A Protestant attending a Catholic service. [Archive]

II Paradox II

13th May 2004, 07:29 PM

Someone posted this link over in OBOB, in i thought it was very interesting so am posting it here aswell. Please note- i'm not trying to convert anyone (as i'm not a catholic myself). I'm just always very interested in how people from different denominations react when they attend a service of another denomination.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/114/story_11436_1.html It is an interesting article. Overall, it really does point to how far modern evangelicalism has gotten from it's historic Reformational and broadly catholic roots.

One thing that does strike me as very interesting is his observation that the re-introduction of such historic elements has been largely under the banner of the "emerging church" and postmodern constructions. It seems oddly appropos to advocate such a reawkening under this banner. The postmodern world is mired in so much subjectivism that it almost idolizes the communal expressions of faith simply because they transcend the individual's solipsistic experience. Having run into a few of these post-modern classical revivalists, it is an odd experience to contrast this with my own much more objectivist advocacy of the same things.

Personally, I hope we see more interaction with the early church and ancient forms of thought. Not that I think they're all right, but they do point the way to a form of Christian ecumenism without liberalism (i.e... unity based around a common gospel and the fundamental creeds of the church instead of division over such minutia as eschatology or odd marian doctrines) as well as a recognition of the centrality of the scriptures. Catholic apologetic views aside (which seem to be more concerned with justifying a skepticism towards scriptural knowledge than recovering a patristic attitude toward the revelation of God), the patristic period had a respect for the scriptures which easily equals the pared down biblicism of our own post-modern age. The more I study this the more I am convinced that we need to study and reach back into history to find the way out of some of our modern vexations.

ken

Cal

13th May 2004, 11:01 PM

Grace_Alone4gives

14th May 2004, 02:22 PM

I have attended a mass before - a few times. My perception may be a bit tainted as I was not 'saved' at the time.

Although I agree with the article, surrounding some of the beauty and significance during Mass ( hearts seemed to be so devoted to Christ from what I saw, although the prayers seemed to be a bit repetative, almost to the point where I wondered if they were 'truly' saying them, or just bablling a well known word) - I felt differently than he did regarding the Eucharist. I felt it to be cold. Lines of people waiting to receive the bread and wine, in a way that seemed to be so dry to me. I also saw my friends, a married couple not married the 'the Church', watch on as their 'confirmed' children receive the Eucharist, they too so wanted to receive - but couldn't, because they were unworthy to receive. (they were not married in the Catholic Church because they were both married prior - and an annulment needed to take place with their former spouses- something that is a long process, and that would cost them $$$ in the thousands). This did bother me.

rmwilliamsll

14th May 2004, 06:54 PM

Gabriel

14th May 2004, 11:43 PM

I would remind you that we are commanded to forgive as we were forgiven.

My daughter's best friend invited my daughter to her first communion and the party afterwards. We will be attending the party only.

bigsierra

15th May 2004, 01:10 AM

i live in a spanish speaking barrio, all my neighbors are Roman Catholic because they get baptised, married and buried in the church. therefore i have been inside a RC church for several funerals of good friends.

i am aware of being in the wrong place, i do not belong there. the idols, the images, etc are direct violations of the commandments. but because my purpose and motivation is clearly not to worship God there, but to pay my respects to the dead and show comfort for the still living. i don't feel any pains for being there. however i would never go into a RC church for a worship service etc. as it would be a sin against the right worship of God. Thoughts like the destruction of the Huguenots, the burning of Latimer and Ridley are never far from my mind, i can not forgot, nor forgive the history.

Am I to understand that your church doesn't put out a Nativity?

Cright

15th May 2004, 01:32 AM

hi all...:wave:

I stuck my head in this room because I grew up Catholic. I'm not Christian with baptist-type beliefs, which since the split of p/r/e is where i've been.

Hope ya'll don't mind me adding my $0.02.

There are many "reminders" in the church, they are not idols. Catholics are Christians too. Although, many things the church does I would deam "unnecessary" and a few things I just disagree with not that I've read my bible and have been attending several bible classes weekly for more than 1/2 a year.
I do agree it's completely different. I do think it's important for children not to attend ceremonial services of any other church until they know their own faith and can answer questions about both, before going.
If you saw anything that you have questions about during the masses you've attended I'd be happy to answer questions... just know that, I most likely do not agree with the things that I explain in catholisism.

I will close my post now and be on my way...
... so someone else can answer :D

Cal

15th May 2004, 06:30 AM

bigsierra

15th May 2004, 08:08 AM

ufonium2

15th May 2004, 08:37 AM

they were both married prior - and an annulment needed to take place with their former spouses- something that is a long process, and that would cost them $$$ in the thousands). This did bother me.
What state do your friends live in? Is one of them a billionaire with several other ex-spouses already? Are either of their exes in a coma or in another country? There's no way a legal annulment should cost anywhere approaching even $1000 unless one of the situations above is present, which I'm guessing isn't the case. Your friends are being ripped off and should get a new lawyer.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the RCC is concerned with having a church annulment rather than a legal one, and I think they are different, but I'm not Catholic so I can't be sure.

Filia Mariae

15th May 2004, 09:29 AM

What state do your friends live in? Is one of them a billionaire with several other ex-spouses already? Are either of their exes in a coma or in another country? There's no way a legal annulment should cost anywhere approaching even $1000 unless one of the situations above is present, which I'm guessing isn't the case. Your friends are being ripped off and should get a new lawyer.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the RCC is concerned with having a church annulment rather than a legal one, and I think they are different, but I'm not Catholic so I can't be sure.
Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an "annulment," it is a decree of nullity. And you are correct that it doesn't cost thousands of dollars. :rolleyes:

Dark_Lite

15th May 2004, 09:38 AM

I'm fine with attending Mass. If I live in a place where there's no Methodist church, I'd go find the nearest Catholic one ^_^

Filia Mariae

15th May 2004, 11:08 AM

We are justified in baptism.

Cal

16th May 2004, 09:32 AM

I won't respond to all you're issues, but it's isn't a "re-sacrifice." It's the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago. ;)

This graphic isn't exactly accurate, but it's gives you an idea of the mystery that takes place at Mass. I'm new to the concept, so forgive me if I'm off a bit.

Edited to add that I have come to understand that the image is a bit over simplified. I think it still has some validity.You are right in that it is the same sacrifice, but the point is that the Catholic doctrine states that the Mass is an "actual and real sacrifice" being made again and again and again by priests of Jesus Christ. The priest is modeling himself after the Levite priests of old who made animal sacrifices on the alter. The Catholic doctrine states that these same priests are authorized today to "actually" sacrifice Jesus Christ on the alter in front of the church at every mass.

But it's best to quote the Catholics on their own doctrine:

"The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." ("The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass" by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.)

And in the words of Pope Pius IV...

"I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)

The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead as well!). Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. Not a symbolic re-creation! But a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago ("The Catholic Home Instruction Book", #3, P. 90.).

That's why the elements must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin:

"The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." ("The Spirit of Jesus" pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph Cardinal Carberry, Archbishop of St. Louis.)

"He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will never cease." ("Sons of God in Christ" Book 4, P. 117.)

"The Mass is identical to Calvary it is a sacrifice for sin it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (For Them Also, pp.289-299.)

The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST". (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 2, p.77.) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a renewal of the sacrifice of the cross"! ("A Catholic Word List" p. 45.)

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

The Council of Trent was called to clarify and standardize Catholic doctrine in response to the challenges of the Reformation. The canons on this subject (passed in Session XXII. Cap II.) are as follows:

"If any one shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema."

"If any one shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me', Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."

"If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."

"If any one shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass let him be accursed."

BUT IS THIS THE BELIEF OF ROME TODAY?

If any be in doubt as to the modern Roman position, we shall quote the recent (1963-65) Second Vatican Council:

"At the Last Supper. . . our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross. . . " p. 154, The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.

The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. ("The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host", which is the Latin word hostia which literally means "victim" (Webster's New World Dictionary.)

BUT WHY "THE SACRIFICE" OF THE MASS?

We will now quote the Church's own contemporary literature to fully answer this question (taken from the book, This Is The Catholic Church, published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, Imprimatur: (sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary.) Most Reverend John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford:

"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation of that sacrifice that this union may be maintained.

"What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and death. Jesus then, is the priest, the offerer of the sacrifice. But Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice.

"The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass." (pp. 20-24.)

Source: http://users.ev1.net/~damonm/catholic-chronicles/chron_2.html (http://users.ev1.net/~damonm/catholic-chronicles/chron_2.html)

Of course all of this flies in the face of plain Scripture teachings that:

ROM 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

HEB 7:27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

HEB 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

HEB 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

1PE 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

HEB 6:6 ....since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. This doesn't refer to the Mass but it speaks to just how awful another sacrifice of Jesus Christ would be.

bigsierra

16th May 2004, 09:59 AM

Bob Moore

16th May 2004, 12:30 PM

I won't respond to all you're issues, but it's isn't a "re-sacrifice." It's the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago. ;)

It is an on-going and repetitive sacrifice. Hebrews 7:27 has this to say: "Who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself." Jesus made the sacrifice once for all. We remember that in the communion (which He commanded), but recognize that what we partake of is bread and wine (or juice), not the actual body and blood of Christ for the very reason that were it taken otherwise then Christ would be sacrificed anew at every communion. Nor is the office or intercession of a priest required because "we have a great high priest" (Hebrews 4:14), who is "the only mediator between God and man" (1 Timothy 2:5).

Cal

16th May 2004, 12:53 PM

Again, everything goes back to the "once for all sacrifice" on the Cross. Covenants are often renewed. How often do husbands and wives like to renew their covenant in the marriage bed?

Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace.

I updated my diagram from yesterdayBut Catholic priests can't sacrifice the Son of God. Do you think they do?

And Jesus won't sacrifice Himself again, ever, do you think He does in the mass?

Christ said the Lord's Supper was spiritual not physical:

JOH 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

JOH 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This was one of the main points of the reformation, to eliminate these practices from the Church.

Bob Moore

16th May 2004, 01:45 PM

We are justified in baptism.

Oh?

Acts 13:39, "And by him (Jesus) every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Titus 3:5-7, "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

bigsierra

16th May 2004, 01:55 PM

But Catholic priests can't sacrifice the Son of God. Do you think they do?

And Jesus won't sacrifice Himself again, ever, do you think He does in the mass?

Christ said the Lord's Supper was spiritual not physical:

JOH 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

JOH 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This was one of the main points of the reformation, to eliminate these practices from the Church.

There is only one sacrifice, of which we are partakers

The priest consecrates the bread and wine.

John 666, they left him, when he said that that they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood. you left all some key verses

John 6
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

This would have been a good spot for him to say "Hey guys, don't worry, it's just symbolic." Instead he let them all go away.

Filia Mariae

16th May 2004, 02:04 PM

Oh?

Acts 13:39, "And by him (Jesus) every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Titus 3:5-7, "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
I was responding to a question someone else asked. Their question was deleted, as were many other posts, because the poster broke the forum rules. I cann't respond to your post here, for obvious reasons.

Bob Moore

16th May 2004, 02:19 PM

There is only one sacrifice, of which we are partakers

The priest consecrates the bread and wine.

John 666, they left him, when he said that that they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood. you left all some key verses

John 6
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

This would have been a good spot for him to say "Hey guys, don't worry, it's just symbolic." Instead he let them all go away.

No.

John 6:64-66, "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father. Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Here is what 6:66 is talking about:

From that time many of his disciples went back,.... Not any of the twelve apostles, for they are distinguished from these in the next verse; nor any of the seventy disciples, for their names were written in heaven, and could not apostatize totally and finally, as these did; but some of the multitude of the disciples, who followed Christ, heard him, and professed to believe in him, and were baptized in his name, but were not true disciples, only nominal ones: they had never heard and learned of the Father, otherwise they would have known what it was to come to Christ, as the Father's gift, and under the drawings of his grace; and would not have been offended at the words of our Lord, just now spoken by him, concerning that sort of coming to him: but from the time he spoke those words; "because of this word", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it; they withdrew themselves from his ministry, they dropped their profession of faith in him, and relinquished him as a Saviour and Redeemer: for finding that he would not be made king, nor set up for a temporal redeemer; and talking of himself as the bread of life, and of coming to him, in a sense they did not understand; they turned their backs on him; and as the words may be literally read, "returned to the things that were behind"; to the world, and to their old companions, to Satan and their own hearts lusts; like the dog to its vomit, and the swine to its wallowing in the mire: their true picture is drawn, in the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man, and returning, Mat_12:43. And they returned to their quondam teachers, the Scribes and Pharisees, and to the law of works, and to seek for righteousness by it; setting up their own righteousness, and not submitting to the righteousness of Christ; and thus to look back and draw back, is a sad case indeed:

and walked no more with him; never returned to him more, or went with him from place to place as before: never more attended on his ministry, or had any intimacy and fellowship with him: and so it commonly is with apostates from the profession of Christ; they seldom or ever return, or are recovered; it is difficult, if not impossible, which is sometimes the case, to renew them again to repentance." {Gill's commentary}

This passage has nothing whatever to do with communion.

Bob Moore

16th May 2004, 02:21 PM

I was responding to a question someone else asked. Their question was deleted, as were many other posts, because the poster broke the forum rules. I cann't respond to your post here, for obvious reasons.

Ah. It did seem a little disjointed. Thanks for clearing it up. However, if you do believe that it is baptism which justifies, I would like to discuss it with you in another thread.

Cal

16th May 2004, 03:31 PM

bigsierra

16th May 2004, 05:28 PM

He did, He said:

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

But they still walked away and followed Him no more even after He told them the obvious that it was not His actual "flesh" that He was talking about. It was dining on Jesus Christ "spiritually" as He put it.

But back to my questions for a moment, do you believe the Catholic belief is Scriptually accurate in that the priests are actually sacrificing Jesus Chist and He is permitting Himself to be sacrificed again as The Council of Trent has dictated?

If you're asking me to say it's a new sacrifice, I can't do that. I will respond since you asked. As you know, the Catholic Church doesn't believe OSAS, so there is going to be a difference of opinion on the way in the way Christ's death on the cross plays out. It's would be as different to you as your views would be with your Protestant brothers and sisters in the Anglican/Wesleyan traditions. I'm not saying they are similar, but both would require quite a different epistemology.
Bear with me, since 3-4 months ago, I also had the http://www.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Calvinist.gif icon(whenever it was introduced) so am not at this point the greatest of apologist. I still haven't attended RCIA or any other classes, so I'm not yet associated with the Catholic Church, except by desire. Anyway, back to the point, and to answer you're question I agree with what the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) says. I believe the Early Church Fathers held to that belief, as well as the Church in the book of Acts, in partaking in the Lord's Supper daily.
Here are some links that I've been reading:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ378.HTM
http://www.childrenofhope.org/quotes.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Here is what the CCC says:

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. 150 Heb 13:15; cf. 1 Pet 25; Ps 116:13, 17; Mal 1:11.

It's not saying that it is any other than the "One" sacrifice, being made present.

Further down, it goes on to say:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189189 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190 190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

It seems dangerous to me, to take a view that is somewhat new (~500 years), as far as basis of God's method of bringing us to Heaven. I will also add that I have a great respect for the Calvinist doctrine, and believe that there is a lot of truth, contained within it. As I said in another thread, I thank God for excellent preachers and teachers of the faith, such as D James Kennedy and RC Sproul; Kennedy for making witnesses of the early Americans, to this generation and Sproul for revealing the Holiness and sovereignty of God.

Cal

16th May 2004, 05:51 PM

It seems dangerous to me, to take a view that is somewhat new (~500 years), as far as basis of God's method of bringing us to Heaven. I will also add that I have a great respect for the Calvinist doctrine, and believe that there is a lot of truth, contained within it. As I said in another thread, I thank God for excellent preachers and teachers of the faith, such as D James Kennedy and RC Sproul; Kennedy for making witnesses of the early Americans, to this generation and Sproul for revealing the Holiness and sovereignty of God.
But it is not new. The way of salvation has always been Jesus Christ and His work alone.

It is us men who constantly mess it up. We want to sacrifice Christ again to earn points, we want to work for salvation so we can claim credit, we want our baptism to count because we did a good deed. But the Bible teaches we are saved by Christ's good deeds and His death for our sins alone. Even our faith in Him is from God.

So He gets all the credit and we get none! Zero!

That is the difference between all religions and Christianity as a matter of fact. All other religions provide for man to boast for their good deeds, but God wants all credit to go to His Son, ALL!

EPH 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

EPH 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

LynneClomina

16th May 2004, 11:28 PM

Caedmon

17th May 2004, 03:02 PM

the "host", the offering, is consedered by the RC to be Christ Himself... do they consider the same thing about the offerer? the preist? is he claiming to take the place of Christ????Of course not... The priest is not the Christ. :)

santos

17th May 2004, 04:31 PM

I'm fine with attending Mass. If I live in a place where there's no Methodist church, I'd go find the nearest Catholic one ^_^

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

Holy Warrior

17th May 2004, 05:25 PM

Chill santos, just because darklite occasionally attends mass doesn't necessarily mean (s)he partakes of the Eucharist.

II Paradox II

17th May 2004, 05:53 PM

Chill santos, just because darklite occasionally attends mass doesn't necessarily mean (s)he partakes of the Eucharist.
geez... Last time I went to a catholic church (with my in-laws) I was guilt tripped by them and the priest for not wanting to take communion there. And yes, they are a little on the liberal side there.

ken

Bulldog

17th May 2004, 07:06 PM

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

He never said he received communion, just that he attends mass.

If I am correct, protestants are allowed to attend Mass, but just not allowed to recerive communion, right?

BjBarnett

17th May 2004, 07:10 PM

He never said he received communion, just that he attends mass.

If I am correct, protestants are allowed to attend Mass, but just not allowed to recerive communion, right?

you are right my friend.

bigsierra

17th May 2004, 08:00 PM

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

I go to Mass 2 or 3 times a week and am not Catholic...yet. I don't partake of the Eucharist though.

LynneClomina

17th May 2004, 10:44 PM

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.
well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

do y'all think it's ok to do that? isnt it up to Christ, and our convictions, as to what we do in that case? if i feel God wants me to take communion, i will, if i dont, i wont. if it is against my concience, it is sin.... do you agree?

(i know this is a hot issue with some people, so i remind everyone that is not reformed to please not debate. thnx.)

Lilac

17th May 2004, 10:56 PM

Thoughts like the destruction of the Huguenots, the burning of Latimer and Ridley are never far from my mind, i can not forgot, nor forgive the history.
This I feel is sad rmwilliams -that you're basing your entire perception of a faith on an unfortunate event. This reminds me of what someone just said to me tonight on the phone which disturbed me as well:

That they would not give one penny to the Episcopal Church because of the "gay" issues involved. This is most sad too!

We are all sisters and brothers in the Lord----:clap:

God Bless~~

BjBarnett

17th May 2004, 10:58 PM

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

come on surely you would have more respect about you then that. I wouldnt come into your church and do something I wasnt supposed to knowing that I wasnt supposed to do it.

Caedmon

17th May 2004, 11:16 PM

bigsierra

17th May 2004, 11:30 PM

Thoughts like the destruction of the Huguenots, the burning of Latimer and Ridley are never far from my mind, i can not forgot, nor forgive the history.

Ease up... He who is without sin and so forth

John Calvin 7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."

Kripost

17th May 2004, 11:44 PM

LynneClomina

17th May 2004, 11:51 PM

come on surely you would have more respect about you then that. I wouldnt come into your church and do something I wasnt supposed to knowing that I wasnt supposed to do it.
well, that would depend if i want to be a respecter of persons rather than a respecter of God.... if God wants me to remember Him through communion, and i disobey Him so that i dont irk a church, then that is sin. i would rather get glares and stares and the boot out the door than to face God in the last day and have to answer for yet one more way that i disobeyed Him.

now would that be an easy thing for me to do? heck no. i face the same issue when it comes to dancing in church quite frequently.... when i go to a somewhat more conservative church and feel to dance before the Lord, will i do it? if it is God calling me to it, i sure better! if, however, i do it to prove some stupid point and to make people mad rather than our of a matter of conscience, that is different; it would be as much an offence to God as it would be to the people in the church.

same goes with communion. if i dont feel particularly led to, i wont, i'm not gonna do it just to drive home some point; if, however, i feel let to take communion, and i know that to disobey that would be going against my conscience and thus sin, it is my duty to obey God before man, even if i get persecuted for it in the end.

and who is allowed, biblically, to tell me to go against my conscience, when the Word of God says that if i go against my concience, it is sin? i would not want to be that person who told me to sin (by going against my conscience) when they come face to face with Christ!!!!!

LynneClomina

17th May 2004, 11:59 PM

First, the Catholic Church asks non-Catholics not to partake in her Communion because non-Catholics disagree with certain Church teachings, and thus, are not in Communion with the Catholic Church. i'm not personally concerned about being in communion with the Catholic church - i'm more concerned with being in communion with Christ. Also, and more importantly, the Church believes that the Host (wafer) becomes the literal Body and Blood of Christ, and that to partake of it while in a state of mortal sin (if you are) is to potentially eat and drink judgment upon one's self.i dont believe it is the literal body and blood of Christ, and if i am in sin is between me and God, not the church, AND if i sin in taking the wafer, then i will be judged - the Church doesnt need to look out for me in that area (since i am not a Catholic and don't subcribe to these things).

Of course, there is no way for the priest to refuse you Communion if he doesn't know you. If you go to receive the Eucharist, he must assume (without prior knowledge of you) that you are a Catholic and are not in a state of mortal sin. But if he does know that you are either not a Catholic or are in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, he sometimes has the right to refuse you Communion. As stated earlier, he would do this in order to protect your soul from judgment, and not out of spite. Does that make sense?
i can understand the reasoning, yes. but that isnt reason enough to disobey God. if the priest said to me, sorry i will not give you the wafer, then i wont in turn ask him to go against his conscience. but i believe that if God wants me to take communion, then there will be no problem - He will smooth the way.

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 12:00 AM

LynneClomina,

How did you come to the Reformed faith, if you don't mind me asking?

tqpix

18th May 2004, 12:05 AM

I'm a Catholic, but I went to a Protestant Church for two/three years. It's a little bit different from what I'm used to, but there's not much difference.

LynneClomina

18th May 2004, 12:07 AM

i'm not in a denominationally "reformed" church, but my pastor believes in calvinism (teaches predestination but doesnt push it on everybody) and definately teaches covanent theology. so i have been taugh those things and believe them, and i am highly influence by the writings of John Calvin, RC Sproul, Johnathan Edwards, and various odd things i have read. oh, and some confession or other, i'm not sure which one :blush: . i think we would doctrinally be similar to reformed baptists, but we are non-denominational, and "apostolic" as well - the five-fold ministry/ priesthood of all believers stuff.

eh, what do you mean, i dont sound very predictable? :scratch: is that a good thing, or a bad thing? :D

KennySe

18th May 2004, 12:08 AM

question:

someone said that Christ was the great high priest that made the offering of Himself on the cross - thus, offerer and offering.

the "host", the offering, is consedered by the RC to be Christ Himself... do they consider the same thing about the offerer? the preist? is he claiming to take the place of Christ????

:scratch: truly ignorant on this point. i want to ask this here becuase i dont want to be swamped in OBOB. thnx.

Hi.
I recommend you read the entirety of the Book of Hebrews.

and afterward, also a portion of the Catholic Mass, called "Eucharistic Prayer".
http://www.prayerbook.com/HolyMass/CurrentMass/prayeuch.htm

These are the very words prayed aloud by the priest during Catholic Mass.

Gabriel

18th May 2004, 12:12 AM

MOD hat on

I see alot of people who are NOT of the Reformed pursuasion chiming in here. Please be assured that you are more than welcome not to. As a matter of fact, you are bound by our rules not to. So stop. Consider this an unofficial warning. The next will be official.

MOD hat off

LynneClomina

18th May 2004, 12:57 AM

Hi.
I recommend you read the entirety of the Book of Hebrews.

and afterward, also a portion of the Catholic Mass, called "Eucharistic Prayer".
http://www.prayerbook.com/HolyMass/CurrentMass/prayeuch.htm

These are the very words prayed aloud by the priest during Catholic Mass.
it's beautiful, soothingly familiar (i went to catholic school for 8 years and requisite masses), and theologically something i cannot ascribe to. Hebrews is my favorite book of the Bible (along with Romans).

what connection are you trying to make???

(or maybe you better not tell me, so you don't get in trouble! :wave: )

Bob Moore

18th May 2004, 07:12 AM

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

do y'all think it's ok to do that?

No, it isn't all right because: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." (Westminster Confession XXVII:IV). Roman priests are ordained according to the laws of Rome and as such are not qualified to administer any sacrament whatever to a Protestant, nor should they be willing to do so.

isnt it up to Christ, and our convictions, as to what we do in that case?

No, because that shifts communion from an objective act of worship and obedience into the subjective realm of mysticism. We are quit of Rome for the most excellent of reasons as given in 2 Peter 2:20-22.

if i feel God wants me to take communion, i will, if i dont, i wont. if it is against my concience, it is sin.... do you agree?

There are many things that are according to conscience and conviction, but this is not one of them for the reasons given above.

Cal

18th May 2004, 08:12 AM

II Paradox II

18th May 2004, 10:22 AM

John Calvin 7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."
You do realize of course that Servetus was already under condemnation (he was to be executed) in Catholic Austria at the time? He was a well known heretic hunted by Catholics and protestants alike. Personally, I amglad that we don't do this anymore, but it was common practice at the time.

ken

Knight

18th May 2004, 10:34 AM

Personal opinion here:
I don't think I could take communion in a Roman Catholic service because of what is being said about the elements. (ie: transubstantiation)

Cal

18th May 2004, 10:49 AM

Personal opinion here:
I don't think I could take communion in a Roman Catholic service because of what is being said about the elements. (ie: transubstantiation)Thousands of Christians spilled their blood and gave up their lives on exactly this point. They felt that transubstantiation was an attempt to bring works into salvation and was a complete distortion of the Word of God. They are referenced to in Foxes Book of Martyrs and are great heroes of the faith. They fueled the Reformation with great energy!

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 11:39 AM

Thousands of Christians spilled their blood and gave up their lives on exactly this point. They felt that transubstantiation was an attempt to bring works into salvation and was a complete distortion of the Word of God. They are referenced to in Foxes Book of Martyrs and are great heroes of the faith. They fueled the Reformation with great energy!

Don't you think loss of life is stupid, either direction? Both sides of the issue has blood on there hands. It is a reprehensible blemish on the name of Christ, no matter what.

Atheist sites have timelines to show how stupid wars have been fought from both directions down through history, to discredit all of Christianity. They don't care if the stupid killing came from Catholics or Protestants.

Knight

18th May 2004, 11:43 AM

Killing other people because believe differently is stupid and condemned by scripture. There is no question about that.

I hardly think Cal was advocating these kind of deaths. Merely honoring those who have fallen.

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 11:45 AM

Well proving truth by how many has fallen is support of it wouldn't be accurate or we would have the Salem Witches saying they died for their faith. I'm sure they do somewhere.

Knight

18th May 2004, 11:46 AM

It wasn't a proof.... It was an illustration.

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 11:50 AM

You do realize of course that Servetus was already under condemnation (he was to be executed) in Catholic Austria at the time? He was a well known heretic hunted by Catholics and protestants alike. Personally, I amglad that we don't do this anymore, but it was common practice at the time.

ken

All the killing of the past has been sad. There are many examples of it going on in all groups.

Here is the link I referred to earlier.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_index.htm

II Paradox II

18th May 2004, 11:56 AM

All the killing of the past has been sad. There are many examples of it going on in all groups.
On that count, I agree with you. Christians have been far too willing to impose their will on other Christians and non-Christians and in the end it only reduces our credibility.

God has an amazing amount of mercy on us considering all of our schisms, heresies and hatreds of each other.

ken

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 11:57 AM

It wasn't a proof.... It was an illustration.

Ok, prove or proof probably wasn't the word to pick. Pointing to any blood, but that of Christ, isn't applicable.

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 11:58 AM

On that count, I agree with you. Christians have been far too willing to impose their will on other Christians and non-Christians and in the end it only reduces our credibility.

God has an amazing amount of mercy on us considering all of our schisms, heresies and hatreds of each other.

ken

Amen

Knight

18th May 2004, 12:05 PM

Ok, prove or proof probably wasn't the word to pick. Pointing to any blood, but that of Christ, isn't applicable.
I do not disagree with you in the context of trying to prove a point. Or in the context of vengence over such a death.

Are you suggesting it is improper to honor those who have died, justly, for the faith. What about Stephen? Or James, Peter, Paul, or any of the apostles?

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 12:14 PM

I do not disagree with you in the context of trying to prove a point. Or in the context of vengence over such a death.

Are you suggesting it is improper to honor those who have died, justly, for the faith. What about Stephen? Or James, Peter, Paul, or any of the apostles?

No, that's not what I was saying. That's an interesting thought though. I guess each different group would have their own martyrs, outside those mentioned in the Bible.

So, if he was originally "only" honoring those that had fallen, then that's fine and good, but it didn't seem like that was the case. Honoring Saints of the past is an important part of Christianity. ;)
We can learn a lot from history. Hopefully, to not make the mistakes of the past.

Knight

18th May 2004, 12:19 PM

No, that's not what I was saying. That's an interesting thought though. I guess each different group would have their own martyrs, outside those mentioned in the Bible.
Good. We can be friends now... :D ;)

So, if he was originally "only" honoring those that had fallen, then that's fine and good, but it didn't seem like that was the case.
I'll let Cal speak for himself in this case....
(Frankley, I'm surprised he's been quiet this long...;))

Cal??? :)

Honoring Saints of the past is an important part of Christianity. ;)
We can learn a lot from history. Hopefully, to not make the mistakes of the past.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. (who said that?)

LynneClomina

18th May 2004, 02:12 PM

No, it isn't all right because: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." (Westminster Confession XXVII:IV). Roman priests are ordained according to the laws of Rome and as such are not qualified to administer any sacrament whatever to a Protestant, nor should they be willing to do so.
where in the BIBLE does it say only an ordained minister can dispense the communion?

(seriously curious!)

LynneClomina

18th May 2004, 02:17 PM

Personal opinion here:
I don't think I could take communion in a Roman Catholic service because of what is being said about the elements. (ie: transubstantiation)
personally, i agree; but i could eat a cracker at home in remembrance of Christ; so, let them speak of transubstantian as much as they may, it's not true, it's a peice of bread, and to me no different than eating a peice off a loaf at my church when it comes to breaking the bread between my teeth and thinking on Him.... (should He request me to do so at a Catholic church, and while i certainly hope not, i examine myself - would i be willing to obey God rather than men in this instance?)

i believe wholeheartedly that transubstantiation is not biblical, but whatever others say about a wafer don't make it true - and if it's not true, i dont have to think about the wafer as transubstatiated bread and thus reject communing with my Lord over it, SHOULD He so call me to do so.

Dark_Lite

18th May 2004, 02:44 PM

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.
Funnily enough, I respect other people's beliefs, regardless of how much of a double standard it might be.

I'm assuming this post gives me the permission to jump to conclusions and assume you worship Mary!

Oh... wait.... no it doesn't.

Cal

18th May 2004, 02:57 PM

Don't you think loss of life is stupid, either direction? Both sides of the issue has blood on there hands. It is a reprehensible blemish on the name of Christ, no matter what.

No I don't think it is stupid, I think it is a great blessing to suffer for Christ and for righteousness sake.

MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

MAT 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

What I think is bemish on Christ's name is those who will not die for Him or for righteousness sake, but instead will save their name, reputation and skin for compromise, so called "peace" and for unrighteousness sake.

Cal

18th May 2004, 03:22 PM

Well proving truth by how many has fallen is support of it wouldn't be accurate or we would have the Salem Witches saying they died for their faith. I'm sure they do somewhere.God call's those who have fallen for Him heroes and their martyrdom as a token of their Christianity.

2TH 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

2TH 1:5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

Those whom have died for Christ and His righteosness are considered hero's!

Hero's of Faith Chapter

HEB 11:25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,

HEB 11:26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

HEB 11:35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

HEB 11:36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment.

HEB 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated

Those whom have died for Christ are considered blessed and to have been given a great reward:

PHI 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

1PE 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

1PE 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

ACT 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

Those who suffered and died for Christ and His righteousness were considered to be like Christ and predestined to do so:

JOH 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

JOH 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

MAT 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

MAT 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

MAT 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

MAT 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

MAT 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

2TI 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

ACT 9:16 For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

And we should suffer in their suffering and not be ashamed of them:

1CO 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

Yes, pointing to these martyr's for the obvious token of God's pleasure with them, to their obvious predestined honor and great reward, to their predestined act to be "Christ-like," to their faith, and to their inclusion into the Hall of Hero's is a thing we should point to, and do so quite regularly.

Just because frauds have died for their beliefs, this is no reason not to honor the true martyr's sent by God to be a witness to us all. There is an absolute truth, there are absolutely true martyr's, and these are those we should absolutely point to for example and for truth.

If you haven't read Fox's Book of Martyrs I think you would be extremely blessed and edified to do so.

There are thousands recorded who were tortured, lost homes and family and who died rather than participate in transubstantiation. The Bible and faith versus works meant this much to them. They have a lot to teach us "courageous" American's today, I think!

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 03:38 PM

Ok, so we have two Christians killing each other over a doctrine, and you say that glorifies God. I don't think I wan't to perpetuate this discussion.

Bob Moore

18th May 2004, 03:55 PM

Thousands of Christians spilled their blood and gave up their lives on exactly this point....

Don't you think loss of life is stupid, either direction? Both sides of the issue has blood on there hands. It is a reprehensible blemish on the name of Christ, no matter what.

Not necessairily. If what is being died for is the integrity of the Word of God (as in the cases Cal cites), then it is indeed a noble sacrifice.

Bob Moore

18th May 2004, 04:02 PM

where in the BIBLE does it say only an ordained minister can dispense the communion?

(seriously curious!)

References for Ch XXVII:IV

Matthew 28:19; 1 Cor. 11: 20, 23; 1 Cor. 4. l; Heb. 5:4

Cal

18th May 2004, 04:03 PM

Ok, so we have two Christians killing each other over a doctrine, and you say that glorifies God. I don't think I wan't to perpetuate this discussion.
No, we have PEOPLE who hate God, His Son and His righteousness killing God's children. You can't avoid this. God told Adam it would last for the entire history of the Earth.

GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

God is saying that Satan and his seed would always be at war with Christ and his seed (us)!

LynneClomina

18th May 2004, 04:18 PM

References for Ch XXVII:IV

Matthew 28:19; 1 Cor. 11: 20, 23; 1 Cor. 4. l; Heb. 5:4
what is Ch XXVII:IV???

i see no references in there about only those who ordained giving the Lord's supper.

could you be specific, and why it is?

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 04:29 PM

.:)

tigersnare

18th May 2004, 06:03 PM

Please stop breaking the rules.

Do you still hold to reformed theology? I thought you were just steps away from being catholic, if that is the case, there are rules for you as well.

If I'm mistaken, so be it.

rnmomof7

18th May 2004, 06:16 PM

The rules as posted are that debate here may only be between Reform believers.

2) Reformed/Calvinist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Reformed/Calvinist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations as long as they are within our rules.

It is my expectation that this rule will be observed. If a non reform believer wishes to debate an issue like doctrinal differences I would suggest starting a thread on the General Theology forum

rnmomof7

18th May 2004, 06:27 PM

error

bigsierra

18th May 2004, 06:30 PM

Do you still hold to reformed theology? I thought you were just steps away from being catholic, if that is the case, there are rules for you as well.

If I'm mistaken, so be it.

Being a step away and being are two major different things. As far as that goes, I'm may steps away. It would be Easter of next year, and I could be denied, if it was considered that I am still Protestant in my beliefs.

I was discussing basic human decency and was holding that there were wrongs done on both sides, during the Reformation/Counterreformation era. I never called anyone a child of satan or a hater of God.

I hope I didn't offend anyone here.

Gabriel

18th May 2004, 07:03 PM

I hope I didn't offend anyone here. You have. You put Cals' posts together to make something of them that they were not.

You are breaking the rules in this forum as you are not of Reformed doctrine. Cease and desist immediately or you will be warned.

Bulldog

18th May 2004, 07:41 PM

what is Ch XXVII:IV???

Chapter XXVII:IV of the Westmister Confession of Faith. :)

"There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained."

i see no references in there about only those who ordained giving the Lord's supper.

What about this?:

1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Mary_Magdalene

18th May 2004, 08:12 PM

Again, everything goes back to the "once for all sacrifice" on the Cross. Covenants are often renewed. How often do husbands and wives like to renew their covenant in the marriage bed?

where in the Word of God do you see His covenants being renewed? Scripture please.

Actually, if you study covenants as God made them, you will find that there is always a shedding of blood -so the marriage bed isnt a good example of renewal of a covenant (due to the fact that only the first time during intercourse would the woman bleed).

Bob Moore

18th May 2004, 08:37 PM

what is Ch XXVII:IV???

i see no references in there about only those who ordained giving the Lord's supper.

could you be specific, and why it is?

I'll try. The references are: Matthew 28:19; This passage deals with one of the two sacraments, i.e. baptism. Notice who is told to go do it. The authority to baptise is vested in the eleven remaining disciples. We never see baptism being administered by garden variety believers. The Disciple in turn vested authority in other men as their maturity warranted.

1 Cor. 11: 20, 23; In this passage we see the origin and authority of the Lord's supper. Paul points out that there can be no disorder at all where this sacrament is concerned.

1 Cor. 4:1; "... Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Who is the 'us' being referred to? It is Paul and the other leaders of the church. As with baptism, we never see the Lord's supper being admisistered by any but those in authority.

Hebrews 5:4 refers back to the office of High Priest and references the fact that no man was to simply appropriate the office (which, incidentally, was common 2000 years ago, even extending to the purchase of the office from Rome). This passage is cited for it's value in pointing out that there is indeed a proper order within the church, and that order is there for a reason. Namely to safeguard the ordinances of Christ from profanation, whether accidental or deliberate.

But beyond this there are other excellent reasons to avoid the Roman communion. Previously you mentioned your conscience, and I'm sure you are familiar with the prohibition of causing one who is weaker to stumble. Suppose that you, a Reformed Protestant, were observed to accept communion at a Roman mass by a devout Catholic who knew that you were not of the Roman persuasion. What have you done to that person? Think about it. Further, what have you done to yourself and to your witness? Do you suppose that Jesus wouild be pleased that you, claiming conscience (that He gave you) as the motive, would engage in deliberate deception? I doubt it.

I hope this makes it a little clearer for you.

LynneClomina

19th May 2004, 01:09 AM

Chapter XXVII:IV of the Westmister Confession of Faith. :)

"There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained."

What about this?:

1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
and immediately before that:
1CO 3
16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? the one who teaches us mysteries lives in us. 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; F8 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." F9

21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come--all are yours. 23 And you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

4:1 Let a man so consider us,(see v.6) as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. F10 In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God. 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?what i hear paul saying here is that just as paul and apollos are not to think that each other is more wise or understanding than the other - they are "just" servants, after all, we are not to do so among ourselves also. there is no knowledge or revelation of God that hasnt been given to all of us. and we have been GIVEN it, it's not our knowledge, it's God's to give, and He has given it to all of us. the Spirit is in all of us. there is no one more wiser and thus more qualified to be servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God than any other. we are not to judge each other in that regard. are you or i more qualified than the other to discern the truth of God based on man's opinion? only on the basis of being faithful, but we are not even to "go" there - we are not even to judge ourselves if we have been more faithful or less faithful... we wait for God to do that at the last day....

do you see my point? if 4:1 is applied to communion, then the whole context must... we are ALL servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God....

what thinkest thou, oh bro???
:hug:

LynneClomina

19th May 2004, 02:07 AM

I'll try. The references are: Matthew 28:19; This passage deals with one of the two sacraments, i.e. baptism. Notice who is told to go do it. The authority to baptise is vested in the eleven remaining disciples. We never see baptism being administered by garden variety believers. The Disciple in turn vested authority in other men as their maturity warranted.i dont see a problem with that, as i consider myself to be a disciple of Christ.
1 Cor. 11: 20, 23; In this passage we see the origin and authority of the Lord's supper. Paul points out that there can be no disorder at all where this sacrament is concerned. logical. but what does it matter who administers it if it is orderly???

1 Cor. 4:1; "... Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Who is the 'us' being referred to? It is Paul and the other leaders of the church. As with baptism, we never see the Lord's supper being admisistered by any but those in authority.
and i truly believe in the preisthood of all believers, and the authority of all true belivers to baptise and "officiate" communion (if it even need officiating, IMHO ;) ) i do see it quite frequently administered by those not "ordained".
Hebrews 5:4 refers back to the office of High Priest and references the fact that no man was to simply appropriate the office (which, incidentally, was common 2000 years ago, even extending to the purchase of the office from Rome). This passage is cited for it's value in pointing out that there is indeed a proper order within the church, and that order is there for a reason. Namely to safeguard the ordinances of Christ from profanation, whether accidental or deliberate. and i see that as saying that no one is to appropriate the roll of preist and act as intermediary between "regular folk" and God - we have all access tickets ourselves. the ONLY intermediary is Christ, and anyone who claims to be an intermediary is usurping their authority - and that would include that only a minister can give the Lord's supper.

But beyond this there are other excellent reasons to avoid the Roman communion. Previously you mentioned your conscience, and I'm sure you are familiar with the prohibition of causing one who is weaker to stumble. Suppose that you, a Reformed Protestant, were observed to accept communion at a Roman mass by a devout Catholic who knew that you were not of the Roman persuasion. What have you done to that person? Think about it. Further, what have you done to yourself and to your witness? Do you suppose that Jesus wouild be pleased that you, claiming conscience (that He gave you) as the motive, would engage in deliberate deception? I doubt it.that is a very good point. and my thoughts on it are: if God is truly speaking to me to obey, i must, even if i run the risk of offending (them good old boy reformers didnt worry too much about offending the Catholic Church back in their day!), becuase i must follow God. perhaps God has predestined them to be offended, so that they will reevaluate their beliefs? or perhaps it will be the last chill that finally hardens their heart, and God wants to "break" them with it? i'm not advocating sin, no - but it's God's definition of sin that i must go with, not man's. i could be a perfect person, and i will offend. Jesus offended. fear of offending someone is not reason enough to NOT obey God. if i offend it is not a sin if it is obedience to God... disobedience would be the sin.

also, i wouldnt deliberately deceive. if someone asked i would say no, i'm not catholic. although, some say (like brother andrew?) that when they crossed the border with illegal bibles into closed countries they would deliberately hide the bibles and lie through their teeth if asked if they had any bibles, and why they were going into the country. some argue that that is wrong, if God really wanted them to get through, they will, even if they say to the border guard, yep, we have 50 New Testaments and, er, 14 complete Bibles for those believers in the underground church in chicky wing's basement... others would say that's dumb, of course they have to conceal the bibles and their reasons for being there. same idea here (though a "little" less overt ;) ) - if God says, tell them you are not RC, then i would tell them. if He says don't, i wont. that is where it is a matter of conscience. if i truly believe God wants me to partake, then for me to bow to the status quo and not do it, not only am i going against God, i am going against my conscience. and i am free to go with my conscience, becuase i am a born again believer and actually HAVE a conscience, whereas when we are still sinners it's pretty much dead or seared.

Bob Moore

19th May 2004, 04:38 PM

. but what does it matter who administers it if it is orderly???

By definition laymen administering communion are out of order. There are certain responsibilitites and duties that attach to each office within the church. The ministry of the sacraments falls to pastors, not elders, deacons, or the kitchen help.

and i truly believe in the preisthood of all believers,...

Then you do well...

...and the authority of all true belivers to baptise and "officiate" communion (if it even need officiating, IMHO ;) )

...until right here.

The "priesthood of all believers" is not to be taken to mean that all believers hold all offices and therefore can do as they please, which is the necessary consequence of your line of reasoning. What is meant (short form :) ) is that as believers we represent God to the world, which, in a very real sense, makes us priests of God because out of our mouths comes the knowledge of Him, and by our lives we demonstrate that know, believe, and trust Him.

i do see it quite frequently administered by those not "ordained".

No doubt you do, but it is extreme presumption their part.

and i see that as saying that no one is to appropriate the roll of preist and act as intermediary between "regular folk" and God - we have all access tickets ourselves. the ONLY intermediary is Christ, and anyone who claims to be an intermediary is usurping their authority -...

Quite right.

... and that would include that only a minister can give the Lord's supper.

Nope. In Reformed churches the Pastor is not acting as any kind of intermediary. He is simply the one who leads and directs.

that is a very good point. and my thoughts on it are: if God is truly speaking to me to obey, i must, even if i run the risk of offending (them good old boy reformers didnt worry too much about offending the Catholic Church back in their day!), becuase i must follow God.

I'm afraid that that is subjectivism with a vengence. My illustration did not involve offending someone by the speaking of the Word, but by the sinful act of deliberately doing something that you know (or should know) will offend and cause the observer to sin. Then you say that sinning is acceptable as long as God calls you to do it. Major problem: God never, ever, under any circumstances whatever, commands us to do something He has forbidden.

perhaps God has predestined them to be offended, so that they will reevaluate their beliefs? or perhaps it will be the last chill that finally hardens their heart, and God wants to "break" them with it?

Rationalization.

i'm not advocating sin, no -

I'm sorry, Lynne, but that is exactly what you are doing.

but it's God's definition of sin that i must go with, not man's.

Precisely. I have just given you the Biblical principles that you must not deliberately cause another to stumble, and that God never contradicts Himself. How do you define that as 'man's definition'?

i could be a perfect person, and i will offend. Jesus offended. fear of offending someone is not reason enough to NOT obey God. if i offend it is not a sin if it is obedience to God... disobedience would be the sin.

In principle that is correct. But with regard to the subject at hand, participation in the Roman bloody sacrifice, it makes you a liar by silence because you are not what you are silently representing yourself to be: a person in fellowship with Rome.

also, i wouldnt deliberately deceive. if someone asked i would say no, i'm not catholic.

What else can you call stealth participation in somone elses system? It isn't sufficient to say you would fess up if caught (or asked, which is the same thing). The very act is what is wrong for the reasons I have given you.

if God says, tell them you are not RC, then i would tell them. if He says don't, i wont. that is where it is a matter of conscience.
if i truly believe God wants me to partake, then for me to bow to the status quo and not do it, not only am i going against God, i am going against my conscience. and i am free to go with my conscience, becuase i am a born again believer and actually HAVE a conscience, whereas when we are still sinners it's pretty much dead or seared.

With all due respect, you have a lot to learn about the Reformed Church and it's doctrines. Two last things: are you aware that The RCC has you (Yes you. Personally.) under anathema? In other words you are, according to Rome, accursed. And that the RCC has, at different times repudiated as heresy all three of the possible ways of salvation (all God, all man, co-operative), leaving themselves without a theological leg to stand on.

Filia Mariae

19th May 2004, 04:46 PM

In principle that is correct. But with regard to the subject at hand, participation in the Roman bloody sacrifice, it makes you a liar by silence because you are not what you are silently representing yourself to be: a person in fellowship with Rome.

With all due respect, you have a lot to learn about the Reformed Church and it's doctrines. Two last things: are you aware that The RCC has you (Yes you. Personally.) under anathema? In other words you are, according to Rome, accursed. And that the RCC has, at different times repudiated as heresy all three of the possible ways of salvation (all God, all man, co-operative), leaving themselves without a theological leg to stand on.
Bob,

1. Catholics explcitly teach that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not bloody.

2. Anathema does not mean cursed, it means out of the Church.

Please refrain from misrepresenting what Catholics believe.

Cal

19th May 2004, 05:56 PM

Bob,

1. Catholics explcitly teach that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not bloody.

2. Anathema does not mean cursed, it means out of the Church.

Please refrain from misrepresenting what Catholics believe.
Carly,

You are misrepresenting what Bob is saying and have been warned about your posting in here. Is it time for another?

Filia Mariae

19th May 2004, 08:29 PM

Bob Moore

19th May 2004, 08:56 PM

For the benefit of those who are following this conversation, here are the formal definitions of "anathema":

1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.
2. A vehement denunciation, imprecation, or curse.
3. Some one or some thing cursed, reviled, or shunned.

Notice the reptitive nature of 'curse', and 'cursed'.

The Council of Trent issued, I believe, 48 cannons, all of which pronounce anathema on those who dare to say otherwise. Herewith a sample: Canon 8. "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema". (Bob's Note: the phrase ex opere operato means 'by the working of the works' as though the works themselves have power to convey grace)The anathema pronounced by the Council has never been revoked. For four hundred and forty one years Rome has held all Christians not under her umbrella to be cursed.

rnmomof7

19th May 2004, 10:45 PM

Bob,

1. Catholics explcitly teach that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not bloody.

The bible is clear that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ... So what is the value?

2. Anathema does not mean cursed, it means out of the Church. Anathema means cursed .

It is a greek word. Here is the meaning from Strongs

1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept

a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place

2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction

a) a curse

b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

Trent was aimed at the heart of the reformation and Luther in particular

Cal

20th May 2004, 05:25 AM

Cal-

I am not allowed to debate in here. I am in fact allowed to post in here.

How have I misrepresented Bob? I have merely quoted him. I don't know why you consider it debating to correct you when you misrepresent my beliefs.
Your correction is wrong and it seems like your trying to start another Catholic debate which was so disruptive the last time you did it.

Bob is right!

Rising_Suns

20th May 2004, 09:31 PM

if God is truly speaking to me to obey, i must, even if i run the risk of offending

Please forgive me for intruding here, as it is not my intention to debate. But I would just like to clarify something if I may; if you feel you are sincerely being called to receive the Eucharist, you simply cannot toss the doctrine of the Catholic Church out the window and do what you want. Holy Communion is a profound sacrament in our Church, and a central mystery in the foundation of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. One cannot be partially Catholic. To partake in it is to be Catholic.

Carrye

20th May 2004, 10:07 PM

And if I may, just to clarify - when attending a Protestant communion service, the communion that is consumed is bread and wine. When attending a Catholic Mass, the substance consumed is the Body and Blood of Christ. The two are fundamentally and objectively different.

Now you may say, "but I believe that Catholic communion is not the body and blood of Christ" to which I would reply "that is all the better reason not to receive communion in a Catholic church." I extend my personal invitation for any of you to attend a Catholic Mass at any time, but I cannot in good conscience extend the same invitation for the Eucharist. If you believe as Catholics do, that it is in fact the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ that is being consumed, then welcome home.

tigersnare

21st May 2004, 01:20 AM

then welcome home.

This ALWAYS rubs me the wrong way....

:mad:

thereselittleflower

21st May 2004, 01:23 AM

i live in a spanish speaking barrio, all my neighbors are Roman Catholic because they get baptised, married and buried in the church. therefore i have been inside a RC church for several funerals of good friends.

i am aware of being in the wrong place, i do not belong there. the idols, the images, etc are direct violations of the commandments. but because my purpose and motivation is clearly not to worship God there, but to pay my respects to the dead and show comfort for the still living. i don't feel any pains for being there. however i would never go into a RC church for a worship service etc. as it would be a sin against the right worship of God. Thoughts like the destruction of the Huguenots, the burning of Latimer and Ridley are never far from my mind, i can not forgot, nor forgive the history.I am sorry to hear that . . we have forgiven the 10's upon 10's of thousands, mostly Catholics, who were killed, burned at the stake, etc, at the hands of Protestants in the 16th century . . . it is estimated that 100,000 were killed within a few decades . .

I sincerely hope and pray you will be able to find it in your heart one day to do the same.

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower

21st May 2004, 01:30 AM

Athough many Catholics are Christians whom we love, many of Catholic Church doctrines are not Christian which we hate, for example:

Mary Co-redemptrix (Mary Co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ)
Praying to saints
Statutes and other images of adoration
Salvation by works
The Assumption of Mary

The mass is the "re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ again" on their alter, it is repulsive.
uhhh hi . . :wave:

The title of your post said that the Mass is the RE-sacrifice of Christ on the altar . .

I would like to simply interject here that no, that is not what the Mass is or does . .

We do not sacrifice Christ again . .

We believe that the sacrifice that Christ made at one point in time at Calvary becomes present on our altar . .

Imagine a thread representing time . . there is one point on it where Christ was crucified . .now move ahead about 2000 years worth of points . . that is were we are in the mass ..

Now imagine that someone pickes up the thread at both points and bends it to make the two points touch . .

That is what we believe happens . .

God is outside, and master of, time and space and make the past present in the future . .

WE do not sacrifice Christ again . .it is the making present of the ONE sacrifice on our altars . . it is a mystery . .

It is a very common misconception that we sacrifice Christ over and over again . . that simply is not true . .

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower

21st May 2004, 01:36 AM

geez... Last time I went to a catholic church (with my in-laws) I was guilt tripped by them and the priest for not wanting to take communion there. And yes, they are a little on the liberal side there.

ken
ken, I am sorry to hear that. That should have never happened.

Peace in Him!

isshinwhat

21st May 2004, 01:40 AM

The bible is clear that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ... So what is the value?The blood has already been shed and need not be shed again. There is no argument from either side on that issue, I do not believe. When we come to Christ, His sacrifice, made once, and his blood, shed once, cover us. His sacrifice is applied to us, despite it being millenia in the past.

Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:5, "For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows." Earlier, Paul had written, "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." Christ's sufferings are our sufferings, and his glory is our glory. As members of Christ's Body, we are partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). There is a true unity with Christ which is very real. To a Catholic, communion is a reminder of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, but it is also a Sacrament in which Christ's sufferings overflow into our lives, so that His comfort might, as well. The Percious Blood was spilled only once, but its effects live on forever, thus His sacrifice lives on forever.

As Paul said in Phillipians, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death." We believe Malachi prophesied our doing this this when the Lord said through Him, "For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts." Through Communion we offer ourselves with Christ in a special way, and will from the rising of the sun to its setting. Through our special Communion with Christ and His sacrifice, we believe we will grow to become more like Him. Through the strength I gain from the Eucharist, I hope to be able to say along with Paul, "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." I hope to one day, in some small way, offer to God the Father the only thing that Christ could not on Calvary. Me with Him in me.

Through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

Neal

tigersnare

21st May 2004, 01:40 AM

. . we have forgiven
the 10's upon 10's of thousands, mostly Catholics, who were killed, burned at the stake, etc, at the hands of Protestants in the 16th century

Are you speaking for every Catholic on the face of the planet? you and your friends? the Vatican?

Can you document the 10's upon 10"s of thousands of these "mostly" Catholics being killed, burned at the stake ect at the hands of Protestants...I mean at least spout off 1000 names...should be no prob right?
:rolleyes:

thereselittleflower

21st May 2004, 01:48 AM

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

do y'all think it's ok to do that? isnt it up to Christ, and our convictions, as to what we do in that case? if i feel God wants me to take communion, i will, if i dont, i wont. if it is against my concience, it is sin.... do you agree?

(i know this is a hot issue with some people, so i remind everyone that is not reformed to please not debate. thnx.)Hi Lynne

No one is going to stop you from doing so . .they don't ask "are you Catholic?"

But if you look inside the front cover of the missal, you will find this written there:

For our fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Euharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (John 17:21)

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of teh dioesan bishop and the provision of canon law (canon 844 4). . .. .

For those not receiving Holy communion

All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.

Lynne . . I would hope you, and others here, would respect what communion means to us and respect the wishes of the Church, for when you receive communion at a Catholic Church, you are proclaiming that you are in full agreement with Her . . and if you are not, you would be lying by your actions.

This is why we cannot participate in communion with you in your Church, for we would then be lying . .

Peace in Him!

Cal

21st May 2004, 06:33 AM

I am sorry to hear that . . we have forgiven the 10's upon 10's of thousands, mostly Catholics, who were killed, burned at the stake, etc, at the hands of Protestants in the 16th century . . . it is estimated that 100,000 were killed within a few decades . .

I sincerely hope and pray you will be able to find it in your heart one day to do the same.

Peace in Him!
That is ridiculous. The Roman Catholic Church martyred hundreds of thousands of saints in the Inquisitions and wars against the reformation. Bloody Mary got her name from her and the Catholic churches killing of thousands of saints. This is a commonly known historical fact.

The reformers were martyred in the thousands for not participating in what they called "the cannabalism of the mass." Foxes Book of Martyrs records a small sample of them. Several Catholic's were given the death penalty for the "gun powder plot" to blow up King James, and several were put to death for trying to kill King Henry VIII, his counselors and others in their government.

The Jesuits were know for their ruthless murderous ways to try "force Catholicism" back into Europe as the Reformation successfully progressed in converting hearts to Christ.

Cal

21st May 2004, 06:52 AM

uhhh hi . . :wave:

The title of your post said that the Mass is the RE-sacrifice of Christ on the altar . .

I would like to simply interject here that no, that is not what the Mass is or does . .

We do not sacrifice Christ again . .

We believe that the sacrifice that Christ made at one point in time at Calvary becomes present on our altar . .

Imagine a thread representing time . . there is one point on it where Christ was crucified . .now move ahead about 2000 years worth of points . . that is were we are in the mass ..

Now imagine that someone pickes up the thread at both points and bends it to make the two points touch . .

That is what we believe happens . .

God is outside, and master of, time and space and make the past present in the future . .

WE do not sacrifice Christ again . .it is the making present of the ONE sacrifice on our altars . . it is a mystery . .

It is a very common misconception that we sacrifice Christ over and over again . . that simply is not true . .

Peace in Him!
I know you don't sacrifice Christ again, He is sitting at the right hand of God and will not return to Earth again until the second coming. But the Catholic doctrine does teach that the mass is the re-sacrifice of Christ. It seems like the words you use to try to explain this re-sacrifice of Christ is the real "mystery."

It seems like you are using words to avoid the obvious problems of the mass by calling it all "a mystery" when Jesus really and physically comes from heaven and enters the bread and wine to be sacrificed again. The RCC teaches that Christ does come down from heaven and is "really and physically" in the mass and is being broken on the Catholic alter again for catholic sins. This sacrifice on the Catholic alter is by a priest who is spiritually authorized to sacrifice after the order Levi. Catholic theolgians use the Levi order to justify this modern day sacrifice and the beautiful priestly robes used today.

It is a horrible thing if the bread is dropped or wine spilled because it is Jesus at this point. That is why the priest after sacrificing Jesus put's a napkin under the lips of those to whom he serves Jesus to and he carefully places Jesus on their tounges so as not to drop him on the floor.

We have a friend who is Roman Catholic who used to abuse her children when they dropped Jesus on the floor. It was horrible to watch this abuse, so we tried to convert her. We made a lot of progress but there is a lot left to be done. Hey, that sounds like the reformation and it's current status today.

Bob Moore

21st May 2004, 07:26 AM

I am sorry to hear that . . we have forgiven the 10's upon 10's of thousands, mostly Catholics, who were killed, burned at the stake, etc, at the hands of Protestants in the 16th century . . . it is estimated that 100,000 were killed within a few decades . .

So you have forgiven those who were murdered for being murdered?

If you wish to discuss excesses, then let's have a new thread. We can start with the Inquisition.

Bob Moore

21st May 2004, 07:48 AM

This is getting dangerously close to debate.

For our fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters.

A nice sentiment, but not true.

How can Rome refer to Protestants as "fellow Christians" while holding us to be cursed? If we are Christians, then we are acceptable to God through His Son, yet Rome dares to pronounce anathema on us, God's children, as though we were outright heretics.

We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Euharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (John 17:21)

If Rome is serious, then it can start by revoking the provisions of Trent. That, of course, isn't going to happen because what Rome means by ecumenism and what the average Protestant means by it are two different animals.

Lynne . . I would hope you, and others here, would respect what communion means to us and respect the wishes of the Church, for when you receive communion at a Catholic Church, you are proclaiming that you are in full agreement with Her . . and if you are not, you would be lying by your actions.
This is why we cannot participate in communion with you in your Church, for we would then be lying . .

Right on.

Celticflower

21st May 2004, 09:00 AM

I grew up in a small town. I attended quite a few Catholic services there over the years, even though I was a member of the Methodist church. And I attended episcopal (Sp?) services. Members of both attended Methodist services.

BUT--none of us would consider it appropriate to take communion in a church we were not a member of or we had problems accepting ALL the beliefs of. It was never a big deal. Everyone knew where everyone else went to church and knew why they where attending a service in another church. If communion was served and you did not want to take it you just sat quietly, said your own private prayer and the service continued.

Maybe being in a small town it was easier to accept the differences and not feel pressured or guilted into anything. I was even introduced to the Catholic bishop once--funny thing is, he knew my Mom from some interfaith committee they had both been on, knew I was not Catholic, and hugged and blessed me anyway. The friend I was at service with thought it was soooo cool while the other friend who was with us (a Mormon) was appalled.

I think the whole thing boils down to R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Your respect for another's belief and their respect for yours. And if you are all Christians there should be no problem.

Celtie

Rising_Suns

21st May 2004, 10:16 AM

How can Rome refer to Protestants as "fellow Christians" while holding us to be cursed? If we are Christians, then we are acceptable to God through His Son, yet Rome dares to pronounce anathema on us, God's children, as though we were outright heretics.

I am sorry, but you have a false misconceptions of what the Catholic Church teaches. She believe Protestants to be part of the body of Christ, and thus part of the universal Church. Please refrain from spreading more false information; we have enough people doing that as it is.

From the Catechism....

818 "… one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”---(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come f