Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. TheDidache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .
"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass
Or perhaps this website posted on salvation's library of posts should be called into question as well.
Nicene Creed (325), Constantinopolitan Creed (381) ... Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human.
Uh oh....this really must be an anti-luther site!
German reformer Martin Luther's (1483-1546) writings often address the subject of Mary: On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, he wrote In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
In another place Zwingli professed I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary ...; Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin. (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.) The more the honor and love for Christ grows among men, the more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for us so great, but so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, pp. 427-428.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2510196/posts
maybe even the catholic encyclopedia is in question now.
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity : "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37). http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
IIRC daniel1212 posted a link to you on the use of ellipses.
Then that would mean nothing is anti-Catholic since there is no falseness of Catholicism. But anti-Catholicism does exist. You demonstrate it all the time.
verga just proved how false catholicism is on one of its core issues on a vanity post he made this week. I'll let the two of you discuss that one.
Now, regarding the Mass. Even this website uses doubletalk...just like O'Brien.
Q. 917. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
Q. 920. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.
Q. 921. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same -- Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.
Q. 931. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass?
A. Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents His death on the Cross. http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson24.htm
In either case it goes against the NT which tells us there has been one sacrifice and it is not repeated again. Jesus is not brought back down from Heaven as O'Brien says. Jesus is only coming back to earth once more and it's not for the Mass.
“I guess we should completely disregard all of these statements on Tim Staples’ anti-Protestant website using your criteria of the ellipsis usage.”
No.
1) any time Staples has used an ellipse that I have seen he has used it correctly.
2) you didn’t use ellipses. YOU CUT AND PASTED A QUOTE with them which proved the quote was not as it appeared in the original and
3) when caught CUTTING AND PASTING FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC website you denied it even though the evidence was right there in black and white.
4) now you’re claiming - rather desperately it would seem - that any use of ellipses must then be suspect. No, only when you posted a quote you FALSELY claimed was from the original - which was then DEMONSTRATED to be from an anti-Catholic website (I even posted sample links to such) - and then (bizarrely) denied having cut and pasted from an anti-Catholic website - only then - do the ellipses matter. O’Brien didn’t use any in the quote. Anti-Catholics did. And we’re right back to where we always start and finish with Protestant anti-Catholics:
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
Came across this older post of yours, and though you would be interested in the series by Swan on this issue. That God for what helps .