Re: are Catholics Christians ?!

"Michael J Davis" <mjdusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xWWVKBH5L$uJFw58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phil Saunders <philip.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> was inspired to say
"Michael J Davis" <mjdusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YJHvd5F2MQsJFw9n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phil Saunders <philip.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> was inspired to say

snip

Celia, the Mass - as presented in RC and Orthodox theology - is not a
'repeat of Calvary' it is a 'being present at Calvary'.

Except there is no blood, the priest claims to offer what he is unfit to
offer, which has been offered "once for all" already and been accepted
by
God.

I find this argument concerning blood not helpful. To be present at
Calvary and receiving the body and blood of Christ at communion is in my
time scale - it's only where I'm at. See Heb 13:8:- "Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday and today and forever."

Well of course you don't find it helpful since it shows the RCC claim to
be
false. One cannot do something the same way and yet differently. At
Calvary
there was blood shed, in the mass there is not.

;-) In spite of the formulae of Trent, 'bloody' v 'unbloody', there is
only one sacrifice (at least you and I agree on that), and it is the
Calvary sacrifice that applies eternally, to which I come at mass.

According to your church the sacrifice of the mass differs from that of the
cross.

I agree with you that there was only one sacrifice. It is not what happens
at mass.

You might like to recall that Paul says:-
"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever
eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of
the Lord." 1 Cor 11:26-27

Firstly note what is being done when we eat the bread & drink the cup,
and then note the "therefore" and *what* is being sinned against.

Sorry I cant see your point?

Paul is not saying that 'you' (who eat or drink unworthily) are sinning
against the bread and drink, but against the body and blood that is
there present.

No he isn't. he is saying that when you do this you are proclaiming the
death of Christ and to do so flippantly/lighheartedly/insert words to
explain is committing a sin of insulting the sacrifice that is being
proclaimed.

He isn't saying that the bread and wince or anything else physically present
is being sinned against.

Note the "once" for "all".

Indeed. That is why I emphasise that it is not a *repeat* of Calvary,
it's a being present.

Except it isn't, because it isn't the same - a fact the RCC admits. One
was
a bloody sacrifice and the other is not.

See my note above.

Seen your note so who is right? You or the RCC? You cannot both be.

If Calvary were a *past* event (as Phil claims) then sin committed
after
that date is not covered by the sacrifice.

What utter rubbish. The RCC bizarrely claims that the acts of saints are
more efficacious than that of our great high priest.

What? What rubbish! You know that no good can come from man except
through the merits of Christ, how can the merits of the saints be
efficacious in any way without Christ?

You are using RC double speak. A sacrifice can both pay for past and
future
sin since it is the quality of it that makes it sufficient.

Yes.

As for it being a past event, it is duh!!!! Jesus was crucified, died and
was raised again on the 3rd day. Calvary is a past event. The scriptures
confirm that.

The even is in time, but constantly applies to all who come before the
Lord.

No, the benefit of it is available now because of the sacrifice in the past.
Nobody requires that jesus continue to die for them, or die for them again.

Indeed to crucify him again - that is to require the ongoing sacrfice of
Christ, is nether possible nor desirable. Only a wilful sinner would even
think to ask it.

At Calvary a new and living way was opened. It is still open. It does not
need reopening nor does it need anyone to go back and check it is still
open.

Nobody is 'checking' - the point is, as you say, 'it is still open' -
that is the nature of the celebration of the mass.

Not so. The mass claims to be the sacrifice, instead of the celebration of
it. There wasn't any celebration at Calvary!

The merit earned by the
saint does not require the continuation of the act. But Mike here claims
that the satisfaction of Christ must continue.

No, I claim that the satisfaction of Christ is eternal. But my sins are
temporal, through God's grace I acknowledge them and bring them to the
foot of the cross.

Your sins are paid for because the sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all
sin, for all time. The timing of the sin in now way affects the sacrifice.

(Actually that's not what you believe is it? You believe it only paid
for the sins of the elect, don't you?)

Actually no. I believe it is the nature of the sacrifice that makes it
sufficient to remove sin and that the number of sins or persons it could
cover are unlimited.

I believe that Christ atoned for the elect.

Let me illustrate.

A man left a very large amount of money to his descendants, having paid
off
the debts of all his antecedents. He had earnt the money tto do this
through
his life. He knew how much was owed from the past and also how much would
be
owed in the future.

The debt that then arose were new but the deposit was old and done and yet
it could always pay any debt since it had been calculated to do so.

It was a "once, for all" deposit.

The trouble with all these similies is that they apply for both
arguments. I would use exactly that example to show that when we come to
repent, we celebrate the deposit and *as instructed by Christ* "do this
in remembrance of Him".

But the perfect sacrifice of Christ is in the eternal NOW and
therefore
we
can come to the foot of the cross (AND the last supper AND the
Resurrection AND the Lamb's supper) as one with all the saints.

Rubbish. You cannot be present at the Last Supper, nor at the death of
Christ, nor any other event in the life of our saviour.

How do you square that with Hebrews?
"...but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent
priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who
come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede
for them." Heb 7:24-25

How does what I said clash with anything you have quoted? How does it anyway
support anything you have said?

The sacrifice of Christ took place in time, the Lord Himself said "It is
finished".

His action as High priest and victim has been and is 'accomplished'.

Not according to you, according to you it is still going on and on and on,
Jesus never gets off the cross according to you.

I think part of this confusion is between priest and victim; as priest
Christ continues to offer the sacrifice to the Father, the victim has
been offered and the work is accomplished. (See the Heb. Passage above.)

Nonsense Jesus offered the sacrifice once, He doesn't need to offer it again
or continually.

The Lord Himself called the communion meal a remembrance.
It was a "once for all" act.

So is this past present or future:
In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor
and glory and praise!" Rev 5:12 ?

Well why don't you look at the chapter and book and see the answer for
yourself.

He "is" worthy to recieve because He "was" slain.

That help?

Here is some more

And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals,
because
you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."

He is worthy because He was slain and he has already purchased and already
made.

The more I see of these arguments, the more I fear we use the same
language to prove different points.

Well if you agree with me then the RCC position is wrong in both our minds.

Again, see my point above about Priest & Victim.

His priesthood is eternal but the sacrifice was once, for all.

We believe that in carrying out Christ's commands at the Last Supper
AND
in
John 6, we are making present the one and only sacrifice.

David Ike believed that wearing purple made the world a better place. Ir
was
still bollocks.

Thank you for your reasoned argument.

Make an argument and I will reason with it. Make an illogical assertion
and
I will mock it.

Indeed! ;-) I respect you for that! Even when you are wrong!

Surely in the light of Hebrews.6:6 that is undesirable ?

A good reference, which I understand not to refer to the Mass - but to
those who have become Christians and continue to sin - it is that sin
that
'crucifies the Son'.

Rotflmao.

What say the Fathers?

Yes? Are you offering?

You aren't allowed to understand. The Pope can understand and he can tell
you.

Not helpful, Phil! You want to try reading them, so you can see the real
faith that has been handed down, and not some C19th version that people
like Jeff have made up.

I have read what Popes have written. Som good, some bad. But as Bellarmine
said you are in no position to decide for yourself. If the Pope says "it is
a sin to eat Fish on Wednesdays" then it is a sin for you to do so. Even if
it isnt a sin to eat fish it would be a sin for you to eat it after the Pope
said it was a sin. Good old Bellarmine.

So you asked about the Fathers, many have written about the Eucharist.

The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans c. AD110
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Chapter 7:-
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they
confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus
Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of
His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak
against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their
disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,
that they also might rise again."

Justin Martyr
First Apologia chap 66 c.AD150
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
"And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no
one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the
things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the
washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto
regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For
not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in
like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh
by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed
by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by
transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that
Jesus who was made flesh."

It is about how we "recieve" them, not about what they are. And also were
you to think that this Father were correct you would not allow all RCs to
partake nor would you deny it to non RCs.

This is why

And this food is called among us eucharist, of which no one is allowed to
partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true,
and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins,
and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

And yet the RCC has no such doctrine.


Irenaeus of Lyons c.AD190
Against Heresies
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103502.htm
V.2.2:-
"He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation)
as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread
(also a part of the creation) He has established as His own
body, from which He gives increase to our bodies."

Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechesis 22:6
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310122.htm
"Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements,
for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and
Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet
let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste,
but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body
and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you."

And so on.

But none of them make the claim the RCC makes. That the bread and wine are,
physically, the body and blood but instead that it is by faith that they are
such. A position the RCC condemns as heresy.

Phil



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: are Catholics Christians ?!
    ... the priest claims to offer what he is unfit to ... I find this argument concerning blood not helpful. ... sin since it is the quality of it that makes it sufficient. ... those who have become Christians and continue to sin - it is that sin ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: are Catholics Christians ?!
    ... the priest claims to offer what he is unfit to ... I find this argument concerning blood not helpful. ... sin since it is the quality of it that makes it sufficient. ... those who have become Christians and continue to sin - it is that sin ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: are Catholics Christians ?!
    ... Priest specifically at the sacrifice. ... I find this argument concerning blood not helpful. ... The RCC bizarrely claims that the acts of saints are ... those who have become Christians and continue to sin - it is that sin that ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Ordination of women - a (long) response to the Vatican
    ... granting absolution is an essential characteristic of the body of Christ? ... withhold absolution from someone who has confessed a sin that involves ... nullifies the sacramental powers of the priest? ... sin offends against the body of Christians, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Ordination of women - a (long) response to the Vatican
    ... I might accept that a priest or minister who was filled with the Holy Spirit had something valid to say about any sins I might mention to him - but I certainly wouldn't trust or accept the word of a man not so filled. ... sin offends against the body of Christians, ... if you sin you cannot be full of grace. ... humanity needs grace, it's all God's gift. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)