Why Is The Eucharist Needed To Apply The Cross?

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]

Budge the major type I was hoping would help you to understand the Eucharist is that the Jews were commanded by God to keep celebrating the passover and they relived it and renewed it. Did you finish my whole post? You took like two parts out of it that did not have much significance (and can be easily responded too... [b]which they were by a fellow poster[/b]) but you totally did not respond to the rest of the post.

I highlight that they were responded too so that you know I am not trying to get by them. They were already responded too, and I believe you have yet to come back and respond back to the fellow posters response on that.

I am curious as to if you have ever read the early Church Fathers. I am new to this forum so I do not know much about your past study of Catholicism. Many people who have walked away from the Church say they know everything the Church teaches and they say this to justify themselves in some way so as to make those who are Catholic that they are "debating" with think that they, those that are Catholic, can use no argument against them because they already know everything the Church teaches. That is like me saying...

"I am a convert. I know everything Protestants believe and it is all false!" (I am convert by the way and I will take the leap and say I know a good bit of what they teach and I will say with a sure conscience that most of what they teach -not all because they do have pieces of truth- is false, ignorant, and usually and totally misinturpreted.) That is pretty much what your saying to us just what I am saying is actually true and what your saying is based off, what I'm sure is, ignorance and a truly sincere conscience. But then again, you could say the same thing about me... so your whole argument of you knowing everything Catholics teach (which obviously from your posts you do not) does not hold any weight in any debate not only because you do not in fact know everything Catholic's teach (which you probably sincerely think you do) but also because it doesn't mean anything that you think that we are a false, pagan religion. It just doesn't. Your opinion means nothing, especially when it is based off false teachings which actually, unlike our "false teachings", can be proven false.

There have been a couple posts where you have said, "Well I agree with certain aspects of this or that, but I know it is not right because it was founded on false truths of Catholicism." How does that convince anybody? You agree with it up to the point that it was founded on what [i]you think[/i] to be false teachings. My point is... what you think holds no weight in a debate.

Please respond to the rest of the post because if you can't I think that says something. Either 1.) the teachings you believe are in fact wrong in this matter 2.) the "truth" that you believe yourself to have cannot respond to the "false teachings" I have posted which would mean that your "truth" is not actually truth. So please do respond.

May God love you!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1227528' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:13 PM'][center]J.M.J.[/center]

Budge the major type I was hoping would help you to understand the Eucharist is that the Jews were commanded by God to keep celebrating the passover and they relived it and renewed it. Did you finish my whole post? You took like two parts out of it that did not have much significance (and can be easily responded too... [b]which they were by a fellow poster[/b]) but you totally did not respond to the rest of the post.

I highlight that they were responded too so that you know I am not trying to get by them. They were already responded too, and I believe you have yet to come back and respond back to the fellow posters response on that.

I am curious as to if you have ever read the early Church Fathers. I am new to this forum so I do not know much about your past study of Catholicism. Many people who have walked away from the Church say they know everything the Church teaches and they say this to justify themselves in some way so as to make those who are Catholic that they are "debating" with think that they, those that are Catholic, can use no argument against them because they already know everything the Church teaches. That is like me saying...

"I am a convert. I know everything Protestants believe and it is all false!" (I am convert by the way and I will take the leap and say I know a good bit of what they teach and I will say with a sure conscience that most of what they teach -not all because they do have pieces of truth- is false, ignorant, and usually and totally misinturpreted.) That is pretty much what your saying to us just what I am saying is actually true and what your saying is based off, what I'm sure is, ignorance and a truly sincere conscience. But then again, you could say the same thing about me... so your whole argument of you knowing everything Catholics teach (which obviously from your posts you do not) does not hold any weight in any debate not only because you do not in fact know everything Catholic's teach (which you probably sincerely think you do) but also because it doesn't mean anything that you think that we are a false, pagan religion. It just doesn't. Your opinion means nothing, especially when it is based off false teachings which actually, unlike our "false teachings", can be proven false.

There have been a couple posts where you have said, "Well I agree with certain aspects of this or that, but I know it is not right because it was founded on false truths of Catholicism." How does that convince anybody? You agree with it up to the point that it was founded on what [i]you think[/i] to be false teachings. My point is... what you think holds no weight in a debate.

Please respond to the rest of the post because if you can't I think that says something. Either 1.) the teachings you believe are in fact wrong in this matter 2.) the "truth" that you believe yourself to have cannot respond to the "false teachings" I have posted which would mean that your "truth" is not actually truth. So please do respond.

May God love you!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie[/quote]

God Bless you for your long responses. Unfortunately taking things out of context is a Budge thing. It's a fact, and I'm not just trying to bash her. I guess we just gotta keep being patient. Nothing I can tell you to do but just stick around and see what comes up. Welcome to Phatmass TTM!

SMM ><>

Edited April 3, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[Budge]

I wanted to point this out, found on another message board..

[quote]Watch the magic word "this" - it was blood, and then it becomes wine again! Does Jesus intend to drink His own blood at His Second Coming? Or does He change it back into wine before He drinks it?

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
- Matthew 26:27-29[/quote]

[Budge]

[quote]

Budge the major type I was hoping would help you to understand the Eucharist is that the Jews were commanded by God to keep celebrating the passover and they relived it and renewed it. Did you finish my whole post? You took like two parts out of it that did not have much significance (and can be easily responded too... which they were by a fellow poster) but you totally did not respond to the rest of the post.[/quote]Yes but read Hebrews 10, When Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross for us, there was an ending of repeating 'sacrifices" and rituals.

[quote]
I am curious as to if you have ever read the early Church Fathers. I am new to this forum so I do not know much about your past study of Catholicism. Many people who have walked away from the Church say they know everything the Church teaches and they say this to justify themselves in some way so as to make those who are Catholic that they are "debating" with think that they, those that are Catholic, can use no argument against them because they already know everything the Church teaches. That is like me saying...[/quote]

I run a website for Ex- Catholics and Catholics {cant post to it here else it will be taken down}, I have studied Roman Catholicism far deeper then most Catholics in the pews. I have read some of your early church fathers but considering the forgeries, and the fact their writings are "translated" differently on protestant sites vs. Catholics ones, that was an interesting foray. I believe any teacher linked to Constantine or Eusebius or Origen, were ALL early deceivers, warned of by the apostles in the book of Acts. The thing that concerns me about Catholics is how they put the words of these men on the same level of scripture.
[quote]
"I am a convert. I know everything Protestants believe and it is all false!" (I am convert by the way and I will take the leap and say I know a good bit of what they teach and I will say with a sure conscience that most of what they teach -not all because they do have pieces of truth- is false, ignorant, and usually and totally misinturpreted.) That is pretty much what your saying to us just what I am saying is actually true and what your saying is based off, what I'm sure is, ignorance and a truly sincere conscience. But then again, you could say the same thing about me... so your whole argument of you knowing everything Catholics teach (which obviously from your posts you do not) does not hold any weight in any debate not only because you do not in fact know everything Catholic's teach (which you probably sincerely think you do) but also because it doesn't mean anything that you think that we are a false, pagan religion. It just doesn't. Your opinion means nothing, especially when it is based off false teachings which actually, unlike our "false teachings", can be proven false.[/quote]There are daughter Protestant churches to be frank with you are teaching Catholic precepts. I would even take the guess, that your church even held to Constantines councils as having authority and taught from the pulpit that the Catholic church was another Christian church. So even if one is in a Protestant church, considering the many bad ones Ive seen in my new community, this doent guarantee you ever received Biblical truths.

Many Catholic apologists claim that those who witness to them "do not know" Catholicism, this mantra will be repeated even at those who like me spent literally years in Catholic school and who have actively read and studied Catholicism as an adult. I dare say "You misunderstood Catholicism" would be lobbed at anyone who merely even disagrees with it.
[quote]
There have been a couple posts where you have said, "Well I agree with certain aspects of this or that, but I know it is not right because it was founded on false truths of Catholicism." How does that convince anybody? You agree with it up to the point that it was founded on what you think to be false teachings. My point is... what you think holds no weight in a debate.[/quote]

What are you talking about? When I pointed out the nuns had community going for them? Some positive attributes dont prove a religion true. Even Mormons have close knit families and charitable organizations.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1228287' date='Apr 3 2007, 08:52 AM']I wanted to point this out, found on another message board..
[quote]Watch the magic word "this" - it was blood, and then it becomes wine again! Does Jesus intend to drink His own blood at His Second Coming? Or does He change it back into wine before He drinks it?

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
- Matthew 26:27-29[/quote]
[/quote]

"Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth." -John 19:29

Jesus established the Kingdom of God while on the Cross. He drank vinegar, which is the fruit of the vine. He was saying that He was offering His apostles His Blood and that He Himself would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the Coming of the Kingdom. As you may know, Jesus was celebrating the Passover. The traditional Passover liturgy is that there are three cups of wine, followed by a song, then the last cup of wine. The Gospel is clear that Jesus stopped with the third cup, because it says that right after that, they went out to the Garden of Gethsemene, singing a song. That means that Jesus didn't drink of the fourth cup. His apostles might have asked Him why not, but He had already said why not: He wasn't going to drink of it until the Kingdom was established. Then He drank from the Cross, and it was clear that He had completed the Passover. This is why the Last Supper is inseparable from the Death of Christ. Theres much more theology in this, of course, including the Cup of Thanksgiving (Psalm 22, which Jesus recites from the Cross). Jesus was very clearly indicating that this was the New Passover. We, likewise, are to eat the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

God bless,

Micah

PS-for more reading, I recommend: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1228289' date='Apr 3 2007, 08:59 AM']Many Catholic apologists claim that those who witness to them "do not know" Catholicism, this mantra will be repeated even at those who like me spent literally years in Catholic school and who have actively read and studied Catholicism as an adult. I dare say "You misunderstood Catholicism" would be lobbed at anyone who merely even disagrees with it.[/quote]
Budge, any Catholic armed with a Catechism can prove that you misunderstand Catholicism. You completely misrepresent what you believe, and when we call you on it, you insist that we're just lying to cover our tracks. Well, I offered you a chance to debate Catholic teaching with the Catechism to clarify exactly what that teaching was. I didn't stray from what the Catechism said, but you ignored it, and eventually gave up debating because you couldn't prove it wrong.

[Budge]

[quote]
Jesus established the Kingdom of God while on the Cross. He drank vinegar, which is the fruit of the vine[u]. He was saying that He was offering His apostles His Blood and that He Himself would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the Coming of the Kingdom. As you may know, Jesus was celebrating the Passover. The traditional Passover liturgy is that there are three cups of wine, followed by a song, then the last cup of wine. [/u]The Gospel is clear that Jesus stopped with the third cup, because it says that right after that, they went out to the Garden of Gethsemene, singing a song. That means that Jesus didn't drink of the fourth cup. His apostles might have asked Him why not, but He had already said why not: He wasn't going to drink of it until the Kingdom was established. Then He drank from the Cross, and it was clear that He had completed the Passover. This is why the Last Supper is inseparable from the Death of Christ. Theres much more theology in this, of course, including the Cup of Thanksgiving (Psalm 22, which Jesus recites from the Cross). Jesus was very clearly indicating that this was the New Passover. We, likewise, are to eat the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

God bless,

Micah[/quote]

Didnt I point out in the course of this conversation somewhere that at the Last Supper THEY COULDNT BE DRINKING OR EATING THE BODY OR BLOOD OF CHRIST because He had NOT gone to the cross yet?

If He had not gone to the cross yet, why would the apostles be sitting there ALREADY DRINKING HIS BLOOD?

[Sojourner]

OK this might be a little out there ... but the way I've understood it is to conceive of time as an arc, rather than a straight line, and see it as being curved around the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, with that as the focus. So, that one sacrifice, while occurring at a specific point in time, nonetheless touches every point in time, and we connect with it every time we celebrate Mass.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1228310' date='Apr 3 2007, 09:26 AM']Didnt I point out in the course of this conversation somewhere that at the Last Supper THEY COULDNT BE DRINKING OR EATING THE BODY OR BLOOD OF CHRIST because He had NOT gone to the cross yet?

If He had not gone to the cross yet, why would the apostles be sitting there ALREADY DRINKING HIS BLOOD?[/quote]
Because Jesus didn't have to shed His Blood to give them His Blood. Did you read my posts above on how it's not cannibalism? That explains it. The Catholic view is not that Jesus pricked Himself and drained it into a cup and handed it to the apostles. That's why the Eucharist is called an "unbloody sacrifice." Rather, the essence of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is present in the cup, under the appearance of wine. It's not Jesus' plasma and blood cells and platelets we drink, Budge. It's Jesus on a deeper level than "organism." It's Jesus' human and divine natures, His essence, His very substance, and His very Being. In just the same way that His Death is re-presented to us here and now, it was pre-presented to the apostles at the Last Supper. A mystical connection was allowed, so that the apostles could participate in the sacrifice they would run from the next day, and that mystical connection is allowed for us, so that we may also participate. It's sort of like watching a re-run on television...are the actors going through it all again for you? No. It's their one episode being re-presented to you...and yet, it's not like television, because unlike with television, we can participate...we can look at Jesus, we can adore Him, we can love Him. It would be like if a rerun of the Simpsons came on and was going on as usual, but then I could speak to Homer or Lisa or Bart and they would reply to me...it all happened back there on Calvary, but Jesus was able to be in connection with all His believers and all His members even then, so that we can share in His sacrifice.

God bless,

Micah

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1228315' date='Apr 3 2007, 09:37 AM']OK this might be a little out there ... but the way I've understood it is to conceive of time as an arc, rather than a straight line, and see it as being curved around the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, with that as the focus. So, that one sacrifice, while occurring at a specific point in time, nonetheless touches every point in time, and we connect with it every time we celebrate Mass.[/quote]
I like it. You should look into studying theology. You have a good mind for visuals...very good for Bonaventurian theology.

[Budge]

[quote]OK this might be a little out there ... but the way I've understood it is to conceive of time as an arc, rather than a straight line, and see it as being curved around the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, with that as the focus.[b]So, that one sacrifice, while occurring at a specific point in time, nonetheless touches every point in time,[/b] and we connect with it every time we celebrate Mass.[/quote]

Come on think about all the mental gymanstics you all are having to go through to defend this false theology.

Hate to tell you, but on earth, we are still stuck in LINEAR TIME.

The Bible DEFENDS MY SIDE OF THE ISSUE.
[b]
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead [u]dieth no more;[/u] death hath no more dominion over him.[/b]

Quit trying to manipulate and change TIME, to defend this false theology..

[img]http://www.thelope.com/images/twilightzone3a.jpg[/img]

[Budge]

[quote]OK this might be a little out there ... but the way I've understood it is to conceive of time as an arc, rather than a straight line, and see it as being curved around the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, with that as the focus.[b]So, that one sacrifice, while occurring at a specific point in time, nonetheless touches every point in time,[/b] and we connect with it every time we celebrate Mass.[/quote]

Come on think about all the mental gymanstics you all are having to go through to defend this false theology.

Hate to tell you, but on earth, we are still stuck in LINEAR TIME.

The Bible DEFENDS MY SIDE OF THE ISSUE.
[b]
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead [u]dieth no more;[/u] death hath no more dominion over him.[/b]

Quit trying to manipulate and change TIME, to defend this false theology..

[img]http://www.thelope.com/images/twilightzone3a.jpg[/img]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Budge' post='1228323' date='Apr 3 2007, 10:02 AM']Come on think about all the mental gymanstics you all are having to go through to defend this false theology.

Hate to tell you, but on earth, we are still stuck in LINEAR TIME.

The Bible DEFENDS MY SIDE OF THE ISSUE.
[b]
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead [u]dieth no more;[/u] death hath no more dominion over him.[/b]

Quit trying to manipulate and change TIME, to defend this false theology..

[img]http://www.thelope.com/images/twilightzone3a.jpg[/img][/quote]

I'm no physicist ... but the idea that time is curved was first proposed by Einstein, and although I understand the proposition has been questioned with the advent of quantum mechanics, it's not a totally-out-of-the-realm-of-possibility idea, and helps with the conception of understanding how Christ's sacrifice is as relevant to us today as it was to Abraham.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.[/quote]

That's correct. He died once...and [i]for all time[/i].

Catholics aren't trying to change time. We just understand that it isn't linear, an idea that is supported by both the early theologians and modern physics. This isn't about mental gymnastics. It's pure logic.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Budge]

[quote]hat's correct. He died once...and for all time.[/quote]

That statement contradicts.

Someone cannot die once and then be dying "for all time"