Pay to Pray eRosary from the Vatican

[Philip James]

The Lord's Supper is a Remembrance Feast, and the elements are symbolic of His body and blood.

Please tell me what you mean by that. What is a 'Rememberence Feast' ?

Peace be with you!

 

[Giuliano]

Just thought I'd add... how did we get here from a simple device to aid one in prayer? Must have been the Father's will...

To Him be all Glory and Honour! Forever and ever!

Don't know. Maybe people are envious. Hey, maybe someone could invent a device to remind Protestants to pray. He might get filthy rich!

 

[Enoch111]

Please tell me what you mean by that. What is a 'Remembrance Feast' ?

1. Paul calls the Lord's Supper a feast, which is to be observed with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor. 5:7,8)

2. Then he tells us that the Lord's Supper is for the remembrance of Christ's sacrifice:
1 CORINTHIANS 11
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. [meaning that you are shaming others by your behavior, as noted in the next two verses]
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying,This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

 

[Giuliano]

Strong's Concordance
poieó: to make, do
Original Word: ποιέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: poieó
Phonetic Spelling: (poy-eh'-o)
Definition: to make, do
Usage: (a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause.

That word is never used for sacrifice. And since the Bible tells us that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, that should settle the matter. There can be no re-sacrificing of Christ as in the Mass. The Lord's Supper is a Remembrance Feast, and the elements are symbolic of His body and blood.

How could eating and drinking symbols damn someone? Why wouldn't the sin of eating and drinking unworthily be forgiven along with all other sins?

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

It may be a good thing if Protestants are partaking of mere symbols. That would mean they weren't showing disrespect for the Real Presence.

 

[Enoch111]

How could eating and drinking symbols damn someone? Why wouldn't the sin of eating and drinking unworthily be forgiven along with all other sins?

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation* to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

It may be a good thing if Protestants are partaking of mere symbols. That would mean they weren't showing disrespect for the Real Presence.

It is unfortunate that the KJV used the word *damnation* when the meaning is condemnation or judgment.

*Strong's Concordance
krima: a judgment
Original Word: κρίμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: krima
Phonetic Spelling: (kree'-mah)
Definition: a judgment
Usage: (a) a judgment, a verdict; sometimes implying an adverse verdict, a condemnation, (b) a case at law, a lawsuit.

Please note what Paul says in verses 31 & 32, where he calls it *chastening* and used the words "judge" and "judged": For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

When Paul speaks of "discerning the Lord's body" he is not speaking of transmutation, but the fact the Lord's body and blood are represented at the Lord's Supper, which must therefore be partaken off after examining and judging ourselves.

There were no unauthorized *priests* in the apostolic churches, attending at an altar, and offering a transmuted sacrifice. All believers are priests, and we know from the original Lord's Supper (the Passover meal) that Jesus was not speaking of a magical transformation of the bread and wine into His body and blood. Those elements were symbolic representations, and the partaking or *eating* of Christ is spiritual.

 

[Giuliano]

It is unfortunate that the KJV used the word *damnation* when the meaning is condemnation or judgment.

*Strong's Concordance
krima: a judgment
Original Word: κρίμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: krima
Phonetic Spelling: (kree'-mah)
Definition: a judgment
Usage: (a) a judgment, a verdict; sometimes implying an adverse verdict, a condemnation, (b) a case at law, a lawsuit.

Please note what Paul says in verses 31 & 32, where he calls it *chastening* and used the words "judge" and "judged": For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

When Paul speaks of "discerning the Lord's body" he is not speaking of transmutation, but the fact the Lord's body and blood are represented at the Lord's Supper, which must therefore be partaken off after examining and judging ourselves.

You have added "represented" to the passage to get the meaning you want.

There were no unauthorized *priests* in the apostolic churches, attending at an altar, and offering a transmuted sacrifice. All believers are priests, and we know from the original Lord's Supper (the Passover meal) that Jesus was not speaking of a magical transformation of the bread and wine into His body and blood. Those elements were symbolic representations, and the partaking or *eating* of Christ is spiritual.

What "adverse judgment" or "condemnation" do you think people will face for partaking unworthily of symbols? Condemned to what?

 

[epostle]

No. That is not what he said. He said as a memorial OF his sacrifice. Big difference.

You have it backwards. The memorial IS the sacrifice. I explained what "remembrance" means backed with numerous scriptures, that you reject with no qualification. Just because we have differences in our understanding of the Eucharist is no excuse for the bigotted insult of accusing us of a false gospel.

1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Do you agree that this verse is a nut shell version of the true gospel? I've asked you three times what you say the "true gospel" is, and you keep ignoring me.

1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. You don't.

1 Cor. 10:16 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
Paul is preaching a false gospel, according to you.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 – they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

 

[epostle]

[false-gospel.jpg](false gospel — Postimage.org)

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false Gospel. And I know good and well what indulgences are. Clearly you didn't catch the point I was making. I am not saying that this sale is a way to get out of purgatory. I am saying that indulgences, which had zero real effect, were just a way to put money in the church coffers. This is no different.

"Were"??
What are you talking about?? Indulgences still exist - and they were NEVER for sale by the Church.

What happened in the 16th century was an abuse by some clerics - but it was NEVER a teaching of the Catholic Church. The most famous example was a man names Johann Tetzel who went about the German countryside selling indulgences. HE is the reason Luther got so fed up.

I suggest you do your homework before making any more revisionist claims . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false Gospel.

Can you explain what the "Roman" Catholic Church is?

 

[reformed1689]

Can you explain what the "Roman" Catholic Church is?

Sure, the one that was based for centuries in Rome and now the Vatican. It is a church that has lost its way and is now a false church.

 

[reformed1689]

What happened in the 16th century was an abuse by some clerics - but it was NEVER a teaching of the Catholic Church.

One of those "clerics" was Pope Leo X.....just saying....

 

[reformed1689]

The memorial IS the sacrifice.

So we sacrifice Christ over and over again? This is the great heresy of the Mass. Christ already finished the work and does not need sacrificed again.

 

[reformed1689]

How could fervent charity cover a multitude of sins if what you wrote is true? "If we are saved there is no punishment for us. It has already been delivered."

Again, what in the world are you talking about? You aren't making any sense. What does that have to do with divine punishment for sin?

 

[BreadOfLife]

One of those "clerics" was Pope Leo X.....just saying....

Actually - he wasn't - and there isn't a shred of historical evidence to back that up.
Just saying . . .

 

[epostle]

Can you explain what the "Roman" Catholic Church is?

Purgatory and indulgences are red herrings to Taylors indefensible claim of a false gospel, which he has not yet explained what he thinks is the true gospel. It's a standard anti-Catholic derailment tactic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sure, the one that was based for centuries in Rome and now the Vatican. It is a church that has lost its way and is now a false church.

Time for a lesson in ecclesiology . . .

"Roman" (Latin) is simply the name of the Liturgical RITE - of which there are TWENTY that comprise the Catholic Church. Others include the Melkite, Coptic, Byzantine, Maronite, Alexandrian, etc.
The official name of the Catholic Church is . . ."The Catholic Church". It's NOT called, the Roman Catholic Church.

When you see a sign outside of a Catholic Church that says, "St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church" - they are explaining that this is the Liturgical RITE being celebrated here.
ALL of the Rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with each other - but they are NOT all "Roman" Catholics . . ..

 

[BreadOfLife]

So we sacrifice Christ over and over again? This is the great heresy of the Mass. Christ already finished the work and does not need sacrificed again.

This post shows a woeful ignorance of Catholicism.

The mass is not a "re-sacrifice". It is a re-presentation of Christ's ONE sacrifice.
The problem with YOU is that you don't understand that His sacrifice is ETERNAL (Heb. 7:25, Rev. 13:8).

 

[reformed1689]

Actually - he wasn't - and there isn't a shred of historical evidence to back that up.
Just saying . . .

Wow, is this the brainwashing you have received? Not a shred of evidence? Oh brother. It is widely known that he authorized the sale of indulgences to build St. Peter's because he had emptied the church coffers. It is also known he made arrangements to split monies 50/50 with an Archh Bishop in Germany in order to pay off certain loans and build St. Peters. The fact that you deny this says everything we need to know.

 

[reformed1689]

Time for a lesson in ecclesiology . . .

"Roman" (Latin) is simply the name of the Liturgical RITE - of which there are TWENTY that comprise the Catholic Church. Others include the Melkite, Coptic, Byzantine, Maronite, Alexandrian, etc.
The official name of the Catholic Church is . . ."The Catholic Church". It's NOT called, the Roman Catholic Church.

When you see a sign outside of a Catholic Church that says, "St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church" - they are explaining that this is the Liturgical RITE being celebrated here.
ALL of the Rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with each other - but they are NOT all "Roman" Catholics . . ..

Do you follow Pope Francis or not?