Peter 1st Pope

This directly contrdicts Gods word who said it was offered ONCE FOR ALL . </font>[/QUOTE]AngelForChrist, do me a favor and quote from any Catholic source where we believe we "recrucify" Christ over and over again!

Secondly, we all agree that Christ's sacrifice was ONCE FOR ALL! It will not be repeated, ever!

But Christ said to his apostles, "do this in rememberance of me."

Do what, AngelForChrist? Take communion of His body and blood, and that is the essence of the Mass! We do it daily!

And in our time-bound world, the only way we can represent a ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice that is timeless, is to repeat the Mass daily. And since Christ's sacrifice was indeed, ONCE FOR ALL, the only earthly time-bound way to express that ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice is to repeat the ritual always in a re-presentation of that same sacrifice!

It is that easy! nothing hard to understand at all!

We Catholics have absolutely no problem with this; only you Fundamentalists seem to! And I dare to say, I think you do this out of your basic opposition to the Catholic belief on the Eucharist.

But I better quit before someone acuses me of going off-topic!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Wputnam , that would only work if it wasnt said to be a sacrifice , that the preist offers up to God of the Son , and Christ wasnt called a "sacrificial victim" whose blood pours into a chalice . I suugest that everyone read that link for themselves . Yes since they claim to be "slaying the sacrificial victim " they ARE recrucifying Christ , anyway you spin it . Please read the bible verses I posted about what God says about it and read Rays posts . God isnt happy about that since it puts Christ to open shame and when you add SAVING MERIT to it , then YES YOUR CALLING IT A REAL sacrifice , a REAL crucifiction , because there must be blood shed for saving merit .

Christ entered in ONCE , salvation was OBTAINED , no need to offer Christ up again and again . As far as "eating" the sacrificial victim , this stems from pagan practice , which is WHY the pharisees couldnt accept it , because they didnt understand what Christ said was being as a SPIRITUAL sustenance , not PHYSICAL .

Just like Christ told the woman at the well she could have living water , it means the GOSPEL , the Spirit , the word , not real water , not physical blood , not physical bread , but the SPIRITUAL kind

[ October 05, 2003, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: AngelforChrist ]

 

I wanted to add something else too , when paul is speaking to the churches , he uses reference to milk and meat in reference to the scriptures - the spiritual teachings of Christ - do you think this means actual physical milk and meat? The bible is FILLED with food and drink references to denote a spiritual metaphor . Why can the RCC accept that the others are metaphorical yet deny this one is?

Hint: They adopted the pagan practices of the people when constantine insisted on christinanity as the only religion and it was a compromise because eating a sacrifical victim was a known pagan practice , as were idols , prayer beads , icons , relics , goddess and child worship , etc.. even in the Catholic Enyclopedias rendering of the scarifical mass , it references that eating the victim was done years before by pagans , please read the whole article .

Read also the greek rendering of the event itself by Christ , eat was in the ONCE TIME EVENT sense , not continual , yet remebrence of Christ is to be continual untill He returns and His sacrifice was ONCE FOR ALL .

I am still waiting for someone to answer the earlier questions I asked about this too .

 

Angel - your statement is very true. You have made an excellent point and exposed a key weakness in the RCC argument.

In fact Hebrews 10 makes your case --

No more offering.

No more sacrifice.

It was "ONCE for all" and completed at the cross.

That text is the death of the transubtantiation argument of a continual offering, a continual sacrifice - Hebrews 10 puts it to rest -- final and complete.

AS the thread on idolatry in the mass points out - even the RCC in the Faith Explained admits that it is God Himself that they view as IN the bread -and If He is not really that bread - then it is idolatry by their own standards.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Noting that you fail to present this nonsense of "recrucifying of Christ" in the link you provided, I will simply say here and now, you persist to fail to see the significance of the original and actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

To our eyes it was a one time event. It occurred one day on Calvary, circa AD 33. There was no sacifice before that time, going back to the beginning time in time-locked standards. And the day after it occurred until the end of time, from an earthly obsever, that sacrifice will not be repeated again.

In short, Christ's death on the cross, from an ovservation in the flow of time on earth, was a one time event.

Now, does Christ's sacrifice apply to those who died and are now in the "bosom of Abraham," (sheol, and even the word hell is used to describe the place of sequestering of the righteous souls in OT times)?

And, is not that same one time sacrifice applicable to you and I, 2,000 years later, and into tomorrow, long after we are gone, and new generations spring up to accept the gospel message of Christ, that His blood saves them too?

That one time event in earth time flow is applicable across all time, from the beginning of time until the end of time, would you now agree?

Therefore, can I now conclude that the one time event in earth time flow is applicable across all time, the past, present and future? If so, then that is how God sees it from his timeless realm? The spiritual world sees the sacrifice of Jesus, not as a one time event, but as an event that is everpresent, ever applicable, and ever saving.

But the only way we can celebrate it is repetition in the act of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which does not recrucify any more then when we celebrate Christ at his birthday, Christmas, he is once more born again of Mary.

When we celebrate Christmas, do we force him back into the womb to be naturally born again?

The same thing in the Mass. When the priest consecrates the host, it is the same Christ, the same sacrifice, the same Calvary as the original event at Calvary.

Not while I am writing this, as I would then loose my reply up to this time. And besides, I don't know what you are talking about if you don't quote what I recently said!

 

Wputman , one moment you claim its the actual sacrifice of Christ which happened through crucifixtion and the page says they "slay the sacrificial victim " anew , there is no way you can get around it , your argument is as useless as saying because the word bible isnt in the bible there is so such thing , or the word trinity . Slaying Christ again , offering Him to God again as a sacrifice for sin , IS recrucifying Christ , any way you spin with word games period . Now , I am STILL waiting for someone to adress these issues that i asked before and keep being ignored about transubstatition:

Since this is clear by greek tense , how can you conceive its a literal since the word meaning is a one time event?

Before you go on about the pharisees being unable to accept it and some leaving Christ , it was BECAUSE they veiwed it as literal and missed that it was SPIRITUAL . Christ who walked according to ALL righteousness would not ask someone to sin by drinking blood and eating flesh which was against mosaic law . Since Christ had not yet died on the cross , doing this would have been a sin as well , because they didnt realize He was speaking SPIRITUALLY , they rejected Him as messiah because of their own carnal veiw of things physical and not being able to discern the things of the Spirit .

 

Angel, we are rapidly getting nowhere.

Did you really read my reply? Why do I get the feeling that you comprehended none of it? So, go back, read it again and reply, qoting me line for line and refute what I said line by line and let's see where it goes...

He is simply telling his apostles that there will come a time when he is with them at a "new table" in heaven, as they are now, obviously in a far more glorious setting.

In any case, it has nothing at all to do to what the wine becomes after consecration.

How will that "new table" look like in the spiritual realm, where there is nothing physical in that new world but all spirit? Soo Christ uses eartly terms to describe how it is when they are altogether once again, in triumph, in heaven!

Of course it is in "rememberance" of Him! And in that rememberance, there is nothing more personal then for Him to be with them personally, but in the form of the Eucharist!

Why do you make less, what is an obviously great thing, Christ is doing here?

Since this is clear by greek tense , how can you conceive its a literal since the word meaning is a one time event?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't care what language you use, when what occurs here on earth, in the time flow of creation, that ONE TIME event, that English can say just aa well as the Greek, an event that was so powerful, it was applicable to those who were righteous before the Lord but could not open heven's gates until that ONE TIME event?

I will say it one more time: The ONE TIME event harks back to the past, where souls are sequestered, that they can now be set free and enter heaven! And not only that, it reaches also in the future for those who whould come to Him in salvation, that the blood He shed 2,000 years ago is still applicable!

I have said this before, so perhaps repeating it will have you finally understand what it is I am trying to tell you.

There was a day, a singular day of awesome events, where Christ died ONCE AND FOR ALL of the cross that ONCE AND FOR ALL brought salvation to the world, both for souls in the past (in the "Bosom of Abraham" if you recall) that is applicable, is the best way we can describe it in human terms, a salvific power that applies to all future humans until the end of time, if they come to Him, accept Him and his gospel message!

What is the old song, The Power in the Blood as I recall, from my Fundamentalists days and in my youth, that is applicable across all timelines.

But let me revert back to holy Communion...

Do you practice that in your church, AngelForChrist? How often do you do this? If you do it more then once, then are you not violating your own proposition? I know you see this only symbotically, but why repeat it a month from now (or do you wait a year) that would seemingly "recrucify" Christ all over again?

Explain to my how the Catholic belief that the bread and wine of the Mass becomes the actual body and blood of Christ (not natural flesh and human blood, but under the "accidents" of what used to be bread and wine)?

We cannot, in the time-flow of creation, have a one time event in holy Communion, as then that denies us the continual flow of graces, this sacrament brings. Do you pray one time in your life and consider that sufficient for the rest of your days? Of course not?

Oh, I before I forget, my wife and I go daily to receive HIM in the Eucharist! And we do not "recrucify" Him when we do!

Really? Then why did not Christ correct their misconception of His words? This is obvious when they murmered against Him with "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" (John 6:52)

They took Him literally, didn't they?

What a wonderful opportunity for Christ to say, "No, no, you took me wrong! I meant my flesh in figurative terms, not actually!"

No, Christ did not say that, did he? And what did he say?

Read very, very slowly, the text of verses 53 through 58, where He hammers-in the words that can be taken in no other way but literally.

Note also the complete abandonment of the Jews at this time, taking with them, some of His own disciples.

Which is why this is the grand test, Christ imposes on them as a test of faith. They took Him literally, not yet realizing that the real flesh and blood would not be in the natual for of real flesh and blood, but in the form of bread and wine.

After consecration, it is no longer bread and wine but his flesh and blood. The "accidents" of bread and wine remain, in that it still looks, feels, tastes and digests like bread and wine but it is no longer bread and wine.

How do I explain that? I can't! It is a profundity that is beyond me, and I must believe it out of pure faith. I must abandon my senses and what they tell me to believe that what remains on the altar after consecration is a species of Christ that was once a species of bread and wine.

Human eyes and the other senses canot discern the difference and neither can science. It is pure faith that Christ demands that we are to believe it.

Do you recall the difference I made with opposoing statements?

Christ said, "This is my body," He did not say, "I am the bread"!

Perhaps I am being too eager for you to accept what I told you in my last message. So, sit back, consider what you said, and perhaps in time, it will hit you! It is not an easy thing to believe in the Catholic beliefs concerning the Eucharist - it will not occur overnight!

But perhaps, just perhaps, in time, with the help of the holy Spirit, you may come to realize what is the most beautiful of all the Seven Sacraments in the Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

Ray and Angel

I see that you have persisted in your distortions of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. WPutman has done an admirable job of showing that you bear false witness aginst the Church in direct violation of the comandments of God. Putting you own spin on them as if you have the authority to do so. You have not yet shown one Catholic statement where we say we recrucify Christ and that is not the doctrine on the Mass and the Eucharist. Yet you persist in arrogantly speaking as if you know Catholicism better than the Catholic Church itself. As if you understand the ways of God better than Jesus himself who said "unless you eat the flesh of the son and man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you". I am not your judge but do call upon you to repent.

I will pray that you do so.

Blessings

 

WPutman has done an admirable job of holding to
the rational of the Roman Catholic authorities
and the Roman Catholic doctrinal persuasion.

Both Ray & Angel are persistant in ONLY holding to
the Word of GOD and leaning on the interpretation
that the Holy Spirit has personally laid on their
hearts, as GOD draws them closer to Himself and
conforms them to the image of Christ.

Even when Jesus confronted Satan, Jesus answered
him and said in (Luke 4:4):

"It is written, the man shall not live by bread
alone, but by EVERY WORD OF GOD."

My relationship with GOD, through Christ, is a
vertical one and not horizontal. My salvation
isn't based on my relationship to a church BUT
my relationship to the CHURCH is based on my
relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic church has it
all backwards as is usual. Faith without works
is dead, but works without Faith are meaningless.
Likewise, my rock is Christ and not Peter. Peter
could do nothing for me but be a witness for
Christ. Peter is not the ROCK the Church is
built upon but only a building block---a stone.

I might suggest that our hope is not for a spirit
body as WPutman thinks, but an eternal body as
real as that of that which the second Adam presently possesses (see John 20:27).

 

I just read through this entire thread hoping to gain some information (from both sides) about Peter being the first Pope. That is the name of the thread. Perhaps the name ought to have been changed to "The Eucharist Debate."
DHK

 

Remember what Paul said, " For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

I would assume you believe that Jesus’ body and blood was meant to be taken as literal. If you believe that then how could the cup of wine actually be his blood and the bread his body? He was still living, His blood had not been shed yet. His body was not broken yet.

 

"Is it true that Peter was the first pope who sat in Rome? Opened and thinking people have serious questions about the matter.

'He was so pontifical that he refused to have his toe kissed; he was so infallible that Jesus called him Satan. He was so so autocratic that Paul rebuked him to his face, and was so celibate that he had a mother-in-law.'"

Same old nonsense. Rip his 2 books right out of that Bible of yours as he couldn't possibly have written scripture which is a higher charism than infallibly interpruting scripture. Rip all of Pauls out two for he says "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not, I do". Couldn't possibly have written infallible scripture. Shows that even Baptists with PHD's (pile it higher and deeper") can be wrong.

Blessings

 

Peter wasn't an author of the Scripture. Only the Holy Ghost is. You just don't get it. CHRIST is to receive ALL our worship and NONE of it is to be directed at some old man sitting on a throne and pretending to be the head of the Church. You want to kiss some man's ring-----go right ahead, but it isn't going to put you in better standing with GOD.
Just like Israel you got "your" earthly king. In the case of Israel it was SAUL. GOD wanted NO king but the Israelites were not happy with things the way they were intended to be. The same can be said of the Roman Catholic crowd. They wanted something tangible----Christ alone apparently wasn't sufficient and they established their "Saul".

 

So, you've scribbled his name off of the title of them in your bible? I thougt so. More irrational nonsense.

 

You're irrational and illogical. Who is stronger,
God or Peter? Who came to save man, God or Peter?
Who is represented through the writting of both the Old & New Testament, God or Peter? Who is doing the dictating, God or Peter?

 

Just curious, do you think that the Holy Spirit dictated the Scriptures, word for word, to the men who wrote it down?

And you pretend to not get it.

Catholics do not worship the Pope.

 

I suppose that you wouldn't bow or kiss his hand then... You wouldn't help to support a fancy place for him to live.

I believe that the Holy Spirit worked on the hearts of men so that they knew what to write and how to write it totally and without error.