Sacrifice and the Holy Mass, a difficult mono-dialogue

 

locust_eaters gave this response on 4/27/2000:

The pope has always held a position that has been considered by many to be a type of antichrist. Since the burning of Christians in English times even up to the holocaust.

The Catholic church is one of the biggest money making machines and they have more land holdings in the world

than any other religious organization.

The pope has more reverence than Jesus Christ and I find the horrible and sad. When people bow to him and kiss his hand it makes me SO sorrowful! Because if Christ came back today those same people would still reject him.

I believe the Roman Catholic church is a cult. They deny the fact that Jesus Christ died once for our sins.(mass) They forbid men to marry which is a sign of the end times. And if you check their church doctrine they curse everyone who believes that Jesus did die once for all.(I can give specifics on that if anyone requests it)

There is only one mediator between God and man & that is Jesus Christ NOT a priest.

I’m not trying to be cold. Just strait to the point. The catholic church opposes the

true Christian faith. We can smile & hold hands & pretend that our beliefs are the same BUT the are completely different!

I encourage everyone to do some digging and look into the beliefs & doctrines & history of this "church" there is a lot to be learned !!

peace out!!

corie =)

 

 

Dear brother in Christ:

Thank you for praying that God may guide me to the truth. In the strength of this prayer let us pursue our dialogue.

My analogy that the answer "yes" or "no" regarding the question if I accept the canon 3 of the Council of Trent is like asking a question like: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" has no derogatory intention. The only thing I want to show is that there are questions that cannot be answered that way because they imply a wrong "supposition". The point of depart is flawed. How so? You try to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is not Christian because of the canon 3 regarding "sacrifice" talks about the fact that there is more than "one", do you? So if I answer "yes" you might say that the Bible talks about only one Savior, one Sacrifice. Ergo: the Catholic Church is not teaching the Bible truth. If I say "no" you might argue that I am not a Catholic because I do not accept solemn teaching of my Church. The comparison tries to show that your question itself does not permit a right answer.

By the way, so that there be no doubt, I affirm that I believe that the Catholic Church has an uninterrupted "paradosis" i.e. Tradition from the Apostles until the present day; I believe and accept and confess as divinely inspired truth ALL the teaching of the ecumenical Councils of the Church, and ALL the solemn Church pronouncements regarding faith o morals. That brings me to a question: Do you accept the first Councils of the Church? Do you accept the Nicene-Constantinople (?) Creed? It would give us a common point of departs. But let us go on.

I would like to know what text do you mean when you say that the Vatican has drawn a line (are you alluding to the line drawn by Pizarro, the discoverer of Peru on the isle of Gallo? He did draw a line in the sand). I cannot comment that because I do not know what pronouncement you talk about.

You say that the understanding of "sacrifice" is a secondary issue. I respectfully disagree. It is the pivotal point of the question. You say that truth does not change. I agree. But I suggest that the understanding of the divine truth changes. For the better I hope. What changes with the times is our understanding. That is why guiding yesterday a "lectio divina" of our seminarians of John 24:35-48 – that’s our Gospel reading next Sunday – I "understood", or better, the Lord gave me the grace to understand what I learned at that moment. Today, reading it again, I have new insights. The Word is so abundantly "loaded" that I cannot fathom it all. What changes? The truth of the Word? No, I have changed. Mankind changes. And if we are obedient to the Holy Spirit He will guide us to all truth.

Another line of thought evokes the fact that historical understanding is sometimes very difficult because we may use the same word and imply different content. An example you will find in the the "joint declaration between the catholic church and the Lutheran world federation on the doctrine of justification. One of the most difficult problems was to ascertain what "justification" is. There has been the need of a very careful discussion of elements. Both Churches have reached the point to be able to say that they accept each other teaching in this element. It is an example in case. You can find material at http://www.ewtn.com/. They have search machine.

So you understand why I cannot accept that the "sacrifice" issue is secondary. Not taking it up would sacrifice the historical element. I respectfully submit that the word "sacrifice" in the Council of Trent has a different meaning than the word "sacrifice" in Hebrews. In between there have been 1300 years of theological debate. Moreover the Council of Trent taught in a special historical context. So before answering you question if I accept the canon 3 we need to know if you are in a disposition to explore what "sacrifice" means.

What I am trying to do is define the presuppositions, the departing points of our dialogue. If we are not careful here we will be using the same words and talk about different things, the classical dialogue between the deaf that hear but do not understand each other.

Regarding the Passover meal I offer only one suggestion we will have to take up in detail. Our Lord has conducted the ancient rite of Pasha. There who presides says: "I was slave in Egypt, but the Lord with strong arm and extended hand freed me". The Exodus was once for all. Celebrating actualizes the event for all participants. It is not a fiction; it is real because those who celebrate faithfully are liberated in this moment because the arm of the Lord has not withered. And the Catholic Mass has many elements of the Pasha. You see if you do not take into consideration the historical implications you may err grievously.

 

Thank you for your patience. I am looking forward to you answer.

God bless you and may His Face smile over you

In Corde Jesu

mscperu

Missionary of the Sacred Heart.

PD. I am too old to do fancy footwork!

 

 

locust_eaters gave this response on 5/9/2000:

You are being modest. You are very adept at fancy footwork, regardless of your age.

On one hand you say the question cannot be answered with a straight yes or no, while on the other hand you say "I believe and accept and confess as divinely inspired truth ALL the teaching of the ecumenical Councils of the Church."

Fancy footwork notwithstanding, I find your courage refreshing. Finally someone admits publicly that they accept Canon 3. And you knew exactly where I was going next. You have an uncanny ability for clarity of thought, no matter how hard you try to conceal it.

To put your mind at ease, let me assure you that I sensed no derogatory intention in your wife-beating analogy. It’s just a poor analogy. It does not support your point at all.

Your point was: there are some questions that cannot be answered yes or no. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is not one of them. A wife-beater either has or has not stopped beating his wife. The question can be answered yes or no, and so can my question about Canon 3. I’m glad you finally did.

I think you know full well that the Council of Trent was created for this very purpose — to draw a line of demarcation — to define who is in the faith and who is not.

There is really no need to belabor the definition of the word sacrifice. Canon 3 takes care of that for us. It’s language is very clear. It claims specifically that the mass is "...a PROPITIATORY sacrifice"

http://m-w.com/

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines PROPITIATORY as follows:

1 : intended to propitiate : EXPIATORY

2 : of or relating to propitiation

It defines PROPITIATION as follows:

1 : the act of propitiating

2 : something that propitiates; specifically : an atoning sacrifice

It defines EXPIATION as follows:

1 : the act of making atonement

2 : the means by which atonement is made

The Bible defines PROPITIATION as follows:

(Romans 3:23-25) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a PROPITIATION through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

(I John 2:2) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the PROPITIATION for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

(I John 4:8) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the PROPITIATION for our sins.

PROPITIATION is an atonement for sin.

The Roman Catholic religion claims that the mass is an atonement for sin. I say that it is not. I say that it is an abomination in the sight of God to make such a claim. I say that the mass ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities.

Either the cross was the PROPITIATION for sin, once for all, or it was not. I believe that it was and I reject the idea that the mass has any value whatsoever to cleanse my sins. Can I remain in this opinion and spend eternity with my God and Savior Jesus Christ?

locust_eaters

locust_eaters

 

mscperu asked this follow-up question on 5/10/2000:

Dear brother in Christ:

I hope you find the Easter season comforting your hope and faith in the joy of the Lord.

Regarding your question "Can I remain in this opinion (that mscperu and the catholic Church are believing and preaching an abomination – vide superior) and spend eternity with my God and Savior Jesus Christ?" I answer with a resounding yes. Salvation is an answer to your intentions I suppose are sincere. A minimum IQ is not required to enter heaven. (Just joking). But let us come to the logic of your answer.

First, I apologize for not having explained myself fully. Presenting the analogy "have you stopped beating your wife?" I was supposing that there was NO wife beating. So an innocent man cannot answer with "yes" o "no" because any of the answers would mean that he has beaten his wife. My contention is that I do not accept your concept of "sacrifice". Therefore answering your question with "yes" o "no" would not describe my view. Because you are talking of an other concept using the same word. Saying "yes" I would induce you into an error regarding my concept; saying "no" I would not be a believer of my Church. So, accepting and professing the famous canon of the Council of Trent does not mean that I accept your interpretation of "sacrifice". I suggest that you cannot simply ignore history and assume that expressions are the same after 1300 years.

I thank you for providing the Webster definition. We should consult one of these historical lexicons that describe the acceptance of word in the different centuries.

If it will set your mind at peace I will express our common faith that "the cross was the PROPITIATION for sin, once for all", as you very rightly say. Let it be so for both. It seems we have reached the stage where the dialogue is: "T’is so" – "T’is not so!" I will try an other track.

Your basic argument is that the Council of Trent denies the unicity of the sacrifice of our Lord by saying that the Mass is a sacrifice. You suppose that the offering of the Mass substitutes the unique sacrifice of the Lord by multiple human acts. Please consider the following passage of the II Vatican Council ( - there is a search engine at http://www.stjosef.at/cgi-scripts/council_search.pl - ). You will find it in the Constitution "Lumen Gentium". It says:

"28. Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world (Jn. 10:36), has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, sharers in his consecration and mission; and these, in their turn, duly entrusted in varying degrees various members of the Church with the office of their ministry. Thus the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests and deacons.

Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that associated with them by reason of their sacerdotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest (Heb. 5:1-10; 7:24; 9:11-28), they are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament. On the level of their own ministry sharing in the unique office of Christ, the mediator, (1 Tim. 2:5), they announce to all the word of God. However, it is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred functions; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26), the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father (cf. Heb. 9:11-28).

And on behalf of the faithful who are moved to sorrow or are stricken with sickness they exercise in an eminent degree a ministry of reconciliation and comfort, whilst they carry the needs and supplications of the faithful to God the Father (cf. Heb. 5:1-4). Exercising, within the limits of the authority which is theirs, the office of Christ, the Shepherd and Head, they assemble the family of God as a brotherhood fired with a single ideal, and through Christ in the Spirit they lead it to God the Father.

In the midst of the flock they adore him in spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4:24). In short, they labor in preaching and instruction (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17), firmly adhering to what they read and meditate in the law of God, inculcating that which they believe, and putting into practice what they preach."

I admit the text is like those emergency rations, very nutritious but very dense. But it tries an explanation of what are the relation of the liturgy and the UNIQUE SACRIFICE of Christ. The point in question is: "Do you accept the concept ‘sacrament’ and if so, what does it mean to you? Here it says things like "make it present again" and "apply the unique sacrifice" and "once for all". I respectfully suggest that this is nothing else than obeying Christ’s mandate "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22, 19).

Do you have an other explanation of what the Church did since the beginnings (Acts 2, 42): "And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer"?

"Sweet is the Providence that Overrules Us." Seton

God bless you

mscperu

Missionary of the Sacred Heart

 

   locust_eaters gave this response on 5/11/2000:

The simple fact remains that the Roman Catholic religion claims that the mass has propitiatory value for those who partake. All of the fancy double talk in the world does not change that.

(II Corinthians 11:3-4) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Roman Catholicism presents "another Jesus" who must be offered up repeatedly. I say that there is no way that this can be. This is not my Jesus. This is not the Jesus presented in the Bible. Either the cross of Christ dealt with sin once for all or it did not. According to the scripture, this concept is supposed to be simple. In the verses above, notice how "simplicity that is in Christ" is contrasted against "another Jesus" and "another spirit." Rome’s complicated explanations of how and why there is supposedly still an offering that ought to be offered for "sins, pains and other necessities" only take away from the simplicity that is in Christ. This amounts to another Jesus, another spirit.

I confess that I reject the Jesus preached by the Roman Catholic religion. I confess that I reject the spirit preached by the Roman Catholic religion.

(Hebrews 10:16-18) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

(Romans 6:9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him

You must repent before it is too late.

 

 You rated this answer:  

   Faveas arguere "ad rem"

 

 

 mscperu asked this follow-up question on 5/24/2000:

Dear Brother in Christ.

Thank you for your answer and the invitation of repentance. I ask God the forgiveness every day of my life so I may not stray from His hand.

Do you know about the Spanish nobleman who fought against windmills? He saw enemies where there were none. He fought bravely with a noble mind but nonetheless he was wrong. Good intentions need to be illuminated.

You make dialogue very difficult. I offer you arguments and your answer is that "Roman Catholicism presents "another Jesus" who must be offered up repeatedly. I say that there is no way that this can be"; you talk about "fancy double talk". Before you used "subtlety". This is a not an answer. You say "that there is no way that this can be". We are talking about a bridge to cross an abysm. You say it is not there. May I suggest that you have not even considered the historical, theological and semantic arguments I offered you? You have made up your idea, so there! How do you know that your interpretation is the right one? Other Christian denominations give different interpretations. Who guarantees that you are right? Do you or your congregation have a special divine inspiration? Prove it! What certification do you have?

Your arguments consist in offering verses of the Scripture. I could answer your citing Hebrew with Mal 1, 11: "11 my name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure SACRIFICES will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty" and I could argue that the prophet has announced the sacrifice of the Mass. But again we will have to analyze what the word sacrifice means and the gist of hr;whof] hj;nÒmiW and qusiva in the original text. And your answer would probably be: "fancy double talk". Sorry, but all the serious scholars of Scripture in the whole world are engaging in this kind of "fancy double talk". So?

May I suggest an explanation of why you react the way you do. The protestant Christian denominations, especially those originating in the past two centuries, base their faith on Luther’s principle "sola scriptura". That means that they are jumping some 1700 years. Disregarding the inspired search of the faithful of all this centuries they have to fall back on the Scripture in an exclusively dogmatic literal sense, as THEY understand it. But if you delve into the original text (do you accept the Hebrew and Greek original texts?) you are in midst the history and the process of ascertaining the different meaning of the same word in different books and even in the same book of the Bible. I suggest you take a peek at Kittel’s "THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" who tries to do just that: comparing the different sources to find the real sense. You on the contrary have to be dogmatic about it: "It is so". Not even the Pope dares to talk like that. He has to consult the "sensus fidei", i.e., he needs to find out what is the common faith of the Church. Remember Vincent of Lerins’ "Everywhere, everybody, every time".

I could enumerate some more reasons that explain your way to argue: disregard of semantic symbolisms, negation of the possibility that Christ’s Passover is re-lived in the liturgical "mysteria - sacramenta"; you pay no heed to the effort that invest your Lutheran brethrens to elucidate historical disagreements and to find together with other Churches the meaning of the Word of God. All this shows a voluntary incapacity to dialogue don’t you think so? And when you misunderstand an analogy you do not come back to its real sense.

I am curious if THIS time you have a new answer other than "fancy double talk". And please, I am saying that you are in an error but I do not say that you are morally guilty because of it. How could I know if you voluntary disregard the inspiration of the Spirit? So "11 do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother, or judges his brother, speaks against the law, and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge of it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?" (James 4). Now I am arguing your way, do I? But we would have to take up the debate about the meaning of "Judge" to understand each other… to understand the Lord.

God bless you

In Corde Jesu

mscperu

Missionary of the Sacred Heart

 

 locust_eaters gave this response on 5/27/2000:

I am working on a response. I’ll send it as soon as possible. Please acknowledge and standby.

I Corinthians 13:6

Ephesians 4:14-15

Thank you

 

mscperu asked this follow-up question on 5/27/2000:

Taking advantage of the "hiatus" I would like to add an observation regarding the method of your last message. The method of the messages before last just rebuts calling my arguments "subtlety" and "fancy double talk". I take them as purely theoretical answers not as an allusion to my ethics even if you have not offered prove. You offered Scripture as a rebuttal. I offered some observations regarding the interpretation and you answered with more Scripture. Please, you cannot build a brick wall without foundation. You cannot argue Scripture-wise if do not agree about the interpretation. I presume you are working on that.

 

This time you change your method. You make a profession of faith: "I confess that I reject the Jesus preached by the Roman Catholic religion. I confess that I reject the spirit preached by the Roman Catholic religion".

There are some observations to make.

First of all since when a rejection of type of preaching is an article of faith? You can say: "This is my faith". So far so good. I cannot argue against your faith as such because it is a decision solely taken by the believer. But I can argue against the facts on which you base your faith. If the facts are not right where stands the faith? I spare you the related Scripture verse because it would judge your inner intentions if not your intelligence. Members of the Catholic Church condemned Galileo because they did not accept the facts but thought Scripture was apt to teach astronomy and other sciences. Have you read that John Paul II has righted the wrong done? We have learned from this happening that the Bible does not teach science but truth about God and men. Why do I write this? Simply to show that a concept contained in the Bible can be interpreted the wrong way.

Secondly, how can you reject something that does no exist? It is like closing your eyes to reality: "I confess that I reject the assumptions that the earth revolves around the sun".

Look at the logic of your assumptions. They run like this: The Council of Trent affirms that the Mass is a sacrifice (right!). You say that Scripture affirms that once and for all Christ offered Himself in Sacrifice (right!). Then you conclude that the Catholic Church multiplies the sacrifices of Christ (wrong!). Why wrong? Because they are talking about a sacrifice different from that of Hebrews. Your answer: fancy double talk (wrong!). Why? Supposition, no argumentative proof. It might imply that I try willingly to say lies. But I prefer the other explanation: that I do not know what I am really talking about. So I try different ways.

Next conclusion: the Jesus preached by the Catholic Church is not the Jesus I believe (wrong!) You assume that it is so (wrong!). Why? Simple logics. If I talk about apples and prunes I cannot say that your apples are bad apples when I am talking about prunes. I can say though that both are fruit, can I? That’s logic.

Now let us try an other track in method. You suppose that the Jesus preached by the Catholic Church is not the Jesus of the Scripture. I oppose the contrary supposition: the Jesus preached by the catholic Church IS the Jesus of the Scripture. So we have two suppositions. What is the solution? A confession of faith? If your confession of faith is based on erroneous assumptions does it validate your opinion?

This all sounds a little offensive. I am not attacking you. I am going after your logic. You are, I presume, someone who loves Jesus very much, who wants do make Him known to everybody, who loves his neighbor as Jesus loved. You will be with God in heaven (I wonder where do you think I will be?). But you remind me of an observation of my father superior commenting the qualities of a lay brother in charge of the convent kitchen: "He is a wooonderful man, he is a hoooly man but he is a… baaaad cook".

You see we come back to our first disagreement. I have brought prove that the sacrifice of Jesus has been realized once and for all is a doctrine preached so by the Vatican II. Now you have to prove that the expression "sacrifice" of the Trent Council is different from that of Vatican II. This would be a way to come to grips with the problem.

I think I will have to go back to the Council of Trent and elucidate the concept of "sacrifice" there.

God bless you

In Corde Jesu

msc

Missionary of the Sacred Heart

 

   locust_eaters gave this response on 6/24/2000:

(I had to shorten this reply considerably in order to get it down to an acceptable length. The AskMe.com system edits limit length)

THE BIBLE IS A SUFFICIENT RULE OF FAITH -

ROMAN CATHOLICISM IS NOT THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS (Jude 3)

------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------

TO ALL WHO MAY BE OBSERVING THIS ONGOING DIALOG:

The differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants lie not only in certain doctrines, but in the very rule of faith itself. For me, the Bible is the sufficient and only rule of faith. But for the Roman Catholic religion, the Bible is not a sufficient and only rule of faith, but the Bible plus tradition. This is a grievous error.

Matthew 15:6b-9; Luke 4:3,4,8,10; Colossians 2:8

Article 17 of the Roman Catholic Syllabus of Pope Pius IX declares that the eternal salvation of anyone outside of the true church of Christ (they mean the Roman Catholic church) is not even to be hoped for.

So if you find yourself feeling that old ecumenical sympathy that says "can’t we all just get along?" I urge you with the apostle Paul, BEWARE... OF VAIN DECEIT AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN.

------------------------------------------------------

TO GERARDO (Roman Catholic missionary in Peru):

We are again back to the issue of authority. I want to make this as crystal-clear as possible. I REJECT THE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. I REJECT YOUR JESUS WHO COMMANDS YOU TO FOLLOW A ROMAN PONTIFF. WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE SAME JESUS. I WORSHIP THE TRUE JESUS. YOU WORSHIP A FALSE JESUS. DO NOT TELL ME THAT WE REALLY BELIEVE IN THE SAME JESUS. WE DO NOT! DO NOT ADDRESS ME AS "BROTHER IN CHRIST." UNTIL YOU RENOUNCE ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESY, WE CAN NEVER BE BROTHERS.

To suggest that we really believe in the same God is syncretism and it is ludicrous.

ORAL TRADITION IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A RULE OF FAITH

------------------------------------------------------

(John 21:21-23) Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Oral tradition? Apostolic succession? Here we observe the written Word of God setting the record straight. A record that had been tainted by oral communication that spread abroad an incorrect interpretation of what Jesus actually said. The written Word must be the final authority. It is plainly demonstrated here in the Gospel of John.

THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE AND SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. But that puts you out of a job, doesn’t it?

The bottom line is that you and I both refuse to accept each other’s source of authority. I say that the scripture alone is the final authority. You seek an authoritative figure to give a sanctioned "interpretation" of the scripture. You ask "How do you know that your interpretation is the right one? Other Christian denominations give different interpretations." To which I answer the Bible is sufficient. Compare scripture with scripture in context and the Bible interprets itself. Just because there are many different opinions that doesn’t mean that we are left to fend for ourselves in an ocean of subjective speculation, at the mercy of "learned experts" like yourself. There is an objective basis for absolute truth. It is the written Word of God in the Bible.

When you ask "Who guarantees that you are right?" you reveal how you seek some guarantee outside of the Word of God Itself. This bears witness of the man-centeredness of your religion. Whatever God says is not enough, you require someone with impressive credentials to give an interpretation. I thank my God that the simple fishermen from Galilee did not cower in this mentality.

You ask "Do you or your congregation have a special divine inspiration?" I answer YES! It is the Bible. The Word of God.

You demand that I "prove it" I answer Mark 8:12

You ask "What certification do you have?" I answer Acts 4:13

Concerning your silly analogy of the Spanish nobleman? He doesn’t sound very noble to me. I do, however, know about the people whom the Bible describes as "noble." They searched the scriptures daily to check and see whether or not the things which were taught by the apostle Paul were correct. You would do well to follow their example.

(Acts 17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The fact that Roman Catholicism preaches another Jesus is not my argument. IT IS MY CONCLUSION. Can’t you tell the difference between an argument and a conclusion? My argument so far has been based on the fact that your religion teaches that the sacrifice of the mass should be offered for sins. This is contrary to the Bible which teaches that Jesus Christ offered "one sacrifice for sins forever" (Hebrews 10:12). This is a sound argument which follows a logical progression. You saw it coming from a mile away, even before I fully presented it. Why were you able to see it coming? Because it follows logic! It is an argument which you, nevertheless, choose to ignore.

The substance of my argument goes well beyond a mere reply of "fancy double talk" and you know it. "Fancy double talk" is the way that I characterize your attempts to twist word definitions until they mean something completely different than the rules of grammar and syntax would demand. This is a tactic which is typical of cultists who disregard the basic laws of language. I am not interested in your alternative definition of the word "sacrifice." I am satisfied with the one that I now hold. Your own Council of Trent was very specific in its definition of sacrifice, calling the mass a "propitiatory" sacrifice. In response, I posted definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and provided the URL so that you could go and see these definitions for yourself.

As for your quotation of the prophet Malachi, it is perfectly consistent with the New Testament believer offering a sacrifice of praise, BUT NOT FOR SIN. The New Testament tells us that sin has been dealt with ONCE FOR ALL. Therefore, Malachi’s prophecy concerning sacrifice must be understood in a way that is consistent with the whole counsel of the Word of God. That’s the way it works - scripture interpreting scripture.

Your damnable Council of Trent, however, prevents you from interpreting it that way. According to Canon 3, the mass can be nothing less than a propitiatory sacrifice for sins. HERESY!

 

 mscperu answered

Well, we would have to repeat all the arguments. Regarding your guarantee of divine inspiration you say: "The Bible". This is like saying that red is red because it is red. Noboby has been able to explain why this "evangelical inspiration" produces remarkably different interpretations. The evangelistic brethren say that the Bible is one. But their interpretations a legion. They are only of the same mind in one point: Condemmning the Catholic Church.

You didn't stoop to look at the meanings of "sacrament" and "symbolism". And regarding the Council of Trent I gave you the explanation citing the Vatician II Council: "

You will find it in the Constitution "Lumen Gentium". It says:

"28. Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world (Jn. 10:36), has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, sharers in his consecration and mission; and these, in their turn, duly entrusted in varying degrees various members of the Church with the office of their ministry. Thus the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests and deacons.

Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that associated with them by reason of their sacerdotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest (Heb. 5:1-10; 7:24; 9:11-28), they are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament. On the level of their own ministry sharing in the unique office of Christ, the mediator, (1 Tim. 2:5), they announce to all the word of God. However, it is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred functions; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26), the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father (cf. Heb. 9:11-28)".
You are fighting an enemy that doesn't exist!

God bless you

mscperu

P.D. Sorry, only now I find out that you are a sister in Christ. Sometimes I'm obtuse. Forgive me. Writing in capital letters is like shouting. I heard you the first time but you didn't answer muy logical suggestions.


Top

 

 Where come these questions from?