What is the origin of the Mass? Is it explained in Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4Him
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus Who is the Word of God made Man, Who existed BEFORE He was born as a Man (John 1)…

Is He through which ALL of creation came about. So if the Creator of ALL said the bread is His Body, then that Bread is His Body.

Christians believe EVERYTHING Jesus said. Even if we don’t always understand. Not, imo, that He is un- understandable. 😊
Amen to that… I totally agree…!
 
And I don’t see you responding to the question. Your behavior indicates to me that you aren’t really interested in getting the correct answer, which has been provided more than once, but rather having your preconceived notions catered to.
 
Please just google it (“Justin Martyr on the Eucharist/Mass”). It is well known to many Catholics and again part of the rich tradition of the Church Fathers. You will find it online. If you’d like to learn about the tradition we build upon, make sure to read them.
I’m glad this came up… I had to dust of my notes about Justin, and the Dialogue with Trypho, just one of his great writings.
Unfortunately, I don’t read this the same way as Catholics, because as Justine describes, “true sacrifice is being in prayer and thanksgiving.”
What I found interesting is that He was a pagan philosopher who later converted to Christianity while remaining a professional philosopher, and who often tried to harmonize Christian thought with what he saw as the best of Greco-Roman philosophy.
While Justin does refer to the partaking of bread and wine as a “sacrifice,” a simple reading of his words shows that his meaning was entirely different. The references are in his work, “Dialogue with Trypho,” where Justin presents a conversation between himself and a group of Jews, chiefly a man among them named Trypho.

Justin quite imaginatively attempts to utilize Old Testament imagery as a prophetic foreshadowing of the details of Christian worship. As such, he sees the fact that Christians of all nations are worshiping God through the communion meal as a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11.
It is an act of remembrance and thanksgiving. The only connection to atonement is that the thing being remembered and one of the things God is being thanked for is Jesus’ finished work of redemption, which is referenced in the past tense as a thing already accomplished and for which they seek only to remember and give thanks.

In the Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 117, Justin makes it clear that he is talking about a sacrifice of praise. Indeed, pay careful attention to what he said:
“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind.”

Justin actually believes that prayer and thanksgiving is the true sacrifice. The act of partaking of the bread and the wine in remembrance becomes a sacrifice of praise in that it calls us to prayer and thanksgiving. It is the remembrance itself in thanks for what God has done that is the sacrifice. There is nothing here at all about Jesus’ body and blood being presented again on the altar to atone anew for the sins of those present.
 
Thanks for sharing that…! What I’m finding is that from the Canon Law and CCC, using the word sacrifice, it becomes subjective. I am glad you agree with Scripture.

I guess the question I have is, do you believe Jesus is substantively in the communion host, given the Council of Trent, 13th session, First Decree, under the Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III: “And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, ~~, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood”.
 
I think they were referring to Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chapters 65-67. Chapter 65 appears to be a continuation of his narrative of a Christian baptism in chapter 61.

Thanks for sharing that…! I think my response to limoncello4021 answers this.
 
And I don’t see you responding to the question. Your behavior indicates to me that you aren’t really interested in getting the correct answer, which has been provided more than once, but rather having your preconceived notions catered to.
There have been many questions… If you show your question here, I’ll be sure to answer it…
And are you making an assumption on my motive…? You could just ask me that as well, so that you don’t jump to false assumptions…
 
Thanks Todd, you may want to look at my response to Limoncello4021 on this. I have a different look at this, given the whole context of Justin’s writings.
 
The Bible was originally compiled, not for individual reading & interpretation, but for use in the Liturgy. The same primary purpose it is used for today in the Catholic Church.
I’m wondering how you came to that conclusion, given:
2 Corinthians 1:13-14 - For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and understand and I hope you will fully understand , just as you did partially understand us, that on the day of our Lord Jesus you will boast of us as we will boast of you

Colossians 1:9-10 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God
 
I also see this discussion going nowhere. Yes, you have a different view than the Catholic Church on these readings. So be it. You are a Protestant “protesting” the accepted tradition of the Church, come down to us through saints teachings, apologetics, and the Magisterium. I too wonder what you are seeking because I also detect that you just want to argue your point and not learn. You are on a Catholic forum after all. Of course you are welcome here but at a certain point discussion is pointless.
 
“Give us this day our daily Bread.” (Matthew 6:11)
“I Am the Bread of Life.” (John 6:48)

💗✝️🕊️
 
I didn’t see the scriptural reference for the Mass in your answer…
As Apostolic Tradition is part of the answer,
As are portions of Scriptures
and since there never needs to be a specific Scriptural reference for every portion of Christianity,
the already given answers easily suffice to answer the OP Question
 
I’m wondering how you came to that conclusion, given:
2 Corinthians 1:13-14 - For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and understand and I hope you will fully understand , just as you did partially understand us, that on the day of our Lord Jesus you will boast of us as we will boast of you

Colossians 1:9-10 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God
None of that has anything to do with how, when, or why the Bible was compiled.

You’re apparently well read. You’ve apparently read the Bible. I don’t understand how someone learned as yourself reaches the conclusions you do.

Jesus quite plainly left a Church, built on living stone of which he is the cornerstone. Yet, the Bible, created by that Church, is exalted & the Church discarded. Reminiscent of the Sadducees & Pharisees regard for the temple & disregard for mercy.
 
I had to dust of my notes about Justin, and the Dialogue with Trypho, just one of his great writings.
Your “notes” come verbatim from an article on an anti-Catholic website whose link I cannot even reference here per forum guidelines. Some of your responses have been moved around but your second and last paragraphs are a word for word lift. Even if you can’t link the article at least have the honesty to reference the organization where your notes are coming from.
 
Last edited:
Justin actually believes that prayer and thanksgiving is the true sacrifice.
I think you are reading Justin wrong. Praying to God and thanking him with words, whether it is done at the Eucharistic celebration or elsewhere, are indeed perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God but only “when they are offered by worthy men.” And, it is only such sacrifices, i.e., sacrifices in general that are offered by worthy men, that Christians undertake. Scripture is clear that praying to God and thanking him with words are not the only pleasing sacrifices. For example, St Paul called the (monetary) gift that the Philippians sent to him by Epaphroditus, “a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.” (Philippians 4:18) And, the author of Hebrews similarly said, “…to do good and to share what you have, such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” (Hebrews 13:16) If Justin truly meant that praying to God and thanking him with words are the only well-pleasing sacrifice of Christians, he would be contradicting not only Scripture but himself as well. In the opening sentence of chapter 117, he identified the bread and the cup of the Eucharist themselves as “well-pleasing” sacrifices, sacrifices enjoined by Christ himself. In the opening sentence of chapter 41, he identified the bread and the cup of the Eucharist themselves as sacrifices, sacrifices prescribed by Christ himself, and because of their obvious (bread/flour) similarities, he likened the bread of the Eucharist to the sacrifice of fine flour prescribed in the Old Testament for those purified of leprosy.
There is nothing here at all about Jesus’ body and blood being presented again on the altar to atone anew for the sins of those present.
As far as I know, you are correct; Justin does not say anything about the atonement or forgiveness of sins through the sacrament of the Eucharist; he only mentions the Eucharist being a remembrance of Christ’s suffering and death and being a (material) thanksgiving sacrifice to God. The Catholic Church does not teach that the atonement or forgiveness of the eternal consequences of mortal sins can be obtained through the sacrament of the Eucharist; instead, it teaches that the forgiveness of the eternal consequences of mortal sins can be obtained through the sacraments of Baptism and Confession. Catholics who have committed mortal sins are not suppose to receive the Eucharist until they have first received forgiveness in the sacrament of Confession, if possible. (See Matt 5:23-24; 1 Cor 11:27-28) However, the Catholic Church does teach that the forgiveness of the temporal consequences of sins can be obtained at Mass but that is the same forgiveness of sins that St John says can be obtained through the prayers of others. (1 John 5:16-17) And, one of the things Catholics do at Mass is pray that God will forgiven their sins and the sins of others.
 
Last edited:
It’s also very well known and taught as well - from call it - the historical perspective

Jewish Roots of Catholic Mass - from the USCCB

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te.../eucharist/upload/catsun-2011-doc-pitre-roots DOT pdf
Thanks for sharing that. I have just a couple of thoughts. Did the Hebrews believe that the substance of God was in the bread they ate? And if they missed a Sabbath, did they commit a mortal sin and lose their salvation…? Did they pray to anyone other than God in the service…?
 
I also see this discussion going nowhere. Yes, you have a different view than the Catholic Church on these readings. So be it. You are a Protestant “protesting” the accepted tradition of the Church, come down to us through saints teachings, apologetics, and the Magisterium. I too wonder what you are seeking because I also detect that you just want to argue your point and not learn. You are on a Catholic forum after all. Of course you are welcome here but at a certain point discussion is pointless.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I’m not Protestant.
Eph 2:20 explains who the church was built on: “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”
 
“Give us this day our daily Bread.” (Matthew 6:11)
“I Am the Bread of Life.” (John 6:48)
Amen… He gives us provision daily, and He is the Spiritual bread of life…!!
John 6:63-64 “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”
 
So you are calling Jesus a liar. When you say that nobody ate Jesus that means that when HE pronounced HIS, this words, (The WORD of GOD),
Matthew 26:26 Now while they were eating the meal, Jesus took bread, and he blessed and broke and gave it to his disciples, and he said: “Take and eat. This is my body.”
26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks. And he gave it to them, saying: “Drink from this, all of you.
26:28) For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins.
So HE lied, HE is not GOD who CAN say those words AND EFFECT the change, the miraculous event that change the destiny of human kind.
This means that Jesus never performed that other miracle at Cana when HE changed water into wine.
AH but we hold that HE is GOD and therefore HE can do this and in a mysterious way we may partake as HE requested of HIS body which is the true bread of life better than the manna that fell from the sky to nourish the Israelite in the desert.
Peace!

N.B.
As for the Mass I would refer you to Scott Hanh, he has some very good arguments for where does the Catholic Church derived the Mass from, just do a google search for “Scott Hanh the Mass”.
Double Peace!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top