Catholic Salvation Plan

[Meriweather]

and they are "correct", because why?

They are correct because they are based on Biblical teachings and confirmed by writings and actions of the Early Church. There is no reinterpretation fifteen hundred years later.

 

[ninja007]

and they are "correct", because why?

They are correct because they are based on Biblical teachings and confirmed by writings and actions of the Early Church. There is no reinterpretation fifteen hundred years later.

ok, let us start- the Eucharist. Why do you think Jesus needs to be "resacrificed" over and over again? in light of this passage;


Hebrews 10:12 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,


And how does a sinful man (priest) "call" Jesus down from Heaven as stated in the Catechism?

 

[ninja007]

and they are "correct", because why?

They are correct because they are based on Biblical teachings and confirmed by writings and actions of the Early Church. There is no reinterpretation fifteen hundred years later.

and there is the crux.

 

[Meriweather]

ok, let us start- the Eucharist. Why do you think Jesus needs to be "resacrificed" over and over again? in light of this passage;


Hebrews 10:12 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,


And how does a sinful man (priest) "call" Jesus down from Heaven as stated in the Catechism?

Catholics do not believe Jesus needs to be sacrificed over and over again. Nor does the priest call Jesus down from heaven. That's two false (straw men arguments) laid to rest. Next time you see that on the Internets, you can confidently tell yourself, "Not Catholic teaching, not Catholic belief, someone built a straw man that I need waste no time over."

 

[Meriweather]

and there is the crux.

Precisely. Those reinterpretations/changes (from Germany, no less) fifteen hundred years later is indeed the crux.

 

[ninja007]

" Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. WHEN THE PRIEST PRONOUNCES THE TREMENDOUS WORDS OF CONSECRATION, HE REACHES UP INTO HEAVENS, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, AND PLACES HIM UPON OUR ALTAR TO BE OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM FOR THE SINS OF MAN."

 

[ninja007]

Why do you think Jesus was not speaking symbolically about His flesh and blood?

 

[ninja007]

I disagree. Verses are taken out of context again and again. The interpretation is faulty.

First you said there was no Biblical basis. When I point out there is, you change to, "Well, they're there, but the interpretation is faulty." Whose interpretation? Who corrected the original interpretation and when? Basically your argument seems to be, "Your interpretation comes from the first and second century, while my interpretation comes from the sixteenth century. Since I have the later interpretation, it follows mine is correct." And I think such reasoning is faulty. I understand fifteen hundred years later people came up with new interpretations...I follow the earlier ones. It's as simple as that.

If Jesus is in Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, how then does He end up in a a wafer/cookie on earth millions of times a week?

 

[Meriweather]

" Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. WHEN THE PRIEST PRONOUNCES THE TREMENDOUS WORDS OF CONSECRATION, HE REACHES UP INTO HEAVENS, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, AND PLACES HIM UPON OUR ALTAR TO BE OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM FOR THE SINS OF MAN."

There is waxing lyrical and there is doctrine, plainly stated for people who don't yet have the basics.

 

[Meriweather]

Why do you think Jesus was not speaking symbolically about His flesh and blood?

Not his usual parable style, was it?

 

[ninja007]

you haven't answered the questions. If Jesus is in Heaven and He told the Disciple's He will be coming back (in the clouds), the same way He left them, then why do you feel Jesus comes down into RC Churches every Sunday?

 

[Meriweather]

If Jesus is in Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, how then does He end up in a a wafer/cookie on earth millions of times a week?

Pass. I cannot address deliberate irreverence--not when it comes to my Lord and the Eucharist. If you would care to rephrase?

 

[ninja007]

Why do you think Jesus was not speaking symbolically about His flesh and blood?

Not his usual parable style, was it?

so if it wasn't His "usual" parable style, then how do you know its true?
Jesus said that those who eat his bread will never hunger and it is his flesh and he who eats it will live forever.


Therefore it is permanent nourishment.

 

[Meriweather]

so if it wasn't His "usual" parable style, then how do you know its true?
Jesus said that those who eat his bread will never hunger and it is his flesh and he who eats it will live forever.


Therefore it is permanent nourishment.

Yes.

 

[ninja007]

then you agree it is permanent nourishment?

 

[Meriweather]

then you agree it is permanent nourishment?

Not how I would phrase it. It is better described as real nourishment, better still as true nourishment. Like grace, strength, and guidance, nourishment is something that human nature needs replenishing as long as we live.

 

[ninja007]

real as in spiritual or physical or both?

 

[Meriweather]

real as in spiritual or physical or both?

Mostly spiritual, of course, but the spiritual also has a way of influencing the physical.

 

[ninja007]

so if the eucharist is permanent nourishment then why is it taken every week?

 

[Meriweather]

so if the eucharist is permanent nourishment then why is it taken every week?

Are you of the opinion that Christians should celebrate the Last Supper only once in their lifetime?

Another way of looking at it: Apples are nourishment, that is a permanent attribute. Apples aren't sometimes nourishment and sometimes not. I'm thinking if you came across "Permanent Nourishment" perhaps that is the context meant. As I said in a previous post, Catholics generally reference it as "true" or "real."