Posted on 02/27/2020 1:31:39 PM PST by ebb tide
Are you denying that God, if He chooses, can raise someone from the dead prior to his judgment?
This seems to be more of Rome's attempt to say this isn't official but we allow it.
There are many unofficial pious practices. Are you forbidden to do anything unless it is approved by your church?
In either case, it's against the New Testament.
In addition to the New Testament, but not contrary. But then again, Catholics do not belief in sola Scriptura, which actually is contrary to the Bible.
Will you be willing to condemn the message of the apparition and those who wear the Brown scapular as being wrong?
Why should I? As I said, there is nothing here against the faith.
Once you're dead there is no second chance of being pulled out of Hell.
These are souls whom God returns to life before He passes judgment upon them, so they never were in Hell. Would you deny that God has the power to do so or restrain Him in the exercise of His will?
Legalistic protestantism??? Now that's comical coming from a Roman Catholic.
I stand by my comment. What else would you call the concept of imputed righteousness? While the Protestant law consists in a single article, salvation by faith alone, it is still a legalistic concept that sees our relationship with God solely in legal terms. Like the Pharisees, Protestants seek to avoid the necessary internal spiritual reform that comes about through the cooperation with God's grace. In this Protestants go against everything that our Lord taught.
And it is the instance of seeing everything is external legal terms that Protestants misunderstand Catholic actions. The various acts either mandated or recommended by the Church are not done for their own sake, as if one earns salvation through their action. Rather they are instrumental in the reformation of souls. Is a father being legalistic when he lays down rules of conduct for his children? Is coach being legalistic when he demands that his players perform certain drills during practice? No. And neither is the Church. She is being like a good coach leading the faithful to train their souls to do the will of God.
This constant charge of some Protestants that Catholics worship Mary is a prime example of the legalism of Protestants. They are unconcerned about the mind and motivations of Catholics when they show reverence to Mary as a being lesser than God. The see merely external acts which they interpret as worship and then attribute that to the minds of Catholics. But the truth is that it is the intention of the actor that gives meaning to their actions. No Catholic ever intends their acts of reverence to be that of worship or of attributing to Mary or the saints what belongs to God alone. But the Protestant does not care for this. All he sees are external acts, thus the Catholic must be involved in idolatry.
The Mass does not repeat our Lord's shedding of blood. Rather, it makes that one and only sacrifice present to us. How many times does this have to be explained?
No, they (the Last Supper and the Crucifixion) are separate events.
The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are together the presentation of the new Paschal sacrifice. This is clear when our Lord call the cup of wine "the blood of the covenant." As the new Paschal meal, the Last Supper would be incomplete without it being that of the sacrifice. As the new Paschal sacrifice, the Crucifixion would be incomplete the Paschal meal. They both need the other for completion in the one act of the new Passover.
Yes I read it as I typed it (Hebrews 10:3).
Now, read it in context of Hebrews. The passage is referencing the OT sacrifices. We're in the NT now.
Rome though, has seemingly re-established the OT system of priests and sacrifices in rejection of the NT.
I brought this up because you highlighted "remembrance" as if it were in contradiction to sacrifice. But as both Hebrews and Numbers show, remembrance is a part of sacrifice. Thus that our Lord said that we were to "do this in remembrance of me" in no way excludes the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice. There is no need to reestablish the Old Testament system of priests and sacrifices since we have the priesthood and one sacrifice established by Jesus Christ himself.
Clement and Irenaeus were and still remain fallible men who wrote their opinion of the issues at hand.
I never claimed that they or their individual writings were infallible.
That Rome did not include their writings in their canon at Trent is telling.
Why should they have? The Catholic church never held that the individual writings of the Church Fathers were infallible or equal to Scripture. But they are witnesses to what was the common teaching of the Church at the time. And it is this, the common teaching of the Church, that is infallible.
Again, their writings were well known by the early Christians. If what they taught goes against what these early Christians believed, please show the evidence of those who objected to it and held the the Protestant views of the 16th century. All you can say is that these ideas do not agree with what you think the Bible says, so therefore the early Christians could not have believed it. The documentary evidence of the time, contradicts you.
Clement and Irenaeus were and still remain fallible men who wrote their opinion of the issues at hand.<<
I never claimed that they or their individual writings were infallible.
Rome did equate the writings of the ECFs as equal to Scripture under the auspices of "tradition"....however loosely defined as that may be.
*****
>>That Rome did not include their writings in their canon at Trent is telling.<<
Why should they have? The Catholic church never held that the individual writings of the Church Fathers were infallible or equal to Scripture. But they are witnesses to what was the common teaching of the Church at the time. And it is this, the common teaching of the Church, that is infallible.
Yet the RCC, and you, are citing individuals to support your position.
I can cite an equal number who are in opposition to the various topics near and dear to Rome.
*****
Again, their writings were well known by the early Christians.
Questionable assertion.
If what they taught goes against what these early Christians believed, please show the evidence of those who objected to it and held the the Protestant views of the 16th century.
Show me one clear doctrine of Rome ALL of the ECFs are in 100% agreement on.
Let's start with the Immaculate Conception.
All you can say is that these ideas do not agree with what you think the Bible says, so therefore the early Christians could not have believed it. The documentary evidence of the time, contradicts you.
The ECFs writings do not all agree with what Rome has selectively chosen from them. The evidence of the ECFs on this contradicts Rome.
My proof text is Scripture.
Your proof text is fallible men.
I know which one I'm relying upon.
The Mass does not repeat our Lord's shedding of blood. Rather, it makes that one and only sacrifice present to us. How many times does this have to be explained?
IF it is making that sacrifice present, then it's the sacrifice of the Cross. And again without the shedding of blood as at the Cross there is no forgiveness of sin.
The Mass is NOT the sacrifice of the Cross no matter how much you try to spin it.
Not the individual writings, but only as evidence of what the Church as a whole held:
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 78)Failure to make this distinction is to build a straw man to attack. No single letter or document form any of the Father's is in itself infallible. They are quoted only to show what was the common teaching that was handed down as Tradition.
Yet the RCC, and you, are citing individuals to support your position.
As evidence of what was the common teaching at the time.
I can cite an equal number who are in opposition to the various topics near and dear to Rome.
Then please show all this opposition to the Mass as a sacrifice. I have asked for this many times to no avail. All that I have received is evasions and misdirection. If there is evidence that the early Christian opposed what Clement and Irenaeus taught concerning the Mass as a sacrament, show it or acknowledge that it does not exist.
But there was shedding of blood at the Cross, and it is this that is being made present at the Mass.
No, Rome says it’s an unbloody sacrifice......you can’t have it both ways.
Are you saying with 100% certainty all of the ECFs were in accord with your position?
The full teaching:
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." "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." (CCC, n. 1367)The same sacrifice. It is only made present in an unbloody manner. The Mass is a sacrament, i.e. an outward sign of an inward and invisible grace (St. Augustine). Thus in the Mass there is the unbloody outward sign which makes present the inward grace of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Without this fundamental understanding of the sacraments you cannot understand Catholic teaching.
IF it's the same sacrifice, there would be blood present.
"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."
Which is in contradiction of Scripture.
24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Hebrews 9:24-28 NASB
I never said that and I have no need to. What is important is what was the common teaching. Individual disagreements do not take away from this. But again, when I have asked for evidence that there were those opposed to the teaching of Clement and Irenaeus that the Mass is a sacrament, all that I have received in evasion.
It is present, sacramentally: "This is my blood."
Which is in contradiction of Scripture. (Hebrews 2:24-28)
No contradiction since it is that one sacrifice that is being made present, not a new one.
Well, yes you do...IF it was universally believed.
What is important is what was the common teaching. Individual disagreements do not take away from this.
Well, yes they do.
But again, when I have asked for evidence that there were those opposed to the teaching of Clement and Irenaeus that the Mass is a sacrament, all that I have received in evasion.The Apostles were dead by this time so they're unable to refute this...which Hebrews does.
IF it is common teaching there will be universal agreement.
ALL agree Christ was crucified and resurrected. That is a universal belief among Christianity.
Rome cannot make that claim for it's dogmas.
Further, there is no need per Hebrews to "make this present" again and again and again.
It's a ONE TIME event.
Jesus said that it is His Blood. That is good enough for me. Those who find this saying too hard can join those disciples who returned to their former way of life.
Not IF read in CONTEXT.
The Bread of Life Discourse is about having faith in Him....not eating flesh and blood. Romans are making the same error the unbelieving Jews did.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
[His prior statement is what caused them to walk away...not the discussion of eating/drinking flesh and blood]
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”
68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” [Peter and the disciples have correctly heard and understood Jesus. Go back to v40.]
40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
This is the clear consistent teaching John has recorded throughout His Gospel...and that of the NT as well.
We have eternal life through believing in Jesus as Peter replied back to His question.
Notice Peter did not say "we have eaten your flesh and drunk your blood." He professed belief in Christ. That is an important distinction and illustrates that Peter and the disciples understood the message.
Yes, “context,” that magic word used by Protestants to say that what the Bible says does not actually mean what the Bible actually says.
*****
Context, that magic word seemingly ignored by the vast majority of Roman Catholicism.....among others.
I provide an analysis of the passage from John and you provide....what? Nothing.
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.