My experience at a Roman Catholic Funeral

Ok, Show me where the catholic church believes that they are re-sacrificing Jesus rather than bringing attention to his past sacrifice. They do believe they are partaking in the body and blood which they believe to be the new covenant. As far as puppets that's not entirely true since there are many rites in the RCC not just the latin rite. The RCC does not believe it making a new sacrifice as in what Christ had done they are making Eucharist (thanksgiving freely given).

 

you are either ignoring me or misrepresenting me. I have said all along that they are recreating the exact same sacrifice. It is not new sacrifice. The fact that a sinner claims the power to recreate the same sacrifice is no less blasphemous.

 

No I'm not ignoring you. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said or you're misunderstanding what I said. You're throwing me off with the word recreate. I'm saying that isn't happening and you are saying it is. The only people I know who "recreate it" are those people in the Philippenes that crusify themselves. I'm saying (just to be sure) that they are presenting the old sacrifice (not creating a new one or recreating it) remembering it and giving thanks for it and receiving the body and blood which they believes is a mystical union between God and the believer. Not recreation, but giving thanks. I think the problem is this: Catholics think along covenant lines. They are not dispensationalist unless it is in the natural world which even that is governed by covenant. It is a renewing of the covenant in their minds. The covenant christ made with his disciples. I think that you have to think on convenant terms to understand catholics.

 

Go back and read post #32 where I quote from the catechism. The claim there are carrying out the exact same sacrifice. Every mass is a recreation of a Divine act.

You have not answered what gives a sinner the power to convert bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus and preside over a cannibalistic feast.

BTW, your profile says you are a Baptist, but you several times on the board act as an apologist for Catholic heresy. If you are indeed a Catholic apologist lets at least be open and upfront about it instead masking your side of the debate with 'they believe.'

I have to leave our debate for a while.

I have had discussions with many Catholic apologists here. They have a knack of contacting me when they see our church website.

If I am wrong about you, I apologise. I have just heard the exact same arguments from these guys too many times.

 

You mean this quote?

I bold the area's I think that are relevant to the discussion. Their offering the same sacrifice back 2000 years ago not recreating it. Again you have to think on covenant terms. They are making that offering then from now. That is their understanding of it which is what I've been trying to say. Not recreating but participating in it. Not making it again.

Maybe this will help in the concept. Paul says he is a joint sufferer with christ because of his afflictions. He suffers with Christ on behalf of the church. Is being crusified all over again? Not really, but Paul in his time is able to relate to christ and partake in his suffering. Christ is not suffering all over again but Paul is a participant. Something like that anyway. We have to get out of this linear time thing. Christ suffered once and for all.

 

Keep in mind I like to study christian history and by its very nature RCC, Orthodox, and Coptic. I find that I often take their side because many people are believing what their told about issues without investigation. I mentioned at some point I liked Lee Strobles case for Christ.

My Family, when I was 15, were catholic. They lead terrible lives my father is twice divorsed. Yet even in their sin they told me that baptist and all other protestants were cults. God blessed me by giving me the opportunity to go to highschool at RVA (Rift Valley Academy) in Kenya East Africa where I first heard the gospel. That is also where I saw my first Chick Tract. During Convocation I heard an evangalist preach the gospel and I accepted and came forward at 15. I grabbed a friend and we prayed together in a chapel near by. A year later I was baptised. I payed the price of leaving the RCC by seperation from my family. I was ostrasised etc... Now there were many things I heard about the RCC over the years and I thought they must be true. But lately, I've been studying and many thought posited are just wrong. I thought to clear this up. But that may have given the wrong impression. There are two arguments for me against the RCC. How the laity lead their lives, and the Do verse Done argument. The Church I attend is called Country and Town Baptist Church and it is part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I've done some missionary work, I evanglelized (even door to door), teach adult sunday school, all my credentials are protestant. So if you think I'm catholic you're barking up the wrong tree. But this is a forum for discussion and I think there is a lot of ignorance when considering the traditional churches of christianity. In order to facilitate discussion (debate), I have found myself taking an extreme position not always one I agree but I'll put it out there anyway.

 

Will get back later - short on time at the moment.

Fair play on your comments about simplifying arguments. I understand your reasoning now. I will often do the same when people come to visit with a "How to Win Catholics to Christ' book under their arm.

A Catholic who 'knows their stuff' will destroy the arguments of the average Joe Christian who think he knows what they teach. The vast majority have never read a Catholic book or studied their beliefs, but they go on what someone else has told them.

On this issue, however, we have been arguing terminology. The Catholics do not "resacrifice Christ" every Mass, but the fact that they claim that this is the same sacrifice Christ gave holds no water. If that were the case there would be no need of a priest to do it. He would not have to convert the elements.

In the paragraph I quoted there is a total inconsistency. They call today's sacrifice bloodless, but claim the must turn wine into blood. Is it bloodless or not?

 

Look at what I just posted on the thread about the Communion/Eucharist a few minutes ago. I posted several statements from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=52229&page=6

 

Yes, they do believe this! You need a Cathechism. It's also online at
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html


1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.[187] 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."[188]

 

Your underlined quote is the Key. The same sacrifice not multiple. They are presenting the sacrifice of the cross with Eucharist (thanksgiving freely given). I think you are approaching this writing with a linear view. Catholics would view it as outside of time. So each presentation is a memory of and an offering of. Don't forget they believe it is sacramental which means there is a grace given to the believers. I hate to use this analogy but I can't think of another(just like there is no real good way to explain the trinity). The beleivers are taken back to the Cross (so to speak) and are presenting that sacrifice. That's how they view those passages. Just so we're clear because now you're questioning my integrety review post from the Eucharist thread. I do have a catachism that I view and I have questions about it but I don't post them here because people will agree with me and that isn't the other side. I don't want people to just agree with me I want them to challenge me. And I have been challenged on this board by certain people who are more knowledgable about certain aspects of theology than I. I always enjoy the Greek scholars points etc.... and as strange as ebhard (I don't know the posters last part of his id but it starts with a G) Gebhardson (sorry about the spelling) seems to me, I enjoy reading what he has to say. I don't agree with many things he says but at least it is interesting. I even enjoyed debate with DHK but in the end it got personal. But that is the nature of debate.

 

How is is unbloody of the wine becomes the blood of Christ?

 

I guess no one is dieing which would be bad. Christian history context: Christians were often accused of sticking a baby in a loaf of bread that they then cut to pieces and ate. One of the reasons Romans persecuted and killed christians. I find that all Catholic literature have some historical basis which they write things. Often things refer to things that no longer apply but it still in their literature. FYI.

 

I have wondered about this also, because it does seem inconsistent with the concept of an "unbloody sacrifice." I guess it's like Thinkingstuff said, that no one dies or gets hurt by this sacrifice, i.e., a nonviolent sacrifice.