Hello again! Here is a few of the topics that I will be posting on.
The Keys of Heaven- What are they and who possesses them?
Maintaining faith in today's world
Finding the truth in a bed of lies
A closer look into Communion- History of the bread and wine
Women in the church- Is is really forbidden?
These are just a few and may not appear in the order in which they are listed. Please watch my blog for updates and feel free to leave me comments or send emails! We are to edify one another.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Coming back to Blogger
I am going to be starting up my blogs again. I will start to address issues as God puts them onto my heart. The topics will no doubt range from cults, other religions, tackling lies within Christianity, divorce, faith, morals, and others. I look forward to starting up again. God Bless!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The fallible infallibility of the Catholic Church
Catholics claim that its church system cannot be wrong in matters of faith,morals and ethics.
"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's livi ng magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith." Pg. 235, #889
"The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." Pg. 235, #891
Seeing these doctrines and seeing in news headlines that the Vatican is apologizing for something, doesn't mix.
Last month, the Vatican issued a 14-page report that apologized for the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust. Following a background report, Margaret Warner and guests discuss the apology and its historic significance. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june98/vatican_4-8.html)
Another hot issue is Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Inquisition in 2004.
From CSBNews.com "Pope John Paul II praised the research, recalling that in 2000, the church asked pardon for "errors committed in the service of the truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/15/world/main623253.shtml)
This "non-evangelical" method was killing and torturing Chrisitans that would not convert to Catholicism, the Celts, Pagans, Druids and those they deemed to be 'heretics".
More from CBSNews.com says:
"In 2000, John Paul apologized for the sins of Roman Catholics made in the name of their faith, including abuses during the Inquisition - a crackdown by church officials from the 13th to the 19th centuries, on individuals suspected of being in conflict with church teaching.
Catholics accused of being heretics, witches or others considered of dubious faith, including Muslims and Jews who had converted to Catholicism, were among the targets."
So my question is, if they are infallible in all matters of faith, then why are they apologizing?
"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's livi ng magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith." Pg. 235, #889
"The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." Pg. 235, #891
Seeing these doctrines and seeing in news headlines that the Vatican is apologizing for something, doesn't mix.
Last month, the Vatican issued a 14-page report that apologized for the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust. Following a background report, Margaret Warner and guests discuss the apology and its historic significance. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june98/vatican_4-8.html)
Another hot issue is Pope John Paul II apologizing for the Inquisition in 2004.
From CSBNews.com "Pope John Paul II praised the research, recalling that in 2000, the church asked pardon for "errors committed in the service of the truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/15/world/main623253.shtml)
This "non-evangelical" method was killing and torturing Chrisitans that would not convert to Catholicism, the Celts, Pagans, Druids and those they deemed to be 'heretics".
More from CBSNews.com says:
"In 2000, John Paul apologized for the sins of Roman Catholics made in the name of their faith, including abuses during the Inquisition - a crackdown by church officials from the 13th to the 19th centuries, on individuals suspected of being in conflict with church teaching.
Catholics accused of being heretics, witches or others considered of dubious faith, including Muslims and Jews who had converted to Catholicism, were among the targets."
So my question is, if they are infallible in all matters of faith, then why are they apologizing?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Stigmata and Satan's work
Let me start by saying that stigmata is not a biblical fact. There is nothing in scripture that records anyone ever having stigmata, talking about stigmata or that anyone would ever receive stigmata. I am tired of hearing about the alleged miracles of stigmata so it was time that I wrote an article about and present the facts of the case.
In the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, there is a lot of information about the subject. They claim that there were over 20 stigmatics in the 19th century. I will list some of the more known ones.
Therese Neumann, Padre Pio, Mryna Nazzour,Julia Kim, St Gemma of Galgani and St.Rita of Cascia.
The 'wounds' of Mryna Nazzour were self-inflicted, from veiwing the pictures. All of them were straight scratches, not one puncture. Even on her hands and feet, it was scratches, more than likely from her fingernails.
St. Rita's only wound was a single wound on her forehead.
St. Gemma- Pope Pius XI says of her "She bore the wounds of Christ".
Padre Pio had stigmata through his hands.
Julia Kim, who was best known for having claimed that the wafer she had taken in the Eucharist turned to flesh and blood and was bleeding. In all actuallity, the 'blood' looks like old strawberry jelly. Anyone can google her name and look under images to see the same photo that I saw. Added to that, the blood and flesh that Christ spoke of was indeed symbolic. I will address this in the next blog.
Lastly, Therese Nuemann. A german woman who claimed to have stigmata. There were many claims made about her. Supposedly. she shed tears of blood (which was not a wound of Christ), sharp pain and bleeding on her left side, wounds in her hands, on her head, she had her sight restored, her limbs restored and others. It is claimed that she had over 700 occasions of stigmata. It sounds impressive to most Catholics. ALso, one of the greatest claims and it is a lie, that she went from 1925-1962 with no food except the euchrist wafer and from 1927-1962, she had no water and no other fluids except the wine for the euchrist. It is physicaly impossible to go that long without food and water, her body would have suffered from dehydration and malnourishment. It is said that she lost no weight during this time. We know now that that is impossible as well. Even for patients with feeding tubes and are on IV's for fluids that they can can gain or lose weight.To top it off, there are Catholic prayers to this woman.
Let me start by saying that Christ was not nailed through His hands. The hands could not support the weight of a full grown man. And Roman history shows (and it was the Romans who actually nailed Him to the cross) that crucifixtion was done through the median nerve which is in the wrist, even through tradition and Catholic art shows it was in through the hands.
Second, Christ suffered these wounds so that we would not have to. Sstigmata is not in scripture, therefore we know that it is not biblical. Could it be an act from God? Unlikely. Again, Christ suffered for us, He paid our debt. Could it be an act of Satan? Most likely. I say that because Satan strives on deception. Satan wants us to turn from God. God never tells us that we are goign to get stigmata and there is no record in biblical history of anyone having it. The other part to this is called Invisable Stigmata. The pain of the wounds but no physical wounds. Does that mean every time I have a severe headache, I am having invisable stigmata? Of course not, because stigmata is not biblical and it is not from God.
We have to learn to trust God's word. He gave it to us for a really really good reason. I pray that this has helped just one person. That is my goal in life. To just help one person. If I can do that, then I will be happy and satisfied. God Bless you all!
In the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, there is a lot of information about the subject. They claim that there were over 20 stigmatics in the 19th century. I will list some of the more known ones.
Therese Neumann, Padre Pio, Mryna Nazzour,Julia Kim, St Gemma of Galgani and St.Rita of Cascia.
The 'wounds' of Mryna Nazzour were self-inflicted, from veiwing the pictures. All of them were straight scratches, not one puncture. Even on her hands and feet, it was scratches, more than likely from her fingernails.
St. Rita's only wound was a single wound on her forehead.
St. Gemma- Pope Pius XI says of her "She bore the wounds of Christ".
Padre Pio had stigmata through his hands.
Julia Kim, who was best known for having claimed that the wafer she had taken in the Eucharist turned to flesh and blood and was bleeding. In all actuallity, the 'blood' looks like old strawberry jelly. Anyone can google her name and look under images to see the same photo that I saw. Added to that, the blood and flesh that Christ spoke of was indeed symbolic. I will address this in the next blog.
Lastly, Therese Nuemann. A german woman who claimed to have stigmata. There were many claims made about her. Supposedly. she shed tears of blood (which was not a wound of Christ), sharp pain and bleeding on her left side, wounds in her hands, on her head, she had her sight restored, her limbs restored and others. It is claimed that she had over 700 occasions of stigmata. It sounds impressive to most Catholics. ALso, one of the greatest claims and it is a lie, that she went from 1925-1962 with no food except the euchrist wafer and from 1927-1962, she had no water and no other fluids except the wine for the euchrist. It is physicaly impossible to go that long without food and water, her body would have suffered from dehydration and malnourishment. It is said that she lost no weight during this time. We know now that that is impossible as well. Even for patients with feeding tubes and are on IV's for fluids that they can can gain or lose weight.To top it off, there are Catholic prayers to this woman.
Let me start by saying that Christ was not nailed through His hands. The hands could not support the weight of a full grown man. And Roman history shows (and it was the Romans who actually nailed Him to the cross) that crucifixtion was done through the median nerve which is in the wrist, even through tradition and Catholic art shows it was in through the hands.
Second, Christ suffered these wounds so that we would not have to. Sstigmata is not in scripture, therefore we know that it is not biblical. Could it be an act from God? Unlikely. Again, Christ suffered for us, He paid our debt. Could it be an act of Satan? Most likely. I say that because Satan strives on deception. Satan wants us to turn from God. God never tells us that we are goign to get stigmata and there is no record in biblical history of anyone having it. The other part to this is called Invisable Stigmata. The pain of the wounds but no physical wounds. Does that mean every time I have a severe headache, I am having invisable stigmata? Of course not, because stigmata is not biblical and it is not from God.
We have to learn to trust God's word. He gave it to us for a really really good reason. I pray that this has helped just one person. That is my goal in life. To just help one person. If I can do that, then I will be happy and satisfied. God Bless you all!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Personal preference or salvation issue?
With the growing number of Protestant denominations, I felt it necessary to address the differences to try to find some common ground. Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, Church of God, Calvanists, JW's and Espicopalians.....
So many church sects that all claim to go only by scripture and they condemn other Christian churches. Is is misinterpretation? Or is it simply a matter of personal preference?
I grew up in a conservative Church of Christ. In our church, it was pretty much sinful to have musical instruments in church services. But scripture does not say that we cannot have musical instruments. While scripture DOES tell us to have orderly services (1 Corinthians 14:26-40), it also tells us in the Psalms to praise Him with the harps, trumpets, horns, lute, timbrel, and cymbals (Psalm 98:5, 144:9 and 150:9). This is a perfect example of personal preference and is not a salvation issue. Meaning that a person's salvation is not based on whether or not there are instruments in the church.
Some churches dispute how often communion (Or the Lords Supper) should be taken. The amount of times a person partakes in communion is another example of personal preference. In speaking of communion, our Lord Jesus Christ says " Do this in remembrance of Me", Luke 22:19. In 1 Corinthians 11:24, we see that Christ says "This do, as often as you drink it (referring to the wine) in remembrance of me. "
So we see that there is no strict timetable that we must obey in reference to communion. It is another matter of personal opinion and NOT a salvation issue.
The point behind this writing to to let please see that these 'differences' between sects are not salvation issues. Yet the feuding continues.
So many church sects that all claim to go only by scripture and they condemn other Christian churches. Is is misinterpretation? Or is it simply a matter of personal preference?
I grew up in a conservative Church of Christ. In our church, it was pretty much sinful to have musical instruments in church services. But scripture does not say that we cannot have musical instruments. While scripture DOES tell us to have orderly services (1 Corinthians 14:26-40), it also tells us in the Psalms to praise Him with the harps, trumpets, horns, lute, timbrel, and cymbals (Psalm 98:5, 144:9 and 150:9). This is a perfect example of personal preference and is not a salvation issue. Meaning that a person's salvation is not based on whether or not there are instruments in the church.
Some churches dispute how often communion (Or the Lords Supper) should be taken. The amount of times a person partakes in communion is another example of personal preference. In speaking of communion, our Lord Jesus Christ says " Do this in remembrance of Me", Luke 22:19. In 1 Corinthians 11:24, we see that Christ says "This do, as often as you drink it (referring to the wine) in remembrance of me. "
So we see that there is no strict timetable that we must obey in reference to communion. It is another matter of personal opinion and NOT a salvation issue.
The point behind this writing to to let please see that these 'differences' between sects are not salvation issues. Yet the feuding continues.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Is Peter the 'rock'?
New Kings James Bible-
Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it"
Let us start with the meanings behind these words. Peter or petros, means little stone or pebble. Rock or petra, means big rock or huge boulder.
Next, lets take a look at scripture.
Peter calls Christ the rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4 "For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ".
It is a very popular notion that Peter was made head of the church. But according to scripture, that is not true. While the Apostles continued the ministry after His death, Christ is always the head.
Ephesians 2:20",members of the household of God, having been built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone"
Ephesians 4:15 "Speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him, who is the Head- Christ."
Ephesians 5:23" For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and the Savior of the body"
Colossians 1:18 "And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence".
Another point to look at in this verse (Matthew 16:18) is that Christ did not tell Peter that He was making him the head of the church or anything else.
In Catholicism, Peter is considered to be the first pope. Also, the pope is said to be infallible in all matters of faith.
If this were to be true, why was Peter rebuked sevreal times? Christ Himself had to rebuke Peter, which is recorded right after this verse.
Matthew 16:21-23" 21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Also, Paul corrects Peter as well in Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14 "11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"
How could Peter have been a pope if he had been fallible in matters of faith?
A few more points to consider on the subject.....
Look at the working in the verse in question.
"YOU are Peter and upon THIS rock".
The last major point that I would like to make is the meaning behind this section of scripture. It is the confession of Peter of who He said Jesus was. Christ was asking Peter who people said He was. He asked Peter specifically who HE thought He was, and He answered correctly saying "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God".
1 John 4:15 says " Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells with Him and he with God"
I hope that this has at least made you think and perhaps, research this subject on your own. Far too often, we go by what we are told and never make sure that what we are being taught is correct. I urge you to do this. In fact, we are told to make sure that what we are being taught is true. We are taught in scripture to know what scripture says.
I pray that God is with you all and God Bless~
In Him Alone,
Hope
Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it"
Let us start with the meanings behind these words. Peter or petros, means little stone or pebble. Rock or petra, means big rock or huge boulder.
Next, lets take a look at scripture.
Peter calls Christ the rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4 "For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ".
It is a very popular notion that Peter was made head of the church. But according to scripture, that is not true. While the Apostles continued the ministry after His death, Christ is always the head.
Ephesians 2:20",members of the household of God, having been built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone"
Ephesians 4:15 "Speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him, who is the Head- Christ."
Ephesians 5:23" For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and the Savior of the body"
Colossians 1:18 "And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence".
Another point to look at in this verse (Matthew 16:18) is that Christ did not tell Peter that He was making him the head of the church or anything else.
In Catholicism, Peter is considered to be the first pope. Also, the pope is said to be infallible in all matters of faith.
If this were to be true, why was Peter rebuked sevreal times? Christ Himself had to rebuke Peter, which is recorded right after this verse.
Matthew 16:21-23" 21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Also, Paul corrects Peter as well in Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14 "11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"
How could Peter have been a pope if he had been fallible in matters of faith?
A few more points to consider on the subject.....
Look at the working in the verse in question.
"YOU are Peter and upon THIS rock".
The last major point that I would like to make is the meaning behind this section of scripture. It is the confession of Peter of who He said Jesus was. Christ was asking Peter who people said He was. He asked Peter specifically who HE thought He was, and He answered correctly saying "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God".
1 John 4:15 says " Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells with Him and he with God"
I hope that this has at least made you think and perhaps, research this subject on your own. Far too often, we go by what we are told and never make sure that what we are being taught is correct. I urge you to do this. In fact, we are told to make sure that what we are being taught is true. We are taught in scripture to know what scripture says.
I pray that God is with you all and God Bless~
In Him Alone,
Hope
The Duke
A friend from YouTube will be responding here from questions that I asked him and points that I made. The example used in this portion of the debate is the Eucharist and the Last Supper.
For my references, I will only use Catholic sources such as the Catechsim and the New King James Version Bible.
I was asked: So MrsM, do you accept that Jesus (God) said to men that they could bind things on Earth and those things are bound in Heaven? If something is bound in Heaven can it be fallible?
Matt 16:18-19 and Matt 18:18
I responded: If it is something that goes against scripture, then it is not valid.
What happens if the 'whatsoever' was against something in scripture? For example, the 'continuing' sacrifice of Christ even though when He died, He said "It is finished".
Christ did say it was His flesh, I am not disagreeing with you. What Christ meant and we see it in further teachings, is that Christ is the Bread of life. We have to have food and drink to survive, correct? So with Christ saying it was real food and real drink, He meant that we need Him to live, not in this life but the next. Why do you think Christ called Himself 'bread'? In John 6 Jesus is referred to as " the Bread from Heaven".
John 6:33 "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
John 6:35 "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
John 6:50-51 "50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.
Do you see the symbolism that Jesus used in this teaching? His flesh was represented by the bread, flesh that would be broken. It is not a literal flesh, as cannibalism is condemned in scripture.
Christ says to do this in remembrance (Luke 22:18-20 and others) It was for remembering what Christ did, proclaiming His death. Not a renewing sacrifice of Christ.
Christ said "It is finished" and that there would be no more offerings. John 19:30 and Hebrews 10:11 and 18.
From New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Eucharist is the on-going sacrifice of Christ. That idea is echoed in the catechsim.
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
1436 It is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God.It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."
1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (This one continues to say it is a memorial but that does not consist with the rest of the catechsim)
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
I will stop here, I feel that I have given enough from the catechism.(http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=eucharist+sacrifice&xsubmit=Search&s=SS)
Now I will use the other source that I spoke of earlier.
We first must look at what communion/the Last Supper is.
Luke 22:17-10 "17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. "
I Corinthians 11:23-26 "23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat;[b] this is My body which is broken[c] for you; do this in remembrance of Me. 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death till He comes."
Christ teaches here that it is a remembrance of the blood and body that was to be shed and broken. Christ does not teach us that it is an offering of sin or that by partaking in it, we are forgiven of sin. On the contrary, we are to examine ourselves before we partake in it.
I Corinthians 11:27-29 "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[d] of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner[e] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lords[f] body"
Let's take a quick look at John 6. Verses 22-40 is Christ speaking about the Bread from Heaven and how He is the bread from Heaven. Verse 35 "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
John 6: 54-58 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.
What must we do to have eternal life? Salvation. And where does salvation come from? Jesus Christ.
There is a saying from the catechism that I would like to bring up.
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
First let me note that we are told in Psalms 49 that we cannot redeem our brother nor pay a ransom for him. Second, this is very clearly talking about a sin offering. "Offered in reparation of the sins'.
John 19:30
So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:18
Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:11 "11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
We are to partake in remembrance, not trying to have our sins forgiven, or to try to forgive the sins of someone else, or to try to receive benefits. It is for the purposes of remembrance and to proclaim Jesus' death.
For my references, I will only use Catholic sources such as the Catechsim and the New King James Version Bible.
I was asked: So MrsM, do you accept that Jesus (God) said to men that they could bind things on Earth and those things are bound in Heaven? If something is bound in Heaven can it be fallible?
Matt 16:18-19 and Matt 18:18
I responded: If it is something that goes against scripture, then it is not valid.
What happens if the 'whatsoever' was against something in scripture? For example, the 'continuing' sacrifice of Christ even though when He died, He said "It is finished".
Christ did say it was His flesh, I am not disagreeing with you. What Christ meant and we see it in further teachings, is that Christ is the Bread of life. We have to have food and drink to survive, correct? So with Christ saying it was real food and real drink, He meant that we need Him to live, not in this life but the next. Why do you think Christ called Himself 'bread'? In John 6 Jesus is referred to as " the Bread from Heaven".
John 6:33 "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
John 6:35 "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
John 6:50-51 "50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.
Do you see the symbolism that Jesus used in this teaching? His flesh was represented by the bread, flesh that would be broken. It is not a literal flesh, as cannibalism is condemned in scripture.
Christ says to do this in remembrance (Luke 22:18-20 and others) It was for remembering what Christ did, proclaiming His death. Not a renewing sacrifice of Christ.
Christ said "It is finished" and that there would be no more offerings. John 19:30 and Hebrews 10:11 and 18.
From New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Eucharist is the on-going sacrifice of Christ. That idea is echoed in the catechsim.
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
1436 It is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God.It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."
1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (This one continues to say it is a memorial but that does not consist with the rest of the catechsim)
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
I will stop here, I feel that I have given enough from the catechism.(http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=eucharist+sacrifice&xsubmit=Search&s=SS)
Now I will use the other source that I spoke of earlier.
We first must look at what communion/the Last Supper is.
Luke 22:17-10 "17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. "
I Corinthians 11:23-26 "23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat;[b] this is My body which is broken[c] for you; do this in remembrance of Me. 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death till He comes."
Christ teaches here that it is a remembrance of the blood and body that was to be shed and broken. Christ does not teach us that it is an offering of sin or that by partaking in it, we are forgiven of sin. On the contrary, we are to examine ourselves before we partake in it.
I Corinthians 11:27-29 "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[d] of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner[e] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lords[f] body"
Let's take a quick look at John 6. Verses 22-40 is Christ speaking about the Bread from Heaven and how He is the bread from Heaven. Verse 35 "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
John 6: 54-58 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.
What must we do to have eternal life? Salvation. And where does salvation come from? Jesus Christ.
There is a saying from the catechism that I would like to bring up.
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
First let me note that we are told in Psalms 49 that we cannot redeem our brother nor pay a ransom for him. Second, this is very clearly talking about a sin offering. "Offered in reparation of the sins'.
John 19:30
So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:18
Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:11 "11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
We are to partake in remembrance, not trying to have our sins forgiven, or to try to forgive the sins of someone else, or to try to receive benefits. It is for the purposes of remembrance and to proclaim Jesus' death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
