Very well indeed.
What about the other 30% that is not heard?
Catholics listen to the entire Bible in a 3 year cycle.
Having said that, there are some parts of Scripture which seem to be emphasized over others.
There is information in the OT which is not essential for one’s salvation. Its stuff like this which was anulled by Christ on the Cross:
Having said that, there are some parts of Scripture which seem to be emphasized over others.
There is information in the OT which is not essential for one’s salvation. Its stuff like this which was anulled by Christ on the Cross:
Leviticus 14:13
And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:
Because:
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Therefore, the ordinances about sacrifices and washings are not stressed to Catholics.
Sincerely,
De Maria
DM: The ordinances about sacrifices and washings are not stressed to Catholics.
ReplyDeleteMK: Will you excuse me if I reach for the vomit bag?
To begin with, the idea that "sacrifice" is not "stressed" in Catholicism, is perfectly false, beginning with the fact that millions attend "The Sacrifice of the Mass" every day. You suppose that the bloody sacrifice which was once offered in the past, is identical to the allegedly unbloody sacrifice now offered in the Mass (CCC 1367). So integral is sacrifice to your belief system, that, “Christ DAILY offers himself upon our altars for our redemption” (Mediator Dei, #73; cf. Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, #35; Caritatis Studium, #9; CCC 1364-66).
DAILY? Not on your life.
Actually, I have no idea whyyyy you're purposely downplaying the whole idea of sacrifice. For some reason, you appear to be trying to distance yourself from O.T. protocol, but in reality (as far as I'm concerned), Catholicism does indeed "stress" the idea of sacrifice, while the Bible, on the other hand, does NOT (i.e., we are told, "There is now no more sacrifice for sin" and that would include any so-called, "sacrifice of the Mass"). So while the RCC has done away with most of the ELEMENTS of O.T. sacrifice, they have essentially kept it going through your so-called "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Calvary at every Mass! Likewise, while the RCC has done away with most of the ELEMENTS of the O.T. priesthood, they err by still retaining the priesthood itself!
In like manner, I find your whitewashing the idea that... "washings"...are no longer stressed by the magisterium, clearly hypocritical. This very website proclaims by its title that you think you're going to heaven because you've been WASHED in the sacraments of the church!
Aside from the fact that I think the ramifications of the title of this website will send you straight to hell, we read moreover at Vatican 2 that, "From the most ancient times in the Church, good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners....indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was WASHED, CLEANSED AND REDEEMED with the help of the entire Christian people." ("Indulgentiarum Doctrina").
Sadly, everyone at Vatican 2 needed to have their mouth WASHED OUT WITH SOAP, for what they are selling is the typical false gospel of works, made even worse by the ludicrous thought that good works have the power to wash away OTHER PEOPLE'S SINS!
(Psalm 49:7 categorically denies it).
P.S. And I didn't even mention the fact that Catholics erroneously read Acts 2:38 in the crude sense of thinking that baptism actually "WASHES away sins", which the student of the Bible will of course emphatically deny.
Hi MK,
DeleteONE- You took my comment out of context.
M.K.April 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM
DM: The ordinances about sacrifices and washings are not stressed to Catholics.
MK: Will you excuse me if I reach for the vomit bag?
DM: Go right ahead.
MK: To begin with, the idea that "sacrifice" is not "stressed" in Catholicism, is perfectly false, beginning with the fact that millions attend "The Sacrifice of the Mass" every day.
DM: Well, MK, a reasonable person, speaking in good faith, would realize that the context of my response is Old Testament ordinances concerned with "animal sacrifices".
Let me get a larger swathe of reading to show the proper context in which you should have understood that explanation.
There is information in the OT which is not essential for one’s salvation. Its stuff like this which was anulled by Christ on the Cross:
Leviticus 14:13
And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:
....
Therefore, the ordinances about sacrifices and washings are not stressed to Catholics.
BECAUSE:
Because:
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Hello MK,
DeleteTWO - You twisted my words.
M.K.April 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM
DM: The ordinances about sacrifices and washings are not stressed to Catholics.
MK: Will you excuse me if I reach for the vomit bag?
To begin with, the idea that "sacrifice" is not "stressed" in Catholicism, is perfectly false, beginning with the fact that millions attend "The Sacrifice of the Mass" every day.
DM: You focused on the word "sacrifice" and made it sound as though I denied the value of personal sacrifice which is required by Jesus Christ and which is emphasized by the Catholic Church:
1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Hi MK,
DeleteTHREE: I never denied the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, in your previous messages, you directly opposed the validity of the Eucharist and therefore, the validity of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. Have you forgotten so soon that I repeatedly pointed you to Heb 10:25-31 which tells us that only one sacrifice remains for our sins and says that it is required that we attend the Christian gathering (which is now called the Mass) in order to fulfill the offering of this Sacrifice.
MK: You suppose that the bloody sacrifice which was once offered in the past, is identical to the allegedly unbloody sacrifice now offered in the Mass (CCC 1367).
DeleteDM: This is true.
1. As I said before, you lack the faith to believe Jesus' word that the Bread which He has given us, is His Flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51).
2. I'm not sure if I explained this aspect of "sacrifice" to you. But, in the OT, the Passover was a foreshadowing of the more perfect offering given by our Lord. In the Mosaic Passover, the people were commanded to eat the Sacrifice. In the Christian Passover, the people are commanded to eat the Sacrifice.
1 Corinthians 5:7 .... For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
MK: So integral is sacrifice to your belief system, that, “Christ DAILY offers himself upon our altars for our redemption” ...
DM: That's true. That's how much He loves us:
Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
The Lamb is being offered to God, eternally. At every moment.
MK: Actually, I have no idea whyyyy you're purposely downplaying the whole idea of sacrifice.
DeleteDM: OT animal sacrifices. You're grasping at straws.
DM: [Do you not know that he] abolished...the law of commandments contained in ordinances... (Ephesians 2:15).
ReplyDeleteMK: Which is why Protestants will continue to sound the alarm, for when you quote Scripture on the one hand, you deny it on the other. Your catechism demands KEEPING the commandments as the door which opens heaven's gate (2068; cf: 16 & 1821), in effect, nullifying God's word. You CANNOT both believe the Bible and your catechism at the same time. Now get real.
DM: You twisted my words. You focused on the word "sacrifice" and made it sound as though I denied the value of personal sacrifice which is required by Jesus Christ and which is emphasized by the Catholic Church.
MK: I did not mean at all to convey that you denigrate the idea of personal sacrifice. I was referring to the concept of sacrifice as it relates to the atonement and the remission of our sins which is alive and well in the RCC; whereas in those outside the RCC, it is a "done deal", as Scripture clearly indicates. We REST in what Christ has done FOR us, not that we continually offer what he has officially finished.
DM: I never denied the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
MK: I never said you did. But I wish you would.
DM: In fact, in your previous messages, you directly opposed the validity of the Eucharist and therefore, the validity of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass.
MK: A wonderful summary. I applaud you for recognizing the steam coming out of my ears as it relates to the Mass.
DM: Have you forgotten so soon that I repeatedly pointed you to Heb 10:25-31 which tells us that only one sacrifice remains for our sins and says that it is required that we attend the Christian gathering (which is now called the Mass) in order to fulfill the offering of this Sacrifice.
MK: Whereas just a moment ago, I planted a crown on your head for your accurate summary. But now, I'm forced to replace it with a dunce cap. HEBREWS DOES NOT SAY THAT THERE REMAINS A SACRIFICE FOR SINS. That is a bold-faced lie. And nowhere in the book of Hebrews, let alone in chapter 10, do we read that Christians are to gather together "in order to fulfill the offering of Christ's sacrifice". Helloooo! THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST DOES NOT NEED TO BE..."FULFILLED" ...after the fact. At your core, it's obvious you can't stand the Bible because it never comes right out and says what you want it to say. You look at the admonition not to neglect gathering together and you say, "OH LOOK! That means the sacrifice of the Mass!"
Pa-leeeze!
I find your eisegesis, disgraceful.
DM: As I said before, you lack the faith to believe Jesus' word that the Bread which He has given us, is His Flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51).
MK: The sleazy accusation that I "lack faith" because I don't believe the way YOU do, is completely out of order. I would estimate that 100 out of 100 Bible commentaries would agree with me that John 6:51 is referring to the giving of his flesh ON THE CROSS, not that he would give his flesh for public consumption! WAKE UP.
MK: The sleazy accusation that I "lack faith" because I don't believe the way YOU do, is completely out of order.
DeleteDM: I don't think so. It is perfectly clear that you lean on your own understanding rather than that which is offered you by God.
MK: I would estimate that 100 out of 100 Bible commentaries would agree with me that John 6:51 is referring to the giving of his flesh ON THE CROSS, not that he would give his flesh for public consumption! WAKE UP.
DM: You mean 100 out of 100 Johnny come lately Protestant commentaries. Everyone else, even some early Protestants such as Luther, would say otherwise.
The problem is that Protestants, true to their name, prefer to protest everything that is established and inject their own spin to every teaching. You can't even agree with each other.
MK: You suppose that the bloody sacrifice which was once offered in the past, is identical to the allegedly unbloody sacrifice now offered in the Mass (CCC 1367).
ReplyDeleteDM: This is true.
MK: Will you permit me to say that I think you and the Pope need to get your head examined? Do you not know that an apple is different from an orange? Good. Then you should also know that a
bloody and an unbloody sacrifice are plainly different, periodically and in practice (!!!). And save your breath by trying to justify these two words as being "the same" by telling us that,
“Everything Christ did participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11-13). Been there, done that. This miserable excuse is supposed to convince us that the bloody sacrifice once offered in the past, is identical to the unbloody sacrifice now offered in the Mass???????
Never!
The proposition that God looks through the lens of a “divine eternity” at Mass, is nothing but a mass-HYPNOSIS of, “great swelling words of emptiness” (2 Peter 2:18). Count on it: no “transcending of time in a divine eternity” can ever make bloody and unbloody... identical... no matter how you look at it. Hence, the unbloody and repetitious sacrifice of the Mass, tragically compromises the bloody and singular work of redemption which is very simply described as “finished” (John 19:30).
MK: Will you permit me to say that I think you and the Pope need to get your head examined?
DeleteDM: No one is stopping you. I just want to point out that the only type of argumentation you seem to be good at is fallacious. For example, this argument is known as the argument from ridicule. You think that insulting someone makes a point. But all it does is show that you don't have a point to make.
MK: Do you not know that an apple is different from an orange?
DM: Yes.
MK: Good. Then you should also know that a
bloody and an unbloody sacrifice are plainly different, periodically and in practice (!!!).
DM: You're wrong. Unbloody doesn't mean "without blood". It means, "without visible blood." The blood is there, you just can't see it with your eyes of flesh. You have to see it by faith. And now you have another reason why I keep repeating that you don't have enough faith to believe what Jesus Christ Teaches, through His Church.
MK: The proposition that God looks through the lens of a “divine eternity” at Mass, is nothing but a mass-HYPNOSIS of, “great swelling words of emptiness” (2 Peter 2:18). Count on it: no “transcending of time in a divine eternity” can ever make bloody and unbloody... identical... no matter how you look at it. Hence, the unbloody and repetitious sacrifice of the Mass, tragically compromises the bloody and singular work of redemption which is very simply described as “finished” (John 19:30).
DeleteDM: You may not believe it, but we do. Because we believe the Word of God which reveals that, in heaven, Jesus Christ continually offers Himself to the Father.
Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
You see that Lamb standing as though slain, in eternity? We do.
MK: So integral is sacrifice to your belief system, that, “Christ DAILY offers himself upon our altars for our redemption” ...
ReplyDeleteDM: That's true. That's how much He loves us:
MK: The love you think you are receiving is from "another jesus and another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, neither of which can save you. Scripture is emphatic in Hebrews that Jesus does NOT need to "offer himself often"...making no exception for any so-called "Mass". These are words clear as the light of day, but by reading them with RC spectacles on, you are deceived. In fact, in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate the notion of "sacrifice" with the Lord's Supper in his epistles either.
Therefore, the biblical axiom of no repeated sacrifices and no repeated offerings whatsoever, must stand (1 Thess 5:21).
DM: In the Mosaic Passover, the people were commanded to eat the Sacrifice. In the Christian Passover, the people are commanded to eat the Sacrifice.
MK: I already told you elsewhere that the sin-offering of the O.T. was NOT to be eaten by the congregation; thus Protestants agree to "eat" the sin-offering as Jesus commanded, but metaphorically!...digesting and embracing all he has accomplished in both his life and death. The concept of eating and drinking METAPHORICALLY has a VERY strong foundation in the word of God, which your catechism utterly ignores, and we understand all too well WHY they ignore it. It's obvious would rain on their eucharistic parade. Anyway, as Augustine said, "He who believes, EATS".
Moreover, the person and presence of Jesus amounted to the very "kingdom of God being in your midst" (Luke 17:21). Now if the kingdom of God ---the very person and presence of Jesus--- does not come by "eating and drinking" as Scripture teaches (Romans 14:17), then it is impossible to believe Jesus was teaching that eating and drinking the Eucharist was the key to his personal presence!
We also choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because the universal revulsion against cannibalism leads us rather, to "have FAITH in his blood" (Romans 3:25), NOT drink it, which eliminates the need for Transubstantiation altogether.
And we choose to eat the sin offering metaphorically because Scripture is crystal clear that the birthright of every born-again Christian has the irrevocable promise of the triune God to be with us via the means of the Holy Spirit and NOT the Eucharist (Matt 18:20, John 14:21-23, Acts 2:38, 8:15, 9:17, 11:16, 19:2, Rev 3:20). Jesus told us to "BELIEVE IT NOT" when anyone would say his physical body parts were "over here or over there" (Matt 24:26; Mk 13:21) because his physical body parts were "GOING AWAY" (stated no less than 10 times). I trust you know the verses (but of course, sweep them under the rug because it hurts your head to even think about them).
MK: The love you think you are receiving is from "another jesus and another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, neither of which can save you. Scripture is emphatic in Hebrews that Jesus does NOT need to "offer himself often"...making no exception for any so-called "Mass". These are words clear as the light of day, but by reading them with RC spectacles on, you are deceived. In fact, in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate the notion of "sacrifice" with the Lord's Supper in his epistles either.
DeleteTherefore, the biblical axiom of no repeated sacrifices and no repeated offerings whatsoever, must stand (1 Thess 5:21).
DM: There is only one Sacrifice, once for all. And we partake of that Sacrifice. Whereas, you refuse (Heb 10:25-31).
MK: Now if the kingdom of God ---the very person and presence of Jesus--- does not come by "eating and drinking" as Scripture teaches (Romans 14:17),
DeleteDM: You're misusing that verse. St. Paul is not making reference to the Sacrament. He is talking about dietary regulations:
Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.....
This is the context within which that verse is written. However, in another place, St. Paul says:
1 Cor 10: 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Notice then, those who eat of the Sacrifice, as Christians do when they eat the Eucharist, they also partake of the altar, which is where the Sacrifice is made. Thus, when Christians partake of the Sacrifice, we partake of the Cross.
Second, note that when we break the bread, we partake of the Body of Christ. And when we drink the Cup, we partake of the Blood of Christ.
But you don't have the faith to believe.
ReplyDeleteDM: [Do you not know that he] abolished...the law of commandments contained in ordinances... (Ephesians 2:15).
MK: Which is why Protestants will continue to sound the alarm, for when you quote Scripture on the one hand, you deny it on the other.
DM: On the contrary, you quote Scripture without understanding what it means. I'm simply explaining it to you. But Protestant indoctrination gets in your way.
MK:Your catechism demands KEEPING the commandments as the door which opens heaven's gate (2068; cf: 16 & 1821),
DM: Amen! Those who do not obey God are lawless men who do not know God.
1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Therefore, we keep His Commandments:
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
MK: in effect, nullifying God's word. You CANNOT both believe the Bible and your catechism at the same time. Now get real.
DM: The New Testament and the Catechism were both derived from the same Source, the Traditions of Jesus Christ which you have abandoned.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
MK: I was referring to the concept of sacrifice as it relates to the atonement and the remission of our sins which is alive and well in the RCC;
DeleteDM: Correct.
MK: whereas in those outside the RCC, it is a "done deal",
DM: That is the predominant Protestant teaching. Although Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence and must therefore consider the Sacrament important for their salvation. They are not Catholic.
MK: as Scripture clearly indicates.
DM: As I mentioned before, Scripture is perfectly clear that it is necessary for us to eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lord in order to be saved.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
MK: We REST in what Christ has done FOR us, not that we continually offer what he has officially finished.
DM: Then, you reject what Christ has done for us. Because He gave Himself to us so that we would have something to offer to the Father for our sins. There is no more offering for sins.
Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
What do you think that He prepared the Body for?
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
MK: Whereas just a moment ago, I planted a crown on your head for your accurate summary. But now, I'm forced to replace it with a dunce cap. HEBREWS DOES NOT SAY THAT THERE REMAINS A SACRIFICE FOR SINS. That is a bold-faced lie.....You look at the admonition not to neglect gathering together and you say, "OH LOOK! That means the sacrifice of the Mass!"
DeletePa-leeeze!
I find your eisegesis, disgraceful.
DM: Yours is the pitiful eisegesis. The Catholic Church TEACHES the Scriptures. She is the only one which Jesus Christ appointed to do so. (Matt 28:19-20). And, yes, the Christian gathering is the Mass. Look at verse Heb 10:29 and tell me what it is describing?
MK: Jesus does NOT need to "offer himself often"...and the Text makes no exception for any repetitious "Mass" offering. In fact, in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate the notion of "sacrifice" with the Lord's Supper in his epistles either.
DeleteTherefore, the biblical axiom of no repeated sacrifices and no repeated offerings whatsoever, must stand (1 Thess 5:21).
DM: There is only one Sacrifice, once for all. And we partake of that Sacrifice. Whereas, you refuse (Heb 10:25-31).
MK: H-10-25 does NOT have anything to do with my comment that preceded it.
MK: Now if the kingdom of God ---the very person and presence of Jesus--- does not come by "eating and drinking" as Scripture teaches (Romans 14:17)...
DM: You're misusing that verse. St. Paul is not making reference to the Sacrament. He is talking about dietary regulations
MK: Even though he was not making direct reference to the Eucharist, I was not out of order to draw on the general principle he was conveying about the topic of eating and drinking. He concludes by saying that the "KINGDOM OF GOD" is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. That being so, I have every right to reasonably conclude that if the "KINGDOM OF GOD" does not hinge on the aspect of eating and drinking, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that Jesus would establish a contingency that his "real presence" be manifested on a ritual involving eating and drinking...(let alone that this ritual be necessary for salvation as the RCC erroneously imagines).
DM: in another place (1 Cor 10: 16) St. Paul says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
MK: So what? He only reinforces my point that Transubstantiation is a lie. As a matter of fact, the monotonous doctrine that suggests every particle of the Eucharist embodies a “single, whole Christ”, actually contradicts Scripture wherein we read rather, of many different particles being one entity, as you are eager to report above. How does RC doctrine contradict the Text? The Text reads, “we [the church] being many, are one [loaf of] bread” (1 Cor 10:17). So just as a loaf of bread is made up of many different grains, no two being alike, it is still one loaf. Got it? Good.
Even as a church congregation is made up of many different people, and though no two are alike, they are one church. Got it? Good.
And just as a glass of wine is made up of many different clusters of grapes, no two drops being alike, it is still one glass of wine.
Got it? Good.
Thus, the biblical axiom is many DIFFERENT things make up one entity. But in Catholicism, we are faced with the SAME thing duplicated many times over, making up the one entity! This cannot be so because it is illogical on its face and completely lacks any biblical precedent. It therefore must be repudiated at once.
DM: (continuing to quote) "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils."
DeleteNote that when we break the bread, we partake of the Body of Christ. And when we drink the Cup, we partake of the Blood of Christ.
MK: Excuse me, but it is YOU who should note....that in 1 Cor 10:21, the “cup of the Lord” is compared to the “cup of demons.” Since demons lack blood, both cups must be SYMBOLIC, and you are no more "partaking" of the red blood of Christ than the sky is blood red.
DM: [Do you not know that he] abolished...the law of commandments contained in ordinances... (Ephesians 2:15).
MK: Yet your catechism demands KEEPING the commandments as the door which opens heaven's gate (2068; cf: 16 & 1821),
DM: Amen! Those who do not obey God are lawless men who do not know God.
MK: NO! We're talking about keeping the law as a means of SALVATION, which the RCC demands--but which Scripture DENIES. God says he has done away with the keeping of the law for the purposes of salvation in Acts 13:39, primarily because we have demonstrated that we are unable to keep it! A-13-39 is OUT OF SYNC with CCC 16, 1821 & 2068. Jesus, however, has kept the law perfectly, and when we put our trust in HIS perfect law-keeping, as well as his taking the penalty for our non-compliance, that "one" act of righteousness (encompassing his entire life and death) is imputed to us (Rms 4:6, 11). When we are "in Christ", a phrase used over 25 times, we may then look outside of ourselves and call him "The Lord our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6). Catholics are LOST, because they look within THEMSELVES for an inherit righteousness which they think saves them by all their good deeds done in "God's grace" (CCC 1821). NO! Sadly, Romanism sells a "grace-produced-works-salvation"...but that IS A FALSE GOSPEL which will damn anyone who adheres to it.
DM: 1 John 5:3... For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
DeleteMK: Yes, keeping of the commandments is an evidence of love to God, but we do not TRUST in our obedience to those commandments because not one of us can keep it perfectly and in exactitude, for the flesh is miserably weak.
The catechism states that it is "obligatory" to keep the 10 commandments and leaves it at that (2068). THAT IS A FALSE GOSPEL. For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10). Not only does the RCC demand adherence to the old law, but the sacraments of the NEW LAW are necessary for salvation (CCC 1129). My oh my, if Catholicism is true, I can almost hear Jesus saying, "Then I certainly wasted MY time going through THAT bloody and horrific death, didn't I?
DM: Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence and must therefore consider the Sacrament important for their salvation. They are not Catholic.
MK: Who in the world cares! They're WRONG and will suffer the consequences of their foolish notions, as will you, on that final day. Jesus said his physical presence was going away no less than 10 times, and so it would be outrageously illogical for him to promise his physical presence via the Eucharist...which he NOWHERE DID. He promised his presence via the means of the Holy Spirit and THAT'S THAT.
DM: He gave Himself to us so that we would have something to offer to the Father for our sins. There is no more offering for sins.
MK: You can quote "There is no more offering for sins" till you're blue in the face but you will still receive a passport to hell due to your hypocrisy. At the end of the day, you still think you're "offering" the sacrifice of Christ to God, WHEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO THAT! The Text clearly says that it was Christ ALONE who “offered himself to God” (Heb 7:27, 9:14; Matt 20:28), so it is inconceivable that we, or any priest, do likewise.
DM: Yours is the pitiful eisegesis. The Catholic Church TEACHES the Scriptures.
MK: They most certainly do NOT. They twist it, suffocate it, add and subtract to it at will, and so it's no wonder that the religious monstrosity God said he would allow to arise in Rev 17, can no doubt be the RCC.
M.K.April 22, 2018 at 9:05 AM
DeleteMK: Jesus does NOT need to "offer himself often"...
DM: No one has said that Jesus needs to. The Church Teaches that God revealed that Jesus does so.
MK: and the Text makes no exception for any repetitious "Mass" offering.
DM: The Text says "once for all". The all part means that everyone in every generation must offer the Sacrifice. The Word of God also reveals that the Sacrifice is a Passover feast. Thus, it must be done repeatedly.
MK: In fact, in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate the notion of "sacrifice" with the Lord's Supper in his epistles either.
DeleteDM: Yes, He does. You simply refuse to accept the fact. I've pointed you to Hebrews 10:25-31 repeatedly. To Whose body and blood do you think he is referring?
I have also repeatedly shown you that St. Paul refers to Jesus Christ as the Passover and instructs us to join the Feast, (1 Cor 5:7).
And he also says that the bread we eat is the Body of Christ and the cup we drink is the Blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17).
St. Paul couldn't be plainer. But you reject his Teaching because you don't like it.
MK: Therefore, the biblical axiom of no repeated sacrifices and no repeated offerings whatsoever, must stand (1 Thess 5:21).
DeleteDM: As I've said repeatedly, that's a Protestant misunderstanding of the ritual of Sacrifice. You've got it so twisted, it's hard to untie the knot. But here goes.
a. We don't repeat the Sacrifice. Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself, ONCE FOR ALL, upon the Cross on Calvary.
b. We do repeat the offering. We offer that self same Sacrifice, every time we attend the Mass.
c. This is the same as the Jews would do with the first Passover. Except that they didn't offer the True Lamb of God nor partake of the True Bread of Life.
You can continue to deny it, but you're simply denying the Truth.
MK: H-10-25 does NOT have anything to do with my comment that preceded it.
DeleteDM: Yes, it does. Open your eyes. St. Paul wasn't arguing against Protestants. Protestants did not exist back then. St. Paul was speaking to Hebrew converts to the Catholic Faith. He was explaining how the Catholic Faith followed the Hebrew faith. In fact, if you understand it in its proper context, he is explaining how the Hebrew faith FOLLOWS the Catholic Faith. It is the Catholic Faith which Moses saw and copied (Heb 8:5).
MK: Even though he was not making direct reference to the Eucharist, I was not out of order to draw on the general principle he was conveying about the topic of eating and drinking. He concludes by saying that the "KINGDOM OF GOD" is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
DeleteDM: You have concluded correctly that entry into the Kingdom of God hinges upon GOOD WORKS. Righteousness is a reference to doing the right things in the eyes of God. St. Paul repeatedly says this throughout his epistles.
Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
MK: That being so, I have every right to reasonably conclude that if the "KINGDOM OF GOD" does not hinge on the aspect of eating and drinking, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that Jesus would establish a contingency that his "real presence" be manifested on a ritual involving eating and drinking...(let alone that this ritual be necessary for salvation as the RCC erroneously imagines).
DM: You have put the cart before the horse. The reason being that you think that the righteousness of Christ is credited to you on the basis of a lie. You think that Christ will judge you righteous whether you are righteous or not. But this goes against the very nature of God.
Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
The fact is, that before God acquits you, you must repent and do works meet for repentance. Therefore, in Titus 3:5 and in Matt 25:31-46, Scripture clearly illustrates that only those who do good are saved. Not by their works. But by the outpouring of grace in the Sacraments which God prepared for those who love Him.
MK: So what?
DeleteDM: So, the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.
MK: He only reinforces my point that Transubstantiation is a lie.
DM: Actually, he illustrates the truth of Transubstantiation perfectly. How you can twist that into the exact opposite only shows how Satan is influencing your heart.
MK: As a matter of fact, the monotonous doctrine that suggests every particle of the Eucharist embodies a “single, whole Christ”, actually contradicts Scripture wherein we read rather, of many different particles being one entity, as you are eager to report above.
DM: As I said, your eisegesis is atrocious.
a. The Catholic Church does not teach that we are transubstantiated into bread.
b. In another place, St. Paul describes how one single body is composed of multiple different things. Feet, hands, eyes, head.
1 Cor 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
Therefore, many different parts are one entity.
MK: How does RC doctrine contradict the Text? The Text reads, “we [the church] being many, are one [loaf of] bread” (1 Cor 10:17). So just as a loaf of bread is made up of many different grains, no two being alike, it is still one loaf. Got it? Good.
DM: You've been refuted. Got it? Good.
MK: Excuse me, but it is YOU who should note....that in 1 Cor 10:21, the “cup of the Lord” is compared to the “cup of demons.”
DeleteDM: Excuse me, but:
a. it doesn't say the cup of the Lord is compared to the blood of demons.
b. Jesus Christ did offer up His Blood for our salvation. Demons, would not have even if they had any.
MK: Since demons lack blood, both cups must be SYMBOLIC,
DM: Non sequitur. St. Paul is contrasting the true and efficacious Sacrifice which we offer to the false and sacrilegious offering of the Gentiles.
MK: and you are no more "partaking" of the red blood of Christ than the sky is blood red.
DM: Christ commanded it, and we believe it. It takes faith to believe Christ.
DM: [Do you not know that he] abolished...the law of commandments contained in ordinances... (Ephesians 2:15).
DeleteMK: Yet your catechism demands KEEPING the commandments as the door which opens heaven's gate (2068; cf: 16 & 1821),
DM: As I said before, you need to read the details. The Ten Commandments are distinct from the commandments contained in ordinances. The former are the works which God prepared for us from the beginning (Ephesians 8:10). The latter are the sacrificing of animals, washing of cups, and dietary laws.
MK: NO! We're talking about keeping the law as a means of SALVATION, which the RCC demands--but which Scripture DENIES. ...
DeleteDM: Lol! And yet, above, you concluded that salvation hinges upon one's righteousness. And you were right in doing so, as Scripture clearly says:
Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
MK: Yes, keeping of the commandments is an evidence of love to God,
DeleteDM: And only those who love God will be saved.
MK: but we do not TRUST in our obedience to those commandments because not one of us can keep it perfectly and in exactitude, for the flesh is miserably weak.
DM: Nor do we trust in our works. We trust in God and obey His Commands. We trust in His Judgment. Not in ours.
1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
MK: Who in the world cares!
DeleteDM: I just wanted to point out that you were wrong when you said that only Catholics believe in the Eucharist. Some Protestants do, as well. And since all of you believe in the idea of Sola Scriptura, that undermines your hermeneutics.