Posted on 04/08/2016 7:34:38 AM PDT by Salvation
It’s sad to see a belief system with over 1 billion members has become as the Pharisees of old which Jesus roundly condemned in person.
The neo-Pharisees are alive and...well, they are here...
Thank God that in contrast to such attempts by men, the Scripture are inspired of God. For rather then man opening their hearts and then being drawn of God, it is God who draws men first, and opens their heart, by both enablement and motivation. And rather than man becoming accustomed to the darkness and begin to consider the Light (which I am) to be obnoxious, harsh, judgmental, and even cruel, in reality that is the normal nature of man. (Rm. 3:10-23) though he can become harden in rejection.
Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)
Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything good, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace — which denotes unmerited favor — God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.
But which God enabled and motivated him to do. To God be the glory!
Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with “works of the law” including all systems of justification by merit of works, “for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)
But works justify one as being a believer, and as one fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for.
But not if he does not chooses to explain the absence and contrary nature of so many things of Rome in contrast to the NT church, but God's grace some see the light of Scripture over the errors of men.
This is NOT at all what John 3:16-21 is saying. A simple reading of the text says that "...and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil."
God loves the world. God sent His Son. Whoever believe in Him has life. But we love darkness rather than light. Our works are evil. Whoever does what is true (come to Christ) it is because it has been carried out by God.
God is love, love, love. Man is evil, evil, evil. God must change our hearts to want to seek Him. We are a stubborn and rebellious people.
Show us where in Scripture the word eucharist is found and show us where Jesus says that if you don’t believe inthe eucharist, you don’t get to heaven.
It is GOD who works in us to will and to do according to HIS good pleasure.
Your comment: “IF you really believe this blasphemous catholiciism ritual of eating the very Physical Body, Blood, SOUL, and DIVINITY of GOD”
I believe in God and what He told us was necessary for life with Him. Why would I believe in your personal opinion that is opposite to the words of Jesus?
One needs to receive Baptism (born from above with water and spirit) before receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
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
This passage from Hebrews shows just how out of touch the roman catholic church is with what Christ has done for us.
It cannot be made any clearer that the re-sacrifice of Christ as the Victim in the Mass is not supported in any way through Scripture.
He has been sacrificed one time for us and that one time is all that was needed.
It's crystal clear.
This is really getting ridiculous isn’t it? The word Eucharist is what we call for the consecrated host. This is what the early disciples of Christ believed when he said that unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood you will not have everlasting life.
To deny the Eucharist, you will have to REFUTE:
1. Scripture itself. John 6:53
2. The sacred oral tradition, the very tradition that was used to cross check and cross reference the books in the Bible that were infallibly assembled as authentic by the Catholic Church. So if you doubt the oral tradition, you must doubt the fact-checking sources for the Bible, and consequently the accuracy of the Bible itself. You cannot have it both ways by accepting the Bible as authentic and un-tether its infallibility from the sacred oral tradition.
3. The beliefs and practices of the early disciples of Christ before the Bible was assembled in the early fourth century.
4. The beliefs of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists who believed that the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist is at the very center of Christian belief and this is why the Tabernacle was at the center of all Catholic Churches and worship and was so for FIFTEEN CENTURIES (AND CONTINUES TO BE) before the curse of Protestantism in 1517 (especially now with their mainline denominations using scriptural warrant to ordain gay, lesbian, and coming soon, transgender pastors) washed ashore spreading, what the great essayist Hillaire Belloc called, a “cluster of heresies.”
5. The explicit writings of the early Church fathers.
This would include St. Irenaeus of Lyons, an early Church Father and Doctor of the Church
Written by St. Irenaeus about 185 AD, this excerpt in the link above makes clear the Church’s realistic interpretation of the Eucharist as the risen body of Christ.
In fact, the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (transubstantiation), also known as Mass or the Lord’s Supper, was taken for granted in the early Church.
Wrong.
In the three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christian practices and beliefs regarding the Eucharist took definitive shape as central to Christian worship. At first, they spread through word of mouth, but within a generation Christians had begun writing about Jesus and about Christian practice, the Eucharist included. The theology of the Eucharist and its role as a sacrament developed during this period.
Basing himself on the First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho of Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD, K.W. Noakes deduces the following liturgical structure was in use at that time:
Scripture Readings and Homily.
Intercessions and Kiss-of-Peace.
Bread and Cup are brought to the President.
Eucharistic Prayer (flexible) but following a fixed pattern with congregational “Amen”
Distribution of the elements by the deacons to those present and absent.
Collection.
This corresponds in general outline to the structure of the rite as used today and is the earliest known example. The theology is as follows: the bread and wine are transformed into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus; they are the pure sacrifice spoken of by Malachi (1:11) and the eucharistic prayer itself is both a thanksgiving for creation and redemption and an anamnesis (Greek: memorial) of the passion (and possibly the incarnation).
See Noakes, K.W. (1979), “The Eucharist: 2 From the Apostolic Fathers to Irenaeus”, in Jones, Cheslyn; & others, The Study of Liturgy, London: SPCK, p. 171f
Hebrews 10:19-25?
We belief that the priest is offering the Mass in persona Christi.
To accept the Eucharist, as understood by Roman Catholicism, you have to deny Hebrews.
As the Bible does not contradict itself only one of these positions can be correct.
Catholic "sacred tradition" is not reliable in that it contradicts itself and the Bible on more than one occasion.
To accept only John 6:53, as roman catholics do, ignores the remainder of John 6 on this issue. As it does the rest of the NT.
To claim the disciples practiced the Eucharist as understood by Roman Catholicism ignores the Bible. We have no record of the disciples believing in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine as espoused by catholicism.
When Peter preached at and after Pentecost, did he say, come and eat the flesh and blood of Christ? NO!
It was repent and believe.
Did Paul say to eat the flesh and blood of Christ? NO!
He preached you come to faith through Christ.
It is really embarrassing, and blasphemous, for the catholic to continue to insist in this false teaching that is contrary to the Word. It is very similar to the Jews who came to the early believers and told them they had to be circumcised to be saved.
And for the last time...the roman catholic church did not give the world the Bible. It was in place long before the edifice known as roman catholicism came into existence.
Yes...and? Your question?
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our alter to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperor: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
The whole thing is in disregard to the Word.
To agree with you, you will have to ignore the understanding of Christ’s very text in John 6:47-6:55, the understanding his disciples placed on his word that they made this a central act of their worship; the early Church fathers, and the long litany of saints, martyrs, stigmatists, and those who sifted through hundreds and hundred of fragments of papyrus, their discussions on these, the solemn acts of the Church leaders and a galaxy of historical scholars, theologians, and historians. What more, it undercuts the Divine Authority handed to Peter and his successor to teach ONE truth as the basis of ONE Church for ALL peoples until the end of time.
The rest is all kumbaya to each his own.
The veil was ripped apart when Jesus died for me.
Stop hanging the pieces back up.
Just to be clear.
I am catholic, not Catholic.
I am a part of the church, not The Church.
I dont believe worshiping our Creator and Father on any particular day of the week, indoors in man made “temple”,
led by men in robes with wide collars, wearing pointy hats because thats exactly what Jesus was talking about in Matt 23,
and Paul in Acts17-24, and taken with the descriptions of the veil being torn, and the earth shaking, and the rocks
crying out when Jesus died and took my sins away.
https://books.google.com/books?id=SO_LBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT199&lpg=PT199&dq=k+w+noakes&source=bl&ots=Q_dss33JZ2&sig=9gGqp0Py94V8lNXJTzyfpFmGuyI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiviv7ZwILMAhWF4yYKHaYdCngQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q&f=false
There followed a celebration of the Eucharist. Justin's description of this tried to defend Christian's moral virtue against pagans confused about the nature of Christian practices:
There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew tongue to [the Greek], genoito 'so be it'. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wind mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Justin explained that only those who are baptized can share in this celebration and indicates the Eucharist follows the baptism of converts as well as being the focus of each Sunday celebration.
There is nothing in this quote from Apology that indicates the Eucharist was understood as in roman catholic practices today.
There is nothing in the quote indicating a "priest" was present to conduct this meeting.
What was really interesting though in reading through this online book was the description of how the early church met. It was in houses as indicated in the Bible. The "president", or head of the meeting, would rotate.
How many times does Jesus use the word believe in John 6?
Who is He talking to in this passage?
Would Jesus violate the Law in commanding people to eat His flesh and blood?
What was the reply of the disciples when Jesus asked them if they wanted to go away also?
I take it you have sold all of your possessions in accordance with Luke 18:22.
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.