Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[JesusIsFaithful]

Name a doctrine that the Catholic Church "created" from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch.
Just ONE . . .

I reckon you do not know how a little leaven leavens a whole lump works. They can take a little something from someone and not refer to it as a source. So no one can really prove it but they can in another way... by showing where the Catholic Church is on that issue by how they see the Pope as Christ Himself.

As for your 2nd comment in RED - AGAIN, we see Paul using the same language.
In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.”

In the Greek, the word “presence” in this phrase is Prosopone, which means Person. In the PERSON of Christ is a more correct translation. Paul was indicating that they were forgiving sins in the PERSON of Christ, which is translated into Latin as In Persona Christi.

Is Paul speaking heresy??

In no way is that an example of looking at Paul as if they were looking at Christ.

PS - Ignatius's 7 Letters were written on the way to his death by martyrdom in about the year AD 110. The apostles were DEAD.

Dubious at best when saying Ignatius and the apostle John were in agreement when obviously their epistles do not agree.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Ok , lets see what Ignatius has to say and compare...

being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace....

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour.....


I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop....

as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christshall also refresh...

. It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing,


And thats just in the first 2 chapters... So even though you are suggesting, by bolding John on this, that Ignatius denies Jesus is the Christ,
Clearly that is not so...

Ill discuss the ridiculous notion that Ignatius was one of those who went out from the apostolic community later...

You are not reading John's words rightly when he warns of many antichrists... and those who deny Jesus is the Christ can do so by saying they are the christs. Get it? John warns of many antichrists.... and those that would seduce you. So one way of denying Jesus is THE Christ is by having believers see bishops as Christ Himself. That is what Ignatius did with that small leaven in how he was denying Jesus is THE Christ.

The Catholic Church sees the Pope in Christ's stead, right?

Roman Catholics see the pope as Christ’s vicar, which means, substitute. The pope’s Latin title is Vicarius Filii Dei, which means "Substitute for the Son of God.". In the Greek, "antichrist" simply means "in the place of Christ".

So any one that is being exalted to be seen as Christ Himself is an antichrist. Ignatius writing for believers to see a bishop in silence as if they were seeing Christ... is Ignatius denying Jesus is the Christ.

A cult is when someone says nine truths and slips in one lie. I believe that Ignatius went out from John as it looks like John was warning us of Ignatius.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I reckon you do not know how a little leaven leavens a whole lump works. They can take a little something from someone and not refer to it as a source. So no one can really prove it but they can in another way... by showing where the Catholic Church is on that issue by how they see the Pope as Christ Himself.

In other words - you stuck your foot in your mouth and you have NO evidence for your false claim?
That's what I thought . . .

In no way is that an example of looking at Paul as if they were looking at Christ.

Paul said that he was forgiving sins in the "Person of Christ" (in Persona Chirsti).
How is that ANY different from what Ignatius wrote about the people seeing the Bishop in Persona Christi??

Your hypocrisy is astounding . . .

Dubious at best when saying Ignatius and the apostle John were in agreement when obviously their epistles do not agree.

And you have YET to illustrate just HOW they don't agree.
I've proven you WRONG at every point so far . . .

 

[Philip James]

A cult is when someone says nine truths and slips in one lie. I believe that Ignatius went out from John as it looks like John was warning us of Ignatius

Once again youre putting your preconcieved ideas into John's words...

John said the anrichrists deny Jesus is the Christ and, as i showed, clearly this is NOT the case with Ignatius.

As for him going out from the apostolic community, Polycarp would have had nothing to do with him if thta were true, and the apolstolic churches would not have hailed him as a hero and martyr for the faith.
You will not find any Christian in the early Church accusing Ignatius of heresy or being a false teacher or an anrichrist... But YOU 2000 years later are going to judge him such?
Ludicrous...

Of course you have to try and discredit him because his writings show how remarkably the Church in 100 AD looks like the Catholic, Orthodox ans Coptic churches today...

Proof that those who have gone out from us are the ones that John is warning about...

Ignatius' writings were not included in the canon of scripture because hes from the generation after the apostles, not because his letters may or may not have been inspired.

Peace

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

In other words - you stuck your foot in your mouth and you have NO evidence for your false claim?
That's what I thought . . .

I noticed how you like to highlight a certain portion of my statement at the expense of everything else much in the same way you do with scripture.

Paul said that he was forgiving sins in the "Person of Christ" (in Persona Chirsti).
How is that ANY different from what Ignatius wrote about the people seeing the Bishop in Persona Christi??

Your hypocrisy is astounding . . .

The version you had provided went in this wise;

In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.”

It was the KJV that uses person; not presence.

2 Corinthians 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; KJV

If you ignore how that verse begins, then yeah....I can see why you would take your former version as something Paul was doing FOR THEM in the presence of Christ, but I am not ignoring the ramification of how that verse began. Your former version gave me the impression that Paul was offering assurances that he has forgiven whomever they have forgiven that he meant what he had said being in the presence of Christ since Jesus Christ dwells in all believers that Christ knows that Paul has done so. So that was my error for reading that in your former version that you had given before.

The KJV changes the message wherein I do not see Paul doing it with the knowledge that Jesus Christ is aware of his agreement with those that forgives others, but doing it in the person of Christ as in doing it in the character of Christ when giving assurances that he has forgiven whosoever they have forgiven. In other words, Paul wanted others to know that those that forgive others, Paul has forgiven those they have forgiven as well.

Paul was saying "for your sake" in addressing those that were forgiving others to offer them assurances that he was following Christ's example to him in Christ forgiving him and so in the person and character of Christ, he is forgiving others that were being forgiven by those he was addressing.

Paul was not advocating that he was taking Christ's place in forgiving those he was addressing since those he was addressing were the ones that were forgiving others.

2 Corinthians 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; KJV

So as Paul forgives others as in the example and person of Christ has forgiven Him, for the sake of those who forgive others, so that they have the assurance that when they do forgive others, they also do so in the person of Christ in how He has forgiven them.

So your former version misled me into seeing Paul offering assurance that he was also forgiving whomsoever they were forgiving as Paul doing so also in the Presence of Christ, wherein the KJV has Paul offering assurances still BUT he was addressing those that have forgiven others as he was forgiving those they have forgiven for their sake by signifying that they were all doing so in the person of Christ in how Christ has forgiven them.

So Paul was not forgiving those he was addressing for their sake when he was giving assurances for their sake that he too has forgiven whomsoever they have forgiven, knowing that they do so in the person of Christ in how He has forgiven them and Paul.

There is no way you can make that verse say that Paul was taking Christ's place in forgiving them for their sake when they were not asking Paul for forgiveness. Paul was offering assurances to those that whomever they forgive, so will he also... in the manner of Christ.

If we go to Strong's concordance.. we find some help with the intent of Paul's message in that verse.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

proswpon
prosopon

"from proV - pros 4314 and ops (the visage, from 3700); the front (as being towards view), i.e. the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication, presence, person:--(outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men's) person, presence."

So I see "person" as in the manner of or after the fashion of Christ.

A lot of words would have to change for how you are applying that verse to mean.

2 Corinthians 2:10 Ask me to forgive any thing, I will forgive: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it as the Christ; apostate version

And you have YET to illustrate just HOW they don't agree.
I've proven you WRONG at every point so far . . .

Well, you should have used the KJV for 2 Corinthians 2:10, but still you are wrong for applying it as if Paul was taking Christ's place as God for forgiving their sins against God.

Believers should feel free to go to Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness for their sins against God. They do not need anybody else on earth for that.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Paul was only offering assurances to others that he will forgive others that they have forgiven in the person, as in the manner of Christ in 2 Corinthians 2:10. That is the only way I can read that in the KJV when he is not addressing those that are asking for forgiveness.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Once again youre putting your preconcieved ideas into John's words...

John said the anrichrists deny Jesus is the Christ and, as i showed, clearly this is NOT the case with Ignatius.

As for him going out from the apostolic community, Polycarp would have had nothing to do with him if thta were true, and the apolstolic churches would not have hailed him as a hero and martyr for the faith.
You will not find any Christian in the early Church accusing Ignatius of heresy or being a false teacher or an anrichrist... But YOU 2000 years later are going to judge him such?
Ludicrous...

Of course you have to try and discredit him because his writings show how remarkably the Church in 100 AD looks like the Catholic, Orthodox ans Coptic churches today...

Proof that those who have gone out from us are the ones that John is warning about...

Ignatius' writings were not included in the canon of scripture because hes from the generation after the apostles, not because his letters may or may not have been inspired.

Peace

Anyone, even a saved believer, taking the place of Christ is the antichrist.

Ignatius exalting a silent bishop as an example of managing God's House AND on top of that, be seen as if they were looking at Christ Himself is something the apostle John would NEVER be in agreement with.

As for Polycarp's confirmation; from the link below:

"According to Tertullian, Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of the Apostle John (Tertullian, Liber de praescriptione haereticorum) and Irenaeus (Irenaeus, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus). Irenaeus reports that the apostles appointed Polycarp as the overseer of the Church in Smyrna (Ibid)."

That is a lot to take at face value and hardly a word from John's approval of him.

I do not care to read Tertullian or Ploycarp any more. That is just following the white rabbit down the rabbit hole.

I understand what the apostle John meant; those who seduce are those seeking others to see them as Christ Himself; to take his authority over His words which is the final authority. Jesus is the Head of every believer and so obviously, the Pope being seen as Christ's vicar should be blunt enough to see that as the antichrist; what John warned us about.

I do not know what the presbyter is to be taken as as mentioned by Polycarp, but you should study what the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is which is about establishing a heirarchy over churches as the name means conquer of the laity whereas the deeds of the Nicolaitanes are the sexual immorality. Both the doctrine and the deeds of the Nicolaitanes are what God hates as mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

The Catholic Church is not the only denomenation guilty of having an authority outside the local assembly when only the Word of God is that authority.

 

[Philip James]

Anyone, even a saved believer, taking the place of Christ is the antichrist

The bishops are not replacing Christ, but rather , as head of the local church represent Christ who is head of the whole Church... How can we say we serve the King we cannot see if we refuse to serve His ministers that we can see?

I noticed on another thread you said :

Discipleship must be lacking if the church has only the pastor representing Jesus Christ of their church being a light in the community they live in.

So clearly you dont have a problem with the bishop representing Christ, else you are being a hypocrite

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

The bishops are not replacing Christ, but rather , as head of the local church represent Christ who is head of the whole Church... How can we say we serve the King we cannot see if we refuse to serve His ministers that we can see?

I noticed on another thread you said :

So clearly you dont have a problem with the bishop representing Christ, else you are being a hypocrite

If any one that is representing Christ in the manner that we are to see him as Christ Himself is an antichrist.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Ignatius writing to believers to revere a bishop that is in silence as if they were looking on Christ Himself is hardly a bishop to follow by example nor is he representing Christ by his silence in managing the house of God.

Dare I suspect that Ignatius was laying the groundwork for the Church at Rome to send uneducated and unskilled in the word con men, posing as bishops when they are really collectors for a portion of the bounty to send to the Church at Rome? I cannot prove it other than to see where the Church at Rome is at today in collecting a portion from all the Catholic churches abroad.

Tell me what you believe Christ's Vicar is to mean if not replacing Christ as Head of every believer and the church, the body of believers?

 

[Josiah]

Can you give me an example of where Ignatius is in contradiction with John's Gospel regarding the Eucharist? Please be succinct.

I'd not claim a "contradiction" but there is a different dogma. IF John 6 is about the Eucharist (and you've not proven that Jesus is speaking of something that wouldn't exist for years), then John 6 supports Real Presence (Position #1) and clearly NOT Transubstantiation (Position #2) - the RC Eucharistic Dogma since 1551; it simply would support a position different than the RCC's unique new dogma. There's NOTHING in John 6 about anything not being but rather "changing" via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation, NOTHING about something not fully existing but only being an Aristotelian Accident.


- Josiah




.

 

[Philip James]

Tell me what you believe Christ's Vicar is to mean if not replacing Christ as Head of every believer and the church, the body of believers?

A vicar is one who acts with the authority of his superior.

Thus the vicar of Christ, acts with Christs authority.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Peace!

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

A vicar is one who acts with the authority of his superior.

Thus the vicar of Christ, acts with Christs authority.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Peace!

Can you give me a link from an official Catholic website citing that in explaining what Christ's Vicar means? Thanks in advance.

 

[Philip James]

Can you give me a link from an official Catholic website citing that in explaining what Christ's Vicar means? Thanks in advance.

Vicar: In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction

Taken from: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vicar

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Vicar: In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction

Taken from: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vicar

Thanks for sharing, however...in quoting this also from that site with what you had quoted:

"When vicars have ordinary jurisdiction, their rights and duties in general are the same as those of other ordinary prelates, but their particular obligations must be learnt from the office they hold. The same is to be said of the cessation of their powers, which are terminated by resignation, etc., with the addition, however, of some special regulations for particular vicarships, as that of vicar-general."

What happens when vicars do not have "ordinary jurisdiction" but claiming to have supernatural jurisdiction in taking the place of Christ as the Head of the Church? It testifies that vicars having ordinary jurisdiction whose resignation includes the cessation of their powers. Is that inferring to Jesus Christ resigning from being the Head of the Church for which the Pope is laying claim to?

At the same site you refer to, I put in a search for the Vicar of Christ as the Pope and found this.

"A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

So the phrase "Vicar of Christ" is more than just what you had referred to as vicar, respectively. It would be hard to draw the line of distinction from the apostle John's warning of those that would seduce others to see them as Christ or in His stead as Head of the Church.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Paul is saying this even after Christ has ascended above. Paul is not giving any leeway for someone else to serve as the Head of the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'd not claim a "contradiction" but there is a different dogma. IF John 6 is about the Eucharist (and you've not proven that Jesus is speaking of something that wouldn't exist for years), then John 6 supports Real Presence (Position #1) and clearly NOT Transubstantiation (Position #2) - the RC Eucharistic Dogma since 1551; it simply would support a position different than the RCC's unique new dogma. There's NOTHING in John 6 about anything not being but rather "changing" via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation, NOTHING about something not fully existing but only being an Aristotelian Accident. Josiah

This has ALWAYS been my favorite argument against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.

- A non-Catholic Christian can believe that God merely spoke - and the universe leaped into existence out of NOTHING.
- They can believe that God opened up the Sea to allow people to cross through it.
- They can believe that Jesus took ordinary Water - without touching it - and turned it into choice wine.
- They can believe that He made blind people see and crippled people walk - just by praying over them.
- They can believe that He spoke to dead people and they came back to life.

HOWEVER, God CAN'T turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ because THAT is just "too crazy" to believe.
What a pathetic excuse for faith.

As for Ignatius speaking about the Eucharist as a student of John - NOBODY spoke more about the Eucharist than John did - and Ignatius was simply proving himself John's student.

 

[Josiah]

This has ALWAYS been my favorite argument against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.

- A non-Catholic Christian can believe that God merely spoke - and the universe leaped into existence out of NOTHING.
- They can believe that God opened up the Sea to allow people to cross through it.
- They can believe that Jesus took ordinary Water - without touching it - and turned it into choice wine.
- They can believe that He made blind people see and crippled people walk - just by praying over them.
- They can believe that He spoke to dead people and they came back to life.

Again, you entirely evaded what has been posted to you....

You brought up John 6 to support the new Eucharistic Dogma of your denomination (without even attempted to show that's the topic of the chapter). But even accepting that it is, there's NOTHING in John 6 that REMOTELY supports Transubstantiation. Yes, IF it's about Communion, it does support Real Presence (Position # 1 of the opening post) but it sure throws Transubstantiation under the bus... NOTHING in John 6 about "change" (the word never once appears in the chapter), NOTHING about anything not really being there but only an Aristotelian Accident of such (the words "not" "appearance" "Aristotel" "Accidents" "seems" all never once appear in the text).

As Catholics at times do, you quoted a Scripture that shows your unique dogma to be entirely without any biblical support - worse - you actually substantiate the view of OTHERS.



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, you entirely evaded what has been posted to you....

You brought up John 6 to support the new Eucharistic Dogma of your denomination (without even attempted to show that's the topic of the chapter). But even accepting that it is, there's NOTHING in John 6 that REMOTELY supports Transubstantiation. Yes, IF it's about Communion, it does support Real Presence (Position # 1 of the opening post) but it sure throws Transubstantiation under the bus... NOTHING in John 6 about "change" (the word never once appears in the chapter), NOTHING about anything not really being there but only an Aristotelian Accident of such (the words "not" "appearance" "Aristotel" "Accidents" "seems" all never once appear in the text).

As Catholics at times do, you quoted a Scripture that shows your unique dogma to be entirely without any biblical support - worse - you actually substantiate the view of OTHERS.

I haven't "evaded" anything.

I have repeatedly stated that The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is the "WHAT" regarding the Eucharist - and the Last Supper narratives are the "HOW".

In other words - In John 6, Jesus told His followers that they had to EAT and DRINK their Paschal Lamb (Christ). At the Last Supper - He showed them HOW to do this sacramentally.

To review - yet again - John 6 does NOT address Transubstantiation.
The Last Supper does.

 

[Josiah]

John 6 does NOT address Transubstantiation.

Right.

Thus bringing up John 6 in this thread is nonsense. IF John 6 were about the Eucharist, it would support Position 1 (Real Presence) but it would leave position 2 (Transubstantiation) entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated.

The Last Supper does.

Wrong.

There is nothing in any text about anything that supports Transubstantiation; it has nothing to do with Scripture - never has, never will. A denomination can invent it, even declare it, but it's nonsense to argue that Scripture teaches it.


.

 

[Enoch111]

A denomination can invent it, even declare it, but it's nonsense to argue that Scripture teaches it.

If the RCC had not invented the idea of a *real* sacrifice, with a *real* priest, and a *real* altar -- meaning that the *real* Christ (body and blood) is sacrificed daily -- we would not have these unbiblical teachings about transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

When the Bible categorically states that Christ made ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever, then it is sacreligous to have invented the Mass. But the Catholic Encyclopedia says:"... the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion."

 

[BreadOfLife]

Right.
Thus bringing up John 6 in this thread is nonsense. IF John 6 were about the Eucharist, it would support Position 1 (Real Presence) but it would leave position 2 (Transubstantiation) entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated.

No - this is a thread ABOUT the Eucharist - so John 6 is a perfect fit since the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:22-59) is ALL about the Eucharist.

John 6:53
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you EAT (trogo) the FLESH (sarx)of the Son of Man and DRINK (pee'-no) his BLOOD (hah'-ee-mah), you have no life in you. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Wrong.

There is nothing in any text about anything that supports Transubstantiation; it has nothing to do with Scripture - never has, never will. A denomination can invent it, even declare it, but it's nonsense to argue that Scripture teaches it.

No - the ONLY thing "wrong" here is your rejection of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Jesus picked up bread and wine and said to the Apostles "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood".

Sounds pretty transubstantive to me . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If the RCC had not invented the idea of a *real* sacrifice, with a *real* priest, and a *real* altar -- meaning that the *real* Christ (body and blood) is sacrificed daily -- we would not have these unbiblical teachings about transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

When the Bible categorically states that Christ made ONE SACRIFICE for sins forever, then it is sacreligous to have invented the Mass. But the Catholic Encyclopedia says:"... the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion.

And the Church has ALwAYS taught that the Eucharist is a RE-presentation of that ONE sacrifice, which is an ETERNAL sacrifice (Rev. 13:8).

There is nothing MORE Biblical than that . . .