Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Did you ever read Revelation, where it talks about the saints around the Holy Throne of God, making requests? I think that means the saints are alive in heaven...do you?
I read and study my Bible. I attempt to go according with God's word. If I mess up, it is on me. However, He knows my heart and knows I am trying to do it right.
He also knows that I am not some “sheeple” being led to slaughter by another, man imparticular. I do believe He guides me. Anytime I have troubles I simply cannot deal with, I will grab my Bible, say a prayer, open it up randomly and find an answer. No, it is not 1 2 3, there it is, but much reading and reflecting.
Just like He says....knock, and the door shall be open. He has yet to let me down.
Can you please state the scripture that states so?
“Every single early Church father without a single exception believed Eucharist to be the actual Body of Christ present...it is impossible that the Catholic Church is wrong.Sadly, it is you who is wrong.”
It is a bit more complex than that.
2. The Eucharist as a Sacrifice.
This point is very important in relation to the doctrine, and still more important in relation to the cultus and life, of the ancient church. The Lord’s Supper was universally regarded not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice,422 the true and eternal sacrifice of the new covenant, superseding all the provisional and typical sacrifices of the old; taking the place particularly of the passover, or the feast of the typical redemption from Egypt. This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption. Hence the current name itself—eucharist; which denoted in the first place the prayer of thanksgiving, but afterwards the whole rite.423
The consecrated elements were regarded in a twofold light, as representing at once the natural and the spiritual gifts of God, which culminated in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Hence the eucharistic prayer, like that connected with the typical passover, related at the same time to creation and redemption, which were the more closely joined in the mind of the church for their dualistic separation by the Gnostics. The earthly gifts of broad and wine were taken as types and pledges of the heavenly gifts of the same God, who has both created and redeemed the world.
Upon this followed the idea of the self-sacrifice of the worshipper himself, the sacrifice of renewed self-consecration to Christ in return for his sacrifice on the cross, and also the sacrifice of charity to the poor. Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and he poor. In these gifts the people yielded themselves as a priestly race and a living thank-offering to God, to whom they owed all the blessings alike of providence and of grace. In later times the priest alone offered the sacrifice. But even the Roman Missal retains a recollection of the ancient custom in the plural form, “We offer,” and in the sentence: “All you, both brethren and sisters, pray that my sacrifice and your sacrifice, which is equally yours as well as mine, may be meat for the Lord.”
This subjective offering of the whole congregation on the ground of the objective atoning sacrifice of Christ is the real centre of the ancient Christian worship, and particularly of the communion. It thus differed both from the later Catholic mass, which has changed the thank-offering into a sin-offering, the congregational offering into a priest offering; and from the common Protestant cultus, which, in opposition to the Roman mass, has almost entirely banished the idea of sacrifice from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except in the customary offerings for the poor.
The writers of the second century keep strictly within the limits of the notion of a congregational thank-offering. Thus Justin says expressly, prayers and thanksgivings alone are the true and acceptable sacrifices, which the Christians offer. Irenaeus has been brought as a witness for the Roman doctrine, only on the ground of a false reading.424 The African fathers, in the third century, who elsewhere incline to the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, are the first to approach on this point the later Roman Catholic idea of a sin-offering; especially Cyprian, the steadfast advocate of priesthood and of episcopal authority.425 The ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar, are intimately connected, and a Judaizing or paganizing conception of one must extend to all.
From Volume 3
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2379242/posts
Comparing God to a mere man is kind of creepy.
Can you please tell me the scripture in Revelation?
I haven't researched the posting history of NoGrayZone, so I didn't know. You have no tagline saying it, so the only clue that I had was a short history of your posts.
If you are not Trinitarian, then you do not fit the term Christian, any more than the LDS or JWs or many Pentecostals do. Do you fall into any of these groups, if you don't mind me asking?
You don’t like my analogy of the communion of saints, compared to a granny who gives gifts from her retirement? Jesus Christ my Savior and Lord used to say, “The kingdom of God is like a man who owned a field, and he asked his sons to bring in the harvest...etc.” Remember that one?
And “The Kingdom of God is like a man who had two sons...” and this that and the other.
And no, I’m not going to look the verse up for you. I have a date with a PRODDY, and he’ll be here in 15 minutes. I tell him about the Religion Forum and he thinks it’s hilarious. At least it is the way I tell it.
Night.
The mass is the" unbloody sacrifice of the cross" if memory serves me right..un bloody that is until the wine becomes blood
Seeing He died once for all..I would have to call it a re sacrifice
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.br> Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Scripture says we go directly to Jesus and He dispenses grace and mercy directly to us...
When friends pray for me, they as well pray directly to God and God again dispenses the mercy and grace directly to me...God does not funnel it through my praying friends...
And this is where we would disagree. Why exactly did God "chose" the nation of Israel? Why did He command the Israelites to march into Canaan and order the people to destroy them rather than preach to them? And why does God harden the hearts of the Jews:
Free will - or the ability to choose evil, or accept God’s grace when offered - means there is good & there is evil, and God wants us to choose good, just as I want my son & daughters to do so.
I don't mean to be rude, but do you (or any of us) have the ability to choose between good and evil? Adam was a perfect man and yet he fell. Do you think that he fully understood the ramifications?
You won't find the concept of free will in scripture (there is one reference in somewhere of a "free will" offering I believe). Non-Christians do not seek after God. We know this from Romans 3:
After we know God, we are set free but free to do what? We are free to be lead by either God or our desires. We don't choose our paths but we are lead to our paths:
Psa 31:3 For you are my rock and my fortress; and for your name's sake you lead me and guide me;
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Bad Leading
2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Free will by definition means that man is capable of making decisions apart from God. That certainly does mean that he could make a decision that would please God or displease God's favor. It also means that man is free to do as he pleases.
You will find many of those who believe in "free will" have argued that God has given at least part of His sovereignty to man to make decisions. Stick around on this site and you'll see these arguments popping up. If one were to trace where this doctrine came from, they will find it came from the beginnings of the Renassiance when the focus became man-centered rather than God centered. This, of course, is a silly argument because if God were to give away some of His sovereignty, than He would no longer be God. Plus God doesn't trust men.
My point is that there are Reformed Baptists and then there are non-Reformist. There are only two types of beliefs in the world. You either are a synergist (God and man working together for man's salvation) or you're a monergist (God working for man's salvation). For our friends, I would strongly recommend the writings of Free Will-A Slave by Charles Spurgeon (Reformed Baptist)
Oh, for the love of God. I have a date. Have a lovely evening yourself.
‘Night. May Mary bless you.
What was the spelling 2000 years ago when it was written in the scriptures???
And exactly who’s term of “Christian” are you referring to?
And no, I don’t fall into any group. Told you, it’s just me and my Bible.
Although, I do enjoy The Church of Philadelphia w/ Gerald Flurry.
What on earth does this has to do with anything we're discussing? How does this compare with the text?
No worries....I didn't expect you to.
Oh, I get it...You think the only Antioch in existance at the time was in modern day Turkey...
Well guess what...I’m about 40 miles from Berlin...But it ain’t in Germany...Imagine that...
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.