tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post2653979766292142251..comments2024-03-20T10:16:21.352-04:00Comments on Pilgrims' Daughter: A Conversation About the Eucharist: Paul PavaoJenniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-22367499809904292532010-03-28T19:57:44.445-04:002010-03-28T19:57:44.445-04:00Thank you. He already has, and He does every day, ...Thank you. He already has, and He does every day, Fr. Larry. I pray the same for you.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-60644736885101307222010-03-28T14:15:38.100-04:002010-03-28T14:15:38.100-04:00Thank you for an interesting dialogue. May God bl...Thank you for an interesting dialogue. May God bless you and show you His love.Fr. Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11720853744356979336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-25305001720568004152010-03-27T15:36:00.865-04:002010-03-27T15:36:00.865-04:00I better quit now since I asked you to quit, Fr. L...I better quit now since I asked you to quit, Fr. Larry.<br />If you have anything quickly to say in response to what I've said above go ahead.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-21469483356480484402010-03-27T15:34:02.801-04:002010-03-27T15:34:02.801-04:00YOU WROTE: “The only way to know for sure if any t...<i>YOU WROTE: “The only way to know for sure if any teachings are Apostolic is to compare them to the scriptures, which we know are Apostolic and inspired.”<br /><br />This again is a tautology. You cannot say something is white because it is white, you can’t say something is Apostolic because it comes from the Apostles. How do we know it came from the Apostles?</i><br /><br /><br />I can say that something is not white because it is black, which is what I was saying above. In other words, the teachings of the RCC about Mary are not scriptural and therefore they are not Apostolic. The teachings that came later in history are different than the scriptural teachings and therefore they are not truth and are not Apostolic. I was talking about comparing teachings that are claimed to be Apostolic to those that we KNOW are Apostolic, which are the scriptures.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-72664096595210094262010-03-27T14:07:07.872-04:002010-03-27T14:07:07.872-04:00The early churches knew that and held to the final...The early churches knew that and held to the final authority of scriptures for every question. It is only later as new doctrines came in, such as using images and the doctrines of Mary, that tradition became considered more and more important, until now it is equal with scripture. In actuality it is now above scripture in practice because tradition is used to interpret scripture and this twists the meanings of the original text.<br /><br />Now please let's get back on subject.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-53974170857573025202010-03-27T14:00:14.768-04:002010-03-27T14:00:14.768-04:00You missed the point on the fact that Jesus' s...You missed the point on the fact that Jesus' sheep will recognize His voice. I know that the scriptures are His word by faith. It is the Catholic church that is sounding like athiests by saying that you can't prove that the scriptures are God's word except by the word of the Catholic Church. Which word is greater, the RCC's or God's? I recognize God's word because I am His child by faith.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-29719096598437052912010-03-27T13:57:30.335-04:002010-03-27T13:57:30.335-04:00Fr. Larry,
You are trying to get me to answer eve...Fr. Larry,<br /> You are trying to get me to answer every disagreement that protestants and Catholics have. I don't think it's necessary to do this on this post. I have lots of posts on different subjects here. If you want to discuss them, please find a post on that subject and comment there, or email me. This is getting too long, and I don't have time to discuss everything we disagree on right now.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-33383051191280096182010-03-27T13:50:02.978-04:002010-03-27T13:50:02.978-04:00Fr. Larry,
Now I would like it if we could get bac...Fr. Larry,<br />Now I would like it if we could get back to the subject of the post, if you have anything else to say about the Eucharist.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-31785539846809588642010-03-27T13:49:01.117-04:002010-03-27T13:49:01.117-04:00Here's a page with some interesting articles a...Here's a page with some interesting articles about the Canon, the Apocrypha, and the septuagint:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.inplainsite.org/html/lost_books_gnostic_gospels.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.inplainsite.org/html/lost_books_gnostic_gospels.html</a>Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-43743414004023844052010-03-27T10:25:53.871-04:002010-03-27T10:25:53.871-04:00About the septuagint, it is actually NOT universal...About the septuagint, it is actually NOT universally accepted that Jesus and the Apostles, or the other Jews, thought the apocryphal books were inspired; and it is apparently not clear that those books were included in the septuagint as scripture. The Jews had one special case for the inspired books and a separate case to keep the 'outside' books in. The deuterocanonical books were 'outside' books. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from those.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-85416412909120334902010-03-27T10:09:20.350-04:002010-03-27T10:09:20.350-04:00Ignatius of Antioch claimed that we must follow th...<i>Ignatius of Antioch claimed that we must follow the “ecclesia katolicos” (the universal, i.e. catholic, Church).</i><br /><br />Which means the church that has held to the teachings of the Apostles, which are given to us in the Scriptures. The only way to know for sure if any teachings are Apostolic is to compare them to the scriptures, which we know are Apostolic and inspired. <br />The term 'catholic' or 'universal' seems to me to be contradicted by adding the word 'Roman' to it. I know the Church is now trying to distance itself from the term 'Roman' but I would say the Roman part fits and the universal part doesn't, considering the fact that the Bishop of only one city is the head of your church, whereas in the true church, each church has it's own bishop or bishops and Christ Himself is our Head.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-38564168251968546992010-03-27T09:49:02.791-04:002010-03-27T09:49:02.791-04:00Yet earlier YOU WROTE: “The words of the Fathers h...<i>Yet earlier YOU WROTE: “The words of the Fathers have not necessarily been preserved intact and free from tampering or loss. We don't even know for sure if these quotes are what they really originally said, or if they really said those things. It could have been someone else.”<br /><br />How does one determine which Church Fathers are “really” Church Fathers and which are heretics?</i><br /><br />I don't think the Early Church Fathers were heretics, I just think they had some beliefs that were inconsistent with scripture and with each other. If most of them agree with each other on a subject even if it disagrees with Roman Catholic practice, as is the case with the canon that was appoved by Trent, then we can be pretty sure about it. The ECFs in general didn't consider the deuterocanonical books as inspired. <br />As far as not knowing which might have been tampered with, there are many different translations of the Fathers, and apparently there are sources that can help determine at least some of the spurious quotes. There are scholars on both sides who are familiar with these things. The Fathers shouldn't be our rule, but they can be a source of historical understanding.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-51673313780291094732010-03-27T01:39:39.447-04:002010-03-27T01:39:39.447-04:00How do we know that they are God’s word?
John 10:4...<i>How do we know that they are God’s word?</i><br />John 10:4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”<br /><br /> <i>Apostolic authorship cannot be the measure of truth because Judas and Thomas are apostles and the gospels attributed to them are not inspired. Who decided whether certain books were inspired? How do we know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired by God and the Gospel of Thomas isn’t?</i><br />When did the gospels of Judas and Thomas first appear in history? We know the gospels and the epistles of Paul come down from the beginning church history. The churches knew which ones were true from the beginning and passed this knowledge down. His sheep recognize His voice. Jesus promised this.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-5141491758642706582010-03-26T23:09:29.977-04:002010-03-26T23:09:29.977-04:00YOU WRITE: The scriptures are God's word and M...YOU WRITE: The scriptures are God's word and MUST logically be the final word.<br /><br />How do we know that they are God’s word? Apostolic authorship cannot be the measure of truth because Judas and Thomas are apostles and the gospels attributed to them are not inspired. Who decided whether certain books were inspired? How do we know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired by God and the Gospel of Thomas isn’t?<br /><br />YOU WRITE: “The deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture by the Hebrews or by the Early Church fathers.”<br /><br />Yet earlier YOU WROTE: “The words of the Fathers have not necessarily been preserved intact and free from tampering or loss. We don't even know for sure if these quotes are what they really originally said, or if they really said those things. It could have been someone else.”<br /><br />How does one determine which Church Fathers are “really” Church Fathers and which are heretics?<br /><br />Ignatius of Antioch claimed that we must follow the “ecclesia katolicos” (the universal, i.e. catholic, Church).<br /><br />Septuagint (a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures completed around 132 B.C.) was the version of the Bible that Paul and the other Apostles would have used in spreading the Gospel. This Septuagint, used by Paul and others contained the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Nobody claimed to use a different canon until Martin Luther. When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, it was the entire Catholic Bible that he translated. Luther, however, only later removed the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament, and put them in an appendix without page numbers - along with Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Initially, he simply transcribed what was accepted by all Christians of the time as the entire Bible. Later, he acted on his own initiative to remove books he felt were "improper". ..Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants removed them!<br /><br />2 Peter 1:20 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”<br />Who determines which Church fathers can be believed and which are heretics? Who determines which Books of he Bible are canonical and which are heretical?<br />The Bible developed out of the lived tradition of the Church. Those books which did not conform to the lived tradition of the Church were declared not inspired. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 396A.D. and 398 A.D. established the Canon of Scripture. It was the Church (whether or not you argue that it was the Catholic Church, is another question) that declared the Canon of Scripture and the Church which declared it closed. No individual can take that authority on themselves. 2Peter 1:20—There is not personal interpretation of Scripture.Fr. Larryhttp://romancatholichomilies.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-51208240624168236712010-03-26T16:50:11.467-04:002010-03-26T16:50:11.467-04:00I should add that the biblical word for priest is ...I should add that the biblical word for priest is never used of the presbyters and elders but it used for the Israelite priests or the High Priest, who is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-52137231113596819142010-03-26T16:12:00.855-04:002010-03-26T16:12:00.855-04:00Certainly presbyters (elders or pastors) have an a...Certainly presbyters (elders or pastors) have an anointing and a gift from the Holy Spirit that can be conferred by laying on of hands of other elders, as Paul taught. I was referring to the Paul's passages about the Lord's Supper not having anything to do with the practice of the Mass as it developed later. The word 'priest' in the Bible is a separate word from the word for elder or presbyter. And the practices of Rome that make the people totally dependent upon the priests are not scriptural.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-56921960525171107252010-03-26T14:49:02.040-04:002010-03-26T14:49:02.040-04:00How come the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Ju...<i>How come the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are not included in the canon of Scripture? Who made the decision not to include them? How was this decision communicated to the Church? Or was the Bible simply handed to St. Paul like the Book of Mormon was handed to Joseph Smith by an angel?<br />Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants removed them! Who gave Martin Luther the authority to change Sacred Scripture?</i><br /><br />I don't 'see' any such thing.<br />Martin Luther is not the final authority, nor do we follow his recommendations for what constitutes the canon. We can go back much further than that for authority. <br /><br />The 'Roman Catholic Church' did not give us the canon. The church councils that did define it (not universally) were the spiritual ancestors of all the churches, not just those who believe the Bishop of Rome is the supreme ruler of all churches.<br /> <br />I believe there was never an ecumenical (universal) council to state a list of books that all the churches accepted as inspired. The council of Trent was probably the first one to claim to be such, but since the bishop of Rome has no right to be the ruler of the churches in the entire world, and the churches represented at Trent were only the ones who recognized the pope's authority, it can't truly be considered ecumenical. <br />Secondly, the churches had no need of an official list of books at first because they knew which ones were really written by the Apostles, until false gospels and epistles began circulating and there was a need to make a list.<br /><br />The 'protestants' did not remove any books from the Bible. The deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture by the Hebrews or by the Early Church fathers. They were read as possibly being helpful, just as we read books today, but were not considered Holy Spirit inspired.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-55118893614310442542010-03-26T14:22:03.460-04:002010-03-26T14:22:03.460-04:00I don't agree with everything Martin Luther sa...I don't agree with everything Martin Luther said or did, but I admire him for standing for the truth in his time. I think he succeeded in much with God's help, and he also failed at much because he often walked in the flesh, as we all often do.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-12029600056761772402010-03-26T14:12:57.054-04:002010-03-26T14:12:57.054-04:00And elsewhere the Bible does say 'faith apart ...And elsewhere the Bible does say 'faith apart from works.' Luther was only stressing what was implied in the passage and clearly stated elsewhere.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-23998266511199647352010-03-26T13:51:52.310-04:002010-03-26T13:51:52.310-04:00John 21:25 There are also many other things that J...<i>John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.</i><br />Nobody claims that scripture contains everything ever said or done by Jesus or the Apostles, only that it is the final authority to show us the truth if there is a question about it. <br /><br /><i>Furthermore, if you read the original Greek of the Scriptures you will find that we are saved by faith. Martin Luther added the word “alone” in his own personal interpretation.</i><br />Martin Luther is not my final authority, nor my authority at all. Scripture is. Martin Luther focused on this because he was reacting to the Catholic Church of his day adding things to the gospel. And he was not the first to say that the word 'alone' is implied there. There were Early Church Fathers that said this too. I think I read that on 'Beggars All' blog which is on my sidebar. The word 'alone' doesn't mean nothing else is involved, but that our works do not save us.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-57414852092518675962010-03-26T13:40:20.781-04:002010-03-26T13:40:20.781-04:00Before you start on Sola Scriptura, let me ask you...<i>Before you start on Sola Scriptura, let me ask you where is that found in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY authority. Second Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is useful” it does not say “scripture alone.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul tells the church of the Thessalonians “So, then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word or mouth or by letter.”</i><br /><br />Fr. Larry,<br />Is there another authority which can say of itself "The mouth of the LORD of Hosts has spoken it"? Only scripture can claim this anymore. The Apostles and prophets are gone and have left the inspired word of God for us to use as our FINAL authority, not our ONLY authority. All other authorities must bow to God. The sciptures are God's word and MUST logically be the final word. If any other authority contradicts scripture, that other authority must not be obeyed.<br />Again, I did not say ONLY scripture is useful. What does the passage in 2 Timothy say scripture is useful FOR? <b>and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.</b> <br />It says scripture teaching makes the man of God 'perfect' or 'complete'. That word is the one that counts in that passage, not only the word 'useful.'<br /><br />In the 2 Thessalonians passage, it doesn't say that the spoken word an the written word were different. I believe those words were the same. The point is they were spoken or written by an Apostle who was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not that spoken words are just as important as Scripture even if they AREN'T inspired by the Holy Spirit. We know that the word was also spoken in Bible times. It is spoken now too when we are preaching it or quoting it.<br /><br />The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth when she IS BEING the church. She is upholding the truth of the gospel like a pillar upholds a building. BUT this also assumes that the church is built upon the Truth, who is the Word of God Himself, Christ the Lord. So the church is built upon the truth of the gospel AND upholds it. She can't uphold it if she doesn't stand upon it first. This is obvious to those who believe God's word is final.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-73331922847229223762010-03-26T13:11:52.293-04:002010-03-26T13:11:52.293-04:00You wrote “Our final authority is the scriptures.”...You wrote “Our final authority is the scriptures.”<br /><br />Before you start on Sola Scriptura, let me ask you where is that found in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY authority. Second Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is useful” it does not say “scripture alone.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul tells the church of the Thessalonians “So, then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word or mouth or by letter.” For a further discussion of the problem of Scripture alone see : http://firstcomeslove.wordpress.com/my-story/my-story-part-iv/<br /><br />What is the “Pillar and the Foundation of the Truth” according to the Bible? First Timothy 3:15 says that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is the Church.<br /><br />John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.<br /><br />Furthermore, if you read the original Greek of the Scriptures you will find that we are saved by faith. Martin Luther added the word “alone” in his own personal interpretation.<br /><br /><br />You wrote, “Only the writings that we know are from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses that were inspired by the Holy Spirit should be used as our final authority.”<br /><br />How come the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are not included in the canon of Scripture? Who made the decision not to include them? How was this decision communicated to the Church? Or was the Bible simply handed to St. Paul like the Book of Mormon was handed to Joseph Smith by an angel?<br />Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants removed them! Who gave Martin Luther the authority to change Sacred Scripture?<br /><br />[St. Paul] mentions nothing about a bishop or about the Mass or anything that resembles the priestly practices of the Catholic Church. (in 1Cor. 11)<br /><br />St. Paul’s 1st Timothy 4:14 “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.” Timothy was given the “gift” of shepherding by the “imposition of hands” which is the way current deacons, priests, and bishops are ordained for the service of God’s Church.<br /><br />In the Letter of James, 5:14 we read, “Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord,” The priests (presbyters) are to anoint the sick with oil. This is what happens today in the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.Fr. Larryhttp://romancatholichomilies.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-47675347197972538032010-03-24T16:26:14.871-04:002010-03-24T16:26:14.871-04:00Fr. Larry,
You said:
How could a “fundamental misu...Fr. Larry,<br />You said:<br /><i>How could a “fundamental misunderstanding” enter the Church less than 100 years after its founding when Jesus promised (John 14:26) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.” Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church? Did Jesus break His promise?</i><br /><br />Much of the New Testament is taken up with Jesus and the Apostles warning the churches that false teachers and 'grievous wolves' will come in, and were coming in even during the Apostles time, and that the believers should take care to hold to the gospel first given by Christ and the Apostles. It should not be surprising that this happened just as Paul said it would. It is not the Holy Spirit that failed or left, it is that the 'church' or parts of it have left Him. And it's not so much that the real church has left but that unbelievers have come in and made more unbelievers like themselves to form so-called churches. And of course real churches have some unbelievers in them, but it should not be the majority; it should be very few, as it was at the beginning.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-37139414523452375912010-03-24T13:37:16.400-04:002010-03-24T13:37:16.400-04:00Fr. Larry,
I don't have time to go into detail...Fr. Larry,<br />I don't have time to go into detail right now, but one thing I will say. Our final authority is the scriptures, and if Justin Martyr and Ignatius don't fully line up with the scriptures then those things that don't line up are not to be used as a rule. I'm not saying these men were heretics; I'm saying their writings are not scripture; they are not infallible; and they are often inconsistent with each other and even with their own other writings. <br />One more thing. God has preserved His inspired word. God had no reason to preserve uninspired words of other believers. The words of the Fathers have not necessarily been preserved intact and free from tampering or loss. We don't even know for sure if these quotes are what they really originally said, or if they really said those things. It could have been someone else. Only the writings that we know are from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses that were inspired by the Holy Spirit should be used as our final authority. <br />Another thing occurs to me about the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians Paul writes about the Lord's Supper to correct the believers about their practice of it. He is writing to all the congregation, not to a bishop. He is telling the members that they are not practicing the Supper correctly because they are not loving each other in it and are not remembering it's purpose. He mentions nothing about a bishop or about the Mass or anything that resembles the priestly practices of the Catholic Church. He never says a bishop is needed to do anything except lead and teach humbly. and a bishop was only a pastor of ONE church. This was probably so in Ignatius' time too.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31521339.post-3514682850418433042010-03-23T16:32:17.485-04:002010-03-23T16:32:17.485-04:00--"(Metaphysical really means nothing; it'...--"(Metaphysical really means nothing; it's just a word used to try to say something is there physically but doesn't appear to be there)"--<br /><br />Metaphysical is “real” it is simply just a different reality than the one we are used to. A fish could no more think about living outside of water than a human being could think about living outside of time. This is the meaning of eternity. Eternity is beyond our physical experience (meta= beyond; physical=our bodies). The soul exists but it does not have physical characteristics. You cannot point to a specific spot in the body and say “there is the soul.” You cannot perform surgery and physically remove the soul from the body; but that does not make the soul any less real. It makes the soul metaphysical—beyond the physical.<br /><br />--“It was within the last 50 years that the Catholic church taught in it's catechism that the Mass was a resacrifice of Christ.”--<br /><br />The Council of Trent in 1553 stated that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was one sacrifice for all which is made present through the celebration of the Mass. <br /><br />Chapter 1; Session 22 “whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, [made present again] and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,”<br /><br />--"I believe that a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of the sacrament began to develop over time in the churches."--<br /><br />Justin Martyr was writing in 165 A.D.; roughly 130 years after the Resurrection. St. Ignatius of Antioch writing in c 115 A.D (roughly 85 years after the Resurrection). St Ignatius wrote: “They stay away from Eucharist and prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior, Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up by His goodness. Shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance of God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one whom he has delegated. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted to hold an agape [Eucharist] independently of the bishop.” <br /><br />How could a “fundamental misunderstanding” enter the Church less than 100 years after its founding when Jesus promised (John 14:26) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.” Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church? Did Jesus break His promise?Fr. Larryhttp://romancatholichomilies.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com