Showing posts with label atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atonement. Show all posts

Friday, October 3, 2014

7QT's Catholic Doctrine




Catholic Doctrine is always in line with Scripture.  And always makes sense.

Friday, January 17, 2014

The Crucifix

Consider the crucifix. A crucifix is a cross depicting Christ crucified. Many people chastise the Catholic Church for having a crucifix. They claim that Christ is no longer on the cross, therefore, in their opinion, correction no longer be depicted on the cross.
The Passion of Christ In Light of the Holy Shroud of Turin
But the Catholic Church does not obey the wisdom of man, the Catholic Church obeys the wisdom of God. And the wisdom of God teaches us to preach Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness but we will continue to preach Christ crucified to the end of time (1 Corinthians 1:23).


And so, Catholic doctrine all makes sense.


Scripture and Tradition


Consider Scripture and Tradition.  In another post I mentioned how Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament (CCC #83).  Here's another example of how difficult it is to understand the New Testament without a solid foundation in Catholic Tradition.  Hebrews 13:17:

The Healing Power of Confession
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Protestants and anyone else who relies upon Scripture alone to understand this verse, will be baffled.  They revile the idea that we should submit to a priest or that we should permit a man to be responsible for our sins.

But what devout Catholic doesn't recognize in this verse the Sacrament of Confession?  How can our priests account for our souls if we don't report to them our sins and our contrition?  Do we not submit to our priests when we go into the confessional?  Do we not obey our priests when they give us the remedy or penance we must accomplish in order to fulfill the requirements of a good confession?

And again, what devout Catholic doesn't recognize here the Priesthood? Do we not submit to and obey our priests?  Do they not account for our souls?

Therefore, the Church teaches that we keep Scripture and Tradition.


The Mass


Consider the Mass.  The Catholic Church teaches it is a mortal sin to miss the Mass (CCC #2180 and 2181).  Why is that?

St. Paul also explains it very well in Hebrews 10:25-31:

King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.  26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:  29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?  30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.  31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

How to Get the Most Out of Mass
Read it carefully, because it just makes sense.  These words bring it home to me.

 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 

God sacrificed His Son for us upon the Cross. And all that He asks is that we remember Him once a week for an hour.  But how many people would rather watch a football game or attend a party?

If a person isn't grateful enough nor love Jesus enough to go to Mass at a minimum of one hour a week, that person is making a mockery of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.  How then should God respond to that person?  Read verse 31:  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The Sacraments


Consider the sacraments. Frequently, I used to wonder what is the advantage of a Catholic. After all, the Catholic Church teaches that God wills all men to be saved• and come the knowledge of truth (CCC #851).

If then, all of them can be saved, what is the advantage of being a Catholic? In one word, the sacraments. It is the sacraments which make the vital difference between the Catholic Church (and the ancient sacramental Christian churches) and every other religion including the Jews and Protestants.

Given For You: The Sacrifice of the Mass
God's salvation plan began with the Jews. So let me begin my explanation there as well. In the Jewish religion, there were animal sacrifices. These animal sacrifices were annulled and replaced in the New Testament by the one sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross.

This one sacrifice is directly tied to the holy Eucharist. This is well known and understood throughout Christendom. What is less well known, is that the piercing of the lance in the side of Christ is directly tied to the rest of the sacraments. In the piercing of the lance the blood and water which poured out signifies the grace which Jesus Christ pours out to us through the sacraments. Therefore all the sacraments tieback to the cross.

And the sacraments, the fruit of the cross, the fruit of the one sacrifice of Christ, replace the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.

So the one sacrifice of Christ replaced the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. And the one sacrifice of Christ truly washes away sin by the vehicle of the sacraments. That is why our sins are washed away in baptism, confession, anointing, and less well known but in all the sacraments are venial sins are washed away.

Further, the sacraments are the doorway into heaven. Once we are baptized we are saved. Not ultimately, but when we are baptized we walk amongst the spirits of men made perfect on Mount Zion. And so, we do not have to wait for the judgment. And that is unlike anybody else. Although we will also stand before Jesus Christ at the judgment seat, those who have he lived according to his word will have already been judged when they receive the sacraments.

And so this is a great advantage over every other religion. Whether it be the Jews, the Protestants, or any non-Christian religions. Judgment begins with the house of God in the sacraments.

Hold Tradition

It just makes sense. Catholic doctrine just makes sense.

Consider the fact that the Catholic Church teaches us to hold tradition (CCC #113 – 2). Many others have discarded the traditions of the church and focused on Scripture. In so doing, they have discarded the context and culture within which Scripture was written. The Scripture I am talking about is the New Testament.

Building a Catholic Biblical Worldview - 6-CD Set
Scripture itself attests to the fact that Jesus Christ did not write any Scripture. He established the church and commanded the church to teach his traditions to the world. The church then wrote the New Testament based upon the traditions which Jesus Christ established. Therefore, anyone wishing to understand the New Testament must first understand the traditions which are the basis of the New Testament.

Let me give you one example. St. Paul speaks of several doctrines in this verse:

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Everyone knows that the doctrine of the laying on of hands is the sacrament of the priesthood. Everyone knows of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. And of the doctrine of eternal judgment to either heaven or hell. So what is the doctrine of baptisms?

Unless you know about the doctrine of the seven sacraments wherein the Holy Spirit washes us with an outpouring of grace, you won't understand that language. In saying, "doctrine of baptisms", St. Paul succinctly describes the doctrine of the "seven sacraments".  Every sacrament can be described as a baptism.

Therefore, unless you understand the traditions (i.e. doctrines) of the Catholic Church it will be very difficult for you to understand the New Testament.

The Atonement

It just makes sense. Catholic doctrine just makes sense.

Consider the Atonement. Atonement means to repay or to repair. Here's a definition from Google:

a·tone·ment
əˈtōnmənt/Submit
noun
The Body and Blood of Christ
1.reparation for a wrong or injury.
"she wanted to make atonement for her husband's behavior"


That, in essence is the Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ died to make reparation for our sins. He offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father. His sacrifice was of eternal value. By his sacrifice he redeemed all of mankind.

Some say however, that Jesus death was the punishment imposed upon them by God the Father.. This is wrong because it would be in error to call  it atonement. Atonement is a voluntary offering to make repayment. Inflicting the punishment  in order to obtain repayment is totally different and violates the spirit of the word. They could no longer be considered atonement but RETRIBUTION.

Yes sir, Catholic doctrine all makes sense.

Confession once a year


For instance, if you have not committed mortal sin you don't need to go to the sacrament of confession but once a year.  (CCC #1457) Why is that?

Well, that's because venial sin is forgiven in the Confiteor. The Confiteor is the prayer that we pray together at the beginning of Mass. The one that starts out, "I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin…."  It is a public confession in the presence of a priest.

Answering Common Objections - 6-CD Set
If you happen to be late to Mass and miss the Confiteor, your venial sins are forgiven when you take communion.

And so, it isn't necessary for a faithful Catholic to go to the sacrament of confession more than once a year unless he has a mortal sin on his soul.

However, the sacrament of confession is recommended as frequently as possible because it is an outpouring of God's grace, a gift, a participation in God's life. Why would we want to minimize that? We should want that as often as we can get.

Yes sir, Catholic doctrine all makes sense.

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The Catholic Church is spot on!


Lutero:
I guess Catholics don't actually believe that Jesus atoned for all our sins.

De Maria:
Who do you include when you say, "our"?

When you call them on it the bring out the old "broken window" scenario.
True. Because the broken window metaphor fits.

As if Jesus' sacrifice doesn't take care of the "broken window" too.
It doesn't. It takes care of the sins you carried at the time of your Baptism:

Acts 22:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. 
Which Came First - the Bible or the Church?
If you commit any sins after your Baptism, you must ask forgiveness and atone for them yourself:

Romans 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?


1 John 1:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 Peter 4:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;


They just do not understant the gospel. Their bondage to Catholicism won't allow it.
Show me from Scripture. Lets see what Scripture says to you and what Scripture says to me. Because Scripture shows me that the Catholic Church is spot on!

Ephesians 3:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Friday, May 30, 2014

Rebuttal of Michael Taylor's article, "Which "Cup" Did James and John Drink?"

Rebuttal of Michael Taylor's article, "Which "Cup" Did James and John Drink?"

Introduction

When Jesus told James and John that they would drink the cup that he would drink and undergo the baptism that he would undergo (Mark 10:38-39), what did he mean?  Most commentators take a straightforward approach:  Jesus was saying that they would suffer and die in a way comparable to their master, since the “cup” and the “baptism” to which Jesus was referring was his own death at the hands of his persecutors (Mark 14:32-42; Matthew 26:36-46; Luke 22: 40-46; John 18:11).  Support for this interpretation is found in subsequent apostolic history, including the only scriptural account of the martyrdom of an apostle, namely, James the brother of John (cf, Acts 12:2).  
So far, so good.


A significant minority of commentators, 
Why are they significant to Michael Taylor, I wonder?  I'm forced to conclude it is simply because they agree with his opinion and disagree with Catholic Doctrine.

however, believe that Jesus has a different “cup” in view, and by extension, a different “baptism” (See appendix A below).  The rest of this article will give several arguments in favor of the view that a different cup/baptism is in mind.  Before we do, let’s take a closer look at the text itself to see what the scriptures are saying.  
That's why I'm here.  To rebut those arguments.

Here is Mark's version (Mark 10:35-45):
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant,but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Here is Matthew's version (Matthew 20:20-28):

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the case for why a “different” cup/baptism may be in view.
Ok.
1.   Jesus would have been wrong!
When Jesus asks James and John, "Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" (Mark 10:38), his rhetorical question expects “no” as an answer.  
This is simply your assumption.  As I see it, Jesus asked a question in order to obtain a confession of faith.
If this isn't obvious from the very nature of the question, then it should be from the immediate context.  For he has just told the brothers (their mother, in Matthew's version),"You do not know what you are asking" (Mark 10:38; Matthew 20:22).
He explained that very clearly.  He says that they don't understand where His authority on the matter of seating in heaven extends:
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: <b>but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.</b>

In other words, they understand that the cup and baptism entail sacrifice.  But do not understand that sitting at His right and left is for the Father to decide.

Amazingly, James and John answer, “We are able” (Mark 10:38).  But are they truly able?  If they are, then we are forced to the conclusion that Jesus' initial assessment of the brothers' ability to undergo the same cup/baptism was simply wrong.  
No, no.  We are forced to conclude that your assessment of what was going on is wrong.

But how likely is it that Jesus would have failed to properly discern their readiness, willingness and/or ability to face what Jesus himself was to face?  
Highly unlikely.  However, Jesus was only pressing for a confession of faith as He does frequently.  See these examples:
The Fourth Cup
Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Obviously, here, Jesus wants the young man to say, "because I believe that you are God.  That is why I call you good."  But the young man doesn't get it.

Here, however, Martha does get it:

John 11:26-27
King James Version (KJV)
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Therefore, when Jesus told them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized" (Mark 10:39), he may very well have a different cup/baptism in mind. If so, then the initial expectation behind his rhetorical question would still be well-founded, and the problem of Jesus making a bad discernment would not arise.
The context leads most people to a very different conclusion.  You said so yourself in the opening paragraph.  The so-called "significant minority" is only significant to those who discard the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

2.   Jesus would have been hypocritical!
If Jesus has the same cup/baptism in mind throughout Mark 10:38-39, then he would have been guilty of gross hypocrisy.  After all, Jesus himself prays three times for the cup to be removed (cf, Mark 14: 39-41).  But if the same cup/baptism is in view throughout, then it seems that Jesus would have been willing to allow James and John to drink of the cup that he prays to have removed!   One would think that, at a minimum, Jesus would have prayed that they be spared the same cup.  But one finds no such prayer recorded in scripture.   Alternatively, if Jesus had a different cup/baptism in view, then no such problem arises in the first place.
Non sequitur.  If Jesus had been spared the cup, then it follows that everyone would have been spared the cup since we are His body.


3.  A cup of wrath for James and John?
The most probable scriptural background for the “cup” that Jesus mentions is the “cup of wrath” mentioned primarily in the prophets 
That only makes sense for those who read Scripture on the basis of Scripture alone.  And we don't.  Catholics understand that Scripture was not written in a vacuum.  The New Testament, in fact, is written by the Church, based upon the Sacred Traditions  which Jesus commanded the Church to Teach.

 (Psalm 11:6; 75:7, 8: Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 25:15-16, 27-29; 49:12; 51:57; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:31-34; Habakkuk 2:16; Zechariah 12:2; see also Job 21:20 Psalm 60:3; Isaiah 63:6; Obadiah 1:16).  
Having said that, you also, in typical Protestant style, simply dumped a bunch of verses in front of us with the assumption that you had understood them correctly.  Lets see if that is true.

Psalm 11:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

Jesus is not wicked, so this doesn't apply.

Lets look at the word, "cup" and how it is used here.  It is prefaced by the word, "their".  "Their" is a clear reference to the wicked.

But what about "cup"?  In Scripture, we see this statement:
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

That makes sense to me.  They were judged wicked and worthy of punishment.  Thus, their cup, their judgment, their fate, was fire and brimstone.

Psalm 75:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.
Whaddaya know, this confirms that, in these verses at least, cup does not refer only to cup of wrath, but to God's judgment, good or bad.  Their fate as decided by God.

Psalm 75:8
8 For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.
Note this.  Here, the cup of God's judgment contains both good and evil.  The wine is good and the mixture is good.  But the dregs, the residue, is bitter and reserved for the wicked.

So, the "cup" refers to God's judgment, good or bad.  The fate of the good is to drink of the wine.  The fate of the wicked is to soak up the dregs.

If you read the rest of the verses, you will find that they all refer to the same thing.  God's judgment.  Most of them are specifically speaking about God's judgment that evil doers will be punished.  Nonetheless, we can see that the word "cup" does not necessarily refer to God's wrath.  But to the fate of the individual:

Psalm 16:5
The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.

Here, lot and cup mean the same thing.  Fate.  We all, in fact, hope for salvation.  And salvation is in our Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

 I hope I have proven then, that cup as "fate" or "judgment" is the most probable understanding of that which Jesus making reference when He was speaking to the Apostles.

Psalm 23:5
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Psalm 73:10
Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.

Psalm 116:13
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.

Jeremiah 16:7
Neither shall men tear themselves for them in mourning, to comfort them for the dead; neither shall men give them the cup of consolation to drink for their father or for their mother.

So, if cup does not refer to wrath but to fate, what is the cup of which the Apostles will drink?

The cup of self sacrifice for the sake of the Church:
Acts 5:41
And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
In fact, there really is no other plausible scriptural background for the "cup," and anyone who says otherwise is forced to consult extra-biblical sources to find a suitable cup, such as the "cup of death" mentioned in some of the Targums (e.g., Targum Neofiti of Deuteronomy 32:1).  That said, of the 17 verses with metaphorical uses of the word "cup" in the Old Testament, the overwhelming majority (14 verses by my count) are negative uses which refer to God's wrath or judgment upon Israel or the nations.  And in no case does the "cup" ever refer to the persecution of an individual or to the death of a martyr. 
But if the "cup" is the OT cup of wrath (what other cup can it be?), how likely is it that Jesus would have expected the sons of Zebedee to undergo divine wrath and judgment?  If he did, then at best they had a “taste” of the cup and it would be most unlikely that they drank it to the "dregs" (cf, Isaiah 51:17) as Jesus did.  Therefore, if the “cup” Jesus drank was the cup of wrath, then it is unlikely that the same cup is in view for James and John.
As I hope I have proven, that is merely presupposition and faulty reasoning.  The cup to which Jesus refers is the common fate of all Christians, to take up our cross and suffer with Christ:
Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

4.  The Eucharistic cup as the most immediate fulfillment.
When Jesus tells James and John they will drink his “cup,” the very next time a “cup” is mentioned is at the Eucharist (Mark 14:23; Matthew 26:27), and there we are explicitly told that "they all drank of it," thereby giving an immediate fulfillment to his prediction in Mark 10:39.  
Further, when we compare the account of James' and John's request to the wording we find at the Eucharist, we find remarkable parallels besides the word "cup."  For example, Jesus ends his discourse in Mark 10:45 with these words:  "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  Compare this to the  language used at the Eucharist in Mark 14:24: And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."  In light of the strong parallels between Jesus' discourse with James and John and the Institution of the Eucharist, it seems quite likely that these passages were intended to be mutually interpreting. 
That leads to the very Catholic conclusion that all Christians are called to give their life "as a ransom" for many:
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

5.  What kind of baptism?
Most commentators believe that the “baptism” to which Jesus refers was an immersion in tribulation leading to his death.   As reasonable as this suggestion sounds, there is no clear analogue for this understanding of baptism in scripture.  The only OT passage that would come close to this understanding of baptism is the Septuagint (LXX) version of Isaiah 21:4: "My heart wanders, and transgression overwhelms (baptizes) me; my soul is occupied with fear" (English translation of the Septuagint).  But even here, baptism is not an equivalent term for physical death, and there is otherwise no indication that either Mark or Matthew had this verse in mind.   
In the NT, baptism is sometimes compared to death (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).  But the converse isn’t true:  death is never a metaphor for baptism, unless Mark 10:38-39 is the sole exception to this rule. 
There is, however, a baptism that Jesus received that he also gives to his disciples.  When Jesus was baptized by John (Mark 1:9-11; Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3: 21, 22), he was also baptized with the Holy Spirit .  We are told in several places that it is Jesus himself who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; see also Acts 2:3; Malachi 3:2). It therefore is possible that Jesus is referring to Christian baptism that, heretofore, has not been instituted, but which will be at Pentecost.  Further, if the “’cup” is the Eucharist, then the suggestion that the “baptism” is Christian baptism would seem all the more likely. 
Putting it all together:  When Jesus tells James and John that they will drink his cup and undergo his baptism, he may very well be speaking of the sacraments of initiation in which we participate in the death of Christ.  For both the “cup” (the Eucharist) and baptism unite us in Christ’s death and resurrection.  "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).  "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3).
Michael, here exemplifies the "either/or" mentality of the Protestants.  As Catholics, we believe that the Scriptures are pregnant with meaning and may contain several, non-contradictory, meanings.  For instance, we understand that because Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is also the Mother of God (Jesus is God) and the Mother of the Church (the Church is the body of Christ).

So, baptism can be a reference to baptism by fire as well as a reference to baptism of blood. without contradicting Christ's meaning.

6.   Whose cup did the brothers drink?

If the cup that Jesus says the brothers will drink is a reference to their own martyrdom, then James and John would have drunk their own cup, not Jesus'.  In other words, the traditional interpretation that sees the cup as a "cup of death" or as persecution or individual martyrdom can hardly be squared with the precise wording of scripture:  "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized" (Mark 10:39).  "You will drink my cup" (Matthew 20:23).
Jesus is clear that James and John will drink Jesus’ own cup and undergo his own baptism.  Yet if both the cup and baptism refer to their individual martyrdoms, then it would be inaccurate to say that they drank Jesus’ cup and not their own.  
Alternatively, if Jesus is talking about the Eucharistic cup, then clearly they drank of Jesus’ cup. And if he is talking about Christian baptism, then clearly they experienced this at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and therefore the wording of Jesus' prediction would be in complete harmony with subsequent history.
We all share in Christ's cup just as we all share in His cross.  We are the body of Christ.

In the rest of the article, Michael makes several straw men arguments and then knocks them down.  He never, however, realizes that his own arguments are made of straw.  I believe I have effectively refuted his errors.  The link to his article is above for any who are interested in reading it.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Catholic Doctrine all makes sense - the Atonement

It just makes sense. Catholic doctrine just makes sense.

Consider the Atonement. Atonement means to repay or to repair. Here's a definition from Google:

a·tone·ment
əˈtōnmənt/Submit
noun
The Body and Blood of Christ
1.reparation for a wrong or injury.
"she wanted to make atonement for her husband's behavior"


That, in essence is the Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ died to make reparation for our sins. He offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father. His sacrifice was of eternal value. By his sacrifice he redeemed all of mankind.

Some say however, that Jesus death was the punishment imposed upon them by God the Father.. This is wrong because it would be in error to call  it atonement. Atonement is a voluntary offering to make repayment. Inflicting the punishment  in order to obtain repayment is totally different and violates the spirit of the word. They could no longer be considered atonement but RETRIBUTION.

Yes sir, Catholic doctrine all makes sense.