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?
Does God give all men eyes to see and ears to hear? Does He remove all men's heart of stone and replace them with a heart of flesh? And does He renew the minds of all men so that they are capable of knowing the spiritual things of God?
The Arminian is at heart a universalist. And that is not taught in Scripture.
"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." -- Luke 8:10
The term "re-sacrifice" does not appear anywhere in the Catechism of the catholic Church. It is the position of the Church that Christ instituted the Eucharist in order to perpetuate His sacrifice.
1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'
And for the record, you might be interested in the Catholic Church's position on the truth, from the Catechism, which you are obviously not familiar with:
2464 - The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.
The giving thanks is part of the Communion, and is also referenced in the scripture that is read. Again, I have to ask you, what is it you think you are doing at the Lord’s Table?
“However, I did not find the quote listed. Would you be kind enough to point out the page for me please? I am not accusing you of manufacturing the quote. I am very curious. And very intent on ridding the Catholic faith of heretics and apostates.
Thank you for your help.”
_________________________________________________
Belatedly, please note that the quote from “The Faith of Millions”, by Fr. John O’Brien, (about the sacrifice of the mass and the authority of the priest) appears on page 255 at the very bottom, and continues on page 256 of the 1974 edition. I have checked and this book is available reasonably priced online.
The entire chapter in which the quote appears is entitled, “The Priesthood: A Divine Institution.”
Thank you for your patience.
What’s one more false statement about the Catholic Church from an anti-Catholic bigot?
Post 8372.
I can’t give you “eyes to see” my previous posts.
I liked you better as Forrest Gump. Apollo 13 missed the mark. Seriously, that little bit of Protestant theater you posted might make have been one barn burner of a preachin' session but has absolutely no foundation in the truth with respect to the Catholic Church. (BTW, did it occur before the healin' or the plate passin'?)
I clicked on the link Dr. E gave. I did a search on "re-sacrifice". I found nothing.
I searched on "sacrifice" and found no instance of "re-sacrifice."
I searched on "resacrifice." Nothing.
I note that Dr. E. puts the term "re-sacrifice" in quotes in the sentence fragment I excerpted above. I do not understand the use of quotes in this context, but I can reasonably confidently say that the article to which Dr. E. links does not say "re-sacrifice."
LESSON TWENTIETH ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
262. Q. When are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?
A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the consecration in the Mass.
263. Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
265. Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the cross.
269. Q. How should we assist at Mass?
A. We should assist at Mass with great interior recollection and piety, and with every outward mark of respect and devotion.
From my first communion catechism
It is a re-representation of the same sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ at every mass.
Does your “first communion catechism” refer to a “re-sacrifice?”
Do you understand that “sacrifice” and “re-sacrifice” are two different things?
One element that needs to be remembered, it's "the Lord's Table". It isn't the Catholic church's theater, and it is not the "possession" of any other church. As Rnmom points out, it is deeply personal. That there are spiritual levels involved with the communicants is not an issue. But making one size fit all, with theater and ritual is not what it is.
Nonesuch.
"...Roman Catholics are quick to say that the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. They want to make it clear that Christ was offered once for all and that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice but a "re-presentation" of the sacrifice. We certainly do not want to misrepresent Roman Catholic theology, but we must ask how it is possible for the Mass to not be a re-sacrifice of Christ when the Mass is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068) that is done over and over again. We are told that "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice"; (CCC, 1367); that it is an unbloody offering that is proptiatory, (CCC, 1367); that it can make reparation of sins, (CCC, 1414); and is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: "Sacrifice of the Mass"). We must conclude that it is a sacrifice that occurs over and over again and since it is said to be a true and proper sacrifice that is propitiatory, then logically it must be a re-sacrifice of Christ. If it is not, then how can it be called a sacrifice of Christ? Also, how could it be propitiatory if it is not a sacrifice of Christ since it is Christ's offering on the cross that is itself propitiatory?..."
That is pretty clear huh?
Of course that was not the politically correct era when Muslims , Jews and PROTESTANTS can go to heaven.. That was the era when the church said what it meant and was not ashamed of its doctrine.. it did not hide behind a bevy of words..
The priest by becoming Christ transports the audience back in time to the original crucifixion, so it’s not a “re-sacrifice” technically. Latin and candles and ritual. And didn’t the priest originally only drink the wine and partake of the bread? Putting an intermediary in between God and man, when Jesus removed them. Theater of the absurd.
“Oh, and I’ve never gotten a response yet to a very pertinent question: “
Oh golly. You mean I haven’t answered every single questions in your posts, although you already accuse me of making my responses too long, and you therefor don’t read them?
Sorry.
“Does God give all men eyes to see and ears to hear? Does He remove all men’s heart of stone and replace them with a heart of flesh?”
No. If you HAD read my posts, you would know that we receive a new heart and are sealed with the Holy Spirit after we believe. Since many do not believe, they do not get new hearts.
But does someone confronted with the Gospel have enough grace that they COULD respond?
Acts 2: “37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 3 “26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness...But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.”
Acts 5 “14And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women” and “32And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Was the Ethiopian Eunuch reading scripture before or after his salvation? Had the revelation of God prior to his salvation led him to look, or was he born again first?
Acts 10 1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” 4And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter.
Was he already born again, or was he born again when the Holy Spirit fell on him later in the chapter?
But not all who hear will turn. Acts 13 “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.”
And so it goes. God’s grace is sufficient that those who hear the Gospel reject it at their peril, while those who hear and believe are saved.
“The Arminian is at heart a universalist.”
Hogwash. But strawmen are the easiest opponents to debate!
LOL
CARM doesn't want to misrepresent Catholic theology?
...but we must ask how it is possible for the Mass to not be a re-sacrifice of Christ when the Mass is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068) that is done over and over again.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass includes the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is the re-presentation of the Christ's once and for all Sacrifice on Calvary.
The Mass is greater than Holy Eucharist. This attempt to conflate the two different uses of the word "sacrifice" is borne of ignorance or malice, I think it's obvious which.
We must conclude that it is a sacrifice that occurs over and over again and since it is said to be a true and proper sacrifice that is propitiatory, then logically it must be a re-sacrifice of Christ...
Then you must conclude wrongly, CARM. Again.
Of course it is.
It just doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, nor does it mean what CARM or Machen or Bahnsen or Calvin or anyone else says it means.
And it’s all in Latin, just like when the Romans ruled. Creepy
Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.
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.