Posted on 04/03/2017 7:45:32 AM PDT by Salvation
The texts do not say that. The Roman Catholic may say that but the texts of the NT do not say that.
Come on Mrs D.....you can do better. :)
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.k Luke 22
While they were eating,f he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed* for many. Mark 14
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”* k 27Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26
It is interesting he does not use this word in connection with the passage in John 6.
The other accounts of the Passover Meal in the Gospels or the account in 1 Corinthians does not use word this either.
The passage in 1 Corinthians 11:25 and Luke 22:19 makes it clear this is a remembrance. The same word, ἀνάμνησιν, is used in both places.
There is nothing in these verses where Jesus says you have to eat/drink to have salvation. He does say, do this in remembrance of Me, though.
When we participate in the Lord's Supper, we are remembering what He did for us in pouring out His blood on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins....
if we believe.
He doesn't say...do this so you will have salvation.
The disciples already believed as previously noted so this cannot mean they had to eat/drink to have salvation as that would contradict what is taught in the NT.
Until I read this answer from Msgr. Pope, I thought this was an accurate interpretation, as well. I was taught this in the 80’s, as a Protestant.
I thought only “my” pastor recognized this interpretation. He certainly made no attribution to anyone else. I did not know it was “circulating” in some circles in the “past few years”, as Msgr. Pope said here.
Maybe the writer was from my former non-denominational church, or maybe my pastor did start it. After all 30 years is relative, more than a “few years”.
Leave my gates alone.
I think your Mr. Adams gives a very good context of the gates of Hell! Very excellent and discourages misunderstanding a storming of the gates.
Again, you leave out the words of Jesus that you reject or try to spin.
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b John 6
I give you credit for your persistence, but would not expect less from the devil that rejected God and inspired Adam and Eve to reject the Word of God.
How do you think that we (the Body of Christ) have the Mass that produces the Body and Blood of Christ if the Apostles and their successors did not pass this wonderful Sacrament down to us for the last 2000 years?
You might consider spending some time at a Catholic Church during Eucharistic Adoration, just humbly talking to Jesus. How could it hurt you and could bring God’s peace to you?
Remember the path is hard and the door is narrow. Luke 13:22-30
Would you continue down that path if it does not lead to that narrow door?
A metaphor.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/metaphor-examples.html
‘The definition of a metaphor is “a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another. For example, “the curtain of night” or “all the world’s a stage.”’
Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/metaphor-examples.html#QVg6mqmJyEQIs2EB.99
Jesus said that He was the door. Catholics then must take that literally and believe that He is made out of wood.
Jesus said that He was the vine. Catholics then must take that literally and believe that He is a plant.
Jesus said that He was the bread. Catholics then must take that literally and believe that He is made out of wheat flour.
He didn’t use the word *like* in any of those comparisons, therefore, by the Catholic method of Bible interpretation, they must be taken literally.
So Catholics then worship a god that is a piece of wood or loaf of bread.
Additionally, when Jesus took the CUP and said *this is my blood* He didn’t specify that it was just the wine in the cup. That is assumed.
So that must mean that the physical cup containing the wine is also His blood.
. If you really believe this passage to be literal it should be an easy yes no answer.
Which is it?
Now let's examine what happens during the Mass. We won't get into whether it should be conducted in Latin or English or whatever language as the Passover Meals were conducted in Hebrew or Aramaic.
In doing so we will compare the writings of the Roman Catholic priest, John O'Brien from his book, The Faith of Millions with what is recorded in Hebrews 9 and 10. As O'Brien is an ordained Roman Catholic priest his words are "official" in that this is what is claimed to have been handed down from priest to priest to priest, etc.
You also claim the Mass has been handed down from priest to priest, etc. Let's see if you agree with O'Brien. Other Catholics have not.
I can understand why.
The astute reader will note several differences in what Roman Catholicism teaches and what the NT teaches.
RCC teaches the priest calls Jesus down from Heaven while Hebrews teaches He is in Heaven until the Second Coming.
The RCC teaches Jesus is placed on the altar not once but a thousand times. Hebrews teaches Christ has been offered as a sacrifice ONE time and is not offered over and over and over again.
| Roman Catholic Mass as described by John O' Brien, Roman Catholic Priest in the Faith of Millions. | Hebrews 9:24-28 | Hebrews 10:11-13 |
| When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. |
24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. |
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. |
In comparing what a Roman Catholic priest has written regarding the Mass and what is taught in the NT we find the RCC teaching to be in contradiction of the NT.
The RCC is advancing a false teaching and it is to be rejected.
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b John 6
Hey, if you're gonna quote it, let's get the whole passage for context.
26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’” 32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48“I am the bread of life. 49“Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
John 6:26-71 NASB
Not the flesh of the literal Jesus. Not really.
No. The bread and wine are symbols of His flesh and blood.
Not the flesh of the literal Jesus. Not really.
But isn't that what the RCC claims...the bread and wine are literally His flesh and blood?!
That's why the RCC argument fails upon examination.
In John 6, if the RCC believes Jesus says they have to literally eat His flesh and blood...that's what they'd have to do. Eat His real flesh and blood.
We know that's not what happened nor has it ever happened.
Hence, the bread and wine are symbolic of His flesh and blood.
We won't review again the violation of the OT Law against consuming the blood though it should not be forgotten.
When we partake of the Lord's Supper we do so in remembrance of Him as He told us to do.
Please explain fully:
“The astute reader will note several differences in what Roman Catholicism teaches and what the NT teaches.
RCC teaches the priest calls Jesus down from Heaven while Hebrews teaches He is in Heaven until the Second Coming.
The RCC teaches Jesus is placed on the altar not once but a thousand times. Hebrews teaches Christ has been offered as a sacrifice ONE time and is not offered over and over and over again.”
I do not understand your reasoning.
Can not Jesus be in more than 1 place?
The Mass has never been a bloody sacrifice of the Lord. It is a sacrifice that we do in remembrance of His sacrifice on the Cross. The Eucharist is God’s gift to us for Him to be with us.
Perhaps the following article will help you understand the Mass (if you can put aside your anti-Catholic bias):
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-institution-of-the-mass
Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary” (306).
Can not Jesus be in more than 1 place?
Per Hebrews Jesus does not come back to earth again until the Second Coming. Hence, He is not placed back on the altar again and again and again which is really the point.
He died once for sin and there is no need of a continual sacrifice.
That is unless you want to live back under the OT Law which is what Roman Catholicism really reminds me of.
The Mass has never been a bloody sacrifice of the Lord. It is a sacrifice that we do in remembrance of His sacrifice on the Cross. The Eucharist is God’s gift to us for Him to be with us.
Sacrifice by who? The individual? Jesus?
If it's the individual what can you offer that even comes close to His sacrifice on the cross? Nothing.
If it's Jesus, the RCC is saying the Cross is somehow insufficient for the cleansing of sins...hence the need for Him to be placed on the altar again and again and again.
If, as O'Brien notes, Jesus is placed on the altar again and again and again and there's no blood shed...what's the point?
The remission of blood is what cleanses sin.
Yet, it is more than just a memorial service.
As taught by the RCC.
The NT says, "do this in remembrance of Me."
You may have inadvertently left this part out from the website.
The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.
O'Brien seems to indicate otherwise
I'll repost his comments from the same book.
While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times!
Perhaps Staples needs to proof his arguments a bit more.
“The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death;
Then what's the point? It's not a sacrifice without the shedding of blood.
but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross.
He may actually have this one part right.
This is how Christianity views the Lord's Supper. The bread and wine represent His flesh and blood. When we partake of the Lord's Supper we do so "in remembrance of Me."
It seems like the catholic is trying to have it both ways.
You want us to take John 6 as literal...well, some parts, but now you're saying per O'Brien it's symbolic??
The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically,
Except the sacrifice of the Cross doesn't need to be continually repeated over and over again.
Per Hebrews...this is a ONE TIME sacrifice.
26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. HEBREWS 9:26 NASB
8After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law),
9then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:8-14 NASB
What you've written concerning O'Brien cannot be reconciled with Hebrews.
You're back to the OT under Roman Catholicism.
Staples website really needs some work. His arguments, though he didn't write the article, are very weak.
For example.
"Do this in remembrance of me" can also be translated as "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice."
Yet, the DR translates it as this:And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 1 Cor 11:24
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. Luke 22:19
Catholicism's own translations contradict what Staple's website is trying to advance.
We do this in remembrance of Him.
If the Catholic claim did not violate every other reference to consumption of blood given in the Scripture, your claim might have some merit.
But it does violate God’s clear and concise command to NOT eat the blood because the blood of the sacrifice is to be poured out for atonement, not consumed for atonement.
So it is, by default, wrong.
The bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Jesus and are a ceremony of remembrance of what Jesus did for us, just like the Passover meal was a ceremony of remembrance of the first Passover in Egypt.
Plus, the Passover is all about pointing TOWARDS Jesus, so the Jews could recognize Him when He came.
In the Passover meal, the blood was poured out for atonement and protection from death and was NOT to be consumed, ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.