Posted on 02/22/2018 8:33:27 PM PST by ebb tide
The Francis Effect meeting the German Heresiarchy leads to an explosive decision of cataclysmic consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
Oh, for goodness, sake. Tone insinuated. You’re “hearing” things.
"It wasn't until Trent that Rome formally declared its position on this topic."
Not so. The Church declared it position as early as c. AD 53–54 (early enough for you, ealgeone??) in 1 Corinthians, esp. Chapter 11, v.27-29 where it deals with eucharistic sacrilege in this way: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
"And yes...I did show where there was debate about the Mass/Transubstantiation."
I repeat: I didn't ask whether there was a "debate" about the word "transubstantiation." I asked whether anybody said the Mass contradicted the NT. As I pointed out before, there was a Mass before the word "transubstantiation" even existed, and the Greeks preferred to express Eucharistic Realism with the word "metaousiosis," and still do, Byzantine Greek Catholics as well.
By way of analogy, there was belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Three Persons in one God, before the word "Trinity" existed. In the early 3rd century, Tertullian was the first we know of to use the Latin word "Trinity" in this precise way, to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person"
It did not become formalized and defined as a doctrine until the 4th century (Nicaea) and subsequent Councils; this does NOT indicate that it was not believed until the 4th century, but that it was not philosophically defined until the 4th century.
The formal definition of a doctrine is *never* the beginning of a doctrine. Formal definition comes centuries and even millennia after the beginning of a doctrine, which goes back to Apostolic times. It is intended to define the matter precisely enough to end the debate.
And there was plenty of debate. That's why there were Councils. Heck it took 100+ years to overcome the Arians who claimed that "there was a time when the Son was not."
It took around 400 years to nail down an official definition of which books were part of the Canon of Scripture.
That does NOT mean that the canonical books were not in use prior to the 5th century., On the contrary,it was the widespread usage of these Books in the Liturgies of the various churches, which served to settle the question. First came the practice; far later came the definition.
You claim, as well, that this passage from Acts contradicts the Mass:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols
and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication..."
Acts 15: 24-29
Do you really think they were preaching against the Body and Blood of Christ? That was not the topic, or even close, as you can readily see from the context. They were debating the relevance of Jewish Kosher laws for Gentile Christians.
They weren't talking about Christ's Blood. They were talking about contamination from the consumption of non-kosher cow and goat and mutton meat and the blood thereof.
Christ's Blood in the Eucharist was not seen as some disgusting non-kosher beverage, but as sacred. So much so, that if you received it unworthily -- as St. Paul explained above in 1 Corinthians--- you were truly defiled by blood-guilt.
An early expression of the Eucharistic Realism of the Mass (before the word "transubstantiation" was in use, by the way) is found in Justin Martyr approx. 100 years after 1 Corinthians:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these;
but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,
having been made flesh by the Word of God,
had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
so likewise have we been taught
that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,
and from which our blood and flesh
by transmutation are nourished,
is the flesh and blood of that Jesus
who was made flesh."
- (St. Justin Martyr, c. 153 AD, First Apology)
Jesus: "This is My Body."
The believer: "Amen."
But that is the issue. Roman Catholicism teaches that somehow, someway, the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ.
However, that is not supported by Scripture as previously demonstrated.
This stems from an incorrect understanding of John 6.
Jesus: "This is My Body."...do this in remembrance of Me.
Not so. The Church declared it position as early as c. AD 53–54 (early enough for you, ealgeone??) in 1 Corinthians, esp. Chapter 11, v.27-29 where it deals with eucharistic sacrilege in this way: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
No. The Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation is not supported in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 as that came about much later as noted.
Nor is the concept of Jesus being brought down from Heaven and rendered on the altar over and over and over again not supported in the New Testament as previously demonstrated.
If by "rendered" you mean "sacrificed," this is not what the Mass is and this is not what the Church teaches. Christ's sacrifice happened ONCE at Calvary, ca. 33 AD. Christ is not re-sacrificed.
If you want to understand Catholic Doctrine, I strongly recommend your first reference should be the Catholic Catechism.
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."
This was very easy to locate in the Catechism, which is in searchable form online. I urge you to check it out. These are the results from using the keywords one sacrifice (LINK)
There are a number of very interesting parallel passages there.
That would be your first step.
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.
As has been pointed out before...where there is no shedding of blood there is no sacrifice.
Are you saying what O'Brien, an ordained Roman Catholic priest, wrote is wrong?
Again, from the Faith of Millions....[breaks and emphasis mine]
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the 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. 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.
And as stated before and will continue to do so...this is in complete contradiction of the New Testament.
What do you call the man who is married to your mother?
Is context not taught in Roman Catholicism??
The Mass is indeed a sacrifice. It is the one sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary. That’s the part you’re not getting.
Did you go to that link?
Do so. Read. Then we can continue.
Good evening, ealgeone.
Nope. That was a one time event. It is not repeated.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:11-14 NASB
Jesus Christ founded the Christian Church. I doubt Peter founded the RC church, he wouldnt recognize it today, but if you want to attend a church you think was founded by a fallible and sinful man, go for it.
Dad.
Yes, the kingdom of Heaven really is within us.
Dad.
"Nope. That was a one time event. It is not repeated."
Did you look up what the Catechism says about "one sacrifice"? That link is still good, you know.
Yet a Roman Catholic priest says it is repeated over and over again. The RCC calls it a sacrifice. Can’t have it both ways. Either Rome places him on the altar over and over to be sacrificed or Hebrews is wrong. I know which one I staying with.
Yet you seem to avoid the Catechism --- which IS authoritative --- like a wee little diablo avoids Holy Water.
Have you gone to the Catechism links yet?
He is the priest who does the sacrificing. The one and only.
He is the Lamb. The one and only.
The Lamb Who was "slain before the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).
Yet this was singular, a one-time deal. He did this once. Get it?
It's something that happened once in time, which we also have access to because it existed from timeless eternity, which is ever-present to God's eyes. Before the foundation of the world. That means before Time.
We mortals ponder that.
In the Mass, we have access to it.
This is what trips us up in our limited human minds: we don't easily grasp that an event can be at once "in time" and "n eternity" --- like Christ's sacrifice.
It happened once; but since the Lamb was slain "from before the foundation of the world,", it is accessible in the present. Hence, the Mass.
You can only grasp it when you realize that here, time and eternity intersect.
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.