Baptist Paper On Catholicism

[Anna]

Thank you, Brother Adam, for being a voice of reason, and a voice for truthfulness.

Those who are the least knowledgable about Catholicism are so ready and willing to pass judgement against It.

Edited January 25, 2004 by Anna

[God Conquers]

Bro Adam... you da man.

[phatcatholic]

bro. adam....................u give me hope that all of our work here is not in vain

[Circle_Master]

bro. adam....................u give me hope that all of our work here is not in vain

vanity! vanity! all is in vain!

haha, seriously - i've learned a lot from you guys on the positions of the Catholic Church and I try to fairly portray them when I talk. I disagree on some of your conclusions for some but I do try to listen and consider your position.

I've actually defended you guys at school on some positions by people who haven't actually spoken with catholics on doctrines.

Edited January 25, 2004 by Circle_Master

[phatcatholic]

vanity! vanity! all is in vain!

haha, seriously - i've learned a lot from you guys on the positions of the Catholic Church and I try to fairly portray them when I talk. I disagree on some of your conclusions for some but I do try to listen and consider your position.

I've actually defended you guys at school on some positions by people who haven't actually spoken with catholics on doctrines.

thanks man, that's good to hear. i've always respected ur diligence. when things get heated, u can occasionally fall into "Bruce-like" conduct, but other than that, ur ok by me

i still regret that we could not engage in formal dialogue on a private basis. hopefully you will learn and consider more as ur time here lengthens.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Bro Adam, you are amazing, your view on Catholicism is admirable.

Whether you know it or not, you are soooo Catholic

God love ya bro

[Circle_Master]

Due to time constraints I can only respond to a limited amount so I will focus on the actual rebuttals made.

sounds good. lets write another novel

“Conservatively in morals most of the time - which is good. Conservative in Scriptural interpretation? Almost never. I ask why circumcision is not required in the NT and everyone here basically answered 'cause the Church said so!' - that is as liberal as you can get. It doesn't look for truth in Scripture but looks for it in itself, and itself says it is truth. Circular and illogical.”

I hardly doubt the actual teaching on why circumcision is not required is “because the church says so”. Someone may have said that but it hardly means that they are correct.

“The truth that regeneration comes through baptism is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. Paul reminds us in Titus 3:5 that God "saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit."

Paul also said, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3–4).

I apologize then, but it was a general consensus on this board that it was 'because the Church said so' in the Jerusalem counsel. Maybe it was just because I offered an explanation from Scripture why it wasn't necessary today and they all said I was crazy. The greek in Titus 3:5 can mean the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit are the same thing, the formation of the passage indicates they are the same as well, so I take that view. Romans 6:3-4 also could be speaking of Spiritual baptism such as 1 Cor 12:13 - all are baptized in one Spirit (not water)

This teaching—that baptism unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might die to sin and receive new life—is a key part of Paul’s theology. In Colossians 2:11–13, he tells us, "In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision [of] Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ" (NIV).” ~Catholic.com

I agree it is related to the death of Christ. You must agree there is a spiritual baptism as well though right? By the Holy Spirit at salvation? And to go further - this is a sign of the covenant. Circumcision was the sign of the Israelites, and Baptism the sign of the Church. If one was circumcised - it didn't mean he was of the 'remnant' of faithful jews, just like the external baptism of water doesn't mean someone is part of the body of Christ. In the OT a circumcision of the heart is also required showing the true inward change.

Let's be even more clear- you say it is a sign of God's grace, that invalidates what grace is. unmerited favor. Meaning if you must have a sign for it, it is not grace, but works based. This is simple logic.

I see a lot of me in you. I’m not sure if that is good or bad. God’s favor to us is unmerited. However, participating in acts that ask for God to favor us does not mean we have earned salvation.

Why do you need to participate in an act for ask for favor though? Isn't the message always 'belief on..' or 'call upon...'? That is a volitional stance, not a material action.

As a protestant you take part in prayer. Let’s say your brother is sick and he asks you to pray for him. If you pray to God “Please heal my brother”, God may choose to do so. If He does, it doesn’t mean you have earned your brothers healing, but you are participating in God’s will as He asks you to do so.

Furthermore I want to clarify the relationship that Catholics have with faith and works. The scriptures are explicitly clear that works go hand in hand with grace. You cannot have one without the other. Protestants teach that the natural outpouring of faith in Christ is works and that someone with no works probably doesn’t have faith. This is for most purposes true. Catholics don’t keep record books of how many works they do and don’t sit at home wondering how many more works it will take to get to heaven, but they do understand the necessity of following God’s will in their lives as part of the unmerited favor they have been given from God. You don’t accept the gift of grace without understanding that works are essential to our faith.

So either way you cut it- that works are a natural outpouring of true faith or whether works and faith work together in grace, you come to the same conclusion- works will follow initial faith.

I have a problem with one part of that. You said either way you come to the same conclusion. In action possibly - but I do not do it with any idea of salvation, I do it because I love God and want to serve Him. Putting works on the same level as grace invalidates grace as well. Romans 9:30-10:13 is clear that if you have one work as part of salvation - you are under the law to do all works for salvation. It is a dangerous place to be. Not saying all Catholics are works based like this, but protestants typically push this distinction of grace.

All organizations change over time, and you can see it easily within the Catholic Church. Two examples - a) it was understood up until the recent postmodern culture that only those within the true church of Christ (the invisible one here) are quoth 'saved' if Jesus returned at that moment. Now this culture believes that is not quite true, but by desire you could be in it - that is a growth in an organization and a change, thus the Catholic Church of the 1300's is not the one of today. Same name, different beliefs. b) The early culture of the first few centuries had basically two types of people. Those who believe in a pantheon of God's, and those who believed in one God. Many introduced into the church believed in a pantheon and added Christianity to their list to worship - results can be seen in the Pantheon with the saints heads now there to appeal to these, and the affects such as a sacrifice (transubstantiation), and others. This influenced and changed the church, and the model seen first in Acts of things such as all families celebrating communion without a 'priest' or 'apostle' was changed.

I agree that the Catholic Church has changed over the last two millinia, however they do not worship the saints. The doctrines of the communion of the saints is as ancient as the teachings of the apostles themselves. Doctrines are defined or “set in stone” for the clarification of the laypeople and the style of worship and the language in which it Christianity is taught are things that change, hardly doctrinal positions though.

I didn't mean to say they worship the saints - just that they placed images of them in the pantheon. I actually got to see it 2 years ago, was pretty cool. The images where they put the faces is where different God's used to go and many just switched their Gods to be the saints during that early church (with all the pagans being forced in). Doctrinal positions have changed I must say. In the 900's there was a monk who taught spiritual presence of Christ in the eucharist and he was never condemned a heretic or forced to recant. That assumes that the church believed it could be true. Odd thing to happen especially if the eucharist is so important as it is often stressed.

You’ll have to be more specific though that the mass was a pagan practice and was melded into Christianity.

Sorry, I don't have any primary sources off hand. I'll keep an eye open though if I come across one.

You seem to misrepresent protestantism doctrine here. Salvation biblically is a lifelong process.

Many protestants would not agree with you.

I know, many denominations stress the profession of faith and then just drop it at that. If you go to any protestant scholar however and not the lay, I do believe you'd find a radically different majority that agree with me.

The commission isn't to make those that profess Jesus as Lord and Savior but to make disciples of all nations. This is a struggle and one daily to submit to the Holy Spirit within oneself and turn to sacrifice more of one's life to Christ. I spoke with one Catholic turned protestant recently who told me how much harder it was now for him because no longer could he just 'do' stuff, he must work on changing his heart, and giving more of his life daily to Christ. To change his attitude, and how he lives.

Remember that there are over one billion Catholics now and many do not even understand their faith. They may go through the motions and not even understand what they are doing. I agree that it is a daily struggle to conform to the will of God, and so would many faithful Catholics.

Perhaps the Catholic Church should have another reform them. The reasoning that everything is present in the liturgy you say doesn't help the people to understand or know.

I agree as well. I would also point out many Catholics are oblivious to the world of protestantism and do not wish to understand it either.

Ah, true. Christians have their work cut out for them. I doubt Christ appreciates the division we have caused among ourselves.

Perhaps the division can build the church. Just like the diversity in Ephesians 4 which brought unity because of it - we have so many flavors and it is almost miraculous in itself the parachurch organizations that do exist.

Many do believe that, I do not. Catholicism has a truckload of baggage over Scripture which doesn't allow Scripture to speak for itself today but must be molded to what the Catholic Church says.

I’m glad that you don’t believe that. Unfortunately this is a game that is often played. “Catholics twist scripture” says the Baptist, “Baptists twist scripture” says Catholics. You can say it, but it doesn’t mean anything unless you can prove it. Unfortunately “letting scripture speak for itself” does not mean we can interpert it any way we feel it is speaking to us. Scripture can leave you with many impressions based on the way you grew up and were taught, but that doesn’t mean you are right. Interpretation without authority is forbidden by scripture.

Of course not, there is a science to interpretation called hermeneutics.

Agreed, major differences. Most mainstream protestant denominations in America do not have that large schism as you put forth. Would you really consider a female pastor to be a greater difference than salvation by faith alone, and salvation by faith and works? One is an interpretation which can be very dangerous, the other affects the very nature of what grace is. Seems simple which is more of a problem.

I would agree that the very denial of the Trinity is a big enough difference to expell one from the “Christian” domain. Salvation however is never by “faith alone”. It is by “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God” Romans 3:24-25

Faith alone is what you just said - what you said was part of what you must have faith in. By the way - I do use faith alone, and grace alone interchangably as I believe even our faith is a gift from God ultimately.

And I would encourage you to study history from all perspectives, and not from one that must have it one way such as the Catholic Church. There is many interesting things which are forgotten in the Catholic Church's rendition.

Have you ever read “History in Plain Language” by Shelley? Or the Large Catachism by Luther? Or Confessions by Augustine? Many great writings out there, but Catholic and protestant. So long as it isn’t by Chick.

Actually phatcatholic said I was a Jack Chick robot in disguise made to plague catholic boards. . I have read part of 'Large Catechism by Luther' and I have read all of 'Confessions by Augustine'. Not the Shelley book however. I am a collection of primary writings from all kinds of people from 1st century A.D. til 4th century A.D. that deal with paganism in the church. I look forward to reading through them soon.

Not a problem, this would be 'Sola Scriptura', a foundational belief. To say it is a problem is to put your own philosophy over it, but in reality this is a very simple statement and undeniable by anyone because it really is what evangelical doctrine does. evangelical, not any doctrine.

The problem with using the Bible as a sole authority without any other authority to properly interpret it is the 10,000 different faith systems now in place in the United States and abroad. Without the Church, the “Pillar and foundation of Truth” you can’t be certain that you are taking scripture as it was meant to be interpreted with 100% flawless accuracy. 

This is where hermeneutics come into play again. And the church as the pillar and foundation of truth, perhaps it is what they are called to be? to spread the truth? Not that they 'are' truth, but that they have it in the form of the gospel with Jesus Christ coming, dying, and being raised again?

Meal with the Savior, or of the Savior. You said you disagreed there but you didn't really say why. You just said they believe since Christ is eternal, the sacrifice is still applicable in the mass. I suggest you read Romans 5:12-23 at some point, it may add some clarity.

I am not sure why you are going in a 'conniption fit'. You have not shown anything written to be untrue, but have shown yourself to come to it with your own bias. Even the last response you gave your utmost rejection of, but at the same time did not clarify how the primary source was incorrect.

Because this author fails to give any proof of what he says.  But instead just attacks the faith system.

Proof is hard to define. I would still suggest a good study on Romans 5:12-23, it is a very interesting passage. I'm finding myself leaning on it in many discussions as it is so plainly written.

Tradition must be higher than Scripture because Scripture is nothing without the Catholic Church's Tradition, yet without Scripture the Catholic Church would be fine today. Tradition is the rule in Catholic Church because it says what you must do with Scripture and so thus Scripture is void on it's own. Tradition stands alone as it does not even need Scripture to confirm itself within the Catholic Church. The magisterium does that. To say that they complement is a misunderstanding of how the Catholic Church uses them.

I doubt the Catholic Church would agree with you. And I would disagree that the Catholic Church would be fine without scripture. The Catholic Church views that the scriptures were written by Catholic- as they view the apostles and first Christians as the first Catholics. Sacred Tradition includes how scripture is interpreted and how it has been intrepted for 2000 years. That is the same as saying your interpretation is above scripture because scripture is void without your interpretation.

What I meant by that is the Catholic Church has so much tradition, that if all Scripture disappeared today they would have no issue continuing on off of their tradition. However if all tradition disappeared today, the Catholic Church would have many problems supporting themselves.

You say they are extra-biblically, yet the Catholic Church's position is extra-biblical as well by that definition. There is nothing 'extra-biblical' about that statement because it is grounded in other passages and themes of Scripture. To say it is such shows your misunderstanding and ignorance of the protestant position. I suggest you work on a book, 'What are Protestant Doctrines and positions' before you start working on the Catholic Church's.

They are indeed extra biblical because they are not directly taught in scripture. They are an interpertation of scripture. The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are not called ordinances and are not taught as such in scripture, as one example. Thank you for your concern though.

I am not sure I like your definition of extra biblical. That would suppose the trinity is extra biblical as well since it is not explicitly stated.

Your argument is void. No kid in the womb has the rationality or intelligence to have faith in anything. Unless you are saying that some are gifted with this supraintelligence in the womb? Perhaps you should understand that you had no valid info in your response to this past one and rethink your reply.

That is a common argument but void because faith isn’t necessarily the action of a person “praying and accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.” Faith is the gift of God given through grace to justify the soul.

What do you see faith as then? Faith results in assurance of hope, and conviction. That is results of thought - things which a kid does not have.

Good showing of the Catholic Church's doctrine. I wonder why you think this one is so good yet the others are so off the wall. I would think all his research was done in the same manner. Consider what view you are coming to his writings with, and search for his instead.

His conclusions are off the wall.

So you don't like his conclusions, but his research is ok? I hit that wall with arguing with catholics myself. We agree on the passage, but what is common sense to them is not common sense to me. I know personally I try to make common sense of what the passage speaks of.

You come from the idea that "his sheep are allowed to wander stray". This makes no sense - all sheep wander stray by their own choice and it is Christ who always brings them back. Sheep are noted for their supreme dumbness as well, they have no idea they are going astray - it just happens and Christ brings them back. You have an odd statement as well, you say that mortal sin is "you don't want any part of him", this is ridiculous and not even the Catholics teach this one. Perhaps you should consider their position more. Do you really think someone who is driven to commit murder believes in his heart that he wants 0 part of God at that act? I would severely doubt it as that act is a choice, just like all sin is, and because you make it it is pride believing your own wisdom is above God's. Your points 1 and 2 are good, and it makes me glorify God that the grace of God covers all sins. (Romans 5:12-23)

It is interesting that you agree with points one and two because that is what you believe, but must find a way to disagree with the third point because you don’t believe it and must find a way to defend your view instead of considering it.

I wasn't trying to find a way to disagree with the third but it seemed really incredulous to me at first reading. A sheep is allowed to wander astray? There is no other way for a sheep to go astray than by it's own choice. No one kicks it out so the Great Shepherd must bring him back. This seems to be in the same idea that we don't choose to sin all the time. Can't agree with that if you hold to that position too.

a) You contradict yourself, you say confession must be to a priest, and not just to God, but you don't say confession is to your wife, but then in this response you say confession basically must be to everyone sinned against. Is not our salvation between us and God, not between others? Of course with others our salvation will cause us to wish to ask forgiveness, but we are not repenting to each other, only to God.

You don’t have to confess to a priest, I never said you do, but the Catholic states that it is a source of grace available to you, so no I don’t contradict myself.

ok , just checking. what would this source of grace do by the way?

b) Ordination is not from the Catholics, this is absurd. Even Timothy was ordained by Paul for his ministry. Not as an apostle, but as a leader of the church. It is impossible for an apostle to ordain another apostle since you must have seen the resurrected Lord (Acts 1), and the signs of the position are mighty works and wonders.

Timothy and Paul were Catholic, according to the Church.

They were protestants according to mine because they rejected salvation by circumcision which the party of circumcision believed

Read Romans 1 about none are ignorant.

I did, now you read the CC teaching on invincible ignorance so you can know we are talking about two separate issues.

I hate invincible ignorance with a passion. It denies the amesomeness of evangelism and the supreme necessity for it. I would recommend 'Let the Nation's be Glad' by John Piper. It is very well written.

Would you be happier with 10 documents being sourced, rather than 1? 1 being sourced doesn't mean it is the only one, it just means the author felt McCarthy had the best words for the matter

Like I said, don’t use a Buddhist source to show Baptist beliefs and don’t use a Baptist source to prove Catholic teachings.

Sometimes cross-denominational writings are the best sources. Any side is bias, so a mixture is usually helpful.

Perhaps you aren't grasping it either. I am not sure why it has to be very complex either, it seems to be quite straightforward if you see it as a figure of speech.

It’s not a figure of speech. But hey, I’m just one person. Like you, fallible.

That is true.

I believe the author is using Hebrews 6:6 out of context here. However, your logic has much to be desired. Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross? I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today. The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment - just that he covers only sins in the past. All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

I’ll leave that for a Catholic brother to answer. Alas it is true, I don't have all the answers, and I can even admit it

Amen! Catholics let's go! I actually read over that and think hm.. that's a good argument! Wonder how I thought of that one.

Show the exaggeration so you could enlighten other readers please.

The exaggeration that he constantly says Holy Tradition is above the Scriptures.

In practice would it not? You cannot claim any teaching from Scripture if Holy Tradition doesn't affirm it - therefore the law is tradition, not Scripture.

He has been showing it. It is your own position which says it is not proof. There are many many examples of this as well, but the Catholic Church will merely say that is your own personal interpretation and not sanctified.

Ah yes, we can all tell each other it is our own interpretation and doesn’t mean hogwash because “I really know what scriptures are saying”. The problem is, we can’t all be right, so who is to be trusted?

I prefer to continue studying and seeking the kingdom of God my entire life. God promises for those that seek they will find - and I know the Holy Spirit is within my life, so that is what is necessary for now.

Any dogma? Saints according to Scripture are all believers in Christ. Not one who is shown by three miracles and all sorts of other processes, that is anti-biblical. Grace is unmeritted Scripturally, not produced by doing a work such as a sacrament, that is anti-biblical. It is your own semantic differences and position which say it is anti-biblical and the sacred tradition which ignores the plain context today.

Saints according to the Catholic Church are all believers in Christ. So what if they study their life before declaring them to be saints?

Kindof odd they call each other brothers in Christ but are so hesitant to use saint then? Also kindof odd they keep chanting 'never judge if one is saved!' and then are so big on declaring saints?

You don't understand what the author said. We are saved through faith in Christ, that is true. The summation of what we must believe is not summed up in just a word however, but who Christ is. Your apostle creed also is a declaration of belief, and not a guide for salvation. The faith in who Christ is however, the author would agree with this creed even thought it is from a few centuries after the apostles already died. The only part possibly in disagreement that I see is Christ descending into hell.

Yes, if someone is a member of the Catholic Church they must believe in Catholicism, this however does not take away that Catholicism teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. If you are Baptist you believe in the Baptist faith and trust in the Baptist Church, but that doesn’t mean you lack faith in Christ.

Unfortunately again, it is not just faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Mary gets involved, and all kinds of other stuff which is never in the gospel message given in Scripture such as Acts 10:34-43. Also 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 which says "3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received [being the gospel - see v2]: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

[Aloysius]

you know what, i think it's time for dUST to put next to his name a little road leading to a Vatican Flag and change his title from "Baptist" to "Baptist on a Journey"

:D :D :cool:

[Brother Adam]

you know what, i think it's time for dUST to put next to his name a little road leading to a Vatican Flag and change his title from "Baptist" to "Baptist on a Journey"

:D :D

Are you refering to Circlemaster, me, or someone else?

[Aloysius]

you

i forgot to clarify... :blink:

[Anna]

You're doing pretty diggity, doggone darn good there, Brother Adam. And for some reason, your words actually seem to sink in! Good job!

Pax Christi. <><

[Brother Adam]

CircleMaster,

I want to first apologize if I ever come off as too foreward, rude, bullheaded, or anything like that. I can get zealous sometimes, so I apologize in advance.

It's getting late so I'm going to take time to ponder what you have said and try to get back to you soon, have to get sleep to go to church tomorrow though. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you though.

thank you for your conversation.

Blessings, Bro. Adam

[Circle_Master]

it's all good. my first response was because dUSt said something to the affect that protestants all have to agree and if you don't then obviously you would have replied, so for his benefit i responded to the entire thing (which took incredibly long!). It is more fun arguing with protestants usually anyway, at least we don't have this weird attitude we are infallible truth but we can search Scriptures for what the truth is.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

we are infallible truth but we can search Scriptures for what the truth is.

I think your mistaking the 'we' portion of your statement. None of us here will ever, EVER, claim that we are infallible.

Your comments to Bro Adam about Catholics putting Tradition OVER Scripture are amazing, considering we have explained it to you time and time again.

Here is the simplest way to put it. You cannot use Sacred Scriptures without Sacred Tradition. They go hand in hand. you cannot use one without the other. One is not above the other, they are equal. Before the Bible was compiled as ONE Bible (Thanks to the Catholic Church) it was Oral Traditions and Teachings that was used as well as the limited Scriptures that were available to one Church.

does this make more sense for you? I cant say it any clearer than I did 900 other times to you. Neither is above the other, they both are equal and should be used together, not seperate.

Also your comments somewhere else about when we in here say "We put the Bible together" we mean the Catholic Church. Without US, you wouldnt have the Bible as we know it. Historically acurate, but you still fight it.

But, like someone else said here, you are a good person to debate with, you through some low punches sometimes but nothing 'Bruce-like', so you're ok in my book. God Bless you and keep searching, God will bring you home soon.

[Jake Huether]

Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross? I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today. The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment - just that he covers only sins in the past. All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

Well, since no other Catholics have responded to this, I guess I'll take the first swing...

Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross

Historically, no. Spiritually, yes. Do you belive that your sins nailed Christ to the Cross? If yes, then you understand that Christ is "still" being nailed to the Cross. If no, then please explian how you "escaped" fault for Christs death.

Catholics understand that Christ died historically once and for all. He was on earth historically for 33 years. He resurrected once in history.

Our sins, however, are still being paid for. Our sins are still whipping Christ and setting a crown of thorns on His Holy head. Just as real as it was in history, my sins slam nails through the hands of Christ. And just as real as it was in history, the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass extends, Mystically, Christs death and resurrection to me to cover my sins. It is not Christ that is physically sacrificed anew in history, rather, it is I who am transported to the foot of the Cross.

I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today.

And I am 100% sure that Christ dies each and every time I sin. You must not think historically, because that is not the Teaching of the Church. The Sacrifice of the Mass is not a new historical event. The Mass is the same historical event, we are taken there. It is a Spiritual event, made Real.

The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment

And saying we must not partake in "that" still denies that Christ said, "Unless one eats of the flesh of the son of man and drinks his blood, he has no life in him... do this in memory of me."

Again, historically Christ died for all and covered all sins at that moment. But Spiritually, just as I continue to mock Christ with my sins, He continues to die and rise that I might have life.

All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

Alas, we agree. But the "how" is where our agreement ends.

Historically, indeed, Christ died for all our sins (past present and future). But in order to make that historical even present for us "now", Christ left us the Mass. So that we are TRULY brought to the foot of that very same Cross.