Posted on 11/18/2017 5:44:19 PM PST by marshmallow
I was under the impression that Catholic theology is that Jesus is re-sacrificed in Heaven every time the Mass happens. But maybe I was misinformed? Sometimes it’s difficult to get clear answers, even with a Catholic catechism available to refer to.
If you mean that the Eucharist is participating in Jesus’s one-time sacrifice, and that Jesus’ body and blood are really present, then Catholics have that much in common with Lutherans too.
Let me clue you in bro. My screen name has nothing to do with the Bible, which I read for myself, and I think for myself. I don’t know if you do, but if not, that’s on you.
Now, to clue you in. My real name is Mark and 17 is the number I wore when I played hockey in high school. I scored some goals in my time. Go Blackhawks.
You weren’t named after Hieronymus Merkin, were you?
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-1586/cohen-levi-and-yisroel/
“Thank you for your question. The Jewish nation is divided up into 12 tribes (the children of each of Jacob’s 12 sons). One of these sons is Levi, and a subgroup of Levi is Cohen.”
You were misinformed.
Catholics believe Jesus died once for all. The Mass is participation in and remembrance of that sacrifice as Jesus commanded. Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the transfigured bread and wine after the consecration.
The belief that Jesus is really present is part of the Catholic faith that survived the reformation for the Lutherans.
Love,
O2
That’s right. It might result in people actually realizing that they don’t need the church any more and they’d lose members.
That’s worked out real well for them, hasn’t it?
The first martyr of the church was Stephen who was a lay person and was martyred for proclaiming the gospel.
But he was a deacon, and not in a church service. However, as explained, there were no ordained Catholic priests and no Catholic Mass in the NT church, while Acts 8:4 says all the church went preaching the word. Praise God.
I believe you are correct. While Stephen is not directly mentioned as a deacon, it seems he fulfilled the roles of a deacon. Just about every commentator I read agrees with you that these were the first seven deacons appointed by the church. Also, and most importantly, it seems to mirror the purpose and selection of a deacon listed in 1 Timothy 3. I repent.
This is the second time in two days I’ve been wrong. (Yesterday my wife corrected me about my understanding of the purpose of John the Baptist question to Christ.) Three strikes and I’m out. I’m feeling a bit nervous. :O)
I think that’s the primary reason Rome will never admit they’re wrong on Mary. Too much money and too many members they’d lose.
Well, since you were not speaking ex cathedra in your official capacity as Pope HarleyD but only as a private theologian, we may let this slide. But don't let this idea that as pastor of the entire thread who has has full, supreme, and universal power over the the posters, a power which you can always exercise unhindered, let you think the unofficial Internet magisterium cannot depose you.
The other issue is, they’re likely afraid that if they admit they were wrong about one thing like that, then they’d have to admit they were wrong about other things as well.
And people would begin to question what else they were wrong on over the years.
Better to just plug their ears and sing *La, la, la, la, la,...... I can’t hear you.........*
.
Are you really that dense?
The fact that he wrote his gospel at all is solid evidence that he was a Cohen.
The other two synoptics were taken largely from Matthews work and attributed to Luke and Mark. Its possible that Luke really did write his, but most unlikely that the very immature and flippant John Mark wrote anything.
.
We're not talking about "reading Scripture in public". We're talking about proclaiming it liturgically to the assembly at Mass. There are rules and commands in the Bible about worship being done in an orderly fashion, aren't there? There are in my Bible.
LOL ...
There is no order-of-worship recorded in the New Testament, so your statement is resting on absolutely nothing. However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass.
If there is no order of worship in the NT then the Romam Catholic Mass isn't in the NT either. You'd think if something as important as the Mass, as claimed by the RCC, would be clear in the NT. By your admission it is not.
Big difference between sounds like and is.
I appreciate the correction. And the civility. Alas, we don’t get much of that lately.
I’ve been told otherwise before, so it seems I’ll have to do some more research on the topic from primary sources. Gotta make sure I’m properly informed of the other guy’s beliefs if I’m going to converse about subjects like this!
However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass.
Big difference between sounds like and is.
***
I remember doing a bunch of research on early church bodies and worship, and I remember being VERY frustrated that we have so little information about them.
What I remember is that worship usually took place in private homes, and it usually involved a communal meal that revolved around the Lord’s Supper. There were some liturgical-ish prayers said and reading of Scripture as well, and teaching too.
Also, they usually lasted for hours and people would come and go as schedules permitted. Which is why Paul admonished the people who come early not to gorge themselves at the expense of those who come later.
But we don’t know much beyond that, or at least I sure couldn’t find anything.
So there are some similarities and some differences!
Exactly. He Himself said "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.