Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Frankly, I have a problem with anyone who tries to force or coerce my actions or beliefs through threats. It doesn’t speak well of the strength of their argument intrinsically that one has to be threatened to co-operate.
Why did the Roman Catholic Church feel the need to call down curses on people and eternally condemn them for not adhering to its doctrine? It comes across too much as spiritual blackmail.
Canons concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (September 5, 1551)
Canon 1.If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
Canon 2.If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.
Canon 3.If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.
Canon 4.If anyone says that after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but are there only in usu, while being taken and not before and not after, and that the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain, let him be anathema.
Canon 5.If anyone says that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result from it, let him be anathema.
Canon 6.If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
Canon 7.If anyone says that it is not lawful that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a sacred place, but immediately after consecration must necessarily be distributed among those present, or that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick, let him be anathema.
Canon 8.If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.
Canon 9.If anyone denies that each and all of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have reached the years of discretion, to communicate every year at least at Easter, in accordance with the precepts of holy mother Church, let him be anathema.
Canon 10.If anyone says that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself, let him be anathema.
Canon 11.If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated.
There’s life in the blood until the lamb was killed. The life is taken out from the mortal Old lamb. Not the eternal lamb( JESUS) which is everlasting so its always there. So the opposite of the old lamb is the life giving blood of Christ because he lives on for eternity. That’s the difference.
Good analogy. Reminds me of "The Parable of the Wedding Banquet" (and he even provides the party clothes!):
Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
..but maybe no jellied cranberry sauce...:)
On the contrary, the judgments are on the people.
If anyone says, ..... let HIM be anathema......
Oh get a grip. You are truly pathetic.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Because the Reformation was destroying the stranglehold Rome had on the church, and the papacy and its hirelings were worried about losing power and position and a covering for their evil deeds.
Some things never change.
lol. Amen!
Christ is compared to the bridegroom of His bride, the church, for a good and holy reason. It is the pattern our lives are supposed to follow. Pastors included.
Nothing like hanging someone’s eternal salvation over their head to keep them in line.
This is the major reason that I don’t believe that Jesus meant that Peter was the rock that His church would be built on and that Peter was given power to retain or remit sins. Too much potential for corruption to enter and result in that kind of manipulation (misusing the power to eternally condemn someone).
Scripture it’s not, but *Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely* is about as true as it comes. Precious few men can handle that kind of authority.
Mea culpa. I apologize. I apologize also for calling Quix a silly woman.
The Big Flock Mentality.
Then discard the doctrines of men found in the RCC and return to the authority of God's word.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
Men either believe God or they don't.
"...holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"
The Bible.
Faith, Tradition and Reason. Together these pillars hold me up that I may live free and unafraid in my faith.
Faith is a free gift from God to whom He will.
Tradition was denounced by Jesus Christ nearly every time He mentioned the word.
And reason augments our understanding only if God has renewed our mind to make sense of His words, His will and His purpose.
The assurance you're apparently seeking is found in God's grace alone.
"Grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever." -- Psalms 45:2
Oh, it’s ok. I’m Anglican.
“Anyone” is no one in particular. What is condemned is the proposition. IT is false. Therefore no Catholic can publicly say it is true. To give you a silly comparison , If anyone say that a triangle has more than 180 degrees, he is to be marked down.
Our sins have been forgiven. There’s nothing left to pay FOR.
Jesus said, “It is finished”.
We’re the ones as humans, who seem to have this need to feel like we need to pay for our sins, like we have to make up for the bad we did to God.
Making restitution to each other is good and necessary and it does relieve us of the feeling of guilt, but there’s nothing that we can do to make it up to God. For one thing, we’re forgiven. For another, there’s just way too much to make up for.
Besides, with forgiveness, God gets all the glory. With paying for it ourselves, we do.
“Anyone” is no one in particular. What is condemned is the proposition. IT is false. Therefore no Catholic can publicly say it is true. To give you a silly comparison , If anyone say that a triangle has more than 180 degrees, he is to be marked down.
Our sins are forgiven, but we are not perfect. Paul said, Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up which is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of His body which is the Church of which I am minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God...—Colossians 1:24 ff.
Jesus had ample time after His resurrection to cover the whole communion and eucharist thing and there’s no record of it in the gospels.
He and His disciples, under the OT law, could not have eaten actual flesh and blood and remained clean for the Passover and Sabbath. Since the new covenant did not begin until after Christ’s death and resurrection, Jesus, who was the fulfillment of the Law could NOT have eaten blood and remained pure and eligible to become our sacrifice.
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.