Is The Papacy Threatened?

Lori...

False.

The Catholic view if the mass is NOT that it is just symbolic, which is what "re-presents" would imply.

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is being re-sacrificed during every mass, only with no bloodshed....


From the Council of Trent....

From the Catholic Chatechism....

These teachings are EXCEEDINGLY heretical, Lori. They are NOT of God.

The Lord Jesus Christ died ONCE for our sins, and rose from the dead for our justification.

He is dying no more.

The scripture says Christ was sacrificed ONCE for all time. NOT over and over again hundreds of thousands of times over 2000 years, but "without blood".

ONCE

 

Lori...

Why? Are you forgetfull?

 

Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

1 Cor 11:24-26
"This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 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." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Lk 22:19
"This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Orthodox Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.

Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Heb 10:12
But this one (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins ...
Heb 7:27
He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself.
Heb 9:25-28
Not that he might offer himself repeatedly ... But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. ... Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many ...

The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.

Cyprian (Carthage, 200-258), Letters, No 63:9 (To Caecilian)
In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine He called His Blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord's sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion.

 

If Christians were not so forgetful, we probably wouldn't sin as much as we do.

 

The Catholic church claims that the Priest has the magic powers to "confect the body of Christ" - they claim that the priest does not "lose those POWERS" even if that priest is defrocked for heresy.

They claim there is a 'marking on the soul' for holy orders and it is such that the POWERS of the priest are not revokable even by the Catholic church.

Furthermore - the book "The Faith Explained" admits that if this Catholic Doctrine about confecting God is wrong - then they are guilty of idolatry for worshipping a piece of bread as though it were God.

Thus the "magical powers" kind of claim is clear - and the fact that the bread really is to be worshipped as God - as though the priest had the POWER to confect God - is clearly being taught.

By contrast Christ claimed that it is a MEMORIAL service not a continuation or repeat of the "once for all time" sacrifice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

G&T-Man's teaching has no bearing on what the Word of God teaches. Mans writings are not infalible, God's Word is, and any time we rely on the teaching of man over scripture or to prove scripture we become open to error. In this case the Word of God is very clear that the "Lord's Supper" is a memorial that we do in remembrance of Christ's once for all sacrifice.The veses below make this clear. No more earthy tabernacles, no more offering (re-presenting as you put it) He is our Hight Priest and He has offered himself for us in Heaven once for all.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The Gospel is: The Death (Jesus died for our sins) The burial, and the Resurrection ("He is Alive")- 1 Corinthians 15(below). There is no more dying (sacrifice). I don't know how much clearer the scriptures can be on this Lori. One cannot believe that Christ is continually being sacrifice in the Mass and yet be Resurrected only once. So one of these teaching must be wrong. Either the Bible is in error or the RCC teaching based on the ECF. I will believe the Bible Lori.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

Bob-

The 'magic' you refer to takes place (the epiclesis) by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses the priest. Have you ever been used by the Holy Spirit, Bob?

 

You can state this all you want, DHK, but your wrong.

 

The Catholic teaching on the Mass is often either grossly misunderstood or misrepresented by many Protestants, including Baptists. It is therefore essential to first outline exactly what the Catholic Church does actually teach. The Second Vatican Council succinctly outlined the Church’s teaching on the Mass as follows:

"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."4

In the on-going controversy on this board between Catholics and Protestants over the Mass debate initially centers around the meaning of Christ’s words "This is my body." In St. Luke 22 we have the following account of the Last Supper:

"Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (v. 19).

The Greek words used in St. Luke 22 for "This is my body" are Touto estin to soma mou. The verb estin can mean either "is really" or "is figuratively." The usual meaning is the former; Protestants, of course, insist on the latter meaning. However, to accept only a figurative meaning for estin would entail a rejection of the universal understanding held since Apostolic times and contradict directly the tenor of St. John chapter 6, where Christ first promises the Eucharist:

"...the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you...for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink...When many of his disciples heard it, they said, This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" (vv. 51-60).

In the above passage the Greek word used for flesh is sarx, which only means physical flesh, while the Greek word for "eat" literally means "to gnaw."

Another argument revolves around the claim that in the language spoken by Christ, namely Aramaic, there was no separate word for "represents," and hence Christ only used "is" because He was inhibited by a limited vocabulary. This feeble argument, now outdated, was disposed of over a century ago by Cardinal Wiseman who showed that Aramaic has nearly forty different words for "represents." There was therefore no need for Christ to use "is" if He intended only to speak figuratively.

 

*BRRRRP!* Wrong!

Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as a memorial, a reminder, of what He was about to do. In no way is it to "perpetuate" that sacrifice. His atoning work was sufficient and complete in and of itself. To try to "perpetuate" the actual sacrifice would be to continue it... keeping Him on the cross (as I have said before). Are you so blinded by the RCC as to not see this?

 

what, once not enough to atone for our sins? we need Him constantly on the cross, constantly atoning for our sins, once wasn't powerful enough for us?

 

Your rejection of the Mass as a sacrifice (I suspect) is based on various verses in Hebrews, chapters 7, 9 and 10:

"He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself" (7, 27);

"He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (9, 12);

"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins" (10, 10-11).

According to you Baptist, SDA, etc., Catholics, by claiming that the Mass is a sacrifice, are adding another sacrifice in addition to Christ’s. Therefore, Catholics must implicitly hold that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient, perfect or complete to atone for all sin. Further, by claiming that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is being offered to the Father again and again, Catholics "crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt" (Heb. 6, 6).

The Catholic Church, however, does not teach that the sacrifice of the Mass is another sacrifice in addition to Calvary or a recrucifixion of Christ. Rather, it is a re-presenting of Christ's original sacrifice, making it present to all Christians in all places and at all times. The sacrifice of Calvary and the sacrifice of the Mass are one and the same sacrifice, the manner in which they are offered is alone different. The Council of Trent put it in these terms:

"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 propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid…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 sacrifice of Christ was accomplished once in time but to God it is an event eternally present before Him. This is gathered from St. John’s words in the Book of Revelation: "And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world" (13, 8 [Douai]). In heaven, Christ still bears the appearance of a victim: "And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain" (Rev. 5, 6). The Mass slices through time and re-presents this eternal sacrifice before us so all Christians may eat the flesh of the Eternal Lamb after it has been slain.

To the contrary, it is argued that the words in St. Luke 22, 19, "Do this in remembrance of me," testify that Christ only intended to establish a memorial meal, whereby Christians throughout all ages would remember and give thanks for the "once and for all" sacrifice of Calvary. However, the word for remembrance in Greek is anamnesis, which means a remembering that makes something past become present. As ex-Protestant Max Thurian wrote before his conversion, "This memorial is not a simple objective act of recollection, it is a liturgical action…which makes the Lord present…which recalls as a memorial before the Father the unique sacrifice of the Son, and makes Him present in His memorial."

The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would offer a true sacrifice to God in the form of bread and wine, that Jewish sacrifices would one day be brought to an end, and that in their stead the Gentiles would in every place offer a daily and pleasing sacrifice to God’s Name. In Gen. 14 we read that Melchizedek, the king of Salem and priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine:

"After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand! And Abram gave him a tenth of everything" verses 17-20).

Psalm 110 [109] foretold that the Messiah would be a Priest "after the order of Melchizedek":

 

The Jewish priesthood and sacrifices would be replaced by Gentile ones as predicted by the Prophet Malachias:

"I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. 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" (Mal. 1, 10-11.

Malachias’ words found fulfillment in the worship of the early Christians:

"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2, 42);

"Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts" (Acts 2, 46);

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10, 16);

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11, 26).

The early Christians were also warned that for those who do not partake of this sacrificial bread and wine worthily dire consequences await them:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11, 27-30).

"Where is the prophecy of Malachias fulfilled today? James Cardinal Gibbons answers as follows:"

"We may divide the inhabitants of the world into five different classes of people, professing different forms of religion - Pagans, Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants and Catholics. Among which of these shall we find the clean oblation of which the prophet speaks? Not among the Pagan nations; for they worship false gods, and consequently cannot have any sacrifice pleasing to the Almighty. Not among the Jews; for they have ceased to sacrifice altogether, and the words of the prophet apply not to the Jews, but to the Gentiles. Not among the Mohammedans; for they also reject sacrifices. Not among any of the Protestants sects; for they all distinctly repudiate sacrifices. Therefore, it is only in the Catholic Church that is fulfilled this glorious prophecy; for whithersoever you go, you will find the clean oblation offered on Catholic altars. If you travel from America to Europe, to Oceania, to Africa, or Asia, you will see our altars erected, and our Priests daily fulfilling the words of the prophets by offering the clean oblation of the body and blood of Christ."

 

Again Lori, you are relying on man's teaching to interpret what the Scripture says. Please show me where in the Scriptures it says this:

(Quote: "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross)

and yet I did show you from Hebrews that it teaches against this.And I have studied John 6 and it is not teaching what the RCC says. John 6 is consistent with Hebrews as well as all the accounts of the "Last Supper" and Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 11, when we alow Scripture to interpret Scripture instead of man interjecting his interpretation which conflicts with the whole of Scripture.

And let me repeat, If Christ died Once (which He did), He Rose Once. If Christ is a perpetual sacrifice then how could we have One Resurrection or any for that matter? The RCC teaching is not consistant on this. The whole point of the Wording of Scripture is to show that "Jesus died (was sacrificed) Once, He was buried Once, and He was raised Once and is setting on the right hand of the Father. This is literally what the Bible teaches. No more sacrifice, on going, redone or perpetual. If it were He would not have been Buried and Raised from the dead. How can He be on the right hand of the Father (bodily) and yet be continually sacrificed (bodily) in the Eucharist? His body can only be in one place at one time.

 

Several well meaning but misinformed individuals here have made the claim that the church known today as the "Catholic Church" of Rome was invented in the 4th century. A cursory examination of the historical writings of the Early Church shows this claim to be fallacious.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the
Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the
Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished."
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.”
The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.”
Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.”
Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

I could go on but this should suffice. 

 

"Catholic" = universal. Since these writings are translations (I sincerely doubt they were written in English), the translator chose to use "catholic" as "universal". At that point in time there was only one church. That changed eventually. The RCC and its practices of twisting scripture by means of its own interpretation and the addition of pagan practices and rituals (in order to better assimilate these pagans) came about later.

Peter never claimed to be the mouth of God, and yet the Pope's words are equated with the bible. Paul made no mention of the bread and the wine being transformed into flesh and blood, and yet the RCC et al make this claim and sacrifice Christ anew. the various practices and beliefs of the RCC (confessing to a priest, purgatory, praying to dead people) were not a part of biblical Christianity but were added later on.

There is no need for further sacrifices. We are not under the Law, nor needs be that Christ be re-crucified. If further sacrifices are needed then Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was not sufficient and we are without actual salvation.

Yes, we Protestants abhor this "sacrifice" so proudly regaled by the RCC. The bread used at the last supper was bread, not flesh; the wine used was wine, not blood. Had Jesus hacked off an ear and offered it up I could see the RCC practice, or if he slashed a vein and filled up the chalice. He did not do this, however. instead He used the unleavened bread and the wine of the Passover meal as symbols, SYMBOLS, for His body and blood.

Cuts through the space-time continuum? Like Star Trek? Again, "re-presents" is to sacrifice all over again... so was Christ's sacrifice not enough? Does it have to be repeated continually?

 

Here is ample evidence concerning the grave and hellish errors of the Catholic Church.