Chris, I’ve been listening to a set of lectures about early Christian theology and he’s discussing the Trinity and he makes the case that the real mystery of the Trinity is not how they are three in one, but rather how Christ is begotten of the Father without being a created being. Does the Son owe anything to the Father, and the Father to the Son? It got me thinking and curious- what do you think?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You didn’t study any of this on your own did ya Chris?[/quote]
If you mean believe that I could reason the truth of what the Bible says on my own? No.
If you mean that I allowed the Holy Spirit to form my mind and conscious to G-d, through orthodox guides, which we call the faith of the Catholic Church? Yes.
[quote]BIG ORANGE wrote:
So true and my whole family was raised Catholic!!! Catholicism is a farce it’s more about Religion than relationship with Christ… I got nothing from Priests sermon’s ever!!! When you get on your hands and knees and ask Christ to be your lord and Savior, then you shall find him for real!!! Even as a kid I realized confessing your Sins to a man was INSANE!!! [/quote]
I’m 100% sure, I would agree with you if I were in your shoes. And, I would appreciate it if you had respect for Catholics and the Catholic religion on a Catholic Q&A thread where we take time out of our schedule to answer questions.
I am not sure how Catholicism is a ‘farce’ or something that is improbable. It has been going for 2000 years or so, if you would explain to me how it is a farce?
I maybe wrong, but let’s look at the facts about religion. Historically speaking, religion is a set of ways in which people would worship/sanctify/teach/sacrifice/&c. to their G-d. How, it sounds like to me that one’s religion is how one has a relationship with G-d, now if you don’t follow the right religion it could be assumed you would not have as strong a relationship with G-d as if you were in the correct religion.
Now, let’s look at the word itself, religion: it is derived from the Latin religare, which means to bind, or as Lactantius says in his writings, “We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name.”
Christians is without question a Jewish sect. The one furthered by Jesus Christ himself, our Lord, and Savior. If you read their prayers (psalms) blessed are those that follow G-d’s commandments.
Catholics are all about a relationship with Christ. Jesus marries us (baptism) and renews our marriage every time we partake of his body. How much more of a relationship do you want than being married to the man? You want a ‘friendship,’ Catholics want marriage.
I have no doubt you did not get anything out of the Priest’s sermon…ever. I could go to Mass for the rest of my life and not hear Father speak a syllable of a good sermon and still be in love with the Mass (it is like saying you are not going to your wedding because the best man makes bad speeches). Catholics do not go for the sermon (it is a nice touch), but we are there because of our Lord not a preacher’s slick words. However, a phenomenon happens. When you do not have something like the Bread of Life or the Husband (which there is nothing like it to be honest) in your wedding (marriage), you have to rely…well on entertaining the people instead of realizing something is seriously missing. If you look at modern church buildings, you could not tell they were churches, except for maybe the sign. In addition, when you get inside you think you came to a concert. Nobody wants to get married in a box with four walls, they want to get married in beautiful churches, and this is a testimony to the difference between Catholics and others.
That is cool, I kneel before my Lord almost every day and accept (compared to asking) his marriage proposal.
Moreover, confessing your sins to a man is not insane:
Before Jesus gives authority to the Apostles he tells them ‘as the Father sent me, so I sent you’ (John 20:21). Christ was sent to heal the sick and forgive their sins, right. That is what Salvation is right?
Jesus then breathes on the apostles and gives them the power to forgive and retain sins (John 20:22). This is comparative to Gen 2:7, the only other time G-d breathes on man and that is to breathe divine life into him.
In addition, G-d does give authority to men to forgive sins in Matt. 9:8, so it would reason that their successors have the same authority just as Paul had authority and he was a successor of the Apostles (being an Apostle himself). On top of that, Jesus proves that as a man (not G-d), he can forgive sins to convince the faithful that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins.
Luke 5:24 also shows us that Jesus’ authority to forgive our sins is as a man, not G-d. Luke wrote this in order to show us that G-d gave authority to man. Again, throughout scripture Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles to bind and loose (Matt. 18:18), and that would encompass administering and removing temporal penalties because of sin, this definitely includes remitting the temporal penalty of sin (John 20:22-23).
We get this possibility because of what Catholics call ‘in persona Christi’ this is from two Cor. 2:10, where Paul tells us he has forgiven (someone’s) sin in the person of Christ. This is a necessary and legitimate practice, James commands us ‘to confess our sins to one another’ (James 5:16). Does this mean I just go up to my brother and confess my sins? No, the context of 5:16 can be seen in 5:14-15 in which James is speaking about healing power of the priests of the Church. This is confirmed historical in Acts 19:18 in which we can see many came to orally confess their sins and to rid themselves of sinful habits (Matt 3:6, Mark 1:5). Looking back into the OT, oral confession was used as well and is not being thrown out as it comes from G-d (Num. 5:7).
Moreover, to the idea of penance, 2 Sam. 12:14 teaches us that even though our sins are forgiven, punishment is due even for those sins that are forgiven. David is forgiven, why was his child taken? Because punishment was in order. As well, the Jews stood before the congregation or assembly and publicly confessed and interceded for each other.
I don’t think it is good to confuse insanity with being uncomfortable or being in doubt.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]
Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.
[quote]byukid wrote:
Chris, I’ve been listening to a set of lectures about early Christian theology and he’s discussing the Trinity and he makes the case that the real mystery of the Trinity is not how they are three in one, but rather how Christ is begotten of the Father without being a created being. Does the Son owe anything to the Father, and the Father to the Son? It got me thinking and curious- what do you think?[/quote]
The Father is the only that is completely non-begotten, as he always was. The father begot Jesus. Begotten in the sense of Jesus is a strange word. Kind of hard to understand because we don’t have anything to compare it to in the physical world (although we have tried to). The best example is a stud begets a puppy, and a man begets a baby boy. It is forming something from your own substance. However, when that goes into spiritual with G-d, G-d is one substance, he is infinitely pure, that becomes difficult to understand. G-d didn’t chop himself up and make Jesus, Jesus just…was. He came from the father, but has always existed although he comes from the father he is the same substance…weird, eh?
Now, there is two words that are severely miss used in the English language pertaining to G-d, that is create and beget. Create exactly means to make from nothing (at least how the Jews understood it), man didn’t create anything, he built, he laid, he grew, he made, he raised, he did all this. But, man never created anything, G-d did. Only G-d could make something from nothing. Same with beget, it is a little less strict, man can beget, anything can ‘beget’ anything, but not something. What I mean, as I explained earlier, is that when something begets something it basically creates anew something of the same substance of itself.
That is the difference between being begotten and being created. G-d created the Universe, your dad begot you (G-d created your soul). You didn’t just flash into your mom’s womb from nothing, seed and egg joined and you were begotten. However, Jesus is the same substance as the Father, he was begotten from his Father. Christology can get a little dizzing so I won’t go into it right now.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
I really forgot if I asked this question before, but if I did, I wanted to ask again. Sorry if it was already answered.
Is the Mass truly a re-sacrifice of Jesus in a non violent manner, and is there scriptural references to it?
Thank you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Just observe how suddenly scripture isn’t to be taken literally but metaphorically / symbolically…
Seriously tirib, it’s not the first time you said the scriptures were wrong. You take Calvin’s word over Jesus’s. Man over God…Don’t tell me I didn’t understand what you said. You may not have meant to say it, but you said it…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Just observe how suddenly scripture isn’t to be taken literally but metaphorically / symbolically…
Seriously tirib, it’s not the first time you said the scriptures were wrong. You take Calvin’s word over Jesus’s. Man over God…Don’t tell me I didn’t understand what you said. You may not have meant to say it, but you said it… [/quote]
Not to be rude (seriously, I mean that), but you kinda do the same thing when you take the days of creation as symbolic, yet take Jesus’s claim that bread and wine literally become his flesh and blood literally.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Just observe how suddenly scripture isn’t to be taken literally but metaphorically / symbolically…
Seriously tirib, it’s not the first time you said the scriptures were wrong. You take Calvin’s word over Jesus’s. Man over God…Don’t tell me I didn’t understand what you said. You may not have meant to say it, but you said it… [/quote]
Not to be rude (seriously, I mean that), but you kinda do the same thing when you take the days of creation as symbolic, yet take Jesus’s claim that bread and wine literally become his flesh and blood literally.[/quote]
I never claimed biblical literalism, so this is not a problem for me. The context, history and intended audience is where you can discern between literalness and allegorical interpretations. Direct orders are usually literal though. It’s not here really where the literal interpretation of the Eucharist comes from. It comes from the Last Supper discourses in the synoptic gospels…
[quote]forbes wrote:
I really forgot if I asked this question before, but if I did, I wanted to ask again. Sorry if it was already answered.
Is the Mass truly a re-sacrifice of Jesus in a non violent manner, and is there scriptural references to it?
Thank you.[/quote]
It is not a re-sacrifice. “Do this in remembrance of me.” As the Jews remember the passover lamb that saved them from the plague of the first sons.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Show me where he and Luther denies the Real Presence. It doesn’t really matter, I’m not going to take a heretic to tell the truth, it just adds to my argument. Like Calvin believed the Church had authority, except it wasn’t the Catholic Church, it was his Church in Luxemburg.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Just observe how suddenly scripture isn’t to be taken literally but metaphorically / symbolically…
Seriously tirib, it’s not the first time you said the scriptures were wrong. You take Calvin’s word over Jesus’s. Man over God…Don’t tell me I didn’t understand what you said. You may not have meant to say it, but you said it… [/quote]
Not to be rude (seriously, I mean that), but you kinda do the same thing when you take the days of creation as symbolic, yet take Jesus’s claim that bread and wine literally become his flesh and blood literally.[/quote]
Jesus said the SAME thing 8 times in one chapter and historically Early Christians believed this to be true. Creation has two stories, with different orders. And, science proves that they can be true, if we understand the Jewish word for day in one context means sundown to sundown and one means something totally different.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Show me where he and Luther denies the Real Presence. It doesn’t really matter, I’m not going to take a heretic to tell the truth, it just adds to my argument. Like Calvin believed the Church had authority, except it wasn’t the Catholic Church, it was his Church in Luxemburg. [/quote]
Screw luther and calvin, show me in scripture where the Real Presence is denied…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I really forgot if I asked this question before, but if I did, I wanted to ask again. Sorry if it was already answered.
Is the Mass truly a re-sacrifice of Jesus in a non violent manner, and is there scriptural references to it?
Thank you.[/quote]
It is not a re-sacrifice. “Do this in remembrance of me.” As the Jews remember the passover lamb that saved them from the plague of the first sons.[/quote]
Wow thats a first! From the many Catholics I’ve talked to, the Mass is a sacrificial ceremony of the hosts.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood.
[/quote]<<< Luther and Calvin thought John 6 said that, huh.[/quote]Look again Chris and please don’t go off and find some Catholic polemic site that yanks more of their quotes out of context. You have an active and capable mind Chris which would function so much better if it were free in the liberty of the Spirit of the living God instead of always under remote control like this. You may sneer this away, but I have a lotta admiration for you. That is not a joke.
[/quote]
Show me where he and Luther denies the Real Presence. It doesn’t really matter, I’m not going to take a heretic to tell the truth, it just adds to my argument. Like Calvin believed the Church had authority, except it wasn’t the Catholic Church, it was his Church in Luxemburg. [/quote]Try this Chris. I don’t link to other people’s work that much as you know, but this guy sums things up pretty well. EDIT: OOPS, how bout a link huh? Calvin on the Lord's Supper
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I really forgot if I asked this question before, but if I did, I wanted to ask again. Sorry if it was already answered.
Is the Mass truly a re-sacrifice of Jesus in a non violent manner, and is there scriptural references to it?
Thank you.[/quote]
It is not a re-sacrifice. “Do this in remembrance of me.” As the Jews remember the passover lamb that saved them from the plague of the first sons.[/quote]
Wow thats a first! From the many Catholics I’ve talked to, the Mass is a sacrificial ceremony of the hosts. [/quote]
I never said it wasn’t sacrificial, I said it was not a re-sacrifice.
[quote]Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.[/quote]
- From Lutherâ??s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Humbug!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I really forgot if I asked this question before, but if I did, I wanted to ask again. Sorry if it was already answered.
Is the Mass truly a re-sacrifice of Jesus in a non violent manner, and is there scriptural references to it?
Thank you.[/quote]
It is not a re-sacrifice. “Do this in remembrance of me.” As the Jews remember the passover lamb that saved them from the plague of the first sons.[/quote]
Wow thats a first! From the many Catholics I’ve talked to, the Mass is a sacrificial ceremony of the hosts. [/quote]
I never said it wasn’t sacrificial, I said it was not a re-sacrifice.[/quote]
Hmmm, can you explain a bit more please?
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I really forgot if I asked this question before, but if I did, I wanted to ask again. Sorry if it was already answered.
Is the Mass truly a re-sacrifice of Jesus in a non violent manner, and is there scriptural references to it?
Thank you.[/quote]
It is not a re-sacrifice. “Do this in remembrance of me.” As the Jews remember the passover lamb that saved them from the plague of the first sons.[/quote]
Wow thats a first! From the many Catholics I’ve talked to, the Mass is a sacrificial ceremony of the hosts. [/quote]
I never said it wasn’t sacrificial, I said it was not a re-sacrifice.[/quote]
Hmmm, can you explain a bit more please?[/quote]
It’s just the sacrifice. The Mass is plainly the Jewish Passover in it’s fullest form (that is why they had the last supper). And, instead of a lamb the sacrifice of the Mass is the only sacrifice that is fully acceptable to G-d, His first fruits.
Now, this gets a little weird because this has Jewish philosophy/theology (which can be very ‘mystic’) and it is a little mysterious but there is basis for this.
One: In Remembrance, when the Jews celebrated the Passover, they did it in remembrance of the first passover in Egypt. Now, this is not what they recalled it to memory, because besides Jesus, no one was alive back during the first passover. When they did it in remembrance they made the passover present, they believed they were actually in Egypt, in the homes, eating those lambs, with the blood on the doors, &c. When they had Passover, it was the Passover in Egypt. Not just a redoing the passover, but joining the one passover.
Two: Sacrifice “once and for all.” Even if you don’t take this super literally to mean going back in time, it does go forward in time and across the entire world. The sacrifice at the Mass is not a re-sacrifice, but a remembrance, in the way the Jews do remembrance of the Passover, and participation in the one Sacrifice.
So, we do not kill Jesus again on the Cross, because that was done once and for all, but we join ourselves to the sacrifice and participating in it.
Yes, it is difficult to understand, but that’s what makes Catholicism so great is that we still hold our forefather’s mysticism in most places.