The Mass v. Protestant Services

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eileen_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
With all due respect, this is the age old Catholic, Protestant debate. We won’t solve it here. I feel the truth is that the Church Christ founded is not exclusively Catholic. I’m not judging you. I have no idea what you’re relatioship is with God. I do know that it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have a healthy relationship with anyone, including God, if you don’t know their character. God’s character - the very essence of who He is, is revealed to us in His word. I think that is where He is found, and that is where we can develop a relationship with Him - not by rituals or made up dogmas, or having faith in faith. To me, that is Catholicism.
Let us keep this thread between the Mass and the Protestant Services. This thread has been derailed enough.

If you want to discuss this further, please create your own thread concerning this. As you can see not many Catholics here agree with you because you are Protestant.
 
With all due respect, this is the age old Catholic, Protestant debate. We won’t solve it here. I feel the truth is that the Church Christ founded is not exclusively Catholic. I’m not judging you. I have no idea what you’re relatioship is with God. I do know that it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have a healthy relationship with anyone, including God, if you don’t know their character. God’s character - the very essence of who He is, is revealed to us in His word. I think that is where He is found, and that is where we can develop a relationship with Him - not by rituals or made up dogmas, or having faith in faith. To me, that is Catholicism.
When you post to a Catholic forum, you are going to get a defense of Catholic doctrine and practice. If you want someone to agree with your defense of Sola Scriptura, then you will have to visit a protestant forum. Statements like “rituals and made-up dogmas” will not fly on a Catholic forum. If you are sincerely seeking enlightenment, fine. Attacks on the Church and it’s practices and beliefs will only serve to perpetuate this "Catholic/Protestant argument. Logic and history are not on the side of Protestantism. Only the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Christian truth.
 
Yet, St. Irenaeus tells us, “Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
Which means that both Mary and Eve started off on equal footing. (Eve was without sin at the beginning; this we know for a fact, because sin did not enter the world until Eve opened the way for it to do so, which was after she was born. In order for Mary to be equal with Eve at the time before this happened, she, too, has to be without sin - otherwise, they are not equal.)
This is where you error. The fact is, that by studying St. Irenaeus, you place your faith in his interpretation. Are you comfortable with this?

What I mean is this: There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a good man, a Christian scholar, and is considered by Catholics as one of the founders of the Catholic Church. But if his interpretation of Scripture, particularly the supposed supremacy of Peter is in error, then his theology as a whole is in error.

It bothers me that the Apostles didn’t view Peter they way the Catholic Church views Peter. It bothers me that Peter didn’t view himself as the Catholic Church views him today, and it bothers me that Catholics, for all practical purposes, hinge the whole of their faith on one scripture - Matthew 16:18.

The bottom line is that there are many Scriptures that militate against the position that Peter was given any authority over anything more that any of the other Apostles were.
 
This is where you error. The fact is, that by studying St. Irenaeus, you place your faith in his interpretation. Are you comfortable with this?

What I mean is this: There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a good man, a Christian scholar, and is considered by Catholics as one of the founders of the Catholic Church. But if his interpretation of Scripture, particularly the supposed supremacy of Peter is in error, then his theology as a whole is in error.

It bothers me that the Apostles didn’t view Peter they way the Catholic Church views Peter. It bothers me that Peter didn’t view himself as the Catholic Church views him today, and it bothers me that Catholics, for all practical purposes, hinge the whole of their faith on one scripture - Matthew 16:18.

The bottom line is that there are many Scriptures that militate against the position that Peter was given any authority over anything more that any of the other Apostles were.
What did you** not understand what** I wrote? I said, if you want to discuss **ECF **make another thread.

This thread is about the Mass and Protestant Services. Do not try to derail this topic from the original OP intent.

Just to comment on your fallible opinion concerning Irenaeus; that is purely your opinion. You have no authority to bind and loose. The Church does. -Nuff said.
 
mepatri,

Let me quote the Moderator,
Rachel Malloy:
Please stay on the topic of this thread which was:

The Catholic Mass has its foundation in scriptures. How do protestant services have their foundation in scriptures?
 
mepatri,

Let me quote the Moderator,
I agree, MannyFit. But let me pose this question to Mepatri:

Mepatri, how much credibility would you place in the scriptural interpretations of say, Jimmy Swaggart? BennyHinn? Because millions of Protestants place their faith and salvation in the interpretations of men like these. I think that I will trust the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself.😃
 
I agree, MannyFit. But let me pose this question to Mepatri:

Mepatri, how much credibility would you place in the scriptural interpretations of say, Jimmy Swaggart? BennyHinn? Because millions of Protestants place their faith and salvation in the interpretations of men like these. I think that I will trust the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself.😃
You’re just allowing him to put this thread off the course.
 
This will be my last post on this thread -it’s been great conversing with you all. May God show you the right path as you work to not only follow Him, but to really get to know Him personally, as your personal saviour. God bless you.
When you post to a Catholic forum, you are going to get a defense of Catholic doctrine and practice. If you want someone to agree with your defense of Sola Scriptura, then you will have to visit a protestant forum. Statements like “rituals and made-up dogmas” will not fly on a Catholic forum. If you are sincerely seeking enlightenment, fine. Attacks on the Church and it’s practices and beliefs will only serve to perpetuate this "Catholic/Protestant argument. Logic and history are not on the side of Protestantism. Only the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Christian truth.
To be honest with you, I’m not looking for affirmation. What Catholics believe is up to them, but they shouldn’t kid themselves. If the Scripture can’t stand alone, it is worthless. If it needs tradition to be complete, it violates what it says about itself. I don’t “attack” just because I disagree. I think there is a sad truth that, when a person feels they have lost ground in a discussion, the natural defense is to become a “victim” - thus the “Catholic bashing” bandwagon.

As for logic - it most definately is on the side of Protestantism. This is one of the great differences between Catholics and Protestants - when running up against logical problems, Catholics will inevitably claim that key tenets of their faith are “mysteries”.

“en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.”

In the beginning was the “word”, not “tradition”. The logos is logic. God doesn’t expect us to follow Him by turning around everytime something gets difficult - and calling it a “mystery”.

For centuries, Catholics discouraged the reading of scripture because of the obvious incongruities with Catholic teaching. The Magisterium has had hundreds of years to come up with answers to these Biblical problems, but that’s all they have done - come up with answers - but not necessarily the right ones. Many of those answers are in confllict with Scripture, but are believed by millions anyway.

I leave you with these points that I hope will come to mind when you continue your studies:

“Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD. Isaiah 1:18

(there is no room for “mystery” when reasoning out, and working out your salvation)

One more thing - when Paul was addressing the Bereans, and he noticed they measured everything he was saying against the Scriptures, he commended them. He didn’t say “Uh, wait a minute, you should really consider what Peter had to say about this.” And he didn’t suggest that they should turn to their tradition for help. He also didn’t suggest that they merely continue in ritual and be comfortable there. He advocated the Scriptures as the ultimate source of truth - God breathed.

The fact is it takes work to not be a Catholic, to search the Scriptures, and to seek after God. I sometimes think that Catholics won’t see the truth, because they are too comfortable where they’re at. They take solice in their belief that history backs them up, and they believe that they have the “fullness of the faith”. It’s the same thing the Jews thought of themselves as they led Christ up the hill at Calvary.

One more point to ponder:

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest body of Christians on earth. More than one out of every six people on the planet is Roman Catholic. Don’t take comfort in this…
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” [NASB-U]
Few who find it.
 
This will be my last post on this thread -it’s been great conversing with you all. May God show you the right path as you work to not only follow Him, but to really get to know Him personally, as your personal saviour. God bless you.

To be honest with you, I’m not looking for affirmation. What Catholics believe is up to them, but they shouldn’t kid themselves. If the Scripture can’t stand alone, it is worthless. If it needs tradition to be complete, it violates what it says about itself. I don’t “attack” just because I disagree. I think there is a sad truth that, when a person feels they have lost ground in a discussion, the natural defense is to become a “victim” - thus the “Catholic bashing” bandwagon.

As for logic - it most definately is on the side of Protestantism. This is one of the great differences between Catholics and Protestants - when running up against logical problems, Catholics will inevitably claim that key tenets of their faith are “mysteries”.

“en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.”

In the beginning was the “word”, not “tradition”. The logos is logic. God doesn’t expect us to follow Him by turning around everytime something gets difficult - and calling it a “mystery”.

For centuries, Catholics discouraged the reading of scripture because of the obvious incongruities with Catholic teaching. The Magisterium has had hundreds of years to come up with answers to these Biblical problems, but that’s all they have done - come up with answers - but not necessarily the right ones. Many of those answers are in confllict with Scripture, but are believed by millions anyway.

I leave you with these points that I hope will come to mind when you continue your studies:

“Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD. Isaiah 1:18

(there is no room for “mystery” when reasoning out, and working out your salvation)

One more thing - when Paul was addressing the Bereans, and he noticed they measured everything he was saying against the Scriptures, he commended them. He didn’t say “Uh, wait a minute, you should really consider what Peter had to say about this.” And he didn’t suggest that they should turn to their tradition for help. He also didn’t suggest that they merely continue in ritual and be comfortable there. He advocated the Scriptures as the ultimate source of truth - God breathed.

The fact is it takes work to not be a Catholic, to search the Scriptures, and to seek after God. I sometimes think that Catholics won’t see the truth, because they are too comfortable where they’re at. They take solice in their belief that history backs them up, and they believe that they have the “fullness of the faith”. It’s the same thing the Jews thought of themselves as they led Christ up the hill at Calvary.

One more point to ponder:

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest body of Christians on earth. More than one out of every six people on the planet is Roman Catholic. Don’t take comfort in this…

Few who find it.
I’ll response to this in another thread before this thread becomes derailed…which you apparently have done.
 
using your rationale… as a high order anglican thinking of converting to catholicism, id say pretty biblical 😛

those who know the high anglican liturgical tradition will understand what i mean lol
 
using your rationale… as a high order anglican thinking of converting to catholicism, id say pretty biblical 😛

those who know the high anglican liturgical tradition will understand what i mean lol
😃 😃 😃

I guess the OP should have specified which Protestant liturgies he was thinking of, since a lot of Protestant groups do use the Order of the Mass. 😉
 
I understand it’s your assumption that the teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible. I don’t want to step on your view. You have every right to it, and I respect that. I would, however, disagree with you on what seems to be your view on self-intepretation of scripture. No one advocates that. Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit to help us understand. It sounds like the difference between you and I is that you believe that you need the Pople to first intrepret for you, and then tell you what it says (Scripture), where as I believe that God wrote Scripture for all of us, not just the Pope, and that we all have the ability to discern truth. If you don’t - then how would you protect yourself against possible attacks from the Church? We have seen the ramifications of this way of believing recently with the sex scandles. The trust went so far, without any “self-interpretation”, that many were taken advantage of.
I will pay more attention to your comments when u tell me you have completed at least one entire RCIA class. If you are not willing 2 do that, then i consider you narrow-minded/closed-minded and therefore, conclude that your comments in this forum r designed merely to argue (4 some reason other than searching 4 truth…)
 
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.
Have you ever read what the early fathers thought of these teachings? You might be very surprised that they don’ t have this protestant thinking. Catholics of today did not invent the sacrifice of the Mass. It was taught that way from the beginning. Of course, I have to disagree with you about the meaning of the sacrament. Catholics believe that Jesus meant exactly what He said, which is why so many people walked away. Why did Jesus teach this to Paul?

1 Cor 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Why did Jesus say “this is my body” and “this is my blood”? This is convered in another thread, so I will not belabor it here. It seems you are very resistant to the Catholic teachings.
 
Is it so impossible to believe that many or some Protestants don’t actually worship God, but that they mistake prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and petition for worship?

That’s an accurate summary of what a great many Protestants believe.
No, actually, its not so hard to believe that Protesters don’t actually “worship” God… but they intend to and that counts, right?? Actually, i DO believe (my opinion) that P’s worship God…
I just think (again, my opinion) that they don’t truly worship Jesus Christ “right” (objectively speaking).
As the Word says, “… and the will of God will be accomplished through [Jesus]” (ONLY through HIm). (Isaiah)
They want the warm and fuzzy Jesus, they don’t want to walk in his footsteps all the way to Calvary… They seem to think that once they accept Jesus as personal savior, life will be - or should/can be (if only u pray right…) “Heaven on Earth”…
Again, just my opinion… 🤷
 
One thing Catholics do that non-Catholic Christian churches don’t is found in the book of Malachi. Ch 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."

A clean oblation describes the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice.
It’s interesting you bring this scripture up. The apostle Paul it seems would disagree with your assessment. Paul said: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).
Paul would not disagree, as he celebrated Mass, and taught all his disciples to also do so. The two are both compatible with each other. The best way to become a living sacrifice is to join ourselves with Christ in His sacrifice. This is what we do during Mass.
The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: Churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic Canon Law.
Where did you come up with this notion? Fortunately, it is not true! Imagine what priests would do, if they were not in a consecrated building!
The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction of Malichi, which says that the sacrifices will be offered "in every place." To my knowledge, the Catholic Eucharist has never, and is not now, been offered “in every place.”
Fortunately your knowledge is yet imperfect! 😉
Regarding the Euchrist - Jesus said - “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64).
You are taking this verse out of context, mepatri. Go back and read the whole chapter! Jesus is talking about the NEED for his disciples to EAT his FLESH. These are the words that are being spoken that are spirit, and life. For those that will not accept this teaching, He tells them that their works of the flesh (following levitical law) will not get them to heaven.
If “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? Jesus then states that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language fits perfectly with the prior statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).
His flesh is given for the life of the world, and His flesh is Holy. We can give our bodies as spiritual worship, and should, but we can never compare to the PERFECT spiritual worship that is found in Jesus’ flesh. If Jesus’ flesh were like ours, and imperfect, or of no avail, then why would He have to give Himself as a bodily sacrifice on the cross? If His flesh is of no avail, then His crucifixion was worthless. Then He is really NOT the unblemished lamb of God, and therefore, cannot be the propitiation for our sins!
The Catholic Church is big on “we have what you don’t have” types of arguments. Sometimes it is what you *don’t *have that is more important. The Catholics continue to offer sacrafice at the Euchrist, but Jesus offered the final sacrifice…
This is just a misunderstanding of the Mass. Christ was sacrificed once for all. During Mass, we re-present that Holy Sacrifice, just as Jesus commanded. We participate, in the here and now, in his saving work on the cross, making of our own bodies a spiritual worship as we take Him into ourselves. This is true communion.
Human men are limited, and not adequate to be priests…
Thanks be to God, for HIs grace! "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy. " 1 Peter 2:9-10

Now we are washed, sanctified, and He glorifies Himself in us! :extrahappy:
Jesus offered the final sacrifice. There is no need for further sacrifice, and in fact, by doing so, Catholics minimize the sacrifice of Christ Himself.
Jesus offered the perfect and final sacrifice. There is no more any need for further sacrifice. Except that which is the spiritual worship in which we unite ourselves with His glorious death and resurrection. On the contrary, CAtholics value to the fullest his sacrifice every time we celebrate Mass.:highprayer:
 
Sorry - but with all do respect - you’re way off here. Think about it for just a few seconds…the Cahtolic Mass consists of two readings - one from the old testament, and one from the new testament. This should give you a clue as to what came about first. Catholics used to revere the Bible, and saw it as their most holy text. Not today, the catechism would qualify for that honor.

Now, if you’re going to be disingenuous, and try to play word games by saying that the Bible did not exist when the Euchrist started, that’s your prerogative. Let’s just say that, the Scriptures that are contained in the compliation of books we commonly call the Holy Bible did indeed exist long before the liturgy of the Mass came about. The Euchrist would not exist, if it were not for the sacred Scripture, and the compilation of 66 different books called
“The Holy Bible.” If you don’t agree, then that would be paramount to you saying that there is no need for the sacred Scriptures in the Euchrist - and that it can stand alone without the word of God. Is that what you’re saying?

If you say the Bible came out of the church, you discount the hundreds of years it took to write the Scriptures and produce the finished product. The old testament was written in Hebrew, long before Catholics existed.

So - what you’re really saying is that Catholics gathered all the pages together, bound them up in a neat little cover, and wrote “Holy Bible” on the front…okay, I can accept that.
Jesus never wrote anything and did not (as far as anyone knows) tell the Apostles or anyone else to write books about him. He told them to go to the ends of the world and preach and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit. The first books of the New Test. were written 30 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven… Then, the printing press wasn’t invented til 1440 (by a Catholic, i might add)… Even then, it was 2 expensive for everyone to have a Bible… The Churches had them and protected them from theft by chaining them to the pulpit (or some other thing)… So what did Christians do before they had their own personal Bible??? How did Christianity survive without the written word of God??? through preaching.
Through the :highprayer: :harp: :grouphug:
:signofcross: C-H-U-R-C-H!! :highprayer:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top