|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:59 pm
Yay! Our first debate thread! Well, kinda. This is a chance to practice defending your faith! (woot!) The following quoted essay is about why the Mass is blasphemous and whatnot. The challenge? Prove why this guy is wrong. This will require research (maybe) and much thought. (Also, this thread is kind of a test thread for this particular kind of debate threads. Please answer my poll, even if you don't want to post an answer on this thread. I will use the poll to gague people's response to this thread, which will determine whether or not I make another one like it. You can also post comments regarding whether or not you like this type of thread, ideas to improve it, etc. etc.) You can answer a part of this essay or maybe even the whole thing. The choice is up to you. However, since this thread is meant to make you work and to help develope your skills in debating theology, I would ask that you try to respond before you read what other people have already said. It's ok if the same point is made 50 different times. The point is to get you thinking about how you would refute these arguments, not just how these arguments might be refuted. As for me, I'm going to hold off on my own rebuttals until I see that other people have posted stuff. (In hope that this will motivate more people to post responses.) If I see that there is one part of the essay that isn't being refuted, I'll focus my attentions there. Now, onto the essay in question . . . . WARNING! This essay was written by someone who is very anti-Catholic. Your beliefs will be challanged. The Church will be insulted. A Tip for handling this well: Don't take it personally. It's easy to get upset when our beliefs are called into question. It feels like we are being attacked. If feels like the other person is such a jerk! But it's not personal. This guy is talking about what he believes is true. That's it. It's not our fault that he is attacking the Church. There is something going on in his world and in his mind that is causing this. Don't get defensive. Don't get upset. Just deal with the facts. Ok, now I think we're finally ready to see that essay . . . Quote: The ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS VS the BIBLE by Charles C. Cook Reprinted from Grace and Truth, December 1912 [The Roman Catholic Church is a false religious system which has deceived and enslaved millions down through the years. In the name of Christianity, it preaches another gospel-a false gospel-which places it under God's curse. Galatians1:6-9. During the 16th century Reformation and the four centuries which followed, the word "Protestant" was ascribed to Bible believers who recognized and warned about the errors and evils of the Roman Catholic system-and separated from it. With the rise the ecumenical movement (apostasy and unbelief) around the turn of the century, liberal Protestant leaders began a move back to Rome. In the last two decades many evangelicals, charismatic and some professed fundamentalists have also joined the pilgrimage back to Rome. Dr. Billy Graham, the world's most prominent evangelist, and other evangelical leaders increasingly treat the Roman Catholic Church as a part of Christianity instead of the false religious system it is and always has been. The following article, written over eighty years ago by a faithful servant of God, is reprinted here with the prayer that it may be used of the Lord to open the eyes of true believers and Roman Catholics alike to the diabolical nature and meaning of the Mass which is at the very heart of Catholicism.-Ed.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. in the Roman Catholic Church, is called "The Mass" a word which in itself has no significance, being merely a modification the phrase, "Ite, missa est,"-"Go, the assembly is dismissed," which was uttered in the early assemblies of the church at the dismissing of the congregation, after which those who remained partook of the emblems in the Lord's Supper. By a strange use-or rather misuse-the words of dismissal uttered at the end of one service became in the word "Mass" the name for the service which followed. But that which this word "Mass" represents-in itself so meaningless -yet having an overshadowing significance in Romanism, a system to which it is distinctive and peculiar-goes far beyond any idea or conception that can be found in the New Testament. The Christian sees in the Lord's Supper a memorial, a communion, a feast of thanksgiving, and some indeed regard it as a sacrament, but in Rome it is a "Sacrifice"!—ceremony in which the celebrant boldly claims to offer for the living and the dead, a repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. That this involves not merely a difference in words, expressions and forms, but of vital faith and practice will at once be seen. It includes the belief that the officiating priest actually changes the elements of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, the process by which this change is effected being called "Transubstantiation." This is Rome's bold and fearless, yea uncompromising avowal, and as we look upon it, so clearly presented, we see the very heart of Romish error. Rome has many superstitions, follies, misleading forms and erroneous doctrines such as Mariolatry, purgatory, confession, saint-worship, prayers for the dead, priestly absolution, spurious sacraments, etc., etc., but none of these can be compared in point of danger, to the blasting power of the Mass. Let this doctrine be accepted, and there logically follows the belief that a priest can create God! And having created Him, that he can and does offer Him as a sacrifice for sin! For the testing of such a claim, there can be only one tribunal, and that is the Word of God. But when tested here we find only, and everywhere, definite and conclusive contradiction. If there is one thing the Word of God does not teach, it is this. If there is one thing the Word of God opposes, it is this. These assertions may be easily sustained, for— First: The doctrine of the Mass denies the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ,-the Atonement,-a truth which the Bible has safeguarded at every point, in language that cannot be misunderstood. For example, in Hebrews 9:12 we read, "By His [Christ's] own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for s." If the believer's redemption is eternal is it not in itself sufficient? Again in Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ was once [not 'many times to be'] offered to bear the sins of many." Again, Hebrews 10:10, "By the which [God's] will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Again, Hebrews 10:12,14, "But this Man [Jesus Christ] after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God....For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." And all this is corroborated by the Holy Spirit, for we read in Hebrews 10:15, "Whereof the Holy Ghost is a witness to us." Added to these clear statements are the conclusive words found in the 17th and 18th verses of the tenth chapter. "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." How definitely do all these quotations harmonize with the dying testimony of our Lord, sealed with His own precious blood, "It is finished." The truth is also at once brought to light by the simple question, Where is our Lord Jesus Christ right now? Is He still a curse? Is He still forsaken as He was when He hung on the cross as a sacrifice for sin? The priest in his claim of sacrificing (crucifying) Christ afresh answers, "Yes!" Surely that is what the offering again of the body and blood of Christ means; that He is still a curse, still forsaken of God. But the Word of God answers, "No!" by telling us distinctly that Christ is now at the right hand of God, Himself the High Priest making intercession for His people. That is, the Bible tells us that Christ is now Himself performing the very office which the priest on earth claims to be fulfilling for those who resort to his ministry in the Mass. The glorious fact is, that the presence of the High Priest in heaven there performing His appropriate work of intercession, renders it altogether unnecessary that there be any priest on earth, and accordingly we find that in all the New Testament there is no such thing known to it, for this age, as a human priest. If any were needed we would certainly expect to find them among the apostles, but among them, there was not one who claimed priesthood! Peter himself never claimed to be a priest, and is never even referred to as such! The only priesthood recognized in the New Testament for this dispensation of grace is the spiritual priesthood of all believers, as we find it stated in 1 Peter 2:9, "But ye [all believers] are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into the His marvelous light." Continuing our argument, we find the Word of God declaring in Hebrews 9:22, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." So then to remit sins by sacrifice of the Mass the priest must shed blood. But does he shed blood when he offers the Mass? No, he eats the bread, and drinks the wine, after claiming to transform them into the flesh and blood of Christ. He does not even go through the form of shedding blood. How then can he remit ? He cannot. The only way in which sins can be remitted is by faith in the Blood of Christ that was shed on Calvary. We see further, that if the priest offers Christ upon the altar as a sacrifice, the Resurrection of Christ has not power or meaning. With Rome, Christ is ever upon the altar (i.e., the Cross). Here is a fatal defect, for the Word says, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins," I Corinthians 15:17. The Mass tells only of Christ's death and nothing of His resurrection. But how sweet to the heart of the Gospel believer are the words of assurance Romans 5:1, "Therefore"—since Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification"—"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Second: The second charge against the Mass is that it misrepresents the nature of the elements in the Lord's Supper. Against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper into the real body and blood of Christ, some one has well written: "The question is simply this : In John 6, when the Savior states "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life, and I will up at the last day'; 'He that eateh My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him,' is He figuratively or literally? "In answering this question would take this ground: In every instance in Scripture where a figure is intended, the words cannot be understood to be literal. 'Except a man be born again'; 'I am the vine, ye are the branches'; 'This rock was Christ'; and hundreds more, could not possibly be meant to be literal. The manna was evidently real food, as we learn in Exodus. But when Jesus says, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven,' it could not possibly mean that He was a loaf of bread from heaven. Was not bread used here as a figure of Jesus sent from heaven, as seen incarnate among men? He says, 'I am the bread of life.' This He says whilst He was here a living Man. No change into bread, or bread into Himself, but ‘I am the bread of life.' Then He says, 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.' To take this literally, then, would be to say that Jesus was a piece of bread which might be eaten! and that bread would become flesh—His flesh—and be given for the life of the world. Would it not be just as true to say that He was literally a vine? "As a figure of the incarnate Jesus, bread was very striking. As we receive bread for the nourishment of the body, so by faith we receive the Person of Christ as the incarnate Word. But, not only so, we must also receive Him offered on the cross for the life of the world. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' We will look at this literally, and what would follow? If eating the flesh and drinking the blood means eating the wafer, or the wafer turned into, or changed into, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, then what would the following words mean: 'Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' Mark, these words are absolute, without any condition whatever. ‘Whoso’ would teach that any wicked man, unrepentant, or unbelieving, living in sin, yet, if he only ate the Eucharist, had eternal life, and was sure to be raised up by the Lord; and that no Christian can believe. "Taking these words spiritually, everything becomes clear and no Christian need have a shadow of difficulty indeed, this is in perfect harmony with all Scripture. ‘Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life. John 5:24. But we must not only by faith receive Him as the bread, but drink His blood. We must receive the solemn word of His atoning death-the shedding of His blood, for ‘without the shedding of blood is no remission.’ Thus, the more we study this Scripture, the more we see the impossibility of , as in every other figure, applying the words in a carnal, or literal way. To put the Eucharist, then, in the place of receiving Christ Himself, by faith, would be a fatal mistake. Third: The third charge against this stupendously wicked institution, is that by it Rome has held and is holding millions of souls in bondage the end of which is eternal despair. All the blessings of the Gospel are withheld from those who accept the doctrine of the Mass, for it is in complete and deadly opposition to the Gospel. Believing in the Mass none can say, "Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood," Revelation 1:5. The Mass practically says that the sacrifice of Christ is of no more value than the death of a goat under the old Dispensation. It says the work of Christ is not finished, but must be repeated and continued. It practically denies His resurrection and ascension to glory, for He is kept in the place of death. If so, He is still forsaken of God, made sin, then there no Savior who has delivered us from the wrath to come and no salvation is possible, and thus the Mass entirely destroys Christianity. What a scourge the Mass becomes in the hands of Rome to drive its votaries to obedience. Armed with it Rome forces them to come continually to her shrines, and to pay unceasingly for the support of her vast ritualistic display, her temporal, material pomp and glory. And after all the gifts and fanatical devotion of her deluded followers what does she offer them at last? Heaven? No!—Purgatory! This awaits them all, form Pope to the humblest devotee. Purgatory! A place of pain and of uncertain release. But purgatory is only one piece of the whole system of superstition, intimidation and deception. It is quite a logical attendant on what precedes it, for purgatory demands more masses, and consequently a continuance bondage on the one hand and an inflow of receipts on the other. By contrast how beautiful, comforting and sustaining is the Christian’s belief! For him there are no attractions in the Mass. He realizes he is washed from his sins in the precious blood of Christ, that he is sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of Redemption (the resurrection), that his name is written in the Lambs Book of Life, and that Heaven is his home. This is the Gospel—the glorious Gospel of the Blessed God, and enjoying it he can triumphantly exclaim—"Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable Gift!" To him the Lord's Supper is indeed the Eucharist - the feast of Thanksgiving. article from here.Important note: This is posted here to help people learn how to argue against attacks on the Catholic Church. It is not meant to make you question what we believe in. If there is a particular part of this essay that is troubling you, one that you can't seem to answer and others have not answered yet, let us know. This is meant to strengthen your faith, not break it. The Catholic Church is the one true Church set on Earth by our Lord, Jesus Christ. As such, we have the support of the bible, early Christians, and everything else imaginable. The Lord will be with His Church until the end of time. The answers to these attacks on our Church are always available. We just have to find them. Also, some helpful resources can be found under the "Catholic Links" thread in the main forum.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:10 am
Well, I was going to wait 'til other people posted to post my response, but it's been a really long time and no one has posted yet, so I'll start us out. As I said in the first post, try to answer the attacks in this essay on your own first to help you with your own debating-ness, and then read this. (all 18 pages of it!) Quote: The ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS VS the BIBLE by Charles C. Cook Reprinted from Grace and Truth, December 1912 First, I would like to point out the problem with the title. The Mass vs. the Bible. 90% (if not more) of the Mass is taken directly from the bible. Therefore, the mass could never be in conflict with the bible. Quote: [The Roman Catholic Church is a false religious system which has deceived and enslaved millions down through the years. In the name of Christianity, it preaches another gospel-a false gospel-which places it under God's curse. Galatians1:6-9. During the 16th century Reformation and the four centuries which followed, the word "Protestant" was ascribed to Bible believers who recognized and warned about the errors and evils of the Roman Catholic system-and separated from it. With the rise the ecumenical movement (apostasy and unbelief) around the turn of the century, liberal Protestant leaders began a move back to Rome. In the last two decades many evangelicals, charismatic and some professed fundamentalists have also joined the pilgrimage back to Rome. Dr. Billy Graham, the world's most prominent evangelist, and other evangelical leaders increasingly treat the Roman Catholic Church as a part of Christianity instead of the false religious system it is and always has been. The following article, written over eighty years ago by a faithful servant of God, is reprinted here with the prayer that it may be used of the Lord to open the eyes of true believers and Roman Catholics alike to the diabolical nature and meaning of the Mass which is at the very heart of Catholicism.-Ed.] Logical fallacy: well poisoning. For those of you who do not know what well poisoning is, it is basically making unbacked and biased statements as if they were fact in order to make your audience turn against your opponent before the arguments are even presented. First, the editor stated that the Roman Catholics were evil and that our Church turned away from the one true Gospel in favor of another. Gallatians 1:6-9 was cited. That verse says that any Gospel that goes against the Gospel that he and the other apostles taught is false. Again, Catholics are accused of being evil and “accursed”, yet no evidence is given for this claim. Second, the editor sets up the Protestants as the victims in an attempt to gain sympathy for their case. Whether or not the Protestants wanted to be called Protestants and whether or not they were persecuted, it is irrelevant to the debate of whether the mass is compatible with the bible or not. Third, the editor states that this article has noble intentions: to save the heathen Catholics. Thus, the author is made a wonderful and holy person for doing God’s work. Yet, where is this article found? In the middle of a Protestant website. Clearly, no matter what the editor says to the contrary, this article was meant not for Catholics, but for Protestants. If that is the case, the article was not meant to open the eyes of Catholics, but rather to secure the blindfolds on the Protestants. So far, I have refuted nothing because there is nothing to refute. In any fair debate, the above paragraph would be thrown out due to its logical fallacy and lack of any supporting evidence. However, you are unlikely to have a referee or judge in your average debate with a protestant, so just point out that they haven’t made any valid points and move on. Quote: THE LORD'S SUPPER. in the Roman Catholic Church, is called "The Mass" a word which in itself has no significance, being merely a modification the phrase, "Ite, missa est,"-"Go, the assembly is dismissed," which was uttered in the early assemblies of the church at the dismissing of the congregation, after which those who remained partook of the emblems in the Lord's Supper. By a strange use-or rather misuse-the words of dismissal uttered at the end of one service became in the word "Mass" the name for the service which followed. Yes, the word “Mass” comes from the dismissal. However, to say that it has no significance comes only from ignorance. The word mass comes from the sending forth at the end of Mass (also note that the celebration of the Eucharist came before the dismissal, hence the congregation not being dismissed and actually being present for the Eucharist, which is the center of the Catholic faith and the most important part of the Mass. Dismissing people before the most important part of the mass took place would make no sense). The Mass is a sending forth because we come to the Mass to celebrate and praise the Lord, after which we are sent forth to do the Lord’s work in the world. To say that is insignificant is . . . well, not something I ever expected to hear from a fellow Christian. Regardless of all that, this paragraph is, again, completely irrelevant. The source of the word “mass” has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ or the bible, and therefore has no place in this debate. Quote: But that which this word "Mass" represents-in itself so meaningless -yet having an overshadowing significance in Romanism, a system to which it is distinctive and peculiar-goes far beyond any idea or conception that can be found in the New Testament. The Mass is meaningless? Did Jesus ever do anything at all that was meaningless? No? Then it is impossible to say that the Mass is meaningless, since it was instituted by Jesus. Oh, and where was it instituted? Luke 24:13-35. (Gee, that’s in the New Testament, isn’t it?) On the road to Emaus, Jesus opens the scriptures to the disciples, they discuss Jesus’s life and teachings, and then they break bread together (note that Jesus is revealed in the breaking of the bread, after he blesses it just like he did at the last supper). Gee, sounds a lot like the Mass to me. Quote: The Christian sees in the Lord's Supper a memorial, a communion, a feast of thanksgiving, and some indeed regard it as a sacrament, but in Rome it is a "Sacrifice"!—ceremony in which the celebrant boldly claims to offer for the living and the dead, a repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. That this involves not merely a difference in words, expressions and forms, but of vital faith and practice will at once be seen. It includes the belief that the officiating priest actually changes the elements of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, the process by which this change is effected being called "Transubstantiation." Yes, the Mass is a sacrifice. That is what Jesus asked us to do. If you look at the Last Supper in the Gospels, Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me.” If you look at the original Greek, the word used for this phrase indicates a memorial sacrifice, as is used in the Old Testament when referring to the Passover sacrifice. Jesus is not just saying to eat bread and drink wine and think of him while doing it. He is telling his disciples to offer up a memorial sacrifice. scripturecatholic.com John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically. John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what? John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:1 cool and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal. John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink. John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque. John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words. . . . . John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly. Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation. John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe. John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples. . . . . Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. 1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so. Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is." Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten). John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten. Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed. Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross. Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross. Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross. Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover. Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed. Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed. John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4. John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest. Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten. 1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. 1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God. . . . Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.
Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world. So you see, the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist is in fact biblical. Furthermore, it is the Protestant celebration of communion that goes against what the apostles taught. Galatians 1:6-9. Quote: This is Rome's bold and fearless, yea uncompromising avowal, and as we look upon it, so clearly presented, we see the very heart of Romish error. Again, no evidence is offered for why this is “false”. The author’s reason for this teaching being “false” seems to be nothing more than, “It sounds weird.” However, one has to wonder how someone can find it odd that bread and wine can turn into flesh and blood, but they find it perfectly acceptable that water can turn into wine and 5 loaves and 3 fish can feed 50,000 people. Quote: Rome has many superstitions, follies, misleading forms and erroneous doctrines such as Mariolatry, purgatory, confession, saint-worship, prayers for the dead, priestly absolution, spurious sacraments, etc., etc., but none of these can be compared in point of danger, to the blasting power of the Mass. Let’s address each of these “erroneous” doctrines. Mariolatry: I can’t find this term in my Catechism, so I doubt it is a Catholic term. But, as far as I can tell, it refers to our Blessed Mother. I believe there is already another thread here about Mary, so I won’t go into it. Needless to say, the Catholic views of Mary are supported by Scripture, Tradition, the writing of the early Church fathers, Marian apparitions, etc. etc. Purgatory: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/how2purg.htmhttp://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/159http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.htmlhttp://www.fisheaters.com/purgatory.htmlYeah. That should answer any Protestant questions and objections to Purgatory. Confession: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.htmlSaint-worship: Ok, we don’t worship the saints. Of course that’s an erroneous doctrine. Even Catholics believe that saint worship is false. This doesn’t even require research. All you need is common sense to see that Saints are not worshiped in the Church. Prayers for the dead: http://www.fisheaters.com/prayingforthedead.htmlPriestly absolution: I think he is referring to priests absolving sins, in which case this would fit under confession (if he wasn’t objection to priests absolving sins in his confession objection, I’m not sure what else there is for a Protestant to object against, but whatever.) In that case, cross apply the confession web page. Otherwise, he might be objecting to the idea Protestants made up that Priests are automatically absolved from all sin, which is once again a doctrine that the Catholic Church neither teaches or supports. Spurious Sacraments: Spurious adj. not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit. All Catholic Sacraments come from Christ. (marriage traces back to Christ and his apostles only by his teachings on it. Since it was already a practice at the time, there was no need for Christ to initiate it. However, Protestants get married too, so I doubt they will have a problem with this one.) Baptism- “Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Confession- “Who’s sins you forgive are forgiven” Eucharist- “Do this in remembrance of me.” Confirmation- Jesus calls the Holy Spirit down onto the apostles and states that the Holy Spirit will be with his Church always. Holy Orders- Pentecost/Jesus calling his disciples. Holy Matrimony- found in Jesus’s teachings. Anointing of the Sick- Mark 6:13 and James 5:14-15 Which one of these Sacraments is not genuine, Not authentic, Not true, or not from the proper source, Jesus? Quote: Let this doctrine be accepted, and there logically follows the belief that a priest can create God! And having created Him, that he can and does offer Him as a sacrifice for sin! That is completely absurd and not at all logical. 1. The priest does not create the flesh of Christ. There is only one Creator: God. The Priest merely performs the ritual, which Christ created. Christ acts through the priest in this ritual to transform the bread and wine. 2. The priest does not offer the body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for sin. That sacrifice has already been made. The priests offers a memorial sacrifice, which calls to God’s mind the sacrifice of his son, which was the one and only sacrifice for sin. Quote: For the testing of such a claim, there can be only one tribunal, and that is the Word of God. But when tested here we find only, and everywhere, definite and conclusive contradiction. If there is one thing the Word of God does not teach, it is this. If there is one thing the Word of God opposes, it is this. The author is correct when he says that the assertions he has made are not supported by scripture, but the assertions he has made that are not supported by scripture are also not supported by the Catholic Church. Here we see another logical fallacy: straw man A straw man is when you present an argument as if it was your opponents, defeat that argument, and then say you have defeated your opponent’s real argument, when in fact, you have only knocked over your own straw man argument and your opponent’s real argument remains intact. Quote: These assertions may be easily sustained, for— First: The doctrine of the Mass denies the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ,-the Atonement,-a truth which the Bible has safeguarded at every point, in language that cannot be misunderstood. For example, in Hebrews 9:12 we read, "By His [Christ's] own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for s." If the believer's redemption is eternal is it not in itself sufficient? Again in Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ was once [not 'many times to be'] offered to bear the sins of many." Again, Hebrews 10:10, "By the which [God's] will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Again, Hebrews 10:12,14, "But this Man [Jesus Christ] after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God....For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." And all this is corroborated by the Holy Spirit, for we read in Hebrews 10:15, "Whereof the Holy Ghost is a witness to us." Added to these clear statements are the conclusive words found in the 17th and 18th verses of the tenth chapter. "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." How definitely do all these quotations harmonize with the dying testimony of our Lord, sealed with His own precious blood, "It is finished." Another straw man fallacy. The Catholic Church does not claim that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient. It is sufficient, but we still need to do as God commands, which is “Do this in remembrance of me”. Do this. It’s not a suggestion. It’s a command. Do this. Offer this memorial sacrifice. This command is very important. Why? John 6:53 Amen Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Jesus tells us very plainly in John 6 that it is necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why is it necessary? Let me answer that with another Question: What does John the Baptist call Jesus? Answer: the Lamb of God. Jesus is the lamb of God, the lamb that was offered up to God for the forgiveness of our sins. And what do we know is necessary about the sacrifices that has been true since the Old Testament? It is necessary to eat the flesh of the lamb in order to seal the covenant with God. Yes, we have a New Covenant because of Jesus’s sacrifice. However, it is necessary for us to seal that covenant, just as it was necessary for members of the Old covenants to seal their covenants by eating the flesh of the lamb. Quote: The truth is also at once brought to light by the simple question, Where is our Lord Jesus Christ right now? Is He still a curse? Is He still forsaken as He was when He hung on the cross as a sacrifice for sin? The priest in his claim of sacrificing (crucifying) Christ afresh answers, "Yes!" Surely that is what the offering again of the body and blood of Christ means; that He is still a curse, still forsaken of God. But the Word of God answers, "No!" by telling us distinctly that Christ is now at the right hand of God, Himself the High Priest making intercession for His people. That is, the Bible tells us that Christ is now Himself performing the very office which the priest on earth claims to be fulfilling for those who resort to his ministry in the Mass. Yes, Christ is in heaven, but his sacrifice was not bound by the dimension of time. Christ died not for the sin of the world, but for the sins (plural. Go ahead, look it up.). Only sins that have been committed can be forgiven. If the sins have not been committed, there is nothing to forgive, so the sins must be committed before they are forgiven. Therefore, the sacrifice of Christ must span all time, otherwise the sins of everyone in the future (aka us) wouldn’t be forgiven. Because the sacrifice of Christ is offered once for all time, there is no conflict with the sacrifice in the Mass. As for Christ fulfilling the role of the Catholic Priests, that is incorrect. Christ is fulfilling the role of the High Priest in the Jewish tradition, aka he is offering the sacrifice for our sins to be forgiven. Catholic Priests do lots of things, but they do not offer up the sacrifice of Christ. They offer up the sacrifice of the Mass, which is a memorial sacrifice for the sacrifice of Christ. Quote: The glorious fact is, that the presence of the High Priest in heaven there performing His appropriate work of intercession, renders it altogether unnecessary that there be any priest on earth, An assumption found nowhere in scripture. (the part about no other priest being needed, not about Jesus being the High Priest) Also, note again that all New Testament references to priests refer to Jewish priests, not Catholic Priests (since the terminology of the Church wasn’t completely established yet). Quote: and accordingly we find that in all the New Testament there is no such thing known to it, for this age, as a human priest. If any were needed we would certainly expect to find them among the apostles, but among them, there was not one who claimed priesthood! Peter himself never claimed to be a priest, and is never even referred to as such! Because, as previously mentioned, the terminology wasn’t set. The apostles were the first priests. The priesthood comes from Jesus, and how many times do we hear about the apostles being chosen by Jesus and or the other apostles bestowing the title of apostle on their successors such as Paul? The word “priest” was still associated with Jewish priests at the time, so it was not used to describe Christian priests. Quote: The only priesthood recognized in the New Testament for this dispensation of grace is the spiritual priesthood of all believers, as we find it stated in 1 Peter 2:9, "But ye [all believers] are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into the His marvelous light." When taken out of context, the author is correct about this verse. However, when placed in context, we see that Peter is transferring the prerogatives of Israel to the Christians. He is telling the Christians that they are the new Israel, not that every member of the congregation is a priest. Quote: Continuing our argument, we find the Word of God declaring in Hebrews 9:22, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." So then to remit sins by sacrifice of the Mass the priest must shed blood. But does he shed blood when he offers the Mass? No, he eats the bread, and drinks the wine, after claiming to transform them into the flesh and blood of Christ. He does not even go through the form of shedding blood. How then can he remit ? He cannot. The only way in which sins can be remitted is by faith in the Blood of Christ that was shed on Calvary. Here, the author is misinterpreting scripture. He claims that the priest must shed blood in order for the sacrifice to be valid, but if we look to the verse before this, it is clear that the blood of a lamb is what needs to be shed. The blood of a lamb, the perfect lamb, the Lamb of God, was shed by Jesus and that is made present in the Eucharist. The objection here seems to only be that there is no blood present, however this is based only on the assumption that the bread and wine does not become flesh and blood, which is false. Also, look at the sacrifices of Malkizedek, in which bread and wine were sacrificed for the remission of sins. The blood of the lamb was needed in the initial sacrifice, but we do not need new blood to be shed in our memorial sacrifices. Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass. - from scripturecaholic.com Quote: We see further, that if the priest offers Christ upon the altar as a sacrifice, the Resurrection of Christ has not power or meaning. With Rome, Christ is ever upon the altar (i.e., the Cross). Here is a fatal defect, for the Word says, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins," I Corinthians 15:17. The Mass tells only of Christ's death and nothing of His resurrection. But how sweet to the heart of the Gospel believer are the words of assurance Romans 5:1, "Therefore"—since Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification"—"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Revelations 5:6. Yes the Lamb is in heaven, but he stands as though slain. Revelations seems to indicate that there is more going on than simply Christ sitting up in heaven, otherwise he would not be “standing as though slain.” EDIT: Also, we do proclaim the resurection of the Lord at Mass. What is the mystery of faith? "Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our lives, Lord Jesus come in glory," "When we eat this bread and we drink this cup, we proclaim His death and resurection until He comes again," "Christ had died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again," etc. etc. Those are direct quotes from the Mass. I think it's very clear that we celebrate all three parts, which are all crucial. Neglecting one part also neglects what that part accomplished (or will accomplish). Quote: Second: The second charge against the Mass is that it misrepresents the nature of the elements in the Lord's Supper. Against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper into the real body and blood of Christ, some one has well written: "The question is simply this : In John 6, when the Savior states "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life, and I will up at the last day'; 'He that eateh My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him,' is He figuratively or literally? "In answering this question would take this ground: In every instance in Scripture where a figure is intended, the words cannot be understood to be literal. 'Except a man be born again'; 'I am the vine, ye are the branches'; 'This rock was Christ'; and hundreds more, could not possibly be meant to be literal. The manna was evidently real food, as we learn in Exodus. But when Jesus says, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven,' it could not possibly mean that He was a loaf of bread from heaven. Why not? The author says that it is not possible for Christ to be bread, but why not? He offers no reasons why this could not be true, simply his claim that it is not. Sound familiar? John 6:52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The author brings up several figurative references made by Christ in order to “prove” that this one was figurative as well, but they are not all the same. In other examples, Christ makes his point with his analogies and the people understand that they are analogies. However, with his bread of life discourse, Jesus says he is bread and the Jews think he is being figurative, but he tells them, “No, I am the bread of life. You need to eat me like you eat bread.” Again, they think he is being figurative, so he tells them, “No, my body is real food and my blood is real drink” (how much clearer could he be?) Finally, the Jews get it. They understand what Jesus is telling them, that he is bread and that they must eat his flesh. Then they leave because of this. Jesus knew what they thought he meant and he knew that they left because they were afraid of this teaching. Now why would Jesus do that? If it was meant to be figurative, why would Jesus let them believe that it was literal? Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Why would Jesus let people believe a lie and, furthermore, why would Jesus risk losing followers over a lie? The only conclusion: It wasn’t a lie. Jesus meant to be literal, the Jews took him literally, and they couldn’t handle this teaching. Quote: Was not bread used here as a figure of Jesus sent from heaven, as seen incarnate among men? He says, 'I am the bread of life.' This He says whilst He was here a living Man. No change into bread, or bread into Himself, but ‘I am the bread of life.' Then He says, 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.' To take this literally, then, would be to say that Jesus was a piece of bread which might be eaten! and that bread would become flesh—His flesh—and be given for the life of the world. Exactly! (well, not exactly. Jesus says his bread is flesh and his flesh is bread, not that his bread will become flesh, but that’s besides the point) Jesus was saying that! Hence the use of the language when Jesus says that we have to eat him. The word used is a Greek word for “to eat” that refers to an animalistic, gnawing, very specific kind of eating that was used in order to emphasize that we’re not supposed to just digest him or internalize his teachings, but eat him. Quote: Would it not be just as true to say that He was literally a vine? No, it would not. Jesus’s audience took the vine reference figuratively and Jesus didn’t correct him. Jesus’s audience took the bread reverence figuratively at first. Jesus corrected them. Then they took it literally and Jesus did not correct them for that. Isn’t the difference clear? Quote: "As a figure of the incarnate Jesus, bread was very striking. As we receive bread for the nourishment of the body, so by faith we receive the Person of Christ as the incarnate Word. But, not only so, we must also receive Him offered on the cross for the life of the world. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' We will look at this literally, and what would follow? If eating the flesh and drinking the blood means eating the wafer, or the wafer turned into, or changed into, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, then what would the following words mean: 'Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' Mark, these words are absolute, without any condition whatever. ‘Whoso’ would teach that any wicked man, unrepentant, or unbelieving, living in sin, yet, if he only ate the Eucharist, had eternal life, and was sure to be raised up by the Lord; and that no Christian can believe. Not necessarily. As 2 Corinthians (I think) states, whosoever eats the body of Christ unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Aka, there are more conditions than simply consuming the host and drinking from the cup. Quote: "Taking these words spiritually, everything becomes clear Except for the “my body is real food and my blood is real drink” part. Why would Jesus say that if it was all figurative? If it was meant to be figurative, this quote would be a lie. Jesus does not lie. He is the Truth. Not so clear anymore, is it? Quote: and no Christian need have a shadow of difficulty indeed, this is in perfect harmony with all Scripture. ‘Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life. John 5:24. But we must not only by faith receive Him as the bread, but drink His blood. We must receive the solemn word of His atoning death-the shedding of His blood, for ‘without the shedding of blood is no remission.’ He who hears the word of Christ and who believes in Christ would follow his commandments, would he not? Do this in remembrance of me. The Eucharist is a crucial part of Christ’s teachings and one who believes in him, but denies his teachings is just like the demons. Even they believe Jesus is Christ and tremble (from the book of James). Believing in Jesus is not enough in and of itself. You must keep his word and his commandments, including his commandment to celebrate the Eucharist. (Important note: If you don’t eat and drink Christ’s body, you have no life within you, but Jesus never says that you are doomed to hell. If God wants you in heaven, He’ll find a way. God has not but any limits on his salvation power and it would be ludicrous for humans to try to limit it.) Quote: Thus, the more we study this Scripture, the more we see the impossibility of , as in every other figure, applying the words in a carnal, or literal way. To put the Eucharist, then, in the place of receiving Christ Himself, by faith, would be a fatal mistake. The only fatal mistake being made is the one that is made here and in many things, by the Protestants. The author claims that we are saying the Eucharist is the only thing that will get you into heaven. It seems kind of similar to their claim that we think works will get you into heaven instead of faith. It is another straw man fallacy. Catholics say that the Eucharist is necessary and many Protestants say that we claim the Eucharist is the only thing necessary. It’s the same tactic with faith vs. works. We say works are necessary and they say we claim that works are the only thing necessary. On the contrary, in order to have everlasting life and to live in the life of Christ on Earth, one needs the Eucharist, faith, and works OR something that God has not told us about but that still works to get salvation. We know what works, not what doesn’t work. The Protestants are the only ones who claimed that only one thing (faith) was necessary for salvation, despite the bible verses that say otherwise. Quote: Third: The third charge against this stupendously wicked institution, Logical fallacy: well poisoning Quote: is that by it Rome has held and is holding millions of souls in bondage the end of which is eternal despair. All the blessings of the Gospel are withheld from those who accept the doctrine of the Mass, for it is in complete and deadly opposition to the Gospel. Believing in the Mass none can say, "Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood," Revelation 1:5. The Mass practically says that the sacrifice of Christ is of no more value than the death of a goat under the old Dispensation. It says the work of Christ is not finished, but must be repeated and continued. Christ’s work is indeed finished, but our part in that is not. We still have to accept the sacrifice. We still have to do our part and seal the covenant, just as the people in the Old Testament did. Rather than denying that we have to do anything, to even respond to all the amazing things that Christ did with his sacrifice, why not just follow his commandment? “Do this! Make this memorial sacrifice! Do this!” (ok, so maybe I exaggerated a bit, but you get the idea) Quote: It practically denies His resurrection and ascension to glory, for He is kept in the place of death. If so, He is still forsaken of God, made sin, then there no Savior who has delivered us from the wrath to come and no salvation is possible, and thus the Mass entirely destroys Christianity. Cross apply my previous argument about Christ as the Lamb standing as though slain in heaven. Quote: What a scourge the Mass becomes in the hands of Rome to drive its votaries to obedience. Because everyone who goes to Mass automatically obeys the Church in every aspect of their lives. *sarcasm* Quote: Armed with it Rome forces them to come continually to her shrines, and to pay unceasingly for the support of her vast ritualistic display, her temporal, material pomp and glory. Actually, Rome doesn’t ask for us to pay “unceasingly”. The bible says that a general rule for tithing should be 5% of your income to the Church and 5% to Charity. The Church asks for nothing more. Also note that the Church asks for contributions. There is no "force" in there. Quote: And after all the gifts and fanatical devotion of her deluded followers what does she offer them at last? Heaven? No!—Purgatory! This awaits them all, form Pope to the humblest devotee. Purgatory! A place of pain and of uncertain release. The author, like many protestants, does not really understand the doctrine of Purgatory. I always hear Protestants talk about “uncertain release” from Purgatory, yet that is found nowhere in Catholic doctrine. We know that we will get to heaven eventually. The pain is not a the pain of hell, aka the pain of torture. It is the pain of not being in heaven yet, but that is offset by the joy that we will soon be there. It’s like waiting in line at the midnight showing of Harry Potter 5. (I’m very excited for that movie!) I know I can’t go inside until 11:00 (or 11:30 or whatever), which makes me sad, but that is overshadowed by my joy and excitement, cause I know it’s just a matter of time until I can see the movie! Quote: But purgatory is only one piece of the whole system of superstition, intimidation and deception. It is quite a logical attendant on what precedes it, for purgatory demands more masses, and consequently a continuance bondage on the one hand and an inflow of receipts on the other. Umm . . . Purgatory doesn’t demand more Masses, but ok. Purgatory also does not demand money, since the sale of indulgences for people in Purgatory has been long since abolished and was never a part of Catholic doctrine. (well, indulgences were, but not indulgences that you could buy for other people.) Quote: By contrast how beautiful, comforting and sustaining is the Christian’s belief! A comforting lie is still a lie. That is, just because something sounds good, that’s no reason to believe in it. We believe in the truth. We do not change our religion to make ourselves feel better. The Truth we have is Jesus and his promise does not need to be changed. There is nothing more comforting than the truth, whether they have chocolate cupcakes or not. (figurative chocolate cupcakes that is) Quote: For him there are no attractions in the Mass. Which all the ex-Protestants who are now Catholics can tell you is false. Quote: He realizes he is washed from his sins in the precious blood of Christ, that he is sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of Redemption (the resurrection), that his name is written in the Lambs Book of Life, and that Heaven is his home. So do Catholics. Of course, we also recognize that that salvation can be lost, but that’s another debate entirely. Quote: This is the Gospel—the glorious Gospel of the Blessed God, and enjoying it he can triumphantly exclaim—"Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable Gift!" To him the Lord's Supper is indeed the Eucharist - the feast of Thanksgiving. Yet it still isn’t what Jesus asked them to do. Ever notice how many times in the Gospel Peter offered suggestions to Jesus? Remember Jesus’s response? God has his own plans and they’re not always your plans. To quote the Lord’s Prayer: thy will be done. In fact, to quote Jesus, “thy will be done.” If you want to praise and worship God in your own way, that’s great! But don’t neglect the way that God told us to worship him. Not our will, but God’s will be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:26 pm
Wow ^^ Your very talented and I enjoyed reading this heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:57 pm
Gaara ~ you have much more patience than me. Half way through the article, I got so frustrated by the ridiculous and outrageous claims that I imagined myself beating him with the belt of Truth. sweatdrop So yeah... I never finished my "practice rebuttal."
But then you have awesome debater skills. This is your element. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:41 pm
Yeah, I'll show how this is insulting to both Catholics and Protestants. I'm not going to be as good because I wasn't raised in the Catholic faith, but some of this goes against Protestants too. I thought I'll show that view too. Quote: [The Roman Catholic Church is a false religious system which has deceived and enslaved millions down through the years. In the name of Christianity, it preaches another gospel-a false gospel-which places it under God's curse. Galatians1:6-9. During the 16th century Reformation and the four centuries which followed, the word "Protestant" was ascribed to Bible believers who recognized and warned about the errors and evils of the Roman Catholic system-and separated from it. With the rise the ecumenical movement (apostasy and unbelief) around the turn of the century, liberal Protestant leaders began a move back to Rome. In the last two decades many evangelicals, charismatic and some professed fundamentalists have also joined the pilgrimage back to Rome. Dr. Billy Graham, the world's most prominent evangelist, and other evangelical leaders increasingly treat the Roman Catholic Church as a part of Christianity instead of the false religious system it is and always has been. First off, go Protestant leaders. They realized that the Catholics are Christians too. Protestants broke off because of a couple of key issues (like communion for example). They didn't think the Church was "evil" they just wanted communion to be a symbol. Another thing is this is where you come from. Protestants didn't pop out of nowhere. Did every Christian before the Protestant reformation go to hell? No, they were true Christians of the Catholic/Orthodox church. Quote: THE LORD'S SUPPER. in the Roman Catholic Church, is called "The Mass" a word which in itself has no significance, being merely a modification the phrase, "Ite, missa est,"-"Go, the assembly is dismissed," which was uttered in the early assemblies of the church at the dismissing of the congregation, after which those who remained partook of the emblems in the Lord's Supper. By a strange use-or rather misuse-the words of dismissal uttered at the end of one service became in the word "Mass" the name for the service which followed. How is Mass meaningless? The word service might be more meaningless. At least Mass means go into the world. What does service mean? Absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, words are words, and a service and a Mass worship God. Quote: The Christian sees in the Lord's Supper a memorial, a communion, a feast of thanksgiving, and some indeed regard it as a sacrament, but in Rome it is a "Sacrifice"!—ceremony in which the celebrant boldly claims to offer for the living and the dead, a repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. That this involves not merely a difference in words, expressions and forms, but of vital faith and practice will at once be seen. It includes the belief that the officiating priest actually changes the elements of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, the process by which this change is effected being called "Transubstantiation." Yeah, it is a sacrifice. Jesus saved us by going on the cross. It sounds like a sacrifice. As for the symbol vs real body of Christ, why would you go through all this trouble for a symbol? Don't you feel better after receiving communion? That is the body and blood of Christ. Quote: Rome has many superstitions, follies, misleading forms and erroneous doctrines such as Mariolatry, purgatory, confession, saint-worship, prayers for the dead, priestly absolution, spurious sacraments, etc., etc., but none of these can be compared in point of danger, to the blasting power of the Mass. Okay, you ask Mary to pray for you. Two people praying for you is better than one. You do that in churches, and you pray for the dead. Saint-worship also goes along this line too. You ask the saints to pray for you Baptism- “Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Check one. Protestants believe this. Confession- “Who’s sins you forgive are forgiven” You talk to your Pastor if you did something horribly wrong to remove guilt. I think that goes along the same lines as confession. Eucharist- “Do this in remembrance of me.” Communion, it is a symbol. Eucharist is not. One of the major differences that causes all this conflict. Confirmation- Jesus calls the Holy Spirit down onto the apostles and states that the Holy Spirit will be with his Church always. Methodists and other mainline Christians do this also and they are Protestant. It isn't horrible, it strengthens your faith. Holy Orders- Pentecost/Jesus calling his disciples. Pastors=Priests, but Priests have to maintain a higher code of conduct. Holy Matrimony- found in Jesus’s teachings. Marriage, check. Anointing of the Sick- Mark 6:13 and James 5:14-15 Charity, check. You see, the sacraments aren't that different from your beliefs. Quote: Let this doctrine be accepted, and there logically follows the belief that a priest can create God! And having created Him, that he can and does offer Him as a sacrifice for sin! God does it through the Priest, just as he works through people. Quote: For the testing of such a claim, there can be only one tribunal, and that is the Word of God. But when tested here we find only, and everywhere, definite and conclusive contradiction. If there is one thing the Word of God does not teach, it is this. If there is one thing the Word of God opposes, it is this. Tradition is what drives many services of any church. This tradition is also what brings us together as well as spilts us apart. It is tradition in the Protestant branch to call the Eucharist communion and call it a symbol. It is tradition to only allow full immersion. You have tradition too and it drives you. It is not wrong to do so, so don't put down the Catholic church for something you do too. Quote: First: The doctrine of the Mass denies the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ,-the Atonement,-a truth which the Bible has safeguarded at every point, in language that cannot be misunderstood. For example, in Hebrews 9:12 we read, "By His [Christ's] own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for s." If the believer's redemption is eternal is it not in itself sufficient? Again in Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ was once [not 'many times to be'] offered to bear the sins of many." Again, Hebrews 10:10, "By the which [God's] will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Again, Hebrews 10:12,14, "But this Man [Jesus Christ] after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God....For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." And all this is corroborated by the Holy Spirit, for we read in Hebrews 10:15, "Whereof the Holy Ghost is a witness to us." Added to these clear statements are the conclusive words found in the 17th and 18th verses of the tenth chapter. "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." How definitely do all these quotations harmonize with the dying testimony of our Lord, sealed with His own precious blood, "It is finished." Then why do you repeat communion? It is do be close with God isn't it? The Eucharist goes that far and a bit further since communion isn't a symbol. Quote: The truth is also at once brought to light by the simple question, Where is our Lord Jesus Christ right now? Is He still a curse? Is He still forsaken as He was when He hung on the cross as a sacrifice for sin? The priest in his claim of sacrificing (crucifying) Christ afresh answers, "Yes!" Surely that is what the offering again of the body and blood of Christ means; that He is still a curse, still forsaken of God. But the Word of God answers, "No!" by telling us distinctly that Christ is now at the right hand of God, Himself the High Priest making intercession for His people. That is, the Bible tells us that Christ is now Himself performing the very office which the priest on earth claims to be fulfilling for those who resort to his ministry in the Mass. When was Jesus ever a curse? The refresh sacrifice makes us closer to God. We get to go through a little bit of what Jesus had to go through on that cross. Catholics believe in the trinity, and that Jesus is at the right hand of the father. Quote: Continuing our argument, we find the Word of God declaring in Hebrews 9:22, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." So then to remit sins by sacrifice of the Mass the priest must shed blood. But does he shed blood when he offers the Mass? No, he eats the bread, and drinks the wine, after claiming to transform them into the flesh and blood of Christ. He does not even go through the form of shedding blood. How then can he remit ? He cannot. The only way in which sins can be remitted is by faith in the Blood of Christ that was shed on Calvary. Protestants are all about Symbolism. How could you not reconize that as spirital blood? It helps get closer to God. Quote: The Mass tells only of Christ's death and nothing of His resurrection. But how sweet to the heart of the Gospel believer are the words of assurance Romans 5:1, "Therefore"—since Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification"—"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Yeah, I heard great things about resurrection at Mass related to the readings, and how great that Jesus came down. Quote: "In answering this question would take this ground: In every instance in Scripture where a figure is intended, the words cannot be understood to be literal. 'Except a man be born again'; 'I am the vine, ye are the branches'; 'This rock was Christ'; and hundreds more, could not possibly be meant to be literal. The manna was evidently real food, as we learn in Exodus. But when Jesus says, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven,' it could not possibly mean that He was a loaf of bread from heaven. Was not bread used here as a figure of Jesus sent from heaven, as seen incarnate among men? He says, 'I am the bread of life.' This He says whilst He was here a living Man. No change into bread, or bread into Himself, but ‘I am the bread of life.' Then He says, 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.' To take this literally, then, would be to say that Jesus was a piece of bread which might be eaten! and that bread would become flesh—His flesh—and be given for the life of the world. Would it not be just as true to say that He was literally a vine? Think about it. Jesus is saying, in modern day English, "I am the bread of life and I substain you spiritally and physically." Everything comes from God. God's presence is there, and you can feel it in the air. I've only done Communion, but I noticed a couple of things off with the symbol part. Why do I feel better afterwards? A symbol shouldn't matter so much to hold off my hunger until an hour later. God is with me and within me and helps me focus on everything (Yeah, I know this sounds wierd but this is how I understand the difference). Quote: "As a figure of the incarnate Jesus, bread was very striking. As we receive bread for the nourishment of the body, so by faith we receive the Person of Christ as the incarnate Word. But, not only so, we must also receive Him offered on the cross for the life of the world. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' We will look at this literally, and what would follow? If eating the flesh and drinking the blood means eating the wafer, or the wafer turned into, or changed into, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, then what would the following words mean: 'Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' Mark, these words are absolute, without any condition whatever. ‘Whoso’ would teach that any wicked man, unrepentant, or unbelieving, living in sin, yet, if he only ate the Eucharist, had eternal life, and was sure to be raised up by the Lord; and that no Christian can believe. You have to be pure to take the Eucharist, and it is considered a sin if you take it under mortal sin. That makes sense to me most of all. Anyone can take communion. For such a sacred symbol, a murder could take it and not even talk to the Pastor about what he did. A non-Christian could take it and it would mean nothing to them. Something sacred should be kept to true believers. Quote: Third: The third charge against this stupendously wicked institution, is that by it Rome has held and is holding millions of souls in bondage the end of which is eternal despair. All the blessings of the Gospel are withheld from those who accept the doctrine of the Mass, for it is in complete and deadly opposition to the Gospel. Believing in the Mass none can say, "Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood," Revelation 1:5. The Mass practically says that the sacrifice of Christ is of no more value than the death of a goat under the old Dispensation. It says the work of Christ is not finished, but must be repeated and continued. It practically denies His resurrection and ascension to glory, for He is kept in the place of death. If so, He is still forsaken of God, made sin, then there no Savior who has delivered us from the wrath to come and no salvation is possible, and thus the Mass entirely destroys Christianity. For 1000 years, Roman Catholic was the only church. Were all those people going to hell? I think not. In some ways, I bet their faith transended mine. They didn't have the option of a watered down version to go to. It was another 500 years before Protestants came along. I guess that all those people are going to hell. Man, that is a lot of people. Quote: What a scourge the Mass becomes in the hands of Rome to drive its votaries to obedience. Armed with it Rome forces them to come continually to her shrines, and to pay unceasingly for the support of her vast ritualistic display, her temporal, material pomp and glory. And after all the gifts and fanatical devotion of her deluded followers what does she offer them at last? Heaven? No!—Purgatory! This awaits them all, form Pope to the humblest devotee. Purgatory! A place of pain and of uncertain release. Humans are not perfect. We want things and want things. We are never satified, and that was born with us at birth with original sin. This has to be removed, along with anything we feel that hurt us. Humans shouldn't contaimate heaven as they did with Earth. We are not going to become magically perfect. So yes, I'll go to heaven's waiting room. Quote: But purgatory is only one piece of the whole system of superstition, intimidation and deception. It is quite a logical attendant on what precedes it, for purgatory demands more masses, and consequently a continuance bondage on the one hand and an inflow of receipts on the other. You should go to a church service/mass every week, preferably mass. One missed service/mass leads to another and another. My Mom for example: this type of attitude came about and she hasn't been to a church service in three years! Quote: By contrast how beautiful, comforting and sustaining is the Christian’s belief! For him there are no attractions in the Mass. He realizes he is washed from his sins in the precious blood of Christ, that he is sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of Redemption (the resurrection), that his name is written in the Lambs Book of Life, and that Heaven is his home. This is the Gospel—the glorious Gospel of the Blessed God, and enjoying it he can triumphantly exclaim—"Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable Gift!" To him the Lord's Supper is indeed the Eucharist - the feast of Thanksgiving. They are Christians. Read the dictonary. We are all Christians, and united in our faith in Jesus. Want to know the word for united in faith? Guess what it is: Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
