Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
Nope, I’ve looked. I don’t see the work Catholic in the Bible. The Catholic church is a creation of fallible men.
I'm a KJV only subscriber...
I've been in numerous KJV churches...Never once have I heard anyone claim that someone would go to hell for using something other than a KJV bible...
Hahahahahahah....hohohohoho.....hehehehehe...
I missed that one...Put in a few chuckles for me as well...
Then what good came out of the crucifixion???
“Then what good came out of the crucifixion???”
Exactly.
When Christ cried out from the cross: “IT IS FINISHED” He meant it!
Any attempt to add to His finished work is complete and utter heresy.
Now, would someone like a child or catacum (studying for baptism in the case of an adult convert) be saved with out it? Yes.
In the case of someone who refuses to receive or is excluded from communion (excommunicated).. Well it isn't as cut and dried. The problem isn't so much the act of receiving the Lord's Supper, as it is not doing a direct command of Christ. And if you have be screwing up so badly that the Church kicks you out for justifiable reasons, then maybe you need to take a close look at own soul.
So in strict terms, you can be saved if you don't partake of the Lord's Supper, but why wouldn't you want to?
LOL Mainly it seems to be a southern thing using in Baptist churches. Carry say a Living Bible in and it unnerves them.
And yet you guys talk about the unity in your religion...You guys are all over the place when it comes to dogma and rules and doctrine...
Amen, Mr. Rogers. I have peace amidst my afflictions that when I die I will go to be with the Lord for all eternity. That HOPE and assurance sustains me. Thank you.
I do this in remembrance of Him as He said. I do not believe it suddenly turns to blood and wine. It was meant as a spiritual remembrance of his broken body and shed blood.
Who is required to become a priest?
Salvation covers both justification and sanctification. One is done, the other ongoing.
Maybe I should start a thread sometime on eternal security, but it is 0630 here in Arizona, and I haven’t had my coffee!
driftdive; iscool
Iscool:
The word mystery has different meanings in the Pauline epistles. For example, In St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, the apostle wrote that he wanted people to consider him and his fellow missionaries as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1).On the other had, the “mysteries” also includes those things which had remained hidden since the foundation of the world, but were now revealed by Christ (Eph 1:4; 3:9; Col 1:26; 1 Cor 2:7). It is the context of 1 Cor 4:1 that mysteries are understood to referring to sacraments, which is who St. Jerome, the great biblical scholar of the 4th century translated the Greek word “musterion” or “mystery” into the Latin word “Sacramentum”, which where our English word “Sacrament” comes from.
Driftdiver:
The priest, i.e. the presbyterate, receives a gift, through God’s Grace, and as Pope Benedict writes (Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 204) “he is not the source of his priesthood. He is a priest, not through his own skills and abilities, but by the gifts of the Lord, a gift that always remains a gift and never becomes simply his possession, a power of his own. The new priest receives the gift and task of priesthood as a gift from another, from Christ, and recognizes that all he is ever able and allowed to be is a “steward of the mysteries of God” (c.f. 1 Cor 4:1), a “good steward of God’s varied Grace” (c.f. 1 Pet 4:10).
So altar Christus or acting in persona Christi, is what the article by Fr. Baker is referring to. By virture of the priest’s ordination, the one priesthood of Christ is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood. Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers (CCC paragraph 1545). So, again, the article you cited is to understood in this context.
So by virtue of being ordained, the Priest for example, when celebrating the Eucharist is not speaking on his own, he is as Pope Benedict writes (Spirit of the Liturgy pp. 172-173), is stepping back and making way for the actio divina, the action of the Lord. So when the priest in the Eucharistic prayer states “This is my Body”, repeating Christ words from the Last Supper, the priest knows “That he is not speaking from his own resources but in virtue of the Sacrament that he received, he has become the voice of someone else, who is now speaking and acting. This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the “real action” for which all of creation is in expectation. The elements of the earth are transubstantiated, pulled, so to speak, from their creaturely anchorage, grasped in the deepest ground of their being, and changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. The New Heaven and New Earth are anticipated. The real action in Liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God Himself. This is what is new and distinctive about Christian Liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential. He inaugurates the new creation, makes himself accessible, so that, through the things of the earth, through our gifts, we can communicate with him in a personal way. But how can we participate, have a part, in this action? Are not God and man completely incommensurable? Can man, the finite and sinful one, cooperate with God, the Infinite and Holy One? Yes, he can, precisely because God himself became man, become body, and here, again, and again, he comes to his body to us who live in the body. The whole event of Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection, and Second Coming is present as the way by which God draws man into cooperation with himself….True, the Sacrafice of the Logos is accepted already and forever. But we must still pray for it to become our sacrifice, that we ourselves, as we said, may be transformed into the Logos, conformed to the Logos, and so be made the true Body of Christ.
In closing, it seems to me that at the root of Protestantism’s anti-Sacramentalism, is a problem with the implications of the Incarnation, that God became man, and because Incarnation is always a reality, it is never pulled away, in Catholic theology, from the theology of the Cross and Resurrection. They are always linked.
Pax et bonum
You, my dear brother, "get it"
Your tagline, bdeaner: “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16)”
That passage reads:
“14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?”
On the one hand, that supports transubstantiation, since it compares Communion with actual sacrifices being offered by pagans to demons. However, the sacrifices to idols are new sacrifices, while Catholic doctrine agrees that Christ was sacrificed once, for all time. So the analogy isn’t precise. And when he says “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread”, he obviously does so in a spiritual sense, not literal.
Baptists agree that when we partake Communion, that we are participating in the blood and body of Jesus, in a spiritual sense. Frankly, I don’t understand the difference between that view, and saying it becomes the actual blood and body of Christ, but that it doesn’t involve a re-sacrifice of Jesus and the physical aspects (taste, texture, etc) remain unchanged. Maybe I’m just not smart enough.
Here is what Baptists wrote over 300 years ago:
“30.7 Worthy recipients, when outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly by faith, truly and in fact, not as flesh and body but spiritually. In so doing they feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits of his death. The body and blood of Christ are not present physically, but spiritually by the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”
Unfortunately, my own denomination (SBC) has watered that down to “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.” I guess if you are going to use grape juice instead of wine to avoid giving offense, you can’t be taking scripture very seriously, to the terrible shame of the SBC. I suspect the Baptists of the 1600s would be as shocked by Southern Baptists as they were by Catholics...
From what I’ve read, those who argued against transubstantiation did so because they believed the doctrine required Jesus to be sacrificed all over again.
If the misinformed teachings of adherents cause us problems in discussing church doctrine in an age where anyone can go online and read the source documents for themselves, how much more so in an age when printing presses were just starting, and few could afford books, and travel meant walking!
I have many strong differences with the Catholic Church. Infant baptism makes no sense to me. Popes? No thanks! The treatment of Mary disturbs me more than Michael Jackson did. Penances and indulgences are far worse. The idea of a surplus of good deeds indicate a + / - accounting approach to justification that is totally contrary to scripture.
But transubstantiation? Don’t exactly believe it, and don’t exactly deny it. Properly explained, it doesn’t seem substantially different from what Baptists used to teach.
Sorry, that verse must be one of the ones our fallen leaders deleted from the holy scriptures.
Of course, it could just be that some can not tell the difference between their personal dogmas, and holy scriptures.
Thought you both might be interested in this...Good Works, from a Baptist perspective:
http://www.grbc.net/about_us/1689.php?chapter=16
A sample:
“16.3 Their ability to do these good works does not in any way come from themselves, but entirely from the Spirit of Christ. To enable them to do good works (besides the graces they have already received) they require the actual influence of the Holy Spirit to cause them to will and to do his good pleasure. Yet are they not on this account to become negligent, nor to think that they are not required to perform a duty unless given a special impulse of the Spirit; rather, they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.”
“I’ve been in numerous KJV churches...Never once have I heard anyone claim that someone would go to hell for using something other than a KJV bible... “
It was a small church, about 60-70 miles north of Austin, TX. Probably 1992 or 93.
I like the KJV, but I also like the NEB & ESV. When I first became a Christian, the Living Bible was critical to me, since I couldn’t understand a more literal translation very well.
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.