Say Anything Blog

I guess it is OK to hide pedophiles and still take communion though. On e hypocrite is no different than the other.

So, what, you’re upset with like the 75% of Catholics in the country who disagree with the Church on either abortion or capital punishment?

Pelosi is only the latest in a long, long line of hypocritical “Catholic” Democrats.  Moynihan, Kennedy, O’Neill, Kerry (whose ancestry is really Jewish, not Irish Catholic as he would like to have us believe!).  All pro-nounce themselves good catholics and take communion while ignoring the teachings of the church.

The Pope’s predecessor was deeply concerned over this issue, even if he did not have room on his plate to address it.  But I wonder if maybe this Pope won’t address the issue, at least from the hypocrisy perspective.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Pelosi says Communion is:
“The body of the people of the church coming together.”

Webster’s:

1: an act or instance of sharing
2a capitalized : a Christian sacrament in which consecrated bread and wine are consumed as memorials of Christ’s death or as symbols for the realization of a spiritual union between Christ and communicant or as the body and blood of Christ b: the act of receiving Communion ccapitalized : the part of a Communion service in which the sacrament is received
3: intimate fellowship or rapport : communication
4: a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline

You would think as a Catholic she would understand the difference in the definitions, wouldn’t you?  She chose 4, the Catholic Church understands it is really 2.

But after all she is a politician, thus the rules and definitions are more flexible then they are for the rest of us.

“It all depends on what the meaning of, “Communion,” is.”
DKK

Nah, Pelosi is right that it is the church coming together.  One of the most intimate acts in all Christendom, really.  What she misses is that, according to the Bible, those that take it unworthily (say in unrepentant sin) heap judgement upon themselves.

Let me just emphasize that as a non-Catholic even I knew that Holy Communion was the act of receiving the Host not the gathering in a church. 

If she really believes this then she should never again receive the Host.
DKK

What I never understood about communion was the whole cannibalism thing.  I mean, you’re eating Christ?

Gross.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s just God eating God. Who cares? The cat-o-liks think its the body. I just think its a stale cracker.
When I has a chance to have premarital sex on an altar in a church, we got hungry afterwards and had some ‘Jesus’. The vino was a bit ‘corky’ though.

Its the halftime snack.

The way we fundamentalists understand communion is that it is not the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather symbolizes both. As I understand it, eating the sacrifice in accordance with the law given exclusively to Israel in the OT, meant one was a “partaker” of the sacrifice meaning its efficacy was to the partakers.  Communion symbolically demonstrates the same as I understand it.  That is the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to believers is demonstrated by communion and this ceremony is a memorial of his death.  That is also to say that this ceremony is in no way the means of grace regarding salvation.

Rob:

What I never understood about communion was the whole cannibalism thing.  I mean, you’re eating Christ?

You are far too intelligent, reasonable and fair to have been serious.

When Jesus gave the Disciples bread and wine, they were earthly symbols of believers becoming part of His Spiritual Body/Church (bread). As the wine was symbolic of His shed blood that covered our sins, by satisfying God’s Divine Justice. Communion is simply a constant reminder of the price Jesus paid for the Salvation of whosoever believes in Jesus.

On the other hand the Roman Catholic Church believes the bread and wine are changed in the Communion into the literal physical body and blood of Christ, whherein He is sacrificed over and over for the remission of our sins without end.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The way we fundamentalists understand communion is that it is not the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather symbolizes both.

Well obviously nobody believes that they’re literally eating the body and blood of Christ, but why even do it figuratively?

Seems to me that there are less creepy ways to symbolize ones membership in Christ’s fellowship.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

whherein He is sacrificed over and over for the remission of our sins without end.

You got it wrong - again.  Even a cursory review of Catholic teaching would reveal that this is not what Catholics believe.

During the Last Supper, Christ broke a loaf of bread and said, “Take, eat, this is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.  Likewise, after supper He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He said, “This is my blood… “

He did not say, this a symbol or substitute for his body or blood.

None-the-less, different denominations interpret this passage in different ways. For Roman Catholics, Anglicans and other High Churches, trans-substantiation of the communal elements - bread and wine - takes place during the mass, literally giving the substance but not the form of Christ’s body and blood to the elements.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Seems to me that there are less creepy ways to symbolize ones membership in Christ’s fellowship.

Other than the explanation I offered I don’t have any other answers.  I think it would likely be much more significant symbolically to Jews given their history.  To myself it is more a memorial and a reminder of the significance of Christ’s sacrifice.

He did not say, this a symbol or substitute for his body or blood.

I don’t think he had to given the fact that it was “bread” and “fruit of the vine”.  The fact that it was these is communicated in the verses themself and in this statement: “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Why would he swear off something he wasn’t drinking at the time?

.... As for Pelosi taking communion… she is a political creature for whom every action, every statement is to be inclusive and liberal…

“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together.” Pffft! So is bingo.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Who has a big gaudy hat on?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

pparets was never taught about metaphor and simile in third grade.  One more victim of public school.

.... and it appears that electnixon was never taught proper syntax or sentence structure.  One does not learn about metaphor and simile; one learns the difference between them.

Looks like my public school beats your nursery.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Well obviously nobody believes that they’re literally eating the body and blood of Christ, but why even do it figuratively?

Because it was commanded by Christ (God) to do as he had done. 

If you understood this, you wouldn’t be an stheist.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

whherein He is sacrificed over and over for the remission of our sins without end.

You got it wrong - again.  Even a cursory review of Catholic teaching would reveal that this is not what Catholics believe.

No you are wrong. I am busy now, but later I will prove you are wrong.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

WaterJoe:  Neiman is right on this:

He is sacrificed over and over for the remission of our sins…

The Mass is - and always has been - essentially the recreation of the Last Supper and the passion of the Lord.  “… and He is the propitiation for our sins...”

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

I don’t think he had to given the fact that it was “bread” and “fruit of the vine”.  The fact that it was these is communicated in the verses themself and in this statement: “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Why would he swear off something he wasn’t drinking at the time?

He was telling them that he was about to die. And as such he would have no more wine until he was ressurrected and had it in the kingdom of heaven.

You got it wrong - again.  Even a cursory review of Catholic teaching would reveal that this is not what Catholics believe.

Theology 101 in Catholic high schools teach that transsubstanciation is indeed the literal changing of wine to blood and bread to flesh.
It is indeed what they believe.

Who has a big gaudy hat on?

Well, it looks like you have on a dunce cap...does that count?

Because the conservatives care so much about what the Pope says????

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

by Mark and Louise Zwick

The most consistent and frequent promoter of peace and human rights for the last two decades has been Pope John Paul II.

From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again!

John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.

In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a “war of aggression” is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a “crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God,” also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace.

John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.

After the United States began its attacks against Iraq, FOX News actually reported the immediate comments of the Holy Father, made in an address at the Vatican to members of an Italian religious television channel, Telespace: “When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society,” John Paul said. “Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.”

Americans were largely unaware of the depth and importance of the opposition of Church leaders to an attack on Iraq, since for the most part the mainstream media did not carry the stories. In the same way, many Americans were unaware that Pope John Paul II spoke against the first Gulf War 56 times. Media in the United States omitted this from the commentaries on the war. Many have also been unaware of the number of Iraqis killed in that war (not to mention the war which recently “ended"). In February 2003 Business Week published an interview with Beth Osborne Daponte, a professional demographer who worked for the Census Bureau. The first Bush administration tried to fire her because her published estimates of the number of Iraqi deaths conflicted with what Dick Cheney was saying at the time. She was defended by social science professionals and was able to keep her job. Her estimates: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

Why do the Republicans hate the Pope so much if they are just going to dismiss what he has to say???

Why do the Republicans hate the Pope so much

Why do you hate the readers at SA so much that you post so much meaningless drivel?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

New Pope Benedict XVI a Strong Critic of War

The election of Benedict XVI as pope brings hope for the continuation of peacemaking as central to the papacy. Just as John Paul II cried out again and again to the world, “War never again!” the new pope has taken the name of the one who first made that cry, Benedict XV, commonly known as “the peace pope.”
As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. “Certainly not,” he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that “the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.”

...Even after the war, Cardinal Ratzinger did not cease criticism of U.S. violence and imperialism: “it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world.”

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Why do you hate the readers at SA so much that you post so much meaningless drivel?

Proof,

Why are you being so generous in your assessment of H’s contributions?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Americans were largely unaware of the depth and importance of the opposition of Church leaders to an attack on Iraq, since for the most part the mainstream media did not carry the stories

Hmmm, no opposition in my parish.  Yeah, the church is against war but who isn’t.  You’re are just trying to make an issue where now exists.

For you anti-reliqious morons, it was the followers of the Roman Catholic church that stopped the Islamic invasion of Europe on 2 occassions, Vienna and Tours.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Americans were largely unaware of the depth and importance of the opposition of Church leaders to an attack on Iraq, since for the most part the mainstream media did not carry the stories

Hmmm, no opposition in my parish.  Yeah, the church is against war but who isn’t.  You’re are just trying to make an issue where now exists.

For you anti-reliqious morons, it was the followers of the Roman Catholic church that stopped the Islamic invasion of Europe on 2 occassions, Vienna and Tours.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

He was telling them that he was about to die. And as such he would have no more wine until he was ressurrected and had it in the kingdom of heaven.

Ok Kenny. So my point was that He and those with Him were drinking the “fruit of the vine” not blood and His statement proves that.

Why do the Republicans hate the Pope so much if they are just going to dismiss what he has to say???

Seeing you are an expert on what people mean to say, could you explain yourself here?  Are you saying that because Republicans dismiss the Pope’s comments they hate him?

To Kenny:  I was not referring to Nieman’s description of Catholic’s belief in the Real Presence.  Rather, I was referring to his claim that Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed “over and over for the remission of our sins without end.”

To pparets:  You are correct in your statement, but it does not agree with Nieman’s.  You rightly note that the Mass is a “recreation of the Last Supper and the passion of the Lord.  ‘… and He is the propitiation for our sins...’” However, it is not a recreation in the sense that it is a repeat of the sacrifice.

Nieman:  What the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Eucharist—which is the only issue here, not whether or not you agree with the teaching—is clear.  Catholics believe in the “once and for all” sacrifice made by Christ on the cross.  The Mass is not a re-sacrifice.  Rather, the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are “one and the same sacrifice.” In the Mass, we celebrate and participate in the one historical sacrifice of Christ.

You can read this for yourself in the Catechism, paragraphs 1366 and 1367. [url=http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm#v].

Again, don’t bother explaining whether the teaching is right or wrong. At issue was your claim about what Catholics believe. 

On the one hand, I feel uncomfortable posting about Catholic teaching when that was not the issue of this post.  On the other hand, though unrelated to the topic, you made a false claim about Catholic teaching—indeed, one that has been part of anti-Catholic diatribes for centuries.  I don’t mind challenges to any faith tradition so long as they are challenges to philosophy, theology, or biblical interpretation.  No one, however, should claim that a religion “teaches this,” unless it, in fact, makes that teaching.  As I said before, a little research would have shown the falsity of the statement.

Again, don’t bother trying to prove I am wrong unless you can come up with some way to prove that what the Catechism says is not what the Catechism says.

This seems to be a wide-ranging thread, but I gather at least one part of it involves the Church and its’ teachings on violent self-defense—which seems to have changed over time and not necessarily for the better:

He who, being able to be the peaceful owner of something—for example, life — aggresses against somebody else’s life in such a way that the person aggressed against cannot defend himself without depriving the aggressor of his life, operates in such a way as to endanger his own life. We can say that this aggressor throws his life away himself, and that he expressly surrenders his holy property.  Thus he who takes the life of the unjust aggressor as the only way to save his own, takes that life with the express consent of the owner.
-- Father Antonio Rosmini, 1823—PDF file

Even before this, and quite famous, were the exhortations of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux for European Christians to come to the aid of the pilgrims waylaid, killed, seized into slavery, robbed or raped by the Muslim.

In DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITIAE (1128-1131) he wrote:

Christ’s knight deals out death in safety, as I said, and suffers death in even greater safety. He benefits himself when he suffers death, and benefits Christ when he deals out death. ’He does not wear a sword without cause; he is God’s agent for punishment of evil-doers and for glorification of the good.‘ Clearly, when he kills an evil-doer, he is not a homicide, but, if you will allow me the term, a malicide, and is plainly Christ’s vengeance on those who work evil and the defense Christ provides for Christians.

Somehow this common-sense right and duty of self-defense went out the window, possibly with the onset of the thinking it’s okay for priests to rape little altar boys.

While the Catholics certainly have had their problems, I agreed with this earlier aspect. 

Nowadays?

Not so much.

...for great justice

You’re are just trying to make an issue where now exists.

For you anti-reliqious morons, it was the followers of the Roman Catholic church that stopped the Islamic invasion of Europe on 2 occassions, Vienna and Tours.

Youre right.  The fact that the Pope sent someone to Bush to tell him not to invade Iraq, and that if he did GOD WAS NOT ON HIS SIDE, was clearly a non issue.

Then you merely call us a moron and make a statement that has no relevance to the Iraq war.

WaterJoe:  You are exactly correct in your post on the meaning and purpose of the Mass.  Thank you.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Seeing you are an expert on what people mean to say, could you explain yourself here?  Are you saying that because Republicans dismiss the Pope’s comments they hate him?

I didnt get the joke.  You are asking me to clarify my statements, not somebody elses.  *confused*

The pope said they shouldn’t, not that htey cant.  There is a difference.

My sarcasm reflected the similar logic that was used to describe Nancy’s feelings of “entitlement”.

For surely if George Bush was to say God told him to attack, after the Pope told him god would not be with him, he was either lying or he felt entitled or he hates the pope.

I chose the latter, because I fancied Robs logic.

Why are you being so generous in your assessment of H’s contributions?

Jealous Bat?  Are taken aback that someone can counter Rob with the correct amount of matching logic?

Because the conservatives care so much about what the Pope says????

The Pope was a fool. John Paul the 2nd was wrong on a lot. Since you support his decision to be against the war, you’re obviously a fan of pedophilia being protected?

The issue was “Can the Church decide who gets communion”. Thanks for proving you’re too dumb to stay on topic!

And Bush isn’t Catholic. So he’s not bound by Catholic doctrine, whereas Pelosi is...fool.

To Kenny:  I was not referring to Nieman’s description of Catholic’s belief in the Real Presence.  Rather, I was referring to his claim that Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed “over and over for the remission of our sins without end.”

While Neiman may have been a tad off there, he wasn’t FAR off. The belief is that the eucharist repeats the sacrifice of Christ, in that the mass repeats the last Supper. The misunderstanding is understandable. And really not that off....

Ok Kenny. So my point was that He and those with Him were drinking the “fruit of the vine” not blood and His statement proves that.

The statement proves no such thing. He tells his disciples they are drinking his blood.

That he later says he will not taste wine til after the Ressurrection means nothing.

Sorry, bu, there’s nothing in scripture to help you.

For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, ”The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367: [Granted the words re-sacrifice are not specifically used, but the intent of re-presenting that sacrifice has the same result.]

In 1551 A.D., the Counsel of Trent officially stated: “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted.

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...” Christ’s once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

Catholics may believe what they choose, they may parse words and engage in whatever man-made traditions they choose, they don’t need my opinion on the matter. But, the Roman Catholic Catechism does speak of Christ being re-offered, his sacrifice being re-presented, and that amounts to a continual re-sacrifice. Otherwise, why would anyone’s salvation depend upon whether or not they partake of the Eucharist so often?

The Roman Catholic Catechism speaks, albeit using cleverly designed phrases, to what amounts to a continual re-sacrifice of Christ for our sins through the elements of the Eucharist.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, ”The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367: [Granted the words re-sacrifice are not specifically used, but the intent of re-presenting that sacrifice has the same result.]

In 1551 A.D., the Counsel of Trent officially stated: “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted.

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...” Christ’s once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

Catholics may believe what they choose, they may parse words and engage in whatever man-made traditions they choose, they don’t need my opinion on the matter. But, the Roman Catholic Catechism does speak of Christ being re-offered, his sacrifice being re-presented, and that amounts to a continual re-sacrifice. Otherwise, why would anyone’s salvation depend upon whether or not they partake of the Eucharist so often?

The Roman Catholic Catechism speaks, albeit using cleverly designed phrases, to what amounts to a continual re-sacrifice of Christ for our sins through the elements of the Eucharist.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, ”The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367: [Granted the words re-sacrifice are not specifically used, but the intent of re-presenting that sacrifice has the same result.]

In 1551 A.D., the Counsel of Trent officially stated: “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted.

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...” Christ’s once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

Catholics may believe what they choose, they may parse words and engage in whatever man-made traditions they choose, they don’t need my opinion on the matter. But, the Roman Catholic Catechism does speak of Christ being re-offered, his sacrifice being re-presented, and that amounts to a continual re-sacrifice. Otherwise, why would anyone’s salvation depend upon whether or not they partake of the Eucharist so often?

The Roman Catholic Catechism speaks, albeit using cleverly designed phrases, to what amounts to a continual re-sacrifice of Christ for our sins through the elements of the Eucharist.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Sorry about the multiple comments, it kept saying database error and I assumed it didn’t get through!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Catholics may believe what they choose, they may parse words and engage in whatever man-made traditions they choose, they don’t need my opinion on the matter.

But you gave it, nevertheless.

But, the Roman Catholic Catechism does speak of Christ being re-offered, his sacrifice being re-presented, and that amounts to a continual re-sacrifice.

To you it may amount to a continual re-sacrifice, but as the Catechism clearly points out, the Catholic Church does not view it that way.  Other than your mere opinion that re-presenting = re-sacrifice, you did not offer any reasons for your claim that the Catholic Church does not mean what it says when it says it is not considered a re-sacrifice, except your claim that the Church teaches that one’ salvation is dependent upon partaking the Eucharist often.  But this reasoning fails on several points.

First, you have confused the obligation to attend weekly mass with the obligation to receive the Eucharist.  They are different.  In fact, Catholics are obliged only to receive the Eucharist at least once a year.

Second, failure to receive the Eucharist is not, by itself, a mortal sin.

Third, you have tied the supposed re-sacrifice to the obligation, ignoring that the obligation may be due to other possibilities, such as Christ’s commandment that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. (Jn 6:53.)

You can argue that the Mass and Catholic teaching about the Eucharist is unbiblical, but don’t try to argue that what the church teaches is not what the church teaches, especially when definitive sources are available and clear on the matter.

WaterJoe:  Neiman believes himself to be the ultimate theologian on matters catholic, but his bias against the oldest and largest christian denomination shades his thinking.

It does not matter to him at all that the term re-sacrificed exists no where in catholic dogma. He just invents it because it suits his argument!

Nor does it matter to him that any of us refrains, out of customary courtesy, from responding to his own very shakey religious precepts

Only if one is a catholic or has been a catholic [my case] can the unique nature of that branch of the christian faith be understood.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Only if one is a catholic or has been a catholic [my case] can the unique nature of that branch of the christian faith be understood.

Ditto on that,pp, and you could add a practicing Catholic schooled on the teaches of the church.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Giuliani breaks rules by having Communion at papal mass

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Twice-divorced former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani took Communion at a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict on Saturday, breaching rules that bar those who remarry outside the Church from doing so.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Waterjoe and Ppaerts: According to your wishes, rather than argue the Biblical basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, I gave you an exact quotation from the Roman Catholic Catechism, which cleary teaches: ”The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” Sadly, you and Roman Catholic apologist Pparets choose to ignore the fact that via the Catechism the fruit of the Eucharist is trasubstantiated in the Eucharist elements, thus it is required by the words of the Cathechism itself for Catholics to ingest the elements in order to have the sacrifice of Christ reapplied to the life of the believer, thus it was not once for all at Calvary.

I know that it offends Catholics when their man-made religion* is questioned as to its authenticity, likewise I feel deeply concerned when the Roman Catholic Church has always insisted, and it still exists in their doctrines today despite more recent mealy mouthed attempts at reconciliation, that their organization is the only true church and anyone not a Roman Catholic is anathema; that is, condemned to eternal sufferings in hell. (* All religious organizations are man made and thus faulty)

Neiman believes himself to be the ultimate theologian on matters catholic, but his bias against the oldest and largest christian denomination shades his thinking.

That is a damn lie Ppaerts! It is wholly your biased, judgmental, subjective opinion not based on any facts whatsoever. I have never said directly nor have I ever intimated in the smallest degree that I am the ultimate theologian. You accuse my of all sorts of things, you call me names, assume facts not in evidence and attack me personally solely because I am willing to directly express and defend my beliefs, even those beliefs which are contrary to your own. You hope to make me cower before you and back off my own firm beliefs, but if I was willing to speak with less assurance one could reasonably doubt my faith, as I would be saying something I did not believe it to be true.

Yes, I have a strong bias against the Roman Catholic Church, the organization, the papacy and their doctrines, rituals and traditions. I think it is the Great Whore of Revelation; that being my sincere belief after many years of study, why would you expect it not to influence my opinions of that organization?

It does not matter to him at all that the term re-sacrificed exists no where in catholic dogma. He just invents it because it suits his argument!

That is another damn lie and it is a conscious, deliberate lie to boot!

Words have meaning and the absence of the word re-sacrifice or continual sacrifice does not mean that it is not the true doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (Though the word sacrifed in the Eucharist elements is present). The word Trinity does not occur in Holy Scriptures anywhere, does it? No! Yet, Christians absolutely believe in One God in Three Persons. Why? The words of Scripture make that doctrine and that Divine Truth apparent and uncontestable. In a similar manner, while the Catechism is hardly Scripture, nonethless the words in that document regarding the Eucharist make the doctrine of Christ being sacrificed over and over again in the Mass an uncontestable Truth.

See my comments below wherein morte information supporting this view is presented:

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

From the Roman Catholic Eucharist by William Webster

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the eucharist was first given dogmatic expression at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, when the Church formally adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation as its official teaching. This was confirmed by the Council of Trent, which also asserted that the Lord’s Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. These are the two primary and supremely important elements of the Church’s teaching on the eucharist — transubstantiation and sacrifice.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that when the priest utters the words of consecration, the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. He is then offered to God on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. The Council of Trent explicitly states that ‘in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross’.

There are thus two aspects of the Roman doctrine: transubstantiation, which guarantees the ‘real presence’ of Christ; and the mass, in which Christ, thus present bodily, is re-offered to God as a sacrifice. This, however, is not the only view which has been expressed in a consistent way throughout the history of the Church. From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and also referred to the eucharist as a sacrifice, but there was considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers on the precise nature of these things, reflected in the fact that the ancient Church produced no official dogma of the Lord’s Supper.

I really only wanted to express my disagreement with Bat One about the beauty of the Mass in Washington D.C., I thought it was obscene; not debate ad naseum the Eucharist, as no Roman Catholic, no matter how much evidence is presented to them, would dare entertain any disgareement with Rome on such an issue as they fear the loss of their soul. On the other hand, once that issue came into the discussions, I felt obliged not to ignore it.

The Truth from a Divine perspective, whether it reveals sins in our own lives or false doctrines will always cause some fear amd cause some to lie and attack others in defense of their beliefs. But, in this debate the lies (from at least one person) and attacks have been forthcoming from the Roman Cathlolic tripartite troika of Bat One, Waterjoe and Pparets.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman:  I have never called you a name. I have never attacked you personally.

I have said that ‘re-sacrificed’ does not exist in catholic teachings. You have agreed that that is so.

Very early on, you opined that you had spent years studying comparative religions.  By that statement, one would be safe in assuming that you were claiming superior authority on the catholic religion.

As you know, I generally have very high regard for your posts and have frequently said so.  But when you choose to criticize and attack the faith of others because it is not your faith, you cross the line.  It was you who introduced this ugly, unpleasant and unnecessary thread.

I will say no more.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Ppaerts: When you accuse me of saying something I never said, without using a particulart word, you are still making false charges against me and by that atttacking my character.

I agreed the word ”re-sacrifice” was not in the text, I never agreed in any shape, manner or form, that a continual re-sacrificing of Christ was not clearly part of the doctrine of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, and I provided proofs from the actual text and from other supporting Church texts to prove my claims. Thus, I have not denied that a continual re-sacrificing of Christ is part of the Roman Catholic Church Catechism, I believe I have clearly proved my contention.

I used the word ‘lie” above in other comments and it concerns me, as I have used it before and caused hurt feelings thereby, only because I knew I did not say or mean this or that; so while it still concerns me to use that word, as one might reasonably conclude and prefer to think you were only expressing a sincere opinion based on a misunderstanding and not actually lying against me; what can I call it when you accuse me of saying or meaning something I never said and wherein you have provided no direct quotation in support of your accusation? You said something not factually correct nor a reasonable interpretation of the words used, I could say you are wrong, but that seems rather a tepid reaction to such a clear false statement.

You have also accused me of attacking the faith of someone else. Well, so whenever we confront, let us say a Satanist, if we clearly and directly express our opposition to their religious faith and document wherein e believe they are in opposition to Christ in Word and deed, that is unacceptable to you as well, as it is attacking their faith? If we sincerely believe an alleged Christian religion, let us say the Latter Day Saints, is a false religion leading many people to hell by their lies, are you saying that Christ would ask us to remain silent and do nothing to hopefully, by His Spirit in our words, rescue some of them from eternal suffering? That is the clear result of your rather dogmatic insistence that we Christians are not to speak against other religions as it represents an attack upon their beliefs, which means we are to polite them into hell in deference to the doctrine of liberal political correctness. No, I must disagree with you, when the opportunity arises to bring the Truth, as we have the light to see the Truth, to people in bondage to the enemy of our souls, I would prefer to be called names and attacked rather than remain silent and by that silence demonstrate that I have no real concern for their eternal souls.

Having expressed my many years of study of Scripture and comparative religions only implies I have gained some knowledge about the subject, no where and in no way does that imply I believe I have a superior knowledge over anyone, I have no superior righteousness over anyone, no anointing as a Prophet of God. No, I am a sinful man very interested in the subject of Christ and am willing to enagage in serious debate on this issue, but I have never encouraged anyone to accept my beliefs or to change their own, I only defend my right to express my beliefs whenever I feel it is appropriate.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Hey Auntie Spelling Bea, the preceding is an excellent model to work you emeritus status on.

Well?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

to work you (sic) emeritus status on.

Left wing nutters crack me up!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

opps

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob