ninja007
Gold Member
IS IT A MASS OR ?
The consecrated bread and wine are heavenly food which help one to attain to eternallife. ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 1392, 1405, 1419. )
The evangelical church believes it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, Catholicsbelieve the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist ismanifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given foryou" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in myblood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the VERY body which he gave up for us on thecross, the VERY blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness ofsins."
The New Catholic Catechism of 1992 said, “The sacrifice of Christand the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice ... In this divinesacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himselfonce in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in anunbloody manner.” (Can it be unbloody and bloody at the same time?)
The priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements ofbread and wine into the body and blood of Christ ... the more often the sacrifice[of the Mass] is offered the more benefit is conferred" (John A. Hardon, S.J., PocketCatholic Dictionary (1985), pp. 248-249).
Catholics claim the mass is not a re-sacrifice of the event of Christ's death, let thereown literature speak..."Hence the Mass...[is] a sacrifice in which thesacrifice of the cross is perpetuated...in the sacrifice of the Mass ourLord is immolated...the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and the summit of...theChristian life....In the sacrifice of the Mass in fact, Christ offers himself forthe salvation of the entire world" (Vatican II,Eucharisticum Mysterium, 3.,18).
To Catholics it is a current event, not something that just occurred almost 2,000years ago.
When did this view actually begin in history because It is not mentioned in theScripture nor Apostles' Creed from the 2nd century A.D. or the Nicene Creed 325A.D, There had been individual opinions from this period which supported various views,but none were the teaching of the church at the time.
We can trace this from the ninth to the twelfth century. Like other Catholic doctrinesthe belief that the nature of the host changed at the priests consecration did not becomean official doctrine of the Catholic Church until much later .It was made dogma officialdogma by Pope Pius III at the Lateran Council of 1215. This began the CatholicChurch’s new sanction of the "theory of transubstantiation." The Vaticancontinued to develop this teaching through the16th century. At that time, the Council ofTrent used it to counter the challenges from the Reformation. The creed of PopePius IV, which authoritatively summarized the teaching of the Council of Trent,stated: “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true,proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in themost holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially,the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord JesusChrist.” Trent further defined thetheory and then placed a solemn curse upon anyone who denied it .(Session XIII, can. 2, D.B., 884). By doing so they challenged God,denying his word in Rom.4-5 and in Galatians which teaches the very opposite.
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary forsalvation…that without them…man obtain from God through faith alone the grace ofjustification…let him be anathema" (Council ofTrent,7.general,4)
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thatnothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification lethim be anathema." (Council of Trent)
The Council of Trent summarized the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christour Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species ofbread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council nowdeclares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a changeof the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord andof the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holyCatholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." Thisinterpretation held by the Catholic Church is found where Jesus spoke the words:"Take, eat; this is My body… this is My blood," he turned the bread theywere eating into his body and the wine into his blood at the Passover. The official namefor this is transubstantiation. It means that the substance is changed. Although theoutward appearance remains of the bread and wine look the same to the eye, no one can seethat underneath they have been changed. This is done today by the priest who can thensacrifice Christ afresh on the altar. Christ becomes the actual sacrifice but an"unbloody sacrifice". The wafer is the "host" which means hebecomes the victim. Christ is actually "immolated" or offered as the victim overand over, each week, each year throughout the world on all the Catholic altars. Thiscurrent offering of the host makes satisfaction for the sins of both the living and thedead. Those receiving Holy Communion eat the actual body of Christ. Participation isessential for a Catholics spiritual life, it is essential for salvation. This is theSacrifice of the Mass or the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
However this is not what the Bible teaches.
The word "mass" is never used in Scripture, it is an invention oftheir church for an unbiblical practice. The communion is referred to byusing the word "Koinonia".
1 Cor. 10:16 Communion-- a memorial: a visible way of illustrating His death.
The mass is a misunderstanding of what the Lord meant when He said " Take eat,this is My body and drink, this is My blood shed for the remission of sins." Takingmeanings out of their Jewish concept and culture and giving Gentile meanings(Aristotelian) destroys the message he conveyed. Jesus took the Passover and showed thathe was the fulfillment of this feast ,as he is for all of them. If he was giving his bodyat the last supper for our sins then he didn't have to go to the cross, it already wasaccomplished.
Questions that Need Answering ??????
"Take eat for this is my body." For 1500 years prior to Jesus statement theJewish people partook of this feast day ritual of Passover. It was in remembrance of theirExodus from Egypt. Jesus stated that He was the fulfillment of this (the matzoh is thebread he held up, it is unleaven, striped, with holes and broken Isa.53). It couldn't beliteral or all of Israel would be partaking of his body before He ever had a humanbody which came by the virgin conception of Mary. It pointed toHis person as the sinless lamb and the work He would accomplish on the cross, what would happen to himself on the cross. Paul appliesHis death to the Passover in 1 Cor.5:6-8. If this passage was meant to be taken literally,then were the Jews eating of His body and blood before He was physically here, before Heeven became a man here on earth? It couldn't be literal because He did not die yet,no blood was spilled, and His body was not broken, the Passover was looking forward to the future, just as we partake of the bread and the cup looking back to the past. If this bread turned into his body atthe last supper then He gave himself for us before the cross. In fact if you think it through, there would be no need forJesus to go to the cross, we would only have to take communion (The Eucharist) since it the actual event.
Heb. 11:28 says of Moses, "By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood,"Faith that looked to the future for the substance which is Christ. It's about faith in the real thing not a ritual in manmade things.
If this was literal, which part of His body was eaten that night? Did Jesus bodyactually consist of bread and have wine flowing in his veins when he spoke take eat thisis my body. If not, then why should we think it does now. Since His physical body was likeours in a substantial limited amount, would it not be totally consumed already? Alsoremember Jesus also ate the bread and wine, was he eating himself? Did he need salvation?
Jesus holding the bread he distinguished between his body and the emblem inhis hand. Peter whom the Catholics hold to be the first pope said “who Himselfbore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24).
Why does the Eucharist have the body and the blood separate, while the real Christ hadthe blood in his body. When He shed His blood for our sins He arose again in the samebody, a body without blood but flesh and bone glorified. A new body was given, poweredby a different operation than the old humanity of blood. The blood was given andaccepted. The sacrifice was over, he said it is finished, not it will continue! How can hegive us blood today when he himself has none to give today (Luke 24:39). What kind of Jesus are they presenting in manmade objects?
When the Son of God became a man, he took upon himself human flesh. Is Holy Communionactually eating Christ's physical body. Why would God want us eating human flesh? Whywould he want us drinking human blood? When the drinking of blood is repeatedly forbiddenin the Scriptures, including the New Testament. It doesn’t matter if it was sinlessblood. The apostles were Jews who would not partake of eating anything but clean food. Fora Jew, you cannot find a food more unclean than blood, this is why they were shocked whenhe said this in Jn.6, they misunderstood him.
A careful look at Jesus' Teaching Style proves what is correct. The Jews often spoke infigurative language. Jesus, being a Jew, was no exception to this manner of teaching tobring across a point. John records in his gospel seven figurative statements that Jesusmade about himself. Each uses the same verb translated "is" in the words"This is My body." Jesus said in Jn.6, "I am the bread of life," Healso states in the same manner "I am the light of the world," "I am thedoor," "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the goodshepherd," "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," "I am the truevine." If we take the bread literally then all other illustrations should be taken inthe same manner.
There are many statements that Jesus used in a figurative sense for example destroythis temple in Jn.2:19 the Pharisee’s interpreted this as the literal temple he saidthey were wrong it is the temple of his body. When he said to the people to beware of the"leaven of the Pharisees," they thought he meant bread. when he spoke of eatinghis flesh and drinking his blood, they argued, murmured, and left baffled. He summed it uphis meaning by saying my words are spirit and they are life. This should not be confusedin thinking that everything Jesus said was figurative, only that he often employedfigurative language to teach and illustrate truth. Jesus' Jewish audience oftenmisunderstood his teaching. They lacked perception. They were unable to discern when hewas speaking figuratively or literally.
When he said he offered new life as living water, or I am the light ", I am theDoor", I am the vine" should we take these to be the actual literal meaning orsymbolic of another literal substance. When he said to the disciples you are the salt ofthe earth were they actually salt ? We need to look at the spiritual intent of thepassage.
1 Cor.11:28 Paul says, "Let each man eat of the bread and drink of thecup..." Paul clearly is stating that there is no change of the former substance toChrist, this is really bread and a cup.
In 1 Cor.11:25 Paul states this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Obviously this cupwas not the actual covenant itself but a representation of it. He didn't say the newcovenant is the cup! "for as often as you eat this bread drink the cup, you proclaimthe Lord’s death until he comes." Do we drink the cup or what is inside it?Notice it says bread not a body. "For as often as you eat this bread and drinkthe cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Did he come back as awafer and wine? Then we can't take the bread or the cup? This is what we are presented bythe Roman view. If so we should stop taking the bread.
Physically speaking, one can only be in 1 place at 1 time. Lk.22:17- 20 Jesus says todivide the cup among them He states "I will not drink of the fruit of the vineuntil the kingdom of God comes." Jesus is stating that what they drank was winenot blood, which was forbidden. This is not like the wedding feast where he changed waterto wine so he changed wine to blood.
Pope John Paul II wrote: "The Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is thesacrifice of the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant.( Pope John Paul IIon the mystery and worship of the Eucharist no.9)
Vatican II declares, "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in thedivine sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass], 'the work of our redemption is accomplished... (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, par. 2).
The Bible says the very opposite
The Eucharist is either the symbol of the sacrificial event or the event itself .Scripture tells us which is true.
Whose blood cleanses us? Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified byHis blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him."
When did this occur?
Answer: Rom. 3:25, "Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood,through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passedover the sins that were previously committed, "The bible says it is a past event.
Where did this happen? Col. 1:14, "In whom we have redemption throughHis blood, the forgiveness of sins. :20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself,by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through theblood of His cross." The bible says it took place at the cross when hedied not today.
In Whom did this happen? Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemptionthrough His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of Hisgrace." The bible says its in the person of Christ when he was a human on earth nottoday.
According to the Church, each Mass... reminds us that there is no salvation except inthe cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and that God Himself wishes that there should be acontinuation of this sacrifice....(Mediator Dei 2nd Vatican councilInstruction on the manner of distributing the Holy communion no.55)
The Bible says He sat down on the right hand of God, never to repeat thesacrifice again. For to do so he would have to come back to earth, which is exactly whatthe Catholics priest are saying, they call him down from heaven onto their altar eachtime.
The blood on the cross is what cleanses not the mass. One is from God the other is fromman! No where did he say it continues as a sacrifice he only said to do this toremember the sacrifice that occurred. In the OT the looked forward to it today we lookbackward at it.
The book of Hebrew which compares Christ to the O.T. sacrifices says these emphaticalstatements
Hebrews.1:3 "When he (Christ) had by himself purged our sins."
9:12 "By his own blood entered in once into the Holy Place."
9:22 "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
10:10 "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus oncefor all."
7:27 "Who does not need daily, as those high Priests (O.T.), to offer upsacrifices, for he did once for all."
9:25 "Not that he should offer himself often’ Vs.26 "hewould then have to suffer often"… "he has appeared to put away sin bythe sacrifice of himself."
V. 28 "And so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many." Thisis a single event for all eternity. Is this the event that took your sins away or does thepriest in the mass do this? Why does the mass try to repeat and duplicate it. It is allfrom the real live person of Christ almost 2,000 years ago. Salvation is in a person notbread or drink.
Is Christ’s payment at the cross sufficient ornot ?
JESUS cried "it is finished!"
The Catholic Church says, it is continued!
JESUS cried "it is finished!"
The Catholic Church says, it is continued!
