The Primacy of Peter

**Final and ongoing sacrifice. Isn’t that an inherent contradiction?**

The Mass and the Eucharisit are a MEMORIAL of the Last Supper.

Does your Bible have the words “Do this in memory of me.”??

It is not a re-sacrifice, it is a memorial of that sacrifice.

Again — Christ said, “Do this in memory of me.”

“**Final and ongoing sacrifice. Isn’t that an inherent contradiction?**

The Mass and the Eucharisit are a MEMORIAL of the Last Supper.

Does your Bible have the words “Do this in memory of me.”??

It is not a re-sacrifice, it is a memorial of that sacrifice.

Again — Christ said, “Do this in memory of me.””

The Roman Church disagrees:

As a sacrifice
“the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist,” (CCC, 1055) and “the Eucharist is also a sacrifice,” (CCC, 1365).
As a divine sacrifice
“For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (CCC, 1068).
As a representation of the sacrifice of Christ
“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross,” (CCC, 1366).
Is ‘one single sacrifice’ with Christ’s sacrifice
“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,” (CCC, 1367).
It is the same sacrifice of Christ
“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,” (CCC, 1367).
It is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God)
“...this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,” (CCC, 1367).
To all who deny its propitiatory nature Trent pronounces anathema
“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3);
It is called the sacrifice of Christ which is offered via the priest’s hands
“The sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands,” (CCC, 1369).
It is capable of making reparation of sins
“As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC, 1414).
It is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice
“The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice’”, (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: “Sacrifice of the Mass”).

Of course, it most certainly IS something to be done “in remembrance of Me” and isn’t actually involved in forgiveness of sins or salvation and most certainly is not an actual sacrifice. It’s just that the Catholics do not hold the same position as what the scripture says.

Great post.

"The prohibitions were against commoners reading vernacular translations."

To find the truth we must examine positive and negative information. The purpose of Tyndale's work was not to bring the Bible to the commoners, it was to bring his doctrines to the people. There were already numerous English translations available and the number of persons able to read an English dialect was incredibly small. Those who were able to read English and not Latin were nonexistent.

When Tyndale produced his first translation in 1525 there were five major dialect divisions within England - Northern, West Midlands, East Midlands (a region which extended down to include London), Southern and Kentish - and even within these demarcations, there was a huge variety of different spellings. For example, the word church could be spelled in 30 different ways, people in 22, receive in 45, she in 60 and though in over 500 variations. The “-ing” participle (e.g. running) was said as “-and” in the north, “-end” in the East Midlands, and “-ind” in the West Midlands (e.g. runnand, runnend, runnind). The "-eth" and "-th" verb endings used in the south of the country (e.g. goeth) appear as "-es" and "-s" in the Northern and most of the north Midland area (e.g. goes), a version which was ultimately to become the standard. (above based upon information from wikipedia)

I don't expect you to always reach the right conclusions, but you have absolutely no chance of doing it when you ignore over half of the available information.

Peace be with you.

Also the unbloody MEMORIAL of the Sacrifice of the Cross. I forgot that part.

Nothing on your homepage. I was wondering what denomination you were and why you are trying to tell me a Catholic what to believe??

Catholics do believe all the quotes from the Catechism and the Scripture too.

Why do you say that Catholics don’t believe Scripture?

I could say the same — many others of various denominations do not believe the Gospels, even though the contain the words of Christ. Instead they believe St. Paul. (Not that St. Paul was lying — but I’ll take Christ’s words, “I am the Bread of Life.” any day!

“Nothing on your homepage. I was wondering what denomination you were and why you are trying to tell me a Catholic what to believe??”

You said it was for a Memorial. I agreed. But the Catholic Church believes it is an actual sacrifice, somehow the same sacrifice as the one Jesus Christ did, which at the same time protects us from the wrath of God.

The scripture only uses one greek word which means “Remembrance,” or to recollect. It doesn’t mention any of the other stuff.

“The purpose of Tyndale’s work was not to bring the Bible to the commoners, it was to bring his doctrines to the people. There were already numerous English translations available and the number of persons able to read an English dialect was incredibly small.”

Incorrect.

First, as I demonstrated with the earlier picture, Tyndale’s first full translation of the NT was published with NO comments. None. Nada. Zilch.

It was simply a translation, and a very good one at that. Thomas More tried to attack it as a translation and made a fool of himself. Repent did, indeed, mean repent and not “do penance”. Elder meant elder, not bishop. Etc.

There were not numerous English translations available. There was no complete New Testament or Bible in any form of English prior to Wycliffe, nor any other available until Tyndale.

“Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. Over 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive...

...Even twenty years after Wycliffe’s death, at the Oxford Convocation of 1408, it was solemnly voted that no new translation of the Bible should be made without prior approval. However, as the text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was the Latin Vulgate, and as it contained no heterodox readings, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version; and consequently many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation. Consequently manuscripts of the Wycliffe Bible, which when inscribed with a date always purport to precede 1409, the date of the ban, circulated freely and were widely used by clergy and laity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Bible

I have asked before for someone to show a translation of the entire New Testament prior to Wycliffe, or a competing translation co-existing with it. To date, no one has taken up the challenge.

“Parts of the Bible had, of course, been translated into English before Wycliffe’s time—both
in the Old English period and, more recently, in Middle English. But these partial translations
had been designed for devotional or liturgical use or for narrative interest. In the Old English
period we have the translation of the Psalter by Aldhelm of Sherborne as early as the eighth
century, while from the tenth century we have the Wessex Gospels and the Heptateuch
(Genesis-Judges) of Aelfric of Eynsham. Alfred the Great’s law-code was introduced by an
English version of the Decalogue and other parts of Exodus 20-23. From the early fourteenth
century we have Middle English translations of the Psalter, the best known of which is that
by Richard Rolle, the hermit of Hampole (near Doncaster), which was accompanied by a
verse-by-verse commentary; it was evidently a popular work, being copied in other dialects
than Rolle’s own. Later in the same century comes a version of the New Testament epistles
made apparently for members of religious houses.
But before the time of Wycliffe no one seems to have thought of providing ordinary layfolk
with a vernacular version of the whole Bible. The provision of such a version, however, was
imperative if ordinary layfolk were directly responsible to God as Wycliffe taught, for
knowing and obeying his law.”

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_098_4_Bruce.pdf

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with my statement:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Further, if there was no one who needed an English translation, nor anyone who could read one, then Tyndale would obviously have had no market, nor could Wycliffe’s followers before him. Yet Wycliffe’s followers DID market and give away handwritten copies, often at risk of death. And Tyndale’s translation DID sell, and sell well.

It is an amazing thing - a translation that no one wanted and that no one could read sold as fast as it could be printed.

Repeat - and the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me - there were no translations of the Bible into vernacular English (Old, Middle or any other variant) prior to Wycliffe. And Tyndale’s translation was both accurate (I believe it is available online if you wish to check it) and popular. It was vastly better than the later Douai-Reims, which the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

“The religious adherence to the Latin text is the reason of the less elegant and idiomatic words and phrases found in the translation. The original Douai Version has undergone so many revisions that “scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published”. Dr. Challoner probably merits the credit of being the principal reviser of the Douai Version (1749-50)...”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

The current DR owes most of its text to the KJV, with revisions made to make it accord with Catholic theology.

“He shall suffer loss (zhmiwthsetai).
First future passive indicative of zhmiw, old verb from zhmia (damage, loss), to suffer loss. In Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25 the loss is stated to be the man’s soul (psuxhn) or eternal life. But here there is no such total loss as that. The man’s work (ergon) is burned up (sermons, lectures, books, teaching, all dry as dust).

But he himself shall be saved (autov de swthsetai).
Eternal salvation, but not by purgatory. His work is burned up completely and hopelessly, but he himself escapes destruction because he is really a saved man a real believer in Christ.”

http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=003&verse=015

Paul was obviously using an analogy - that the church is a building, and ministers were working on the building with either wood or stone. On Judgement Day, the building would be tested by fire to show what each man had done - did he build with stone, that would survive the fire, or wood, which would not?

Paul states this explicitely:

” each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.”

Paul then concludes his analogy by writing, “ If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

If your house catches on fire, you will have nothing - but you will live. If someone builds the church poorly, his work will not last and he will enter heaven with empty hands - as someone whose house has burnt down is without anything.

This is not a complex verse to understand. It is very simple, and it does NOT, in any way, suggest a place where men are tormented to pay the temporal punishment of their sins. That is not the Gospel, but the anti-Gospel. There is nothing good about the news you have to work your way to heaven, and pay the judgment of your sins!

Thanks.

People who, in effect, call Christ a liar by denying that Christ is really present in the Eucharist bread and wine are blind, and being blind, latch onto whatever they think best rationalizes their inability to see. Christ Himself said He is really present in the Eucharist, therefore the remembrance of Christ shares in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross exactly the same way people shared the sacrificial meal of any other sacrifice prior to the Crucifixion.

I honestly don't understand how people who claim to be Christian cannot grasp that having us share in the in the sacrifice that took place on the cross is a trivial thing for Christ to accomplish. It has to be one of the blind spots Satan works very hard to foster and works very hard to keep folks getting over.

It's like people bending over backwards to ignore the fact that God has been dealing with His people in the same, consistent, way throughout the Bible. It's so obvious, in fact, that people can't miss it unless they've accepted a powerful delusion. God always raises up a leader for His people, and that leader always establishes a priesthood to keep His sheep from straying. Christ as our leader did the same thing, established a priesthood to guide and protect His sheep so they don't stray from the body of Christ, His Church. Yet, the majority of folks prefer Core to Christ, and in doing so deny Christ by denying His Word. They so much prefer Core, in fact, that they'll deny clear, simple, Scripture that states, ". . . and on this Rock I will build my Church", or "This is my body".

Obviously, it's very easy for folks in this country to get trapped into Self Worship and find whatever they want to find in Scripture without ever seeing what's really there. When the majority of people are deluded into believing Christ would be the father of anarchy, it's no wonder the majority of people commit the same sin Eve did. Who but Self Worshipers who see themself as god can teach that contraception is a sin in 1965 and teach that it's no big deal twenty years later, then claim that they've always based their belief on what the Holy Spirit shows them is in Scripture?

I am so thankful for the Grace that led me to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church after so long in the wildness of Protestantism.

Regards

I appreciate the kind note.

I know it seems sometimes that scripture is a personal need for us separated brethren, but it truly is ecclesial. It is what we believe, preserved in our Articles of Religion, and taught to all of our people.

As you have noticed, I have accepted Peter’s role in leading at the foundation of the church. I simply want to hear from the Apostles themselves on any further role extending beyond Peter to those who would have succeeded him.

Peter himself found a piece of scripture saying the position of Judas had to be filled by another. From that, the Apostles drew lots to bring Mathias into their fellowship.

It’s always fascinating to find these treasures in scripture. And, it’s always fulfilling to see God having filled in the blanks long before we even asked the questions.

Thank you, NL, for your remembrance of our service members. They are in a terrible bind now with a government that is not trying to win, but that sees no problem with sacrificing them for political expediency. Please pray for them and for their victory in every engagement.

I appreciate the kind note.

I know it seems sometimes that scripture is a personal need for us separated brethren, but it truly is ecclesial. It is what we believe, preserved in our Articles of Religion, and taught to all of our people.

As you have noticed, I have accepted Peter’s role in leading at the foundation of the church. I simply want to hear from the Apostles themselves on any further role extending beyond Peter to those who would have succeeded him.

Peter himself found a piece of scripture saying the position of Judas had to be filled by another. From that, the Apostles drew lots to bring Mathias into their fellowship.

It’s always fascinating to find these treasures in scripture. And, it’s always fulfilling to see God having filled in the blanks long before we even asked the questions.

Thank you, NL, for the background info on your Church, and also for your remembrance of our service members. Our troops are in a terrible bind now with a government that is not trying to win, but that sees no problem with sacrificing them for political expediency. Please pray for them and for their victory in every engagement.

Catholic radio replays the Mother Angelica shows. Don’t you love her old show? Last week she asked...”Why did Our Lord choose
Peter?”

Mother Angelica gave several reasons. Right now, I remember two.

Peter didn’t care what others thought of him and Peter
was obedient.

Seeing Christ walking on the water, Peter jumped out of
the boat, he was the only one to go toward Christ~!

Peter was a professional fisherman and after fishing all day with no luck, Peter still cast his net back in the water at Our Lord’s instruction.

It constantly comes up, wretched “Faith Alone”, it messes up Protestants in every area of the faith.

John Salza is a great apologist. You should read him. He
was asked about Purgatory. Here’s his reply about the same verses. Fits, Paul is explaining Purgatory.

blessings,

- - -

Punished after death and still saved (1 Cor. 3:15)

J. Salza: If you wish to get your “information directly from the Bible,” then look to 1 Cor. 3:12-17. In these passages, Paul is talking about how God judges our works after death by using a string of metaphors (we are God’s building; works are good and bad materials, etc.). Paul says that if a person builds with good materials, he will receive a reward (verse 14). If he builds with a mixture of good and bad materials, his work is burned up, but he is still saved (verse 15). If he only builds with bad materials, he has destroyed the temple, and God will destroy him (verse 17).

This passage demonstrates several things. First, it demonstrates that our works serve as a basis for determining our salvation. This is contrary to the erroneous Protestant belief that, once we accept Jesus by faith alone, we are saved. Protestants have no good explanation for why Paul is teaching the Corinthians that our works bear upon our salvation. Second, the verse demonstrates that, if a person does both good and bad works, his bad works are punished, but he is still saved. The Greek phrase for “suffer loss” (zemiothesetai) means “to be punished.” This means the man undergoes an expiation of temporal punishment for his bad works (sins) but is still saved. The phrase “but only” or “yet so” (in Greek, houtos) means “in the same manner.” This means that the man must pass through the fire in the same way that his bad works passed through the fire, in order to expiate himself of the things that led him to produce the bad works in the first place.

This demonstrates that there is punishment after death, followed by salvation. The Church calls this purification “Purgatory.” If accepting Jesus as Savior by faith alone during one’s life were true, there would be no punishment after death for those who are saved. Your sins would already be washed away. This passage proves that there is punishment and forgiveness after death, followed by salvation. This biblical teaching of a post-death punishment by fire which is followed by salvation is inimical to Protestant theology.

There is nothing new under the sun, other than an ongoing splintering of Protestant Christianity. If you study the early Church Fathers and medievals, you will see that they were all Catholic. Don’t imbibe this Protestant mentality of “Jesus, the Bible and me.” God gave us His Holy Catholic Church, built upon the rock of St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the authority to bind and loose in heaven what he binds and looses on earth.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

“John Salza is a great apologist. “

Not really. He is incapable of reading a short, simple paragraph without distorting it beyond recognition.

Here is what Paul wrote:

“5-8 After all, who is Paul? Who is Apollos? No more than servants through whom you came to believe as the Lord gave each man his opportunity. I may have done the planting and Apollos the watering, but it was God who made the seed grow! The planter and the waterer are nothing compared with him who gives life to the seed. Planter and waterer are alike insignificant, though each shall be rewarded according to his particular work.

9 In this work, we work with God, and that means that you are a field under God’s cultivation, or, if you like, a house being built to his plan.

10-15 I, like an architect who knows his job, by the grace God has given me, lay the foundation; someone else builds upon it. I only say this, let the builder be careful how he builds! The foundation is laid already, and no one can lay another, for it is Jesus Christ himself. But any man who builds on the foundation using as his material gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or stubble, must know that each man’s work will one day be shown for what it is. The day will show it plainly enough, for the day will arise in a blaze of fire, and that fire will prove the nature of each man’s work. If the work that the man has built upon the foundation will stand this test, he will be rewarded. But if a man’s work be destroyed under the test, he loses it all. He personally will be safe, though rather like a man rescued from a fire.”

It doesn’t take a great thinker to turn that into:

“This passage demonstrates several things. First, it demonstrates that our works serve as a basis for determining our salvation. This is contrary to the erroneous Protestant belief that, once we accept Jesus by faith alone, we are saved. Protestants have no good explanation for why Paul is teaching the Corinthians that our works bear upon our salvation.”

It takes a dishonest man to twist it like that.

If anyone wants to know the truth, let them read what Paul wrote. Not what John Salza wrote. Those with eyes to see, WILL see.

BTW, here is Tyndale’s translation of 1 Cor 3:

“¶ And I could not speak unto you brethren as unto spiritual: but as unto carnal, even as it were unto babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink and not meat. For ye then were not strong, no neither yet are strong. For ye are yet carnal. As long verily as there is among you envying, strife and dissension: are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men? As long as one saith: I hold of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, are ye not carnal? What is Paul? what thing is apollo? but ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave every man grace. I have planted: Apollo watered: but god gave increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth: but god which gave the increase.

¶ He that planteth, and he that watereth, are neither better than the other. Every man yet shall receive his reward according to his labour. We are goddis laborers: ye are goddis husbandry, ye are goddis building. According to the grace of god given unto me, as a wise builder have I laid the foundation, another hath built theron: but let every man take heed how he buildeth upon. For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Iesus Christ. If any man build on this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, or stubble: every man’s work shall appear. For the day shall declare it, and it shall be shewed in fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work what it is. If any man’s work that he hath built upon, bide, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he shall be safe himself: nevertheless yet as it were thorow fire.

¶ Are ye not ware that ye are the temple of god, and how that the spirit of god dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of god, him shall god destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye. Let no man deceive himself. If any man seem wise among you, let him be a fool in this world, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: he compasseth the wise in their craftiness. And again, God knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they be vain. Therefore let no man rejoice in men. For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, other Apollo, either Cephas: whether it be the world, either life, either death, whether they be present things or things to come: all are yours, and ye are Christe’s, and Christ is goddis.”

http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/index.html#books

Hi, I’ll make it simple...

1 Cor 3:15
If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

If you “shall be saved” sounds like you are going to Heaven
but there is no suffering in Heaven, no purification, no
need of it since nothing unholy enters Heaven.

There is another place, a place of purgation, Purgatory.

Another problem, some Christians do not see or understand
even though our sins are forgiven when we repent and confess
them, we still must make reparation for our actions...by
our loving acts, our prayers, our crosses here while on earth. If we don’t, you do it over the veil in Purgatory because God is perfectly loving and perfectly just.

Seeee....

blessings,

Catholic radio replays the Mother Angelica shows. Don’t you love her old show?

I recall that particular episode when it aired on EWTN. She has the most remarkable gift of simplifying the complex. When it comes to the apostles, she brings them to life by reminding us of their humble origins and the daunting task entrusted to them. Have you read Raymond Arroyo's book, "Mother Angelica, the Remarkable Story of a Nun"?

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek

Please provide a link to the facsimile of the Aramaic text of Matthew.

I won't hold my breath waiting ...

This is the second time a Roman has come in and invented what a greek word actually means. “Zemiothesetai” does not mean “to be punished” at any time.

According to the Greek Lexicon,

Definition

to affect with damage, do damage to
to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss
Translated Words
KJV (6) - be cast away, 1; lose, 2; receive damage, 1; suffer loss, 2;
NAS (6) - forfeit, 1; forfeits, 2; suffer loss, 2; suffered the loss of, 1;

At no time is this word ever translated as “to be punished.”

As for the scripture in question, it does not teach that men go to purgatory to burn for their sins. It says that, despite their imperfections, they will be saved. Kind of like how a Catholic might be saved. Not because of Catholicism, but despite of it “as though by fire.” It does not say they will be punished in the hereafter, only that they will not have as many rewards in heaven as he could have had. The scripture is clear that it is not us who live, but Christ who lives in us. It is by His righteousness, and not our own, that we merit heaven. And it is by His sacrifice, not the Eucharist or any ritual you go through or any holy work you do, which makes you clean as snow.