In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[count-your-change]

“By his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption.” Indeed. Ther Eucharist is not a separate sacrifice but that very sacrifice described in Hebrews 9, applied to us personally.”

You seem to have overlooked or misunderstand what “once” means.
Unlike the Jewish high priest, Christ heavenly offering obtained “eternal redemption” and did not need to be repeated or performed on earth.
It was offered and accepted “once”.

[D-fendr]

In this case doesn’t “Christ commanded his disciples to “keep doing this..” contradict your “once” point?

[count-your-change]

Why do I say “doubtful”?
In reading the purported Letters of Ignatius I'm left with the impression they were a P.R. effort to turn him into a clone of Paul.
But somehow the authors couldn't quite pull it off.
And the author of the Romans letter becomes positively bizarre in his desire for death. to quote:

“May I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray that they may be found eager to rush upon me, which also I will entice to devour me speedily, and not deal with me as with some, whom, out of fear, they have not touched. But if they be unwilling to assail me, I will compel them to do so. Pardon me [in this] I know what is for my benefit. Now I begin to be a disciple. And let no one, of things visible or invisible, envy me that I should attain to Jesus Christ. Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.”
(Early Christian Writings)

Ah yez, tearings and breakings and and and well “all the dreadful torments”! How deliciously horrible to anticipate!

[count-your-change]

“In this case doesn’t “Christ commanded his disciples to “keep doing this..” contradict your “once” point?”

Not at all unless you assert that the last supper with Christ was the first sacrifice of Christ.

What do you think Christ referred to when he said “this”?
“This” what?

[D-fendr]

Holy Eucharist.

[count-your-change]

Remembrance is what Jesus said. You use the term “Holy Eucharist”, when the giving of thanks was not the purpose of meal but a only a part of it and not the major part. Why not “Holy Anamnesin” if we are doing the “this” Christ spoke of?

No, not mutually exclusive but then I didn't say they were. Its a matter of emphasis in Christ's words not a non sequitur.

[Kolokotronis]

"In reading the purported Letters of Ignatius I'm left with the impression they were a P.R. effort to turn him into a clone of Paul."

+Paul? Well, if that was the purpose of the author of the Letters, he or she failed miserably, I'll give you that. As for the drama of Chapter V of the Letter to the Romans, well death in the arena was a dramatic thing. It was supposed to be from the Romans' pov. I'll speculate that +Ignatius knew that the persecutions were increasing. His co-worker and fellow bishop +Polycarp had already suffered martyrdom in the arena. We know that +Ignatius had written to the Smyrneans about it. In any event, you are of course free tp be;ieve some or all of the letters are spurious. We don't and they form a fundamental part of the rationale of our ecclesiology, though not so much that of the Latins.

Here's a piece by Fr. John Romanides, of blessed memory, on the Letters and the theology of +Ignatius of Antioch. Fr. John was a very conservative Orthodox theologian.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.11.en.the_ecclesiology_of_st._ignatius_of_antioch.01.htm

[count-your-change]

“We don’t and they form a fundamental part of the rationale of our ecclesiology, though not so much that of the Latins.”

The darnel is still a noxious weed, a pseudo-wheat, no matter how often its pronounced wheat.

[Quix]

WELL PUT.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

[Quix]

I think that Proddys are supposed to remember that

in the Vatican Daffynitionary

“once”

means billions of times.

[Kolokotronis]

"The darnel is still a noxious weed, a pseudo-wheat, no matter how often its pronounced wheat."

Well, as I have said many times, you are completely free to believe whatever you want. There have been people who have rejected the writings and teaching of +Ignatius of Antioch for 1900 years. That there would be small elements of Protestantism, mostly located in America, which reject them in 2010 isn't a surprise. I am curious about something. Why do you, apparently, find it offensive that the teachings of +Ignatius of Antioch about Church structure form a basis of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology?

[stfassisi]

“”Instead of penance every time you commit the sin, how about repenting and not doing it any more?””

Of course,that goes without saying,but penance is also going beyond our own sins and asking forgiveness of the sins of others as well.

Do you pray for forgiveness of others or do you only care about yourself?

Here is something on penance from.
PAENITENTIAM AGERE
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_01071962_paenitentiam_en.html
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII
ON THE NEED FOR THE PRACTICE
OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PENANCE

Voluntary Acts as Part of External Penance

31. But besides bearing in a Christian spirit the inescapable annoyances and sufferings of this life, the faithful ought also take the initiative in doing voluntary acts of penance and offering them to God. In this they will be following in the footsteps of our divine Redeemer who, as the Prince of the Apostles said, “died once for sins, the Just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God. Put to death indeed in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.”(31) “Since, therefore, Christ has suffered in the flesh,” it is only fitting that we be “armed with the same intent.”(32)

32. It is right, too, to seek example and inspiration from the great saints of the Church. Pure as they were, they inflicted such mortifications upon themselves as to leave us almost aghast with admiration. And as we contemplate their saintly heroism, shall not we be moved by God’s grace to impose on ourselves some voluntary sufferings and deprivations, we whose consciences are perhaps weighed down by so heavy a burden of guilt?

33. And who does not know that this sort of penance is the more acceptable to God in that it springs not from the natural infirmities of soul or body, but from a free and generous resolve of the will, and as such is a most welcome sacrifice in God’s sight?

29. But the faithful must also be encouraged to do outward acts of penance, both to keep their bodies under the strict control of reason and faith, and to make amends for their own and other people’s sins. St. Paul was caught up to the third heaven—he reached the summit of holiness—and yet he had no hesitation in saying of himself “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection.”(27) On another occasion he said: “They who belong to Christ have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.”(28) St. Augustine issued the same insistent warning: “It is not enough for a man to change his ways for the better and to give up the practice of evil, unless by painful penance, sorrowing humility, the sacrifice of a contrite heart and the giving of alms he makes amends to God for all that he has done wrong.”(29)

[stfassisi]

bb-””Or how about when we sin against someone we go to them and ask forgiveness of them and make amends to them for their loss, if possible? Isn’t that what Christ told us?””

We should do that if possible but there are times when we get angry at people we don’t know or will not likely ever see again like getting mad at someone while driving our cars,impatience at stores, etc..

bb-””This idea of “doing penance” comes from the “deep” thinkers of the “Church” who envisioned some “disruption in the force” kind of happening and how the sufferings of some could make up for this disruption and, all the while, totally leaving out the entire purpose of the cross of Christ.””

Sin disrupts nature and our relationship with God,bb. Scriptures tell us that even the heavens were disrupted by the fall of lucifer and prideful angels.

God wants restoration,BB

Here is something from the late Fr William Most that might help you
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=160
Excerpt..
The image is a two-pan scales. The sinner takes from one pan what he has no right to have. The scale is out of balance. The Holiness of God wants it righted. How do that? If he stole some property, he begins to rebalance by giving it back. If he stole a pleasure, he begins to rebalance by giving up some pleasure of similar weight.

But we kept saying “begins”. For the imbalance from even one mortal sin is infinite, an Infinite Person is offended. So if the Father wanted a full rebalance - He did not have to - the only way to achieve it would be to send a divine Person to become man. That Person could produce an infinite value. Paul VI put the redemption into this framework.

All sinners of all times took an immense weight from the two-pan scales. But Jesus gave up far more than they had stolen, in His terrible passion.

So this is the price of redemption, the rebalancing of the objective order, which the Holiness of God willed. Rom 5:8 said,”God proved His love.” Yes, if someone desires the well-being of another, and starts out to procure it, but then runs into an obstacle - if a small obstacle will stop him, the love is small. If it takes a great obstacle, the love is great. But if that love could overcome even the immense obstacle of the terrible death of Jesus, that love is immense, beyond measure. It was not only the physical pain, but the rejection by those whom He loved that hurt Him. The pain of rejection can be measured by two things: 1) how severe is the form of the rejection; 2) how great is the love for the one who is rejecting. If someone jostles me in a crowd, that is a small thing. But if he wanted to kill me, that is far worse, and if he means to do it in the most hideous way possible - then the rejection is at the peak . And what is His love?: Inasmuch as He is a Divine Person, the love is infinite; in as much as we consider the love of His human will, able to overcome such a measureless obstacle - the love is beyond measure.

[MarkBsnr]

Really. I didn't see that. If that's true, then it speaks volumes about the abysmal level of theological understanding here on FR. In any event, Latin is no more a "foreign language" in a discussion of Christian theology and praxis than is Greek or Hebrew or Slavonic. With all due respect, English is the language which is foreign to Christian theology.

Standing applause. The English translations that we do have are approximations (for better or worse) of the original Greek or the secondary languages of Latin and Slavonic.

[metmom]

You seem to have overlooked or misunderstand what “once” means.

Unlike the Jewish high priest, Christ heavenly offering obtained “eternal redemption” and did not need to be repeated or performed on earth. It was offered and accepted “once”.

Not understanding Scripture seems to be a common malady amongst Catholics.

The sacrifice was over and done here on earth. His body died, His blood was shed. The curtain in the Temple was torn in two.

Jesus role in heaven now is that of a priest, not a sacrifice.

If Jesus is alive in heaven, as Catholics continually claim that all the saints are to hear and answer our prayers, then what is going on in heaven is relevant to what is going on on earth. If Christ were still dying here on earth, then He'd still be dying in heaven.

Since He is a priest in heaven, the ultimate reality, then He is a priest there, no longer a sacrifice.

I guess there is something about *Tetelestai*- *It is finished* that Catholics fail to comprehend. If they're claiming that the sacrifice is ongoing, then someone is lying. Either the Catholic church. Or Jesus.

[metmom]

You seem to have overlooked or misunderstand what “once” means.

Unlike the Jewish high priest, Christ heavenly offering obtained “eternal redemption” and did not need to be repeated or performed on earth. It was offered and accepted “once”.

You know, I don't recall any Scripture where we are called to participate in His sacrifice.

The only participation we would have would be helping to kill Him, driving the nails in as it were. That's the only role we play in His death.

This nonsense about the priest sacrificing Jesus is ridiculous. Nobody sacrificed Him. He laid His life down voluntarily. Nobody took it from Him.

I wouldn't brag about participating in the sacrifice of Jesus and call participating in continually killing Him as *worship*.

[metmom]

I guess they miss the past tense of the passages.

[Kolokotronis]

mm, the priest does not “sacrifice” Christ. In any event, do a Google search on “The Eighth Day”. The Liturgy does not occur here nor in time neither has the Mystical Supper nor the crucifixion nor the Resurrection happened more than once and always on the Eighth Day.