About Mass ?

[grams]

I am no longer  a Catholic........   Have not been for   30 years.....

I do not want to cause trouble,  I  just want to find out  if  its the same?

Mass  in  Latin  ,  is it still that way ?    I never  could  figure out why  it was

No one  could speak it  so why  [ or understand it ]    not  speak it in English ?

Yes  we had prayer books to follow but  ,  it would have been nicer to  hear it  I think ! 

[Catholica]

Since Vatican II most mass is said in the common (vernacular) language of the area. You have to seek out Latin masses nowadays to find them. They are rather uncommon.

[grams]

Do  you know one other thing ?   Why  were we not able to eat meat on Friday ?

[chosenone]

Do  you know one other thing ?   Why  were we not able to eat meat on Friday ?

A man made idea.

[notreligus]

I am no longer  a Catholic........   Have not been for   30 years.....

I do not want to cause trouble,  I  just want to find out  if  its the same?

Mass  in  Latin  ,  is it still that way ?    I never  could  figure out why  it was

No one  could speak it  so why  [ or understand it ]    not  speak it in English ?

Yes  we had prayer books to follow but  ,  it would have been nicer to  hear it  I think !

The purpose of this is to keep the general Catholic membership dependent upon the priesthood to interpret the Scriptures for them. 

[grams]

I  just cant believe  we did not  use a bible back then !   The prayer book did have some

bible, but not much.......

Since  my parents did not, I did not know any thing about using a bible...

Sure do enjoy reading my bible......

[Catholica]

Do  you know one other thing ?   Why  were we not able to eat meat on Friday ?

Yes, Historically eating meat was considered a luxury, and because Jesus Christ was crucified on a Friday, in honor of that sacrifice and for the good of our soul, the Church with its authority designated Friday as a day of penance which involved abstaining from meat.

The reason eating meat on Friday was a sin was because as a Catholic we are bound by our promises to obey the Church, which instituted Canon Law.

The basis of this authority comes from Christ who said to the apostles, who represent the authority in the church:

Matthew 18:18 "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

And that Christians are called to do penance:

Acts 26
19 "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.

[grams]

I  just do not see any thing  about this in the bible.

And back then  things were  not always easy with food , so  I really do not  believe

God would take food  away from man.   Man did not have food all the time...........

There were  hard times  back then also,  not  just now!

[chosenone]

I  just do not see any thing  about this in the bible.

And back then  things were  not always easy with food , so  I really do not  believe

God would take food  away from man.   Man did not have food all the time...........

There were  hard times  back then also,  not  just now!

Its not in the Bible.

[4WD]

I  just do not see any thing  about this in the bible.

And back then  things were  not always easy with food , so  I really do not  believe

God would take food  away from man.   Man did not have food all the time...........

There were  hard times  back then also,  not  just now!

Its not in the Bible.

[grams]

Thank you.....


I  just wanted to see  some one else  saying the same  as  I felt !

[Catholica]

I  just do not see any thing  about this in the bible.

And back then  things were  not always easy with food , so  I really do not  believe

God would take food  away from man.   Man did not have food all the time...........

There were  hard times  back then also,  not  just now!

There is one good example of the leadership in the NT church telling people to abstain that I can think of.

Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Also God forbade the Israelites from eating many foods for a long time. See the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. This law of abstinence was eventually lifted by Christ himself:

Mark 7:19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Rareness or unavailability of food didn't stop God or the Church from mandating abstinence for a time.

[grams]

We  also could not eat meat on Friday's..........  I  talked to some one and now  you can.


But  I  really wonder  why they never  made it clear that we were saved , because  we

knew  that  JESUS  went to the Cross for  our  sins ! 

I  know some one who is Catholic  and will not let you talk about this ........ I wish I

could help........  IF they want to be Catholic  that's  there choice !  But  at least let  me

Tell them   about  the Cross  and   how it  is  for us and our sins, once we understand.

Is there any way  to bring  this up ?    Sorry  if   I am not making my self clear. 

[Catholica]

We  also could not eat meat on Friday's..........  I  talked to some one and now  you can.

It depends on which conference of bishops one is under what the Friday penance is. Friday penance is still canon law. In the US the normal practice is still abstinence from meat on Friday, but the local conference of bishops explicitly has the authority to modify that law, and so in the US another form of penance on Friday may be substituted.

If your friend doesn't realize this, he is misinformed, but unfortunately that is common as many people make the mistake these days that penance is not required of Catholics on Fridays. It certainly is.

From code of Canon Law (binding on all Catholics):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4O.HTM

CHAPTER II.

Days of Penance

Can.  1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can.  1251 Abstinence from eating meat or some other food according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops is to be observed on ,of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year of age. The law of fasting, however, binds all those who have attained their majority until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors of souls and parents are to take care that minors not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are also educated in a genuine sense of penance.

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

In addition this is specifically useful, from the US conference of Catholic Bishops:

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/us-bishops-pastoral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence.cfm

But  I  really wonder  why they never  made it clear that we were saved , because  we

knew  that  JESUS  went to the Cross for  our  sins ! 

I  know some one who is Catholic  and will not let you talk about this ........ I wish I

could help........  IF they want to be Catholic  that's  there choice !  But  at least let  me

Tell them   about  the Cross  and   how it  is  for us and our sins, once we understand.

Is there any way  to bring  this up ?    Sorry  if   I am not making my self clear.

Salvation is not entirely a one time event. The full meaning of the word salvation is a healing: a salve on our wounded souls. There is no healing that took place in anyone's soul the moment Jesus died for us.  What Jesus did at the cross is become the mediator of a new covenant in his blood which is given to us for the life of the world. As that blood is applied to our souls we enter into friendship with God and he begins to heal our wounds and restore us to what we were meant to be, which is perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. That is a process that we go through and becomes effective as we continue to open our hearts to Jesus and conform our wills to the will of God.

If we are in friendship with God we are in the process of being healed. If we abandon that friendship with God we stop being healed. Salvation should not be spoken of as a thing of the past in the soul of a believer but as a reality that lives and works in every moment and a journey that we are on.

That is why it was never spoken of as only a past event. Such a statement gives false hope to a soul that may be utterly lost through the abandoning of Christ and His Church which is his body, his channel of grace for the soul and his beacon of saving truth to the world.

[grams]

It  seems that most of the churches  over here   now can eat meat.....  If not all of them.

That is what this person said.....   And  from another State  I  heard the same........

As for  being  saved !    Once you understand  what Jesus  did for us  and believe .........

Then you  are saved  ......  Understanding and believing.

KJB

Epsh. 2:

7

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


9

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Catholica]

It  seems that most of the churches  over here   now can eat meat.....  If not all of them.

That is what this person said.....   And  from another State  I  heard the same........

That may be true, but then they are either both ignorant or are simply not being nuanced enough. Friday is still a day of penance in the Catholic Church as the authoritative sources I have linked to clearly state. That doesn't necessarily mean not eating meat, but it does mean doing some act of penance, and the traditional means is still abstaining from meat.

As for  being  saved !    Once you understand  what Jesus  did for us  and believe .........

Then you  are saved  ......  Understanding and believing.

KJB

Epsh. 2:

7

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


9

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

This is a distortion of the gospel as is the grace movement that you have been deceived by.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

James 2
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

Faith without works cannot save you. "Understanding and believing" salvation is not salvation at all.

[grams]

Catholica,  That is in the  bible !

Eph. 2:
8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


9

Not of works, lest any man should boast

And of course   after  being saved and knowing what  JESUS  did for us at the Cross...

Who  would not want to do things........ ? 

If you do not feel the need to  help some one to be saved,  you are not saved....

What do you suppose the Cross was all about ?      JESUS  did this for all our sins..

Upon  belief  we are saved........ if we understand and want to be GODS  children and do

for whom we can............and what we can.............

works does not save you.................. !!!!!  THE CROSS THAT  JESUS WENT TO DOES...........

Do you not understand that there is  a time 

Before  "Past"  .......... But Now ......... and Ages to come.

Things are different....   As  the bible being  Old testament and the new testament......

[Catholica]

Catholica,  That is in the  bible !

Eph. 2:
8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


9

Not of works, lest any man should boast

And of course   after  being saved and knowing what  JESUS  did for us at the Cross...

Who  would not want to do things........ ? 

If you do not feel the need to  help some one to be saved,  you are not saved....

What do you suppose the Cross was all about ?      JESUS  did this for all our sins..

Upon  belief  we are saved........ if we understand and want to be GODS  children and do

for whom we can............and what we can.............

works does not save you.................. !!!!!  THE CROSS THAT  JESUS WENT TO DOES...........

Do you not understand that there is  a time 

Before  "Past"  .......... But Now ......... and Ages to come.

Things are different....   As  the bible being  Old testament and the new testament......

Grams, what I wrote is also in the Bible ! You have to take the Bible as a whole! Especially the whole NT ! Anything else is a lie!

[trifecta]

grams,

Wow, it has been a while since you were in a Catholic Church.  They've been doing English (in the US) since the 1960s.  . . . And now the priest faces you.

As for not eating meat on Friday's . . .  don't knock it 'til you try it!   More seriously, Catholica's explanations are excellent and well documented.

Remember that fasting is a Christian practice as well and has been for a long time.  Is not eating meat really fasting?  Well, a less extreme form of it.  In a very early Church document, the Didache, it calls for fasting (meaning abstaining from animal products) twice per week and indeed that was the practice in Biblical times.  Evidence?

The pharisee boasts of fasting twice per week and tithing (Luke 18:12) defends himself in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.   

What you don't get, grams, is not every Christian practice is mentioned in the Bible.  The New Testament is not a new rule book to replace the Pentateuch, it's not.    Do you hug people in Church? Not in the Bible Or shake hands? Not there.  Do you worship on Sunday?  Not in the Bible.  Bible study on Wednesdays?  ut-uh, not there.  Kissing people at church?   Now that's there, but you probably don't do it.  (We do - more on that later).

My church is the Orthodox Church; we split from the Catholic Church in 1050 or so.  Why?  there are lots of reasons, but one had to do the RCC departure for the practices from the early church.  Sound familiar?

So, we in the Orthodox Church abstain from meat not once but two times in a week.  As the Didache shows, that was the practice of the early church.  (The Didache was a guidebook for new Christians of its time.  It reflects the practices of the church--that is the early church).   The RCC whimped out and gave in to popular demand and eliminated Wednesday fasting.   So, if you want to know how the early church worked, check out the Orthodox Church.  (Orthodox joke:  How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a light bulb.  Answer: change?)

Another difference between the RCC and us: We don't do fasting as a law, but as a spiritual discipline.  RCC and the west are so influenced by Roman Law, but us, not so much.  The next question from my non-Christian friends, if you don't have to do it, why do you do it? That's a very Western question.  My answer:  do you ever kiss your girlfriend?  Have you determined how much time must elapse between kissing before your relationship is in trouble? No, you do because you want to.

Okay, back to the kiss at church.  We take the NT scripture about greeting each other with a holy kiss more seriously than most.  It is not uncommon to see people kissing (on the cheek) before, after and unfortunately sometimes during the service. 

[grams]

We were married in 1957    and went to the church for a few years after...

Till our son  became a teen  ager and found the bible.........

And the C. C.  did not teach correct over here.........    you need not do works as many

church' s   clam.................  The  Cross ..............  JESUS   paid the full price for our sins....

And JESUS  suffered so much  pain and every one wants to take that away......  WHY?

[KiwiChristian]

Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."

The rcc says "Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of"). Jesus NEVER made such a command. If you'll check the references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

[grams]

Why does the catholic church still  believe that you should not listen to  a person talking to  you

from a different religion ?   [ about the bible ] ? I can not understand this !   

[The Barbarian]

I don't ever remember being told not to read the Bible.   My family had a Bible in the bookshelf, and I began reading it about as early as I could read well (for me about 6YO).   

No one said I was doing anything wrong.

[grams]

Back in my time  the 1940's.......... Mass  was in Latin  and we were never told to use a bible..

Only the prayer book and the rosary............

How do you learn any thing  with that ?   

6  days  a week...........   can you see young children   learning any thing  from that ?

And  up till  the  late   1960s.......  not  much change......  that's  when I stopped going   all the time

I sure do  pray  they have  changed  a lot !    They  did need to in  my time.......

[KiwiChristian]

Just prior to the consecration of the mass, if someone added arsenic to the elements of bread and wine, would the poison within those elements be changed and made harmless after the consecration was finished, and would the priest and the people now partake of these changed substances, if not why not?

[KiwiChristian]

" Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. WHEN THE PRIEST PRONOUNCES THE TREMENDOUS WORDS OF CONSECRATION, HE REACHES UP INTO 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." - Faith of Millions APPROVED by the RCC and carrying the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."

The rcc says "Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of"). Jesus NEVER made such a command. If you'll check the references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice

[winsome]

The rcc says "Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of"). Jesus NEVER made such a command. If you'll check the references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice

For 2,000 years the Church has had priests in both Catholic and later the Orthodox traditions.
The question surely is why do some denominations not have priests?

The main function of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God. We need a priest to consecrate the Eucharist for us to participate in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary

At the Last Supper Jesus offered himself to the Father in an unbloody sacrifice in the form of bread and wine in anticipation of his bloody sacrifice on the cross. And in the Eucharist he continues to make that offering of himself to the Father by the hands of the priest.

Heb 5:6 quotes Psalm 110:4 about Jesus "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." which means in the manner of Melchisadek. Now Melchisadek offered bread and wine just as did Jesus at the Last Supper. But Jesus declared that bread and wine to be more than just mere bread and wine but to be his body and his blood.  In doing this he anticipated his sacrifice on Calvary.

The Last Supper was sacrificial in nature. It was instituted in the context of the Passover which itself is a sacrifice. And Jesus talks about his body and blood which would call to mind the Passover lamb, the blood of which was separated from the body as it was at Calvary.

Jesus used sacrificial words:
"This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19). The 'given' is didomai which is used in sacrificial terms elsewhere (Lk 2:24, Mk 10:45, Jn 6:61 & Gal 1:4).

Similarly Jesus says "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"(Mt 27:28) alluding to the Temple sacrifices where the blood is poured out over the altar for the purpose of bringing forgiveness (Lv 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34)

And he said the apostles "Do this in memory of me"(1Cor 11: 24&25) indicating it was a memorial sacrifice as in Numbers 10:10

Thus Jesus gave the apostles and authority instruction to continue offering his sacrifice in the future - not a re-sacrifice, but a re-presentation.

The apostles continued to do this in the breaking of bread. (Acts 2:42)

In 1Cor 10:16-21 Paul clearly links this to sacrifice. Moreover there is no suggestion that an apostle was present at the gatherings in Corinth. Therefore the priesthood that Jesus gave to the apostles at the Last Supper must have been passed on to others.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses it:
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Paul writes to the Corinthians:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
(1Cor 10:15-121)

It's all about sacrifice. And we participate in the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus. And he warns Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (11:27).

To offer sacrifice we need a priest. But it is important to note that the ministerial priesthood is not something separate from Christ's priesthood. It is a participation in it, just as the common priesthood of all Christians is a participation in the Christ's priesthood in a different way.

As the Catechism put it:
1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. the same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."

[KiwiChristian]

For 2,000 years the Church has had priests in both Catholic and later the Orthodox traditions.

WHICH church? You mean the CATHOLIC church.

I KNOW they have so-called "priests".


The question surely is why do some denominations not have priests?

Oh, but the Christian church DOES have priests. ALL Christians have the royal priesthood of Christ according to the Bible.


The main function of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God. We need a priest to consecrate the Eucharist for us to participate in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary

LOL. Yes, the OLD TESTAMENT JEWISH priests' job WAS to officer sacrifices to God.

Praise God that now JESUS is our ONLY sacrificial and high priest and that He made the FINAL sacrifice.

BTW: IF you guys hold on to the old testament priesthood, where are your animal sacrifices?


At the Last Supper Jesus offered himself to the Father in an unbloody sacrifice in the form of bread and wine in anticipation of his bloody sacrifice on the cross.

No, He didn't. Thats your interpretation. He mearly showed the apostles what was going to happen.

He made ONE sacrifice and it was on the cross and does NOT need to be re-presented. IT IS FINISHED.

Heb.7:27 "Who needeth NOT daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself."



And in the Eucharist he continues to make that offering of himself to the Father by the hands of the priest.

No, He does not. His one time sacrifice was sufficient.

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood"... This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.


Transubstantiation is also a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.



Heb 5:6 quotes Psalm 110:4 about Jesus "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." which means in the manner of Melchisadek. Now Melchisadek offered bread and wine just as did Jesus at the Last Supper. But Jesus declared that bread and wine to be more than just mere bread and wine but to be his body and his blood.  In doing this he anticipated his sacrifice on Calvary.

Yawn. again an interpretation. Yes, Jesus took the Melchisadek and now holds that priesthood inviolate. ie: non-transferable.

He used the bread and wine as SYMBOLS. I broke my leg and hold up a pencil and say "this is my leg" and then break it to show what happened or will happen if i intend to break it. Does that mean i am saying the pencil is my leg? of course not.

Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:14)



The Last Supper was sacrificial in nature.

No, it was not. The sacrifice was on the cross, not at the dinner table. Again, your interpretation.


It was instituted in the context of the Passover which itself is a sacrifice.

Again, MORE interpretations. The passover is NOT a sacrifice, but a MEMORIAL.


And Jesus talks about his body and blood which would call to mind the Passover lamb, the blood of which was separated from the body as it was at Calvary.

He also talks about being a DOOR, a LIGHT, etc. CONTEXT, my friend.


Jesus used sacrificial words:
"This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19). The 'given' is didomai which is used in sacrificial terms elsewhere (Lk 2:24, Mk 10:45, Jn 6:61 & Gal 1:4).

WRONG. I dont know what terrible translation you are using but the word is "edōken" and it means just what it says. Its used also in Matt 10:1, 14:9, 25:19, etc.





Similarly Jesus says "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"(Mt 27:28)

I AM THE DOOR, I AM THE LIGHT, I AM THE VINE.


alluding to the Temple sacrifices where the blood is poured out over the altar for the purpose of bringing forgiveness (Lv 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34)

Jesus doesnt need to ALLUDE to anything. If He had something to say, He said.

And yes, His death on the cross WAS the final SACRIFICE for sin.


And he said the apostles "Do this in memory of me"(1Cor 11: 24&25) indicating it was a memorial sacrifice as in Numbers 10:10


Yes, and no. a MEMORIAL? Yes. SACRIFICE? no.


Thus Jesus gave the apostles and authority instruction to continue offering his sacrifice in the future - not a re-sacrifice, but a re-presentation.

Nope. See above.


The apostles continued to do this in the breaking of bread. (Acts 2:42)

No, they broke bread. Anything more than that is your interpretation.

Thats all i will reply to at the moment as i dont want to make this long and boring.

BTW: I honestly DO appreciate your reply and am enjoying this conversation. Thank you.

[winsome]

For 2,000 years the Church has had priests in both Catholic and later the Orthodox traditions.

WHICH church? You mean the CATHOLIC church.

Yes

I KNOW they have so-called "priests".


The question surely is why do some denominations not have priests?

Oh, but the Christian church DOES have priests. ALL Christians have the royal priesthood of Christ according to the Bible.

There are different types of priesthood


The main function of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God. We need a priest to consecrate the Eucharist for us to participate in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary

LOL. Yes, the OLD TESTAMENT JEWISH priests' job WAS to officer sacrifices to God.

Praise God that now JESUS is our ONLY sacrificial and high priest and that He made the FINAL sacrifice.

BTW: IF you guys hold on to the old testament priesthood, where are your animal sacrifices?

Melchisedek didn't offer animal sacrifices


At the Last Supper Jesus offered himself to the Father in an unbloody sacrifice in the form of bread and wine in anticipation of his bloody sacrifice on the cross.

No, He didn't. Thats your interpretation. He mearly showed the apostles what was going to happen.

That's your interpretation. Jesus said "Do this in memory of me"

He made ONE sacrifice and it was on the cross and does NOT need to be re-presented. IT IS FINISHED.

That's your interpretation


Heb.7:27 "Who needeth NOT daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself."

Yes, and in the Mass that ONE sacrifice is made present to us.


And in the Eucharist he continues to make that offering of himself to the Father by the hands of the priest.

No, He does not. His one time sacrifice was sufficient.

Yes it was sufficient. But that does not stop us obeying Jesus when he sad "Do this in memory of me"

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood"... This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.

You have missed out the next three verses:
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. "

Transubstantiation is also a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.

It proves nothing of the sort.

Heb 5:6 quotes Psalm 110:4 about Jesus "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." which means in the manner of Melchisadek. Now Melchisadek offered bread and wine just as did Jesus at the Last Supper. But Jesus declared that bread and wine to be more than just mere bread and wine but to be his body and his blood.  In doing this he anticipated his sacrifice on Calvary.

Yawn. again an interpretation. Yes, Jesus took the Melchisadek and now holds that priesthood inviolate. ie: non-transferable.

Yawn. Again interpretation

He used the bread and wine as SYMBOLS. I broke my leg and hold up a pencil and say "this is my leg" and then break it to show what happened or will happen if i intend to break it. Does that mean i am saying the pencil is my leg? of course not.

Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:14)

Such symbolism only works if there is a familiar conceptual context. Jesus could say "I am the vine"  I am the door of the sheep" because it was a familiar concept to the Jews. There is no familiar concept of someone saying "I am a piece of bread". The only contxt for that is John 6:35-40. That shows that Jesus was speaking literally


The Last Supper was sacrificial in nature.

No, it was not. The sacrifice was on the cross, not at the dinner table. Again, your interpretation.

Your false interpretation


It was instituted in the context of the Passover which itself is a sacrifice.

Again, MORE interpretations. The passover is NOT a sacrifice, but a MEMORIAL.

Really? Lambs were not sacrificed at the Passover? Read Mk14:2 & Lk 22:7

And Jesus talks about his body and blood which would call to mind the Passover lamb, the blood of which was separated from the body as it was at Calvary.

He also talks about being a DOOR, a LIGHT, etc. CONTEXT, my friend.

Yes it's about context. See previous comment on this

Jesus used sacrificial words:
"This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19). The 'given' is didomai which is used in sacrificial terms elsewhere (Lk 2:24, Mk 10:45, Jn 6:61 & Gal 1:4).

WRONG. I dont know what terrible translation you are using but the word is "edōken" and it means just what it says. Its used also in Matt 10:1, 14:9, 25:19, etc.
I'll look into that




Similarly Jesus says "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"(Mt 27:28)

I AM THE DOOR, I AM THE LIGHT, I AM THE VINE.

See previous comment on context

alluding to the Temple sacrifices where the blood is poured out over the altar for the purpose of bringing forgiveness (Lv 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34)

Jesus doesnt need to ALLUDE to anything. If He had something to say, He said.

Personal opinion

And yes, His death on the cross WAS the final SACRIFICE for sin.


And he said the apostles "Do this in memory of me"(1Cor 11: 24&25) indicating it was a memorial sacrifice as in Numbers 10:10


Yes, and no. a MEMORIAL? Yes. SACRIFICE? no.

Wrong again.

Thus Jesus gave the apostles and authority instruction to continue offering his sacrifice in the future - not a re-sacrifice, but a re-presentation.

Nope. See above.

"Nope" is your personal opinion.


The apostles continued to do this in the breaking of bread. (Acts 2:42)

No, they broke bread. Anything more than that is your interpretation.

They did. Anything else is your personal opinion

Thats all i will reply to at the moment as i dont want to make this long and boring.

BTW: I honestly DO appreciate your reply and am enjoying this conversation. Thank you.

Thanks

P.S. I don't know if I'm going to continue on this forum. I haven't posted for 6 months and in that time it seems to have got very unstable. It keeps crashing me out when I try and post a long post. It took me four goes to post this and then it lost a lot of the formatting.

[winsome]

Jesus used sacrificial words:
"This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19). The 'given' is didomai which is used in sacrificial terms elsewhere (Lk 2:24, Mk 10:45, Jn 6:61 & Gal 1:4).

WRONG. I dont know what terrible translation you are using but the word is "edōken" and it means just what it says. Its used also in Matt 10:1, 14:9, 25:19, etc.

Lk 22:19
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

The give in "gave it to them" is "edōken".

The give in "given for you" is "didomenon" (Present Past Nominative Singular of didomai)

[KiwiChristian]

Lk 22:19
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

The give in "gave it to them" is "edōken".

The give in "given for you" is "didomenon" (Present Past Nominative Singular of didomai)

I agree.

[grams]

Once more  question to  the Catholic  people !

How  did you find out  you  were  saved     Because  I never did !   And I went there

up  to my  50's............    I got saved  at a bible church ........

[KiwiChristian]

Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."

The rcc says "Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of"). Jesus NEVER made such a command. If you'll check the references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

The very record of history, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.

1 Corinthians 10:3,4 "All ate the same SPIRITUAL food, and all drank the same SPIRITUAL drink. For they drank of that SPIRITUAL Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." It doesn't get much easier to understand than that.

In John chapter 6 Christ is speaking about eating His flesh. Then He goes on to explain what He meant....."63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." He is clearly speaking figuratively when he says to 'eat His body and drink His blood'.

In JN 6:63 He even told us the words are SPIRITUAL! Jesus SAID the words are SPIRITUAL the FLESH profits NOTHING!

Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a FIGURATIVE sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi)


Bread and wine are offered, being the FIGURE of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, SPIRITUALLY, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.) Macarius of Egypt (ca. 300-391)


For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, CALLED Himself a vine, dignified the visible SYMBOLS by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had CHANGED their NATURE, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.) Theodoret, known as Theodoret of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, 393--457


The mass is a re-sacrificing of Christ. "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner," (CCC, 1367). What does the Catechism mean here?

Heb.7:27 "Who needeth NOT daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself."

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood"...

This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.

Here's one paragraph from the catechism. "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the same. The same now offers through the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross only the manner of offering is different."

As far as the New Testament is concerned, Jesus didn't pluck part of His flesh out to be eaten by His disciples at the Last Supper, which should be the primary example of celebrating the Lord's Supper afterwards. Where does the Bible say that the bread actually turns into Christ's flesh? The Last Supper was also symbolic, the Lord's supper is symbolic. Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the one true real thing.

When Christ said to eat His body and drink His blood He was speaking figuratively, not literally. The Book of John also says "unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Does this mean we need to be pushed out of our mother's womb again? Of course not. That would be impossible. Christ offered His body and blood on the cross for us. He wants us to accept His body and blood sacrifice for the atonement of our sins.

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.

Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:14)


Roman Catholics borrowed the idea of praying with beads from the pagan religions who were already using them hundreds of years before: In 456 AD, Hindus are thought to have introduced the concept of praying with beads to the world. The earliest reference to a rosary (boberkhas) is in their "Jain Canon" (456 AD) These boberkhas had various numbers of beads 6,9,12,18,36 (any sub-multiple of 108) Islam (610 AD) uses a rosary of 99 beads, one for each of the names of God. Buddhists have 108 prayer beads on the string. The Rosary is of pagan origin and no Christian prior to 1000 AD used beads to pray.

[RB]

Yes, Historically eating meat was considered a luxury, and because Jesus Christ was crucified on a Friday, in honor of that sacrifice and for the good of our soul, the Church with its authority designated Friday as a day of penance which involved abstaining from meat.

Impossible!

1. Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples on the evening of the fourteenth by Moses' law (Ex 12:6-8; Matt 26:17-20; Mark 14:12-17; Luke 22:7-15).

2. The crucifixion began at 9:00 AM, and Jesus died after the darkness ended at 3:00 PM (Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:25,33-37; Luke 23:44-49).

3. Jesus was buried hurriedly as the preparation day ended and the high Sabbath day was about to begin (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14,31,42).

4. The women who followed Jesus rested the high Sabbath day of the Passover before buying and preparing their spices (Mark 16:1 cp Exodus 12:16).

5. The women bought their spices and prepared them on the regular workday between the two Sabbaths days this week (Mark 16:1 cp Luke 23:55-56).

6. The women rested during the weekly Sabbath day after buying and preparing their spices the previous workday (Luke 23:55-56 cp Exodus 20:10).

7. Jesus rose from the dead as the weekly Sabbath ended – three days and three nights after burial – as prophesied (Matthew 12:39-40; Mark 8:31).

8. While it was still dark, the morning of the first day of the week, the women found the tomb already empty (Matt 28:1-6; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1).

9. The gospel record of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection prove His identifying sign of three days and three nights (Matthew 12:39-40).

Anyone holding to a Friday crucifixion and/or a Sunday morning resurrection is denying the very sign Jesus gave to prove He was the Son of God.

[Alan]

Once more  question to  the Catholic  people !

How  did you find out  you  were  saved     Because  I never did !   And I went there

up  to my  50's............    I got saved  at a bible church ........

We will ALL find out when we die, not until that time.