Sacrifice and Catholic teaching

[Albion]

There is no Bloody Sacrifice in a COMMEMORATION.

But the Catholic Church insists that it is not merely a commemoration.

 

[Arsenios]

One guy had quoted the passage of "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, you have no life in you".

That guy is old and smelly and has only frightening prospects!
But be of good cheer!
Christ shall judge the living and the dead...
And in the line of salvation, many of the dead will be far closer to the Head than many of the Living...
The dead are simply those who are not Baptized into Christ by His Body, the Church...
Unbaptized martyrs are baptized by their own blood - like the Wise Thief on Christ's right...
(And yes, Holywood's Mel Gibson got that part wrong - He did ask his Bishop, mind you!)

It is one thing to have grave concerns for someone who turns from the Church...
And is is the same to have grave concerns for someone who condemns one who turns away...

God Bless You, Mike!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I hadn't gotten into any of the other "Catholic only" doctrines, and I am not Protestant, but Christian, but I will ask you a question-

Can I chime in? Rome was in our Communion for a thousand years...

Al those things that are non scripture,

It is one thing to not be exegetically derivable from Holy Writ by a process of logic, and quite another to simply be an historical extension of Scripture... The third is to CONTRADICT Scripture...

like Mary being a virgin forever,even after she had Christ,

This doctrine is exegetical... And Dogmatic... [#1]

Immaculate Conception,

This doctrine is heretical...[#3]

Roserys, etc. etc.

The Rosary is a pious practice [#2]

I do not understand, why a Catholic, MUST believe everything the church teaches about them, or be Anathema.

I don't think that is true...

I mean, answer this, what do all these beliefs, have to do with Grace received through faith in Christ?

The Scripture records the 5 foolish virgins who had no oil when Christ came to the door, and were told to go to the market to purchase oil... Such a purchase of Grace is made in the world, you see... You have purchased tons of it... Giving alms to the poor, visiting the imprisoned, and serving the old and the infirm... Mercy is acquired by GIVING Mercy to others... And by loving God with ALL one's being, in prayer and self denial...

What is the point of how Mary was Conceived?What does it matter? Why argue about it? Does it not distract from the cross? How does it advance the message of the saving Grace of the Gospel?

I am in your corner on this mistaken Latin dogma...

And this is about what the RCC teaches. Peace

Well, ya got my tuppence!

Have a blessed 5th Day of Christmas!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I am amazed, that the more I look at all of this, and pray for truth, and attempt to talk to Catholics about it, that they rely on Roman Catholic teachings. You always link them. Its like you've been indoctrinated like in Scientology, only using Christ and Apostolic lineage as reason for superiority, no matter what they come up with.

Jesus disciples asked him to teach them to pray. And the first sentence, was "OUR FATHER"who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Name one reference to Mary...........

She was not yet translated from the earth...

And until Vatican 2, which many Catholics oppose, if you doubted them, you were "disconnected", just like Leah Remy. The body of Christ is all believers, and the truth of the Bible, will set you free, through Christ. Peace

God will have Mercy on whom He will have mercy...

May we all be believers!

Arsenios

 

[FireDragon76]

But the Catholic Church insists that it is not merely a commemoration.

They mean, it's not a commemoration in the sense Zwingli or the Anabaptists understood it, as merely sitting around eating crackers and grape juice and thinking about Jesus dying.

 

[Arsenios]

So WHERE is this found in the Bible? Even the RCC bible?

Believing in God is what the Bible is all about...
The Catholic Bible is the full Canon...
The Puritan Bible is the edited Canon...

I love reminding folks that in these post-Christian times...
YOU may very well be the ONLY Bible that many will ever read...
The Word of God needs be written in our hearts...
The Bible should not be used as a weapon against others...

God Bless Ya!

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

They mean, it's not a commemoration in the sense Zwingli or the Anabaptists understood it, as merely sitting around eating crackers and grape juice and thinking about Jesus dying.

But it's still not JUST a commemoration of any sort.

 

[Arsenios]

typical response from someone who cannot justify what they believe from the Holy Bible, which the pretend to follow! Not much difference fro the Jehovah's Witnesses, who also use "extra Bible" nonsense as their guide!

Did you pray for this person before you clicked "Post Reply"?
You sound stiff-necked, my Brother...
It is hard to pray with a stiff neck...

Arsenios

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Did you pray for this person before you clicked "Post Reply"?
You sound stiff-necked, my Brother...
It is hard to pray with a stiff neck...

Arsenios

What are you on about? I have moved on from this discussion as it is going no where. Like casting pearls before swine

 

[Arsenios]

But it's still not JUST a commemoration of any sort.

A Sacramental Symbolic Re-enactment according to Christ's Commandments within His Body IS Remembrance of Him... Christ Himself did it prior to its fulfillment... Christ was recognized in the breaking of the Bread, remember?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What are you on about? I have moved on from this discussion as it is going no where. Like casting pearls before swine

It is hard to kick against the goads...
Forgive me for offending you...
Will you please pray for me?

Thank you...


Arsenios

 

[FireDragon76]

But it's still not JUST a commemoration of any sort.

But neither is it the priest killing Jesus all over again.

 

[Albion]

A Sacramental Symbolic Re-enactment according to Christ's Commandments within His Body IS Remembrance of Him... Christ Himself did it prior to its fulfillment... Christ was recognized in the breaking of the Bread, remember?

Transubstantiation. Remember?

 

[PeaceB]

But it's still not JUST a commemoration of any sort.

He never wrote that it was "JUST a commemoration" so your whole line of inquiry is pointless (as usual).

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

It is hard to kick against the goads...
Forgive me for offending you...
Will you please pray for me?

Thank you...


Arsenios

Sure

 

[Monk Brendan]

My dad died. And I felt led to read the Entire Bible cover to cover.
And every day when I would start, I would ask God to guide and lead me, and to show me the truth. Because the arguing between the churches has given me a thirst for truth. And there are hundreds on opinions on the truth by the churches. Churches who have visits by Satan Claws and the Easter Bunny. And doctrine flaws that muck the waters.
My questions are genuine, and heart felt. I am not bashing the RCC. I'm not bashing anyone. And If my questions are from the holy spirit, to call me bashing or condesend me, would be a possible sin against the spirit. And If I were me, I would avoid. Peace

I meant no disrespect to you or your father.

Not to be measuring, but I can't tell you how often I have read the Bible cover to cover. When I first began cooperating with Christ (I like that phrase a lot better than "saved,") I read the Bible every day, and when I got to the end, I would begin again.

I don't mean to put you down in any way. However, how do you know that your words to me are from the Lord? A person can easily think that things that are in his own heart come from God. I have to reign myself in and pray and think before I make any pronouncements about a person, or about a church, or a doctrine.

 

[Monk Brendan]

No one said that you have been doing that.

I was making a joke, Albion. I saw that you had typed foostomping instead of footstamping. That was the whole bit with "I have yet to begin stamping my foo[t]"

 

[mikeangel]

• Lets get back on subject-
• 
  
• 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 wineor 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.

Well, as to the original post. I gather, that the practicing Catholics instantly thought I was bashing the mass. I asked about the statement in the Catholic encyclopedia. Because it is the only source i found that clearly defined what was going on. As far as I can tell, the answer to "Is there another moment of sacrifice? Act of sacrifice? " is the Catholics are saying no. That it (the moment and act of sacrifice) is the same as the one 2000+ years ago at Calvary. I can wrap my head around that. BUT the first sentance-" 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" Contradicts that. It says that it doesn't relate to Christ sacrifice, but is "in itself" a real sacrifice. That is why it also says there is a "Mystical slaying". If this is the same sacrifice as Calvary, and he cannot be sacrificed again, how can there be any type of slaying?

This is not in line with the representing only of Christ once and forever sacrifice. There is no act of sacrifice in the mass, only the one 2000 years ago. And the only moment of sacrifice, was 2000+years ago when his heart stopped beating. And he cannot be slayed mysticly, because he sits victorious at Gods right hand. This is wrong and goes against what even the Catholics here state the consecration is about. So is this commentary from a Catholic Magazine-

"But as we had also said, before any of this occurs, you must first understand what is happening before you – and it is this, and nothing less than this:

Jesus Christ is being crucified before you. He is on the Cross! And you are witnessing it. You are even taking part in it!"

When I read this for the first time, it shook me to my core. I felt betrayed. And if this is really what is going on, I pray that God has mercy on them all. I was not taught this. I had to dig it up. I feel deceived. And my family won't even discuss it. Thanks to all, for doing that for me. I have alot of food for thought. Peace, and the love of Christ, to each one of you. Have a great New Years. Mikeangel

 

[Arsenios]

Transubstantiation. Remember?

Your schtick, not mine... The Orthodox are not transubstantiationists...
Say THAT 10 times fast!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

• Lets get back on subject-
• 
  
• 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 wineor 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.

Well, as to the original post. I gather, that the practicing Catholics instantly thought I was bashing the mass. I asked about the statement in the Catholic encyclopedia. Because it is the only source i found that clearly defined what was going on. As far as I can tell, the answer to "Is there another moment of sacrifice? Act of sacrifice? " is the Catholics are saying no. That it (the moment and act of sacrifice) is the same as the one 2000+ years ago at Calvary. I can wrap my head around that. BUT the first sentance-" 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" Contradicts that. It says that it doesn't relate to Christ sacrifice, but is "in itself" a real sacrifice. That is why it also says there is a "Mystical slaying". If this is the same sacrifice as Calvary, and he cannot be sacrificed again, how can there be any type of slaying?

This is not in line with the representing only of Christ once and forever sacrifice. There is no act of sacrifice in the mass, only the one 2000 years ago. And the only moment of sacrifice, was 2000+years ago when his heart stopped beating. And he cannot be slayed mysticly, because he sits victorious at Gods right hand. This is wrong and goes against what even the Catholics here state the consecration is about. So is this commentary from a Catholic Magazine-

"But as we had also said, before any of this occurs, you must first understand what is happening before you – and it is this, and nothing less than this:

Jesus Christ is being crucified before you. He is on the Cross! And you are witnessing it. You are even taking part in it!"

When I read this for the first time, it shook me to my core. I felt betrayed. And if this is really what is going on, I pray that God has mercy on them all. I was not taught this. I had to dig it up. I feel deceived. And my family won't even discuss it. Thanks to all, for doing that for me. I have alot of food for thought. Peace, and the love of Christ, to each one of you. Have a great New Years. Mikeangel

Those are great questions that clearly illustrate the feet of clay of Latin Scholasticism and the neo-scholasticism of their Reformationist progeny...

Arsenios