Posted on 04/04/2015 1:54:16 PM PDT by Steelfish
Hey smvoice! Good to see you. The Catholics rely so heavily on their “church fathers” rather than scripture they will attack any negative reference to them.
OK - give an example of a negative reference. Which of these men offend you?
I'll not follow you down that bunny trail. The Catholics reference their "church fathers" more than they do scripture.
Speaking of those who walked with Our Lord and talked with those who knew the Apostles is something that leads to Grace. Only those afraid would view it as a rabbit hole. Since you are wrong about Catholics and scripture (by now, you would understand the Mass is only scripture in its readings and each prayer ties back to the Old and New Testaments) I’ll leave you with scripture specifically respecting Tradition - especially St Peter’s warning:
2 Tim 3:14, “continue in the things you have learned ...knowing from whom you have learned them.” and “So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us”. [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2] Finally - 2 Peter 3:15-16 King James Version (KJV)
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
Please prove from an infallible source that what the Catholic Church calls "tradition" is exactly what the apostles taught when they said "tradition". I would hate to think they are just lying to you about that. Surely they have given proof that what they teach is what the apostles taught right? After all, Paul said anyone who teaches what they didn't was to be considered accursed. Your not teaching something they didn't teach are you?
It’s called Tradition. You’ll have to read about it - but for starters look at the number of times sacrifice is used to describe the early church’s mass. The early church believed in the True Presence. So, how is it that it is OK read a translation in 2015 and say “I think this is all symbols” when those who followed Our Lord did not think so? I guess you could be divinely inspired, but hard to think St Paul thought all who eat the body of Christ unworthily were causing themselves to damnation - pretty strong stuff for a symbol, no? And that is just for starters. That’s no bunny hole.
Not once in the New Testament is a meeting of the ekklesia either called mass or a sacrifice. Or did you use the "early church" meaning the paganistic group that emerged after the first century?
>>but hard to think St Paul thought all who eat the body of Christ unworthily<<
I can't find the phrase "eat the body of Christ" anywhere in scripture. Surely you're not changing the words of scripture to create a false scripture are you?
1 Corinthians 11:29 the one indeed eating and drinking judgement on himself eats and drinks not discerning the body 30 Because of this among you many are weak and sick and are fallen asleep many.
That is a direct translation from the Greek. Do you see "eat the body of Christ" in there? Then in relation to verse 30, are there any Catholics who are sick? Are there any Catholics who have died? The answer is obviously yes, so are Catholics then "not discerning the body" correctly? Why insert words into vers 29 then ignore verse 30?
The you need to explain what the word "body" in verse 29 means. The same Greek word is used here.
Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Please prove to me that "the body" doesn't mean the same thing in both passages.
And that is just for starters. That’s no bunny hole.
You can’t find what you won’t look for. Here: 1 Cor 23-24. St Paul specifically references Our Blessed Lord’s statement of “this is my body” - the body of Christ. And ergo, eating it unworthily brings on damnation. This is as clear as day, and frankly, not worth a debate. Those who were sick among the followers were sinners participating in the Eucharist. By sick, they were not converted.
People being tortured to data for Our Blessed Lord were not pagans, and that level of slander I’ll pass off to simply losing an argument and frustration. You have to deal with those who were closest to Our Lord in spacial time believed in the Real Presence, and not pass them off as “pagans.” (Even Cranmer and Luther didn’t do that)
As for sacrifice, first, if there was no mention of it, then we are supposed to believe that until 1800 or so everyone was a pagan and then suddenly was brought to life? Hardly. The Last Super, as a passover meal, represented the Jewish sacrifice of the lamb being replaced by the actual pure sacrifice, prophesied in the Old Testament (Malachi for one), of Eucharist. Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25. The context of the Passover of the Jewish faith of the Apostles is critical here. (People struggle with the Last Words of “My God, my God, why have thou forsaken me” without understanding everyone at Calvary would have known Psalm 22. The actions of Our Lord were clearly sacrificial to those observing - without question they would have grasped it).
The context of the Last Super institution of the mass and Eucharist is enough for a whole book, I would recommend Brant Pitre’s “Jesus and The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.”
Here's what one of the hero's of the Catholic Church has to say about that.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.[Cardinal Newman - Development of Christian Doctrine, pg 373]
And you didn't think the Catholic Church incorporates paganism? And please don't give me that "but they were sanctified nonsense. God said don't do it period.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
>>The context of the Last Super institution of the mass and Eucharist is enough for a whole book, I would recommend Brant Pitre’s “Jesus and The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.”<<
Any person who understands scripture doesn't have to read past the title to know that guy is totally off. Jesus was born under and lived under the law and would NOT have encouraged anyone to drink blood. If He had He would have been a sinner.
Are you saying that none of these things can be used today because they are 'of pagan origin'? Pagans used temples, yet God commanded the building of temples which included lamps, incense, etc. Are you implying that God commanded people to be pagan? It is ridiculous to say that anything that was used by pagans can never again be used to the Glory of God. They are only pagan if they are used to worship false gods. It is not how you worship but Whom you worship which makes your form of worship either holy or sacrilegious. Sanctifying these things to God is not nonsense, using them to worship God is exactly what makes them legitimate. And you can repeat your belief otherwise as many times as you want and it will still not be true. I do not worship anybody but the One True God.
(2)
Jesus was born under and lived under the law and would NOT have encouraged anyone to drink blood. If He had He would have been a sinner.
Under the old covenant. Jesus instituted the new covenant with the Last Supper, not only allowing but requiring that we eat his flesh and drink his blood 'indeed'.
(3)
You conveniently use selective quotation of 1 Corinthians, leaving out verse 27 entirely and 'of the Lord' a couple of times:
[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
They 'sleep' because they do not discern the body of the lord when they eat, which supports the real presence as opposed to the way you presented it out of context.
Love,
O2
God didn't say "unless you sanctify them".
>>Under the old covenant. Jesus instituted the new covenant with the Last Supper, not only allowing but requiring that we eat his flesh and drink his blood 'indeed'.<<
The old law could not be changed until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The old law was in force until the veil was rent.
>>They 'sleep' because they do not discern the body of the lord when they eat,<<
So no Catholics die (sleep)?
Catholics twist and turn and change the words of scripture in an attempt to align with the pagan cult teachings of the Catholic Church. They fear relying on the teachings of the apostles alone as seen by their vitriolic hatred of Sola Scripura. It doesn't make sense. They then call themselves Christian! They don't follow Christ. They follow a church.
But God did command the building of temples and use of lamps, etc. So you are claiming that using methods of worship that God commanded are sinful because pagans also used them to worship their false gods. What about prayer? Pagans prayed to their false gods, does that mean we are not allowed to pray to our True God?
Where in the bible does it say when the covenant ended? The most logical time for it to have ended is when Jesus said it ended, when he declared His body and blood as a sign of the new testament. Even if you don’t believe the bread became flesh and the wine blood, that is still the beginning of the new covenant. Jesus declared it, and the apostles ate and drank as a symbol of their acceptance and participation in it.
Do those saved by accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior die?
Love,
O2
Make all the excuses you want but scripture says the law had to be kept perfectly and that includes not eating blood. Not until Christ’s death and resurrection were any of the old laws fulfilled. Catholicism is a false religion built on corruptions of scripture and paganism.
Asked and answered.
Almost everything listed here was available in the Temple - not Pagan, but Jewish origin. Moreover, try Newman in context. Holy Days and Calendars not in Jewish custom? Not so.
Also, vestments incense and Chapter 1 and 4 of Revelation. Jesus, the High Priest, Chapter 1 of revelations, Priest reverence the altar, chap 6:9, The Gloria, chapter 15:3-4. etc.
“To be deep into history is to cease being a Protestant” - John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Our Lord commanded to drink His Blood, in the nature of wine. The sacramental nature of Holy Thursday and its foreshadow in John 6 make that clear. The Catholic Church, far from being a false religion, is a true Biblical Church, with each form of the mass tying out directly to scripture.
I am not making excuses, I am asking specific questions about a blanket statement you made and the writing that you provided to back up your assertions, and you have not answered a single one.
You say that Catholic practices are pagan and sinful because they were used by pagans, yet you will not clarify if you believe that includes temples, lamps, processions, vestments, etc., which were all included in your example. You have also not answered whether or not you believe prayer is legitimate since it was used by pagans.
You have also not given any scriptural support for the end of the old covenant being anywhere other than when Christ proclaimed the new one at the last supper. You also seem to be very fixated on linear time, as though you believe God is constrained by earthly time.
And you have not answered whether or not those saved by accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior die.
Repeating the same statements and ignoring questions is not a very convincing argument.
Love,
O2
No, it was not answered.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Had Jesus shed His blood yet at that time?
But here is the Catholic Church attitude.
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).
Catholics can’t deny that the RCC has incorporated pagan practices into its practices. The RCC itself admits that it does. The RCC refuses to hear the words of the Lord.
“As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.” (Jer.44:16-17)
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.