vox

Tess, Quoting someone who in my opinion is much more articulate than I am is a far better way to explain the topic at hand and I will continue to do so, it's quick and safe time. It is not plagiarism or infringement of any copy right laws if the source or author is acknowledged which I did. We form our thought based in this case on what we read and experience, surely you are no different. I regret that it doesn't sit well with you, however your concern is appreciated. Unfortunately I didn't get any pay cheque (referring to your other respond) from Bob.

Dear Steve, If by ongoing sacrifice you mean the Catholic Mass which is also called the celebration of the most holy Eucharist then you have missed the point all together. Please allow me to explain. Catholic just like any other Protestants, we love Jesus, and because we love Him we also follow ALL His command, which can be found in the holy scriptures ie. with the Mass including having ordained priests. This is what Bob Stanley a Catholic apologist had to say: "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation, for my name is great among the Gentiles, said the Lord of Hosts." Malachi 1:11 This is a clear prophecy of the Mass that we celebrate today. In every place there is sacrifice, as the Catholic Church is truly worldwide. Every minute of every day, somewhere in the world, a 'Clean Oblation' is offered to the Lord of Hosts. This 'Clean Oblation' is the Holy Eucharist, the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This prophecy is fulfilled by the Catholic Church. The Mass is the highest form of prayer that can be offered up to GOD. It is the source, the center, and the summit of the Catholic Church. Sacrifice, the supreme act of worship see: Heb 9:11-14,10:1-10.............. The Sacrifice of the Mass: Why do some believe that Christ is sacrificed again and again in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all? Heb 10:10 Many do not realize it, but Christ Himself offered the first Mass at the Last Supper when He offered (sacrificed) Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner, that is, under the form of bread and wine, in anticipation of His bloody sacrifice on the cross to be offered on the following day. In the Mass, Christ continues to make that offering of Himself to His Father, by the hands of the priest. "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: "Take and eat. This is my body." And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: "All of you drink of this. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins", Mt 26:26-28. Christ ordered His Church to perpetuate that sacrificial rite for the continued sanctification of His followers, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," Luke 22:19. The Catholic Church complies with His order in the Mass. The Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. It is that same sacrifice, not another, Heb 10:12. We, are in time, and to us it would seem that this one sacrifice was consummated 2000 years ago. GOD, however is outside of time and space. Everything is now in GOD's eyes, and so we are taken back to that one sacrifice as if it were happening now at each and every Mass. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice on the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of GOD, offered once. St. Paul bears witness that the sacrificial rite which Christ instituted at the Last Supper is to be perpetuated, and that it is not only important for man's sanctification, but is the principal factor in man's final redemption. In 1Cor 11:23-26, St. Paul told how, at the Last Supper, Our Lord said:"For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes." During the Breaking of the Bread, we say twice, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us," and a third time, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace." Thus at every Mass the faithful have a new opportunity to worship God with this one perfect sacrifice and to absorb more of Christ's saving and sanctifying grace of Calvary. This grace is infinite, and the faithful should continuously grow in it. The Mass is offered again and again, because of our imperfect capacity to receive. Finally, the holy sacrifice of the Mass fulfills the Old Testament prophecy: 'For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts'. (Mal 1:11). The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered every day throughout the world, and in every Mass the only truly clean oblation is offered, that is, Christ Himself; thus the Mass is the perfect fulfillment of this prophecy. And This is what Karl Keating another Catholic apologist had to say: The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus

Benedicite Fiosh, thanks but I didn't write that, it is Written by Bob Stanley from The Catholic Treasure Chest, a Catholic apologetic site, the link provided has been deleted.

Dear jc49, As Fiosh has rightly pointed out Jesus has primacy above all, He is God and no one is above Him. My respond is to the primacy of St. Peter amongst the Apostles. As to your assertion I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH....... that has been answered and explained by Fiosh in previous threads, please go back and read them. Here is further explanation from the same article by The Catholic Treasure Chest: Is Peter "Rock", or is he only a "pebble"? Protestants charge that Peter is not the "rock" because the Greek word used for "rock" in this verse means a little pebble. Right away, it is obvious from the very beginning, that there is a translation problem here. Scholars have determined that Matthew was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic, and was soon translated into Greek, so we have to go to the original written language to find the true meaning of this verse. Peter was called "Cephas" or "Kepha(s)" in Aramaic, by Christ in Matthew 16:18, and it means a large massive stone or rock. Christ said this at Caesarea Philippi, the site of a large rock mass. See Matthew 16:13. The Aramaic word for a small stone or pebble is "evna". "Kepha", when translated to the Greek language means "Petra" (a large rock) or "Petros" (a small stone). However, unlike Aramaic words which have no gender, Greek words do have gender, and "Petra" is feminine. Translators from the Aramaic to the Greek, changed the word to the masculine gender or "Petros" because they were unwilling to assign a name with feminine gender to a man. In Matthew 16:18, it is correct to say that Jesus would have said, "You are 'Kepha', and upon this 'Kepha', I will build My Church." In Greek, it would translate to, "You are 'Petros', and upon this 'Petra', I will build My Church." It was the translation of the Aramaic word, "Kepha" (Cephas), into the Greek language that caused the confusion among some who look upon Peter as not being called "rock", but only a "pebble". Matthew 16:13, 18, John 1:42, 1Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Galatians 2:8-9 Detractors argue that Peter could not be the rock because GOD is, 2Samuel 22:2. Well, not only does Scripture call Peter the rock, but it also calls Abraham the rock, in Isaiah 51:1-2. Also, who is the Light of the World? Jesus Christ is in John 8:12, but yet the Disciples are in Matthew 5:14. The words "Rock" and "Light of the World" are not limited to describe GOD alone. Regrettably links to any Catholic Apologetic sites are not allowed for whatever reasons, and being new I am yet to learn the rule and regulation governing this chat-site.

Infallibility... Exactly what does the word 'Infallible' mean when referring to the Bishop of Rome? There are so many misconceptions as to just what it means to others, especially to our Protestant brothers and sisters. Here are some answers we have received: 1. The Pope cannot tell a lie. 2. The Pope cannot sin. 3. The Pope cannot make a mistake. 4. Everything the Pope says is the absolute truth. 5. The Pope is perfect in every way. And the correct answer is... 'None' of the above. If I were told to believe any of those answers, I would have second thoughts about 'Papal Infallibility' myself. Substitute the name 'Jesus Christ' for 'the Pope' in all the answers above and the correct answer to all of them is a resounding 'YES'. The Pope is the human visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ on earth, just as Jesus Christ is the invisible head. The correct definition of Papal infallibility (ex Cathedra), as defined by the First Vatican Council (1870), is: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra-that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church." Condensed, this means, a Papal infallible statement, when all conditions are met, has freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. So, is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope a sinner? Yes, we all are sinners. He is no different from the rest of us in that respect. "But when Simon Peter saw this, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, 'Depart from me for I am a sinful man, O Lord' ...And Jesus said to Simon, 'Do not be afraid; henceforth thou shall catch men'." Luke 5:8-10. Now what about the authors of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and others? Were they infallible people or were they sinners? As I have already shown, Peter admitted that he was a sinner, and we all know the story of Saul who became Paul. We know they were all sinners. How then, could fallible men write such inerrant documents as the books they authored? It is because they were guided by the Holy Spirit. GOD prevented them from writing error. GOD is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If GOD prevented these men from writing error, why then could He not do the same for the successor of St. Peter today? The gift of infallibility was given by GOD to a very select few: In Luke 10:16, Jesus said, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." That verse is a verse of authority and it is a verse of infallibility as well. It is basic rule of Scripture interpretation to always discern Scripture verses in proper context. So, to put Luke 10:16 in its proper context, we must look at to whom Jesus spoke when He said those words of authority and of infallibility. He spoke to His disciples only, the Apostles, and not to anyone else. Consequently, the only persons authorized to preach with authority and infallibility are the Apostles, and subsequently those who followed them in a long line of succession, the Papal office and the office of the Bishops (Psalms 109:8, Acts 1:20). For complete text please go to: edit****

The Primacy of Peter A lot has been written about the primacy of peter. I present a point of view which is difficult for any detractor to refute. There is a law in Bible study called 'The Law of First Mention'. It means, the first time something is mentioned in the Bible, the same meaning holds true for that subject in all subsequent verses in which it is mentioned. This law helps to hold the harmony and integrity of scripture. GOD is eternal and unchanging, therefore what he said in Genesis has the same meaning for all chapters. The 'Primacy of Peter' has been disputed by detractors on many points. Peter was given the primacy in Matt 16:18, "AND I SAY TO THEE, THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." Some say Peter was not the 'rock'. Others try to separate Peter from the Bishop of Rome, by trying to show he was never in Rome. Still others say the words 'I WILL' in Matt 16:18, denotes some future tense. They include Matt 16:19, "I WILL give thee the keys..." as 'proof' that Peter did not receive the keys, but somehow ALL the Apostles received them in Matt 18:18. It is obvious that Jesus spoke to Peter alone in Matt 16:19 and gave him personally, the power of binding and loosening. It is also obvious that Jesus again gave him the power of binding and loosening along with the other Apostles in Matt 18:18, and yet again in John 20:23. However, Jesus gave Peter and Peter alone, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matt 16:19. Detractors of the primacy of Peter have arguments that are so weak, they are almost non-existent. I could discuss each of these points, but in this section of this letter I will discuss only one point, which makes all other arguments against the primacy of Peter moot. The Law of First Mention... When something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Bible. When GOD gave authority to someone in Scripture, HE changed the name of that person. 1. GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations', in Gen 17:5. HE gave Abraham 'primacy' over all other men. 2. GOD renamed Sara to Sarah when HE made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16. HE gave Sarah 'primacy' over all other women. 3. GOD renamed Jacob to Israel, the name of the Jewish Nation, and Jacob became the first Israeli in Gen 32:29, 35:10. 4. GOD renamed Simon to Peter in Matt 16:18, thus giving him 'primacy' over all of the Apostles. Why else would GOD give a new name to Simon? The 'Law of First Mention' as applied to Abraham, Sarah, and Israel, works very well indeed. Why then do some believe it does not work for Simon-Peter? For full text please go to: Edit****