Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Joke Day

There were two Catholic boys, Timothy Murphy and Secola Antonio, whose lives paralleled each other in amazing ways.

In the same year Timothy was born in Ireland, Secola was born in Italy.

Faithfully they attended parochial school from kindergarten through senior year in high school.

They took their vows to enter the priesthood early in college and, upon graduation became priests.

Their careers had come to amaze the world, but it was generally acknowledged that Secola was just a cut above Timothy in all respects.

Their rise through the ranks of bishop, archbishop and finally cardinal was meteoric to say the least, and the Catholic world knew that when the present Pope died, it would either be one of the two who would become the next pope.

In time the pope did die, and the College of Cardinals went to work.

In less time than anyone had expected, white smoke rose from the chimney and the world waited to see whom they had chosen.

The world, Catholic, Protestant and secular were surprised to learn that Timothy Murphy had been elected pope!

Secola Antonio was beyond surprise. He was devastated, because even with all of Timothy's gifts, Secola knew he was the better qualified.

With gall that shocked the Cardinals, Secola asked for a private session with them in which he candidly asked, "Why Timothy?"

After a long silence, an old cardinal took pity on the bewildered man and rose to reply. "We knew you were the better of the two, but we just could not bear the thought of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church being called "Pope Secola."

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

From the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at

But to compare what I believe to the Catholic church. I know that their [beliefs] being so contrast to my own beliefs, there is something foundationally missing in the church. I'm not sure where it started but, I honestly am afraid for the devout catholic people I know.


Have you ever considered that the Protestant doctrines you have been taught are incomplete or distorted? By what authority do you believe them? Have you traced these doctrines back to see if they were believed all throughout the 2000 years of Christianity? If the audit trail of a doctrine disappears before 1500, then it is not what the apostles taught. If it is not what the apostles taught, then it is not authentic, historic Christianity. It is a man-made, invented, pulled-from-air tradition that is not what the writer of Scripture meant.

Have you ever written or said something that was totally misinterpreted because someone had their own agenda? People putting words in your mouth that you did not mean to say? That is what is going on here. The same words can mean different things to different people, but that does not mean both are correct or what was intended. Only one meaning is the one intended. But the only way to know that 2000 years later is to trust the authority Christ established - his Church founded on the rock of Peter.

I think the reason this forum on the Eucharist is so hot is that if Protestants admit Catholics are right about the Eucharist, then there would have to be a priesthood to consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, there would have to be bishops to ordain the priests and there would have to be the office of Pope to teach the bishops and lead the flock. Such submission to authority is intolerable to most Protestants who want to place their own opinion above the teaching authority of the church. They would have to admit that God chose to use the church as a channel of grace to help us on the journey to salvation, and therefore salvation is not instantaneous. If salvation is not instantaneous, they would have to cooperate with God's grace and that is too much work.

Perhaps you have noticed how the Catholics quote Scripture in this forum to back up their debates and show how some are ignoring the other point of view. But it seems that no matter how Scriptural Catholic beliefs are, there is no openness in this forum to admitting Catholics have as much Scriptural evidence to support their beliefs as Protestants do. It's frustrating to see this lack of openness. It's like talking to someone who keeps saying, "A cake is made of flour." when they are not open to hearing that a cake is made of other ingredients too. "A cake is made of flour" is a true statement, but it is incomplete and therefore, without the other ingredients, will not make a cake. The same is true if someone says "I have Jesus and that is all I need. I don't need a church or Eucharist or anything else." This attitude ignores all the places that Jesus said we need other things to be his disciple, like "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." in John 6. If all the Scripture Protestants will listen to is John 3:16, then what is the rest of the Bible for?

I don't think you have to worry about sincere, devout Catholics because we have the fullness of truth and are willing to be "subject to our presbyters" (1Pet 5:5) because we know how to know what is truth. 1 Timothy 3:14:15 "I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Perhaps my post does not sound charitable, but I am getting to feeling that I can't break through the "Catholics are wrong, we are the only ones right" attitude out here. I wonder if there is any openness to truth. Such disunity in the Body of Christ distresses me. Christ has only one Body and I want it to be together again. I would be happy to see someone admitting Catholics have as much Scriptural evidence to support their beliefs as Protestants do. At least I would feel heard.

God bless,

Betty G.

Monday, April 28, 2003

from the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at

Tell One
In Reply To

There are more things in your posts than I can possibly answer, but I feel compelled to make some more off-topic remarks.

Confession of sins was not invented by a pope. John 20:20-23


Having failed to read almost five hundred posts, I am not familiar with the statement you are refering too. However, in the King James Version, NIV, NASB and Nestle-Aland 24, the above passage does not equate to confession, but to forgiveness.

In John 20:20-23, Jesus says, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." How would the priests, who have received their authority from the apostles, be able to decide whether to forgive a sin if they do not hear the confession?
If you want to "dichomize" Christianity into Protestantism or Catholicism or Orthodoxism, that is your perogative.
The dichotomies I was thinking about are not between denominaitons. Protestantism is "either-or," whereas Catholicism takes a "both-and" approach. Examples follow:

Protestantism pits the Word (the Bible, preaching) against sacraments.
Protestantism sets up inner devotion and piety against the Liturgy.
Protestantism opposes spontaneous worship to form prayers.
Protestantism separates the Bible from the Church.
Protestantism creates the false dichotomy of Bible vs. Tradition.
Protetantism pits Tradition against the Holy Spirit.
Protestantism considers Church authority and individual liberty and conscience contradictory.

Pope Innocent III(circa 1160-1216), Pope Boniface VIII(1235-1303), Pope Eugene IV(1388-1447) all lived before Christianity was divided into denominations. For them to say there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is the same as saying there is no salvation outside Christianity. Para 16 of Lumen Gentium says "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church." It is trying to say God, who makes the rules, could possibly make exceptions for those who are not culpable because of their ignorance. All men who are saved are saved through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is more difficult for non-Christians to be saved, but we leave that up to the mercy of God.

http://www. catholic .com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp explains what the early church fathers taught. Take out the spaces in the URL.

Feeneyites are considered by the RCC to be in error. They are radical traditionalists that think the pre-reformation writings mean what you are contending they mean, but is not what the RCC means.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Jesus gave Peter the keys (Mt 16). The Pope does not change doctrine, but he does have the power to bind & loose; which means he has the power to make rules that guide his flock to Christ. He is the "servant of the servants of God". Luke 22:29- "It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

The phenomenon called The Sixties — the whirlwind in which the post-conciliar Church found itself caught —was relentlessly reductionistic, even to the point of cynicism, in that no institution was conceded to have any genuine transcendental purpose. Rather every such institution — government, university, family, church, corporation — was defined merely as a conspiracy of privileged people aiming to subjugate others, all claims of idealism a mere cloak for power. I hope one of these days our society will get over this fad and get back to a more traditional view of authority.

Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X are expressing the view that if Mary had not said "yes", we would not have had a Savior. In that sense, we owe her a debt of gratitude for her obedience. "You sit crowned as Queen" comes from Rev 12. I consider these writings as a bit sentimental and subjective, not doctrine.
Earlier you referred to the Ten Commandments as "Natural Laws," but didn't care to elaborate on the terminology. Will you please explain how the Ten Commandments are "Natural Laws?"
Jeremiah 31:33
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD . "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:16 echo this.
Do the RCC observe a Seventh Day Sabbath? I can go to Mass 364 days a year. Any Mass after 4 pm on Saturday fulfills the Sunday obligation.
I will address this in another post, if you please. For starters, look up the word for "saved" in I Peter 3:20. I'll be back regarding the rest of this post.
That's another one of the dichotomies I was thinking about. Perhaps you're thinking salvation is a past tense event and ignoring the "both/and" part: I am saved (1Pet 3:20), I am being saved (1 Cor 15. 2), I hope to be saved on the last day (2 Pet 1:10-11, 2 Pet 3:10-14). 1 Cor 15. 2: "[The Gospel] through which you are BEING saved." To say salvation is a past event ignores the full truth and truncates what Scripture into a simplistic, instantaneous method. This is NOT what historic Christianity taught before the 1500's. I prefer to follow what the apostles taught.

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

from the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at

Quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't receive everlasting life by drinking blood!!!
Jesus would never command us to do something that is sinful, so his command in John 6 shows he is doing something brand new; a new way of receiving his everlasting life. So it is not cannabalism to drink blood." Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." As Gentiles, we are not bound to obey the Mosaic law; only the 10 commandments apply.

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

from the debate on Eucharist... actual body and blood? forum at

But, what they did talk about which struck me as odd ( and i didn't know about this) is the catholic church refuses to let a person take part in communion if they'd been divorced and remarried. Because if the church/priest doesn't give them an annulment or they don't provide adequate proof that they deserve an annulment then they are not allowed to partake in the seven sacriments. ( I believe I said that right) Because in the churches eyes, that person or people are living in sin. Since the church doesn't recognize divorce, to them the person or persons were never divorced and his or her new marriage is not legal to them so that person is technically (in the churches eyes) not remarried. And living with another person all this equals adultry.
Matthew 19: 3 "Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).

1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. "

It is a kindness to tell someone what God expects of them. It seems Catholics are holding fast to what Scripture says, while many denominations have caved on this issue and permit divorce for any reason. The circumstances of the marriage determine whether God joined the couple together or whether they were not sacramentally married. For example, one of the conditions for a marriage to be sacramental is full consent to the marriage on the wedding day. A shotgun wedding means there was not full consent, so the marriage was probably not sacramental. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applies (1 Cor. 7:12–15). If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there was no marriage before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.

If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).

This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ. As Paul said, "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10).

SO! since the church looks down on this womans sins and no matter what she does to ask forgiveness for the divorce or what have you. The priest will not forgive it, will not let her ...partake in communion thus her chances of entering into the Kingdom has diminished. ... it is directly a violation of the Bible for people to be "forgiven" by a priest.
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." The priest is acting in the person of Christ when he speaks the words of absolution. He is not doing it under his own power but by the authority given him by ordination. The Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).

Not only that but going through Mary ... when Christ said to get to the Father by Him(Jesus). Not by her mary or her ruth. or him James. Him Jesus.
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven, and that includes Mary, and ask them to pray with us. Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!"

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

And again the hail mary's, ( aside from the praying to mary that I believe is a direct violation of scripture) the repetitive prayers.
In Mt 6:7 Jesus warns us not to use "vain repetitions" like the Pagans do. I have heard this explained as Jesus meant prayers like this were vain because the pagan gods do not exist.

The pagans would continuously repeat their requests to their gods over and over again sometimes mutilating themsleves in the process (remember Elijah and the duel between him and the priests of Baal? 1Kings 18:21ff). They did this to get the attention of their gods because in their theology, the gods might not be listening and you had to get their attention. On the other hand, Jesus taught us that his Father was always listening and in fact knew what we needed before we did. Indeed the repetitions were ultimately in vain because the pagan gods did not exist. But what Jesus was criticizing was the theology of divine indifference to the fate of men.

Each decade of the rosary is devoted to a mystery regarding the life of Jesus or his mother. The rosary is a meditative prayer, NOT a prayer of petition per se. The repetition is not because we think God is not listening to us but because we may not be listening to Him. We are trying to ponder more deeply the words of Scripture on who Mary was and what her significance is in the order of salvation. The repetion is for our benefit, not God's.

I copied some of this from and
Many people believe a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic Church and have never heard the other side of the story. I think you might be surprised to find just how Scripturally based the Catholic Church is. There are many instances where Catholics are upholding Bible teaching that others have caved on or think are just figurative. Some people think we are anti-divorce, but I see that as being pro-family. I wonder if the current secular trend to divorce will be reversed in future generations because we realize how hurtful it is for children? I wonder how far from the Bible teaching things will get before we realize we've gone too far. I like the fact that the Catholic Church does not bow to popular fads like divorce.
That's my two cents worth.

Monday, April 21, 2003

More from the Once Saved, Always Saved debate on the Eucharist at


The NEW CREATION which is Christ in you, can not sin, it is His life within you... The old nature still sins, that's what it does, there is nothing good in the old man, and he is already condemned, you're not going to take him with you when the Lord changes these vile bodies of ours, and fashions them like unto His glorious body.

We had absolutely NOTHING GOOD TO OFFER up to GOD, nothing! Jesus Christ OFFERED HIMSELF to GOD for us, and that is why the ONLY thing that you and I can do is receive the free gift that is eternal life in Him.



I strongly disagree with your assertion that mankind is depraved. We are deprived of grace, and through our free will, we do continue to sin. How can you say we "can not sin"? Have you done any scientific research in this? It would seem then the only people in jail would be non-Christians, but I think we both know that is not true. Get real!

1 Jn 1:6 If we say, "We have fellowship with him," while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." The apostle John is including himself in the "we" he writes about. Anyone who says he does not sin, is making Christ a liar. However, He does clean us from sin, and not just cover over the sin nature. We indeed have much to offer God.

2 Peter 1:4-10

Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who lacks them is blind and shortsighted, forgetful of the cleansing of his past sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your call and election firm, for, in doing so, you will never stumble." How can we partake of the divine nature here on earth if we have nothing good to offer? Why do we need to make our call and election firm if it is firm already? We are cleansed from PAST sins, not future.

1 Peter 2:5

you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Again, we have nothing good to offer?

Revelation 8:3

Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne". Again, we have nothing good to offer?

More from the debate on the Eucharist at

And I don't believe that God keeps anything secret. If He intended for us to believe it was actual flesh then it would be clear as daylight.

God did reveal clear as daylight. It's in John 6, as has been quoted numerous times in this forum. I wonder how much more clearly Jesus would have had to say it to make it clear to you. It seems very clear to me. It takes a lot faith to believe it, true, but Jesus said it clearly enough for those who are open to the truth. Are you open to the possibility that Jesus really meant what he clearly said?

"Nothing is impossible with God" as Luke says. God is omnipresent, so he is present in every square millimeter of the universe. He is outside time and space, so he can be everywhere. Why would it be impossible for him to be in a piece of bread too? Who has the power to evict God from the bread and wine? Catholics believe God is present in a special way in the bread and wine, but can you at least believe He is present in the bread and wine in the same way He is present in the universe? If God can be present in the ordinary way of omnipresence, can't He also be present in a special way that He promised He would be?

Friday, April 18, 2003

While reading the passion narrative, I keep thinking of the Shroud of Turin exhibit at Our Lady of the Snows in Belleville, Il. I can visualize the whip and the blood stains on the back of the cloth. I see the crown of thorns and the blood stains on the cloth. I can see the nails and the holes in the wrist. I realize so much more clearly how much Jesus suffered for me. This Good Friday will be more real for me than ever.

The exhibit will start to travel to other places after May 11. I hope you get a chance to see it. If not, check out
Happy Easter to all.
In some ways, all religions follow the natural law as expressed in the 10 commandments (keeping holy the sabbath is not a natural law though). But I see many differences:

Buddists believe there is no God and you have to save yourself.

Hindus believe any God will do and you have to keep being reincarnated till you get it right.

Islam believes God created the world, but abandoned us. He is a master and we are slaves. We have to work hard to get to heaven.

Jews believe God created the world, and that he loves us.

Christians believe God created the world and that he loves us so much He sent His son to save us.

Catholic Christians believe God created the world and he loves us so much He sent His son to save us. He loves us so much that Jesus remains with us in the flesh to give himself to us through the Eucharist.

Which view of God do you want to believe?

Thursday, April 17, 2003

Happy Holy Thursday!
Rev. William G. Most has a great article on the Mass at:
Why the Mass?
"It would be good for us to take some moments before each Mass to look back asking: What have I done since the previous Mass in obeying? If I have done well, I can join it to His obedience, so that it all may as it were melt into the offering of the whole Christ, Head and members. If I have done some things poorly, apologies are in order. I could look ahead too to the time shortly to come after the Mass. At times I may see something in which I know what the will of the Father is for me. Then: Do I really mean to obey? If not, this is no place for me. But if yes, the past and future obedience can focus into the one eternal moment of the double consecration. "

Monday, April 14, 2003

Brothers of Jesus?

Some people claim that Jesus had brothers, which means his mother, Mary, did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth. To support this, they quote Mk 6:17 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”

Let’s look at what the rest of the Bible can tell us about these “brothers” of Jesus. James and Joses and Judas and Simon were fathered by other men, not Joseph, so they can't be children of Mary.

The verses are listed at
Did you know?
On Passover, Jews put three pieces of matzo in a small pouch. They pull out the middle one and break it, then hide it. To me, the three breads represent the Trinity. The middle one represents the Son, who was broken and then hidden in the tomb. Most Jews don't know why they do this or what it represents, so if you have Jewish friends, tell them. I think it is a beautiful prophesy of Jesus' death on the cross right in this ancient ritual.

Monday, April 07, 2003

My debate on the forums at continues. I quote the arguments I am refuting. Here's how it's going:
Not one word of a ritual performed by a new order of priests is mentioned in scripture. I refuse to believe that bread that can rot is mysteriously transformed into the literal Body of Christ. No ritual such as performed by the various sects of the Catholic churches is recorded in scripture.
-----End Quote------
The Eucharist is not just a symbolic memorial. If Jesus, as in Heb 7:16, is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek, then he continues to offer the bread and wine like Melchizadek did. It would be shortchanging the functions of Jesus if the Eucharist is not an offering because that is what high priests do.

Not one word of a ritual performed by a new order of priests is mentioned in scripture.
-----End Quote------
Heb 7:16 says Jesus is a high priest, but not by physical descent. That is, Jesus restored the priesthood to the way it was before Moses - non-hereditary. The Levitical priesthood is replaced, not abolished. The priesthood continued after Jesus. Titus 1:5 "appoint presbyters in every town..". These priests stand in the place of Jesus at the Mass. The Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Notice that it says Jesus IS a high priest, not WAS a high priest. The priesthood and offering of Jesus continues to this day.

Heb 7:25 Therefore he is able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them. Where in Scripture does it say we can only approach God spiritually and not by physically receiving his body? "Is not the bread we eat a participation in the body of Christ?" John 6 "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you." The Passover sacrifices of the old covenant had to be eaten, and so does the Lamb of God. However, the Lamb of God is able to save us through this sacrifice.

One time sacrifice. This sacrifice is not perpetuated on Catholic altars. Their is no such thing as a Eucharist or Host in scripture.
-----End Quote------

Heb 9:2 "...:the bread of offering..." Where in scripture does it say we don't have to offer the bread offering anymore? The opposite is true. Jesus said we are to take, bless, and eat the bread as a sign of the new covenant that will be given (offered) for us. He told his apostles "Do THIS...", that is, offer the bread as a amenesis (make present again) of him. The bread offering was instituted in Lev 7:11 as a peace offering to be offered with the bloody thanksgiving offering. Eucharist means thanksgiving (I think it is a Greek word). Host means "victim" and this word is used because Jesus is the victim Lamb of God who continues to offer the one sacrifice of Calvary forever.

The "once for all" in Heb 9:12 is a rebuttal to Heb 6::6 "and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt." The argument was about what to do with people who repented after falling away, so the "once for all" does not talking about the Eucharist, so it does not apply to this discussion.

These prophesies would not be true if the Eucharist is just a symbolic memorial. It is much more than a memorial.
And in Malachi 1:11 it says that an offering will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting. This means the offering must continue all over the earth after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The offering would not be just for the Jews as it was in the old covenant. This is what Catholics do.


From bzzz: Doesn't it bother you to have a religion BASED on a sacriment that doesn't even exist in Scriptures? Don't you think, if true, Paul and Peter and others would have spent time explaining it clearly? Why then is the Bible silent on such a doctrine, but the catholic church {and your select quotes) filled with it?
End quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Epistles were written to people that were already believers, so the writers did not include all the details. Heb 6:1-2 "Therefore, let us leave behing the basic teaching about Christ..., instructions about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment." The Bible was never intended to be a textbook on Introduction to Christianity. They writers were clarifing issues, not teaching from square one. You seem to have an over-reliance upon Sacred Scripture to the exclusion of tradition. All of your objections center on the fact that there is lack of scriptural evidence for certain ritual and theological aspects of the Eucharist. Even if that were the case, (and I don't think that it is) the understanding of the Eucharist is developed by Scripture and Tradition, a tradition that is connected to the Jewish understanding of Passover and ritual meal. Without the background information, you can't interprete Scripture properly. If you want to understand the Eucharist, study about the Passover.

Luke 22:14-20 Jesus takes, blesses, breaks and gives His body and blood. Then He says "Do THIS in memory of me." He told the apostles to take, bless, break and give His body and blood. That is what the successors of the apostles do. The Last Supper is a fulfillment of the Passover. Outside that context, you can't understand it. The Passover is to be celebrated in perpetuity, so the Eucharist is a continuation of the Passover.