''Do this in memory of me''

[TomaszA]

Peace brkn1,

Your two examples are not sin offerings as you incorrectly suggest.

In Numbers 6:16-17bread, grain, and drink are offered as part of the sin offering.

God accepts other offerings, but you will find no offering for sin in the Bible that does not have the shedding of blood in it. A “bloodless sacrifice” would be disqualified as a sin-offering by that criteria.

I guess I have to repeat that the Mass is not a new and independent sacrifice. The objective sacrifice is the Sacrifice on the Cross, this is remembered at Mass by the separation of Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine. This separation presents, in a bloodless way, the separation of Christ’s Blood and Body on the Cross. However, Jesus made it clear that it’s His Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. So a real sacrifice is present and a real offering is made at Mass.

Does this mean this is another sacrifice? No, the sacrifice of Mass is identical with the sacrifice on Calvary. The only difference is in the mode of presentation.

The mass claims that venial sin gets remitted.

If they get remitted it’s because the sacrifice of mass is identical with the sacrifice of Calvary.

Cain must have been offering the fruit of the field in place of God’s prescribed sacrifice of a lamb, which Abel correctly offered, That would explain why Cain’s invented offering was rejected by God. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission (of sin).

Again it’s not apparent why Cain’s offering was rejected, nor is indicated that it was a sin offering. Cain’s offering may have been rejected because he did not offer it with love and faith.

The fact is offering of bread, grain, and drink were made, even as parts for a sin offering. Perhaps the mingling of these items was meant to foreshadow that perfect sacrifice that Malachi prophesied, of a pure oblation offered to God, which as another prophecy foretold would be in the Order of Melchizedek, a priest who offered wine and bread to God.

Still not sure how Protestants would explain these Messianic prophecies of a new priesthood and institution of new sacrifice.

 

[bella5]

Something that I find very Surprisingly, the Catholic Church in which I attend a weekly Mass NEVER offers the cup to the people. I can not think of any Prostestant Service with Communion that I have attended that did not offer both the bread and cup together.

God Bless!

May I recommend a book that explains this better it’s called Theology for Beginners by Francis Joseph Sheed. This book gives a great explanation on why we as lay people only receive under one species which is the Body and within the Body the Blood is not seperate. Therefore the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, are all mysteriously contained under one species of our Lord Jesus Christ. However I have noticed here in south Texas that many parishes distribute both species at Holy Communion. However, I think it is not prudent to distribute both the Body and the Blood but staying more traditional and only distribute one species. I have been a witness to parishoners who have spit out the Blood because they do not like the taste and Communion ministers who do not treat the precious Blood with great care and reverence. I know the Church had a reason for their prudence when it came to distributing the Blood of Christ and that may be why IDK. Just my opinion…

 

[SIA]

Neither did the disciples who left Jesus [Jn 6:66]

Can you show me that in Scripture?

 

[SIA]

I don’t see transubstantiation there.

 

[emeraldcoast]

May I recommend a book that explains this better it’s called Theology for Beginners by Francis Joseph Sheed. This book gives a great explanation on why we as lay people only receive under one species which is the Body and within the Body the Blood is not seperate. Therefore the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, are all mysteriously contained under one species of our Lord Jesus Christ. However I have noticed here in south Texas that many parishes distribute both species at Holy Communion. However, I think it is not prudent to distribute both the Body and the Blood but staying more traditional and only distribute one species. I have been a witness to parishoners who have spit out the Blood because they do not like the taste and Communion ministers who do not treat the precious Blood with great care and reverence. I know the Church had a reason for their prudence when it came to distributing the Blood of Christ and that may be why IDK. Just my opinion…

Hi Bella,

The Catholic Church may distribute only the host to the people, I believe that the Catholic Church is not correct in this practice of only offering the host to the people. What did Jesus do?

God Bless!

 

[steve_b]

Peace be with you, Tomasz.

My short answer would be that supernatural events, such as the Real Presence, do not adhere to an either/or logic. Bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood. Again, to go Thomistic and Aristotelian on what happens at the epiclesis of the Eucharist is, in my estimation, an attempt to demystify the miracle of Christ’s presence. It’s the wrong approach, in my opinion.

If I ever swam across a river, it would be the Bosphorus, not the Tiber.** I think a mystery should be a mystery**.

O+

You describe an article of faith that you personally don’t have.

One could say that faith itself, is a miracle, AND mystery, AND defies logic.

For example

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen [Heb 11:1]

does that definition sound logical to you?

Don’t people hope for all kinds of stuff, and what assurance do they have that what they hope for will come true, since they’ve never even seen what they hope for or know if it’s even true?

What if I just said believe in what I tell you, I can’t explain it, it’s a miracle and a mystery, so just trust me and believe what I tell you is true. Is that good enough?

What do we know about faith?

• Faith is a gift from God
• it’s a mystery.
• some might say (the cynic) it’s illogical, and anti reason.
  Does that mean we just say faith is a mystery and leave it at that, because mysteries aren’t supposed to be explained or understood? That’s NOT what Peter said.

5 For this very reason make every effort to** add **to your faith with …knowledge,

• How do you add knowledge **about **a mystery, if a mystery was NOT meant to be understood or explained in the first place?
  Peter( continues )

6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For** if** these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

• Isn’t the real presence in the Eucharist a mystery Our Lord taught us about Himself? Yes. Are those who don’t possess this knowledge ineffective and unfruitful in their knowledge of Jesus? Yes. As Peter also says our election is made sure by it.
  Peter (continues)

9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 ThereforeI intend always to remind you of these things**,** though you know them and are established in the truth that you have 2 Pet 1: 5…]

• knowledge about a mystery MUST increases (Peter presumes it’s a given) because it keeps the soul from being ineffective.
• Whoever does NOT progress in their knowledge of the mysteries, is shortsighed and blind, and will probably fall.
• Peter says he wants to always remind us of this truth
  Bottomline, Just because mysteries can’t be fully explained, doesn’t mean NO explanation or understanding is possible or expected

 

[Hisalone]

I don’t see transubstantiation there.

Its not there

 

[CWBetts]

Its not there

Why is it that a protestant will clomg to a doctrine thet can’t be found anywhere in the Scriptures (SOla Scriptura, for exapmle), but when something is as clear as day, they wont take the Bible at its word?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Why is it that a protestant will clomg to a doctrine thet can’t be found anywhere in the Scriptures (SOla Scriptura, for exapmle), but when something is as clear as day, they wont take the Bible at its word?

All Protestants do NOT cling to doctrines not found in Scripture - and not all Protestants adhere to the solas.

 

[TomaszA]

O.S. Luke,

I think Protestants who believe in the Real Presence can serve as great witnesses to other Protestants.

 

[emeraldcoast]

O.S. Luke,

I think Protestants who believe in the Real Presence can serve as great witnesses to other Protestants.

I think that the Catholic Church would be a great witness allowing those of us that believe in the Real Presence to join Catholics at the Lord’s Supper.

God Bless!

 

[lyrikal]

Wow this thread makes me proud to be a Catholic. Protestant arguments never hold water.

 

[Hisalone]

Why is it that a protestant will clomg to a doctrine thet can’t be found anywhere in the Scriptures (SOla Scriptura, for exapmle), but when something is as clear as day, they wont take the Bible at its word?

Transubstansiation is not in the bible. Catholics would have been better served to have left it as a mystery rather than erronously trying to explain it.

 

[CWBetts]

Transubstansiation is not in the bible. Catholics would have been better served to have left it as a mystery rather than erronously trying to explain it.

The Real Presence is EXPLICITY in John 6

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t see transubstantiation there.

Hi SIA, how is this for transubstantiation from scripture; if you have ears to hear?

Luke 24:29
But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30
And it happened that, **while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **32
Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”
33
So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them
34
who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”
35
**Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. **

See Jesus was made known to the disciples in the breaking (sacrifice) of bread after they heard the scriptures which burned in their hearts, a splitting image of what takes place in the Catholic Mass today through transubstantiation. The bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, that is why he disappeared, yet to the flesh the bread and wine remain these to our senses but eternally to our soul it IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Remember what Jesus states just after the bread of life discourse from John 6;… It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Transubstansiation is not in the bible. Catholics would have been better served to have left it as a mystery rather than erronously trying to explain it.

Oh it is there, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

But then again neither is Incarnation, Trinity, bible ever mentioned in the bible, not to mention your christian affiliation? But yet many Christians believe in the Catholic bible or its version from the King James VERSION, and many Catholic belief’s such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin birth of Jesus Christ etc.

Maybe in another hundred years, this doubting wind of doctrine will pass by, just like the Catholic church has outlived all the other heretical teachings of Jesus Christ. You do know every apostle of Jesus Christ believed in the true presence, including the first 400 years of early church fathers who recorded believing this fundamental Christian doctrine now held for 2000 years and counting until Jesus returns and find his Catholic church doing this “in rememberance of me”, exactly how Jesus taught it to his first apostles.

 

[SIA]

Oh it is there, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

But then again neither is Incarnation, Trinity, bible ever mentioned in the bible, not to mention your christian affiliation? But yet many Christians believe in the Catholic bible or its version from the King James VERSION, and many Catholic belief’s such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin birth of Jesus Christ etc.

Maybe in another hundred years, this doubting wind of doctrine will pass by, just like the Catholic church has outlived all the other heretical teachings of Jesus Christ. You do know every apostle of Jesus Christ believed in the true presence, including the first 400 years of early church fathers who recorded believing this fundamental Christian doctrine now held for 2000 years and counting until Jesus returns and find his Catholic church doing this “in rememberance of me”, exactly how Jesus taught it to his first apostles.

Same lame arguments. Read the Book! Stop paraphrasing everything to suit yourself. Trinity is explicitly laid out many many times in Scripture. The Real Presence is specifically shown also. But transubstantiation is nowhere there. Nowhere. You can’t invent something to make something else exclusive to yourself. Jesus never eluded to this premise.

 

[SIA]

Hi SIA, how is this for transubstantiation from scripture; if you have ears to hear?

Luke 24:29
But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30
And it happened that, **while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **32
Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”
33
So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them
34
who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”
35
**Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. **

See Jesus was made known to the disciples in the breaking (sacrifice) of bread after they heard the scriptures which burned in their hearts, a splitting image of what takes place in the Catholic Mass today through transubstantiation. The bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, that is why he disappeared, yet to the flesh the bread and wine remain these to our senses but eternally to our soul it IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Remember what Jesus states just after the bread of life discourse from John 6;… It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.

OK, where is it?? Where does Jesus elude to the Eucharist being exclusively Catholic (and Orthodox) by these Scriptures through transubstantiation??

 

[O.S.Luke]

The Real Presence is EXPLICITY in John 6

I agree 100%. But there is a difference between the Real Presence and transubstantiation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree 100%. But there is a difference between the Real Presence and transubstantiation.

This is a new invention, can you explain the difference between the Real Presence and Transubstantiation?