Beza,
So much nonsense. So little time.
beza said:
Thess,
In regards to the Mass:
"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.
This is distorted. The congregation was dismissed at the end of the service. They had already recieved the Eucharist. The service this phrase was used at was the Bishop's service. From his service, the Eucharist was sent forth to other parishes within his diocese as a sign of the unity between them and the Bishop. Your author makes it sound like some were not allowed to partake of the Eucharist. This is not correct. As for creating the word Mass, who cares. Words are coined all the time. Are you a trinitarian. This accusation of yours is silly.
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.
Meaningless? We worship Christ our King at Mass. You have a God whom you have wrapped your mind around. A finite God and that is why it goes beyond your conceptions.
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"!â€â€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 paragraph has some false dichotomies. To be a memorial is not contrary to real prescence. Nor is it contrary to figurative understandings. In one sense the Eucharist is figurative. The priest does not change anything by his power. It is the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. Do you deny that the Holy Spirit has the power to make God present in physical elements? Ever heard of the incarnation? Oh, I suppose that is a meaningless word as well. These paragraphs of yours only show the ignorance of your author and his desire to twist and distrort Catholicism. Your posting of them shows your ignorance as well of the Catholic faith which you claim to have been a part of.
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.
Ah, rhetoric. Albeit Meaningless.
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.
Says he and you. By the way we don't have saintworship or Mariolatry except by your distorted definition and imposing your "infallible" understanding (traditions) of these things upon scripture.
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!
As I said, it is the power of the Holy Spirit that makes this truth happen. The priest does not create God in the distorted fashion that you are trying to present. A straw mand of nonsensical proportions, unseen on this board. Christ is our sacrifice for sin today as he was 2000 years ago. Do you have some problem with Christ being the eternal high priest. Don't priests offer sacrifice. If he is the eternal high priest then he continuously offers himself before the father for us. But this continuous sacrifice is one sacrifice. Mal 1:11 speaks of this continuous sacrifice. It is the Mass.
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.
You and your author make yourselves the tribunal over the Bible. Imposing your opinoins on the Bible. He does little more than hand waving to support his views.
These assertions may be easily sustained, forâ€â€
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
.
Total nonsense. The Mass is the grace won for us on the cross applied to our lives. There is no denial anywhere in Catholic theology of the all-sufficiency of Christ. It is only when Protestants like you attack the Catholic teachings and distort them that you find such denials.
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."
The once is eternally taking place. He is eternally redeeming us. You make God to be finite. He is infinite. YOu have created a God, molded in your image of what you want him to be.
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."
What is "it" in "it is finished"? Were you saved 2000 years ago. Well in some sense you were. But the grace had to be brought forward and brought in to your life. That is what Catholicism teaches. Your tistings and distortions do nothing to change this.
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,
More distortions of Catholicism by people who make up the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to defeat Catholicism and show their foolishness and ill will in creating lies. Christ is not crucified afresh. You cannot grasp the infinity of God and therefore you cannot grasp and eternal sacrifice being one sacrifice. A representation in and unbloody manner of that one sacrifice is the same sacrifice. But this does not fit in to the box you must have for your God so you can fully understand him.
"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.
What nonsense, twisting, and distortion of Catholic teaching by a man who does not know a dogma from a whole in the ground and makes up Catholic theology to fit his bigotry.
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."
The priesthood of believes does not nullify a sacramental, hierarchichical priesthood any more than in did in the "Old Testament, where it is spoken of in Ex 19. Yet there was the aronic, levitical and other priesthoods in the OT. As a matter of fact presbyter in the New Testament translates to priest. You are quite wrong.
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.
More making up doctrines based on previous straw men.Christ's blood was shed. It is reeepresented to us in an unbloody manner. Christ is our pascal sacrifice. The lamb in Ex 12 was to be eaten before the dawn of the new day. The new day will come at the end of this era when Christ will come again. Until that time Christ is our manna in the desert that feeds our soul for the journey of life.
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.
We have crusifixes to remind us of Christ's sacrifice and what he did for us. It is total nonsensical stupidity to accuse us of believing he is still on the cross.
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"â€â€since Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification"â€â€"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Huh? You say you were Catholic beza. You cannot post such foolishness. The Mass doesn't mention the resurrection? Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again? The Eucharist is the resurrected Christ. This was written by someone who obviously has never been to a Mass or blantantly lies about it. You posted this so you are accountable for it.
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?
My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink. What part of true does one not understand. Figurative does not negate literal.
"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.
Once again what part of true is not understandable. Nowhere does he say "I am truly a vine or I am truly a rock.".
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.
"I am" is the language of metaphore and the Catholic Church recognizes the metaphoric aspects of bread. Tell me, Jesus allegorizes the story of Jonah to refer to his own spending three days in the tomb. An allegory is a metaphore. So does this mean that either Jesus resurrection or Jonah's story are not true? No. Metaphore does not mean that there is no reality.
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
Bread is a beautiful metaphore, for the grains are crushed and molded in to one loaf. This represents what the eucharist, also called COMMUNION is to do for us. Make us all one, molding us in to one bread, one body. (See 1 Cor 10).
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 fleshâ€â€His fleshâ€â€and be given for the life of the world. Would it not be just as true to say that He was literally a vine?
Jesus of course was not bread and neither is the Eucahrist, though in the form of bread. Of coruse you will deny this is possilbe and neither can an axe float, a man (Peter) walk on water, or a few loaves and fish feed 5000. Once again more distortions, straw men, and complete ignornace of Catholic theology. Twisting it in order to create straw men arguments to knock down.
"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.
What nonsense. For the scriptures must be considered as a whole. 1 cor 11:27 tells us that anyone who eats unworthily eats to his condemnation. Jesus says we must believe in him and only a protestant not understanding what believe means (i.e. to not only give a head bob to a name but also to live according to that belief) would fabricate such a nonsensical paragraph.
"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.
And the straw man is knocked over. False dichotomies are raised and on and on the nonsense goes.
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
I'll say it. Unto Him tat loved us, and washed u from our sins in HIS own blood. Amen. That is exactly what the Mass is about. Only a biggot would write such nonsensical statments as the one above.
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.
The grace must be applied to our lives.
It practically denies His resurrection and ascension to glory, for He is kept in the place of death
.
This guy is incredibly ignorant. I can't believe you post such lies, distortions, and complete tripe. The resurrection and ascention denied? This person does not know anything about Catholic theology. Further he passes his biggotry and lies on to others. You bezabub are guilty of it as well.
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.
: It would be funny though if it weren't so ignorant of Catholicism. The Mass has been around for 2000 years and Christ has been preached through the Catholic Church to the ends of the earth. The Mass is mostly straight out of the Bible. How can that destroy Christianity. All of Europe was converted to Christianity by Catholics. Then protestantism parasitically came in and divided it.
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!â€â€Purgatory! This awaits them all, form Pope to the humblest devotee. Purgatory! A place of pain and of uncertain release.
More rhetoric. Purgatory is not about uncertain release. The one in purgatory is bound for heaven.
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.
Intimidation? Oh, I am really intimidated by God giving me, a sinner a final cleansing before entering in to heavenly glory by his grace. Tell me, how does one who has his righteousness only imputed to him and is snow covered dung admitted in to heaven. Didn't Christ tell the pharasees they had to be clean on the inside.
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 Gospelâ€â€the glorious Gospel of the Blessed God, and enjoying it he can triumphantly exclaimâ€â€"Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable Gift!" To him the Lord's Supper is indeed the Eucharist - the feast of Thanksgiving."
Charles Cook
I guess you don't believe in imputed righteousness.
Have you ever wonder why RCC perform the Mass each and everyday? If they do not, then there is no sacrifice for sin for that day. Thess. in respect to the council of Trent, how much more clear is this:
There is no requirement that a priest say mass each day. Not all parishes have daily masses. You don't understand trent. You have proven yoru ignorance in other matters . Why should your view of trent be accepted.
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
You have a problem with this one? It says we cannot be justified by works alone. It implies quite nicely that we are justified by grace alone. Good works are the result of grace. That is what this canon clearly says.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
Once again this affirms grace alone. It is against pelgianism. Do you disagree with this canon? I sure hope not.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
You disagree with this? It says man cannot believe, hope, love or be penitent, without the grace of the Holy Spirit. All is grace. Grace alone my friend. These canons only prove what you have asserted as contrary to Catholic teaching.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
You need to put this with the canons above. Above it says we cannot be saved by our free will and that belief is not possible without grace. In that context, then grace molds the will. The very cooperation is by the grace of God in the context of the canons above. Yet this does not deny that it is not of the will. In fact the Catholic definition of free will is the ability to do good. Not the ability to choose between good and evil. The unregenerate does not have free will. The grace of Christ gives the regenerate the ability to choose good.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.
See context above. Do you deny free will.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
Hopefully you don't have a problem with this canon.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.
God prepares man to recieve him. Look at Cornelius in Acts 10, 11. God heard his prayer which was a work before he came to Christ.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.
The fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom. "little children YOU MUST NOT SIN".
I'll comment on the rest later.
: