They don't get much better than this...
Poor Mary gets less ink than in THIS book...
Posted on 03/06/2016 5:07:12 PM PST by Salvation
Have our boys been bad?
307, 311, 313...
They don't get much better than this...
How about the one's TOLD to leave?
Why can't non-offenders be allowed to address any issues brought up or alluded to by the offendee?
Is this enough for you??
|
You can have one more post on this thread, and then do NOT post on the Religion Forum for a week. cc metmom |
You could search for it; or, do like I do; read everything in the thread so I do NOT miss the CONTEXT of what's going on in it's entirety.
Heck; I go as far as to find out just who has posted replies that are removed by the time I get to read them.
And you ignore most stuff from PRO-Catholic websites...
...if a PROT has the audacity to quote from it!
I love things that are actually said (typed)!
I see you've MISSED the COLD water!!
Not Northern California beaches. The Island Garden City of Samal. 😎
O'Brien doesn't not the "sacremental" aspect you note. He says the priest reaches up, brings Him down and "places Him on the altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man."
This is done at every mass around the world.
If that isn't sacrificing Him over and over and over and over I don't know what is.
No wonder catholics continue to depict Jesus on the Cross.
Catholicism keeps sacrificing Him over and over in spite of the Word saying He was a one time sacrifice for all of our sins.
btw....the quote is not from an anti-catholic site unless you consider O'Brien anti-catholic.
His book is available on amazon or perhaps your local library.
O'Brien has clearly exposed the false aspects of the Mass.
In no way can this be supported by Scripture. No. Way.
“O’Brien doesn’t not the “sacremental” aspect you note.”
If you mean “O’Brien doesn’t note” rather than “doesn’t not” then you’re wrong. O’Brien most definitely notes in his works that the Eucharist is a sacrament. Thus, it is sacramental. I no longer have a copy of the book, but if you look in the table of contents section online you can tell the section in which he talks about the Eucharist is not short. For you to say that he doesn’t note the sacramental aspect when he’s talking about the SACRAMENT of the Eucharist is absurd. Elsewhere he wrote:
” That He might be with them always as their changeless Friend, their inspiring Counsellor, and their great High Priest, He instituted the sacrament of the Real Presence.”
and
“Yet Christ stood suddenly in their midst and spoke to them. In that same glorified body which transcends the properties of matter, Christ is present in the sacrament of His love.”
and
“Such then is the clear teaching of Christ concerning the Holy Eucharist-the Sacrament bringing to us His body and blood as our food and nourishment. Such is the belief of the Apostles and of all the members of the Church founded by Christ for more than nineteen hundred years.”
It’s the information age. It’s not hard to find information: http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-322.shtml
So when you say the O’Brien doesn’t note the sacramental aspect of the SACRAMENT of the Eucharist you are by very definition wrong.
“He says the priest reaches up, brings Him down and “places Him on the altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.””
And Jesus said He was a sheepgate. Was He? He said He was a vine? Was He? If O’Brien says the power of the priest is great - it is since it is the power given to him by Christ by the fact that he might have spoken about it in terms that apparently ruffle your little anti-Catholic feathers is entirely immaterial. It doesn’t matter that you’re offended if it is an act of God working through His priest that offends you.
“If that isn’t sacrificing Him over and over and over and over I don’t know what is.”
Thanks for admitting you don’t know what it is. And that’s the whole issue is it not? You are insisting something is so merely based upon your understanding. As I already showed, you don’t even characterize the quote YOU posted from an anti-Catholic website as it is actually written. Thus, your understanding - as you’ve stated it - is not based upon the actual text but upon how you have erroneously interpreted it.
The simple fact is that John A. O’Brien was an excellent theologian who actually understood the Catholic faith - which does not seem to be true in your case from what you yourself have repeatedly written in this forum. He KNEW Jesus could not be sacrificed over and over again and wrote about Christ’s ONE TIME sacrifice in his books. In fact, in the book in question, through the wonders of google book previews, you can see that on page 190 her refers to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as “the one perfect sacrifice” while talking about confession. In other words, he knows the power of confession - of absolving sins - comes from the one sacrifice 2,000 years ago but is inexhaustible in the sacrament of confession even now. The Eucharist is the same. Again, through google books, “It [meaning the Eucharist] is an unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary” (page 317). It’s the SAME sacrifice. It is NOT Jesus being sacrifice again and again and again. No one could do that if they tried. It’s the same sacrifice offered. Also, see:
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2015/04/does-the-catholic-mass-re-sacrifice-jesus/
You seem to be writing about things you’ve apparently never taken the time to research. In just a matter of minutes I found evidence from the very book your supposedly citing - in reality you are just using an edited quote from an anti-Catholic website and probably have never once read the book - that shows you are wrong.
“btw....the quote is not from an anti-catholic site unless you consider O’Brien anti-catholic.”
That is a flat out falsehood. Seriously, how on earth can you claim that John A. O’Brien would have written this - “[who is said to be all but almighty herself]” - about the Virgin Mary??? Why would he have used brackets instead of parenthesis like any other author of his day? Why would he include four ellipses in his own writing if he isn’t quoting someone else? Have you never noticed in older books that ellipses are never used except when someone is reducing someone else’s long quote? And, before you again say I have some obsession with ellipses, I remind you I only became interested in how they were used because of anti-Catholic mendacity in their usage. What you’re claiming, that “the quote is not from an anti-catholic site unless you consider O’Brien anti-catholic” is flat out false. I should point out that online you can find other anti-Catholic or non-Catholic websites with the quote written differently than you have it (with the bracket comment about the Virgin Mary missing for instance). Now, without the book handy, I still can’t verify the quote in its entirety but it IS ABSOLUTELY BEYOND QUESTION that the one you posted was lifted from an anti-Catholic website. The four ellipses and the bracketed comment do not appear in the original book. Period.
“His book is available on amazon or perhaps your local library.”
I owned a copy for many years. It was a great book. I sold it and hundreds of others this past summer. I actually read the books I talk about. Apparently you don’t.
Oh?
A word from here; and idea from there; here a snippet, there a phrase and soon you have doctrine.
Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.
It is evident that because catholics do not discern the teaching of Jesus in John 6, [where He juxtaposed the carnal and the spiritual, then when the carnally minded followers were grumbling clarified the teaching as spiritual, not the eating of His actual flesh and blood] the carnal turned away, self deleting themselves from the rest of His Ministry before the Cross.
Catholiciism has taken the carnal view, and now pushes it to the extreme. ONLY satan enjoys such an horrific spectacle as cannibalizing The Savior in their/catholic priesthood imaginations.
Discerning the full meaning of what Jesus taught in the Synagogue at Capernum is the key to comprehending all that followed, right through the death and resurrection. The spiritually minded will feed on the spiritual reality and perhaps be born from above because they believe the One Whom God has sent. The carnally minded will reject the deep spiritual meaning and settle for working to achieve by remaining faithful to the carnal ritual of eating the body, blood, soul and spirit of their perceived god, and perhaps never bow to the Holy Truth of the Spiritual birth. Of such are perhaps the untold millions who will come out of the Tribulation by washing their garments int he blood of the Lamb of God, rather than imagining they can eat His life into them.
Interesting.
bump
Luke 22: 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. 16 For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. [DRB]Matthew 26: 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall [DRB]drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
Mark 14: 22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. 25 Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. [DRB]
Jesus called the cup contents THE FRUIT OF THE VINE.
Since the Blood of the covenant works for the Old Testament saints who were faithful to the looking forward to His coming, and these Saints do not take Catholic Eucharist, is it not obvious the Life of Jesus is imparted to them just as it can be imparted to any who will believe/faithe in Him as the One God sent for their deliverance from the sin nature? The means of impartation is SPIRITUAL, not physical, for them and for us. 'The flesh profiteth nothing' [see the Pauline Letter to the Hebrews for the precise lesson].
I’m half way there...
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.