How Are Christ's Merits Applied?

[RayneBeau]

The RCC teaches that the RC Mass is a carrying on of the work of salvation effected by Christ. Why are the 'merits' that Jesus received by His sufferings and death on the Cross only applied through the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass and how are they applied and who applies them?

 

[jonathan_hili]

The RCC teaches that the RC Mass is a carrying on of the work of salvation effected by Christ. Why are the 'merits' that Jesus received by His sufferings and death on the Cross only applied through the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass and how are they applied and who applies them?

They aren't only applied through the Mass. The merits of Christ are conferred to us through many, many channels of grace, especially the sacraments (of which the Eucharist - and hence the Mass - is primary).

 

[PeanutGallery]

They aren't only applied through the Mass. The merits of Christ are conferred to us through many, many channels of grace, especially the sacraments (of which the Eucharist - and hence the Mass - is primary).

Don't forget Queen of Heaven, indulgences, statues, mummified body parts, apparitions, ...

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The RCC teaches that the RC Mass is a carrying on of the work of salvation effected by Christ. Why are the 'merits' that Jesus received by His sufferings and death on the Cross only applied through the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass and how are they applied and who applies them?

Because the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross; just under a different mode of presentation.

The Sacrifice on the Cross was bloody and fleshy. The Sacrifice on the Cross was also offered by Jesus in his unglorified flesh. Hence, the sacrifice lead to suffering and death. Note, but the way that Jesus IS the sacrifice. The Cross was just the means by which he offered himself unto death.

In the resurrection, the sacrifice is glorified. Jesus flesh is no longer earthy; thus Jesus is now able to offer himself eternally to the Father as the complete sacrifice without suffering and dying. Jesus can pour himself out as the Lamb that was Slain without dying. This is what makes the Mass possible. Now the sacrifice of Christ is presented in Sacramental form; it is the same sacrifice, just not under the mode of earthly flesh. This is why Catholics are not cannibals when they receive communion. The flesh that is received is not earthy flesh. The flesh that is received is not consumed and broken down in the body. The flesh received is glorified flesh and thus is not subject to destruction. Those who accuse Catholics of cannibalism, those who think Catholics believe that Christ is "re-sacrificed" at the Mass are thinking in terms of the flesh; as Jesus tells us, the flesh profits nothing. If you want to understand this mystery, it is necessary to put on the mind of Christ and stop thinking according to the ways of the flesh.

When Christ uttered the words "It is finished" he wasn't referring to his sacrifice. He was referring to his earthy work and his earthy life.

The merits of Christ are infused in the believer through Baptism. This is what gives them a participation on the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism is what gives the Christian the right to celebrate the Banquet feast of the Lamb, the Mass and participate in it and receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

 

[balshan]

The RCC teaches that the RC Mass is a carrying on of the work of salvation effected by Christ. Why are the 'merits' that Jesus received by His sufferings and death on the Cross only applied through the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass and how are they applied and who applies them?

Well that is one big fat lie. The evidence shows that those abusive priests and their protectors when to mass and the other channels of grace and we know the results. Thousands of children+ who were victims of these so called people who went to mass, celebrated the mass and supposedly effected by Christ. But the fruit smelt. These men show it is one big fat lie, another false doctrine. They did not ever know Jesus, their baptism failed, their confirmation failed, their communion taking failed, receiving holy orders and the channels of grace failed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Don't forget Queen of Heaven, indulgences, statues, mummified body parts, apparitions, ...

Oh yes! Especially the mummified body parts - they're my favourite. Why, I have a mummified hand of St Jim the Plumber on my mantel (he wasn't a very good plumber).

 

[Mik]

Because the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross; just under a different mode of presentation.

The Sacrifice on the Cross was bloody and fleshy. The Sacrifice on the Cross was also offered by Jesus in his unglorified flesh. Hence, the sacrifice lead to suffering and death. Note, but the way that Jesus IS the sacrifice. The Cross was just the means by which he offered himself unto death.

In the resurrection, the sacrifice is glorified. Jesus flesh is no longer earthy; thus Jesus is now able to offer himself eternally to the Father as the complete sacrifice without suffering and dying. Jesus can pour himself out as the Lamb that was Slain without dying. This is what makes the Mass possible. Now the sacrifice of Christ is presented in Sacramental form; it is the same sacrifice, just not under the mode of earthly flesh. This is why Catholics are not cannibals when they receive communion. The flesh that is received is not earthy flesh. The flesh that is received is not consumed and broken down in the body. The flesh received is glorified flesh and thus is not subject to destruction. Those who accuse Catholics of cannibalism, those who think Catholics believe that Christ is "re-sacrificed" at the Mass are thinking in terms of the flesh; as Jesus tells us, the flesh profits nothing. If you want to understand this mystery, it is necessary to put on the mind of Christ and stop thinking according to the ways of the flesh.

When Christ uttered the words "It is finished" he wasn't referring to his sacrifice. He was referring to his earthy work and his earthy life.

The merits of Christ are infused in the believer through Baptism. This is what gives them a participation on the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism is what gives the Christian the right to celebrate the Banquet feast of the Lamb, the Mass and participate in it and receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Thanks for your private interpretation/opinion. Not one Scripture verse cited.

 

[balshan]

Oh yes! Especially the mummified body parts - they're my favourite. Why, I have a mummified hand of St Jim the Plumber on my mantel (he wasn't a very good plumber).

How many scapulars do you have?

 

[RayneBeau]

They aren't only applied through the Mass. The merits of Christ are conferred to us through many, many channels of grace, especially the sacraments (of which the Eucharist - and hence the Mass - is primary).

Who has the authority to make that statement? Is that an infallible statement of the RCC or is it another one of their many statements that leaves lots of 'wiggle room' for future flexible word alterations?

And, who ever said that the Roman Catholic Church should and would carry on Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, in a programed ritualistic performance that takes place in a denominational religious venue?

 

[RayneBeau]

Because the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross; just under a different mode of presentation.

The Sacrifice on the Cross was bloody and fleshy. The Sacrifice on the Cross was also offered by Jesus in his unglorified flesh. Hence, the sacrifice lead to suffering and death. Note, but the way that Jesus IS the sacrifice. The Cross was just the means by which he offered himself unto death.

In the resurrection, the sacrifice is glorified. Jesus flesh is no longer earthy; thus Jesus is now able to offer himself eternally to the Father as the complete sacrifice without suffering and dying. Jesus can pour himself out as the Lamb that was Slain without dying. This is what makes the Mass possible. Now the sacrifice of Christ is presented in Sacramental form; it is the same sacrifice, just not under the mode of earthly flesh. This is why Catholics are not cannibals when they receive communion. The flesh that is received is not earthy flesh. The flesh that is received is not consumed and broken down in the body. The flesh received is glorified flesh and thus is not subject to destruction. Those who accuse Catholics of cannibalism, those who think Catholics believe that Christ is "re-sacrificed" at the Mass are thinking in terms of the flesh; as Jesus tells us, the flesh profits nothing. If you want to understand this mystery, it is necessary to put on the mind of Christ and stop thinking according to the ways of the flesh.

When Christ uttered the words "It is finished" he wasn't referring to his sacrifice. He was referring to his earthy work and his earthy life.

The merits of Christ are infused in the believer through Baptism. This is what gives them a participation on the sacrifice of Christ. Baptism is what gives the Christian the right to celebrate the Banquet feast of the Lamb, the Mass and participate in it and receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Direct me to where God said that Christ's sacrifice was only for that present time, but would be carried on by the Roman Catholic Church in the future to keep the graces and merits flowing through the Sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Direct me to where God said that Christ's sacrifice was only for that present time, but would be carried on by the Roman Catholic Church in the future to keep the graces and merits flowing through the Sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass.

How did I know you were going to say that?

Sir, before we can even discuss what the Scriptures say or unsay, where Scripture teaches or does not teach a certain doctrine, it is important that the Protestant understands what the Catholic is and is not asserting. Until Protestants understand what is and is not being asserted by Catholics, discussion of the Scriptures is really not productive.

It is sort of like me demanding that you prove the doctrine of Scriptura Sola from Scripture----before I even know what you mean by the doctrine and do not mean.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Who has the authority to make that statement? Is that an infallible statement of the RCC or is it another one of their many statements that leaves lots of 'wiggle room' for future flexible word alterations?

And, who ever said that the Roman Catholic Church should and would carry on Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, in a programed ritualistic performance that takes place in a denominational religious venue?

As I said to another poster and I will say to you:

We really cannot progress in discussion until you understand what is and is not being asserted by the RCC. Your "Who has the authority to make that statement" nonsense doesn't help in this discussion. What you are really saying by that statement is that you do not accept my ability to explain Catholic doctrine to you. If that is the case, I fail to see why further discussion would be fruitful.

I also need comment on your statement about "infallibility." Catholics have never claimed that the Bible is unintelligible without the Church. Catholics have never claimed that we cannot read the Bible on our own and understand its basic teachings. As you well know, sir, few beliefs of the Church are infallibility defined. And this is because 90% of our Faith does not need to be infallibly defined. Infallibility is for that 10% of the time when a controversy becomes so huge, it threatens the unity of the Church. Something does not need to be infallibly defined before it can be understood, taught or believed. It would need to be infallibly defined when there is a controversy that threatens the unity of the Church.

So--don't get on your high horse with me and ask whether I "have the authority to make that statement" or whether my statement is "infallible." All that shows is your continued lack of understanding of the Catholic Faith and what is and is not being asserted.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Thanks for your private interpretation/opinion. Not one Scripture verse cited.

I can't very well cite Scripture unless or until you understand what is and is not being asserted by Catholics when they talk about the Mass and the Sacrifice, now can I?

If I do not understand the doctrine of Scriptura Sola, wouldn't it first be beneficial for you to explain what is meant by the doctrine, how it is defined and understood, before we start talking about the Scriptures and where it is contained?

You see, sir, if I do not understand the doctrine correctly then I will not accept any scriptural proof of the doctrine now will I? I would first need to understand the doctrine--and in understanding the doctrine, at least then, we can have meaningful and substantive discussion about whether the Scriptures teach it.

In a similar way, we cannot really have meaningful and substantive discussion about what the Scriptures teach or unteach about Catholicism until you understand Catholicism.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

How many scapulars do you have?

10 Gajillion.

I need that many because their magic powers will be combined and then I can get into heaven. The scapular is an important magical object in Catholicism. If your are lucky you even get to make three wishes.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Don't forget Queen of Heaven, indulgences, statues, mummified body parts, apparitions, ...

You forgot images and stained glass. Those are magic too.

 

[Teresa]

Direct me to where God said that Christ's sacrifice was only for that present time, but would be carried on by the Roman Catholic Church in the future to keep the graces and merits flowing through the Sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass.

Jesus Himself demonstrated the form of the Remembrance at the end of the last Passover meal. (Matt 26, Mk 14, Lk 22, Jn 13)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The RCC teaches that the RC Mass is a carrying on of the work of salvation effected by Christ.

Which it's not, of course - it's nothing more than just another choreographed denominational ritual.

Why are the 'merits' that Jesus received by His sufferings and death on the Cross only applied through the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass

That's all garbage, and Jesus' "Merits" (Catholic "Merits" in general) have nothing to do with anything,and aren't even REAL. Jesus lived a SINLESS LIFE, Jesus FULFILLED THE LAW by being obedient to it perfectly, and thereby became the PERFECT HUMAN SIN OFFERING for us - not primarily to "Forgive" us, but to CLEANSE US FROM ALL SIN. ANd Our "OLD MAN" (the body of SIN) was crucified with Him on the cross. Born again Christians have ALLOWED the LAW to JUDGE them, and exact its sentence - DEATH, and yet the Christian lives on physically, but with Jesus' life.

and how are they applied and who applies them?

What's "Applied" is the HOLY SPIRIT, who Indwells every Born Again Christian, and leads/teaches/empowers us as we move in LIVING RELATIONSHIP with Him.

 

[RayneBeau]

How did I know you were going to say that?

Sir, before we can even discuss what the Scriptures say or unsay, where Scripture teaches or does not teach a certain doctrine, it is important that the Protestant understands what the Catholic is and is not asserting. Until Protestants understand what is and is not being asserted by Catholics, discussion of the Scriptures is really not productive.

It is sort of like me demanding that you prove the doctrine of Scriptura Sola from Scripture----before I even know what you mean by the doctrine and do not mean.

Madam, you Roman Catholics do a great job of teaching others exactly "what the Catholic is," and "what they assert." No worries there madam.

 

[RayneBeau]

As I said to another poster and I will say to you:

We really cannot progress in discussion until you understand what is and is not being asserted by the RCC. Your "Who has the authority to make that statement" nonsense doesn't help in this discussion. What you are really saying by that statement is that you do not accept my ability to explain Catholic doctrine to you. If that is the case, I fail to see why further discussion would be fruitful.

I also need comment on your statement about "infallibility." Catholics have never claimed that the Bible is unintelligible without the Church. Catholics have never claimed that we cannot read the Bible on our own and understand its basic teachings. As you well know, sir, few beliefs of the Church are infallibility defined. And this is because 90% of our Faith does not need to be infallibly defined. Infallibility is for that 10% of the time when a controversy becomes so huge, it threatens the unity of the Church. Something does not need to be infallibly defined before it can be understood, taught or believed. It would need to be infallibly defined when there is a controversy that threatens the unity of the Church.

So--don't get on your high horse with me and ask whether I "have the authority to make that statement" or whether my statement is "infallible." All that shows is your continued lack of understanding of the Catholic Faith and what is and is not being asserted.

Madam, show me just exactly where I asked whether you "have the authority to make that statement, or whether your statement is infallible." Hello-o-o-o, madam, what statement did I say that you made?

And don't worry madam, I would never get on a high horse with you and ask anything. I wouldn't even get on a low horse with you madam, so lay all your little fears to rest. You and your little imagination are safe madam.

 

[mica]

I can't very well cite Scripture unless or until you understand what is and is not being asserted by Catholics when they talk about the Mass and the Sacrifice, now can I?

If I do not understand the doctrine of Scriptura Sola, wouldn't it first be beneficial for you to explain what is meant by the doctrine, how it is defined and understood, before we start talking about the Scriptures and where it is contained?

You see, sir, if I do not understand the doctrine correctly then I will not accept any scriptural proof of the doctrine now will I? I would first need to understand the doctrine--and in understanding the doctrine, at least then, we can have meaningful and substantive discussion about whether the Scriptures teach it.

In a similar way, we cannot really have meaningful and substantive discussion about what the Scriptures teach or unteach about Catholicism until you understand Catholicism.

that's one of the best dodging scripture tactics I've read on here in 6 yrs!

except that what the Mass is / means in the RCC has been discussed tons of times here and many of us are former catholics. tho, what it is and means has changed over the years. maybe that came with Vat II? and what the RCC/catholics say it is / means isn't. the Mass is so unbiblical.

Try reading Heb 10. do you know if you're in OC time or NC time now?