Christ is continually sacrificed?

I guess I missed the point. I know Jesus Christ died on the cross for my salvation and for all mankind. He is risen....I know that. Alleluia

 

No one said that they think Catholics are ignornant of the fact that Christ died and rose again after being sacrificed. Nor has anyone claimed that Catholics must not know that Jesus is in heaven - or that Catholics think Jesus is still on the cross.

What HAS been said is that the RC error is to teach that each mass EVENT is another EVENT where Christ is sacrificed.

Now lets state the obvious for a minute --
Each MASS is obviously an EVENT. And if you HAVE the mass then the EVENT takes place. If the MASS is cancelled the EVENT does NOT take place.

The RCC says that each Mass EVENT is NOT simply an EVENT commemorating the PAST event of the cross NOR is it an EVENT that is simply a MEMORIAL of the past once-for-all Sacrifice EVENT of the Cross. What the RCC says of each MAss EVENT is that it IS an ACTUAL SACRIFICE of Christ where God is "CONFECTED" and then sacrificed!


Skipping over the details of the complaint will not help solve the problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don't the Jews, when celebrating Passover, celebrate it as though they were participating in the same historical event? ("Why is this night different than all other nights?" etc.) Couldn't the mass be seen in the same light?

 

That would be a perfect way to view the Mass.

But the Passover is a "memorial" of a past event. If the RCC were content with that - I don't think there would be any complaints.

They want a CONTINUAL sacrifice NOT a "ONCE FOR ALL".

But they are stuck with the "ONCE FOR ALL" language of scripture so in true dark-ages form they simply use double-speak. They use contradictory phrases in an effort to cover their areas of exposure and hope the the faithful followers "will not notice" that the "ONCE FOR ALL" language of scripture REFUTES the CONTINUED sacrifice as "god is CONFECTED" and then sacrificed -- ideas of the RCC.

The amazing thing is that by quoting the "ONCE FOR ALL" language of scripture they TELL the faithful exactly what they are doing wrong AS THEY DO IT WRONG!

How then does someone not see it??

In Christ,

Bob

 

What does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man?John6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:he that cometh to me shall never hunger;and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.If you have come to him believing Jesus says you will never hunger or thirst.6:52 The Jews therefore strove omong themselves saying,How can this man give us flesh to eat?Rome thinks they have figured out away other than what the Lord tells us in verse 35.Asking God to put himself in to a peice of bread or into wine so one can bow down and consume it sounds like idolatry to me.We need to read our bibles,Study the words of the men who formed the doctrines we follow,making sure we prove our beliefs with Gods word."Lifted up was He to die;It is finished!--was his cry:Now in heaven,exalted high:--Hallelujah!What a Saviour!"I don't know who's saying this is but I like it.rtg

 

I am not the author of "god CONFECTED"! -- That is the RC language not mine. I simply quote it.

Trying to cast me as the author of RC doctrine is not going to solve the problem for the RCC.

I know of no other groups talking about "confecting God" except the RCC - do you?

1. At the last supper Christ said that it was a MEMORIAL service and NOT a SACRIFICE EVENT

2. Christ HAD NOT been sacrificed at the time of the Lord's Supper. It was clearly symbolic by that fact aLONE! HE WAS DRINKING the cup and HE was EATING the bread along with them!!

3. The John 6 discourse HAD ALREADY shown the use of these symbols as referring to HIS teaching.

4. In Matt 16 Christ had ALREADY chastised them for taking the symbol of bread for teaching -- TOO literally!

The EATING of the bread and drinking of the cup were to remind them of the ONCE FOR ALL event AT THE CROSS - Christ BROKEN for them and His blood spilled FOR THEM. It is a REAL once-for-all event.

There is no "CONFECTING GOD" then sacrificing God in this service - like there is for the RCC doctrine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"What HAS been said is that the RC error is to teach that each mass EVENT is another EVENT where Christ is sacrificed. "
"
Crossposted with appropriate changes.
Bob seems to be unware of centuries of infighting among Roman Catholic theologians about whether the Eucharist is to be seen in an 'oblationist' or an 'immolationist' light. The 'oblationist' view focuses on Christ's present priestly intercesssion before the Father. The 'immolationist' view, on the other hand, is all about Christ's presence upon the altar in a figure of death. While the latter view is extremely problematic, it is the other position ('oblationism') which has thanks to men like Ratzinger and Wojtyla decidedly won the debate a couple of decades ago. No Roman Catholic theologian would agree with Bob's description that the mass is a 're-sacrifice' of Jezus.

"You have been told of several other religious group that believe Jesus when he stated that he is present in the Eucharist."
"
what? You mean groups like those evil Lutherans.

 

Do you really intend to stand on this point and credibly say that you do not go along with the teaching that the church priest is "confecting god"? Do you mean that you recognize such a thing as error and would not go along with the RCC teaching such error?

(I hope you are saying this - because that would be a very noble and well thoughtout position to take)

Or are you saying that regardless if "confecting god" is error or not - you will gladly swallow that error if it can be shown that the RCC teaches it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

As for JPII on this notion of Confecting Christ --

 

That was just a meal, not a "Eucharist ceremony". Notice, no wine! No pronouncement of "this is my flesh". Break Bread" was done at any meal, and since the communion was a meal with bread, of course it would involve "breaking bread". But that does not make "break bread" equate "communion" always.
And even if if did; that still says nothing about the nature of the bread!

 

Wrong.

ALL the quotes point to the fact that ONLY the priest "has the power".

AND the quote that says "he RETAINS that POWER EVEN if excommunicated" is NOT speaking about the Holy Spirit retaining HIS Power!

(Just stating the obvious).

We can all read.

That is the big change since the dark ages.

 

Where does it teach that? (Like the RCC practice of giving the recipients the bread only, and only the priests get the wine)?

 

The Christian Reformed Church has made peace with the RCC by agreeing that the Mass is Christian Worship.

 

L4H, I notice you only quoted from the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer of the post-Vatican II vernacular liturgy of the Eucharist; is there any material difference in the other three prayers re your OP topic?

Yours in Christ

Matt