, which can be seen from His words in Luke 24:44, "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”. This three-fold division of the Books of the Old Testament, is what the Jews before Christ, and after used as the Divine Word of God. None of the 7 books are found in this Canon, and therefore not inspired! The canon of the RC bible, is based on the Old Testament Greek Septuagint, which used a "four-fold" division, which Jesus does not use. His Authority is the Highest!

Nonsense. Jesus does not state anywhere in Scripture an authoritative list of the books that comprise canon, and those books that do not comprise canon.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Lol, you are very funny! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Lol

Thanks! But very true in what I say!

 

[Antig]

No they don't! The teachings of the RCC on Mary, for example, have nothing to do with Scripture, like her sinlessness and not dying but taken up to heaven, etc. Which is the theology of man and NOT from any Bible verse. The usual argument used, is that the Bible does not say anything against it! Wow, so we invent endless "doctrines" to suit our fancy!

Waw, you are very up tight. Relax!

We Catholics believe Catholic doctrine. You don't. We believe scripture and Catholicism go hand in hand. You don't. So, don't worry friend. You believe the untruths you have been brought up with about our church. It makes no difference to us Catholics.

Blessings

 

[Antig]

Thanks! But very true in what I say!

Confused I would say.

 

[Fidelibus]

The ONLY reason that the RC church rejects that the Holy Bible ALONE is the Authority of the teachings of any Church, or Christian, is because they can then justify their man-made nonsense, especially about Mary, where they have exalted her to an equality with God the Son!

It is obvious TBIT you didn't read or just couldn't comprehend what I said in my last post. I said:

The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

You see, where you error, is framing it with a “either-or” language...... we follow either the Bible or traditions. What it seems you have a problem understanding is it's really more of a “both-and” situation: we Catholics follow both the Bible and what we call Sacred Tradition, or Apostolic Tradition. As it say's in the Bible:

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).

It sure doesn’t sound like St. Paul, the author of those two Bible quotes, had a problem with tradition, as long as it taught the truth about God.

Such are the deceptions that they readily adopt, and reject the SOLE Authority of the Holy Bible!

Think so huh? If it’s true that the Bible is our sole authority, then that doctrine surely must be taught in the Bible. It probably appears multiple times, right? Care to show where? Not to mention 1 Tim. 3:15 where Paul wrote, “…you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the "church" of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

I don't see St.Paul mentioning here that the Bible Alone being the sole authority. Did I miss it somewhere? Oh.... wait a minute, I didn't miss nutin, Paul said the foundation of truth is the church! Now this kind of put's you in a pickle TheBibleIsTruth. If you believe the “Bible alone” is the foundation of truth, then that means you have to follow Paul’s biblical instructions, which say's the church is the foundation of truth. Oops!

God, in His infinite Mercy, opened the eyes of a monk named Martin Luther, to the horrors and errors of this "church", that praised man more than Almighty God, and murdered millions who would not agree with their heresies!. These, my friend, and historical facts!

Distorted facts.

Historical facts also show the Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety.

Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553).The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. So you see TBIT, making this claim against Catholics backfires right back on you. I point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street.

I'd like to back up to the first sentence of your post where you stated Catholics "exalt Mary her to an equality with God the Son!"

Could you please show where in the Catechism or the Catholic Church where it states Mary is equal to God the Son, God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit?

Now TBIT, it is your belief that when the Reformers separated themselves from the authority of the Catholic Church, they lost all authority for themselves, so they turned to the Bible and declared it to be their sole source of authority. Right? Okay...since you beleive there is only one truth in Holy Scripture, and only one Holy Spirit to prompt us, how come Baptists such as yourself believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural? Or when S.D.A say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday? Or when Lutherans believe in the 'true presence' in the Holy Eucharist, yet you Baptists do not? Or when Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD's? Or when Methodists accept female ministers, yet you Baptists say it is not Biblical? Or when the Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?

All of the above denominations mentioned use the same Bible, right? So why do they not all teach the same doctrine?

 

[GingerBeer]

Catholics say, that the "sacrifice of the mass", is a representation of Calvary, not a re-sacrifice.

Not a representation as would be the case if one saw a picture which is an image representing the event. It is said to be a re-presentation as is the case if the event itself is made present again. Consider the words of Moses to Israel just before they entered the promised land more than 40 years after the events at Sinai and soon after the passing of the generation that refused to capture the promised land were condemned to die in the wilderness rather than be allowed to enter the land. Moses words are spoken to the children of the disobedient generation that perished in the wilderness.

Deu 5:1-5 NASB Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, 5 while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, .....​

The people to whom Moses speaks never heard God's voice and they were not the generation with whom the covenant was made nevertheless Moses makes the event present saying that God spoke face to face with them. That is what re-present-ing the sacrifice of Christ is like. It is to make the crucifixion present to the people participating in the mass. It is not re-sacrificing because it is the same sacrifice, the one sacrifice offered once for all time.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Did God make DNA simple?

Even better than that ! (sorry, classified)

 

[GingerBeer]

Again, untrue. 2 for 2 in posts this thread containing falsehoods.

It is a poor use of the celebration of Christmas day. You are right.

 

[GingerBeer]

I have looked into it and agree that the OP is wrong. The link I put up is a good read.

Why do people who are clearly non Catholic keep throwing about untruths about the church when the truth is available if they look properly?

How else will they fill the vacuum left by a baptism and a lord's supper that are nothing but a symbol that are no more real than a photograph is a real person.

 

[mikeangel]

Lutherans also believe the sacrament of the Lord's Supper forgives sins. Because Jesus Christ himself said so, and we are not into calling Christ a deceiver. Indeed, for us Lutherans (and I presume Catholics) part of what it means to have faith in Jesus, to believe in Jesus, is also to believe the things he says are true. It's not primarily a feeling in my heart but more importantly a disposition that looks outward to the promises present in the sacraments he has ordained.

Where does it say on scripture, that besides faith in Jesus, that receiving communion remits sins? "Do this in memory of me" as far as I know, doesn't mean "take and eat, it will remit/forgive/commute (or however you put it) your sins"

 

[FireDragon76]

Where does it say on scripture, that besides faith in Jesus, that receiving communion remits sins? "Do this in memory of me" as far as I know, doesn't mean "take and eat, it will remit/forgive/commute (or however you put it) your sins"

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". Matthew 26:28

 

[mikeangel]

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.​

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.​

OK. I will. You do the same.

Ok, I know that scripture well. And I am praying every day for God to lead me to truth. That is what I am doing.

This is where he is at the last supper, before he died (was Sacrificed).

He was sitting there with them, and he gave the bread to them and said "this is my body, which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me"

He was not sacrificed yet. Nothing of "bloodless sacrifices" was mentioned. He stated this before Calvary. So show, using scripture, how Paul stating in Hebrews, About Jesus ONCE and FOREVER (emphasis added) sacrifice
"
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary."

was wrong. Peace

 

[mikeangel]

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". Matthew 26:28

You are intermingling two things. "This is my blood of the covenant", a statement about the cup of wine. This is before he was sacrificed. It was his blood because he said it was. I have never debated or doubted that.

"Poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins" was also a declaration. That his blood, the next day, would be poured out for the forgiveness of sins, establishing the new covenant. It never talks in scripture, about there being another "represented" sacrifice, "bloodless" sacrifice, or anything of the sort. Rather, scripture says of his once and forever sacrifice, that there is no longer any need of sacrifice.

My difference to what you are saying, is that by merely taking communion, that sins are remitted. Communion without faith is drinking condemnation I think. You are forgiven by faith in Jesus. If you do not repent, and do not believe in Jesus, like the bad thief on the cross besides Jesus, even though some of Jesus literal blood might have splashed on him, he was more than likely done. But the other thief, who believed in him, and did not ever receive communion, was forgiven, and was and is with him in paradise. Peace

 

[FireDragon76]

Your difficulty lies in anti-sacramentalism, which is an assumption you bring to the biblical text.

We don't see taking communion as contradicting the need to have faith. We don't believe the sacrament works necessarily ex opere operatio. Nevertheless, we believe faith takes hold of God's promises given under the signs of bread and wine, and apprehends them to be the true Body and Blood of Christ given and shed for the forgiveness of sins. Then, our justification goes from being something theoretical and abstract, to concretely realized and applied personally. Jesus goes from being the savior of an abstract humanity, to my own personal savior, and the savior of all those who share the one bread and one cup.

 

[mikeangel]

Your difficulty lies in anti-sacramentalism, which is an assumption you bring to the biblical text.

We don't see taking communion as contradicting the need to have faith. We don't believe the sacrament works necessarily ex opere operatio. Nevertheless, we believe faith takes hold of God's promises given under the signs of bread and wine, and apprehends them to be the true Body and Blood of Christ given and shed for the forgiveness of sins. Then, our justification goes from being something theoretical and abstract, to concretely realized and applied personally. Jesus goes from being the savior of an abstract humanity, to my own personal savior, and the savior of all those who share the one bread and one cup.

Does salvation require communion? And what is taught besides scripture about it?

 

[mikeangel]

ex opere operatio.

I mean you said its not this, what ever that is, but that faith is made concrete by it, not abstract, so is it required?

 

[FireDragon76]

Does salvation require communion? And what is taught besides scripture about it?

We believe faith alone justifies. The thief on the cross next to Jesus had no communion table and no baptism, and yet Jesus welcomend him into paradise. But our understanding of faith doesn't negate the reality that Jesus Christ ordained certain sacraments for our spiritual benefit, as part of the ordinary means of grace.

It's not an either/or perspective, it is both/and. We are evangelical, but we are also sacramental.

Luther's Smaller Catechism is a good first-start in understanding what we teach about the sacrament:

The Small Catechism - Book of Concord

I mean you said its not this, what ever that is, but that faith is made concrete by it, not abstract, so is it required?

It means that we do not regard the sacraments as being effecacious without faith. For instance, a re-enactment of a baptism in a film, is not a real baptism, because the intent is not there. Likewise, a pagan who denies Christ yet receives the Lord's Supper is not a partaker of Christ.

 

[PeaceB]

Ok, I know that scripture well. And I am praying every day for God to lead me to truth. That is what I am doing.

This is where he is at the last supper, before he died (was Sacrificed).

He was sitting there with them, and he gave the bread to them and said "this is my body, which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me"

He was not sacrificed yet. Nothing of "bloodless sacrifices" was mentioned. He stated this before Calvary. So show, using scripture, how Paul stating in Hebrews, About Jesus ONCE and FOREVER (emphasis added) sacrifice
"
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary."

was wrong. Peace

Nobody said that Hebrews is wrong. Your understanding of Hebrews is wrong. Scripture is God breathed. Your private interpretation of Scripture, not so much. Don’t get it twisted.

Take a look at Hebrews 9:23, and figure out why heavenly things are covered with better sacrifices, when Jesus only enters the Heavenly Sanctuary one time.

That should help you see your error.