Pay to Pray eRosary from the Vatican

[marks]

Your problem – besides hatred – is that you are ignorant

Well . . . I went back for a second look anyway, and, well, the first turns out to have been sufficient.

If you actually did know me, you would realize how completely inappropriate I find this sort of communication to be on a Christian forum, or between 2 people who claim to be Christians.

I'll leave you to it.

Much love!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well . . . I went back for a second look anyway, and, well, the first turns out to have been sufficient.

If you actually did know me, you would realize how completely inappropriate I find this sort of communication to be on a Christian forum, or between 2 people who claim to be Christians.

I'll leave you to it.

Much love!

You compare MY faith with pagan worship - yet I am the one who is being "offensive"?
Hypocrisy in its purest form.

I merely pointed out your error . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

My blunder?

you need to know . . . I pretty much stop reading when I see stuff like this.

Why is it that you all feel that you can post all of the heinous filth and lies about the Catholic Church – yet we’re just supposed to suck it up and keep quiet?

Like the proverbial crooked politician who breaks the law with impunity yet becomes “indignant” with those who expose him for it – the anti-Catholic hypocrisy around here is as thick as pea soup . . .

 

[marks]

You compare MY faith with pagan worship - yet I am the one who is being "offensive"?
Hypocrisy in its purest form.

I merely pointed out your error . . .

I wasn't addressing you, for one thing. And I'm not comparing Your faith with anything.

And I'm not being rude in my speech.

And . . . it seems you have a pretty low bar on hypocrisy!

 

[marks]

Why is it that you all feel that you can post all of the heinous filth and lies about the Catholic Church – yet we’re just supposed to suck it up and keep quiet?

Like the proverbial crooked politician who breaks the law with impunity yet becomes “indignant” with those who expose him for it – the anti-Catholic hypocrisy around here is as thick as pea soup . . .

Read or not read what you like. That's what I do.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wasn't addressing you, for one thing. And I'm not comparing Your faith with anything.

And I'm not being rude in my speech.

And . . . it seems you have a pretty low bar on hypocrisy!

You were misrepresenting my Catholic faith.

Intelligent conversations begin with charity.
Uncharitable conversations beget reproval.

 

[marks]

IntelligentReply conversations begin with charity.

Indeed!

You were misrepresenting my Catholic faith.

I'm sorry, where exactly did I do that?

Much charity! Seriously! Let's have a decent conversation. If I said something wrong, call attention to that, but without becoming insulting and rude.

But if I only gave my opinion, or my understanding of something, and you can correct that, great! But Let's be decent about it, shall we?

 

[epostle]

That's not correct.

That's not the translation, not what Jesus said. Perhaps what you believe He meant, but Not what He said.

“touto..poieite..eis...ten...'eman..anamnasin.”
...this......do.....into..the...of me..remembrance

Much Love!

You have it backwards. The memorial IS the sacrifice. In order to uphold your private "translation", you are forced to change the meaning of "remembrance".

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 – Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

This pamphlet, compiled a mere 60 years after the Protestant Revolt, shows clearly the disastrous results of private interpretation. The Catholic author Christoph Rasperger lists a total of 200 interpretations by Protestants of the words of Our Lord “This is My Body.”

I'm afraid your "correct translation" is an offshoot of an offshoot an offshoot of an offshoot of one of 200 interpretations, lacking 2000 years of consistency. Out of respect for your beliefs, you can believe whatever you want, that's fine by me.

 

[marks]

I'm afraid your "correct translation" is an offshoot of an offshoot an offshoot of an offshoot of one of 200 interpretations, lacking 2000 years of consistency.

Actually, it's based in the meanings of the words.

Mark 11:20-22
20) And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21) And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22) And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

Same word there.

Just the same,

It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Hebrews 9
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Only offered Once.

It is finished.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Indeed!

I'm sorry, where exactly did I do that?

Much charity! Seriously! Let's have a decent conversation. If I said something wrong, call attention to that, but without becoming insulting and rude.

But if I only gave my opinion, or my understanding of something, and you can correct that, great! But Let's be decent about it, shall we?

Okay – that’s fair enough.

In post #344 – you stated:
“You need to care for your host the same way they had to care for their idols.”

This implies that the consecrated Host is an “idol”. To a Catholic, who believes the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ – this is an insult because it is comparing pagan idols to our Lord.

So – if I came off harshly – it’s because it sounded like an intentional jab.
With the anti-Catholicism that runs rampant on this forum – it’s not an unreasonable assumption – but I’ll afford you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[marks]

Okay – that’s fair enough.

In post #344 – you stated:
“You need to care for your host the same way they had to care for their idols.”

This implies that the consecrated Host is an “idol”. To a Catholic, who believes the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ – this is an insult because it is comparing pagan idols to our Lord.

So – if I came off harshly – it’s because it sounded like an intentional jab.
With the anti-Catholicism that runs rampant on this forum – it’s not an unreasonable assumption – but I’ll afford you the benefit of the doubt.

This was simply an observation I made of Philip's comment, about preserving the consecrated Eucharist.

You should, in my unimportant opinion, try to be nice anyway. It becomes a Christian.

Consecrating enough wine for all would be practically impossible. The Body however can be easily reserved stored and transported (with proper reverence) from earlier consecrations so that there is enough to give to all.

This reminded me of my experience with the Hare Krishnas ala California style many years ago. Their gods were considered present in the wooden statues, though they had to be protected by the handlers.

I'm not comparing your idea of Jesus being bodily present in the Eucharist as if this were the same idea of the demon god being bodily present in the statue. Obviously you mean this differently.

What caught my eye was the care one need take for the manifestation of their god, or God. If you handle it carefully, with proper reverence, you can transport the body, but not the blood, that would be too difficult.

My God needs no careful handling. It's not about the things, it's about us! All can share the feast. This isn't about someone officiating between man and God, and we have to care for the elements, rather, it's that God says eat and drink and remember! We share a cup, we share a piece of bread. We remember.

Should communion be denied for lack of consecrated bread and wine? Will any bread and wine do? Still be fully the communion you practice?

Curious, do you ever do that at home with your family? Share a cup, tear off pieces from some bread, and remember Jesus' sacrifice?

At the end of the day, if you know without a shadow of doubt that with or without the Lord's supper, but by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone, then we share the same precious faith.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The banquet hall doors are open and the party is ongoing! What keeps you from the wedding feast?

Tell me, Philip James, why would you ask me this question?

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

But my real point was this. You need to care for your Host the same way they had to care for their idols. That's what I wanted to bring out.

How does pagans showing reverence for their idols compare to proper reverence for Christ in the Eucharist?

You make "participate" into "eating the flesh of".

Umm, no Jesus made that so. Why don't you believe Him?

Pagans participate in what they offer to their idols on their altars.

Christians participate in what we offer with, through and in our High Priest, to our Almighty Father!

The pure offering of Malachi 1:11

Peace be with you!

 

[Philip James]

Tell me, Philip James, why would you ask me this question?

Much love!

To get you to examine the reasons you keep yourself separtate from your brethren.

. It's not about the things, it's about us! All can share the feast

With respect, it's not about 'us', it's all about HIM, and us united with HIM and us united with each other through HIM.

All who believe can share in the feast yes, but for those who don't:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Peace be with you!

 

[Philip James]

if you know without a shadow of doubt that with or without the Lord's supper, but by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone, then we share the same precious faith

What do you mean by 'faith alone' ?

Peace!

 

[epostle]

Actually, it's based in the meanings of the words.

Mark 11:20-22
20) And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21) And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22) And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Same word there.
Just the same,

It's the same word but not used in the same context of the Old Testament, which you ignored. The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time. Mark 11:21 does not negate that truth. There are many words in scripture that have more than one meaning.

Hebrews 9:22-28

Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Only offered Once.

Jesus died once, but His offering to the Father is perpetual. Jesus perpetually offers Himself to the Father on our behalf in heaven in the form of Bread and Wine. Symbols can't do that.

It is finished.

What took me years to understand is that the sacrifice of consecrated Bread and Wine at the Last Super IS ONE AND THE SAME SACRIFICE as Calvary, so I don't expect you to understand it in a forum. This former anti-Catholic explains "It is Finished" quite well.

[/QUOTE]

 

[marks]

To get you to examine the reasons you keep yourself separtate from your brethren.

Exactly.

Except I don't separate from you. You separate from me. Then you attempt to project that to me. But that is false.

 

[marks]

With respect, it's not about 'us', it's all about HIM, and us united with HIM and us united with each other through HIM.

The Lord's supper is for US to remember His death. It is for US to remember.

Do this in remembrance of Me, not, Do this in remembrance of Me when you have sufficient consecrated supplies, and are at the right church.

Do you ever do this at home with your family/friends? Does God approve if you do?

It is not to unite us to Jesus, to God, as we are already united with God. It is not to unite us to each other, as we are already united to each other. All who are born again, all who are in Christ.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What do you mean by 'faith alone' ?

Peace!

Faith alone in Christ alone.

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up.

Believing on Jesus, just like looking at the serpent, and God redeems us. And everything we have, we have in Christ.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What took me years to understand is that the sacrifice of consecrated Bread and Wine at the Last Super IS ONE AND THE SAME SACRIFICE as Calvary, so I don't expect you to understand it in a forum.

I think I understand what you are saying.

There is a similar teaching, but different, the earliest reference I've found was Ray Steadman, I think, that the crucifixion of Christ was "an eternal event".

Lambert Dolphin wrote much the same thing, and I could Find his quote:

"But in another sense, if we could step into eternity and view an eternal being such as the Son of God experiencing all things - if we could see things from the vantage point of heaven-we would perceive that a part of the eternal God must suffer forever, outside of time, because of human sin."

Six Hours in Eternity: Physics and the Bible: – Lambert Dolphin – Koinonia House

But this idea Christ suffers in any longer duration than during that particular time in earth's history I find to be contradicted by the Bible.

Jesus does not suffer forever, neither does He suffer often.

Much love!