You wrote:
“What about these claims ?”
What about them? 1) Can you first prove they are even genuine? I ask that because they appear to cited only on anti-Catholic websites as far as I can see. Imagine that. and 2) What about them specifically?
“Jesus told his disciples to spread the word of the Gospel, and somewhere your church made the claim that they and they alone should be followed. Notice how Paul doesn’t even mention Peter at the end of Romans, and you can guess why !”
Oh, I think he refers to Peter, just not by name and yes, I can guess why. Peter was a hunted man in Rome. Paul wasn’t stupid.
In Romans 15:20, St. Paul said he would not build on “another man’s foundation.” Yet in the same letter to the Romans he writes to a Church already founded “whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world.” Romans 1: 8. Many Protestants used to recognize this as a veiled reference to Peter. The Protestant, BJ Kidd, for instance, wrote: “Rome, in short, was ‘another man’s foundation.’ No allusion to the ‘other man’ by name is wanted. The Romans knew well enough whom he meant. Who, then, was the ‘other man’? The evidence is early and threefold in favor of St. Peter.” History of the Church p. 52.
Another Protestant, George Edmundson, wrote: “There had been a founder of this great Church with whom St. Paul was well acquainted. Who was he? All tradition answers with one voice the name of St. Peter.” Church in Rome in the First Century, page 28: http://books.google.com/books?id=UHJCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edmundson,+in+his+%22Church+in+Rome+in+the+First+Century,%22
Also, St. Peter ended his first letter this way, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so does my son Mark.” Early Christians called pagan Rome Babylon.
Ceiling. Watch.
“I have news for you... The Rev John O’Brien does. with the approval of the catholic church.
“The faith of millions” is approved by your church.“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. : 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 commands.’”
And as usual, you’re wrong. Let me show you how. 1) This is what you ACTUALLY wrote: “Add to that, these “priests” allegedly have the power to bring Jesus down from Heaven to become a peice of bread ??”
Notice what you said? You said the priest makes Jesus become “a peice of bread”.
This is what I said in return (please not how LONG MY RESPONSE IS):
No, and no Catholic claims they do. Christ does not become a piece of bread - nor does any Catholic claim He does. When I see something like that from an anti-Catholic like yourself I am struck by how intensely erroneous anti-Catholics are in their understanding of something yet it never seems to stop them from posting examples of it. Christ does not become a piece of bread. The bread becomes Christ’s flesh. You apparently think that means the same thing - and that says quite a bit.
It’s clear that you were in error about Jesus becoming “a peice of bread”. No Catholic priest believes that or teaches that. You, however, cut 81 words, EIGHTY-ONE WORDS, from my answer and actually defended what I didn’t deny!!!
What does that say about your approach?
“No one ?”
Yes, no one. No one is trying to sacrifice the living God-man Jesus again. How could anyone even try?
“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!”
Yep. And that in no way supports what you claimed. Remember, this was your original claim from post 194:
“Add to that, these “priests” allegedly have the power to bring Jesus down from Heaven to become a peice of bread ??”
I clearly denied that anyone was trying to make Jesus into bread. Now, you’re trying to say two different things. 1) Your emphasizing the idea of Jesus coming down to the altar - as if I ever disputed God’s power to do such a thing or the priest’s power in that regard. 2) You’re also making the completely RIDICULOUS claim that this means Jesus was being sacrificed over and over again, which is not only impossible, but, naturally is not what we teach or believe.
Ceiling. Watch.
“So one of your alter Christos persons gives orders to the Almighty ? It’s official doctrine!”
No. No orders given. God acts as He wills. It is His promise to His people to always be with them in the breaking of the Bread.
Ceiling. Watch.
“What about them? 1) Can you first prove they are even genuine? I ask that because they appear to cited only on anti-Catholic websites as far as I can see. Imagine that. and 2) What about them specifically?”
They are totally consistent with what your church teaches, that being your priests are alleged to have some elevated status (power) in general, and are able to order Christ down from Heaven and render him on the altar. “the real presence” Specifically, they are not true, there are no other Christs.
If Peter was there, and was being hunted, a single mention of his name in a letter wouldn’t have given him away, when those who allegedly
hunted him could have just found him with his church ?? I think it really means he wasn’t there !
“In Romans 15:20, St. Paul said he would not build on “another man’s foundation.” Yet in the same letter to the Romans he writes to a Church already founded “whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world.” Romans 1: 8. Many Protestants used to recognize this as a veiled reference to Peter. The Protestant, BJ Kidd, for instance, wrote: “Rome, in short, was ‘another man’s foundation.’ No allusion to the ‘other man’ by name is wanted. The Romans knew well enough whom he meant. Who, then, was the ‘other man’? The evidence is early and threefold in favor of St. Peter.” History of the Church p. 52.”
So by Paul not mentioning Peter at ALL, it really means Peter was there ????
A church already founded - no mention of Peter again.
Not building on another man’s foundation simply meant he wanted to go where the Gospel had not been spread. If it doesn’t say who the man is, it doesn’t prove it’s Peter.
You, by default have to believe it was Peter, otherwise the whole system falls.
Paul doesn’t mention anything about Peter or Rome in his letters to Timothy in instructing him with advice in church matters. If Peter was the first pope, you think that would warrant some mention by Paul to Timothy, don’t ya think ? There was no “if you help with sound doctrine, see our brother Peter”. so, It’s another time Peter was not mentioned.
“Also, St. Peter ended his first letter this way, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so does my son Mark.” Early Christians called pagan Rome Babylon.”
But since Rome ISN’T mentioned, there is NO evidence that he was using the term Babylon to figuratively to refer to Rome.
“And as usual, you’re wrong. Let me show you how. 1) This is what you ACTUALLY wrote: “Add to that, these “priests” allegedly have the power to bring Jesus down from Heaven to become a peice of bread ??”
“Notice what you said? You said the priest makes Jesus become “a peice of bread”.
My mistake, Jesus doesn’t become a piece of bread, the bread becomes Jesus. All this hocus pocus stuff can’t be done anyway.
There is still no way that any priest, can do the following !
“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. : 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 commands.’”
“No one is trying to sacrifice the living God-man Jesus again. How could anyone even try?
So you’re saying it’s not a real sacrifice ?
“I clearly denied that anyone was trying to make Jesus into bread. Now, you’re trying to say two different things. 1) Your emphasizing the idea of Jesus coming down to the altar - as if I ever disputed God’s power to do such a thing or the priest’s power in that regard. 2) You’re also making the completely RIDICULOUS claim that this means Jesus was being sacrificed over and over again, which is not only impossible, but, naturally is not what we teach or believe.”
I’m not making the Rev O’brien’s claims, HE IS - with the approval of your church.
1.”The priest speaks and lo Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s commands.” “BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIESTS COMMANDS”
2. “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. : 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!”
You say it’s Gods power by which he comes down from Heaven, your church says otherwise.
You say Jesus is not being sacrificed over and over, well, the Rev O’Brien seems to think so.
“No. No orders given. God acts as He wills. It is His promise to His people to always be with them in the breaking of the Bread.”
Really - “BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIESTS COMMANDS”
You’re really digging this ceiling watch thing ? Have at it !