Is the Mass Biblical?

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

Yaqubos, (since you don’t like the short form of your name I use…)

Just don’t use the short form talking about a protestant who is not me.
Church Militant:

One certainly CAN have life before the Euchaist, but Jesus commanded us to celebrate it just the way we doso in obediance to Him

So one CAN have life BEFORE the Eucharist. Just as the Lord says:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. " ( John 6:53 )

I wonder how the Eucharist is the SAME Sacrifice as that of the Cross, if we certainly CAN have life BEFORE it…
Church Militant:

To me , it is very clearly and simply stated inthe 6th Chapter of the Gospel of John.

Yes, indeed.
Church Militant:

It was never said to be symbolic and I find it ludicrous for Paul to say that one can become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if the body and blood were not really present there. If I make a symbol of you here on this sheet of paper in front of me and then stab it repeatedly w/ my knife, I may be guilty of many things, but I am certainly not guilty of your body and blood.

First, I did never talk about a symbol.

Second, if you make a symbol of me, but not of my body and blood, you would be guilty against me.
Church Militant:

You would have to be present here and I would have to stab you…so then presence is the key.

Aha… I wonder why some people get angry when you burn the flag of their nation… They don’t have the right to get angry, right? After all, they are not present in that flag…
Church Militant:

Personally I would like to hear what you believe concerning John 6 , particularly verses 30-70. I suspect that you do not believe these verses as written but will offer some spiritualized interpretation…still tell me what you think? :bible1:

I answered this when I replied to your important statement that says:

“One certainly CAN have life before the Euchaist”

The Lord bless you.

But I am still trying to understand how the Eucharist is the SAME Sacrifice as that of the Cross…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Sarah_Jane]

“One certainly CAN have life before the Euchaist”

Question: Jesus said “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, you will not have life in you.” How then can God give spiritual life to those who do not receive Eucharist?

Answer: One basic principle of Catholic sacramental theology is “Though we are bound by the sacraments, God is not.” The thief on the Cross never received the Eucharist, yet received eternal life. Why? Because he sought Jesus in the best way he could and, like the widow who could only give two coins, Jesus said it was enough. In the same way, those Christians who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of or unable to receive Eucharist can be granted the grace of the Eucharist by God’s sovereign will if he so chooses. This does not, of course, relieve Catholics of the responsibility of proclaiming the truth of the Eucharist and calling such Christians to full communion, but it does relieve us of the burden of speculating about the state of their souls. As Jesus said to Peter, “What is that to you? Follow me!” (John 21:22).

Source : Catholic Exchange

 

[Church_Militant]

YAQUBOS:

.
First, I did never talk about a symbol.

Second, if you make a symbol of me, but not of my body and blood, you would be guilty against me.

Aha… I wonder why some people get angry when you burn the flag of their nation… They don’t have the right to get angry, right? After all, they are not present in that flag…

I answered this when I replied to your important statement that says:

“One certainly CAN have life before the Euchaist”

The Lord bless you.

But I am still trying to understand how the Eucharist is the SAME Sacrifice as that of the Cross…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Well sir,
I went and found you a site that may help better than any of us, or at least give you a clearer exposition of it than you will get here.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm
This entire section is all about what we really believe about the Eucharist. I beg you to read it all carefully and prayerfully. (I did. It was very helpful).

Off the top of my head all I can say is that if God wants it to be the same sacrifice as on the cross (as is implied pretty strongly from the Gospel) then who are we to lack faith that He will and can do what he says? (Rhetorically speaking…I know you don’t lack such faith.) I believe that even if I cannot understand it all completely that God is faithful in every way and does this miracle for the building up of all His church. It does distress me that so many have not the faith to share it w/me…but that is God’s department…not mine. all I can do is live it out to the fullest and share my faith honestly and faithfully.

A blessed Christmas to all

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Sarah Jane:

Question: Jesus said “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, you will not have life in you.” How then can God give spiritual life to those who do not receive Eucharist?

Answer: One basic principle of Catholic sacramental theology is “Though we are bound by the sacraments, God is not.” The thief on the Cross never received the Eucharist, yet received eternal life. Why? Because he sought Jesus in the best way he could and, like the widow who could only give two coins, Jesus said it was enough. In the same way, those Christians who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of or unable to receive Eucharist can be granted the grace of the Eucharist by God’s sovereign will if he so chooses. This does not, of course, relieve Catholics of the responsibility of proclaiming the truth of the Eucharist and calling such Christians to full communion, but it does relieve us of the burden of speculating about the state of their souls. As Jesus said to Peter, “What is that to you? Follow me!” (John 21:22).

Source : Catholic Exchange

So the Roman Church teaches that Jesus Christ didn’t mean it when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life… The Lord was saying “truly, truly” just to say it, right?

Does the Roman Church teach that we can be saved without the ONE Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

How many “particular” cases there are who are having life BEFORE coming to the Eucharist?

In this case, what did the apostle Paul mean when he talked about a worthy manner of eating and drinking?.. Does EVERYONE have to eat and drink in a worthy manner, or just some “particular” cases?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[John_of_Woking]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

So the Roman Church teaches that Jesus Christ didn’t mean it when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life… The Lord was saying “truly, truly” just to say it, right?

Does the Roman Church teach that we can be saved without the ONE Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

How many “particular” cases there are who are having life BEFORE coming to the Eucharist?

In this case, what did the apostle Paul mean when he talked about a worthy manner of eating and drinking?.. Does EVERYONE have to eat and drink in a worthy manner, or just some “particular” cases?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

What is the Roman Church? Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Sarah_Jane]

YAQUBOS:

So the Roman Church teaches that Jesus Christ didn’t mean it when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life… The Lord was saying “truly, truly” just to say it, right?

"Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” (CCC, 1391)

“In the same way, those Christians who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of or unable to receive Eucharist can be granted the grace of the Eucharist by God’s sovereign will if he so chooses.”

Does the Roman Church teach that we can be saved without the ONE Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

“The name Jesus means “God saves”. The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21): “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).” (CCC, 452)

“Sacraments are ‘powers that comes forth’ from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are ‘the masterworks of God’ in the new and everlasting covenant.” (CCC, 1116)

 

[Luke1_48]

Isn’t it funny about how when Catholics show that the mass doesn’t go against Hebrews and Hebrews gets shot down, another anti-catholic attack comes up? (The Eucharist???) Peace out!

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Yaqubos, the reason given for why the Evangelical Kirche did not use the term “transubstantiation” is that Aristotelianism was “new” in Church theology, and might be displaced at some future time. That matter could be debated separately. Anyway, if you think in terms of quantum physics and the oddities of time and sequence that modern physics provides for, there is no problem. If we finite humans can find an explanation in physics, then surely God is not more limited than we. It must be possible.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

Well sir,

I went and found you a site that may help better than any of us, or at least give you a clearer exposition of it than you will get here.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm
This entire section is all about what we really believe about the Eucharist. I beg you to read it all carefully and prayerfully. (I did. It was very helpful).

Off the top of my head all I can say is that if God wants it to be the same sacrifice as on the cross (as is implied pretty strongly from the Gospel) then who are we to lack faith that He will and can do what he says? (Rhetorically speaking…I know you don’t lack such faith.) I believe that even if I cannot understand it all completely that God is faithful in every way and does this miracle for the building up of all His church. It does distress me that so many have not the faith to share it w/me…but that is God’s department…not mine. all I can do is live it out to the fullest and share my faith honestly and faithfully.

A blessed Christmas to all

My friend, God did never say that it is the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross, because God does not contradict Himself.

Human philosophy, studying the Scripture with human mind, concluded that it is the same Sacrifice. And we have seen how that contradicts the Scripture message of LIFE.

Please, take this little advice from your little brother: with all religious systems of this world, use the LIFE-test, and they will fail…

All dead systems of this world cannot stand the LIFE-test. Because there is no truth other than Christ. Only Jesus Christ can give you LIFE.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
John of Woking:

What is the Roman Church? Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?

I mean all the churches of this world that follow the Doctrine of God + the philosophies of the Roman Church.

In a more clear language, we can state it this way: the Catholic Orthodox Evangelical Apostolic Church of Christ + human philosophies.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

"Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” (CCC, 1391)

Does this mean that the ONE SACRIFICE of the Cross is just to augment our union with Christ?
What about the Pagans? Can’t they have that union?

“In the same way, those Christians who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of or unable to receive Eucharist can be granted the grace of the Eucharist by God’s sovereign will if he so chooses.”

How many are those who are having the graces of the Eucharist without receiving it?
What does it mean to eat the bread and drink the cup in a WORTHY manner?
How many of those who are receiving the Eucharist need to be WORTHY?

“The name Jesus means “God saves”. The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21): “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).” (CCC, 452)

“Sacraments are ‘powers that comes forth’ from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are ‘the masterworks of God’ in the new and everlasting covenant.” (CCC, 1116)

So we conclude that there is no salvation without that ONE SACRIFICE of the Cross.

So what does it mean to be WORTHY before coming to that ONE SACRIFICE?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Luke1:48:

Isn’t it funny about how when Catholics show that the mass doesn’t go against Hebrews and Hebrews gets shot down, another anti-catholic attack comes up? (The Eucharist???) Peace out!

No, it’s not funny. Because:

1. There is no attack against the Catholic Church of Christ, but against human philosophies in that Church.
2. When we talk about the Eucharist, we are still talking about the passages of Hebrews, because, according to human philosophies, the Eucharist is the SAME Sacrifice as that of the Cross. Don’t we have to understand according to which biblical clear principle the Eucharist is the SAME Sacrifice??? Can’t we mention the fact that this philosophy is contradicting the clear message of our Lord in John 6:53?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Wil Peregrin:

Yaqubos, the reason given for why the Evangelical Kirche did not use the term “transubstantiation” is that Aristotelianism was “new” in Church theology, and might be displaced at some future time. That matter could be debated separately. Anyway, if you think in terms of quantum physics and the oddities of time and sequence that modern physics provides for, there is no problem. If we finite humans can find an explanation in physics, then surely God is not more limited than we. It must be possible.

Are we studying sciences here?

First, let me say that I didn’t understand much of what you said here. But let me just make a comment that came to my mind, by His Grace.

Dear friend, God is not limited. And as His mind is much higher than our mind, so we can’t conclude things about Him by our limited mind. We can just accept what He reveals to us. We must have child-like faith, and not Einstein-like mind to understand God…

In the present case, God has revealed that we can’t have life without eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood. And He has revealed that we must be worthy before coming to the table of the Lord.

Humans have made a philosophy saying that the Eucharist is the SAME as the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Do we have to accept this, just because it is stated? Do we have to believe humans more than God?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Wil Peregrin:

Yaqubos, the reason given for why the Evangelical Kirche did not use the term “transubstantiation” is that Aristotelianism was “new” in Church theology, and might be displaced at some future time. That matter could be debated separately. Anyway, if you think in terms of quantum physics and the oddities of time and sequence that modern physics provides for, there is no problem. If we finite humans can find an explanation in physics, then surely God is not more limited than we. It must be possible.

Are we studying sciences here?

First, let me say that I didn’t understand much of what you said here. But let me just make a comment that came to my mind, by His Grace.

Dear friend, God is not limited. And as His mind is much higher than our mind, so we can’t conclude things about Him by our limited mind. We can just accept what He reveals to us. We must have child-like faith, and not Einstein-like mind to understand God…

In the present case, God has revealed that we can’t have life without eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood. And He has revealed that we must be worthy before coming to the table of the Lord.

Humans have made a philosophy saying that the Eucharist is the SAME as the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Do we have to accept this, just because it is stated? Do we have to believe humans more than God?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Tim_Hayes]

YAQUBOS,

God requies us to have faith and also use our brains,so that we can attempt to discern right from wrong etc.

For all our belief in 'christ we must rely on dead people of long ago being truthful and that means being guided by God.

Now as we are not able to independant verify the facts of Chrst for ourselves we must look to historical persons to affirm the teachings/belief in Christ.

Tell me this?. Did the Christians of the first 300 years have the same faith and belief as yours as regards doctrine etc.

If they did not then it means that scripture is not easily and accurately interpreted. Assuming we use scripture alone.

Now I know the belief of ealry Christians and your belief will be different in many areas, so therefor who is correct.

This is where all faith comes from. You must have faith that God ensured ensured that we today must have the same faith that is not at odds witht he faith of yesteryear. There is only one way to ensure this and that is ensure that someone or some organisation, is infalliably being directed by God to ensure that correct teaching does not go astray.

God cannot teach us Christians different things otherwise how are we to know what is correct interpretation/teaching.

There is only one option and that is the infalliable guarantee that we are being taught what Christ wants us to know.

Up to you where you want to place that infalliable guarantee, but reasonging suggests that the only placeo put it is witht the original Church, and leave it with them.

If God does not leave it with them then how is it possible to know when he changed horses.

Think very clearly about this and pray lots, The above reasoning is the only way we can know that we are not being fooled…

If you believe the above reasoning is wrong please let me know and we can discuss it

In Christ

Tim

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Biblical Overview : Sacrifice of the Mass

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ378.HTM

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Tim Hayes:

YAQUBOS,

God requies us to have faith and also use our brains,so that we can attempt to discern right from wrong etc.

For all our belief in 'christ we must rely on dead people of long ago being truthful and that means being guided by God.

Now as we are not able to independant verify the facts of Chrst for ourselves we must look to historical persons to affirm the teachings/belief in Christ.

Tell me this?. Did the Christians of the first 300 years have the same faith and belief as yours as regards doctrine etc.

If they did not then it means that scripture is not easily and accurately interpreted. Assuming we use scripture alone.

Now I know the belief of ealry Christians and your belief will be different in many areas, so therefor who is correct.

This is where all faith comes from. You must have faith that God ensured ensured that we today must have the same faith that is not at odds witht he faith of yesteryear. There is only one way to ensure this and that is ensure that someone or some organisation, is infalliably being directed by God to ensure that correct teaching does not go astray.

God cannot teach us Christians different things otherwise how are we to know what is correct interpretation/teaching.

There is only one option and that is the infalliable guarantee that we are being taught what Christ wants us to know.

Up to you where you want to place that infalliable guarantee, but reasonging suggests that the only placeo put it is witht the original Church, and leave it with them.

If God does not leave it with them then how is it possible to know when he changed horses.

Think very clearly about this and pray lots, The above reasoning is the only way we can know that we are not being fooled…

If you believe the above reasoning is wrong please let me know and we can discuss it

In Christ

Tim

Dear friend, those of early times looked to the Word of God, just as we are doing today. Read the writings of the fathers, and you will see how much they are quoting from the Scripture, and trying to understand. In many cases, the fathers didn’t agree with each other about verses and passages in the Scripture.

The earliest Christians believed according to the Word of God.

The Church had a very difficult work to do in the first centuries. She had to present the Gospel in the language of Greek philosophers. This led the fathers to create many philosophical theories and terms, and many of them led to heresies.

The Church needs to return to the Word of God, and stay away from human philosophy.

Imagine the apostle Peter looked to Pharisees to know the truth… what would he preach?

We don’t have to look to the fallible, but to the infallible, i.e. to the Word of God.

If a human idea is contradicting the clear teaching of the Scripture, how can you accept it?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Sarah_Jane]

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Sarah Jane:

Biblical Overview : Sacrifice of the Mass

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ378.HTM

Well, I didn’t find anything about how someone can be WORTHY to come to the Eucharist WITHOUT the Sacrifice of the Cross.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[redeemed1]

From the Baltimore Catechism. If it is the same, how can it be different. What an oxymoron.

**265. Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the
Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross. **

266. Q. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the
Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the
offering and the priest are the same-Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for
which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the
sacrifice of the Cross.

268. Q. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of
the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass?

****A. **Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there
is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread
and the wine, represents His death on the Cross. **

**catholic.net/teaching_the_faith/template_article.phtml?channel_id=14&article_id=768

According to this it isn’t the same.**