Posted on 04/30/2010 8:03:26 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random):
The Sacrifice of the Eucharist as the central act of worship of the Catholic Church. The "Mass" is a late form of missio (sending), from which the faithful are sent to put into practice what they have learned and use the graces they have received in the Eucharistic liturgy.
As defined by the Church at the Council of Trent, in the Mass, "The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is present and offered in an unbloody manner." Consequently, the Mass is a truly propitiatory sacrifice, which means that by this oblation "the Lord is appeased, He grants grace and the gift of repentance, and He pardons wrongdoings and sins, even grave ones. For it is one and the same victim. He who now makes the offering through the ministry of priests and he who then offered himself on the cross. The only difference is the manner of offering" (Denzinger 1743).
The Mass cannot be understood apart from Calvary, of which it is a re-presentation, memorial, and effective application of the merits gained by Christ.
The re-presentation means that because Christ is really present in him humanity, in heaven and on the altar, he is capable now as he was on Good Friday of freely offering himself to the Father. He can no longer die because he now has a glorified body, but the essence of his oblation remains the same.
The Mass is also a memorial. Christ's death is commemorated not only as a psychological remembrance but as a mystical reality. He voluntarily offers himself, the eternal high priest, as really as he did on Calvary.
The Mass is, moreover, a sacred banquet or paschal meal. The banquet aspect of the Mass is the reception of Holy Communion by the celebrant and the people, when the same Christ who offers himself to the Father as a sacrifice then gives himself to the faithful as their heavenly food. It was this fact that inspired the Holy See, after the Second Vatican Council, to restore the practice of receiving Communion under both kinds for all the faithful: "The entire tradition of the Church teaches that the faithful participate more perfectly in the Eucharistic celebration through sacramental Communion. By Communion, in fact, the faithful share more fully in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In this way they are not limited to sharing in the sacrifice by faith and prayer, nor to merely spiritual communion with Christ offered on the altar, but receive Christ himself sacramentally, so as to receive more fully the fruits of this most holy sacrifice. In order that the fullness of the sign in the Eucharistic banquet may be seen more clearly by the faithful, the Second Vatican Council prescribed that in certain cases, to be decided by the Holy See, the faithful could receive Holy Communion under both species" (Sacramentali Communione, June 29, 1970).
Finally the Mass is the divinely ordained means of applying the merits of Calvary. Christ won for the world all the graces it needs for salvation and sanctification. But these blessings are conferred gradually and continually since Calvary and mainly through the Mass. Their measure of conferral is in proportion to the faith and loving response of the faithful who unite themselves in spirit with the Mass.
It is in this sense that the Mass is an oblation of the whole Mystical Body, head and members. Yet, among the faithful, some have been ordained priests and their role in the Mass is essentially different from that of the laity. The priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Nevertheless the role of the participants is of great importance; not as though there would be no Mass without a congregation but because the people's "full, active and conscious participation will involve them in both body and soul and will inspire them with faith, hope and charity." The more active this participation, the more glory is given to God and the more grace is bestowed not only on the Church but on all the members of the human race.
(Etym. Latin missa, from mittere, to send; so called from the words of dismissal at the end of the service: Ite, missa est, "Go, [the congregation] is dismissed.")
You posted: “The physical properties of wine and bread do not change. The substance changes.”
Sounds like you are receiving Christ by faith, not physically, since there is no change in the physical properties of the bread and wine.
I can agree with that.
I receive more of Christ, by faith, every time I remember Him. I say more, because I already belong to Christ, and He belongs to me. I “realize” the truth more, however, when I meditate on it and apply it to my life.
And how do you know that?
Hmmm...Let's see about that!
Mt. 26:26-29 - "While they were eating (of the Passover Feast), Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will not drink from thie fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom'."
Mark 14:22-25 is identical with Mt. 26:26-29. Luke 22:14-20 virtually mimics both Mark and Matthew's recording of the Passover Supper.
John 13:20 - "I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accept me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."
John 20:21 - "Again Jesus said, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I am sending you'."
Sorry, none of the verses in Mt. 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 record that Christ offerred a Mass. Luke 22, as you specifically mention, doesn't record a thing about telling the Apostles to do the same as He did.
Sorry again, John 13:20 and 20:21 do not say that Jesus sent them AS HIMSELF. You will need different verses to show that the apostles took a part of the Passover Supper and told believers to remember Jesus' death, burial and resurrection until He comes again as they eat of the bread and drink of the fruit of the vine (Which there is!).
I think you need to pay closer attention to what you read, and not see things in there that are not mentioned.
Nowhere do I read that the priestly powers were given wholesale to everyone.
Neither do I!!! In fact, just what "priestly powers" are you talking about? However, I do read that all believers are given the power to offer a sacrifice of themselves up to God! Don't forget that one!
So who is lying about the scripture?
I don't know! Not me, for sure. I do correct those who misquote the Scriptures, but I sure don't call them a liar for doing so. However, lies have been told over the centuries that have been repeated so often that many believe those lies - such as "transubstantiation" done under the powers of a "priest". You will never find that doctrine mentioned in the Bible, period!
Keep on reading the Bible to grow in the knowledge of the Christ, Jesus.
without a physically present ordained man to re-create Christ
Of course, there is not re-creation but rather presentation of Christ already in existence. Christ, further, is not a created being. To your point, it is a mark of the true Church that the priesthood lives forever in it:
14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. 16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness (2 Peter 1)the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
what is the substance of wine and bread if not its physical properties?
The substance of Eucharistic bread and wine is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The physical properties are bread and wine. Christ prepared us for this miracle. In the Gospel we read a number of times that people had a difficulty recognizing the risen Christ. Mary Magdalene recognized His voice; the disciples at Emmaus recognized Him in the bread. We do likewise in the Mass.
you are receiving Christ by faith, not physically
Both. Of course faith is necessary in anything a Christian does; but also His flesh is "food indeed"; it is eaten physically.
Why, I taste it quite often. Also, consecrated species were tested, I believe, a number of times. There is nothing against such inquiry.
none of the verses in Mt. 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 record that Christ offerred a Mass
He took bread, blessed it, made it His body and gave it to the disciples and they ate it. That's Mass.
Luke 22, as you specifically mention, doesn't record a thing about telling the Apostles to do the same as He did.
Sure it does:
Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22:19)
John 13:20 and 20:21 do not say that Jesus sent them AS HIMSELF
They say that whoever sees or hears or receives a apostle sees, receives and hears Him. It also says that an Apostle is to Church what Christ is to the Father. Make what you will of it; baptist ministers He did not send.
I do read that all believers are given the power to offer a sacrifice of themselves up to God
Yes, we all should offer a sacrifice of ourselves; but the topic is the sacrifice of the Mass; that belongs to ordained priests alone, as we've seen.
You will never find that doctrine [of Transubstantiation] mentioned in the Bible, period!
Not by word, but the phrase "this is my body" applied to bread expresses it.
Human imagination can create in their mind many sensations that are false. Smell an onion and taste a potato - it tasts like an onion.
He took bread, blessed it, made it His body and gave it to the disciples and they ate it. That's Mass.
He took bread, ate, and said it represented His body; same with the wine representing His blood - that's all. Christians do the same, and as Jesus said, do this in remembrance of Me; Paul explained that we do this to remember His death, burial and resurrection until He returns again - which we Christians do "whenever we get together." And for another thing, your "Mass" is no where near what Jesus said and did.
"Luke 22, as you specifically mention, doesn't record a thing about telling the Apostles to do the same as He did."
Sure it does:
Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22:19)
What you specifically mentioned in a previous post is not found in that passage and verse. As for doing this as a memorial for Him we Christians do everytime we get together, just as Paul said.
They say that whoever sees or hears or receives a apostle sees, receives and hears Him. It also says that an Apostle is to Church what Christ is to the Father. Make what you will of it; baptist ministers He did not send.
Not being a "baptist", that is immaterial and that comment is way out of line: He also did not send "priests" per se, but Christians to spread His message of salvation. Who were the first ones to spread His message to the various nations? - read your Bible. Yes, whoever spreads the Good News, is, in a way, doing exactly what Jesus told Christians to do - or do you hide it under a basket? And, BTW, where in the Bible do you see that any Christian is to convert people to the Roman Catholic Church? Nowhere in the Bible do you find the Apostles or anyone spreading the Good News of Salvation telling converts to join a specific church!
Yes, we all should offer a sacrifice of ourselves; but the topic is the sacrifice of the Mass; that belongs to ordained priests alone, as we've seen.
Thanks for agreeing with me and the NT! But, nowhere are Christians told to create a "Mass" and do a "sacrifice" as part of it - especially to create a caste of "priests" to do it for them. BTW, your imagination may have "seen" it, but imaginations play havoc with the truth many times, and lead others down the broad road.
"You will never find that doctrine [of Transubstantiation] mentioned in the Bible, period!"
Not by word, but the phrase "this is my body" applied to bread expresses it.
Like I said, imagination and suppositions are not what Christians base their beliefs upon - they lead to superstitions and deceive gullible people.
Your turn :-)
Looks like you’re going to have to stick with your Catholic traditions.
I’ll stick with biblical Christianity.
Sorry you haven’t experienced the sanctification that comes form Jesus’ one offering...and is forever.
Perhaps you should work harder, as, apparently, Jesus’ offering of Himself for our sins, absent our works is not sufficient to save per your theology. I’m sorry your Jesus is so weak, but if your priest is strong enough, perhaps his sacrifices, coupled with Jesus’ original one and your works will get you where you want to be, wherever that is...since you think claiming to “be saved” is heresy.
Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
I don't know what you are talking about. The Eucharist does taste like unleavened bread and wine. No illusions there. We can speculate why it pleased the Lord to make it so that it does not become His flesh also in taste and appearance, but that part the scripture does nto explain so we better leave it at that.
Christians do the same
No, priests do the same. Christian laity cannot give bread and say "This is the Body of Christ". The laity was not sent by Christ to "do this".
your "Mass" is no where near what Jesus said and did.
The Mass is exactly the same thing: prayers, readings from the scripture (that is the commemorative part), consecration of the Eucharist by the priest and eating it by all.
is not found in that passage
There you go again, denying plain scripture because it does not fit your man-made theology. What do you think "do this" means?
He also did not send "priests" per se, but Christians to spread His message of salvation
He sent His Church to do many things: consecrate the Eucharist ("do this", the part you are trying to ignore); forgive sins (John 20:23), ordain priests (1 Timothy 4:14), annoint the sick(James 5:14), baptize and teach (Mark 16:15-16). Teachign and baptising is the only part that can be done by anyone; the reast requires at least priestly ordination.
imagination and suppositions are not what Christians base their beliefs upon
All we do is hear Christ say "this is My body" and believe Him. We don't run away from the Holy Scripture -- we are Catholics.
Catholicism is biblical Christianity. What you want to stick with is in essential part contrary to what the scripture plainly teaches, -- a surrogate Christianity for the modern man. It is attractive to many precisely because it is wrong.
You reminded me of a sad story.
In Russian Orthodox Church there was an internal schism in 17c. The Patriarch introduced new rubrics of the Liturgy (better aligning it with the Greek) and some believers refused to go along. They became known as Old Believers, the "starovery".
Unfortunately for them, not a single bishop went into schism with them. The Old Believers were left with priests and churches (all in small numbers), but no bishops.
Well, only a bishop ("patriarch" in Orthodox usage) can ordain priests. Naturally, no one can simply become bishop either, -- he has to be consecrated by another bishop in apostolic succession. So the Old Believers were left without an ability to perpetuate their priesthood, and therefore they faced the prospect of not being able to celebrate the Eucharist.
As the living Old Believer priests were approaching frail age, they would consecrate a large bread and then retire. They devised a way to preserve dry consecrated bread for centuries if need be. And this is what these poor people have now: once a year they would scrape off a few crumbs and have the Holy Communion with them.
Till He comes again.
Think what you will about them, this is a good illustration of the strength of authentically orthodox Christian faith.
I don't know what you are talking about.
Then you didn't read what I said - read it again! The human imagination is a wonderful thing, it can create for itself unsound beliefs, such as smelling an onion while eating a piece of potato (making one think he/she is eating an onion). Give it some thought!
The Eucharist does taste like unleavened bread and wine. No illusions there.
To me, when I was a Catholic and partook of the communion, the "bread" was virtually tasteless, and there was no "wine". However, at my mothers funeral, the priest invited all family members, regardless of their religious affiliation, to partake of the communion. I did, although no longer a Catholic, and partaking did consist in a sip of the wine, which tasted like wine :-) - so yes, to you it may taste like unleaven bread and the wine as wine; but to me, having never tasted "unleaven bread", well, I have no idea what it tastes like.
"Christians do the same..."
No, priests do the same. Christian laity cannot give bread and say "This is the Body of Christ". The laity was not sent by Christ to "do this".
All Christians are "priests", and as I've many times led the assembly in meditation and prayer before partaking of the Lord's Supper, and I hold the bread up and say that Christ said, "This is my body"; and likewise with the wine, which Christ said "this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many." "Do this in memory of me." In Jesus' discourse in John 6 we find Him saying to the apostles after many disciples left him that "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and thay are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." These last words of Jesus are included in the context of his talk on being the "bread that came down from heaven", which is Himself! Is that too hard to understand?
The Mass is exactly the same thing: prayers, readings from the scripture (that is the commemorative part), consecration of the Eucharist by the priest and eating it by all.
I sure don't find that in any of the verses and passages that describe the Lord's Supper conversation. That may be your reading between the lines of Scripture, but it isn't mine.
Teachign and baptising is the only part that can be done by anyone; the reast requires at least priestly ordination.
And where in the world do you find that in Scriptures?
"imagination and suppositions are not what Christians base their beliefs upon."
All we do is hear Christ say "this is My body" and believe Him. We don't run away from the Holy Scripture -- we are Catholics.
Hmmm...I figured as much, as I was once a Catholic. However, imagination an suppositions make up the majority of what Catholics believe. Jesus said much more than "this is my body", but then Catholics don't seem to finish reading the whole context from which they get their partial belief. How can you brush off what Jesus said in John's recording of Jesus' discourse - that the words He had just spoken to them are "spirit and life"?
I know where you are coming from. I was once there and was just as adamant as you in defending my belief. However, as I was urged to read further by Fr. Stark, Jesus' discourse took on much more importance to me, and corrected my mistaken beliefs. I found in closer investigation of the Scriptures that I was mistaken in holding to the beliefs as you uphold. I was evidently wrong once in believing all that my teachers taught, thinking that they had investigated everything they taught that I should believe. I was wrong once through lack of careful study and do not wish to repeat the same mistake of blindly believing what others say. Assertions and denunciations will not brush away the truth found in the Scriptures, nor will a recital of ecclesiastical traditions. The whole case rests upon "what do the Scriptures say?" as only Scripture can prove false beliefs wrong.
It's up to you now...
Yes, that is a sad story.
Sad that un-scriptural beliefs based on the teachings of men would cause these “believers” to miss out on truth and its benefits.
Actually, your story is an illustration of the bondage brought by religious superstitions.
It is, but in receiving the Eucharist no imagination is involved. We know it is the body of Christ but it is spiritual knowledge and not any kind of affectation.
These last words of Jesus are included in the context of his talk on being the "bread that came down from heaven", which is Himself! Is that too hard to understand?
What is it that you think I don't understand? Regarding all Christians being priests, we are inwardly priests to our family. To consecrate the Eucharist requires ministerial, ordained, priesthood because we have evidence of such in the scripture. We have no evidence of everyone consecrating the Eucharist.
your reading between the lines of Scripture
You disagree that at theLast Supper there was a prayer, consecration of the Eucharist by Jesus and eating it by all?
And where in the world do you find that in Scriptures?
The Church is authorized to regulate worship as seen in the authority to "bind and loose" given to the Church. The Mass being a sacrifice is explained by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11, the priest is one who offers sacrifice is common understadning of priesthood, and the requirement of ordination is directly referred to in 1 Timothy 4:14 as "imposition of the hands of the priesthood", as well as from the fact that at the Last Supper Jesus told the Apostles to do what He just did, make the bread and wine into His body and blood.
Jesus said much more than "this is my body"
Indeed, but nothing in the wider context controverts the Catohlic understanding of "This si my body" and "do this". How, for example, the reference to His words being "spirit and life" invalidate them?
The whole case rests upon "what do the Scriptures say?"
Not the whole case, as it is the authority of the Church that produced the scripture. However, the scripture supports wholly the Catholic doctrine and condemns Protestant fiction directly, as the reader of this thread can see.
The story is sad because in their ignorance the Old Believers forgot that they owe their obedience to their bishop, who certainly has the authority to change the rubrics.
Interestingly, on the subject matter they were half wrong and half right. The Sign of the Cross is shown on 6c. icons and Romanesque frescoes to be like the Old Believers insisted; but Jesus is properly spelled in Slavonic with double I, “Iisus”; most of their other objections were purely ritualistic, like how many times should one repeat Alleluia in a particular place during the liturgy.
But their desire to stick with what they understood to be the faith of the Fathers is admirable. What contrast is it to the self-serving mendacious arrogance of the Protestant Reformation.
Almost everything I brought out from the Scriptures about the offices of the church of Christ. And in so doing, everything you said about priests is suspect - both the office and the duties. Thusly, You know what I think, and I know what you think. Therefore, knowing that both of us are just getting an exercise in typing, maybe we should just leave it as is. You go your way and try to convert someone to your church, and I'll go by Scripture and evangelize those who will listen to turn to Christ alone for salvation.
It's been interesting typing at ya. It's sort of sad to see that you aren't interested in investigating exactly what the Scriptures had to say on the subjects we discussed - but what will be will be, as they say. Let us let the lurkers who read this thread decide which one of us has the best argument. You made your point, I made mine. Now it's out of our hands. May God bless you as you are subjected to the arguments of others.
See you on other threads on other subjects :-)
Martin Luther didn’t leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church left him...just as it left the Bible.
I guess the pope then knew how to act much swifter than ones do today, it took less than three months for Luther to be excommunicated. Then again, he was not molesting children, engaging is homosexuality, or fathering children (as a supposedly celibate, unmarried priest), he was challenging the selling of forgiveness in order to raise money for the church’s purposes (like building St. Peter’s Basilica).
If you had been fortunate enough to visit the church in Wittenburg at the time, you could have escaped some time in purgatory...too bad for you.
The Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, in the Holy Roman Empire, where the Ninety-Five Theses famously appeared, held one of Europe’s largest collections of holy relics. These had been piously collected by Frederick III of Saxony. At that time pious veneration, or viewing, of relics was purported to allow the viewer to receive relief from temporal punishment for sins in purgatory. By 1509 Frederick had over 5,000 relics, purportedly “including vials of the milk of the Virgin Mary, straw from the manger [of Jesus], and the body of one of the innocents massacred by King Herod.”
All these are scriptures in context that prove the faithfullness to the Gsopel with which my Church operates.
I advise you strongly to study the scripture honestly, repent of your error, and come back to your home in the Catholic Church.
For example, it takes uncommon mendacity to profess salvation by faith alone when James 2:20-26 forcefully condemns it.
Veneration of relics, as well as the doctrine of Purgatory are wholly scriptural (Acts 19:12, 1 Cor. 3:11-15).
sacramentally consecrated, not self-appointed character of it ("the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood", 1 Tim 4:14, several similar, "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you", John 20:21)
In the above quote from you everyone can see by reading the Bible that you substitute the word "priest" and "priesthood" in place of the terms "presbyteros", which actually translates as "elder", and the term "episkopos", which translates as "bishop or overseer". I doubt that you will understand that, but any Greek student or scholar will back me up.
All these are scriptures in context that prove the faithfullness to the Gsopel with which my Church operates.
Again, I have pointed out that there is nothing written between the lines of Scripture that would justify what you make of the context that actually appears.
I advise you strongly to study the scripture honestly, repent of your error, and come back to your home in the Catholic Church.
I can't help but smile at your "advise"! The papal Catholic church is merely a sect of Christianity which has altered (pun intended) the simple truth of the Gospel of Christ, just as do some other sects like the Mormans and JW's. It has also put a heavy yoke upon the necks of those who truly want to serve God, just as the Pharisees did to God's word with all their "traditions" of men. Thusly, knowing that God accepts all who believe, repent (not "do penance") and are immersed in water (baptized), who seek to follow in the steps of Christ's teaching according to the knowledge they have gained from the Gospel, and stay faithful until the last day will be resurrected from death and the grave to join Jesus in the new creation promised by God, where they will never die, never get sick, hunger and thirst will be a thing of the past, and no one will ever be tempted to sin. What a thing to look forward to! So, come back to the Catholic sect? Absolutely not. However, I will pray and hope that you have gained some knowledge of why I and millions of others find the papal church obnoxious and unworthy of even the thought of joining it.
In closing, Let me say that I do admire your adamant insistence on mimicking what your teachers have taught you. I also admire your confession of Christ as the only savior of mankind - I think (but your maryology makes me doubt and shudder).
I see mendacity is your new favorite word.
Your cherry-picking and over emphasis of some verses of Scripture show that you don’t even begin to have a basic grasp of the major thrust of the teachings of Paul in Galatians and Romans, nor of the overall emphasis of the New Testament. In other words, you don’t understand the gospel.
Perhaps you should take a course in hermeneutics, learn about principles of interpretation, and how to keep things in context. And, if you have already done so, PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME.
Your current posture is exactly what I would expect from someone steeped in, and unable to see beyond, Roman Catholic dogma and tradition (regardless of what facts, history, and the Bible testify).
Also, your characterization of Luther shows a gross disregard for anything remotely approaching historical accuracy or fairness.
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.