Havoc: Titus 2:15 — “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” The whole 3 chapters are rather instructive as to who I am.
B-Chan: He was speaking to St. Titus. You're not him. With all due respect, you're just some guy who claims to be an infallible teacher of Christian truth — a Papacy of One, Pope Havoc. You will forgive me for sticking with the Pope that we have — the one in the Vatican.
B-Chan: “The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for our sins is precisely what the Catholic Church has always taught.”
Havoc:Bunk. Read Vatican II.
B-Chan:“Vatican II”? Should I read the novel or the comic book, or just wait for the movie?
Vatican II is not a document in and of itself. If you want me to “read Vatican II”, please tell me which of the several documents that proceeded from it you’re referring to.
Havoc:You are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about. The Catholic Church teaches that at mass, the priest summones Christ down from heaven…
B-Chan: Nope. Wrong. No “summoning” is involved…
Havoc: …and into the host and the wine to become really and truly Christ's full body and blood to be offered for sin in an ongoing perpetuation of the sacrifice of Calvary for sin.
B-Chan: Wrong again. Here's what the Church actually teaches:
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." 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."
B-Chan: He gives it us. No summoning required.
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:Havoc: Over and over and over…If it is done over and over again, it is not finished. IT IS FINISHED. SIN IS COVERED AND CLEANSED BY ONE SACRIFICE THAT IS DONE AND OVER WITH[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.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."Source: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1364-1367
B-Chan: Which is, as I said, precisely what the Church has always taught. Contrary to your claims, I have demonstrated from the official Catechism the Church’s teaching that the Sacrifice on the Cross occurred once and for all on Calvary in A.D. 33 or whenever. At the moment the priest speaks the words given by the Lord (“This is My Body”, ”This is the Cup of My Blood”) at the Consecration of the Eucharist, God opens a sort of “window” into His Eternity and allows us here on Earth to directly experience this once-for-all spacetime event by making it occur miraculously here and now.
Havoc: It is referred to as an UNBLOODY sacrifice for sin. If Christ's blood is truly present, then one wonders who's fooling who.
B-Chan: Oh, the Most Precious Blood is there, all right; It simply appears to our limited senses concealed in an unbloody form (wine). Once consecrated, the wine in the chalice instantaneously becomes Blood — 100% Blood of Christ, 0% wine or anything else. (Although…)
Havoc:And that has no basis whatsoever in scripture.
B-Chan:Even if that were true, so what? Scripture is not the sole source of Christian Truth. It can’t be, since the Church existed before the canon of Scripture was compiled.
Havoc:Paul said believe with your heart and confess with your mouth and you shall be saved.
B-Chan: He also said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats [i.e. physically chews and swallows] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed [i.e. “My Flesh is really, truly, physically food”] and my blood is drink indeed [i.e. “really, truly, physically a beverage”]. - (John 6:53-55).
Mere intellectual belief and cheap lip-service are not enough. One must first die to self and be reborn through the Sacrament of Baptism, then chew, swallow, and digest His Flesh and drink His Blood to be saved.
But don’t take my word for it — the Lord Himself said “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mk 16:15-16.) Notice that bit about baptism?
Once reborn through Baptism, man becomes a new creature, sharing in the sinless Nature of Christ rather than the flawed nature of Adam. Of course, the temptation to sin remains, but the Lord lovingly provides us a way to return to His good graces when we stumble: He gave the Church the power to forgive sin in His Name.“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (Jn 20:22-23.)
Havoc:1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." If I were to claim what this verse just said, according to Vatican II I would be Damned. Anathematized.
B-Chan:Brother, with all due respect — you’re high. Which Vatican II document says this?
B-Chan:“Rome teaches the Gospel handed down in unbroken succession from the lips and quill of Saint Peter, who was given the Keys of Heaven and Earth by the Lord Himself.”
Havoc:Rome teaches bits and pieces that are convienient to the larger philosophy and the philosophy rules. Peter did not teach that Christ must be eternally sacrificed on the alter [sic] and reincarnated into bread and wine weekly to forgive sin. Peter taught that Jesus did it once for real and it was over and that it is a free gift accepted without works as paul said lest any should boast that their works had anything to do with their salvation.
B-Chan:Sez you. Got evidence to back any of that up?
Havoc:Rome states that even if you think Christ died for your sins, you have to expiate them yourself through works. You have to clean your own sins through works.
B-Chan: Dead wrong:
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
[Source: Catechism, 2010-2011]
Havoc:Lastly, I don't take doctrinal differences as personal attacks. But I am a born again spirit filled believer with the promises that entails and I will speak with the self same authority The apostles entrusted and commanded.
No you won't, because you are neither an Apostle nor one consecrated by an Apostle (i.e. a bishop or priest). Neither are you given the charism of infallibility that rests with the Holy Father. You are (like me) just some guy with a lot of personal opinions about the Christian Faith, and, like me, you need not be taken seriously as a teacher of Christian truth.
Havoc:And I really don't care if you like it or not. I didn't come here demanding anyone believe me. As Paul said, so say I, Check every word against scripture. If I present anything other than was presented, let me be accursed. UNUM SANCTUM is a damndable doctrine from the pit of hell and it was never uttered anywhere in scripture. Your church comes teaching other than was taught by the apostles. That's one doctrine among hundreds I could pop off without thinking after 15 years of studying. Just one is all it takes and according to Paul, you're to be accursed for teaching it. Not my words, HIS
B-Chan: 1. Scripture is not the sole source of Christian truth.
2. Consider decaf.
Havoc:I can quote my authority from scripture and stand on it.
B-Chan: Big deal. Satan himself can do that (Matthew 3:13-4:11 ). That's why God gave us Tradition — the key that unlocks the Truth of each Scriptural passage. Without the infallible Tradition transmitted by the Church through the ages, the Scripture can be twisted to mean anything — which is why we have so many denominations today, each one claiming to be the one, true church. They can't all be right…
Havoc:I have no problem with it because God's testimony does not return empty. I'm not infallible…
B-Chan:Then why should any of us care what you think?
Havoc:…and neither is your Pope. He's no more infallible than anyone on this entire site. Proof's in the pudding. You have on record in your own archives the history of an exchange between Popes and a council that officially infallibly proclaimed both sides of a heretical doctrine as correct and anathematized one another.
B-chan:1. There cannot be more than one Pope at a given time; the Keys are passed to one man and one man only. If two or more men claim to be Pope, either one of them is or all of them are not.
2. Care to share these “documents”?
Havoc:Infallibility as a doctrine was proclaimed to shut up protest and questioning so that the church could proclaim whatever it wished to a dumb audience. As people have become smarter and more of the light of day has shown on Rome's actions with each passing year, Infallibility has been gutted and neutered to where it would take einstien to understand the stipulations on it and God to sort out whether anyone ever said anything infallible. Your doctrines are like a chameilian on a table, reflecting whatever is needed for the moment to hide the pretense.
B-Chan: As you said: you are not infallible, so I choose to disregard your unsupported opinions above.
Havoc:I'm Havoc, btw, B-Chan. I am not an expert on catholicism; but, I've studied it and debated it since 1988. I know a little more than you'd care to give me credit for because I have bothered to read your own documents on the matter. Your own "authorized books" which are just free enough from doctrinal error to be required material for Catholics to study; but, full of errors when anyone else quotes them back to you.
B-Chan: For a guy who has studied and debated Catholic doctrine for eighteen years, you display precious little factual knowledge of it. (Hint: when posting a claim of fact, it helps to support the claim with evidence.) Perhaps you have debated and studied somebody's ideas about what the Church teaches, but that‘s not the same as going to the Church itself for the doctrines in question.
Havoc:Pull the other one sir.
B-Chan:I have no idea what that means. May God bless you.
Revelation states that Christ made us "kings and priests" as Christians. Or as Greek scholarship states "a kingdom of priests". Either one is applicable. And Revelation states it twice. Therefore I stand on the ministerial instruction given to Titus and to every other minister as directed in Scripture. I am bound to it just as any CHRISTIAN is.
Vatican II is not a document in and of itself.
So then, you don't know the contents of Vatican II? Are you claiming ignorance to hide or just ignorance? Vatican II enforces the teachings and anathemas of Trent for starters. All of them. It also reinforces UNUM Sanctum - which doesn't, by the way, include an escape clause for "invincible ignorance". It is noted as an infallible pronouncement as it is affirmed and reaffirmed by popes and councils and as such is "unreformable". You quoted the Catechism, which saves us time. So we'll take what you quote here and we'll compare it to what Paul says.
1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Now, before we look at anything else, let's look at the element of sin. Because this is an earmark that betrays your clergy's lie right out of the gate. Verse 29. How can one partake of a ritual of remembrance and find forgiveness of sin when Paul tells us flatly that if one partakes in sin, he partakes unto damnation. Yours is in direct opposition to Paul's. And what did paul say in Galations. If any man come preaching a gospel other than he delivered let him be accursed. ACCURSED. You're already into blasphemy and we haven't even dealt with the sacrifice yet.
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."
No, it doesn't. Scripture states that Body was transformed and ascended into heaven where Jesus sat down on the right hand of the Father (God, not your Pope). If it's in heaven, it cannot be hear lest you make Christ a liar. Christ stated that he would not return until the end. So either you bring Him hear bodily and make him a liar on three points, or you yourself are lying. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that Christianity has no sacrificial system. Swallow.
Christ died, arose and conquered sin's grip over us to SEAL the new covenant and put an end to the sacrificial system. There is no blood sacrifice in Christianity. It took a blood sacrifice to bring about christianity. So to bring a sacrifice as such into the system nullifies it and denies it exists.
Rome pays lipservice to the Gospel and teaches what it will. You may want us to believe you are Christian; but, you aren't teaching the Gospel of Christ and the apostles. Like the Judaizers, you have added to the Gospel and perverted it. It's the same thing. Whatever else you want to say you cannot escape the fact that you have added changed and distorted the word that was delivered.