“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[Chris258]

The mass is said to be something more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It is properly a “propitiatory sacrifice” - that is, a sacrifice offered “for sins.” “The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God…to appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory” (Catechism of St Pius X).

In case you still don’t see it… it says that the communion is a sacrifice for SINS. Meaning atonement for sins… which is what Jesus did on the cross. So basically it’s a sacrifice FOR SIN each time on the altar.

And I think we will both agree that only Jesus can offer Himself up to pay the price for sins. Unless of course you think there is some other way.

Now this is quite a revelation.

I never seen those Church writings in that way before. I guess Catholics really do re-sacrifice Christ at every Mass, even though Catholics tell us we’re reading our own objectives into those writings and not attempting to understand the Mass as they understand it.

That’s not really possible, so looks like we got 'em now. We better send these findings to the Vatican so they can fix this error.

 

[myredeemerlives]

So you disagree with me obviously. Can you show me where in Catholic doctrines it says that the Eucharist is a memorial only?

Thanks.

 

[estesbob]

So you disagree with me obviously. Can you show me where in Catholic doctrines it says that the Eucharist is a memorial only?

Thanks.

I ask you again-where does it sayJesus dies again at every Mass? That was the contention fallenintothebrink made…

 

[Chris258]

So you disagree with me obviously. Can you show me where in Catholic doctrines it says that the Eucharist is a memorial only?

Thanks.

Um… no? Because no Catholic teaching has ever taught the Eucharist or the Mass as “only” a memorial.

Neither did the early Church fathers. And neither did Jesus.

 

[myredeemerlives]

Then how can you say it’s not a sacrifice? The catholic church teaches it’s an unbloody sacrifice… so you can’t then turn around and tell me that I don’t understand. The mass is a sacrifice of Jesus, you can try and dance around it as much as you like but the only other option is to agree with me and say it’s a memoral of the sacrifice only.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Then how can you say it’s not a sacrifice? The catholic church teaches it’s an unbloody sacrifice… so you can’t then turn around and tell me that I don’t understand. The mass is a sacrifice of Jesus, you can try and dance around it as much as you like but the only other option is to agree with me and say it’s a memoral of the sacrifice only.

You can’t have it both ways.

Hello myredeemerlives,

I am sorry but you are wrong and your comments here are an over-simplification and are not the way in which the Roman Catholic Church describes the Roman Catholic Mass.

Here you can find more information regarding the Roman Catholic Mass.

Here, you can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

___________________________

What is your response, or your interpretation of John 6:50-66? Where Jesus said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

John 6: 50-66

50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

 

[RobHom]

How is that passage confusing? I can Biblically defend, based on my personal interpretation, that Jesus meant what he said too. The problem is Catholics don’t just stop at interpreting what Jesus said, they add the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation.

I didn’t find the passage at all confusing…HOWEVER, there are a number of passages…particularly where Christ speaks in parables that can be confusing… Where “transubstantiation” is concerned…its a belief based on faith, and there has been scientific proof of it.

What Catholics are really trying to say is that if someone distorts a passage, this is evidence for the need of a Magesterium. That can’t be tested or proven. The inverse claim can be made just as easily: that if someone interprets a passage correctly, this is evidence that we don’t need a Magesterium.

What your first sentence states is very correct. Many non-Catholics are of the belief that anyone can interpret the Bible. Where I have found that argument to stop dead in its tracks and they have refused to respond to their claims, is when I have posed the question: If anyone (anyone being an all inclusive word) can interpret the Bible…does “anyone” include mentally retarded, demented, or totally illiterate persons? The silence after that is “deafening”. The simple fact is this…not everyone can interpret the Bible. I for instance am quite able to read it…and while I might ascertain a meaning from what I have read…I will not interpret it to someone else…because what I think it means and what someone else thinks could be worlds apart. The Bible is far from the simplest book to read. The entire premise behind the “Magesterium” and the Bible is that the “Church” is the final arbiter when there is dispute or disagreement on interpretation. Unfortunately the “inverse claim” is much like swiss cheese…as it is full of holes. Testing and proving the need for a “final arbiter” was established many years ago.

Were it not needed…we would not have so many different denominations, religions and sub-denominations/religions. Everyone would be in agreement, right?

I see that we have completely skirted my original objection: that every Catholic must, at some point, determine via personal interpretation, that the Catholic church is the true church. If personal interpretation is wrong in every other case, then Catholics are guilty of special pleading along with circular reasoning. You can’t have it both ways.

I don’t think anyone “skirted” your objection…its not so much “determining via personal interpretation” as much as it is reaching that conclusion through “reasoning”. They are not synonymous.
There is no “circular reasoning or guilt of special pleading”.

Here is another great pitfall of the contemporary non-Catholic… Look at the changes made in the Bible since the reformation. And look at the myriad of “versions”…and look at the changes to the language used…even to the point of “political correctness”. I can only imagine that soon we will see scriptures so adulterated as to contain the words “Gnarly DUDE”!!

To go just a bit farther…I can rightfully and honestly claim, and can provide links to a written statement made by a self professed “Christian”…albeit vociferous anti-Catholic…who was trained to be a “preacher”…but is divorced and remarried…who states: (sic) I can find nothing biblical ( against divorce ). This same person is notorious for taking scripture out of context, and even claims the right and ability to “judge” people…because he and his “ilk” “have the mind of God”… He is a “proponent of personal interpretation”…except that Catholics can’t. Go figure? Yet he claims anyone can…but when asked the aforementioned question he clams up or starts a whole new diatribe against Catholicism…usually as false as the rest of his blather.

So much for “personal interpretation”…which as the Bible itself states…is a big NO-NO.

Peace!

 

[RobHom]

I haven’t read all the thread but I’d like to interject a common sense question for those who believe in “once saved always saved.” If you’re saved, then why ever stop sinning? You essentially have a get-out-of-jail-card free. A non-Catholic once answered me that out of thankfulness for Christ dying and saving us, we stop sinning. The answer struck me as rather simplistic, nonsensical and impractical for God.

And their statement constitutes the hole in the OSAS premise that is so big you can float a battleship through it!!

Doesn’t the whole Bible story from beginning to end constantly emphasis being good in order to be transformed, which is ultimately pleasing to God and makes heaven ultimately able to accept you.

Yes it does. But then…doesn’t “sola scriptura” feed the OSAS crowd the ability to pick and choose which scriptures to believe?

There’s a fundamental flaw in just believing and being saved forever. It makes no human or divine sense. Why have the game of life at all if you know you win in the end.

I guess its the “BK” mentality…have it your way. I mean afterall, why be responsible when you can have “warm fuzzy feelings” all the time…without the consequences of your actions…even when they are in direct contravention to Christ’s own words?

 

[myredeemerlives]

Ok, I’d like to ask the Catholics this…

What does saved by grace mean to you? If it’s saved by grace by Christ paying the sacrifice for our sins on the cross, why do you think that Jesus has not defeated death and overcome sin?

You say that our salvation is somehow flimsy like we are walking on a tightrope and that one small unconfessed sin is going to somehow spiral you down to hell.

Jesus was succesful in defeating Satan on the cross, He did it! Praise God, we can now all be set free from sin and be saved.

By grace you have been saved, through faith… have faith in what Jesus did and trust Him!! When you talk about sin this, sin that… you aren’t trusting Him entirely… you are still relying on your own self efforts to try and earn your salvation. To try and somehow make yourself worthy of heaven. You can’t do it, you cannot do it by your own fleshy, sinful ways. Only Christ lived the sinless life and became the perfect sacrifice so that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us! Salvation! Not by anything we did… or can do… but by the blood of Jesus.

So why are you still not trusting God? Jesus died for you, and whoever puts their trust in Him will be saved. He who started the good work, can bring it to completion! Stop relying on yourselves, repent and believe the gospel.

 

[geezerbob]

Ok, I’d like to ask the Catholics this…

What does saved by grace mean to you? If it’s saved by grace by Christ paying the sacrifice for our sins on the cross, why do you think that Jesus has not defeated death and overcome sin?

You say that our salvation is somehow flimsy like we are walking on a tightrope and that one small unconfessed sin is going to somehow spiral you down to hell.

Jesus was succesful in defeating Satan on the cross, He did it! Praise God, we can now all be set free from sin and be saved.

By grace you have been saved, through faith… have faith in what Jesus did and trust Him!!

You seem to be basing your theology entirely on an erroneous interpretation of Paul’s writings and totally ignoring all that Christ said about what is necessary for salvation. Personally, I’ll put my faith in Christ and His words, not your misguided interpretation of Paul. On judgement day, we’ll see who ends up where (See Mt. 25: 31-46).

 

[myredeemerlives]

You said…
You seem to be basing your theology entirely on an erroneous interpretation of Paul’s writings and totally ignoring all that Christ said about what is necessary for salvation.

Did you mean what Jesus said or what the Church says? Because, apart from communion… I don’t see any of the Catholic sacraments in the bible, or the old testament way of sacrificing on the altar either… but I digress.

In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: “ . . . ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’ ”

There you go brother, the simple gospel. And I pray you don’t wait for Judgment day before you find Christ, become born again of the spirit and a new creation so that instead of protecting Church doctrine all the time you can be out preaching Christ crucified like the apostles did.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

Huh? What??? No comprendo!!
Where is that in the Bible??? (or… Heaven forbid… is this just some “tradition” of yours??? )

Clearly??? Who says? Who SAYS it is metaphoric??? You?? But hey… you’re not God… (I know you’re not because God has better things to do than argue theology with a bunch of Catholics…). again, Who says??? You??? and you are…??? so you are saying that Jesus actually DIES at Mass??? Well, you are more Catholic than we Catholics!!

i knew the Mass was powerful… but i didn’t know it had the power to kill Christ all over again… Hmmm…

wow Basic Theology 101 here: Unregenerate men cannot know scripture, In other words you have to be saved to discern the words of God 1 Cor 62:6 - 16, 3:1-3, All of Hebrews 11 Note “by faith we understand”, Heb 5:14, Note Luke 24 Jesus had to “open the scriptures to them” JN 16:13, Deut 29:29 note “reveled” , BIG ONE NOW 2 Cor 4: 3-4, JN 3:3, (chew on that one a bit, 1 cor 1:21,
Its a common knowledge among priests taught in the seminarey if they were to be honest with you that that is exactly what they are being taught is going on. I suspect you are sitting there like that monkey with his ears and eyes covered.
Thge problem is that if the cc readily produced its writings and beliefs for all to really see, the members would be ashamed. like trying to play on words with Mary worship etc. It is your own church that does these things and you argue that it does not, Why? because you know its wrong too, but because of the enemy’s stronghold you cannot leave this institution . You are a cpative dispite Christ having freed the captives you entered into the bondage of the cc. People get saved and leave that church and those who never were enter it. Sad.

 

[RobHom]

First you have no idea what my qualifications are. I am a Theologian. I claim to not interpret scripture for anyone. You seem to believe in a universalisim. There is one truth. Just one. Many ideas. I will say this there is not one bit of truth in the catholic doctrin regarding Mary, Priests, confession infant baptisim, transubstantiation, saints, and others. Call no one on earth “Father”. Mary rejoicing because she needed a savior, Mary’s other children in scripture. The mis interpretation of Greek petra and petros. Peter was not the rock that Christ built His church on Christ was the rock. Just read scxripture for yourself and you decide for yourself not the Pope.
BTW John 15 is great. There is indeed a seperation from the Father in our sins but Paul addresses this in 1 cor 3:13 I believe. Paul teaches that it is our works that are tested and burned not us and that we still are saved. study these things carefully. There is no condemnation for believers. NOT ONE. It is our works. big difference.

My friend…I fear that you are mistaken…and yes you are trying very hard to interpret scriptures and profess your particular interpretation to us.

Unfortunately, and I say this will all charity, your statement that you are a “theologian”…falls on deaf ears. The reason I say that is because you have apparently swallowed the anti-Catholic propaganda of your particular denomination…hook, line, and sinker. Try reading the scriptures without the prejudice that you display here.

If you honestly believe that Paul is saying that your works are tested…not you, and in the event that your works fail God’s test, you are still handed a “free pass” into heaven…I do think that you “interpreted” that scriptural text incorrectly. If even one of your statements above were correct, why not would the Bible state the verbiage to conform to your interpretation? It does not, therefore your allegations and hypothesis’ are incorrect.

If you really want answers to questions…and aren’t just looking to try to “justify your beliefs” there are any number of apologetics books that clearly clarify the scriptural basis for Catholicism.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

What your first sentence states is very correct. Many non-Catholics are of the belief that anyone can interpret the Bible. Where I have found that argument to stop dead in its tracks and they have refused to respond to their claims, is when I have posed the question: If anyone (anyone being an all inclusive word) can interpret the Bible…does “anyone” include mentally retarded, demented, or totally illiterate persons? The silence after that is “deafening”. The simple fact is this…not everyone can interpret the Bible. I for instance am quite able to read it…and while I might ascertain a meaning from what I have read…I will not interpret it to someone else…because what I think it means and what someone else thinks could be worlds apart. The Bible is far from the simplest book to read. The entire premise behind the “Magesterium” and the Bible is that the “Church” is the final arbiter when there is dispute or disagreement on interpretation. Unfortunately the “inverse claim” is much like swiss cheese…as it is full of holes. Testing and proving the need for a “final arbiter” was established many years ago.

Were it not needed…we would not have so many different denominations, religions and sub-denominations/religions. Everyone would be in agreement, right?

You just did interpret it for everyone else.
I cannot speak on the issue of MR or DD people who cannot read scripture. I am sure that God can But I do know that everyone is born into original sin. Everyone and we are all sinners. Some of saved by grace and others not saved. Nowthe Bible has a constant directive to be in the Word and to kepp it in our hearts and to study to show ourselves approved and to guard our doctrine closely now what I do not see is to have the cc do this for me. where you do is beyond me

 

[backfrmthebrink]

My friend…I fear that you are mistaken…and yes you are trying very hard to interpret scriptures and profess your particular interpretation to us.

Unfortunately, and I say this will all charity, your statement that you are a “theologian”…falls on deaf ears. The reason I say that is because you have apparently swallowed the anti-Catholic propaganda of your particular denomination…hook, line, and sinker. Try reading the scriptures without the prejudice that you display here.

If you honestly believe that Paul is saying that your works are tested…not you, and in the event that your works fail God’s test, you are still handed a “free pass” into heaven…I do think that you “interpreted” that scriptural text incorrectly. If even one of your statements above were correct, why not would the Bible state the verbiage to conform to your interpretation? It does not, therefore your allegations and hypothesis’ are incorrect.

If you really want answers to questions…and aren’t just looking to try to “justify your beliefs” there are any number of apologetics books that clearly clarify the scriptural basis for Catholicism.

That was a perfect example. You turn to catholic writers for answers I turn to Gods word. I am not looking for your answers.
As for your statement that it is us and not our works study the entire doctrine Biblically of course on salvation. That is exactly what Paul is teaching and btw "there is therefore no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus"I SUGGEST you find a non catholic systematic theology course (should take about 2 years or so to complete and then study thoroughly all the doctrines of scripture.
BTW It is not my denomination that is anti-catholic. I hold no denomination. I am a Christian and as such I am anti satan and therefore anti anything that he has corrupted including the cc.

 

[RobHom]

In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: “ . . . ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’ ”

There you go brother, the simple gospel. And I pray you don’t wait for Judgment day before you find Christ, become born again of the spirit and a new creation so that instead of protecting Church doctrine all the time you can be out preaching Christ crucified like the apostles did.

But the problem with what you say…is that you just took a “snippet” of scripture well out of its context and tried to turn it to work for your agenda. Thats a No-No. Here’s the entire passage:

31 But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately. 34 And when he had brought them into his own house, he laid the table for them, and rejoiced with all his house, believing God. 35 And when the day was come, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go.

Since they “preached the word of the Lord”…do you think that they failed to apprise him of all of what Christ taught…like the Sermon on the Mount, and what Christ said about taking care of your fellow man, ie: works? And did not the jailer (gaoler) do just that when he took care of their wounds, fed them and gave them shelter?

Don’t use that tired saw of using a snippet out of context to justify something…it falls flat on its face. OSAS and sola scriptura are pablum for the easily satisfied seeking instant gratification… nothing more, nothing less.

It would seem that the principle difference betwixt thee and us, is that we embrace the total Bible…not just the part or parts that work for us…

 

[Ronald_E]

Ok, I’d like to ask the Catholics this…

What does saved by grace mean to you? If it’s saved by grace by Christ paying the sacrifice for our sins on the cross, why do you think that Jesus has not defeated death and overcome sin?

You say that our salvation is somehow flimsy like we are walking on a tightrope and that one small unconfessed sin is going to somehow spiral you down to hell.

Jesus was succesful in defeating Satan on the cross, He did it! Praise God, we can now all be set free from sin and be saved.

By grace you have been saved, through faith… have faith in what Jesus did and trust Him!! When you talk about sin this, sin that… you aren’t trusting Him entirely… you are still relying on your own self efforts to try and earn your salvation. To try and somehow make yourself worthy of heaven. You can’t do it, you cannot do it by your own fleshy, sinful ways. Only Christ lived the sinless life and became the perfect sacrifice so that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us! Salvation! Not by anything we did… or can do… but by the blood of Jesus.

So why are you still not trusting God? Jesus died for you, and whoever puts their trust in Him will be saved. He who started the good work, can bring it to completion! Stop relying on yourselves, repent and believe the gospel.

Good Morning MRL, my Brother. I want to comment on Grace that I did not ask for but was given to me by God. God’s Grace enabled me to see Jesus as God in the human body whereas, before Grace I saw Him as another person like Buddha or Ghandi who had great spiritual development.
When Grace entered Jesus became everything from which I began to understand the world of sin and redemption. It became clear that we are all connected to one another either in sin or in love. In His prayer before He was turned over for crucifixion in John, He prayed that we may all be connected in Love as He and the Father are one in Love. If we are not connected in Love then we are connected in sin. He stated that we will be known by how we love one another. I am writing from memory at this point. We are to be sinless as He is sinless. He expects that of us.
My focus then becomes one of being aware of any thought, feeling, attitude or behavior that may have its origin in Christ or sin. Praying then is an act of love that unites me to Christ and His Church. It also unites me to all human beings as an act of love through Christ and all those in Christ living here and in Heaven.
Sin, on the other hand, whether in my heart, speech or actions separates me from Christ and His Church but unites me to human beings in a harmful way to them and to myself.
There is no sin that does not harm another human being no matter how small or hidden.
Since Jesus died for our sins, I give Him my best effort through His Grace that led me to love Him and then Faith which was born of Grace and Love. I do not think about being saved from eternal hell in my love for Christ. I am driven by my love for Him to live like He wants me to. To gain a deeper relationship with Him I receive the Sacraments of Communion and Confession so that I may be nurished with His continuing Presence in me so I may love more and sin less.
God Bless You MRL.

 

[KingAlfred]

“Once Saved Always Saved” or “OSAS” is an errant belief that many Protestant Christians hold to and there are many different “Protestant” definitions of what “OSAS” actually means.

Which leads us to the second errant Protestant belief, which allows for the “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

These two beliefs came from man’s ego and and his own intellect and not from God. They are both anti-biblical and anti-Christian, they are nonsensical and they do not work in the real world. They are both a contradiction.

Many more beliefs that are false have arose from these first two false beliefs (OSAS and Personal interpretation) and they have cause much division and many, million individual cases, where people actually belong to the “religion of their own intellect and ego” and not to any Church that Jesus Christ founded and that God intended for all men.

I am a Roman Catholic, so obviously I disagree with these two fabricated, man-made errors; “OSAS” and “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

I agree with the first part of your argument. With regard to the second part (individual interpretation), I think we can’t help but interpret anything we read individually. We just shouldn’t interpret the Bible in a way that contradicts Church teachings, including or perhaps especially, conclusions that we don’t need the Church.

 

[RobHom]

That was a perfect example. You turn to catholic writers for answers I turn to Gods word. I am not looking for your answers.

And you aren’t influenced by “anti-Catholic” writers? Come now, that kind of dodging to the high road is disingenuous at best. If you are not looking for our answers…why bother to come here? If you erroneously think you could actually convert someone…you might want to take up a hobby like tiddly winks with manhole covers…you’ll have more success.

As for your statement that it is us and not our works study the entire doctrine Biblically of course on salvation. That is exactly what Paul is teaching and btw "there is therefore no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus"I SUGGEST you find a non catholic systematic theology course (should take about 2 years or so to complete and then study thoroughly all the doctrines of scripture.

Are you talking about one of those “christian courses” that teaches everything, and specifically in opposition to Catholicism
while ignoring most of the scriptures in the Bible? No thanks. 57 years of reading and studying have convinced me that I am right where I need to be and belong.

BTW It is not my denomination that is anti-catholic. I hold no denomination. I am a Christian and as such I am anti satan and therefore anti anything that he has corrupted including the cc.

Your statement paints you to be a bit of a very confused person. How can you not be “anti-Catholic” and a Christian, yet slander the Catholic Church by stating you are “anti-anything” that Satan has corrupted…including the cc? You speak with a “forked tongue”.

I guess in all of your “erstwhile studies”…you never got as far as reading James? Oh, wait…y’all think he’s “insignificant”…but yet, and but yet…one more time now, but yet…his words are printed in your Bible…the “inerrant word of God”…but you refuse to believe it, nay? I guess the words of a mere man like Paul overshadow the words of Christ Himself, nay? Apparently you believe so…you said you do. And gee willikers…Christ’s words, nay…COMMANDS to us are in the first four books of the Bible, no? Have you read them…did you understand them? Apparently you missed those classes…or they didn’t bother to cover those items.

Maybe a “tuition refund” you should apply for…

Why on earth would I want to take a course from theologically unsound and misguided people…and pay good money for erroneous information that would lead to me loosing my soul?

Can’t think of a single reason…

 

[estesbob]

Then how can you say it’s not a sacrifice? The catholic church teaches it’s an unbloody sacrifice… so you can’t then turn around and tell me that I don’t understand. The mass is a sacrifice of Jesus, you can try and dance around it as much as you like but the only other option is to agree with me and say it’s a memoral of the sacrifice only.

You can’t have it both ways.

Another strawman argument. Since the Mass is not merely a Memorial then there is no need to dance around anything .