The Mass v. Protestant Services

[jmcrae]

Framed as I asked my original question, then, it would seem that a Catholic would regard all aspects of the Mass as “worshipful” but without the representation of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist, worship is incomplete, akin to going to the movie theater, buying popcorn, watching previews, then leaving before the movie begins.

Yes. And in fact, that’s exactly how Protestant worship feels to me - an hour’s worth of introductory stuff, and then suddenly, everyone just gets up and goes home.

It’s a totally bizarre feeling, actually.

So allow me a further inquiry: I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia breaks down the word “worship” into “worth” and “ship.” But the synoymns for “worth” aren’t “worthy” or “esteemed,” which are the words Protestants might think of as synonymous with “worth.” The CE uses words like “price” and “value,” (although it also uses “dignity”). Is is a fair statement then that an act is truly worship when it involves “paying a price,” hence the necessity for sacrifice?

That sounds right to me.

 

[mepatri]

Yes. And in fact, that’s exactly how Protestant worship feels to me - an hour’s worth of introductory stuff, and then suddenly, everyone just gets up and goes home.

It’s a totally bizarre feeling, actually.

Why is that bizarre? The view of most Protestant churches is that the re-sacrificing of Christ is unnecessary, and even against scripture. The idea of the Mass is to resacrafice Christ in a non-bloody manner, something that we cannot do, nor should we want to. To the typical Protestant, the mass is reminiscent of the repeated sacrafices of the old testament (Heb: 10:3). Scripture tells us that one of the detracting things about the old testament is the repeated sacrafices that reminded the people of their sins year after year. It also says that one of the great things about the “once for all” sacrafice of Christ is that people have full assurance of the complete forgivness of their sins because of what Christ did for us, not because of what we do.

Besides, your characterization is a little misleading. Protestants worship by singing, reading from the word of God (just as the Bereans did) and offering THEMSELVES to God in a personal sacrafice by turning their lives over to Him. They gather together as a corporate family of believers to worship. It seems to me that maybe you were attending a church that didn’t understand this, or you were missing the point yourself.

 

[6YRSHOME]

Why is that bizarre? The view of most Protestant churches is that the re-sacrificing of Christ is unnecessary, and even against scripture. The idea of the Mass is to resacrafice Christ in a non-bloody manner, something that we cannot do, nor should we want to. To the typical Protestant, the mass is reminiscent of the repeated sacrafices of the old testament (Heb: 10:3). Scripture tells us that one of the detracting things about the old testament is the repeated sacrafices that reminded the people of their sins year after year. It also says that one of the great things about the “once for all” sacrafice of Christ is that people have full assurance of the complete forgivness of their sins because of what Christ did for us, not because of what we do.

Besides, your characterization is a little misleading. Protestants worship by singing, reading from the word of God (just as the Bereans did) and offering THEMSELVES to God in a personal sacrafice by turning their lives over to Him. They gather together as a corporate family of believers to worship. It seems to me that maybe you were attending a church that didn’t understand this, or you were missing the point yourself.

First of all, we don’t “resacrifice” Christ. The Eucharist is part of His orginal once and for all sacrifice. It is represented at every mass by Christ through the presider.

Second, the once saved always saved theory is a whole different subject.

 

[jmcrae]

Why is that bizarre? The view of most Protestant churches is that the re-sacrificing of Christ is unnecessary, and even against scripture.

Not at all, since Christ gives us at least two commandments regarding the Mass. The first is found in John 6:55 - eat Christ’s body and drink Christ’s blood. The second is found in Luke 22:19 - Do this at Mass, and keep doing it.

The idea of the Mass is to resacrafice Christ in a non-bloody manner, something that we cannot do, nor should we want to.

We don’t resacrifice Christ. That’s impossible. What we do is we re-present Christ’s original Sacrifice in an unbloody manner.

It becomes present to us in the elements of the bread and wine, through the miracle of transubstantiation, which then allows us to fulfill the commandment given to us in John 6:55-58, where Jesus says:

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

The mystery that the Disciples didn’t understand at that time was, how to accomplish this?

At the Last Supper (which is the Institution of the Mass, and the ordination of the Disciples to the Christian priesthood), we see the answer - Jesus says, in Luke 22:14-20:

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.

16 For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you:

18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: **This is my body**, which is given for you. **Do this for a commemoration of me.**

20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: **This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood**, which shall be shed for you.

Here, we see how to get His Body and His Blood, in order to be able to fulfill His commandment to eat and drink of His Body and Blood. We also see the Disciple

To the typical Protestant, the mass is reminiscent of the repeated sacrafices of the old testament (Heb: 10:3). Scripture tells us that one of the detracting things about the old testament is the repeated sacrafices that reminded the people of their sins year after year. It also says that one of the great things about the “once for all” sacrafice of Christ is that people have full assurance of the complete forgivness of their sins because of what Christ did for us, not because of what we do.

This is exactly what is happening at Mass - the people are being saved by Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the Cross. They partake of it in an unbloody manner, but it’s still the same one-and-only sacrifice of Christ that they partake of.

Besides, your characterization is a little misleading. Protestants worship by singing, reading from the word of God (just as the Bereans did)

We also read from the Bible at Mass. In addition to the readings of the day, the vast majority of the prayers of the Mass are also found in Scripture.

and offering THEMSELVES to God in a personal sacrafice by turning their lives over to Him. They gather together as a corporate family of believers to worship.

The Bereans went to Synagogue, to the Temple, and also to Mass. They didn’t go to any kind of “praise and worship” ceremony, since such a thing was not even invented yet - it didn’t even exist yet when I was a kid; it’s a very recent invention.

It seems to me that maybe you were attending a church that didn’t understand this, or you were missing the point yourself.

I have no idea. All I know is, they got up and sang, a lot. Then several people got up and made various announcements, a couple of people got up and gave testimonials, they took up a collection, and then there was some more singing, and then that was it - the thing was over, and we all went home.

At a traditional Protestant service, I know they have readings from Scripture, followed by a sermon, but these guys didn’t even have that.

 

[mepatri]

We don’t resacrifice Christ. That’s impossible. What we do is we re-present Christ’s original Sacrifice in an unbloody manner.

Acutally - no. From the council of Trent:

The sacrafice of the Mass is truly propitiatory…For by this oblation the Lord is appeased…

This is what I mean by catholics, especially American catholics, not really understanding their faith. Notice above that the council stated that the Mass is a “sacrifice” that is truly propitiatory. It’s not just an symbolic “offering”. Your scriptural references below are meaningless without the context of the events surrounding them. It’s a simplistic view, and one that is wholly inaccurate precisely because they are each taken out of context, and therefore loose their true meaning. If you read the contextual passages, Jesus is speaking to an audience that demonstrated that they were hungry and fiercely went after the physical food provided. Jesus then uses the opportunity to state that His spirit is “true food and true drink” by way of analogy to the physical.

A good example is this passage:

John 4:13, 14: Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks water, from this well, will need more water later. Whoever drinks my water will never need more. My water will be like a stream that gives *eternal life’.

What water? When did He give water? When did they drink this “water”? The water he speaks of is in contrast to the water the woman was raising from the well. He made a comparison between the water they drank to quench their physical thirst, and the water that He was offering that would quench their spiritual thirst.

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

This scripture refers to the common understanding of the Jews of the day - that if they broke the same bread together, they would assimilate into their essence the same element, therefore giving them the common bond of Christ symbolically. The common bond the Jews believed in would come with any loaf of bread they consumed together. In this case Christ makes the comparison to the bread and His body to show them that they are taking Him into themselves, and therefore are really becoming like Him, as well as He becoming one with them.
It’s very simplistic to see it as a literal ingestion of His body and blood, and if you do so, you miss the very essence of the scripture. Also, it speaks not at all to the sacrifice of the Mass, but only to the communion, which Protestants observe.

There’s a lot more here, but no time to address.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[mepatri]

Ooops - one more:

I wrote:

To the typical Protestant, the mass is reminiscent of the repeated sacrafices of the old testament (Heb: 10:3). Scripture tells us that one of the detracting things about the old testament is the repeated sacrafices that reminded the people of their sins year after year. It also says that one of the great things about the “once for all” sacrafice of Christ is that people have full assurance of the complete forgivness of their sins because of what Christ did for us, not because of what we do.

Then you wrote:

This is exactly what is happening at Mass - the people are being saved by Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the Cross. They partake of it in an unbloody manner, but it’s still the same one-and-only sacrifice of Christ that they partake of.

You can only “partake” in an event if you’re there, or symbolically if it’s repeated. It’s not “once for all” if it continues to take place - even if it’s in a symbolic manner. We can’t “partake” in something if we’re not there. Thus the need for the “resacrifice” at the catholic Mass.

Hebrews did away with the repeated offerings to appease God. We read:

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, not to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the hight priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He would then have to suffer often since the foundatiuon of the world: but now, once at the end of the ages…so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. Heb:11

Christ was offered once. He is not to be offered often. He is not to suffer often - even if it is symbolic. There is no need. He did it Himself - He does not need or want our repeated attempts to recreate the day that He was humiliated and put to death.

This is why catholics all over the world - especially in America have distanced themselves from the Bible for hundreds of years. This is why more emphasis is put on tradition instead of scripture.

Consider this scripture:

“Because of your traditions you have destroyed the authority of God’s word. And you do many other things like that.” Mark 7:13

I challenge you to show me a scripture that states that tradition takes presedence over scripture, or that we are admonished to be careful to not nullify God’s word by reading His word, as we are advised to be careful about our traditions working against the word of God as is cited above.

Test everything against scripture. I suggest that catholics do not follow scripture and tradition, but favor tradition *over *scripture.

 

[boppaid]

First of all, we don’t “resacrifice” Christ. The Eucharist is part of His orginal once and for all sacrifice. It is represented at every mass by Christ through the presider.

So the mass is not a sacrifice then? If it is not a sacrifice, why is it referred to as the sacrifice of the mass? If it is a sacrifice, then it is resacrificing isn’t it? Because Christ already did it (past tense) once and for all, right?

 

[boppaid]

That’s impossible. What we do is we re-present Christ’s original Sacrifice in an unbloody manner.

’

So to clarify, the mass is not a sacrifice, but a representation of a sacrifice?

 

[mepatri]

boppaid - see my post directly above yours to clarify the Protestant position.

 

[6YRSHOME]

So the mass is not a sacrifice then? If it is not a sacrifice, why is it referred to as the sacrifice of the mass? If it is a sacrifice, then it is resacrificing isn’t it? Because Christ already did it (past tense) once and for all, right?

I did not say that it was not a sacrifce. It is, it is just not new. In the mass we partake of Christs original sacrifice. It is not something that we do to Christ but with Christ.

Christ is transends all space and time, so if we try and understand the mass in our limited linear way, it is easy to misunderstand. Go back and read early Christian history. They understood the Eucharist as we do and did for 1500 years. Even Martin Luther believed in the True Presence.

 

[ricmat]

You can only “partake” in an event if you’re there, or symbolically if it’s repeated. It’s not “once for all” if it continues to take place - even if it’s in a symbolic manner. We can’t “partake” in something if we’re not there. Thus the need for the “resacrifice” at the catholic Mass.

Yup, you’re right. It IS once and for all, and we ARE THERE. There is no re-sacrifice. The Mass exists continuously in Heaven in all times, and at Mass, heaven (outside of time) and earth intersect. It’s a mystery. Like the Trinity.

We are not recreating the day he died, we are bceoming present in the Heavenly liturgy which is outside time.

This is why catholics all over the world - especially in America have distanced themselves from the Bible for hundreds of years. This is why more emphasis is put on tradition instead of scripture.

You are misinformed. Perhaps willfully misinformed.

I challenge you to show me a scripture that states that tradition takes presedence over scripture, or that we are admonished to be careful to not nullify God’s word by reading His word, as we are advised to be careful about our traditions working against the word of God as is cited above.

Test everything against scripture. I suggest that catholics do not follow scripture and tradition, but favor tradition *over *scripture.

And where did your Scriptures (Bible) come from? Certainly you know. What we define as scripture CAME FROM TRADITION. You might try reading the Catechism on this subject (the interaction of tradition and scripture).

In terms of scripture passages, take a look at 2 thes 2:15. Tradition is important. Possibly because of Jn 21:25. There are others as well.

 

[jmcrae]

For the edification of those who don’t know the teachings of the Council of Trent about the Mass, and who may be misled by certain off-the-cuff comments:

Here is Part 1 (of 4) of the Teaching on the Mass:

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein–to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.

[Page 153]
CHAPTER I.
On the institution of the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,–that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,–declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of [Page 154] Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles; and which the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, has not obscurely indicated, when he says, that they who are defiled by the participation of the table of devils, cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord; by the table, meaning in both places the altar. This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, during the period of nature, and of the law; in as much as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.

 

[jmcrae]

Continued from above, the teachings of the Council of Trent on the Mass; this is Part 2 of 4.

CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Parts 3 and 4 of 4, the teachings of the Council of Trent on the Mass:

CHAPTER III.
On Masses in honour of the Saints.

And although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate, certain masses in honour and memory of the saints; not therefore, however, doth she teach that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say, “I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul;” but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate upon earth.

CHAPTER IV
On the Canon of the Mass.

And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

---

There are further chapters in this section, but they have to do with the details of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, and don’t really add anything to the information I’m trying to convey.

I am of the opinion that the above is sufficient to give a much more accurate understanding of what the teachings of Trent were, with regard to the Mass, than was presented earlier.

 

[allischalmers]

The Bible says "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth’
This is just how we Protestants worship God - in spirit and in truth and this is why

in heaven everyone in is a Baptist
allischalmers

 

[6YRSHOME]

The Bible says "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth’
This is just how we Protestants worship God - in spirit and in truth and this is why

in heaven everyone in is a Baptist
allischalmers

Oh really? Is this official Babtist teaching or your opinion? What is your source for this?

 

[Montgomeryatty]

As a Baptist, I’m surprised to learn that this is Baptist teaching. Then again, under the Baptist notion of soul competency, anything believed by a certain Baptist is, to a certain extent, Baptist teaching . . . . Hence my growing interest in the RCC.

 

[jmcrae]

Hence my growing interest in the RCC.

Welcome to the most exciting journey of your entire life - with the possible exception of dying and going to Heaven.

 

[mepatri]

Originally Posted by mepatri
This is why catholics all over the world - especially in America have distanced themselves from the Bible for hundreds of years. This is why more emphasis is put on tradition instead of scripture.

You are misinformed. Perhaps willfully misinformed.

I don’t think so - maybe you can show me how? It’s my understanding that catholics turn to the catechism - not directly to scripture for direction, is this not so? If the catechism is true to scripture, why have it at all? What would be the purpose? If you say because it adds teaching, you’re in conflict with the Bible, since it says do not add or take away from its pages.

I think it’s because the chatechism interjects docrtines of men. You may argue that these actions of men are led by God, but that’s just a worldview you’ve developed, since this can’t be shown any other way than by faith, and agsin, that view goes against scripture. If your faith is misplaced, then you’re in trouble. How do you determine if your faith is misplaced or not? What we often see is catholic tradition in opposition to the scriptures. It’s very existence is in oposition to the Bible because again, it expounds on scripture by interjecting tradition.

And where did your Scriptures (Bible) come from? Certainly you know. What we define as scripture CAME FROM TRADITION. You might try reading the Catechism on this subject (the interaction of tradition and scripture).

Now, here you’re kidding right? I mean, you can’t be serious. The problem is exactly what you state - the catholic church tries to “define”. Not a problem - until the definitions it comes up with militate against the word of God.

The Bible disagress with you. It claims that scripture defines truth, not tradition. It claims that scripture is profitable for teaching, profits much, and rightly divides the word of God - not tradition. In addition, the scriptures existed long before catholic tradition. They existed before catholic tradition even had a chance to get off the ground.

I’ve often heard catholics speak as if the catholic faith is the oldest religion, as if how old something is gives it validity. If so, why not be a Jew, or better yet, a pagan? Also, if you’re looking for where something “came from”, the old testament came from the Hebrew text - long before the catholic religion ever started.

It’s true that faith is important - but your faith should not work against reason. Isaiah 1:18 - God states “Come now, and let us reason together.” This is good advice - for everyone. Don’t confuse faith with blind acceptance. There is not as much “mystery” in the Bible as the catholic church would have you believe.

 

[mepatri]

In terms of scripture passages, take a look at 2 thes 2:15. Tradition is important. Possibly because of Jn 21:25. There are others as well.

Agreed - but it doesn’t trump scripture. It’s the other way around. If you feel that traditions of men supercede scripture, your argument is with God, not me.