Fake Monk Bianchi Declares That Fatima Is a Fake

Fatima Perspectives ^ | December 17, 2015 | Christopher A. Ferrara

[ebb tide]

When Pope Francis was elected, I was entirely positive about the new pontificate, focusing in my commentary on the new Pope’s apparent devotion to the Blessed Virgin and his respect for the Fatima event, as shown by his request to the Patriarch of Portugal to consecrate his entire pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima. But I confess that at the time I knew next to nothing about the former Cardinal Mario Bergoglio. I did not know, for example, that he was “famous for his inconsistency.”

After two-and-a-half years of experience with this pontificate, however, I was not the least surprised to learn that Francis had named the fulminating, anti-Fatima, anti-Marian heretic Enzo Bianchi as a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. This phony “monk,” a layman who calls himself “Prior” of the phony interdenominational “monastery” of the “Bose Community,” was rightly denounced by Monsignor Antonio Livi, former dean of the faculty of philosophy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, as “substantially atheist” and a “prophet of the end of Catholicism” whose speeches are “a rhetorical device for his propaganda in favour of a humanism that is nominally Christian but substantially atheist.”

The heretic Francis has appointed to a pontifical council detests Marian devotion and despises the Message of Fatima. Mary, says the phony monk, “can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the Church.” As for Fatima, Bianchi pronounces Our Lady’s apparitions there a “swindle.” Why? Because according to him, any God “who talks about the persecuted Christians, but forgets the six million Jews annihilated in Germany is not a credible God.”

So, Francis has elevated to Vatican prominence a layman in a monk’s costume who dares to declare what God would had to have included in the Fatima prophecies in order to maintain the divine credibility. But as Vito Messori has observed: “Bianchi should remember that Communism (Lenin seized power in 1917) has at least 100 million deaths on its conscience, and there would not have been Hitler, if there had not previously been Lenin.” In fact, Nazism — that is, National Socialism — is precisely the outcome of the spread of the “errors of Russia” that Our Lady predicted, it having arisen in pre-World War II Germany as a rival to Marxism-Leninism. And during WWII the Hitler-Stalin Pact, pledging mutual non-aggression, ended only when Hitler invaded Poland.

For Bianchi, notes Msgr. Nicola Bux, a Consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “the deconstruction of the papacy in its present form is an especially important concern…” That being so, Bianchi’s appointment to a pontifical council is entirely in keeping with the ongoing deconstruction of the Church by its diabolically disorientated leadership, which seems intent (if it were possible) on committing ecclesial suicide.

Put the rise of this enemy of Our Lady of Fatima — by the Pope’s own hand — into the file marked “Third Secret.”

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I guess Catholics are not obliged to believe these either.

Catholics are not obligated to believe in any apparitions. 66 & 67 below, from the Catechism, make it pretty clear.

Apparitions/Private Revelations

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations."

---

Public Revelation. The Church teaches as de fide (of the Faith) that all that the Father desired to reveal for our salvation has been revealed in His Word, Jesus Christ. The Word communicated this Revelation to His Apostles, who either wrote it down or handed it on (traditio) in their preaching and teaching (1 Cor. 15:1-3, 2 Thes. 2:15). The deposit of the Faith, therefore, is to be found in the twin fountains of Public Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.

While some things in Public Revelation can be known by reason (the existence of a Supreme Being, elements of the moral law), many matters involve supernatural realities (mysteries such as the Trinity, divinity of Christ, grace, etc.) which cannot be known or proven directly by the senses or human reason. However, fortified by God's gift of supernatural Faith the human intellect is made capable of assenting to such truths (Mt. 16:17) and even understanding them, in so far as human beings can. Catholics are obliged to believe the entire deposit of the Faith by this divine and Catholic Faith, the extent of which is known by the teaching of the Church. In the words of the well-known Act of Faith addressed to God,

I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church alone, therefore, determines what Catholics must believe by this divine and Catholic faith. Everything else in life rests on human faith in the credibility of assertions of truth of one kind or another, such as whether John Wilkes Booth actually shot Abraham Lincoln or whether the Blessed Virgin appeared to a certain person.

---

Private Revelation. God continues to reveal Himself to individuals "not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6 reply 3). Since it occurs after the close of Public Revelation the Church distinguishes the content of such particular revelations to individuals from the deposit of the Faith by calling it private revelation. The test of its authenticity is always its consistency with Public Revelation as guarded faithfully by the Catholic Church. For example, alleged revelations which propose to improve upon, correct or entirely supplant Public Revelation are rejected by the Church as inauthentic, regardless of the claims made for them. Such revelations include those of Mohammed in the Koran, Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon, the writings of new age mystics, psychics and the like.

Some private revelations, however, the Church has accepted as credible, calling them constat de supernaturalitate (that is, they give evidence of a supernatural intervention). Such private revelations cannot correct or add anything essentially new to Public Revelation; however, they may contribute to a deeper understanding of the faith, provide new lines of theological investigation (such as suggested by the revelations to St. Margaret Mary on the Sacred Heart), or recall mankind prophetically to the living of the Gospel (as at Fátima). No private revelation can ever be necessary for salvation, though its content may obviously coincide with what is necessary for salvation as known from Scripture and Tradition. The person who believes the teachings of the Magisterium, utilizes devoutly the sacramental means of sanctification and prayer, and remains in Communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is already employing the necessary means of salvation. A private revelation may recall wayward individuals to the faith, stir the devotion of the already pious, encourage prayer and penance on behalf of others, but it cannot substitute for the Catholic faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the Pope and bishops.

Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,

Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it's acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent.  That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,

Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. [CCC 67]

However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text, 

it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

---

Sources of Private Revelations. Approved private revelations derive from two sources. First, there is the mysticism of the Servants of God who have been proposed for canonization. When the diocese which initiated the Cause has concluded its investigation and forwarded the documentation to Rome, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints undertakes its own study of the person's life. If the Congregation determines that he or she lived a life of heroic virtue this decision necessarily includes the judgment that the writings, including any mystical ones, are not contrary to faith and morals. If the Holy Father concurs the person is declared Venerable. The later canonization of the person (generally considered an act of papal infallibility), only heightens the credibility of the person's writings and the pious regard Catholics should have for them, according to the standard given by Benedict XIV.

The second kind of private revelation comes through apparitions. The person who receives an apparition is not necessarily far along in the spiritual life, though they are typically humble and simple souls. God grants this grace for the good of the Church and not as the fruit of contemplative prayer. When apparitions judged at the diocesan level  constat de supernaturalitate (giving signs or evidences of supernaturality) receive the approbation of the Holy See, as indicated by a positive judgment, the granting of papal favors to the apparition site, the approval of a liturgical feast, the canonization of the seer or other clear signs of approval, the words of Pope Benedict XIV can certainly be applied, as well, "an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them."

---

Private Revelations Without Roman Approval. Since most private revelations and alleged apparitions never receive the approval of the Holy See Catholics must often judge for themselves whether they are credible. If the person (whether living or dead) has a reputation for sanctity (such as Padre Pio had), then clearly any mystical revelations have considerable credibility prior to any formal evaluation by the Church. The witness of prudent priests, especially the spiritual director of the person, is a key element in determining credibility. However, even here care must be taken. The spiritual director himself must be competent in mystical theology, credible as a person and in good standing with the Church. False mystics have been known to "shop" for gullible, extremely aged or incompetent directors. Ideally, a bishop upon hearing of an alleged mystic would assign a competent director, thus insuring the authenticity of the evaluation. 

In the case of apparitions, however, they often occur to obscure individuals with little or no reputation. Their human credibility may rest initially on the attitude of the local clergy and the personal experience of observers. There may or may not be phenomena which suggest something out of the ordinary. The message may or may not be appear to be consistent with Church teaching. The person or persons may or may not have a competent spiritual director. Finally they may or may not be investigated by the local bishop to determine if they are credible. In the end the faithful are often left to fend for themselves in a perplexing sea of information. If the message is orthodox, the seer(s) of good reputation, the clergy favorable, the signs supportive, even without an official investigation the faithful can make a prudent judgment that it is credible. Certainly those who were present at the apparitions of Lourdes and Fátima, as well as those who believed in them prior to Church approval, had to have made such a judgment.

Certainly, however, the faithful benefit the most from the judgment of the bishop of the diocese in which the apparition occurs. He has the authority to assemble a commission of scientific and theological experts, to judge the case, as well as the grace of vocation to carry out this pastoral service. While his decision is not infallible, it has the presumption of being correct and should receive the respectfully adherence of the faithful (Canon 753). Thus, such decisions should generally be decisive in the prudential judgment of the faithful. It would require very weighty and sound theological reasons (not feelings or mere agreement with the content of the alleged apparition) to find defect in such a decision. Such intellectual disagreement, however, does not permit acting out of communion with the bishop. (See my FAQ on Medjugorje for the attitude of the Holy See in one such case.) 

With respect to any disciplinary precepts the bishop makes concerning the apparition and its site, they should be followed faithfully (e.g. what sacraments, if any, may be celebrated there). No Catholic should ever violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit.

---

Types of Decisions.  

The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural),  2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).

1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful.

The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge etc.) are caused by angels acting on God's behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not, therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality.  Each of the approved apparitions have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the natural prodigy of October 13^th 1917 in Fátima, but also the other marks of authenticity mentioned above.

2. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to  act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.

3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.

---

Responsibility of the Faithful. Today there are a myriad of alleged private revelations and apparitions vying for the attention of the faithful. None have been definitively judged by the Holy See, some have been approved by local authority (e.g. Akita, Cuapa, Betania), others have been found lacking in supernaturality (e.g. Medjugorje, Garabandal), some few have been condemned (e.g. Necedah, Bayside) and finally, the vast majority have received no attention from Church authorities whatsoever.

The first responsibility of the faithful is to remain firmly established in the faith, in the sacraments and in communion with the Pope and bishops. Any Catholic who gives their primary attention to alleged private revelation at the expense of Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church (especially the Catechism), sacramental practice, prayer and fidelity to Church authority is off course. The running after spiritual phenomena, such as alleged revelations, is condemned by St. John of the Cross as spiritual avarice. This means that pious souls who would be repulsed by crude materialistic greed think nothing of being greedy to know revelations and prophecies. An exclusive, or even a predominant attention to these matters (especially apocalyptic ones), cannot help but produce an unbalanced spirituality. Should the Church condemn some favorite alleged revelation such a person may find themselves believing more in it than in the supernatural authority of the Church. The devil will have succeeded in what he had set out to do.

The second responsibility is to have regard, in the first place, for those private revelations and apparitions approved by the Church. Within a balanced practice of the faith the edifying content of approved private revelations can be a motive for deeper piety and fidelity to the Gospel. God has chosen to give guidance to the Church in particular eras in this way and we would, as I noted above, be imprudent to disregard altogether what are credibly His prophetic interventions in the life of His Church.

Finally, there are many other private revelations that have not received Church approval. The Second Vatican Council urges us to discern the Spirit in the case of such extraordinary graces [Lumen gentium 12], which means being neither gullible or incredulous, but subjecting them to all relevant theological and human tests of credibility. Clearly, in this the judgment of the local bishop is the key element of such a discernment as I noted above. Often enough, unfortunately, the laity are left to make this determination themselves, relying on the testimony of the events, the judgment of holy and orthodox priests and common sense. It must always be kept in mind that however credible and reasonable such revelations seem to be, God would never ask one to separate oneself from the faith and discipline of the Church to follow it.

Revised April 2001

---

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

[MHGinTN]

LOL ... you’re so entertaining.

[vladimir998]

“LOL ... you’re so entertaining.”

And you can’t refute what I said. Your source has errors and is apparently plagiarized or wound up in someone’s plagiarized work. Figures. Anti-Catholics, that’s what they do.

[MHGinTN]

Oh yeah! Keep it coming, vlad, the hysteria is rising to amusing heights.

[MHGinTN]

From the website which is frustrating you so much: “For More From The Same Author Click here ———> Lawrence Kelemen” That’s attribution, little man. That Kelemen lifted from Barlow’s book does not make the website poster a thief. But you would like to imply that. what a shame for you.

[MHGinTN]

And BTW, here's the footnoted source citation for the website:

SOURCES

[1] Addison G. Wright, Roland E. Murphy, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “A History of Israel” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990), p. 1247.

[2] The first mention of a Nativity feast appears in the Philocalian calendar, a Roman document from 354 CE, which lists December 25th as the day of Jesus’ birth.

[3] Increase Mather, A Testimony against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practiced by Some in New England (London, 1687), p. 35. See also Stephen Nissenbaum, The Battle for Christmas: A Cultural History of America’s Most Cherished Holiday, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, p. 4.

[4] Nissenbaum, p. 3.

[5] David I. Kertzer, The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001, p. 74.

[6] Kertzer, p. 33, 74-5.

[7] Clement Miles, Christmas Customs and Traditions: Their History and Significance, New York: Dover Publications, 1976, pp. 178, 263-271.

[8] Miles, p. 273.

[9] Miles, p. 274-5.

[10] Miles, pp. 276-279.

[11] John 8:44

Interesting reading in those sources. Reveals much the religion of catholiciism would like to sweep under their empowerment rug don'tchaknow.

[vladimir998]

“Oh yeah! Keep it coming, vlad, the hysteria is rising to amusing heights.”

What’s really amusing is that you linked to a seriously flawed and possibly plagiarizing website and you apparently didn’t even know it. And you still can’t refute what I said.

[vladimir998]

“From the website which is frustrating you so much:”

First of all, the webpage is not frustrating me at all since its sheer stupidity serves as a sign of the worth of the knowledge and judgement of the person using it. That’s a win-win for me then.

“For More From The Same Author Click here ———> Lawrence Kelemen” That’s attribution, little man.”

Pay attention now: I already mentioned Lawrence Kelemen was the attributed author is post # 337. That means I already posted that information so you’re way behind me as usual.

“That Kelemen lifted from Barlow’s book does not make the website poster a thief.”

1) How do we know for sure Kelemen lifted from Barlow? I assume that that is probably what happened, but do we know that for sure?

2) Did you even know about Barlow’s book before I pointed it out? I bet you didn’t. If you didn’t know, then once again I was way ahead of you even on origins of your own “source” (if indeed Kelemen stole from Barlow, which looks like the case).

“But you would like to imply that. what a shame for you.”

If you take something that is not yours, what are you? On the web, if you take something that is not yours - without any attribution - you are a thief. It’s just that simple. Now, maybe Kelemen had permission. But that is doubtful since he almost certainly would have said so if he went to the trouble to get it.

You relied on an apparent thief for your information. He relied on a poorly sourced, poorly researched and ultimately silly book. You apparently didn’t know any of that. What a shame for you.

[vladimir998]

“And BTW, here’s the footnoted source citation for the website:”

And BTW, I already know this since I read the webpage and already mentioned that you by relying on it were denying that John 8:44 was inspired scripture. Remember, this webpage that you’re touting denies there was a New Testament before 325 and specifically says “The [NT] text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil”[John 8:44] who sentenced Jesus to death.”

Do you uncritically accept their ridiculous anti-Christian claim? Well, apparently you do because you still haven’t disagreed with it even though it’s been pointed out to you. Perhaps that reveals much you “would like to sweep under” your “empowerment rug don’tchaknow”?

[HossB86]

CCC 1366 says: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...

What part of, "...is thus a sacrifice because...." don't you understand??? It makes no difference if it's a re-presentation or not! Christ's sacrifice was once and for all on the cross... from which he rose again. There is NO need to "re-present" his sacrifice -- it's already done. We commemorate the Lord's Supper, but we don't do it as a "sacrifice" of any sort! Don't you get it?

The drivel referred to was the RCC twisting of it. Not Scripture.

The CCC and I both state that Christ was sacrificed, cannot be sacrificed again, but His sacrifice can be re-presented many, many times.

Really. Seems like the CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a sacrifice. The ACT of the eucharist then, by definition IS a sacrifice every time it's done.

I'm reading it as its written, not spinning it the RCC way.

When the CCC calls the eucharist a SACRIFICE, you can't just explain it away. Keep at it all you want: it's there in black and white for all to see. BTW, this is the same CCC that says Catholics worship the same "God" as Muslims and that Mary is a co-mediatrix -- which is refuted by 1 Timothy 2:5.

You can't have it both ways -- are you right or is Rome?

Hoss

[MHGinTN]

Bwhahaha ... attaboy, keep trying to stand up those strawmen. LOL, you’re so entertaining ... but you’re still way short of the mark established by the apologists of that other popular cult, Mormonism. Do you imagine you’re to be rewarded for your magic mindreading?

[MHGinTN]

Ah, but you see, catholics have been taught to believe their priest brings Jesus down from the Throne of Heaven at each mass, to 'continue' the sacrifice. Catholics are taught by the magicsteeringthem to believe these heresies as fundamental to the 'other gospel' called catholiciism.

Hmm, that indicates the catholic mass at Christmas, is not about the Bbay Jesus coming into physical life among us, but as a sacrifice for continued exploitation by the 'ism'! Did you know that Mormons celebrate 12/25 as Joseph Smith's birthday? at least with that cult 12/25 is a celebration of a birth not a sacrifice committed by their priesthood ...

[HossB86]

I did not know that about Mormonism. That's pretty scary.

Ah, but you see, catholics have been taught to believe their priest brings Jesus down from the Throne of Heaven at each mass, to 'continue' the sacrifice. Catholics are taught by the magicsteeringthem to believe these heresies as fundamental to the 'other gospel' called catholicism. So true. And sad, no?

Hoss

[vladimir998]

“What part of, “...is thus a sacrifice because....” don’t you understand??? “

What part of, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” (CCC 1366) do you not understand?

“It makes no difference if it’s a re-presentation or not!”

Of course it does.

“Christ’s sacrifice was once and for all on the cross... from which he rose again. There is NO need to “re-present” his sacrifice — it’s already done. We commemorate the Lord’s Supper, but we don’t do it as a “sacrifice” of any sort! Don’t you get it?”

I sure do get it - the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross made voluntarily by Christ. I not only get it, I can discuss it without getting it wrong as you did.

“The drivel referred to was the RCC twisting of it. Not Scripture.”

Except that’s not what you said. Here’s EXACTLY what you said: “Not according to this drivel. Try reading God’s Word.” Now that shows you were denying the Bible readings are God’s Word and you were calling God’s Word - in the passages read at Mass and in the prayers in the Mass - drivel. That’s all there is to it. There was no “RCC twisting” of anything. There was just you calling the Word of God “drivel”. That’s all there was.

“Really. Seems like the CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a sacrifice.”

Here’s what the CCC says:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.””

Thus THE EUCHARIST IS A RE-PRESENTATION of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is a sacrifice, but the same one rather than a new one or different one.

“The ACT of the eucharist then, by definition IS a sacrifice every time it’s done.”

Again, THE EUCHARIST IS A RE-PRESENTATION of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is a sacrifice, but the same one rather than a new one or different one.

“I’m reading it as its written, not spinning it the RCC way.”

I’m reading it too: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” Thus it is only a sacrifice because it is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. That’s not spin. It’s just the truth.

“When the CCC calls the eucharist a SACRIFICE, you can’t just explain it away.”

Ha! I wouldn’t even think to do so. The CCC is just proving you wrong again and again and again - and you keep quoting it even though it proves you wrong. That’s the best part. You’re being done in by the weapon you chose!

“Keep at it all you want: it’s there in black and white for all to see.”

It sure is. Here’s what you posted AGAIN that proves I was right all along: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...”

“BTW, this is the same CCC that says Catholics worship the same “God” as Muslims and that Mary is a co-mediatrix — which is refuted by 1 Timothy 2:5.”

And still none of that helps you here. I guess though in your situation the kitchen sink is all that’s left huh?

“You can’t have it both ways — are you right or is Rome?”

What is true is that you are wrong. As I already demonstrated I and the CCC are both saying there is only one sacrifice, it is just re-presented many times. It’s so funny you posted that paragraph when it so clearly proves you wrong.

Oh, and you might want to read the second paragraph of CCC 1353, all of 1364, and 1407, but perhaps most especially:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

Thus, between I and the CCC, you’re the one who is wrong.

[HossB86]

You or the RCC? The CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE. Again, doesn't matter about presentation or re-presentation. YOU SAID the eucharist was NOT a SACRIFICE.

The CCC says PLAINLY that the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.

Who's right? You or Rome?

Hoss

[vladimir998]

“Bwhahaha ... attaboy, keep trying to stand up those strawmen.”

What straw men? I noted the author Kelemen before you did. I noted the errors on the webpage. I noted that Kelemen had passages word-for-word that matched Barlow’s book. You apparently knew NONE OF THIS.

You apparently did not know or did not care (you’ll have to tell which is which) that Kelemen or Barlow or both believe the NT was “created” in 325; that the text of John 8:44 is anti-Jewish and was “produced” in 325. None of that is a straw man. Logically there are only three possibilities:

1) you didn’t know because you did a poor job of vetting the website.

2) You don’t care and just wanted a quick weapon.

3) You knew and you agree.

Which is it?

“LOL, you’re so entertaining ... but you’re still way short of the mark established by the apologists of that other popular cult, Mormonism. Do you imagine you’re to be rewarded for your magic mindreading?”

No mind reading involved. It’s just logic. Either you knew or you didn’t. If you knew and didn’t care then that’s either a just a terribly poor choice on your part to have any weapon at all or you agree with what was typed on the webpage by Kelemen. So which is it?

[ealgeone]

The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass

Guess not everyone is on the same page!

[HossB86]

Isn't interesting how catholic.com uses the term Bible Christians? As for that, count me in!

:D

Hoss

[vladimir998]

“You or the RCC?”

You’re the one in error. As I’ll demonstrate in this post.

“The CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”

So do I. Neither of us says it’s anything other than the one sacrifice re-presented.

“Again, doesn’t matter about presentation or re-presentation.”

Of course it does! You even HIGHLIGHTED THAT WORD “re-presented” in post #340 so how can YOU now say it doesn’t matter when you HIGHLIGHTED the word in YOUR OWN POST??? Why on earth would you bother highlighting it if it didn’t matter?

“YOU SAID the eucharist was NOT a SACRIFICE.”

I never once said that. Let me help you since you stating something that is categorically untrue. Here’s what I wrote in post #339 - and I will use asterix to block off where I think you’re getting your wires crossed since you started posting from the CCC that the Eucharist is a sacrifice (as if I had ever denied it!) in the responding post (#340 - you know, the one where you called Bible passages “drivel”):

“What’s false is clearly your understanding if you think anyone could sacrifice Jesus over and over again. No one could and no one wants to either. *****So which is it that you are getting wrong there? Are you wrong about someone being able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again or are you wrong on believing Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again?***** It has to be one or the other OR BOTH according to your own words. The correct answer is - BOTH - since both are impossible.”

Note I said the answer was BOTH. You’re wrong on BOTH points if you think Catholics:

1) believe they are “able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again”

2) believe they “sacrifice Jesus over and over again?”

“The CCC says PLAINLY that the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”

And I never denied it is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice and I even pointed out - and apparently you’re ignoring it - that the CCC paragraph you tout 1366 says: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” Thus, as I already pointed out in a previous post and you apparently ignored, the CCC says specifically that the Eucharist IS a sacrifice precisely because it “re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” And I never once denied that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. All I denied was your erroneous belief that there is any possibility of Jesus being a “sacrifice...over and over” as you falsely claimed in post #335.

I’ve been right all along and you keep proving it with every post.

“Who’s right? You or Rome?”

Clearly your question makes no sense since the CCC says:

1) Jesus was sacrificed (CCC 1367) I have said the same thing (Post #339)

2) Jesus cannot be sacrificed again (CCC 1353). I have said the same thing (Post #339).

3) The Eucharist is a re-presentation of that sacrifice (CCC 1365-1366). I have said the same thing (Post #343)