Sam Lowry said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sam Lowry said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sam Lowry said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sam Lowry said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sam Lowry said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sam Lowry said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
Of course you don't, you see it as a one time, i believe, i accepted, done. Which is great for that snapshot in time. Jesus may have been past, present and future, but it is really not about that. It is what we do to het through the narrow gate. So you believed yesterday.
How about the next day? 1 year later? 5? 20?
Sorry, my view is we reaffirm. We do that through the sacraments.
I think it is funny we have these conversations, spending so much time beating each other up over "shades of blue" when we agree on 90%. This effort should be put into those that dont agree at all. You do realize we are arguing trivialities of the same message.
The point has, again, flown over your head. Nothing you're saying explains why your church makes the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice each time it is performed, which is nearly half a million times in the world every day, if Jesus sacrifice on the cross was "once for all time" that is propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins.
This is not simply a "reaffirming". This is not "agreement on 90%". This is not a "triviality". This is a complete rejection of the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and his completed work, and a slap to his face. It's a wicked belief and practice. We couldn't possible be any more far apart on this than we are.
Old Testament sacrifices consisted of two parts, the sacrifice and the offering. For example, on the day of atonement, the priest was to slaughter a bull, then sprinkle its blood seven times in the holy of holies. Yet the bull was killed only once, not seven times. Similarly, the Eucharist is a re-offering of the sacrifice already accomplished.
Jesus' "finished" the work of sacrifice through his ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice that completely fulfills, thus completely abolishes, the Old Testament sacrificial system than could never perfect. Scripture proclaims that Jesus' sacrifice was not like the sacrifices in the Old Testament, that is was superior to all of it - it was complete, perfect, once-for-all-time, gave believers direct acces to God, and established a whole new covenant (Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
Catholics would not disagree with any of this. Yet the old sacrifices were a type of the new. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between Jesus' one-time sacrifice and the continual offering he commanded at the Last Supper. Do Protestants believe Jesus' blood is shed all over again every time it serves to blot out your sins?
I'm sorry - if Roman Catholics are "re-presenting" Jesus sacrifice in the Eucharist hundreds of thousands of times every day across the world, which RC views each one to be an actual, propitiatory sacrifice, then they simply DO NOT believe Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a finished work, once for all time.
Yes, we do.
As for venial sins, the mass is not the sort of time-bound bookkeeping exercise that you seem to think. It is a way of receiving the grace that Christ offers us.
If you do, then it's yet another example in a long list of Roman Catholic double talk. It just isn't rational or tenable to believe that Jesus needs to be re-presented in actual, propiatory sacrifice hundreds of thousands of times all over the world every day that can forgive venial sins commited since the last mass... and then also believe that Jesus' sacrifice 2000 years ago was "once for all time" and "propitiatory for all past, present, and future sins."
And we don't need to receive Jesus' grace by performing rites and rituals. We receive it by faith.
Attending mass isn't necessary to receive forgiveness for venial sins, nor is it sufficient to receive forgiveness for mortal sins. You're imagining a contingency that doesn't exist.
Sacraments like baptism and communion (what you call rites and rituals) don't negate the importance of faith. They are needed because Christ prescribed them as means of receiving grace.
You just don't want to face the point - your church teaches that the mass CAN bring propitiation for new venial sins. But why weren't they already propitiated, if your church says it believes Jesus' sacrifice on the cross already did that?
Jesus is pretty clear that by faith alone apart from rites and rituals, we receive his grace. It's why he gave it to the thief on the cross, the sinful woman in Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius. No rites and rituals were necessary. The house of Cornelius received water baptism, but that was only after they had already received the Holy Spirit.
Speaking of the house of Cornelius - according to your RC belief, since they were without the Eucharist, they were still not saved. According to your belief, they had not received the "grace" from Jesus yet. If any one of them died soon after, they would have gone to Hell... even when they believed, received the Holy Spirit, and were water baptized. And that also contradicts the RC belief that water baptism saves. How does RC resolve this quandary? It can't. It means the belief is untenable. Honest, rational believers can see this. People mind-trapped into the belief that their church can't be wrong, can not.
Mass can bring forgiveness for new sins. Propitiation was accomplished by Christ on the cross.
As I've explained, "no life without the bread" is a bigger problem from the OSAS point of view that it is from mine. Your fallback was that the passage doesn't even refer to communion at all, so I don't know why you're mentioning it. Catholics don't believe baptism "saves" in the once-saved-always-saved sense of the word. This is all another bundle of confusion and contradictions created by your own misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
According to your church, the Eucharist in the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. If propitiation was accomplished on the cross, as a finished, once for all time work for all past, present, and future sins, there wouldn't be a need for it.
I think you're the one confused about your own church's arguments. "Baptism now saves you" is always cited as proof that baptism is required for salvation. Well, how can baptism save you, if you can die right after but still not be saved, according to your literal interpretation of "you must eat my flesh" to have eternal life? Why don't you answer the question - if the house of Cornelius, who heard and believed the gospel, received the Holy Spirit, and who were water baptized all suddenly died, would they go to heaven, even though they didn't partake in the Eucharist, where one eats the flesh of Jesus as per the RC view of John 6?
Already explained. The Eucharist is a re-offering of Christ's sacrifice. The sacraments are required, if at all possible, but perseverance in the faith is also necessary.
He is intentionally misunderstanding it, but a slight correction to you Sam from the CCC (cross references deleted). See 1105 for what is offered:
The Holy Spirit makes present the mystery of Christ 1104 Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.
1105 The
Epiclesis ("invocation upon") is the intercession in which the priest begs the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, so that the offerings may become the body and blood of Christ and that the faithful by receiving them, may themselves become a living offering to God.
1106
Together with the anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist: You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine ... the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought. ... Let it be enough for you to understand that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through and in himself, took flesh.
1107The Holy Spirit's transforming power in the liturgy hastens the coming of the kingdom and the consummation of the mystery of salvation. While we wait in hope he causes us really to anticipate the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity. Sent by the Father who hears the epiclesis of the Church, the Spirit gives life to those who accept him and is, even now, the "guarantee" of their inheritance.
*****
The wrinkle, as I would explain it, is that God exists outside of the laws of nature, including time and space (especially as we understand them). So while the rational thinker is bound by the laws of the universe as we understand them, God is not. Thus, the Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus present at The Last Supper in the consecrated wine and bread and then ultimately at Calvary is the same as at the Mass after the Epiclesis (if you have ever been to a Catholic Mass and wondered about the bell ringing in the middle of Mass, it is after the Epiclesis to announce the presence of the Lord among us). The "re-presentation" in Catholic parlance is not about re-presenting the Sacrifice of the Cross, but asking God to make Christ present in our moment (as we can understand and perceive the current moment) and connecting us to that moment in our history that occurred on Calvary. A moment that exists for eternity and outside of the limits of time and space.
For the benefit of others:
The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation consists of four pillars.
1. Contrition;
2. Confession;
3. Absolution; and
4. Satisfaction (penance).
The above four steps I think are fairly self-explanatory and are generally labeled by the laity as "Confession" for the forgiveness of sins.
Alternatively, the Mass can be used to wipe away venial sin in the following way:
General confession recited by all Mass attenders at the very beginning of Mass covers steps 1 and 2 (typically the Confiteor is recited, but other short forms exist and are used less frequently); immediately thereafter the Priest grants a general absolution to all present who completed steps 1 and 2 via the general confession and then participation in the Eucharist wipes away sin by bringing us closer to Christ.
On the rare occasion we are late to Mass and miss the general confession/absolution at the start of Mass, the practice in my family is not participate in the Eucharist but rather accept a blessing in its place.
The Church is extremely committed to encouraging participation in the Eucharist to the point that it is held to be a moral necessity for adults who have reached the age of reason. Practically speaking, the Church all but requires participation in the Eucharist. But, strictly speaking, the Church does not teach the Eucharist is an absolute necessity for salvation, instead labeling it a normative necessity. Contra Baptism, which the Church does classify as an absolute necessity.
Yes, I know many of you reject these ideas. No need to clap back, just wanted the record set straight somewhere in these pages.
