Explaining Pope Benedict XVI on the Protestant Communities

[repeater75]

Item: The Roman doctrine of the priest as "Alter Christus" (Another Christ) with the power over God to summon Christ bodily into the elements of the Eucharist is blasphemous:

evidences:

http://www.romancatholicidentity.com...ing-human.html
"A priest...is above all other things a completely-fulfilled man"

"The Priest is an Alter Christus, Bridging the Human and the Divine"


http://www.osv.com/tabid/7636/itemid...-Christus.aspx

Oh how great is the priest! . . . If he realized what he is, he would die . . . God obeys him: he utters a few words and the Lord descends from Heaven at his voice, to be contained within a small host. Without the sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord. Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of life? The priest. Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for the journey? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest -- always the priest. And if the soul should happen to die (as a result of sin) who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again the priest. After God, the priest is everything! Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is (St. John Vianney).


Biblical Response:
"For many will come in my name claiming ,I am CHRIST and will deceive many. (Matthew 24:5)

"For FALSE CHRIST and false prophets will appear..."(Matthew 24:24)

"But I 'am afraid that just Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning ,your minds may somehow .be led from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ .For if someone comes to you and preaches a JESUS OTHER than THE JESUS we preached ,or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received ,or a different GOSPEL from the one you accepted ,you put with it easily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

Item: The Roman concept of the Eucharist (in contrast to the sacrament of Communion) is a blasphemy against the completed work of Christ on the cross because it re-sacrifices him again and again and by adding to the gospel of grace, Rome's gospel is no gospel at all.

evidences:
Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1364 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."
1365 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P33.HTM
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. the Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

The Roman Catholic Church says that it teaches as dogma or doctrine, only that which has the 'universal consent of the Fathers.' Thus we should be able to query those Fathers and find that they unanimously teach transubstantiation - Rome's version of Communion. Do we find it?

Biblical response:
When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
(John 19:30 ESV)

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Hebrews 10:12-14 ESV)

By adding a requirement of communion for salvation, Rome has added to the Gospel of grace:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:6-9 ESV)

Item: The Roman doctrine that man contributes to his own salvation by a system of merit is in direct contradiction to scripture.

evidence:

Catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P72.HTM

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

Biblical response:

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(Romans 9:11-13 ESV)

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
(Romans 9:16 ESV)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
(Romans 11:6 ESV)

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
(1 Corinthians 1:27-31 ESV)

For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
(1 Corinthians 4:7 ESV)

who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
(2 Timothy 1:9 ESV)

By the way, this stuff is not just copypasta. I went to the vatican site and read the catechism, searched my bible, etc. I'm not regurgitating someone else's material here but doing my own research.

So, you have a few proofs there for my claims from my original response. Claims were made that I misrepresented the Catholic Catechism or dogmas regarding the Priest as Alter Christus, etc. I think there is substantial evidence to support my claims directly from Roman sources and from scripture.

And I haven't even scratched the surface.

The Roman Catholic Church says that it teaches as dogma or doctrine, only that which has the 'universal consent of the Fathers.' Thus we should be able to query those Fathers and find that they unanimously teach transubstantiation - Rome's version of Communion. Do we find this to be true? Absolutely not. On the subject of the Eucharist alone, there is enough evidence to easily disprove this claim. Further, the claims to a single, monarchical episcopate in Rome descended directly from Peter is laughable and flies in the face of all evidence which is to the contrary. Linus was the first Bishop of Rome and he wasn't even the only bishop there, neither was he supreme in any sense to the other bishops named in the list in which he is named. Bishops in Northern Africa and the East had authority in their regions equal to that of Rome into the third century and possibly later.

Rome is to be applauded for the defense of critical truths of Christianity such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the defense of Christology in terms of His divinity and humanity. But she has chosen herself as the ultimate authority over Scripture in every practical sense, including the claim that Rome declared what was scripture rather than merely formally recognizing what the churches themselves had already done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is Sola Ecclesia. And I stand with the reformation in contrast to the corrupt church in Rome and I say Repent of your blasphemies against Christ and the word of God.

There is freedom and joy in the Gospel of Grace when you let go of the Roman treadmill of justification.

[One Bad Pig]

Item: The Roman concept of the Eucharist (in contrast to the sacrament of Communion) is a blasphemy against the completed work of Christ on the cross because it re-sacrifices him again and again and by adding to the gospel of grace, Rome's gospel is no gospel at all.

evidences:
Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1364 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."
1365 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P33.HTM
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. the Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

The Roman Catholic Church says that it teaches as dogma or doctrine, only that which has the 'universal consent of the Fathers.' Thus we should be able to query those Fathers and find that they unanimously teach transubstantiation - Rome's version of Communion. Do we find it?

Biblical response:
When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
(John 19:30 ESV)

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Hebrews 10:12-14 ESV)

By adding a requirement of communion for salvation, Rome has added to the Gospel of grace:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:6-9 ESV)

The Eucharist is described above as a celebration of the sacrifice of the cross, not a re-sacrifice. As far as I am aware, Roman Catholics do not view the mass as a re-sacrifice. Those are not the same. I also don't see your charge of adding to the requirement for justification substantiated here. If you want, we could discuss the role of the Eucharist in sanctification, but that would be best for another thread (actually, the whole topic of the Eucharist could stand its own thread). The technical description of transubstantiation as understood by Roman Catholics is not found in the early church fathers, but the idea of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is there and quite prominent. You can find a handful of Church Fathers who refer to the Eucharist as a symbol, but from what I've read they were not saying so in opposition to the Real Presence.

[Catholicity]

s far as I am aware, Roman Catholics do not view the mass as a re-sacrifice.

We don't.
And I agree a thread regarding the Eucharist would be best in another thread. Also Transubstantiation is one way of describing what we believe occurs at the mass. Not the only way of the description of the real presence. :)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The Eucharist is described above as a celebration of the sacrifice of the cross, not a re-sacrifice. As far as I am aware, Roman Catholics do not view the mass as a re-sacrifice.

This is important...

That one sacrifice of Christ is eternal, and we participate in it each time we relive [eg remember] it on earth, for it is ongoing at the Throne of the Lamb in heaven timelessly, and we, when we do the Divine Liturgy, participate in the timelessly ongoing Liturgy in Heaven... The heavens open, and the Church on earth and the Church in the heavens are in that service worshiping as one Church WHICH WE ARE... Christ was sacrificed once for all [all men at all times], and we partake in His sacrifice every service in which we serve Holy Communion...

Arsenios

[Catholicity]

That one sacrifice of Christ is eternal, and we participate in it each time we relive [eg remember] it on earth, for it is ongoing at the Throne of the Lamb in heaven timelessly, and we, when we do the Divine Liturgy, participate in the timelessly ongoing Liturgy in Heaven... The heavens open, and the Church on earth and the Church in the heavens are in that service worshiping as one Church WHICH WE ARE... Christ was sacrificed once for all [all men at all times], and we partake in His sacrifice every service in which we serve Holy Communion...

This is a shared doctrine among Latin Rite and Orthodox Churches
Thank you for the Clarification Arsenios. I could not have explained it better myself.

[repeater75]

Re-read 1364.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Re-read 1364.

Arsenios

[One Bad Pig]

Re-read 1364.

Re-read posts 21-24 above. Your interpretation of 1364 is not accurate. IMO it could be worded better, but that's neither here nor there.

[repeater75]

Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1364 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

[Littlejoe]

I'm Protestant, and I don't read it that way either... ...sorry.

To me, celebrated means: memorial, honoring, remembering...I think you are reading too much into it personally...

LJ

[Rusty T]

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.

[hedrick]

This is sooooooo condescending.

My first blush reply is to say that, although many individual Roman Catholics are saved in spite of, but not because of Rome's Gospel, many are not and they blaspheme the finished work of Christ on the Cross by their belief that He must be called down from heaven on a weekly basis by an "alter Christus" (another Christ) or in the vernacular, a Priest, to inhabit bodily the Eucharist and the wine and therefore re-sacrificed in order that the church may dole out a modicum of new grace each week to the faithful who are not justified already by their faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross alone for their salvation.

While I don't approve of this response, it may be an appropriate response to the OP. Who needs atheists when we've got other Christians to do this?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

While I don't approve of this response, it may be an appropriate response to the OP. Who needs atheists when we've got other Christians to do this?

Well, Re-Peter did say "On first blush"... So perhaps it is not his last word on the matter, one might hope...

And while his complaint is that Christ's Eternal Gift of the Eucharist is offered once a week,
I would add that it is even offered daily...
And this in obedience to Christ's Holy Commandment in Luke 22:19:
"This do in remembrance of Me."

And translating this more literally, it would read:
"This keep on doing unto the remembrance of Me."

And the force of this holy commandment to His Disciples at His last supper with them, after which He would no longer drink of the fruit of the Vine until in Heaven, is that it is in the very DOING of the Blessing of the Bread and the Wine with Thanksgiving to the Father that consecrates the Body and Blood of our Lord that we REMEMBER Him... That without this very DOING we will NOT remember Him... And we need His Remembrance not just once a year, or once a month, or once a week, but always, each and every day...

To accuse the followers of Christ of re-sacrificing Him in their obedience to His Holy Commandment is to accuse Christ of both pre-sacrifice and re-sacrifice of Himself... For He did this at the Last Supper prior to His Passion, and on the Road to Emmaeus, after His Passion, and He does it with His Body the Church at EVERY Eucharist thereafter...

I mean, it is just not arguable from a Biblical perspective...

Arsenios

[Cerebrum123]

Well, Re-Peter did say "On first blush"... So perhaps it is not his last word on the matter, one might hope...

And while his complaint is that Christ's Eternal Gift of the Eucharist is offered once a week,
I would add that it is even offered daily...
And this in obedience to Christ's Holy Commandment in Luke 22:19:
"This do in remembrance of Me."

And translating this more literally, it would read:
"This keep on doing unto the remembrance of Me."

And the force of this holy commandment to His Disciples at His last supper with them, after which He would no longer drink of the fruit of the Vine until in Heaven, is that it is in the very DOING of the Blessing of the Bread and the Wine with Thanksgiving to the Father that consecrates the Body and Blood of our Lord that we REMEMBER Him... That without this very DOING we will NOT remember Him... And we need His Remembrance not just once a year, or once a month, or once a week, but always, each and every day...

To accuse the followers of Christ of re-sacrificing Him in their obedience to His Holy Commandment is to accuse Christ of both pre-sacrifice and re-sacrifice of Himself... For He did this at the Last Supper prior to His Passion, and on the Road to Emmaeus, after His Passion, and He does it with His Body the Church at EVERY Eucharist thereafter...

I mean, it is just not arguable from a Biblical perspective...

Arsenios

George, I think that repeater's main problem isn't with the actual ceremony, but that it supposedly is an actually continuing sacrifice of Christ, and that it needs to keep being repeated, in order for people to be saved. In essence his problem is that it takes away from the fact that what Jesus did was enough for salvation, but the Eucharist seems(at least to him) to be trying to say that what Jesus actually did wasn't enough.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

George, I think that repeater's main problem isn't with the actual ceremony, but that it supposedly is an actually continuing sacrifice of Christ, and that it needs to keep being repeated, in order for people to be saved. In essence his problem is that it takes away from the fact that what Jesus did was enough for salvation, but the Eucharist seems(at least to him) to be trying to say that what Jesus actually did wasn't enough.

I agree with you, that this is his issue, but he added "each Sunday"... Hence the repeater-ing of what Christ did once for all... And the answer is in this cut and paste:

"To accuse the followers of Christ of re-sacrificing Him in their obedience to His Holy Commandment is to accuse Christ of both pre-sacrifice and re-sacrifice of Himself... For He did this at the Last Supper prior to His Passion, and on the Road to Emmaeus, after His Passion, and He does it with His Body the Church at EVERY Eucharist thereafter...

I mean, it is just not arguable from a Biblical perspective..."

Now it is important to REMEMBER what repeater has FORGOTTEN, which is the repeating of Christ's very WORDS: "Take... Eat... This, My Body IS, broken for you for the forgiveness of sins..." etc...

IF we do NOT so consecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord AS HE COMMANDED, then we will become FORGETFUL of CHRIST, and we will not remember Him, for we are not obeying His Holy Commandment as even HE did on the Road to Emmaeus, remember?

You see, we cannot join with re-Peter and deny what Christ affirmed...

Arsenios