Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The Catholic Church.

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
The original Eucharist was the sharing of the bread from one broken loaf where each member took his share, and they drank from the one cup. It was set as a memorial of the death of Christ on the Cross where His body was broken and His blood was shed. It also represented the one for all time sacrifice of Jesus when He suffered and died on the cross.

It was never meant to be a continual sacrifice every time the Mass was performed. It was not meant to be dispensed by a priest where the wafer could not be handled by the person who receives it. Also, the cup was not to be exclusively consumed by the priest. That is the difference between how the original Eucharist was described in the Gospel of John and how it is performed in the Mass. Therefore the Eucharist of the Mass is nothing like what Jesus intended and is a non-Biblical ritual that has very little meaning to what Jesus did on the Cross for us.
I agree...I'm protestant like you are.

What I'm saying is that this is due to the belief that the host is the Body and Blood of Jesus....
This CAN BE inferred from scripture, if it is taken literally.
IF the CC wants to believe that the host is the Body and Blood of Jesus,,,then, of course, the person receiving it would have to have the same belief.
While we're on the subject, I can also say that I'm not happy about the fact that at a Mass practically everyone gets ups to take communion...even those in mortal sin.
And yes, the priest also knows who it is. Those in mortal sin are not supposed to receive communion, so they now tend to minimize one aspect and maximize another.

As to the continual sacrifice --- I've explained that this is not the case.
As to the wafer not being able to be touched by the recipient, this is also not true. Most take the host in their hand and place it in their mouth themselves.

It would be nice to know from where your information comes from....some of it is just not correct and this makes the divide even wider.
 
Sola scriptura!
This is the crux of the discussion. Sola scriptura or scripture + XY and/or Z.
You cannot follow God if you do not know what He wants.

We have a bunch of Christians on this website and they don't even agree upon the source of God's instructions. Interesting .... :chin
 
This is the crux of the discussion. Sola scriptura or scripture + XY and/or Z.
You cannot follow God if you do not know what He wants.

We have a bunch of Christians on this website and they don't even agree upon the source of God's instructions. Interesting .... :chin
The CC follows the bible as they understand...
God's instructions are in the bible.

Not in a man....
And not in any book that man wrote.
 
Who said it did?

You're talking about spiritual matters...of course all Christendom has its origins in Jesus Christ, that's why it's called Christianity.

I'm talking about history - which you refuse to accept.
(which is your prerogative, of course).

Do you believe the holocaust happened?
Do you believe there was a Roman Empire?
It's THE SAME...it's history.

If you wanted to, you could also learn why the CC has a Pope...
but you won't be interested in that either, but you will have to stop criticizing it - to me, at least.
I'm not sure where you're coming from...

I don't accept history? History is what it is: a record, generally written, of events that have happened. I know that the holocaust happened, because it is so well documented, the same thing with the Roman empire. Again, for the ten-thousandth time there is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible. It is one of many Christian denominations; nothing more and nothing less. It's bizarre to say it's the original church since there is no such thing. All one has to do is read the New Testament to learn that there were many churches: Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and probably others not mentioned in Scripture. Tell me this: from which one of these original churches did Catholicism originate if it is the "first church"? Again, these were thirteen separate churches, each with their own membership, practices, and doctrines. Notice that in Revelation, the churches were praised and criticized individually; there was no single official church. So, if the Catholic church was the original church, as you claim, from which of these (flawed) churches did it originate?

And you talk about me refusing to accept history! Surely you must be joking! Have you heard the expression "the pot calling the kettle black"?

P.S. I'm not interested at all in why the Catholic church invented the non-Biblical position of the Pope. Why should I be? Sola scriptura!
 
I'm not sure where you're coming from...

I don't accept history? History is what it is: a record, generally written, of events that have happened. I know that the holocaust happened, because it is so well documented, the same thing with the Roman empire. Again, for the ten-thousandth time there is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible. It is one of many Christian denominations; nothing more and nothing less. It's bizarre to say it's the original church since there is no such thing. All one has to do is read the New Testament to learn that there were many churches: Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and probably others not mentioned in Scripture. Tell me this: from which one of these original churches did Catholicism originate if it is the "first church"? Again, these were thirteen separate churches, each with their own membership, practices, and doctrines. Notice that in Revelation, the churches were praised and criticized individually; there was no single official church. So, if the Catholic church was the original church, as you claim, from which of these (flawed) churches did it originate?

And you talk about me refusing to accept history! Surely you must be joking! Have you heard the expression "the pot calling the kettle black"?

P.S. I'm not interested at all in why the Catholic church invented the non-Biblical position of the Pope. Why should I be? Sola scriptura!
I THINK you're asking an honest question.
The pope actually has something to do with the history....Peter was not the first Pope, btw.

On a phone now...will reply tomorrow.
 
The CC follows the bible as they understand...
God's instructions are in the bible.

Not in a man....
And not in any book that man wrote.
Seriously?? Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6

Jesus, the man, is part of the Trinity. And the Bible -- all 66 books -- are the Word of God (as is Jesus; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us).

It is astonishing to me that so much of Catholicism is not from the Bible, but the inventions of men.
 
Seriously?? Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6

Jesus, the man, is part of the Trinity. And the Bible -- all 66 books -- are the Word of God (as is Jesus; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us).

It is astonishing to me that so much of Catholicism is not from the Bible, but the inventions of men.
I was referring to the reformed faith...
The person being followed is John Calvin
And the book is Institutes of the Christian Religion

BTW
Jesus is not a man,,,He's God...
We're Supposed to be following Him.
 
I was referring to the reformed faith...
The person being followed is John Calvin
And the book is Institutes of the Christian Religion

BTW
Jesus is not a man,,,He's God...
We're Supposed to be following Him.
1 John 1:1-3, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." Clearly here and everywhere throughout the New Testament, Jesus was (and is) a man.

He was a man, born of a woman, who lived on Earth, lived and traveled throughout the region of the eastern Mediterranean, then was murdered by the Romans. If He wasn't a man, then His life, death, and resurrection were meaningless.
 
1 John 1:1-3, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." Clearly here and everywhere throughout the New Testament, Jesus was (and is) a man.

He was a man, born of a woman, who lived on Earth, lived and traveled throughout the region of the eastern Mediterranean, then was murdered by the Romans. If He wasn't a man, then His life, death, and resurrection were meaningless.
Jaybo....
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.
The hypostatic union.
 
Agreed.
I meant what does the Lutheran church teach about the Eucharist?
Luther believed in transubstantiation, but I doubt they believe that.
Maybe the real presence?
Do they allow visitors to receive communion? Is it every week?

What about Baptism?
Do babies get baptized?

I won't mention confession because it didn't exist in this form in the original CC either.

Do they teach sanctification?
We believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Some define our belief as consubstantiation but Lutheran pastors and scholars will disagree with this but rather define it as a “sacramental union” whereby Christ is really bodily present in the bread and wine, without attempting to describe exactly how this occurs.

No, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation.

Some Lutheran denominations, like ours, do allow visitors to receive communion. We do not take on the role of God and decide whether or not a communicant is receiving it worthily but leave it between them and God. Some Lutheran denominations, namely Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, do not allow open communion. Communicants must be practicing members of their respective denominations.

Yes, like Catholics, we do baptize infants. Lutherans believe baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary for salvation. In other words there are situations when an unbaptized Lutheran could still be saved. Whereas Catholics put greater emphasis on baptism in regards to salvation.

Martin Luther taught that Sanctification is inseparable from justification. Sanctification is by the working of the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer. In Luther's Small Catechism he wrote, ""I believe that I cannot of my own understanding and strength believe in or come to Jesus Christ my Lord, but that the Holy Ghost has called me by the gospel and illuminated me with His gifts, and sanctified me in the faith."
 
The original Eucharist was the sharing of the bread from one broken loaf where each member took his share, and they drank from the one cup.
I don't know if this is actually known for sure. In the NKJV, Luke 22:17 He was recorded, "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves" To divide it among themselves could also have been that they each poured some into a separate cup.
 
The Catholic Church is a fraud. It has corrupted the Lord's Supper, which is to be shared by all believers in that the ordinary member cannot take his share of the bread. The priest puts the wafer in the person's mouth. Also the priest withholds the wine from the members, while Jesus said that we all drink of it.

When Christ instituted the Eucharist in the Upper Room, He gave the Apostles communion under both species (bread and wine). Every bishop and priest, when offering the Eucharist, is required to communicate under both species. Thus the men to whom Christ instituted the Eucharist and their successors do receive under both forms. His instruction for the institution of the Eucharist was to these men exclusively, as is evident from His further words to those present, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

So what about the lay people? Because of the hypostatic union, the Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species. This means that whoever communicates under the species of bread or of wine receives not a divided Christ, but receives Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity. Therefore the lay person who receives only the consecrated bread partakes as equally of the body and blood of Christ as the officiating bishop or deacon who receives both consecrated species.

When our Lord first instructs his followers on the Eucharist in His bread of life discourse, He actually makes no reference to the chalice (cup), but rather only to the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which communion leads to. The reason, we can say, is because we receive the glorified Christ, whose flesh and blood cannot be divided.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever." (John 6:51-58)

We then have the example of St. Paul, clarifying the Church's teaching from antiquity. The Apostle confirms that if a man communicates unworthily, under either species, he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

"Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body AND of the blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)

Also, the Mass is a corruption because it teaches that Jesus is sacrificed over and over again, while the Scripture says that He was sacrificed once and for all when he suffered and died on the Cross.
This notion is rooted in the metaphysics of Nominalism which heavily influenced many of the Protestant reformers. First of all, Catholics do not believe Christ is sacrificed over and over again. He cannot be. His sacrifice was once for all, as Scripture (and the historical record) attests. (cf. Heb 10:10)

Catholics do not believe Christ is re-sacrificed. We believe His sacrifice is re-presented to us and made present to us in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Old Testament todah sacrifice, which like the Eucharist, consisted of wheat flour and wine. It was offered by Melchizedek when he blessed the Patriarch Abraham in Gen 14. We are told Christ is a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7) and like him, as well as David and Jonah (who vowed to offer a todah sacrifice if delivered from death), the sacrifice on Calvary begins with the todah sacrifice offered by Christ in the Upper Room. Christ died once in human history, but the application of His death is for all time and for all people. St. Paul clearly says the Christian participates (communicatio) with the body and blood of Christ at the "table of the Lord." He again compares the "table of the Lord" with the "table of demons" which the pagans offer their sacrifices on. Additionally, the author of Hebrews clearly says Christians worship God at the altar:

"We have an altar of our own, and it is not those who carry out the worship of the tabernacle that are qualified to eat its sacrifices. When the high priest takes the blood of beasts with him into the sanctuary, as an offering for sin, the bodies of those beasts have to be burned, away from the camp; and thus it was that Jesus, when he would sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered beyond the city gate. Let us, too, go out to him away from the camp, bearing the ignominy he bore; we have an everlasting city, but not here; our goal is the city that is one day to be. It is through him, then, that we must offer to God a continual sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips that give thanks to his name." (Heb 13:10-15)

The word "altar" used by the author is thysiastērion, which is a compound word of two Greek words meaning "fixed place of sacrifice."

Also, the CC has elevated Mary to be the Queen of Heaven, which is nothing more than a pagan idol, while the real Mary is her spirit in Paradise awaiting, along with all other believers, for the resurrection at the second coming of Christ.
The Church did not elevate Mary, God Himself did by choosing her to give a human nature to Jesus Christ.

As for being queen, in Jewish custom the Queen is not the King's wife, but rather the King's mother. Jesus Christ being King makes Mary the Queen.

The true church is invisible, made up of all those genuinely converted to Christ. With everything that is true from the Spirit of God, there is the counterfeit which is designed to deceive people and draw them away from the truth of the Gospel of Christ. The Pope has usurped the role of the Holy Spirit, Who is the true vicar of Christ.

In reality when Jesus comes again, the whole of the CC will be exposed as wood, hay, and stubble, and will be burned up, and those who put their trust in it rather than in the finished work of Christ on the Cross, will perish along with it.
Jesus Christ is present whenever the Eucharist is offered. (cf. 1 Cor 10:16) It is the normative means by which man has communion with God.

"...and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Mt. 28:20)
 
I agree...I'm protestant like you are.

What I'm saying is that this is due to the belief that the host is the Body and Blood of Jesus....
This CAN BE inferred from scripture, if it is taken literally.
IF the CC wants to believe that the host is the Body and Blood of Jesus,,,then, of course, the person receiving it would have to have the same belief.
While we're on the subject, I can also say that I'm not happy about the fact that at a Mass practically everyone gets ups to take communion...even those in mortal sin.
And yes, the priest also knows who it is. Those in mortal sin are not supposed to receive communion, so they now tend to minimize one aspect and maximize another.

As to the continual sacrifice --- I've explained that this is not the case.
As to the wafer not being able to be touched by the recipient, this is also not true. Most take the host in their hand and place it in their mouth themselves.

It would be nice to know from where your information comes from....some of it is just not correct and this makes the divide even wider.
I'm a fairly wide reader and I get information from all sorts of places. I think that there was a time in the CC's history where they felt that the bread, being the actual body of the Lord was so holy that it could be handled only by the priest. Perhaps in these days, that extreme reverence may have been relaxed.

The best that I have heard that discounts the theology of transfiguration, was that when Jesus handed out the bread, He said, "this is my body". There is a paradox here. Jesus is saying the bread is His body, when He, in His physical body was present with them. So, it just doesn't make common sense for the Lord to say that the bread is actually His body, in the same way that He didn't get a knife and cut off a slice of His own body and hand it around. So, common sense tells us that when He described the bread as His body, He was saying it symbolically; that when we eat the bread at Eucharist, we remember that His body was broken for us so that we may be made whole in Him.
 
I don't know if this is actually known for sure. In the NKJV, Luke 22:17 He was recorded, "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves" To divide it among themselves could also have been that they each poured some into a separate cup.
I concur with that. In the Anglican church everything takes a sip out of the same chalice. The point is that the CC priest withholds the cup and drinks it himself. This is the departure from the Gospel record that gives it an authenticity issue.
 
When Christ instituted the Eucharist in the Upper Room, He gave the Apostles communion under both species (bread and wine). Every bishop and priest, when offering the Eucharist, is required to communicate under both species. Thus the men to whom Christ instituted the Eucharist and their successors do receive under both forms. His instruction for the institution of the Eucharist was to these men exclusively, as is evident from His further words to those present, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

So what about the lay people? Because of the hypostatic union, the Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species. This means that whoever communicates under the species of bread or of wine receives not a divided Christ, but receives Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity. Therefore the lay person who receives only the consecrated bread partakes as equally of the body and blood of Christ as the officiating bishop or deacon who receives both consecrated species.

When our Lord first instructs his followers on the Eucharist in His bread of life discourse, He actually makes no reference to the chalice (cup), but rather only to the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which communion leads to. The reason, we can say, is because we receive the glorified Christ, whose flesh and blood cannot be divided.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever." (John 6:51-58)

We then have the example of St. Paul, clarifying the Church's teaching from antiquity. The Apostle confirms that if a man communicates unworthily, under either species, he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

"Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body AND of the blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)


This notion is rooted in the metaphysics of Nominalism which heavily influenced many of the Protestant reformers. First of all, Catholics do not believe Christ is sacrificed over and over again. He cannot be. His sacrifice was once for all, as Scripture (and the historical record) attests. (cf. Heb 10:10)

Catholics do not believe Christ is re-sacrificed. We believe His sacrifice is re-presented to us and made present to us in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Old Testament todah sacrifice, which like the Eucharist, consisted of wheat flour and wine. It was offered by Melchizedek when he blessed the Patriarch Abraham in Gen 14. We are told Christ is a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7) and like him, as well as David and Jonah (who vowed to offer a todah sacrifice if delivered from death), the sacrifice on Calvary begins with the todah sacrifice offered by Christ in the Upper Room. Christ died once in human history, but the application of His death is for all time and for all people. St. Paul clearly says the Christian participates (communicatio) with the body and blood of Christ at the "table of the Lord." He again compares the "table of the Lord" with the "table of demons" which the pagans offer their sacrifices on. Additionally, the author of Hebrews clearly says Christians worship God at the altar:

"We have an altar of our own, and it is not those who carry out the worship of the tabernacle that are qualified to eat its sacrifices. When the high priest takes the blood of beasts with him into the sanctuary, as an offering for sin, the bodies of those beasts have to be burned, away from the camp; and thus it was that Jesus, when he would sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered beyond the city gate. Let us, too, go out to him away from the camp, bearing the ignominy he bore; we have an everlasting city, but not here; our goal is the city that is one day to be. It is through him, then, that we must offer to God a continual sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips that give thanks to his name." (Heb 13:10-15)

The word "altar" used by the author is thysiastērion, which is a compound word of two Greek words meaning "fixed place of sacrifice."


The Church did not elevate Mary, God Himself did by choosing her to give a human nature to Jesus Christ.

As for being queen, in Jewish custom the Queen is not the King's wife, but rather the King's mother. Jesus Christ being King makes Mary the Queen.




Jesus Christ is present whenever the Eucharist is offered. (cf. 1 Cor 10:16) It is the normative means by which man has communion with God.

"...and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Mt. 28:20)
Although your answer is informative and gives me a better understanding of CC theology as concerns the Eucharist, for me, it is reading a lot into the Gospel record both from John and Paul (1 Corinthians11). This suggests to me that there is a lot of man's reasoning added into what the Eucharist means. For me, I take the simple approach, the the bread and wine in the Eucharist are symbolic and are the memorial of what Jesus did for us on the Cross.
 
I concur with that. In the Anglican church everything takes a sip out of the same chalice. The point is that the CC priest withholds the cup and drinks it himself. This is the departure from the Gospel record that gives it an authenticity issue.
I've attended Catholic Mass where the cup was offered to the communicants.
 
Jesus is not a man,,,He's God (wondering wrote in post #467)
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God (wondering wrote in #469)

So, wondering, which is it?
Go look at post 466 to which I was responding.

Which is it?
You're funny.
You figure it out....
 
Back
Top