Pages

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Hebrews, Matthew and John 6

The discussion on the Early Church Fathers started to morph into a discussion of the Eucharist and scripture, particularly with a passage in Matthew 24 and Hebrews 9.


Kelly and I have done John 6 at great length in the past and you can find those here.

Jennie wrote:

It is wonderful that God rained manna on our fathers and they were fed with daily food from heaven. And so it is written: Man ate the bread of angels. Yet those who ate that bread all died in the desert. But the food that you receive, that living bread which came down from heaven, supplies the very substance of eternal life, and whoever will eat it will never die, for it is the body of Christ. Ambrose of Milan, treatise On the Mysteries was originally spoken to newly baptized Christians around the year 370 AD.

This quote is apparently referring to John 6. I would like to give a few scriptures to show why Jesus in John 6 is not referring to Christ literally giving us His body and blood to eat, and that the bread is not literally the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' or the whole Christ.

Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
 
This passage says that if anyone tells you that Christ is here or there on earth DO NOT BELIEVE IT and DO NOT GO OUT to look for Him, because His coming will be 'as the lightning come from the east and flashes to the west'
.
John 19:30 He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Jesus finished His propitiatory work on the cross and for those who believe in Him, their sins are forgiven and there is no more need for an offering for sin.

Hebrews 9:25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

This passage says that He appeared once to put away sin by His sacrifice of Himself, not often, and that He will appear for those who eagerly await Him a SECOND TIME, APART FROM SIN, for salvation. He will appear a second time when He comes back to earth, 'just as He ascended' the first time. He will appear 'apart from sin' that is, not as a sacrifice for sin. He does not come back as a physical perpetual sacrifice. Every word of Hebrews denies this doctrine. He sat down at the right hand of the Father in victory over sin and death and having finished His suffering, He intercedes for us against our accuser the devil.
 

Let's look at Matthew 24 in it's entirety. I will emphasize some parts I want to use to make a point.

 Matthew 24
Signs of the End of the Age
 1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."  3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
 4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
 9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
 15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.
 26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
 29"Immediately after the distress of those days
   " 'the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light;
   the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]
 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
 32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown
 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Jennie is trying to say that we can't refer to the Eucharist Jesus Christ because of this passage.  I say she has totally misinterpreted it.  What Jesus clearly referring to in this passage is to be aware of false prophets who are claiming to be him. Clearly the Eucharist does not proclaim itself verbally, "I am the Christ."  Christ's verbal silence in the Eucharist is part of His power - the power of just being, of being "I Am."  So Matthew 24:4 does not refer to the Eucharist in any way shape or form and it's a mighty stretch to try to connect it.   Also Matthew 24:26 again refers to a false Christ claiming to be in the desert, or the upper room, or could be the street corner or the stadium or stage.  But the Eucharist is present  only in a very specific holy place- in the tabernacle of a Catholic church being distributed by the church or in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons etc. by specially trained ministers of the Eucharist.  Matthew 24 doesn't cut it for disproving the Eucharist either.

And I can't resist just saying Christ does say we do not know the hour or the day.  I feel sorry for Christians who spend so much time and energy worrying about it. Be like the birds of the field or like a little child and don't worry about things that you can't control anyway.

Now let's look at Jennie's other passage in context.

Hebrews 9
The Blood of Christ
 11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!  15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
 16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
 23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.


This passage explains why it was necessary for Christ to become the new sacrifice and why we refer to Him as the Lamb of God. And with Christ's sacrifice comes the new covenant. Catholics know this and we do not re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Instead we take part of the ever-living sacrifice that is once and for all and not bound by time and space.

Incidentally this is what St. Paul also taught:

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

I think it is pretty clear that Matthew 24 has been totally misinterpreted as well as Hebrews. Bible believing Christians really need to quit looking for ways to avoid it and consider that when Christ says, "This is my body," he actually meant it!


Update: Jennie blogged on this too.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

120 comments:

Jennie said...

I had also added the following after my first comment to clarify what I had said about the Matthew 24 passage:
Jesus is telling His disciples that He will NOT be present physically on earth until He comes again in the sky, and not to believe anyone who says He is, even though you see signs and wonders to prove that it is He.

Jennie said...

I wrote about John 6 a while back:
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-am-bread-of-life.html

Elena said...

I handled Matthew 24 in the post; you are clearly misrepresenting and misinterpreting it.

As for your post on John 6 back in May- I'm surprised you brought itup because you were clearly trounced there as well, particularly on your "sacrificed again and again" belief - which the Catholic church just doesn't teach!

Gosh - there's nothing more maddening than explaining something clearly and having the person you explained it to continue to ignore it!!

Jennie said...

Elena,
first of all, you have misinterpreted Matthew 4 and misused it by misdirecting people.
You used the passage that talked of false prophets saying 'I am the christ' to refute my statement referring to verse 26 which refers to false teachers saying 'There He is'. Here is the passage: 26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Those are two separated things Jesus was referring to: the first in v.6 was talking of false christs and prophets themselves; the second was talking of what the false christs or prophets would say to try to get people to believe Christ is on earth. You can't refute the one by using the other passage. However I believe both apply to the RCC. The RCC teaches that the pope and the priests are 'alter christus' or another christ on earth. This clearly fulfills this prophecy, and so does their teaching that the eucharist is really the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' and that it is a propitiatory sacrifice.

Remember this that I quoted in the thread on my blog:
" Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.
"It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man - not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ the Eternal and Omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
"Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ; he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially found of applying to the priest is that of 'alter Christus.' For the priest is and should be another Christ." Faith of Millions, by John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., p 268-269 ("nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne).


I think it is clear that the RCC teaches that her magisterium is in the place of Christ on earth, and that the eucharist is actually Christ on earth in opposition to the clear teaching of scripture. Your exposition is misleading. Jesus was teaching that there are BOTH false teachers and christs AND that they will direct people to try to find Christ on earth by lying signs and wonders that will deceive many.
You said: Clearly the Eucharist does not proclaim itself verbally, "I am the Christ." The passage in v. 26-27 teaches that the false teachers declare this to get people to go see the Christ. You are trying to make v. 4-5 deny v. 26-27.

Jennie said...

Elena,
And I can't resist just saying Christ does say we do not know the hour or the day. I feel sorry for Christians who spend so much time and energy worrying about it. Be like the birds of the field or like a little child and don't worry about things that you can't control anyway.
What do you think is the purpose of Jesus' teachings in Matthew 24? The purpose is clearly stated at the beginning of the chapter: 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.
Jesus is warning them of the signs of the times and not to be deceived by the false teachers that will arise. We may not know the day or the hour, but we can know the time is close. We are commanded to watch:
1 Thess. 5:
4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. 5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
11 Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing.

Elena said...

However I believe both apply to the RCC. The RCC teaches that the pope and the priests are 'alter christus' or another christ on earth.

Well of course that is not what the church teaches at all.

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

So it is plain that the Pope, Bishops and priests are in a sense Christ's ambassadors. They aren't "little Christs." So once again you have that wrong.

You are jaw droppingly wrong in trying to apply Matthew to the Eucharist which is CLEARLY speaking about false prophets pretending to be Christ in end times.

You are stunning in the way you try to spin this, although consistent.

Elena said...

Jesus is warning them of the signs of the times and not to be deceived by the false teachers that will arise. We may not know the day or the hour, but we can know the time is close.

Nonsense. First of all he was speaking to the apostles who asked him directly. That was over 2000 years ago. There have been floods and famines and wars almost consistently since then. And people have been predicting the end of the world all that time as well.

If you mean "close" as in, "perhaps the next 5000 years or so, give or take," then maybe. But if you're with that nut case Anna Matrix who thinks its over in 20 some day... well I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

Live your life Jennie. I don't think God intends you to handwring about this when there is nothing you can do to change it.

Barbara C. said...

I'm glad you posted this, Elena, because this was bugging me last night when the comments were closed.

Jenny Said:
"Those are two separated things Jesus was referring to: the first in v.6 was talking of false christs and prophets themselves; the second was talking of what the false christs or prophets would say to try to get people to believe Christ is on earth."

In a very thin way they are two separate things. One is talking about people claiming to be Christ and the other talks about those claiming to have secret knowledge about where Christ is on earth. (Hence, the INNER rooms...where not everyone has access.) However, just the punctuation of using a semi-colon shows that the two are connected. They are two sides of the same coin not completely separate coins.

Obviously, though her understanding of the Catholic Church is flawed for her to think this warns against the Eucharistic presence. As you pointed out we don't believe the priests or Pope are "mini-Christs". Secondly, the Eucharist isn't hidden from the people. The inner rooms aren't off limits. It's not like the ape in the last Chronicle of Narnia who won't let people go in the ten lest they figure out Aslan isn't really there, just a donkey wearing a lion's skin.

Barbara C. said...

Jennie Said:
"Jesus is telling His disciples that He will NOT be present physically on earth until He comes again"

The thing is, though, Jesus said that whenever two or three are gathered in His name He would be there, too. Does Jennie not believe that Jesus' spirit is physically there whenever two or three are gathered in His name? Or does she think He is only metaphorically present, like when say a person will live on in our hearts?

And if she believes that His spirit is physically present then why is it such a stretch to think Jesus is incapable to be present spiritually in a physical object?

Barbara C. said...

Furthermore, the role of the Pope and priests echoes the role of the king's steward. The king gives the "keys of the kingdom" to his steward so that his steward can administer in the king's absence. The steward makes decisions for the good of the kingdom while the king is away; however the steward knows that he will be held accountable to the king upon his return. So, the good steward knows that if he doesn't administer as the king would, there will literally be Hell to pay.

This is Biblical (King David, Solomon as well as the many parables of Jesus) as well as a cultural reality of the time. Just like the Queen was usually the King's mother...not one of his many wives (Solomon and Bathsheba). And the King would defer to the petitions of the Queen Mother...hence respect for Mary's role.

Elena said...

Wow Barb - you are on a roll!

Barbara C. said...

Every once in a while I have my moments. Every once in a great while.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi guys,

It just so happens that this week we are having communion at our church. I am looking forward to partaking of the bread and wine in memory of the sacrifice of my Lord, Jesus Christ on the cross, for my sins. This is such a blessed reminder of what He has done for me, and it causes great gratitude to spring forth out of my heart. I feel blessed to be both a partaker and a part of His body when I commune with Him in this manner. When I eat the bread, I do this as a reminder to honor His instruction of daily feeding on His Word. When I drink the wine, I do this as a reminder, that I too as His follower am a beneficiary of His suffering on the cross. He is always with me in Spirit, and this is just one more way, in which I can fellowship with Him.

Incidentally, we always precede communion with Foot washing, where we symbolically cleanse ourselves in response to real heart searching, repentance, and cleansing prior.

What about foot washing? Many churches have abandoned this practice, to my dismay. Is this ritual still observed in the Catholic church?

Jennie said...

Here is a contrast of the RCC teaching on the eucharist with the biblical teaching of Christ's sacrifice. http://www.justforcatholics.org/a102.htm
First I will post his comments and quotes of the RCC teaching:
The mass is the commemoration of Jesus giving himself for us on the cross. In fact Christ himself said, "Do this in remembrance of me."

Answer: Many people wrongly think that the Mass is a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, much the same as the Lord's Supper in Evangelical churches. It is not; the Mass is something more than a memorial. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a real sacrifice for sin. Please read carefully the following citations from Catholic sources.

1.

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3).
2.

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ...The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same - Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross...The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were to honor and glorify God; to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; to satisfy God's justice for the sins of men; to obtain all graces and blessings (Baltimore Catechism).
3.

As often as the Sacrifice of the Cross in which 'Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed' (1 Corinthians. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar (i.e. during the mass), the work of our redemption is carried on (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).
4.

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366).
5.

The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross (Mediator Dei, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII)
6.

It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day (Mysterium Fidei; Encyclical of Pope Paul VI).

So, the Catholic Church officially teaches the Mass is a sacrifice -- indeed the very same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary -- and it is offered to satisfy God's justice and atone for sins. During the Mass Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not only remembered but it is also carried on, perpetuated, renewed, re-presented and re-enacted.

Jennie said...

Secondly I will post his (Dr. Mizzi's) comments and quotes on how the scriptural teaching compares to the RCC teaching:
The Catholic doctrine on the Mass is a distortion of the biblical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The Bible describes the Eucharist as a "memorial" or "commemoration" of Christ, and a "proclamation" of His death, and not as a sacrifice for sin. More seriously, the Mass is the denial of the perfection and sufficiency of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary. If it needs to be carried on, perpetuated, renewed re-presented and re-enacted, the implication is that His once-for-all sacrifice was not enough for the forgiveness of His people... Even so, having accomplished the redemption of His people by His death on the cross, Christ ascended into heaven and is now seated on the right hand of God. His mission is accomplished!

Please read the following passages from the book of Hebrews and note carefully how the author emphasizes that the sacrifice of Christ is done once for all:

1.

Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:25:27).

Jennie said...

continued:
2.

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).
3.

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin (Hebrew 10:10-18).

The Bible repeats over and over again that Christ offered His sacrifice "once" and "once for all." He "does not need daily to offer up sacrifices." He is in heaven "not that He should offer Himself often." Today "there is no longer an offering for sin." His purpose was achieved: by His once-for-all sacrifice, He "put away sin" and thus He "sanctified" and "perfected forever" His people.

You have two choices. You can either continue to attend Mass, thus showing that you do not really believe that Jesus can save you to the uttermost by His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. Or else, if you are certain that His sacrifice is finished, perfect and complete, put your trust in Him, and join a Christian community where the Gospel is faithfully preached, and Christ's ordinances (Baptism and the Eucharist) are observed according to the pattern and teaching of the New Testament. It is the great privilege of all believers to meet together to remember the Lord and proclaim His death by observing the Lord’s Supper together.

Elena said...

FYI Jennie, when you post something from "Just for Catholics" it's akin to Candy posting from the Jack Chick site, or the Jesus is Lord site. We know it's an anti-Catholic site and it is neither impressive or persuasive.

Elena said...

also, I should mention that Catholics don't particularly care if something isn't spelled out in the bible because sola scriptura isn't scriptural.

And I've already explained the not resacrificing thing. So unless you got anything else I think we're about done.

unknown anon said...

To answer the question, yes, Catholics do have a ritual foot washing.

On Holy Thursday, there is a rite which is performed after the homily at Mass.

Modified forms may also be used in other settings and circumstances, but it is not part of the Mass other than Holy Thursday.

Jennie said...

Barbara,
In a very thin way they are two separate things. One is talking about people claiming to be Christ and the other talks about those claiming to have secret knowledge about where Christ is on earth.
The only reason I had to stress that these were two separate passages, though they speak of similar and related events)is because Elena was using the wrong verse to try to disprove what I said. She tried to downplay the verse where it says "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. "
I think it necessarily has to refer to secret knowledge though it could, as one example.

The thing is, though, Jesus said that whenever two or three are gathered in His name He would be there, too. Does Jennie not believe that Jesus' spirit is physically there whenever two or three are gathered in His name? Or does she think He is only metaphorically present, like when say a person will live on in our hearts?

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is physically present in the eucharist, not just spiritually. But if He is with us in Spirit, that is not physical, as in a physical body that can be touched and seen. He said He was going away and they would see Him no more, and that He was sending the Holy Spirit as teacher and comforter until His return, which would be in glory from the sky. He would then physically stand upon the earth and begin His reign on earth. It doesn't make any sense to say His Spirit is physically there. He is there in Spirit, not in body.

And if she believes that His spirit is physically present then why is it such a stretch to think Jesus is incapable to be present spiritually in a physical object?
The Catholic church teaches that He is physically and spiritually present in the eucharist, not just spiritually present in a physical body. I believe He can be spiritually present in the physical bodies of the saints, who are the body of Christ on earth, the believers.

Just like the Queen was usually the King's mother...not one of his many wives (Solomon and Bathsheba).
Bathsheba was queen with her husband David and still obviously had influence, but it only went so far. Solomon became angry when Adonijah tried to manipulate him using Bathsheba as intercessor, and Adonijah lost his life. Bathsheba was scolded for this as well.

Jennie said...

I think it necessarily has to refer to secret knowledge though it could, as one example.
That should read 'I don't think...'

Daughter of Wisdom said...

And if she believes that His spirit is physically present then why is it such a stretch to think Jesus is incapable to be present spiritually in a physical object?

The belief that God inhabits inanimate objects is a major belief of pantheism. Pantheists believe God is in EVERYTHING, including plants, animals, all people (the saved and unsaved), animate and inanimate objects. This doctrine is nowhere taught in scripture.


Peace.

Jennie said...

Elena,
You have not actually used the Hebrew passages to refute anything I said about them. You have not explained why if the bread and wine are actually Christ physically and wholly how it could not be a repeated sacrifice (since it is done over and over every day) which is opposed in Hebrews several times, when it says Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:25:27).
Notice it says 'He always lives' which means He is not a perpetual victim as the Church teaches. He is always in heaven interceding for us.
Notice it says who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices which is what the RCC does, calling it a propitiatory sacrifice.
Notice that it says for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. This means His sacrifice was finished once for all on the cross and needs no repetition.

You have not explained why when in Hebrews 9;24-28 it says:but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation that the RCC teaches that He returns physically in the eucharist repeatedly. In scripture He comes twice, once to be our sacrifice and once more to judge and reign.

Why when Hebrews 10:10-18 says: “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin does the RCC teach that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice? If we have been justified by faith we have been forgiven, and if we sin we can come to the Father directly and confess our sins and be forgiven, and not lose justification, our right standing with God that was gained once for all by Christ.

You have not answered any of these things and more that I said.

Jennie said...

Elena, you said:
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them.
1 Corinthians 10:
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

Believers all partake of the body and blood of Christ by faith, breaking the bread and drinking the cup in remembrance of Him, declaring His death until He comes. We ARE one loaf and one body by faith, by the Spirit. We ARE His body cleansed by His blood and filled with His Spirit. We are one with Him and with each other.

You said: Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
The point of that passage is that when we take of the bread and wine unworthily in sin we are forgetting the sacrifice He made for us to cleanse us of sin, and are insulting Him by not caring about what He did. We are also sinning and adding to the burden that He bore, and in essence we are participating in the guilt of those who crucified Him instead of being repentant and participating in the forgiveness His death brings. We are truly guilty of His body and blood by our hateful carelessness and sinfulness. It is not the physical act of eating the bread but the spiritual act of sinful insult and disregard of His suffering for our sake.

Jennie said...

Again I want to say that Jesus and Paul said to 'watch and be sober' and "Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. 34 It is like a man going to a far country, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to watch. 35 Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning— 36 lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!”
That is why He gave us the signs of the times.

Elena said...

You girls play too rough too late at night. See ya in the morning.

Elena said...

because Elena was using the wrong verse to try to disprove what I said. She tried to downplay the verse where it says "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. "
I think it necessarily has to refer to secret knowledge though it could, as one example.


It should be downplayed because it has NOTHING to do with the Eucharist. It was about false prophets in the end times. This entire spine is...unique, but foolish. I wonder what Protestant apologist came up with this first?


It doesn't make any sense to say His Spirit is physically there. He is there in Spirit, not in body.

Which of course isn't what he ACTUALLY SAID when he said this IS MY BODY.

Elena said...

You have not actually used the Hebrew passages to refute anything I said about them. You have not explained why if the bread and wine are actually Christ physically and wholly how it could not be a repeated sacrifice (since it is done over and over every day) which is opposed in Hebrews several times, when it says

Actually I used the entire passage and blew your argument out of the water. I also explained that the Eucharist is NOT a repeated sacrifice, but a joining in with the original sacrifice.

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." "And since 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. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190.

You don't understand that. That's okay, because it is a sacred mystery after all. However, the church doesn't teach that it is a resacrifice and we don't believe that it is a re-sacrofice and we understand that it is a joining to Christ's original sacrifice and he is not bound by time or space. So I guess you could take what we actually teach and actually believe, or pull a Candy and completely ignore it and believe what you want to about it... which is what I am guessing you will do anyway.

Elena said...

You have not explained why when in Hebrews 9;24-28 it says:but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation that the RCC teaches that He returns physically in the eucharist repeatedly. In scripture He comes twice, once to be our sacrifice and once more to judge and reign.

Simple. At the end of time, Jesus will come back in Resurrection Body to rule. He will look just as he did at the ascension. In the Eucharist He is physically present, but in a Eucharistic form:

The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.151 We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)152 - the first meaning of the phrase "communion of saints" in the Apostles' Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,153 viaticum. . . .

If you don't approve- take it up with Jesus.

Why when Hebrews 10:10-18 says: “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin does the RCC teach that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice?

Hebrews says:
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.


I already said that we are partaking of the one sacrifice. It is not re-sacrifice. So I'll leave it at that.

The rest of it was on the sacrament of confession and penance, but that's for another thread at a future time.

Elena said...

Again I want to say that Jesus and Paul said to 'watch and be sober' and "Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. 34 It is like a man going to a far country, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to watch. 35 Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning— 36 lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!”
That is why He gave us the signs of the times.


I don't disagree with you that we should always be ready. We don't even know when our own lives will end. But I disagree with all of this hand wringing and trying to figure out if today's the day. He said we don't know the day or the hour. For cryin out loud Jennie, live a good holy life, train your kids to do so and keep your husband on board and then quit worrying about it, because chances are even your great grandchildren won't live to see it.

Elena said...

We ARE His body cleansed by His blood and filled with His Spirit. We are one with Him and with each other.

And if you were paying attention you would have noted that Paul already put up a similar post and I actually agreed with that part of the interpretation.

You said: Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious?

Because it's not mere bread and wine the body and blood of Jesus Christ and if you are in serious sin you defile it.

Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Have we not been telling you that for the past few days?

The point of that passage is that when we take of the bread and wine unworthily in sin we are forgetting the sacrifice He made for us to cleanse us of sin, and are insulting Him by not caring about what He did.

I understand that in some Protestant theologies, once you are saved you are always saved.

Catholics understand that we still sin and we have to be sorry for those sins, confess those sins, and vow to sin no more. In Catholic theology, if you are aware of a serious sin you need to meet those qualifications before you can obtain communion worthily.

Sue Bee said...

A quick response to DOW:
There is a well-known woman in our cities who washes the feet of the homeless. Her name is Mary Jo Copeland – she is an amazing woman. Very inspirational – you can Google her to learn about her ministry.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Actually I used the entire passage and blew your argument out of the water. I also explained that the Eucharist is NOT a repeated sacrifice, but a joining in with the original sacrifice.
The following is actually all you have said in reference to the Hebrews passages, and you never actually explained or answered my arguments using them:
This passage explains why it was necessary for Christ to become the new sacrifice and why we refer to Him as the Lamb of God. And with Christ's sacrifice comes the new covenant. Catholics know this and we do not re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Instead we take part of the ever-living sacrifice that is once and for all and not bound by time and space.
You have not explained how an actual sacrifice of the real body and blood of Christ, as you claim it is, can NOT be a repeated sacrifice, instead of just 'taking part in the original sacrifice'. If you want to take part in the original, you don't insist on redoing it physically; to take part in the original sacrifice you do it by faith in the finished sacrifice. If you want to insist that the RCC teaches that you are participating in the original and NOT resacrificing Him, then you should NOT insist that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice necessary for salvation. Christ's finished sacrifice is the only propitiatory sacrifice, the only physical sacrifice, the only effective sacrifice.
Hebrews teaches that 'He does not have to offer Himself often, as the priests of old' but a physical sacrifice, as you insist it is, must by definition be repeated. Only a spiritual sacifice of thanksgiving by faith fits the scriptures. The RCC has made it physical and propitiatory and this is a denial of scripture and of Christ.

Jennie said...

Elena,
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
Saying that the sacrifice of the mass 'completes and surpasses all the the sacrifices of the Old Testament' is a denial of Christ's finished sacrifice on the cross, which truly DOES complete and surpass all the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The book of Hebrews explains this in detail, and does not refer to the eucharist or Lord's supper being central and being our salvation, but to Christ's once for all sacrifice being all sufficient for our salvation. There is no such understanding in the scriptures. The Lord's supper is done 'in remembrance' of His sacrifice, as HE commanded the disciples.
This is just the same as passover, in which only in the first one was the blood applied, but all the future ones were 'a memorial' of the first, and also a foreshadow of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross. The passover celebration was then changed by Christ to a memorial of HIS death by the bread and wine. The lamb no longer needed to be sacrificed because the true Lamb had come.

Elena said...


You have not explained how an actual sacrifice of the real body and blood of Christ, as you claim it is, can NOT be a repeated sacrifice, instead of just 'taking part in the original sacrifice'.


I assume you have been to a Catholic Mass. We do not re-crucify Christ. You did not see a man re-hung on a cross beaten and bruised. Now you might have noticed a crucifix on the altar. The crucifix is the principal ornament of the altar. It is placed on the altar to recall to the mind of the celebrant, and the people, that the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the Cross. For this reason the crucifix must be placed on the altar as often as Mass is celebrated (Constitution, Accepimus of Benedict XIV, 16 July, 1746). The rubric of the Roman Missal (xx) prescribes that it be placed at the middle of the altar between the candlesticks, and that it be large enough to be conveniently seen by both the celebrant and the people (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 September, 1822). (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Further, we do not think as God thinks. It is a mystery to us as to how we enter into the holy sacrifice. But we do it because Christ told us to.

CCCC 1402 In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us." If the Eucharist is the memorial of the Passover of the Lord Jesus, if by our communion at the altar we are filled "with every heavenly blessing and grace,"242 then the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the heavenly glory.

If you want to insist that the RCC teaches that you are participating in the original and NOT resacrificing Him, then you should NOT insist that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice necessary for salvation. Christ's finished sacrifice is the only propitiatory sacrifice, the only physical sacrifice, the only effective sacrifice.

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

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.189

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." "And since 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. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

Elena said...

Saying that the sacrifice of the mass 'completes and surpasses all the the sacrifices of the Old Testament' is a denial of Christ's finished sacrifice on the cross, which truly DOES complete and surpass all the sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Well since they're one in the same... we're good to go!


The book of Hebrews explains this in detail, and does not refer to the eucharist or Lord's supper being central and being our salvation, but to Christ's once for all sacrifice being all sufficient for our salvation.


Again since they are one in the same... we're good to go! (Are you seeing a pattern here yet Jennie?)


There is no such understanding in the scriptures. The Lord's supper is done 'in remembrance' of His sacrifice, as HE commanded the disciples.



Rather than copy and paste the entire section... again, I'll just refer everyone to this part of the catechism.

Elena said...

FYI on the foot washing, here is a of the pope washing feet on Holy Thursday.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Have we not been telling you that for the past few days?


Yes, but then I then explained it in a spiritual sense, which makes more sense in the context of the passage, so obviously your explanation is NOT the only one that makes sense, nor the most important way.
Here is my entire quote which you did not answer:
The point of that passage is that when we take of the bread and wine unworthily in sin we are forgetting the sacrifice He made for us to cleanse us of sin, and are insulting Him by not caring about what He did. We are also sinning and adding to the burden that He bore, and in essence we are participating in the guilt of those who crucified Him instead of being repentant and participating in the forgiveness His death brings. We are truly guilty of His body and blood by our hateful carelessness and sinfulness. It is not the physical act of eating the bread but the spiritual act of sinful insult and disregard of His suffering for our sake.

I said 'in essence we are participating in the guilt of those who crucified Him instead of being repentant and participating in the forgiveness His death brings'
This is really the only way it makes sense to say we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if we don't discern the body. We are forgetting His sacrifice of His body for our sins.

Elena said...

Martin Luther on the Eucharist:

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Jennie said...

Elena,
Further, we do not think as God thinks. It is a mystery to us as to how we enter into the holy sacrifice. But we do it because Christ told us to.
If so, you would be doing it 'in remembrance' of Him and His finished sacrifice, not as a propitiatory physical sacrifice.

Elena said...

Have we not been telling you that for the past few days?

Yes, but then I then explained it in a spiritual sense, which makes more sense in the context of the passage, so obviously your explanation is NOT the only one that makes sense, nor the most important way.


Again Jennie, if you had been paying attention, you would have noted that Paul already brought up the spiritual sense and I agreed with him that that too is part of the Catholic understanding.



Here is my entire quote which you did not answer:

Catholics do not believe in once saved, always saved. We believe that we continue to sin (believe me Jennie, I have been tempted to sin much during this very thread!!!) So we have to continue to have His Grace poured out to us. We have to continue to recognize our sin and ask for forgiveness and try to sin no more. This is hardly adding to Christ's burden. Far from it!! This is what He was trying to teach us in the first place!!

We are truly guilty of His body and blood by our hateful carelessness and sinfulness.

Absolutely. Which is why we continue to try to grow in Grace Through Christ.


The rest of it is repetitive. I urge you to read the Catechism and maybe read some actual Catholic authors on the topic to see if you can deepen your understanding on this if understanding is what you truly seek. I don't think it is but... that's my suggestion anyway.

Elena said...

If so, you would be doing it 'in remembrance' of Him and His finished sacrifice, not as a propitiatory physical sacrifice.

We do it as both - again read the Catechism, maybe even read the footnoted items at the end of the section. Read some Catholic authors for a deeper understanding of this sacred mystery. Quit relying on your own understanding which is rather limited.

Sue Bee said...

Wow! Elena quoted Luther! Marking my calendar... :-)

It is ironic that those who think so highly of Luther the reformer disagree with so much of the doctrine he taught.

Here's a "Lutheran" response to Jennie's argument (he says it better than I can):

Protestants reject the real presence of the body and blood of Christ at the table because finitum non capax infiniti--the finite cannot contain the infinite. Protestant theology asks: "How can the infinite God be contained in the finite bread and wine? How can Jesus be really present in the bread and wine when he is seated at the right hand of God? How can Jesus continue to offer his body and blood for hundreds of years to millions of people? How can God forgive someone through his Supper?"

Lutheran theology responds:
"We don't know." Lutherans simply believe the direct words of Jesus, "This is my body . . . blood" and take the apostle Paul's words at face value: "Is not the cup . . . a participation/sharing/partaking/communing (Greek: koinonia) in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread . . . a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

For Lutherans, the words of Jesus and Paul supersede reason. How can God become man in the person of Jesus Christ? After being dead for three days, how can Jesus appear behind locked doors and show his hands and feet and side to Thomas? How can Jesus take five loaves and two small fish to feed 5,000 people and still have leftovers? And how, for hundreds of years, can the bread and wine in communion also be the body and blood of Jesus, which offers millions of God's people forgiveness and grace?

Jesus challenges us beyond our reason and calls us to believe. Then he raises questions for us. "Tired of sinning? Hungry for forgiveness? Desire to live a godly life? Then take and eat, this is my body . . . take and drink, this is my blood, given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." Believe it.


- Rev. Tom Trapp

Elena said...

Marking my calendar...

LOL!!

Some of what Luther wrote I loved! His devotion to Mary and the Eucharist being right up there. And of course his love for his wife and family.

Kelly said...

My German professor told me Luther wrote that he never got used to waking up with braids on his pillow.

:)

Jennie said...

Elena,
Catholics do not believe in once saved, always saved. We believe that we continue to sin (believe me Jennie, I have been tempted to sin much during this very thread!!!) So we have to continue to have His Grace poured out to us. We have to continue to recognize our sin and ask for forgiveness and try to sin no more. This is hardly adding to Christ's burden. Far from it!! This is what He was trying to teach us in the first place!!

I believe in the possibility of apostasy, which is taught in scripture. But don't catholics believe that one can lose justification by committing a mortal sin, and then would have to be re-justified? This is not taught in scripture. We can lose our salvation, if possible, by turning against Christ, and/or continuing in rebellious sin and hardening our heart against the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Some believe that one who does this was never saved, but scripture seems to say it is. I won't get into that, since it isn't the subject of the thread.

Jennie said...

Elena,
You probably remember that I don't agree with Luther on everything; however, he did not believe in transubstantiation, nor that the mass was a propitiatory sacrifice. The things that I object to I have already mentioned several times, but the general idea is that I feel that since RCC teachings claim their mass is the center of the faith and that it is a propitiatory sacrifice, that this takes away from His finished sacrifice and distracts people from faith in it, causing them to put their faith in doing a sacrament and being in the Church instead. I am concerned that this puts people in danger.

Jennie said...

Here is an interesting page with one of Luther's writings about the sacraments. I haven't read it all yet, it's very long, but I think it helps to understand that he believed the most important thing was faith in Christ the Word, then the written word, then the sacraments.

Jennie said...

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=720&chapter=87718&layout=html&Itemid=27

Oops, forgot the link as usual :)

Jennie said...

Elena,
(believe me Jennie, I have been tempted to sin much during this very thread!!!)
I wonder if a blowing a razzberry is a sin? I think throwing mashed potatoes at someone might be. :) But I like mashed potatoes.

Daughter of Wisdom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennie said...

I feel that since RCC teachings claim their mass is the center of the faith and that it is a propitiatory sacrifice, that this takes away from His finished sacrifice and distracts people from faith in it, causing them to put their faith in doing a sacrament and being in the Church instead. I am concerned that this puts people in danger.
Do you believe that you would be lost if you did not attend mass and confession, or do you believe that you can be saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice for sin and confessing your sin to the Father, without ever going to mass or belonging to the RCC? You must not trust in the Church to save you, but in Christ alone.
Ephesians 1:
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thank you Elena, Anonymous, and Sue Bee for your responses regarding footwashing. I am glad to know that this ancient Christian practice is still being observed today.

Peace.

Erin said...

I believe in the possibility of apostasy, which is taught in scripture. But don't catholics believe that one can lose justification by committing a mortal sin, and then would have to be re-justified? This is not taught in scripture. We can lose our salvation, if possible, by turning against Christ, and/or continuing in rebellious sin and hardening our heart against the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Some believe that one who does this was never saved, but scripture seems to say it is. I won't get into that, since it isn't the subject of the thread.
____________________________

Jennie - according to your belief, how does one return to Christ after turning against Him?

Elena said...

We can lose our salvation, if possible, by turning against Christ, and/or continuing in rebellious sin and hardening our heart against the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Bingo!! The Catholic term for that is "moral sin."

Elena said...

But I like mashed potatoes.

How do you feel about gravy? ; P

Elena said...

but the general idea is that I feel that since RCC teachings claim their mass is the center of the faith and that it is a propitiatory sacrifice, that this takes away from His finished sacrifice and distracts people from faith in it, causing them to put their faith in doing a sacrament and being in the Church instead. I am concerned that this puts people in danger.

Um...if you're receiving the sacraments, going to church, praying to Jesus Christ, trying to live a good Christian life (albeit not your particular flavor of Christian life) just what are they in danger of? What kind of trouble are you expecting that kind of person to be getting into exactly?

Incidentally, I know quite a few daily communicants. They just don't see like a wild, crazy, night of lots of sin and passion kind of people!!

Dr MikeyMike said...

Do you believe that you would be lost if you did not attend mass and confession, or do you believe that you can be saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice for sin and confessing your sin to the Father, without ever going to mass or belonging to the RCC? You must not trust in the Church to save you, but in Christ alone.

First of all, not going to Church is breaking one of the 10 Commandments. Do you feel like the 10 Commandments have no merit?

And the reason I go to Church is because Christ instituted it to help bring people to Him. I go because I want to learn more about him, learn about how I can follow him more closely, and to help bring others like myself to him.

You are talking about the Church like Republicans do 'Big Government', and I think that is an unfair parallel. The Church is fueled by Christ and the Holy Spirit. The two are not at odds, despite how much you try to portray them as being.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

One of the greatest deception of Satan is to get people to believe that they are saved when they are not. He makes you think because somewhere in the past you had given your life over to Christ, and had repented, then there is nothing more to be done, and you are therefore saved for all eternity. Wrong! Here is what the Bible says:

"Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood (Ezekiel 3:20, NIV).

A righteous (saved) person can turn away from God, and be eternally lost, if he/she sins. This is important to know because the 'once saved always saved' doctrine is very popular, but is a deception. This is also one of the many errors that have crept into Christendom.

The Bible tells us that whenever we sin we have an advocate Jesus, and if we confess our sins, He will forgive us of our sins, and cleanse us of unrighteousness (1 John 2:1; 1 John 1:9). All those Christians going around saying they have no sin because Jesus' blood covered them when they first got saved are making God into a liar (1 John 1:8).

I do believe that's why God gives us a conscience, so that when we become aware of sin in our lives, we will go to Him in repentance. I do not believe God wants us to go around feeling guilty and worried if we have committed any sins that we forgot to ask forgiveness for. I do believe however that when our conscience pricks us of sin or when the Word of God reveals sin in our lives, then that is the cue from God that we need to repent.

What has happened is that many Christians who believe in the 'once saved always saved' doctrine ignore their consciences, and tell themselves 'works have nothing to do with salvation.' After a while their hearts become hardened in sin, and they cannot distinguish the sinful from the holy.

Peace.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Good post, Daughter of Wisdom.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thanks, Dr. Mike.

I am also a health care transplant in the realm Christian spiritual teachings. A precedent set by Luke.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Oops! I guess transplant would not be a good term since I still practice the healing arts. It is more like a double calling.

Peace.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Hee hee! Well, I'll admit that I am just a 'wanna-be' student doc at this point. I graduate next year, however, and hopefully I am successful in creating a practice of healing the soul as well as the body.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Wishing you all the best in your studies.

Sue Bee said...

Kelly wrote: My German professor told me Luther wrote that he never got used to waking up with braids on his pillow.

LOL :)

Martin & Katie's story is great. I believe in each other they found a soul mate.

Sue Bee said...

Jennie wrote: Here is an interesting page with one of Luther's writings about the sacraments.

Waaaaay too long, Jennie. :)

I'll post a link to something shorter if anyone is interested.

Jennie said...

Erin,
Jennie - according to your belief, how does one return to Christ after turning against Him?
I believe that apostasy is NOT something that happens easily or quickly, and that it would be very unlikely for someone to repent after this. I believe if they did repent, if it's possible, that they would be forgiven.
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Sue Bee said...

DOW wrote: A righteous (saved) person can turn away from God, and be eternally lost, if he/she sins. This is important to know because the 'once saved always saved' doctrine is very popular, but is a deception.

Well said!!

Jennie said...

Elena,
How do you feel about gravy? ; P
lol! I think it would be harder to field than the mashed potatoes, so I'll pass :D

Jennie said...

Elena,
Bingo!! The Catholic term for that is "moral sin."
Is that 'mortal sin' or is there another term I don't know about?
What would be considered a mortal sin? I assume something like murder? But one doesn't lose salvation by committing a sin, but by willfully continuing in sin without repentance, hardening one's heart continually. No one knows but God when this actually occurs, but it apparently is very hard or impossible to bring the person to repentance again.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Um...if you're receiving the sacraments, going to church, praying to Jesus Christ, trying to live a good Christian life (albeit not your particular flavor of Christian life) just what are they in danger of? What kind of trouble are you expecting that kind of person to be getting into exactly?
The problem is, are they trusting in doing these things to save them, or in the finished work of Christ, knowing that their own works cannot wash away their sin and make them in right standing with God?

Elena said...

Ooops. Yes that is mortal sin. From the catechism:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Elena said...

The problem is, are they trusting in doing these things to save them, or in the finished work of Christ, knowing that their own works cannot wash away their sin and make them in right standing with God?

Well if they're spending any amount of time in church at all they have not heard a doctrine that tells them that they are saved by their works. That simply isn't Catholic doctrine. Also if they live through the liturgical year, particularly LENT, then they know about Christ's sacrifice and our need for repentance.

So seems to me these holy rollers might not be in so much danger after all!

Jennie said...

Remember, the Jews believed they were good because they thought they were keeping God's law, but they did not understand that they had to trust in Christ to save them from their sins. They thought their standing as 'God's chosen people' and 'sons of Abraham' was what saved them, along with their good works.

Elena said...

Remember, the Jews believed they were good because they thought they were keeping God's law, but they did not understand that they had to trust in Christ to save them from their sins. They thought their standing as 'God's chosen people' and 'sons of Abraham' was what saved them, along with their good works.

... have you never heard a joke about Catholic guilt? A well-catechized Catholic of the type we are speaking gets it.

Jennie said...

Dr. M.M.,
First of all, not going to Church is breaking one of the 10 Commandments. Do you feel like the 10 Commandments have no merit?
Not going to church is not breaking one of the ten commandments. Not keeping the sabbath is, but keeping the sabbath is a law that was fulfilled in Christ. I have three posts about it on my blog. http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/search/label/Sabbath
Basically I said that the sabbath is fulfilled by our salvation, which is our sabbath rest in Christ, in which we rest from our own works by being given His righteousness.
Certainly now we are commanded not to abandon gathering together, and should attend church if we are believers, so we can be taught and edified by each other.

Elena said...

Not going to church is not breaking one of the ten commandments

FYI, the percentage of Christendom that believes as you do on this Jennie is in the minority. I'll bet even most Christians on the Protestant branch don't even subscribe to that view.

Jennie said...

Dr. M.M.
Resting from our own works means not depending on our own goodness, but on Christ's sacrifice and upon His righteousness by faith. We then can live by faith and abide in His word, and the Spirit sanctifies us by the word. We continue to live by faith, and the Spirit makes us holy and produces good works in us.

Jennie said...

Elena,
notice I also said
Certainly now we are commanded not to abandon gathering together, and should attend church if we are believers, so we can be taught and edified by each other.
If we abandon this, we put ourselves in danger of falling into sin, but the greater meaning of the sabbath is our rest in Christ. If we are not keeping this (salvation by faith in Christ, not our own works) we cannot keep the sabbath by going to church, because then it is only an attempt to save ourselves by a work. This is ironic that one can fail to keep the sabbath by trying to keep it.

Jennie said...

D.O.W. (Hillary),
A righteous (saved) person can turn away from God, and be eternally lost, if he/she sins. This is important to know because the 'once saved always saved' doctrine is very popular, but is a deception. This is also one of the many errors that have crept into Christendom.
Are you saying one sin causes you to be unsaved again? I think the rest of what you said shows that you don't think this, but this statement is confusing.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

When a saved person commits a sin, it does not make that person unsaved, it just means that person had sinned. Once that person has been convicted of their sin, then he/she needs to repent and ask God for forgiveness. If the person refuses to repent, then their heart becomes hardened in sin, and that person will eventually turn away from God spiritually.

We need to understand that as Christians we are in a relationship with Christ. In a relationship, people make mistakes, but that does not necessarily sever the relationship. God is patient, and He is willing to guide us along the right paths, and forgive us when we mess up. If we refuse however to let God perfect our lives, and continue in sin regardless, then that relationship will eventually be broken - not by God, but by us, because we chose not to follow God's leading.


Peace.

Elena said...

This is ironic that one can fail to keep the sabbath by trying to keep it.

Ironic isn't the word that comes to my mind.

Elena said...

Believe it or not DOW, that sorta, kinda, is the Catholic position.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

"Believe it or not DOW, that sorta, kinda, is the Catholic position."

I am glad Elena, because it is also the position of scripture.


Peace :-).

Jennie said...

Hillary,
When a saved person commits a sin, it does not make that person unsaved, it just means that person had sinned. Once that person has been convicted of their sin, then he/she needs to repent and ask God for forgiveness. If the person refuses to repent, then their heart becomes hardened in sin, and that person will eventually turn away from God spiritually.
Thanks for clarifying that. I agree totally.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Ironic isn't the word that comes to my mind.
Do I want to know what does come to mind?

Elena said...

Probably not

Erin said...

Do you believe that you would be lost if you did not attend mass and confession, or do you believe that you can be saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice for sin and confessing your sin to the Father, without ever going to mass or belonging to the RCC? You must not trust in the Church to save you, but in Christ alone.
______________________________

I realize that the understanding is not the same regarding what a Sacrament is and does, but for the sake of argument, put yourself in the shoes of someone who DOES believe that the Sacraments are a gift from Christ himself, and are an encounter with the risen Christ (the one from 2000 years ago, crucified and risen, there is no other).

So, put yourself in the shoes of someone who does believe that the Sacraments are an encounter with the risen Christ. What does it say about someone who would say, "Yes, I believe Christ has given me these gifts, but I don't want them."

Do I believe that the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is enough? Absolutely. But I love my Lord, and I want the gifts He has given me. They are an encounter with Him.

I do not live in fear. And God is not constrained by the sacraments - it's His choice to save, in spite of our fallible human judgment otherwise. And I believe that anyone who loves the Lord, accepts the gift of His sacrifice, and lives for Him is saved. I don't believe that God condemns on a technicality. "Love me? Check. Believe in Jesus, God the Son, as atonement? Check. Oh, but look - you died before you were baptized or received any of the other Sacraments. Down you go." I don't believe that. So when it comes down to it, the atoning sacrifice of Christ is pretty much it. But for the Catholic, living for Christ includes not REJECTING the gifts He has given us in the Sacraments. Because to reject his gifts is to reject Him.

(Cradle Catholics, I'm still new at this, please correct me where I'm wrong!)

Elena said...

You're doing fine Erin! And don't sell yourself short. New converts frequently know more than their "cradle" counter parts!

Jennie said...

Erin,
But for the Catholic, living for Christ includes not REJECTING the gifts He has given us in the Sacraments. Because to reject his gifts is to reject Him.
For protestants, we believe the gifts or signs He has given us are baptism and the Lord's supper, which correspond to two of the sacraments, and of course the Holy Spirit and the Word of God are the most important gifts of salvation. I also would include prayer and confession and forgiveness as gifts, among many others.
The reason protestants wonder about the Catholic sacramental system is that it seems that it can confuse people into thinking they are saved by doing the sacraments, and other things like praying the rosary.

Dr MikeyMike said...

"The reason protestants wonder about the Catholic sacramental system is that it seems that it can confuse people into thinking they are saved by doing the sacraments, and other things like praying the rosary."

I don't see the point in disparaging or calling into question anything that only seeks to forge a deeper relationship with God. Protestants like to hammer the whole 'personal Jesus' bit, and yet praying the rosary, participating in the sacraments, etc. are things that help forge a very personal relationship with Christ for Catholics.

Jennie said...

Dr. M.M.
This debate has been going on for hundreds of years and is based on very heartfelt convictions about the meaning of salvation. If people don't understand the gospel of salvation by grace apart from works, then they may not be saved. The gospels we believe in are different, so both cannot be correct. God is merciful, and we all carry wrong ideas, but we cannot depend on works or merit of our own or we are missing out on Christ's righteousness given to us freely by faith.

Dr MikeyMike said...

"Resting from our own works means not depending on our own goodness, but on Christ's sacrifice and upon His righteousness by faith."

Even if we do something that has good outcomes, does that mean it is of our own production? Whenever I say, 'grace', I say the words.. 'from thy bounty through Christ our Lord'. I went grocery shopping, not Christ. Yet the food on my table it still from his bounty. Therefore, isn't the fruits of my work actually the blessings of God? Why take a break from that, then?

Dr MikeyMike said...

If people don't understand the gospel of salvation by grace apart from works, then they may not be saved. The gospels we believe in are different, so both cannot be correct. God is merciful, and we all carry wrong ideas, but we cannot depend on works or merit of our own or we are missing out on Christ's righteousness given to us freely by faith.

But see, that is just part of the problem: you are treating 'praying the rosary' or undertaking the sacrament as performing 'works' (or at least that is how I am reading you). Yet, these are all things that help us grow as a community with each other or strengthen our personal relationships with Christ. Do you consider studying the scriptures as 'work'? Do you feel like 'okay, if I read 10 pages, then I will be certainly saved!'? I certainly hope the answer is 'no' and that situation is altogether silly. Likewise, the sacraments should be taken the same way. They open our hearts to God, strengthen our relationship with him, and make us more receptive to his grace.

In summary, do not lump them together with 'works'.

Erin said...

The reason protestants wonder about the Catholic sacramental system is that it seems that it can confuse people into thinking they are saved by doing the sacraments, and other things like praying the rosary.
_____________________________

This thinking, though, is not a fault of Catholic theology, though - it is a failing of our human nature. We tend toward complacency, especially in regards to faith, unfortunately. Christians of any stripe (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc) can get into the trap of thinking that they go to church on Sunday, and thinking that nothing else is needed. It doesn't matter what the theology is. We can all fall into the trap of going through the motions, and thinking that this is all that is required. Sometimes, when we're being tried, going through the motions is all you can do (recognizing your struggle and seeking Christ at all times), but we should never be satisfied with *just* going through the motions.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Great point, Erin.

Moonshadow said...

Dr.MM said to Jennie: " Do you consider studying the scriptures as 'work'? Do you feel like 'okay, if I read 10 pages, then I will be certainly saved?'"

I don't intend to sound old-fashioned because I am not. But the older Catholic Bibles informed us:

"A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met]. " (CA: Myths About Indulgences)

And we all probably know those other conditions.

Moonshadow said...

Elena said: So it is plain that the Pope, Bishops and priests [...] aren't "little Christs." So once again you have that wrong.

I've read all these comments on this thread, so I hope you will please read my comment on this --

"It is not a question of a good man who died two thousand years ago. It is a living Man, still as much a man as you, and still as much God as He was when He created the world, really coming and interfering with your very self; killing the old natural self in you and replacing it with the kind of self He has. At first, only for moments. Then for longer periods. Finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity." - C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity, ch. 29.

I can't speak for you, but this is my Christianity.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Teresa posts a quote from C.S. Lewis:

"Finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity."

The Bible does say that we are to have the mind of Christ, and that one day we will be like him, in mind and body. The likeness however is not to make us into Christs, i.e. Messiahs, or even gods, but to return us into the very image of God which was what man had when he was created in the garden of Eden. There will always be one only Christ and one Lord - Jesus Christ.

Peace.

Elena said...

"There will always be one only Christ and one Lord - Jesus Christ."

No one is disputing that.

Dr MikeyMike said...

"A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].

Oh, snap!

Sue Bee said...

Martin Luther
The Freedom of a Christian (1520)

As our heavenly Father has in Christ freely come to our aid, we also ought freely to help our neighbor through our body and its works, and each one should become as it were a Christ to the other that we may be Christs to one another and Christ may be the same in all, that is, that we may be truly Christians....

But alas in our day this life is unknown throughout the world; it is neither preached about nor sought after; we are altogether ignorant of our own name and do not know why we are Christians or bear the name of Christians. Surely we are named after Christ, not because he is absent from us, but because he dwells in us, that is, because we believe in him and are Christs one to another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us. But in our day we are taught by the doctrine of men to seek nothing but merits, rewards, and the things that are ours; of Christ we have made only a taskmaster far harsher than Moses.”

Jennie said...

Teresa,
"A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met]. " (CA: Myths About Indulgences)
Do most Catholics really understand, as the article you linked to says, that indulgences are only to reduce or remove temporal consequences of sin, and not eternal consequences?
Any practice that causes people to do things to check off as a list is in danger of putting people into a works mindset. It is bondage rather than freedom.
Indulgences have no basis in scripture, because God alone can determine how we are to suffer consequences of our sin. If we pray to Him in repentance and ask for mercy, and to help us with certain consequences, as David did when God said his son would die because of his sins of murder and adultery, He may or may not alleviate those. He alone knows what we need. Checking off an artificial list does nothing. Only true repentance and dependence upon Him concerns God.

Sue Bee said...

I'm signing off now for the weekend - we are moving our oldest (daughter) to college out-of-state. Tons to do and many miles to go today. (And I'm starting to get weepy & emotional about my baby leaving the nest...)

Prayers for a safe journey appreciated!

Don't start any interesting threads without me! :)

Jennie said...

Sue Bee,
Surely we are named after Christ, not because he is absent from us, but because he dwells in us, that is, because we believe in him and are Christs one to another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us. But in our day we are taught by the doctrine of men to seek nothing but merits, rewards, and the things that are ours; of Christ we have made only a taskmaster far harsher than Moses.”
I can agree with Luther saying we are all 'christs' much better than Fr. Obrien saying priests are. This sets them above the laity, and Christ said we are all brothers and for the leaders not to lord it over the others. There should be no separate class. Luther was speaking of being the body of Christ, not of being little authorities or little gods.
What he says about seeking our own merits and rewards is something we should all take to heart as inherently selfish people, but it is a special danger when it merit is taught so closely with justification as it is in the catechism. We can't merit anything for ourselves or others. Only if we are first reborn by faith and made a new creature by the Spirit, can we then live by faith rather than for our own salvation. It begins by faith and in the power of the Spirit, and it continues by faith and in the power of the Spirit. No one can merit salvation or justification. We can earn heavenly rewards after we are first justified by Christ's blood.

Elena said...

Any practice that causes people to do things to check off as a list is in danger of putting people into a works mindset.

There's that danger thing again. I have a dear friend in her late 70s who attends mass every day including Sunday (guess she never knew you weren't really supposed to do that but whatever) visits the sick, teaches Sunday school, and works on some other activities for the church and community. Gosh she's such a good deed doer she must really be screwed!! But I still can't figure out exactly where she has time to get into this grave danger you're so afraid of Jennie, unless it's getting hit in the car by a texting teen or something like that.

Jennie said...

Oops! Sorry, Sue. I posted my comment before I saw your new one. I hope all goes well with getting your daughter off to college. I know it must be hard; I haven't got to the 'leaving home' stage yet with mine. God bless your family.

Elena said...

This sets them above the laity, and Christ said we are all brothers and for the leaders not to lord it over the others


Yea, because you know Christ NEVER selected 12 men to teach and lead above the rest of the folks. @@

Jennie said...

I probably won't be on much the rest of the day; I've got a busy day ahead getting ready for company.
I hope everyone has a great day :)

Moonshadow said...

but to return us into the very image of God which was what man had when he was created in the garden of Eden.

Since we don't really know what that state was like, we can't be sure what "getting back to it" will be. We can't even really gauge the effects of the Fall.

Alter Christus may be a little outdated but people would still know what is meant. Generally, the expression today is in persona Christi. cf. sacerdotalism. Too bad Sue Bee's away. I like her Luther quote, 'though I see in the final line that we disagree on merits. And that's ok.

Moonshadow said...

That was over 2000 years ago. There have been floods and famines and wars almost consistently since then.

Oh, you sound like the scoffers Peter warns about in 2 Peter 3:4 - "Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

You saw how Jennie interpreted Matthew 18, the Great Commission and evangelism figure prominently:

binding and loosing is done by sharing the gospel ... He is speaking in this whole passage about believers sharing the gospel

Appreciate that the time is short.

You have not actually used the Hebrew passages to refute anything I said about them.

And I've suggested to you, quite a while ago, that you read Benedict's book, The Spirit of the Liturgy in which he works all these things out. But you probably haven't done that either. Are you genuinely seeking an answer ... or are you hoping you have a silver bullet?

Jennie said...

Teresa,
You quoted what I said to Elena,
You have not actually used the Hebrew passages to refute anything I said about them.

And said:
And I've suggested to you, quite a while ago, that you read Benedict's book, The Spirit of the Liturgy in which he works all these things out. But you probably haven't done that either. Are you genuinely seeking an answer ... or are you hoping you have a silver bullet?
Is that to me? If so, I'm sorry, I don't remember you saying that, but I confess I'm not inclined to read something if it's trying to reinterpret something I already clearly understand from reading the Hebrews passages.

Elena said...

I confess I'm not inclined to read something if it's trying to reinterpret something I already clearly understand from reading the Hebrews passages.

OK, so why should we read or listen to anything you suggest?

Jennie said...

Are you genuinely seeking an answer ... or are you hoping you have a silver bullet?
I was telling Elena she had not refuted any of the clear teachings from Hebrews.
I don't have a silver bullet; I wouldn't call being born again a silver bullet, if that's what you mean. I don't consider it a ticket to heaven or a free ride either. It's a life of faith, which is trust in His word and submission to it, beginning with being reborn by the Spirit.

Elena said...

I was telling Elena she had not refuted any of the clear teachings from Hebrews.

Actually I refuted all of them, but I think that because "(you) are not inclined to read something if it's trying to reinterpret something you already clearly understand from reading the Hebrews passages" those refutations were mostly skimmed, ignored or tossed out.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Actually I refuted all of them
You didn't specifically refer to any of the Hebrews teachings. You posted the whole passage of Hebrews 9:11-28 and then said this:
This passage explains why it was necessary for Christ to become the new sacrifice and why we refer to Him as the Lamb of God. And with Christ's sacrifice comes the new covenant. Catholics know this and we do not re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Instead we take part of the ever-living sacrifice that is once and for all and not bound by time and space.
This proves nothing.

Elena said...

This proves nothing.


as if...

Moonshadow said...

I confess I'm not inclined to read something if it's trying to reinterpret something I already clearly understand from reading the Hebrews passages.

Well, actually, being so well-prepared puts you in a very good position to read from Benedict's book, the first few chapters are online. (Please let me know if I am repeating myself as this all sounds very familiar to me. Thank you.).

I'll be typing quotes because copy & paste isn't supported with Google books:

"Whoever asks questions like these touches on a crucial dimension of the Christian understanding of worship, but overlooks ... the 'not yet' that is part of Christian existence and talks as if the New Heaven and New Earth had already come.

... it is obvious that hope has not yet fully attained its goal. The New Jerusalem needs no Temple because Almighty God and the Lamb are themselves its Temple. ... But this City is not yet here. That is why the Church Fathers described the various stages of fulfillment, not just as a contrast between Old and New Testaments, but as the three steps of shadow, image, and reality. In the Church of the New Testament the shadow has been scattered by the image. ...

In considering this foundation of reality that undergirds Christian liturgy, we need to take account of another important matter. The Crucifixion of Christ, his death on the Cross, and, in another way, the act of his Resurrection from the grave, which bestows incorruptibility on the corruptible, are historical events that happen just once and as such belong to the past. The word semel (ephapax), "once for all", which the epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes so vigorously in contrast to the multitude of repeated sacrifices in the Old Covenant, is strictly applicable to them. But if they were no more than facts in the past, like all the dates we learn in history books, then there could be nothing contemporary about them. In the end they would remain beyond our reach."
excerpted from pages 53-56.

So, on the one hand, Jennie, your eschatology is too realized. You are probably aware of this as it's one of the dangers of overly-spiritualizing religion.
And, on the other hand, if the once-for-all didn't also mean "for always," we could not appropriate Christ's death.

Peace.

Jennie said...

Teresa,
And, on the other hand, if the once-for-all didn't also mean "for always," we could not appropriate Christ's death.
Of course. That's the whole point. It is for always, and so needs no repetition, only the sign of remembrance and communion.

So, on the one hand, Jennie, your eschatology is too realized. You are probably aware of this as it's one of the dangers of overly-spiritualizing religion.
i'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'your eschatology is too realized'.
Are you referring to the fact that I believe our salvation is complete, in one sense, when we are justified? Of course we believe our salvation continues in being made like Christ and then being glorified with Him when He returns, but we have assurance by the Holy Spirit and by abiding in His word by faith, loving our fellow saints, etc.
I think there is an opposite danger of over-materializing religion, and so making it a list of things to do and things to feel. We are all prone to this. This is why we are warned against putting our hearts on material things and in people or images. This is a part of human nature to fall into this.

Moonshadow said...

Are you referring to the fact that I believe

Pilgrimage is a good word for it, isn't it? Even if you have to leave off all the indulgences associated with it.