ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 8
11/20/11 5:04 PM
ryld wrote:chooselifealways wrote:ryld wrote:You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).Um, no. Not at all. Paul warned the Corinthians in his first letter of the danger of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily;1 Corinthians 11:27 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Which you are quoting out of context. The unworthiness is referring to unconverted "believers" who were still walking in their pagan traditions. Why not quote the verse which makes it clear?17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Cor. 11As we can see, their heresies made the Supper no longer the Lord's Supper, but a sham. Therefore, they were eating it unworthily--that is to say, they were not worthy to eat it because only true believers were supposed to eat it--not false ones guided by heresies which denied the Gospel. Notice carefully Paul's calling out their "hunger"--clearly showing that some were coming after having fasted. Notice also some were getting drunk. These two practices were pagan practices which they did when eating their sacrifices of the dead. To prepare to eat such sacrifices, they would "purify" themselves by fasting. Then when they attended the sacrifice, they would behave in an orgiastic way: eating to excess and drinking themselves drunk. The fact that there were those among the congregation that behaved this way, proved that they thought the Supper was another sacrifice of the dead to be eaten. Therefore, being actually unbelievers following such a heretical view of the Gospel, they were not worthy to participate in the Supper. In fact, Paul says that for them to participate in the Supper is WORSE than when they were just plain pagans, that they come together "for the worse". Next notice what Paul quotes Jesus Christ as having said about the cup: 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1 Cor. 11He doesn't say that the cup is the blood of Christ. He says the cup is the "new testament" in the blood. The wine is the New Testament IN His blood--not THE blood. Therefore, he who eats and drinks the Supper with this kind of belief--as your church does believing it is the actual blood of Christ--is not worthy to participate in it because they are an unbeliever--a pagan following heresies. Furthermore, your church does indeed say that eating the wafer forgives sin, even though you deny it. If it therefore forgives sin, it is then a sacrifice for sin, and if Rome claims it is the same sacrifice as that which was at Calvary, what pray tell was that sacrifice? The body and blood of Jesus Christ was the sacrifice for sin. Therefore, if Rome says the wafer is the same as that sacrifice, then it is the sacrifice for sin. This is why you cannot use that verse you used about being "worthy", since as your own church teaches, SIN IS FORGIVEN WHEN IT IS EATEN. Here is a quote from this site:http://www.withouthavings...ns&catid=53:grab-bag Fr. Adam, Is it true that our venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist? Signed, (Parishioner) "Yes, it is true that our everyday faults are forgiven whenever we receive the Eucharist. We know that Christ’s blood was poured out for the forgiveness of our sins (Lk 22:19-20), and that the healing power of the Eucharist forgives us of the sins we daily commit (CCC 1366, Heb 9:13-14). "Here is another:http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html "A final effect of Communion is to remove the personal guilt of venial sins, and the temporal punishment due to forgiven sins."And here:http://theeucharist.wordp...rist-and-reconciliation/ "Lord, as we gather to offer our gifts confident in your love, make us holy by sharing your life with us and by this Eucharist forgive our sins."(Emphasis is not mine.)Here is another:http://www.beginningcatholic.com/communion.html"However, the reception of the Holy Eucharist will forgive venial sin—presuming of course that the communicant has sorrow for his venial sins. "(Emphasis not mine.) It is clear that your church teaches that the eating of the wafer does in fact FORGIVE SIN. If this were true, and if as you say, that is not so, that by "worthy" Paul was referring to eating it without sin, then how could anyone ever eat the Supper if they had any sin and therefore be "unworthy"? If they go to confession first to be forgiven, then they eat the Supper in a "worthy" manner, what is there to forgive? The simple answer is: that it just isn't at all what Rome says it is. There is no more sacrifice for sin, just as Paul said, and eating in an "unworthy" manner is referring to eating the Supper with these pagan heresies in one's heart, that it is a sacrifice of a dead god, a perpetual victim immolated so that the people could eat his flesh and blood. This is a pagan concept. It is the eating of the sacrifice of the dead. It is the Doctrine of Balaam. Repent, for you are on the road to death.
chooselifealways wrote:ryld wrote:You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).Um, no. Not at all. Paul warned the Corinthians in his first letter of the danger of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily;1 Corinthians 11:27 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
ryld wrote:You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).
18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Cor. 11
As we can see, their heresies made the Supper no longer the Lord's Supper, but a sham. Therefore, they were eating it unworthily--that is to say, they were not worthy to eat it because only true believers were supposed to eat it--not false ones guided by heresies which denied the Gospel. Notice carefully Paul's calling out their "hunger"--clearly showing that some were coming after having fasted. Notice also some were getting drunk. These two practices were pagan practices which they did when eating their sacrifices of the dead. To prepare to eat such sacrifices, they would "purify" themselves by fasting. Then when they attended the sacrifice, they would behave in an orgiastic way: eating to excess and drinking themselves drunk. The fact that there were those among the congregation that behaved this way, proved that they thought the Supper was another sacrifice of the dead to be eaten. Therefore, being actually unbelievers following such a heretical view of the Gospel, they were not worthy to participate in the Supper. In fact, Paul says that for them to participate in the Supper is WORSE than when they were just plain pagans, that they come together "for the worse". Next notice what Paul quotes Jesus Christ as having said about the cup:
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1 Cor. 11
He doesn't say that the cup is the blood of Christ. He says the cup is the "new testament" in the blood. The wine is the New Testament IN His blood--not THE blood. Therefore, he who eats and drinks the Supper with this kind of belief--as your church does believing it is the actual blood of Christ--is not worthy to participate in it because they are an unbeliever--a pagan following heresies.
Furthermore, your church does indeed say that eating the wafer forgives sin, even though you deny it. If it therefore forgives sin, it is then a sacrifice for sin, and if Rome claims it is the same sacrifice as that which was at Calvary, what pray tell was that sacrifice? The body and blood of Jesus Christ was the sacrifice for sin. Therefore, if Rome says the wafer is the same as that sacrifice, then it is the sacrifice for sin. This is why you cannot use that verse you used about being "worthy", since as your own church teaches, SIN IS FORGIVEN WHEN IT IS EATEN.
Fr. Adam, Is it true that our venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist? Signed, (Parishioner)
Fr. Adam,
Is it true that our venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist?
Signed, (Parishioner)
Interact
Share This