Is the Mass a re-sacrificing of Christ?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Is the Sacrifice of the Mass a re-sacrificing of Christ every time they celebrate it??

Regina said to Emily:

For me it is the beautiful and completely clear expression of Catholic Doctrine. There is no ambiguity. We are there, with reverential fear of the Lord. He teaches us, suffers, and dies for us. We consume Him in Holy Communion as He instructed us to. The Mass is truly and unmistakingly God-centered.

Yikes??

What does Hebrews teach about this idea?:

Hebrews 6:4-6

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 02, 2004

Answers

I also have to ask--with respect to this:

I do. Aside from the clearly expressed doctrine, it is edifying that I'm worshiping God the same way the Saints did. I'm assisting at a Mass which has stood the test of time and has been a source of countless graces for ages.

What Saints?

Certainly she can't mean the apostles themselves. They didn't speak Italian as far as I know.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 02, 2004.


On the day of Pentecost, I'm willing to bet that the Apostles spoke many languages, uh....including "Italian".

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


Oh rod..,

Trust me--there were no Latin Masses being performed by any of the apostles.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


Hay, Faith. So, in which language were those "masses" performed/celebrated?

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


The apostles never performed a Mass.

Look through the New Testament and see if you can find them doing so.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.



Pre-Judaic rituals set the foundation of Judaism and Christianity in regards to the "worship" patterns we see today. Also, the Last Supper pretty much finalized the worship ritual.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


Where did Nehemia get his ideas???????????

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


But, I can understand the confusion. Some non-Catholic "services" don't seem to follow any Traditional worship patterns. Some look just like scheduled Bible studies. Where is the holiness of the worship "service" or ritual? And, where are those emoticons when I need them?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


The Last Supper is part of the Mass. So, if the Apostles were instructed to "...do this in memory of Me...", then I will have to agree that the Apostles did celebrate Mass, even if Scriptures do not describe the exact Mass we see today. Also, look at the problems St. Paul had with the Corinthians and those abuses of the Last Supper remembrance.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


"Sola Scriptura" does have its problems, yes?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.



Ahh., but rod..,

Jesus Christ fulfilled all the old Judaic rituals..., making them obsolete.

Hebrews teaches that the old order of things is no more.

Catholicism is far too much like the old Jewish religion.

Jesus hated religion and what man had done to God's Holy Word back then--and He surely would not approve of the Catholic Church's same mistakes.

Jesus Like Melchizedek......,

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:

'You are a priest forever.' "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

(Hebrews 7:11-28)

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


Speaking of heretics, Ignatius says:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

Justin Martyr: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

******

In reading the Didache you will find that the centerpiece of Christian services were centered around the Eucharist.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 03, 2004.


The Didache, is a manual of instructions probably dating some time within the lifetime of the Apostles. It is very useful in seeing how the early Christians worshipped and what they believed. These were somber minded folks who knew that their faith would very likely cost them their lives. You will find what they believed about salvation, and what they believed about the Eucharist.

Here's the link

www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Liturgical/didache.html

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 03, 2004.


You can't support yourself from the Scriptures, Gail?

We all know Satan was busy right away....

I could also read these writings in light of Scripture--and not come away with the conception of a sacrificing Mass...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


Faith, there is scant little testimony in the N.T. as to exactly what a service was like. I merely offered the Didache as a matter of interest to ALL Christians, Protestant or Catholic. Are you afraid to read it?

You well know the Catholic argument on the Eucharist, as it has been delved into numerous times on this and other forums. You know the scripture passages we rely on. You know the passage in Corinthians where Paul says "He who drinks the blood of Christ or eats his flesh," etc. so I did not see the need to offer those once again.

The Church Father quotes I provided earlier coincide quite nicely with what we already know in scripture concerning the body and blood.

The passage in Hebrews you are using as your argument is not talking about communion whatsoever but about backslidden believers.

We do not slay Christ again at mass, but we re-enact his passion, re- entering time so-to-speak and participating in the glorious mystery of his empassioned act of mercy for all of humanity.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 03, 2004.



Your Didache is not new to me--and in some areas sounds exactly like Scripture.

But the Mass was never practiced by any of the Apostles and Communion is a sacrament established by Christ to be done in memory of Him.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


Faith,

From your study of Scripture, what would you say the early Christians did during worship services? Did they have services? Did they read from Scripture? Did they reenact the Lord's Supper? Did they do this every Sunday or some other day?

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 03, 2004.


From what I can tell..,

They read each others Scriptures--letters to the churches--epistles., as well as the Old Testament Scriptures.

They preached the gospel and met in each others homes or outside or wherever they could. I picture the apostles as travelers...leaving in their wake-- people who would continue in their work on the homefront.

Yeah--they preached the gospel and broke bread in Christ's memory whenever they met.

I also am not so sure that Jesus didn't mean for us to Remember Him in Communion during every Passover--

In any event--the apostles Communion likely took place during a real meal.

It doesn't look to me like they did what the Catholic Church does today--and certainly they were not calling Christ back down so that they could re-offer Him back up to God over and over again. That is simply not necessary--according to God's own Word.

If you could show me where in the Scriptures they did this--I would be shocked!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


"Jesus Christ fulfilled all the old Judaic rituals..., making them obsolete. "-Faith.

I'm not so sure that your assertion is absolutely accurate. My understanding is that Jesus Christ brought full meaning to the "Law", which brought full understanding of Salvation. I think that this assertion hits the bull's eye much better. Remember that the Judaic Laws and rituals were given by God.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


Jesus fulfilled the bloody rituals of Passover and Circumsion. They are now replaced with the unbloody covenant signs of Baptism and the lord's supper.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

But those laws were given to open our eyes to the fact that we need a Savior...

And Jesus fulfilled the law by becoming the law for us--instead.

So the Old Covenant is out.., and New Covenant is in.

Translation: Old Covenant obsolete. It is no longer needed.., not necessary for salvation., not that the law ever saved anyone--it couldn't. That is why it had to be repeated over and over again-- because it was insufficient. No sacrifice ever covered any sin for all time. So the Jews had to re-offer up their sacrifices over and over again....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


Hot Dog People! We eat three times a day, and sometimes more. What is so wrong about having the Holy Eucharist every Sunday or everyday? Nothing. But, the Mass ritual is more than the Last Supper, it is about Salvation and Faith and the Acceptance of Christ in a tangible way. Some church "services" are so watered down that it comes off as lipservice, minus the eye winking at the end of the service.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


"What is so wrong about having the Holy Eucharist every Sunday or everyday?" - rod

Rod, that is correct. We can have it as many times as we want. Only if your heart is right with God though.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.


"Jesus fulfilled the bloody rituals of Passover and Circumsion. They are now replaced with the unbloody covenant signs of Baptism and the lord's supper. "-David.

Come on and admit what I'm trying to tell you all. We can now look back at the O.T. and see the Salvation plan in every story and event. The meanings became very clear with Christ on the Cross. You've have to agree or why even bother keeping the O.T. in the Holy Bible???

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


rod??

Is that what we are talking about??

No..,

We are talking about the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass--which is not found in the Scriptures.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


"And Jesus fulfilled the law by becoming the law for us--instead.

So the Old Covenant is out.., and New Covenant is in. "-Faith.

Well, yes and no. The Jews--God's chosen people-- were and still are under the Covenant. It's us Christians (Gentiles) who are under the New Testament Salvation plan.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


Faith-

My understanding is that it is not a Catholic Sacrifice. It is a ritual that shows the continual Sacrifice Christ made for all people of all times, including the past, present, and future. It is a mystery of time inwhich this ritual/celebration is occurring. If Christ is to Sacrifice Himself for the world's Salvation, then it must be happening now as we exist and for those who have yet to exist. It isn't a "Catholic Sacrifice".

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


Followed by...

So, why The Passion of The Christ by Mel Gibson?

Why is Mel Sacrificing Christ again??

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


No rod..,

The Jewish people are not under any thing else.., Jesus is the only answer for all of us.

The law never saved anyone then or now....only Jesus Christ who is the Jewish Messiah--

Without receiving Him--they are lost.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 03, 2004.


Here's some questions to think about... they may seem trivial at first, but not if you truly consider...

What was the Body of Jesus composed of?

Wasn't it composed of the same "stuff" ours are composed of? That is, the "stuff" (vitamins, minerals, etc.) that comes from food and drink? He became a truly physical human being.

So, in a way, if Jesus was giving away his bread and wine, he was giving his body and blood to his disciples to literally eat and drink.

What is your body and blood? Is your hair part of your body?

When does water BECOME part of your body and CEASE to exist as part of your body?

I think the bread and wine in Communion is more than just a symbol. However, I don't believe it changes from bread and wine since Jesus plainly said that it was bread and wine - even after they ate it.

Jesus didn't say "this is just a symbol of my body" since he chose to use such specific language during such a solemn occasion.

In any case, the body and blood were sacrificed once. Through the Symbols we have personal communion with the physical Body and Blood of Christ that were given at the cross.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), July 03, 2004.


First we have this from the scripture (not to mention John Chapter 6):

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:23-27

Then we have this from the Didache (1st century):

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'" Chapter 14

****

Then we have this from this from St. Clement (approximately 80 a.d.)

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. HE COMMANDED US TO CELEBRATE SACRIFICES AND SERVICES, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."

******

And here's St. Ignatius (I think he was a disciple of the great Apostle John):

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. THEY ABSTAIN FROM THE EUCHARIST AND FROM PRAYER, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ADMIT THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans)

And then to the Ephesians:

Let us come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

And to the Romans:

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

And to the Philadelphians:

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

*****

Sure doesn't sound like any Protestant service I've ever attended! I could post a multiplicity of quotes on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist AND transubstantiation, but I know that the ones who need to read them won't.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 03, 2004.


If we're going to discuss the sacrifice of the Mass let's make sure we're discussing what the Catholic Church really teaches. Here's pertinent paragraphs from the Catechism.

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

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.

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."

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 04, 2004.


Gail,

Thanks for that good set of early testimony regarding the Mass and the Eucharist.

-- Andy S ("azmere@earthlink.net"), July 04, 2004.


And thank you for the excellent quotes taken from the Catechism! I hope they get read along with the biblical scriptures and early writings of our Church.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 04, 2004.


I would truly like to know if the non-Catholics in this forum have read the above Catechism. What is your understanding? You may not have to accept it, but to make some kind of understanding. In other words, does it make sense or not?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 04, 2004.


Faith says:

"I think the bread and wine in Communion is more than just a symbol. However, I don't believe it changes from bread and wine since Jesus plainly said that it was bread and wine - even after they ate it."

I think Faith has hit on the operative word here, she thinks that the bread and wine is symbolic. This of course explains why there are 20,000 factions among the protestants. Some think that baptism is symbolic, others don't. Some think that faith alone is sufficient, others think you must also obey the gospel. The problem basically one of authority, in Protestantism, the Individual is the sole authority in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

I don't think that this is a scriptural concept though. After all, Jesus gave Peter individually and the Apostles collectively the power to bind and loose. He never said, what Faith binds on earth shall be bound in heaven. The fact of the matter is either the Eucharist is symbolic or it is real. The next question becomes who has the authority to decide which it is. According to Scripture, that Authority resides with the Church.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.


James??

Where did you take that quote from? It could not have been from me.

But as far as Authority goes--mine is from Jesus., as revealed in the Scriptures. And I--as a disciple of Christ's--filled with the Holy Spirit--am qualified to understand revelation just as much as a man from your church who claims the same Holy Spirit.

What makes him better able to understand? Your religion? No.., he is still just a man., like we are all just men. Your religion cannot claim more authority in understanding Scripture than any other religion for that matter--it is a self-claim.

Jesus said that we can understand the Word of God because He gives us [His believers] the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say that He only gave His Holy Spirit to religious leaders from the Roman Catholic Church.

Your authority is from other men as they perceive from the Scriptures.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.


My apologies Faith, actually the quote is from Max.

You say your authority is Jesus, which implies that Jesus gave no authority to anyone in the church? What you are basically saying is that you are the only authority to interpret what you think Jesus means in Scriptures. You are also saying that the Church has no role is dispute resolution in regards to what the Scriptures teach. I believe in the real presence, you don't, does this mean that Jesus left us to form our own denominations based on how we individually interpret scripture? This is particularly scary since neither one of us is infallible. There are 20,000 Protestant denominations how do you know yours is right?

You say "It doesn't say that He only gave His Holy Spirit to religious leaders from the Roman Catholic Church." I never said he didn't give the Holy Spirit to individuals, however he gave the leaders of the new church the power to bind and loose did he not?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.


You say your authority is Jesus, which implies that Jesus gave no authority to anyone in the church?

What? How do you conclude that? Christ's church is his body of believers...but on local basis--Jesus taught us to come together in His name and form a church and follow the Scriptures. That is exactly what is exampled to us in the New Testament. There are churches popping up and being started by Christ's disciples..., something we continue to do to this day.

Sure there are plenty of false churches and churches that follow the wrong things. That was even happening in the New Testament times. We are instructed to follow the New Testament teachings. Many biblical churches do this very well. I do not think the Catholic denomination is among that list.

What you are basically saying is that you are the only authority to interpret what you think Jesus means in Scriptures. You are also saying that the Church has no role is dispute resolution in regards to what the Scriptures teach. I believe in the real presence, you don't, does this mean that Jesus left us to form our own denominations based on how we individually interpret scripture?

I believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ as well. But I am not literally eating Him in Communion--thank you very much!!

This is particularly scary since neither one of us is infallible. There are 20,000 Protestant denominations how do you know yours is right?

I go according to what God reveals in His Holy Word and I choose a church that worships God the way I understand from Scripture that God wants us to praise and worship Him.

You say "It doesn't say that He only gave His Holy Spirit to religious leaders from the Roman Catholic Church." I never said he didn't give the Holy Spirit to individuals, however he gave the leaders of the new church the power to bind and loose did he not?

He gave that power to His disciples and commanded the original twelve disciples to hand this down to all disciples. That means all *believers.*

You are the one who claims that the Roman Catholic Church is this baptised body of believers. I simply disagree. Christ's church--his kingdom is not of this world. No religion or denomination is the *true* church.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.


Faith says:

"He gave that power to His disciples and commanded the original twelve disciples to hand this down to all disciples. That means all *believers.*"

What you are saying is that all believers have the authority to bind and loose? Then why did we have the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? There was a dispute, which raised the question of whether gentiles needed to be circumcized in order to be saved. According to your logic, each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit should make that determination. However, that is not how it is done in Acts, the Apostles decided that circumcision was not required. The Apostles were exercising their role that was given to them by Jesus, a role which continues to this day.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


No James,

I never said that the church couldn't get together and make decisions- -I just said that I didn't agree that the church is necessarily the Roman Catholic Church.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


Faith says: "He gave that power to His disciples and commanded the original twelve disciples to hand this down to all disciples. That means all *believers.*

Exactly what power are you referring to, and where is that in scripture?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.


Faith says:

"I just said that I didn't agree that the church is necessarily the Roman Catholic Church."

Then what Church is it?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


Just like in the New Testament period--each church is its own governing body of believers....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore- knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,44:1- 2 (c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:17.

Certainly Ignatius must have been unaware of your N.T. Christianity:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. IT IS NOT LAWFUL WITHOUT THE BISHOP EITHER TO BAPTIZE OR TO CELEBRATE A LOVE-FEAST; BUT WHATSOEVER HE SHALL APPROVE OF, that is also pleasing to God, SO THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS DONE MAY BE SECURE AND VALID." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyraens,8 (c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89-90.

And poor Cyprian was way out of bounds when he said this:

" Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.s Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith." Cyprian,To the Lasped,Epistle 26/33(A.D. 250),in ANF,V:305.

There is no such thing as self-ordained leaders, or self-ordained churches in the apostolic age. If there were, there would be some proof, Faith. If you have proof that each group was autonomous please explain the above, and offer proof of your assertion.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.


Faith says:

"Just like in the New Testament period--each church is its own governing body of believers"

According to Faith's logic then it should be no surprise that there are 20,000 Protestant denominations. Each group gets to decide for itself how to interpret scripture. Some feel baptism is required for salvation, their body of believers decides that is the case and that is the doctrine. Another group decides that baptism is not required for salvation and therefore it is true for them as well. Therefore we end up with 20,000 different versions of the truth and all of them are equally true because we all have the power to bind and loose. I think I am finally beginning to understand Protestantism: Whatever you believe is right.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


This logic however doesn't extend to Catholics, because according to Faith whatever they believe is wrong.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

I'm sorry James--

But I just don't see where your church is really any different. It also decides what the Scriptures are saying and has decided that people may not question their interpretation.

Their's is a self-claimed authority.

But Jesus never said anything about a worldly earth-bound headquarters to rule over all churches--and there is no such an authority in the New Testament Churches.

Jesus is the head--and we are His body.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


Faith, would you please respond to my post.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

For Gail--

I am talking about the power to bind and loose--which Jesus gave to His disciples. Jesus also commanded that they go out and make disciples of all nations and to pass on all that He [Jesus} had taught and given them.

Matt 16:19-20

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Matt 18:18-20

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Matt 28 18-20

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


According to Faith, since the Church has no earthly authority the only way to resolve disputes in doctrine is to go off and form your own church, which is clearly the Protestant way of doing things. Does this practice of starting your own denomination because you don't like what the last group did have any basis in Scripture. Faith can you provide us with some Scriptures that show one group going off and forming their own group because they disagreed with the doctrine of the other group?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

The argument I am making is that your church is not the original church from Jesus day either....

Christ's body is universal and spiritual in nature.

No church on earth is the head church or the true church. Jesus even said it. His kingdom is not of this world.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


Matthew 18: 15-17 And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother, but if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of the two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. and if he refuses to listen to them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH, and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a taxgather.

NOTE: Christ says to take the matter to the the Church.

Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.

NOTE: CHURCH AUTHORITY. The elders and apostles made some decisions and handed them down to the people.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account.

NOTE: Submission to our leaders is a command of scripture. Paul does not submit to the scriptures, but to LEADERS.

***********

EARLY EARLY CHURCH LEADER QUOTES:

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore- knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,44:1- 2 (c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:17.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyraens,8 (c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89-90.

"Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel." Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:13(A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504-505.

" Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.s Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith." Cyprian,To the Lasped,Epistle 26/33(A.D. 250),in ANF,V:305.

*****

These quotes describe something vastly different than what we see in the autonomous churches of today.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.


Faith,

I am glad that you agree that the Protestant practice of forming your own denomination whenever there is a doctrinal dispute has no basis in Scripture. However, I must point out that the Catholic method of convening the Bishops of the Church in a Ecumenical Council does have its basis in Scripture. That was exactly what was done in Acts 15 with the Council of Jerusalem and has continued throughout the centuries.

I wonder why Protestants claim Sola Scriptura but then don't bother to follow the Scriptures. God clearly gave us a dispute resolution mechanism and it is clear that Protestants have ignored it.

Finally, the decisions made by the Council of Jerusalem were binding on the whole church, not just the Church in Jerusalem.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


I have no problem with the Scripture you posted. That is exactly what my church operates like.

We have leaders and deacons and Pastors ect. We have a church government and a body to follow--leaders to come to.., all authorized by Christ., just like in the New Testament dayys.

You are aware that no one church oversaw or ruled another church back then., right?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


Faith says:

"You are aware that no one church oversaw or ruled another church back then., right?"

You are saying that the decisions made in Jerusalem were not binding in Antioch?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


I am saying that there is no evidence that any one church headed another...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith says:

"I am saying that there is no evidence that any one church headed another.."

We can at least agree that the individual churches were subject to the collective decisions made by the Apostles. The individual churches did not have the right to decide on the issue of circumcision for themselves. The churches themselves had individual heads, as they do today. However, the individual churches are subject to the decisions made by Peter (whom Jesus gave the power to bind and loose, no dispute there) and the Bishops collectively.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


We can at least agree that the individual churches were subject to the collective decisions made by the Apostles. The individual churches did not have the right to decide on the issue of circumcision for themselves.

But we can turn to the same apostolic leadership as our guide through the New Testament, James.

The churches themselves had individual heads, as they do today. However, the individual churches are subject to the decisions made by Peter (whom Jesus gave the power to bind and loose, no dispute there) and the Bishops collectively.

Well that is a claim that I believe is quite disputable. Jesus gave those keys to all disciples--not just Peter.

The churches indeed had individual heads and there was no church that ruled over another....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


Faith says,

"Well that is a claim that I believe is quite disputable. Jesus gave those keys to all disciples--not just Peter."

There can be no dispute that Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose. What you are saying however is the fact that Peter was singled out in this passage is of no significance. It seems pretty clear to me what Jesus is doing, but I guess there is no surprise that there are 20,000 Protestant denominations. Because if you can argue that this passage is insignificant, then you can justify ordaining gay bishops.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.


Peter was not the only disciple that was given the keys--James.

Read Matt 18:15-20

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Was Jesus speaking to Peter in those verses?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.


faith, where does it say the other apostles were given the keys? In fact, 2 chapters prior MT 16:15-20(NIV)

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[1] the Son of the living God." 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[2] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[3] will not overcome it.[4] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[5] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[6] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

See, the italics are same with MT 18:18. However, you also see that in 16:20 the disciples are in his presence. How come, Jesus gave the Keys to them in 16:17 but not to the other disciples in MT18? The answer is simple: Because he didn't.

They could forgive sins just like our Bishops, from whom permission is then given to priests to do the same. Sorry, bishops don't hold the Key to Heaven.

Peace,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 07, 2004.


Correction:

"How come, Jesus gave the Keys to them in 16:17 but not to the other disciples in MT18?"

Should read

How come Jesus gave the Keys to Peter in 16:17 but not to the other disciples in MT18?

Time presses.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 07, 2004.


Christ gave the keys to Peter and he gave power to bind and lose to the disciples, later to be come the apostles on which our Church is built.

The above quotes which you have never responded to, Faith, show unequivocally that this unified cohesive Church had a hierarchal structure.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 07, 2004.


Gail?--

What else do you think the Keys refer to besides binding and loosing? And can you support that with Scripture?

I find that the keys are to bind and loose.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 07, 2004.


Symbolically, and biblically "keys" have to do with kingdom power. Don't have time to look up the Bible references. Search for keys in your Strong's if you have one.

Boy, is the weather here BEAUTIFUL!! I gotta get outside. Chat with ya later.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 07, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ