Posted on 07/08/2006 9:23:38 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
Is this a familiar scene to you???
No, you're quoting the Epistle to the Hebrews, not the Epistle to the Catholics, and the "priest" who "standeth daily" ministering those "sacrifices which can never take away sins" was a Jewish priest in the Jewish temple. Since the temple was destroyed in AD 70, that's a "familiar scene" to nobody living on earth today.
The only sacrifice a Catholic priest offers is the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Calvary, which is the only sacrifice which was ever efficacious to take away sins. That's why that same Epistle to the Hebrews says, in its last chapter, "we have an altar from which those who serve the [Jewish] tabernacle have no right to eat".
You would be well served to actually start to understand the Bible, instead of just using it as a handy source for Catholic-bashing one-liners.
This thread was about the ordination of women. Marajade hijacked it into an anti-Catholic diatribe about married priests. But thanks for the effort at historical revisionism.
You are a little bit right...Hebrews is to the Hebrews...But if you are going to take it that far, there wasn't a born again Christian anywhere before Matthew 27...But you have no problem applying those verses to your church...
The fact is, God didn't leave his words to us to expire in 70 AD...You can finds tons of stuff in Hebrews that applies to Christians...
What you don't get is that the Temple will be rebuilt 'again'...By the Jews...And the Jews will sacrifice to God, again...
I realize you guys think you have become God's chosen people and replaced His beloved...If you are saved, and ONLY if you are saved, you have been adopted into the family...But God's not done with his beloved...
The only sacrifice a Catholic priest offers is the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Calvary,
I don't see where it makes any difference what you call your sacrifice, it's still a sacrifice...You use real blood and real meat, according to you guys...
And the scripture in Hebrews is picking out the Hebrews 'as an example'...Do not sacrifice meat and blood as they do...Do you sacrifice meat and blood???
which is the only sacrifice which was ever efficacious to take away sins.
Well then you've got a lot of confused Catholics...Some say that baptism take away sins...I've read on FR that grace takes away sin...Doing good works takes away sin...confession to a Priest takes away sin...
That's why that same Epistle to the Hebrews says, in its last chapter, "we have an altar from which those who serve the [Jewish] tabernacle have no right to eat".
What, we're back to knawing on Jesus again???
You would be well served to actually start to understand the Bible, instead of just using it as a handy source for Catholic-bashing one-liners.
One liner??? How about this one liner:::
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You find a one liner and build a religon on it...
Obviously; those Catholic bishops back in AD 400 put it in the Bible for a reason.
But that doesn't change the fact that the verse you quoted has nothing to do with a condemnation of Catholic doctrine, practice, or anything else Catholic -- even though you'd like to misuse it and twist it into that.
It's a rejection of Jewish ceremonial practice.
What you don't get is that the Temple will be rebuilt 'again'...By the Jews...And the Jews will sacrifice to God, again.
I doubt it, but that's still completely irrelevant to my point that Hebrews is not condemning the Mass, but Jewish temple ritual under the Old Covenant.
Do not sacrifice meat and blood as they do...Do you sacrifice meat and blood???
We sacrifice the living, glorified flesh and the living, glorified blood of a living and glorified divine person who has a living, glorified human body and a living glorified human soul.
The Jews sacrificed dead animals.
I can see a difference, can you?
Well then you've got a lot of confused Catholics...Some say that baptism take away sins...I've read on FR that grace takes away sin...Doing good works takes away sin...confession to a Priest takes away sin...
Don't you understand the distinction between an instrumental and a meritorious cause? It seems to me that's pretty basic; the difference between a paycheck (the instrumental cause) and a job (the meritorious cause).
What, we're back to knawing on Jesus again???
In other words, you pick and choose what Bible verses you believe? Your defense against my citation in Hebrews is that you don't like it, therefore, you'll dismiss it?
OTOH, we Catholics actually read John 6 and believe it when it says "my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." We don't explain it away as symbol and metaphor like you do -- when Jesus had every opportunity to do exactly that and did no such thing. And when he switches verbs from phago (dine) to trogo (munch, gnaw), we believe him there, too.
Imagine the gall of these Catholics -- to read Jesus' words in the Bible and believe them!
The Husband of but one wife. That means he's never been the husband of more than one wife. Not that his wife is dead.
"How does celibacy which is a legitimate sanctioned life for any Christian single ( priest or not) compare in any way to polygamy..."
Huh? Where did I compare it to polygamy?
Oh please, don't hide behind your gender.
The Husband of but one wife. That means he's never been the husband of more than one wife. Not that his wife is dead.
Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5).
Do you interpret this to mean that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; whereas an unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven?
The very basis of the disagreement, it appears.
But that's so much easier than answering why she doesn't hold herself to the same standard as 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34. I've been waiting on answer on that since Saturday night.
LOL! Did I mess that up! I meant waiting on an answer to that since Saturday night.
Well yes, that's what is says.
Is this forum a church?
And you certainly ain't my husband.
There you again Marajade. Avoiding answering me. How does that answer my questions regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the other one from 1 Corinthians 14:34? I don't need to be your husband for you to answer that, nor do you need to get your husband to answer it for you as you suggested earlier.
Say what?
If my above post don't answer it for you then you don't know how to read the Bible.
LOL, Marajade! I have never seen anyone quite as stubborn about not answering a question. How does "you aren't my husband" translate to "you don't know how to read the Bible" when you won't answer about what your personal opinion is on those passages. Do you or do you NOT agree with those passages as being the literal truth?
I don't have a personal opinion. I read the Bible and understand what it means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.