Posted on 08/07/2018 5:25:45 PM PDT by ebb tide
Yes, another great Catholic doctrine. You are really starting to get it. Now, I do understand that there are some on the fringe of Christianity who do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at communion. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants believe “it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” as quoted from one Protestant doctrine. Yes, we all believe that Christ makes himself present each time the bread is consecrated, as he told us to do it. Don't you?
Perhaps you should re-read the quote from O'Brien.
Rome does not believe the one time sacrifice as Rome continually re-sacrifices Him over and over and over......hence also, the statement Roman Catholicism keeps Christ on the Cross.
A false characterization of Catholic doctrine. You would be much better off asking us what we believe rather than telling us. It might save you some embarrassment.
hence also, the statement Roman Catholicism keeps Christ on the Cross.
A false statement.
A false characterization of Catholic doctrine. You would be much better off asking us what we believe rather than telling us. It might save you some embarrassment.
Based on what O'Brien has written.....I can tell you what is happening during the Mass. You may not believe it, but you're not a RC priest so you really have no authority on the issue as a Roman Catholic.
Which you persist in misunderstanding. Are you claiming Protestants are sacrificing Him "over and over and over"?
I can tell you what is happening during the Mass.
Apparently, you can't. Catholics don't keep Him nailed to the cross any more than Protestants, who believe the Eucharist "is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Are you accusing Protestants of keeping Him nailed to the cross? Do you believe in His real presence in the Eucharist as do Protestants?
you really have no authority on the issue as a Roman Catholic.
I have more authority on understanding Catholic doctrine than do you.
Which you persist in misunderstanding. Are you claiming Protestants are sacrificing Him "over and over and over"?
You're disagreement is with a Roman Catholic priest.
>> I can tell you what is happening during the Mass.<<
Apparently, you can't.
Well, yes I can based on what O'Brien has written. He, a Roman Catholic priest, which you're not, has explained it pretty clearly.
Catholics don't keep Him nailed to the cross any more than Protestants, who believe the Eucharist "is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Are you accusing Protestants of keeping Him nailed to the cross? Do you believe in His real presence in the Eucharist as do Protestants?
Yes....Roman Catholics are keeping Him on the Cross as O'Brien notes He is brought down from Heaven by the priest at every Mass. Considering the number of Masses conducted around the world on any given day...He is constantly on the Cross.....which again is in contradiction of what is written in Hebrews.
Do I believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper?
Not as defined by Roman Catholicism which again is in contradiction of the NT.
>>you really have no authority on the issue as a Roman Catholic.<<
I have more authority on understanding Catholic doctrine than do you.
You're a lay RC. You only have opinions.
From these debates, I've been more informed on the issues than most RCs. For instance, you aren't aware Roman Catholic writers have called Mary omnipotent. Most Roman Catholics aren't as they've not bothered to research what their denomination teaches.
Your misunderstanding is of a Catholic priest's writings.
Well, yes I can based on what O'Brien has written.
You can't based on misunderstandings of what he has written.
has explained it pretty clearly
Yet, you misunderstand.
Yes....Roman Catholics are keeping Him on the Cross as O'Brien notes He is brought down from Heaven by the priest at every Mass.
No they don't. But if you truly believe so, then you must believe Protestants keep Him on the cross because they also believe in His real presence in the Eucharist. But you can't seem to bring yourself to admit it.
Not as defined by Roman Catholicism
How about as defined by Protestants: the Eucharist is "the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
You're a lay RC. You only have opinions.
If I have only opinions that doesn't leave you with much as far as teaching Catholic belief.
For instance, you aren't aware Roman Catholic writers have called Mary omnipotent.
Which is false. We've already discussed this. Now you're just reduced to repetition. Instead of rehashing this, go read the earlier posts.
Most Roman Catholics aren't as they've not bothered to research what their denomination teaches.
They've apparently done more research than have you, as every Catholic I know is a magnitude more knowledgeable about Catholic doctrine than are you. You claim Catholics believe something and then argue against your false claim. It's pretty humorous.
Which is false. We've already discussed this. Now you're just reduced to repetition. Instead of rehashing this, go read the earlier posts.
In the Glories of Mary the following is recorded: 'At the command of Mary all obey, even God'. Saint Bernadine fears not to utter this sentence, meaning indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands. And hence Saint Anselm, addressing Mary, says, 'Our Lord, O most holy Virgin, has exalted thee to such a degree, that, by His favor, all things that are possible to Him should be possible to thee. For thy protection is omnipotent, O Mary, says Cosmas of Jerusalem. 'Yes, Mary is omnipotent,' repeats Richard of Saint Lawrence; 'for the Queen, by every law, enjoys the same privileges as the King.' 'And as,' he adds, 'the power of the Son and that of the Mother is the same, a Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son. 'And thus,' says Saint Antoninus, 'God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but even under the dominion of Mary.'....But that she is so, is evident from the fact, that whatever the Mother asks for, the Son never denies her; and this was revealed to Saint Bridget, who one day heard Jesus talking with Mary, and thus address her: 'Ask of me what thou wilt, for no petition of thine can be void.'
St Alphonsus de'Liguori, The Glories of Mary, p146
Did we not already discuss this? I’ll repeat, since you insist. Any gifts that people, created beings, have are from God acting through them. That includes the Virgin Mary and all the saints in Heaven, and that includes the miracles done by the Apostles as recorded in Acts. This is clearly stated in your extract. As said in Scripture: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”.
No....we've not discussed. You said no one had called Mary omnipotent. I've shown you where Roman Catholic writers have.
Again, this is to illustrate most Roman Catholics aren't familiar with all of the writings the denomination has.
To be honest, I seriously doubt if anyone on the planet is. Who knows what Rome is hiding in their archives.
No where in the NT is any created being ever accorded omnipotent status. No where.
You: Not as defined by Roman Catholicism which again is in contradiction of the NT.
I asked if you believed as do Protestants: “it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” but your answer addressed something else. Do you?
In your last post you claimed "you [referring to me] aren't aware Roman Catholic writers have called Mary omnipotent". I responded "which is false". And it is. I am aware that Catholic writers have called Mary omnipotent. Next time ask me instead of telling me what I know and maybe we can diminish some of your confusion.
Again, this is to illustrate most Roman Catholics aren't familiar with all of the writings the denomination has.
Again, this illustrates only your arguments against your made up claims.
No where in the NT is any created being ever accorded omnipotent status. No where.
I believe the Scriptures: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”. Don't you?
You would be more accurate in your statement to say some Protestants believe that....but not all.
And I've answered your question already.
The Lord's Supper is a remembrance of His sacrifice on the Cross. We are not literally eating His flesh and blood. That would be a violation of the Law to eat blood....see the Jerusalem Council on this also.
The ECFs are not in agreement over this either.
If, as Rome claims, it was to be a literal eating of the flesh and blood we don't see it evidenced in the NT. There are no recorded events of the disciples or others attempting to capture His blood at the Cross or any other time.
Rome has greatly abused the Scriptures on this issue...as they do other issues.
Perhaps you should review my answer on this issue.
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.