An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

[H. Richard]

When a person, or religious organization, keeps inventing sacraments, then it is they're keeping of the sacraments they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why keep those invented sacraments?

And when one goes to a confessional and tells a "priest" about their sins, then it is their going to the confessional and doing the confession ritual and penance that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why not go directly to God, from within the heart, through Christ for the forgiveness of sins as Christ taught?

Christ never taught anything about ritualistic sacraments, or going to confessionals. He taught faith. It is only the flesh, seeking to feel it has earned its spiritual relationship with God that comes up with the formulation "these are the things I do because of faith." Christ's teaching was that faith is not about man "doing." It is faith in what God has, and will, do.

Just so that everyone knows I'm not singling out the Catholics, it would be entirely possible to write exactly what I just wrote, only substituting the ritual and legalism details of any protestant denomination for the mass/ritualistic sacraments/confessional part, and the doctrinal point would be just as valid.

Christ did indeed teach that salvation and relationship with God is based on faith and only faith.

It is the Catholic Church that invented all the nonsense about Mary being a lifelong virgin, and that one prays to her to get healing, favors, and whatever. And it is the Catholic Church, which elects "saints", and says you can pray to them for special favors; isn't it? I don't remember Christ teaching anything about praying to Mary or "saints". And it is the catholic church that teaches that you can't be forgiven for sins without coming to its confessional booth, telling your sins to someone it calls a "priest" and doing whatever penance that "priest" tells them to do; right? That is the Catholic Church, isn't it? Or is the church that does all that stuff some other church and I just got confused for a second? This isn't a stereotype, it is just fact. Is the Catholic Church now teaching that one simply goes to God in personal prayer about sin and is forgiven based on the perfection and efficacy of Christ's work on the cross? If that's what they're teaching these days it would be the first I've heard about it.

If the rituals, ceremonies, legalisms, and taboos the Catholic Church started inventing in the middle of the first millennium are just a natural outgrowth of Christ's teaching (the expression of faith, if you will) then why would not the rituals and ceremonies and taboos and legalisms of any other church be the same? For instance, the day of Pentecost was shortly after Christ's death and resurrection and we are told people were speaking in tongues, etc. So why would it not be valid for Pentecostal churches to say: well, what we do goes all the way back to the days of Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, so when we "speak in tongues" it is simply a natural outgrowth of Christ's ministry and what early Christians did. Therefore, you can't be saved or have a relationship with God unless you join our church and do this "speaking in tongues" thing.

Although most protestant denominations only practice the concept in part, the orthodox (or doctrinal) Christian concept is that all believers in Christ are priests with Jesus Christ as our intermediary with God. Forgiveness for our sins is based on Christ's work on the cross and our faith in Christ and his work. That is why (doctrinally speaking) we can approach God directly in our personal prayers. As for forgiveness of our sins we already have received forgiveness through the Blood of Jesus.

The Catholic Church, AND OTHERS, have taken this concept rooted in grace and turned it into a system called religion whereby humans earn forgiveness from God by going to a particular place (the confessional), "confessing" sins to someone whose business they are not and then performing some more works ("penance") to complete the business of earning God's forgiveness. The concept at the root of it all is that Christ's work on the cross was incomplete or a failure, and so we have to add our works to Christ's work to make them complete.

Nothing could be more out of keeping with the Christian doctrine Paul wrote, which teaches that Christ's work on the cross was complete, perfect and perfectly efficacious.

I will say this, instead of simply changing out a protestant system of works for a catholic system of works a person really should consider Christ's message of faith.

A person can reach the point of exasperation, trying to figure out the un-figurable (which church's or denominational system is the right system to please and impress God). But Christ's message of relationship with God through faith makes all the figuring unnecessary.

I appreciate and agree with the orientation of many posts: the intended grace nature of what the Catholic Church has termed "sacraments" and turned into empty rituals, the spiritual (rather than physical) nature of Christ's church, the idea of all religion as schemes for pleasing God with the energy of the flesh rather than faith, the concept of salvation through faith alone rather than a program of religious works, rituals and observing legalisms, taboos and "sacraments."

I understand that the antiquity of the traditions and rituals the Catholic Church has invented appeal to many, (at least more so than those traditions and rituals invented by the evangelical/fundamentalist protestant churches), but that is their choice. However, these things would come between Jesus and I.

Every church and denomination has "Jesus" and "faith" and "Christ" readily rolling off its collective tongue. But Christ taught that just because one says "Lord, Lord" that doesn't mean that they will have a relationship with God, but only those who do the will of God - and Christ taught that the will of God is his creations responding to him in faith.

I am where I am now because of a volitional choice to respond to Christ's message of faith with faith. And I find that message of faith very comforting indeed: a relationship with, and justification and righteousness before, the God who created my soul based only on my faith in the savior he sent for me (and the guidance of God's own spirit thrown in at no extra charge whatsoever).

All this without having to work, work, work at rituals and taboo observance and magic worked by "saints" and the "virgin Mary" and all the rest of that nonsensical claptrap. Instead "doing" what Christ taught us to do; believe on the one whom God sent and rest and be relieved of our burdens of sin by God's grace.

(Nor any need to search and hunt and figure out and research which church hierarchy's claims to have "truth" or "validity")

I can't get more comfortable than that, and why anyone would choose the works route is beyond me (except I can understand their flesh screaming at them, "ok, so now what do I have to do?")

This is not rocket science. On the one hand you have Christ and Paul clearly teaching faith alone and on the other hand you have the Catholic Church teaching mass attendance, compulsory confession, worshipping Mary, the Lord's table sharing turned into a system of magic, "last rites" for salvation, and on and on. And various other churches teaching a relationship with God based on emotional ecstatic, moral purity of the flesh, ritual observance, etc.

It really doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, or is it anything that requires great academic diligence. I prefer Christ's message of faith.

 

[Windmillcharge]

If you are not attacking the RC why mention them?

There are plenty of rituals in protestant churches, like the hymn prayer sandwich, which in some churches cannot be altered.

 

[Willie T]

I really believe the rituals are often a replacement for following Christ in the rest of life during the week. By performing the rituals, I think many people satisfy themselves that their duty to God has been done for that week.

 

[H. Richard]

If you are not attacking the RC why mention them?

There are plenty of rituals in protestant churches, like the hymn prayer sandwich, which in some churches cannot be altered.

***

I covered that in the OP.

 

[Philip James]

You talk a lot about faith in your OP but dismiss the Faith of the Catholiic church as some kind of man made tradition and 'magic'.
Clearly you are clueless as to what the Catholic church actually teaches and believes.. Perhaps you should find out...

Ill leave you with this.. Considering priests in the church... How do we fall into the rebellion of Korah?

Peace!

 

[H. Richard]

You talk a lot about faith in your OP but dismiss the Faith of the Catholiic church as some kind of man made tradition and 'magic'.
Clearly you are clueless as to what the Catholic church actually teaches and believes.. Perhaps you should find out...

Ill leave you with this.. Considering priests in the church... How do we fall into the rebellion of Korah?

Peace!

IMO all religions teach things people must do that will get people into heaven. They will never teach that Jesus has already atoned for the sins of the whole world. The gospel is very simple.

In case some have forgotten here is Paul's statement as to what the gospel is.

1 Cor 15:1-8
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (see Isaiah 53:6)
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV

The gospel is that Jesus atoned (paid) for all of mankind's sins on the cross. In verse 2 above we see that a person must believe it.

The religions of this world do not want people to know the truth; that God has already paid for mans sins. Our salvation is the work of Jesus on the cross. But mankind will not believe it because they love their religions in which they think they can earn their salvation by what they do in religions.

The one thing that tells me I am right is that all people of region will attack my belief, faith, trust, and confidence in Jesus' work on the cross. Religions do not like it when the true gospel makes their religion unnecessary.

 

[Philip James]

The one thing that tells me I am right is that all people of region will attack my belief, faith, trust, and confidence in Jesus' work on the cross. Religions do not like it when the true gospel makes their religion unnecessary

And yet even though the church Catholic believes and teaches those things, you attack our belief, faith, trust and confidence....

The Spirit of God calls us to unity, of Faith, of baptism, of mind, of praise, of thanksgiving, of voice, of assembly, of celebration, of the table of the Lord...

Why then keep yourself apart from your brothers and sisters?

 

[epostle1]

When a person, or religious organization, keeps inventing sacraments, then it is they're keeping of the sacraments they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why keep those invented sacraments?

It is impossible for the Church to invent sacraments. They come to us from Jesus and the Apostles. Matrimony is a sacrament, is that an invention too?

And when one goes to a confessional and tells a "priest" about their sins, then it is their going to the confessional and doing the confession ritual and penance that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why not go directly to God, from within the heart, through Christ for the forgiveness of sins as Christ taught?
Christ never taught anything about ritualistic sacraments, or going to confessionals. He taught faith. It is only the flesh, seeking to feel it has earned its spiritual relationship with God that comes up with the formulation "these are the things I do because of faith." Christ's teaching was that faith is not about man "doing." It is faith in what God has, and will, do.

So you deny/ignore John 20:23??? The Church did not invent confessionals, the Jews had it first.
John 20:22 – the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 – Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Was Jesus lying? Was John lying?

Just so that everyone knows I'm not singling out the Catholics, it would be entirely possible to write exactly what I just wrote, only substituting the ritual and legalism details of any protestant denomination for the mass/ritualistic sacraments/confessional part, and the doctrinal point would be just as valid.

Just so that everyone knows, Richard is singling out the Catholics He is an anti-Catholic of the worst kind. Another phony man.
You are looking at sacraments with the eyes of the world, and only the externals of what is visible. A sacrament without the proper disposition of the soul is meaningless ritual, but is that what is really going on? If you are going to accuse sacramentalism of empty ritual, then you owe it to yourself, and intellectual honesty to find out what they are.

Christ did indeed teach that salvation and relationship with God is based on faith and only faith.

Jesus taught a lot about faith, and faith is the beginning of justification, but faith alone is not in the Bible.

It is the Catholic Church that invented all the nonsense about Mary being a lifelong virgin, and that one prays to her to get healing, favors, and whatever. And it is the Catholic Church, which elects "saints", and says you can pray to them for special favors; isn't it? I don't remember Christ teaching anything about praying to Mary or "saints". And it is the catholic church that teaches that you can't be forgiven for sins without coming to its confessional booth, telling your sins to someone it calls a "priest" and doing whatever penance that "priest" tells them to do; right? That is the Catholic Church, isn't it? Or is the church that does all that stuff some other church and I just got confused for a second? This isn't a stereotype, it is just fact. Is the Catholic Church now teaching that one simply goes to God in personal prayer about sin and is forgiven based on the perfection and efficacy of Christ's work on the cross? If that's what they're teaching these days it would be the first I've heard about it.

If you want a good response, please don't rant with 15 different topics at once. You preach against Catholicism with the same accuracy as a Jehovah's Witness.

If the rituals, ceremonies, legalisms, and taboos the Catholic Church started inventing in the middle of the first millennium are just a natural outgrowth of Christ's teaching (the expression of faith, if you will) then why would not the rituals and ceremonies and taboos and legalisms of any other church be the same? For instance, the day of Pentecost was shortly after Christ's death and resurrection and we are told people were speaking in tongues, etc. So why would it not be valid for Pentecostal churches to say: well, what we do goes all the way back to the days of Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, so when we "speak in tongues" it is simply a natural outgrowth of Christ's ministry and what early Christians did. Therefore, you can't be saved or have a relationship with God unless you join our church and do this "speaking in tongues" thing.

The page isn't long enough to address such a list of anti-Catholic nonsense. Not all Protestant faith expressions (Pentecostals) are exactly the same as yours. That is no basis to determine if they are wrong.

Although most protestant denominations only practice the concept in part, the orthodox (or doctrinal) Christian concept is that all believers in Christ are priests with Jesus Christ as our intermediary with God.

The common priesthood of all believers has been a Catholic teaching for 2000 years. Forgiveness for our sins is based on Christ's work on the cross and our faith in Christ and his work. That is why (doctrinally speaking) we can approach God directly in our personal prayers. As for forgiveness of our sins we already have received forgiveness through the Blood of Jesus.[/quote] One can and should approach God directly, but confessing sins to a priest is a sacrament, deeply intimate with Jesus, is for Catholics and not something for non-Catholics to mock because they saw it on a Hollywood movie. How many times have you been corrected on your nonsense, Richard? Back at it again, I see.

 

[epostle1]

The Catholic Church, AND OTHERS, have taken this concept rooted in grace and turned it into a system called religion whereby humans earn forgiveness from God by going to a particular place (the confessional), "confessing" sins to someone whose business they are not and then performing some more works ("penance") to complete the business of earning God's forgiveness. The concept at the root of it all is that Christ's work on the cross was incomplete or a failure, and so we have to add our works to Christ's work to make them complete.

I don't mean to be rude, but your ignorance of Catholicism is profound.

Nothing could be more out of keeping with the Christian doctrine Paul wrote, which teaches that Christ's work on the cross was complete, perfect and perfectly efficacious.

The whole world stopped sinning when Jesus died?

I will say this, instead of simply changing out a protestant system of works for a catholic system of works a person really should consider Christ's message of faith.

Salvation by works apart from the grace of Christ is a heresy. You have been told this about 20 times.

A person can reach the point of exasperation, trying to figure out the un-figurable (which church's or denominational system is the right system to please and impress God). But Christ's message of relationship with God through faith makes all the figuring unnecessary.

We are no longer required to think?

I appreciate and agree with the orientation of many posts: the intended grace nature of what the Catholic Church has termed "sacraments" and turned into empty rituals, the spiritual (rather than physical) nature of Christ's church, the idea of all religion as schemes for pleasing God with the energy of the flesh rather than faith, the concept of salvation through faith alone rather than a program of religious works, rituals and observing legalisms, taboos and "sacraments."

Matrimony is a sacrament. Is that wrong too? Where does "schemes for pleasing God" come from?

I understand ...

Sorry, but you haven't the slightest understanding. You understand myths, lies and falsehoods.

that the antiquity of the traditions and rituals the Catholic Church has invented appeal to many, (at least more so than those traditions and rituals invented by the evangelical/fundamentalist protestant churches), but that is their choice. However, these things would come between Jesus and I.

The same with me, the way you put it.

Every church and denomination has "Jesus" and "faith" and "Christ" readily rolling off its collective tongue. But Christ taught that just because one says "Lord, Lord" that doesn't mean that they will have a relationship with God, but only those who do the will of God - and Christ taught that the will of God is his creations responding to him in faith.
I am where I am now because of a volitional choice to respond to Christ's message of faith with faith.

You don't have enough faith to believe Jesus would preserve His Church.

And I find that message of faith very comforting indeed: a relationship with, and justification and righteousness before, the God who created my soul based only on my faith in the savior he sent for me (and the guidance of God's own spirit thrown in at no extra charge whatsoever).

All this without having to work, work, work at rituals and taboo observance and magic worked by "saints" and the "virgin Mary" and all the rest of that nonsensical claptrap. Instead "doing" what Christ taught us to do; believe on the one whom God sent and rest and be relieved of our burdens of sin by God's grace.

(Nor any need to search and hunt and figure out and research which church hierarchy's claims to have "truth" or "validity")

I can't get more comfortable than that, and why anyone would choose the works route is beyond me (except I can understand their flesh screaming at them, "ok, so now what do I have to do?")

This is not rocket science. On the one hand you have Christ and Paul clearly teaching faith alone

Paul never taught faith alone. It's nowhere in scripture. It is a false man made tradition of men.

and on the other hand you have the Catholic Church teaching mass attendance, compulsory confession, worshipping Mary, the Lord's table sharing turned into a system of magic, "last rites" for salvation, and on and on. And various other churches teaching a relationship with God based on emotional ecstatic, moral purity of the flesh, ritual observance, etc.

Must you be so insulting?

 

[epostle1]

God became man. The Incarnation was the event in salvation history that raised matter to previously unknown heights. All created matter was “good” from the start (Gen 1:25), but was “glorified” by the Incarnation.

Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Quite the contrary: it was the Incarnation that fully established sacramentalism as a principle in the Christian religion. The latter may be defined as the belief that matter can convey grace. It’s really that simple, at bottom, or in essence. God uses matter both to help us live better lives (sanctification) and to ultimately save us (regeneration and justification), starting with baptism itself.

The atonement or redemption of Christ (His death on the cross for us) was not purely “spiritual.” It was as physical (“sacramental,” if you will) as it could be, as well as spiritual. Protestants often piously refer to “the Blood of Jesus,” and rightly so (see Rev 5:9; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Jn 1:7; etc.). This is explicitly sacramental thinking.

Sacramentalism and the Bible

It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, essential aspect of His work as our Redeemer and Savior. One can’t avoid this: “he was bruised for our iniquities” (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that many appear to possess a pronounced hostility to the sacramental belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, seeing that it flows so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and the Crucifixion itself. This brings to mind an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way a majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist.

For them, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man (such a thought is blasphemous; unthinkable!). For many (not all) Protestants, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, physically, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. The dynamic or underlying premise is the same. If Christ could become man, He can surely will to be actually and truly present in what was formerly (and still looks like) bread and wine, once consecrated.

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the “Body” of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30), and marriage (including its physical aspects) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33; esp. 29-32). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was “persecuted” by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5).

Not only that; in St. Paul’s teaching, one can find a repeated theme of identifying very graphically and literally with Christ and His sufferings (see: 2 Cor 4:10; Phil 2:17; 3:10; 2 Tim 4:6; and above all, Col 1:24).

Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; cf. Mk 16:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5). Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff.; Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7).

Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14). We also observe in Scripture the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19; 13:3; 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5; Lk 13:13; Acts 9:17-18). Even under the old covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:21) — which is also one of the direct evidences for the Catholic practice of the veneration of relics (itself an extension of the sacramental principle).

Not ‘magic charms’

Sacramentalism is a “product” of the Incarnation, just as the Church also is. But we must also understand that the sacraments are not “magic charms.” The Church also teaches that one should have the correct “interior disposition” when receiving them. Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, the great catechist, wrote, in an entry on “Sacramental Dispositions”:

“Condition of soul required for the valid and/or fruitful reception of the sacraments. … In the recipient who has the use of reason is required merely that no obstacles be placed in the way. Such obstacles are a lack of faith or sanctifying grace or of a right intention.”(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Company, 1980, 477)

Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its section on ex opere operato (No. 1128), notes: “Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.”

The sacrament of the Eucharist, for example, will not have a positive effect or convey grace if received by a person in mortal sin (see 1 Cor 11:27-30; CCC #1415), and priestly absolution is null and void without the necessary prerequisite of true repentance.

This is all the more true of sacramentals (things like holy water, scapulars, blessings, miraculous medals, genuflection, etc.), which depend entirely on the inner state of the one using or receiving them. Intent, sincerity, motivation, piety, and suchlike are all supremely important in the Catholic life.

The scapular will not “work” for a person who neglects the pursuit of righteousness and obedience and views it as a “magic charm” (which is occultic superstition) rather than a Catholic sacramental. A piece of cloth cannot rescind the normal duties of the Catholic life. Nor is God some sort of celestial “vending machine.” He wants our hearts; he wants us — not meaningless outward obedience without the proper interior motivation, in love, and by His grace. Sacraments help us, but we must do our part, too.
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2014/07/christ-didnt-abolish-ritual-he-perfected-it/

Richard's screeching is wrong.

 

[H. Richard]

I say, and believe what I say, and I post it, But to some I am doing wrong. So in order to appease those who say bad things about me I must refrain from stating what I believe and just let them state what they believe, RIGHT!!!! In your zeal for your religion you show what it is.

What you write shows who you are. You are those that burned people at the stake for having a different opinion. You have no love for others if they do not believe what you believe.

Someone said "You don't have enough faith to believe Jesus would preserve His Church."" The church is not what you think it is. Paul calls it His Body.
Church = The Church is a "Spiritual Church" (spiritual house 1 Peter 2:4 5) (Mark 14:58) (Acts 17:23 25) (2 Cor. 5:1) (Heb 9:11 and 24) made up of Christians. Since it consists of 'born again Christians' the true Church is as Jesus described a born again Christian in John 3:8.

John 3:8 NKJV
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Therefore, the Church is a spiritual entity, made by the will of God and built without human hands of flesh, and the head of the Church is Jesus Christ who gave his life for it. I, personally feel that no man is to be considered as head of the Church. The Church's visibility in the world is shown through Christians that profess that faith in Jesus‘ work on the cross has saved them, individually and as groups. It is not a religious organization, or building, or certain place. Read LUKE, 17:20 "The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, here it is, or there it is, because the kingdom of God "is" within you.

By the way, thank you all for your kind words that give me crowns in heaven. You don't seem to remember that it is Satan that makes religious people attack others just as the Pharisees did Jesus. God does not do that nor does He look kindly on those that do it.

 

[Philip James]

You don't seem to remember that it is Satan that makes religious people attack others just as the Pharisees did Jesus. God does not do that nor does He look kindly on those that do it.

In light of the unwarranted attack in your OP, perhaps you might start practicing what you preach...

 

[H. Richard]

In light of the unwarranted attack in your OP, perhaps you might start practicing what you preach...

***

So what I write is an unwarranted attack and what you write about me is just wonderful loving words. Give me a break!!!!

In light of the unwarranted attack in your OP, perhaps you might start practicing what you preach...

***

Oh I do practice what I preach. It was the religious that persecuted the prophets in the O.T., It was the religious that had Jesus killed, It was the religious that stoned Stephen to death, It was the religious that followed Paul around trying to get those who believed Paul's gospel to go back under the law. it was the religious that had those that would not bow down to their religion killed, and it is the religious today that will not tell people that the work of salvation was completed on the cross by Jesus. Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world but the religious will not believe it nor do they want anyone else to believe it.

You say it is my unwarranted attack; I think it is warranted since religions will not teach the meaning of the cross.

 

[Philip James]

Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world but the religious will not believe it nor do they want anyone else to believe it.

Again, you show your ignorance of what the Church catholic teaches and believes...

Perhaps you should find out...

 

[H. Richard]

Again, you show your ignorance of what the Church catholic teaches and believes...

Perhaps you should find out...

***

If your church believed it then they would have no basis for it to continue.

 

[Philip James]

***

If your church believed it then they would have no basis for it to continue.

That is a nonsensical statement.

In beleiving that Jesus is our saviour, we are bound to continue, to take that message to the world, to grow in the peace and the love of Christ, to live the life both individually and collectively that we are called to..

I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,

with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,

striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:
one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;

one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

And yet even though the church Catholic believes and teaches those things, you attack our belief, faith, trust and confidence....

The Spirit of God calls us to unity, of Faith, of baptism, of mind, of praise, of thanksgiving, of voice, of assembly, of celebration, of the table of the Lord...

Why then keep yourself apart from your brothers and sisters?

Does the Catholic Church teach that the Eucharist in the Mass is Christ's one time sacrifice for sins "made present" to be received again? If so, scriptur does reproves taking communion in that way.

Hebrews 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.....10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:.............

Meaning that one time sacrifice for sins was enough to give you eternal life as the Holy Ghost is witnessing by dwelling within us; continuing....

Hebrews 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

That means no more offering for sins is needed; believers are saved; period.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Salvation is not lost for Catholics even when they have knowledge that there is no need for any more sacrifice for sins, but they are in trouble for thinking they need to receive that one time sacrifice for sins "again".

That is my understanding of what is going on in the Mass as only a priest by being celibate can perform this ritual, but scriptures reproves that too.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Communion can only be symbolic and that is why having the bread be literally His body and the wine literally His blood is idolatry, along with believing that Christ's Presence is in them to be received again of that one time sacrifice for sins. To treat the blood of the New Covenant to be on par with the blood of goats and bulls that His sacrifice has to be repeatedly received offends God the Father.

Catholics are still His people, but Jesus warned all believers to prove everything by Him & His words to be ready to be received by Him so just because a believer is not Catholic, neither he nor she is free from heeding His call to discern with Him & His words in the KJV to depart from iniquity in these latter days where faith is hard to find. If Catholic wish to avoid falling into the hands of the living God for the offense in the Mass, then they should not partake of the Mass and only do communion in remembrance of Him just as Protestants should drop the label of "sacrament" from the bread & the wine to take communion only in remembrance of Him; not as coming into His Presence at communion or receiving His Presence in the bread & the wine when He is already in all believers as witnessed by the Holy Ghost in us that we had been saved when we had first believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[Philip James]

Hello JesusisFaithful,

The sacrifice of the Mass is not a recrucifixtion of Jesus.
It is our thanksgiving and praise united with His one sacrifice on the cross.
Is that one sacrifice represented? Yes!
It is the very memorial of that one sacrifice.
But it is so much more than that...
In the Eucharust, Jesus truly gives us His risen self, uniting Himself with His bride... The two made one..
It is the wedding feast of the Lamb of God, participating in and uniting us with the eternal feast in heaven.
Were Jesus not present in the Eucharist, then perhaps you could charge us with idolatry, but HE is!

Jesus said ' this is My body', 'this is My blood'
And we believe Him! Just as our brothers and sisters who have believed Him for 2000 years.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Hello JesusisFaithful,

The sacrifice of the Mass is not a recrucifixtion of Jesus.
It is our thanksgiving and praise united with His one sacrifice on the cross.
Is that one sacrifice represented? Yes!
It is the very memorial of that one sacrifice.
But it is so much more than that...
In the Eucharust, Jesus truly gives us His risen self, uniting Himself with His bride... The two made one..
It is the wedding feast of the Lamb of God, participating in and uniting us with the eternal feast in heaven.
Were Jesus not present in the Eucharist, then perhaps you could charge us with idolatry, but HE is!

Jesus said ' this is My body', 'this is My blood'
And we believe Him! Just as our brothers and sisters who have believed Him for 2000 years.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Dear Brother,

I pray that the Lord will help you reconsider your words as they are opposing His words.

I do not believe the Mass nor communion is the wedding feast of the Lamb of God when He is not there in His resurrected body drinking with us.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

So I believe the Marriage Supper of the Lamb of God is at the pre great tribulation rapture event, and claiming otherwise to eat & drunk in His Presence is by His words, iniquity.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

Sitting down in the kingdom of God above WITH Him is when the actual wedding feast of the Lamb of God is to be taken place.

The warning is clear to me thanks to Him, that communion cannot be anything else then just symbolic in remembering what He has done for us.

 

[Philip James]

The warning is clear to me thanks to Him, that communion cannot be anything else then just symbolic in remembering what He has done for us

If 2000 years of the witness and faith of your brothers and sisters is not enough to get you to reconsider, then my own experiences are unlikely to sway you.

I appreciate your conviction and zeal for what you see as the Truth, but your misaplication of scripture keeps you missing out on the most intimate moments you can have with Jesus.

In any event, we must each answer to our Master, and follow where He leads us.

I hope i get to meet you at the wedding feast, in this world or the next..

Peace be with you!

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.