One true Church?

[mikeangel]

Golly...

I know that sounds funny, but its something I say alot.

 

[Norbert L]

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

There is the analogy of three Christians in a room. The first believes in Pre-Millennialism, the second in Post-Millennialism and the third in Amillennialism.

Does that make one righteous and the other two wicked or is one of them correct and the other two wrong?

 

[mikeangel]

There is the analogy of three Christians in a room. The first believes in Pre-Millennialism, the second in Post-Millennialism and the third in Amillennialism.

Does that make one righteous and the other two wicked or is one of them correct and the other two wrong?

Whichever is not correct, when the truth is fully known, will be reckoned with as a man who is imperfect and sinful by nature. On the other hand, if he thinks "those who believe in Pre-Millennialism are correct worshipers and are saved, the other believers are wrong and are not going to be saved" is in my opinion judging others while being sinful, making them liable to judgement. The question of Millennialism is a moot point as far as I go. It has no bearing on salvation, and only God knows exactly what all the phrases and symbols of the Bible truly mean. Peace

 

[charsan]

It IS really that simple.

Sadly, by adding pious speculation to the Gospel truths, protestants however well-intentioned that they might be, believe in something that's been diluted or abased.

Some not all, most Evangelicals believe in something that has been abased or diluted

 

[mikeangel]

Sadly, by adding pious speculation to the Gospel truths, protestants however well-intentioned that they might be, believe in something that's been diluted or abased.

I can say the same thing about transubstantiation. -

"Sadly, by adding pious speculation to the Gospel truths, Catholics however well-intentioned that they might be, believe in something that's been over complicated and internalized, when Jesus was just saying that all things came to be and are through him, and it is expressed in communion. It simply is his body and blood. Period. Everything else is him too"

 

[concretecamper]

I can say the same thing about transubstantiation

you are free to say anything you want to. As for it being accurate, that's a different story.

 

[mikeangel]

you are free to say anything you want to. As for it being accurate, that's a different story.

I am accurate. I have researched the "sacrifice of the mass" in depth. I found that it is not in line with scripture. Here is a quote from the Catholic encyclopedia explaining what it consist of-

"

• 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- Even though it is taught that it is not another sacrifice, but part of the same sacrifice of Calvary, Why does it state -"not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself a real sacrifice;"?

#2- Paul writes in Hebrews that his sacrifice was a once for all complete sacrifice forever. This states that there is a "absolute moment of sacrifice" and an "act of sacrifice". You say-"As for it being accurate" IMHO the absolute moment of sacrifice was when he died on the cross. The only "act of sacrifice was when he was crucified.

#3. How is there a "mystical slaying" when he is sitting beside God in glory waiting for his enemies to be put under his feet?

Am I accurate?

 

[concretecamper]

Am I accurate?

You are accurate in that you can copy and paste words from a book.

#1- Even though it is taught that it is not another sacrifice, but part of the same sacrifice of Calvary, Why does it state -"not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself a real sacrifice;"?

#2- Paul writes in Hebrews that his sacrifice was a once for all complete sacrifice forever. This states that there is a "absolute moment of sacrifice" and an "act of sacrifice". You say-"As for it being accurate" IMHO the absolute moment of sacrifice was when he died on the cross. The only "act of sacrifice was when he was crucified.

#3. How is there a "mystical slaying" when he is sitting beside God in glory waiting for his enemies to be put under his feet?

The Church teaches, as it has always taught, that His sacrifice on Calvary is "once and for all". During Mass, time folds into eternity and eternity folds into time and we are present at the sacrifice at Calvary.

I have researched the "sacrifice of the mass" in depth

I would perform a bit more research.

I would suggest reading this:
The Holy Mass explained to Catalina by Jesus and Mary

although private revelation, I believe it would be beneficial for you.

 

[charsan]

The Church teaches, as it has always taught, that His sacrifice on Calvary is "once and for all". During Mass, time folds into eternity and eternity folds into time and we are present at the sacrifice at Calvary.

As does my church and I would wager most Liturgical Traditional Churches

 

[mikeangel]

I read the link. That is not scriptural. Show me anything in the bible supporting the "sacrifice of the mass" . It is him. I believe that. But how it is "obtained" is what I do not agree with. Ive read the Bible cover to cover and cannot find anything to support it. At the last supper, when Jesus took the bread and gave it to the disciples, he said, "This is my body". BEFORE Calvary. Show me one thing in the bible that supports any kind of sacrifice after that.

 

[mikeangel]

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

Hebrews Ch 10

 

[mikeangel]

And why does the Encyclopedia mention "Mystical Slaying". He only died once. And why does it say that the mass is "in itself" a real sacrifice"?

 

[mikeangel]

This is scripture supporting the sacrifice that God ordained after Calvary-

Romans 12-12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

"This is your true and proper worship".............

 

[mikeangel]

Hebrews 10 again-

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

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

Sacrifice is not necessary after Christ once and for all sacrifice on Calvary. Peace

 

[mikeangel]

Please answer with scripture. Peace

 

[charsan]

.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Show me anything in the bible supporting the "sacrifice of the mass"

I cannot speak to the motives and agendas of others. But at least my contributions to this thread -- and others like it -- is intended to inform others; not necessarily persuade them. Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less what you believe. All I seek to do is properly inform you as to what I as a Catholic believe.

As a broader statement, Catholics do not believe in strange brew, man-made, ahistorical doctrines like "sola scriptura". Thus, the whole "show me in the Bible" bit is your limitation but it is not something that Catholics abide by.

 

[mikeangel]

The problem is the scales on your eyes that do not allow you to see that Christ was talking about the Sacrifice of Calvary when He said "This is my body broken for you"..

Thats not what he said.

Was Jesus' Body "Broken" For You? — Knowing Scripture

And as it said in prophecy, Psalm 34:20-"he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken."

 

[mikeangel]

As a broader statement, Catholics do not believe in strange brew, man-made, ahistorical doctrines like "sola scriptura".

I do not believe that relying on Gods word, Jesus' real flesh, is strange brew and man made. It is truth and life, the light of the world. We will agree to disagree. Believing in Gods son is #1. And we both agree on that. What we actually do (mercy, forgiveness, LOVE #1) is what determines our reward in heaven. Not what man made traditions you follow. IMHO. Peace.

 

[mikeangel]

And Christ' True church, is all who love and try to follow him.