The Folly of the Mass

[jgb321]

During my 15 years in the Catholic Church, it seems somewhat bizarre to me now to look back at the period and think that so many Catholics actually believe that Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, comes down from Heaven everyday throughout the world and allows people to eat Him alive. Not only is this sheer madness, but cannibalism is illegal in all civilised countries, yet nothing is said of this folly.

I was only this past Saturday witnessing to a sweet elderly Catholic lady, and I asked her what she thought of the folly of Masses still being said for the late John Paul II, when the Church says he's in Heaven. I told her this is ridiculous, for if Christ died once to pay the price for sins, why then does the R.C.C still teach a need for a continued sacrifice? She didn't know and nor did I until started reading the Bible and Church history.

If the Catholic Church made the mass a symbolic memorial (they still curse anybody who teaches this) they would be no different to the rest of Christendom, and most of their billions of pounds would dry up, for Catholics who are able to still pay for masse$ to be said for their dead!

One of the first articles I wrote when leaving the Catholic Church was on the Eucharist, and I would welcome any feedback on this article:

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/art ... harist.htm

 

[francisdesales]

During my 15 years in the Catholic Church, it seems somewhat bizarre to me now to look back at the period and think that so many Catholics actually believe that Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, comes down from Heaven everyday throughout the world and allows people to eat Him alive.

I would like to ask you a question. During your 15 years as a Catholic, how often did you read the Catholic Catechism or Papal encyclicals or books that described the Mass and the theology of it?

The reason why I ask is that I have come to find out that MOST Catholics know very little about their faith. Why? I think there are many reasons, among them, religion is a low priority for many people in our country. Also, I find that in the bigger parishes, people don't feel "part of the family" unless they have been there for a long time. And in smaller parishes, adult education is often not offered. So often times, it is up to the individual to educate themselves. Let to themselves, I have found that most people don't bother. I myself was like this for many years until my "second conversion". Until God activates this desire within us, most people do not place religion too highly on a scale of priorities. It was only after this point did I actually learn more about my faith that I had knew very little about. The case in point is your story about the "little old lady".

As your post points out, it appears you also have not educated yourself on your faith of old. That is obvious by the misunderstandings that you mimic from our Protestant brothers who no doubt have placed those ideas in your head. I will detail them below...

Not only is this sheer madness, but cannibalism is illegal in all civilised countries, yet nothing is said of this folly.

We eat Jesus' sacramental person, not his carnal flesh - which no longer exists. Jesus is glorified, as is His Body. He is able to offer Himself just as He offered bread to the thousands on at least two occasions.

I was only this past Saturday witnessing to a sweet elderly Catholic lady, and I asked her what she thought of the folly of Masses still being said for the late John Paul II, when the Church says he's in Heaven.

I think you are mistaken in saying that the Church has officially said that the former Pope is in heaven. He has not been declared a saint, yet. When God tells us through the execution of a miracle on behalf of the former Pope, then we will know that He is in heaven.

I told her this is ridiculous, for if Christ died once to pay the price for sins, why then does the R.C.C still teach a need for a continued sacrifice? She didn't know and nor did I until started reading the Bible and Church history.

As any Catholic who actually knows their faith would attest, of course Christ died ONCE for the sin of the world. This is called objective salvation, and it is available for ALL men. Yet, all men are not saved. Thus, though the Church's (Christ) sacrifice offered to the Father outside of time, we are able to participate in this life-giving sacrifice and receive what is called "subjective salvation", grace that is applied to the individual from the fount of grace merited by Christ's one time sacrifice.

If the Catholic Church made the mass a symbolic memorial (they still curse anybody who teaches this) they would be no different to the rest of Christendom, and most of their billions of pounds would dry up, for Catholics who are able to still pay for masse$ to be said for their dead!

Why would the Church change the intent of Christ? Why would the Church belittle the offering of Christ's Self to mankind? Sure, it is a difficult teaching, but Christ promised that He would give His flesh to us to eat - and fulfilled it during the Paschal Mystery. We believe in Christ's promises because we are like children who trust what our God tells us, even if we don't completely understand the mystery behind it.

One of the first articles I wrote when leaving the Catholic Church was on the Eucharist, and I would welcome any feedback on this article:
http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/art ... harist.htm

If I have time, I'll take a look at it more closely. From a quick glance, I can tell you it is full of mistakes and misunderstandings.

For example "The late Roman Catholic traditionalist, Piers Compton states very clearly when the doctrine of the Mass came into being: "For Latin Catholics from the earliest Christian centuries (beginning, roughly, from the SEVENTH CENTURY) on record" (pg. 116.)" That is false, because in the SECOND CENTURY, Church Fathers were already writing about the "common meetings", the Eucharist, and what is was - the Body and Blood of Christ. St. Justin the Martyr gives a full account that uncannily matches what we do TODAY in the Mass - written 150 AD.

Another example is referring to Peter and his not eating of unclean or common foods - well, of course, JESUS CHRIST IS NOT UNCLEAN OR COMMON! He is LIFE GIVING for our spiritual selves.

What is sad is that you apparently didn't bother to check what the Church teaches in the Catechism before accepting the teachings and misunderstandings of Protestantism on the subject. The misunderstandings are cleared up for those who desire to do the reading and meditating on the subject.

The doors are always open for your return, brother. I urge you to examine what the Church actually teaches and why it does with an open mind. Of all the mysteries of our faith, I find the Eucharist to be most clearly detailed in Scripture and the Tradition and teaching of the Church.

Regards

 

[jgb321]

Hello francisdesales,

Thanks for your comments. May I say right from the outset, that I am NOT on this forum to attack members of the laity within the R.C.C.

May I suggest you read my testimony, when you have time, for I do cover my Catholic upbringing and so on.

On the subject of Papal encyclicals and the Catholic Catechism, my father has not only read them (I have too), but if you read his testimony, you will see that he is more adequate to give information of his background of the R.C.C. than I.

Hope to hear more from you.

 

[francisdesales]

Hello francisdesales,

Thanks for your comments. May I say right from the outset, that I am NOT on this forum to attack members of the laity within the R.C.C.

Your introduction to this thread began:

"During my 15 years in the Catholic Church, it seems somewhat bizarre to me now to look back at the period and think that so many Catholics actually believe that Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, comes down from Heaven everyday throughout the world and allows people to eat Him alive."

Those wacky Catholics!!! Not a good way to establish a good relationship with the laity of the Catholic Church! ;-)

I have noticed some defects in your argument, as detailed previously. Some others I notice come from misunderstandings of our beliefs. What can I say? Perhaps the best way to approach this is to go point by point on how you think the Catholic Church is wrong, and I will attempt to provide the explanation for why we believe what we do.

As to background, it is difficult to ascertain how this affects one's understanding of Catholicism until I hear what you have to say. My experience of doing this shows that the vast majority of former Catholics never knew their faith. Perhaps you are an exception?

At your convenience, please allow me to correct your understanding of the Eucharist. Rather than post a book-length post, please give me a few points at a time, rather than burying me under an avalanche! I will try to repost as soon as possible.

Regards

 

[jgb321]

If you wish to call your church "wacky" that's your affair.

I believe from personal experience (before and after leaving the RCC) that a lot of Catholics are very naive to what their church believes, while most Protestants I know are are also very ignorant of the historical faith.

For the record, I have been thru your Catechism for 1994 and when I check it to the Bible, it doesn't match up in all areas.

I also have a pre-Vatican II publication (1960) which UK priests used and we quote this extensively too in our articles.

 

[stray bullet]

During my 15 years in the Catholic Church, it seems somewhat bizarre to me now to look back at the period and think that so many Catholics actually believe that Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, comes down from Heaven everyday throughout the world and allows people to eat Him alive. Not only is this sheer madness, but cannibalism is illegal in all civilised countries, yet nothing is said of this folly.

I was only this past Saturday witnessing to a sweet elderly Catholic lady, and I asked her what she thought of the folly of Masses still being said for the late John Paul II, when the Church says he's in Heaven. I told her this is ridiculous, for if Christ died once to pay the price for sins, why then does the R.C.C still teach a need for a continued sacrifice? She didn't know and nor did I until started reading the Bible and Church history.

If the Catholic Church made the mass a symbolic memorial (they still curse anybody who teaches this) they would be no different to the rest of Christendom, and most of their billions of pounds would dry up, for Catholics who are able to still pay for masse$ to be said for their dead!

One of the first articles I wrote when leaving the Catholic Church was on the Eucharist, and I would welcome any feedback on this article:

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/art ... harist.htm

Jesus said, "this is my Body" and we believe it.

Sorry, the vast majority of Christians do NOT consider communion a symbolic memorial. That's it a protestant heresy introduced by the anabaptists, a polygamist group that later gave rise to baptists.

 

[stray bullet]

from: http://catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literallyâ€â€and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).


Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supperâ€â€and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
-------------------------------

You must eat His flesh and drink his blood. Scripture says it- and like the disciples, so many do not believe! There is no error, this is no parable. This is the reality of the faith.

 

[stray bullet]

-----------------
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
-------------------

This is from an early disciple. It wasn't until the 16th Century that a group of polygamist introduced to Christianity that denying the Presence of Christ was acceptable and true.

 

[francisdesales]

If you wish to call your church "wacky" that's your affair.

Ha! Read the context...

I believe from personal experience (before and after leaving the RCC) that a lot of Catholics are very naive to what their church believes, while most Protestants I know are are also very ignorant of the historical faith.

I have already said that and continue to agree with you.

For the record, I have been thru your Catechism for 1994 and when I check it to the Bible, it doesn't match up in all areas.

Naturally, the Bible itself doesn't match up with Protestantism, especially on the subject of Sola Scriptura, so it isn't surprising that you would say that. This presumption is the biggest problem for Protestants, in my opinion, as it keeps them from seeing the fullness of the Truth...

I also have a pre-Vatican II publication (1960) which UK priests used and we quote this extensively too in our articles.

In the future, you'd be better off quoting the new Catechism. A "pre-Vatican" publication will not be necessary a description of our rule of faith, since it precedes the most recent Council and the publication of the updated Catechism.

Regards

 

[Solo]

During my 15 years in the Catholic Church, it seems somewhat bizarre to me now to look back at the period and think that so many Catholics actually believe that Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, comes down from Heaven everyday throughout the world and allows people to eat Him alive. Not only is this sheer madness, but cannibalism is illegal in all civilised countries, yet nothing is said of this folly.

I was only this past Saturday witnessing to a sweet elderly Catholic lady, and I asked her what she thought of the folly of Masses still being said for the late John Paul II, when the Church says he's in Heaven. I told her this is ridiculous, for if Christ died once to pay the price for sins, why then does the R.C.C still teach a need for a continued sacrifice? She didn't know and nor did I until started reading the Bible and Church history.

If the Catholic Church made the mass a symbolic memorial (they still curse anybody who teaches this) they would be no different to the rest of Christendom, and most of their billions of pounds would dry up, for Catholics who are able to still pay for masse$ to be said for their dead!

One of the first articles I wrote when leaving the Catholic Church was on the Eucharist, and I would welcome any feedback on this article:

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/art ... harist.htm

jgb321,
I have read you and your father's great testimonies as to how our Lord Jesus Christ can deliver each of us from our spiritual blindness. I was just on your site the other night, and have it book marked for further study. Welcome to the 123 Christian forum.
God bless you and yours,
Michael

 

[jgb321]

Jesus said, "this is my Body" and we believe it

He also said He was a door, but you don't believe that, do you. And when He said cut your hand off or pluck your eye out, you don't believe Him them. Be honest, you pick and choose what you want.

In the future, you'd be better off quoting the new Catechism

Why did you cut off my part, in which I say CLEARLY how we quote your 1994 Catechism too? Trying to mislead people, are we?

Stray bullet, you copy and paste 8 paragraphs from SOMEBODY ELSE’S WRITINGS, and yet you attack others who do the same thing on another thread. Double standards!

I put it to you, that you are simply parroting what your church tells you.

Might I suggest, you try and exegete John 6 for yourself?

Solo, thanks for the warm welcome. I look forward to future input from you

 

[francisdesales]

Why did you cut off my part, in which I say CLEARLY how we quote your 1994 Catechism too? Trying to mislead people, are we?

You are going to be fun to talk with, I see...

I was only offering friendly advice. I wasn't making accusations. Let's read what I wrote again...

"In the future, you'd be better off quoting the new Catechism. A "pre-Vatican" publication will not be necessary a description of our rule of faith, since it precedes the most recent Council and the publication of the updated Catechism."

If anyone is misleading people, it would be your comment above, which was uncalled for. Clearly, I am saying that a "pre-Vatican" publication has less authority than the Catechism of today. Nothing bad was meant by my intent. If you are going to make these continued accusations against me, I fear that your very first paragraph on this forum WILL have been a lie. I am hoping I am wrong on that. I have enough hatred to deal with here.

Regards

 

[jgb321]

By definition, if the bread becomes the Body and the wine the Blood, then cannibalism is what it is.

If your intention was sincere, Ok, please accept my apologies.

 

[D46]

"In the future, you'd be better off quoting the new Catechism. A "pre-Vatican" publication will not be necessary a description of our rule of faith, since it precedes the most recent Council and the publication of the updated Catechism."

Whatever happened to semper eadem, francis? Who can know what changes and when and by whom for how long? Did Vatican II simply just ratify what was layed down at Trent and changed nothing?

 

[francisdesales]

Whatever happened to semper eadem, francis? Who can know what changes and when and by whom for how long? Did Vatican II simply just ratify what was layed down at Trent and changed nothing?

The faith doesn't change, just the explanation of it. The faith is meant to be understood by the society of today, not 1500 years ago. Thus, the faith is explained in words understood by people of today, often times using insight by theologians who have further reflected on the gift given to man through the Apostles.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Whatever happened to semper eadem, francis? Who can know what changes and when and by whom for how long? Did Vatican II simply just ratify what was layed down at Trent and changed nothing?

The faith doesn't change, just the explanation of it. The faith is meant to be understood by the society of today. Thus, the faith is explained in words understood by people of today, often times using insight by theologians who have further reflected on the gift given to man through the Apostles.

Regards

 

[Solo]

I know why the Roman Catholic Church only serves a wafer, but denies the wine to the laity. A great cost savings measure. I wonder how they get by without serving the wine, when they preach that the body and blood of Jesus is actual in the Eucharist.

 

[francisdesales]

By definition, if the bread becomes the Body and the wine the Blood, then cannibalism is what it is.

No. Jesus revealed that the Apostles would receive His true body and blood sacramentally - in other words, in a hidden manner.

Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but not their normal physical charecteristics. Jesus' normal appearance is hidden under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine. Thus, we consume Jesus real self, but not in His normal condition. We don't eat bits and pieces of Christ's flesh. We eat His entire self, no matter the size of the Eucharistic bread we ingest - under the appearance of bread and wine.

He also said He was a door, but you don't believe that, do you. And when He said cut your hand off or pluck your eye out, you don't believe Him them. Be honest, you pick and choose what you want.

In John 10:6, Jesus EXPRESSLY calls the illustration of being a "door" a figure of speech.

"This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them" ESV

"Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them." NIV

"Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them." NKJV

These figures of speech are pretty straight forward. He is like a door through Whom all men must pass to receive salvation. He is like a vine that gives spiritual life to those whom abide in Him.

But what does Jesus mean when He holds up a cup of wine and says "this is my blood"? How is Jesus' blood LIKE wine? There isn't an obvious comparison that makes sense.

Thus, without understanding how it happens, we believe that Jesus literally meant what He said - which the Jews found offensive in John 6. Fortunately, the Father will provide the faith to man to enable him to believe this miracle, (John 6:44, 64-65) as we cannot understand it with our "earthly minds" (John 6:63).

Regards

 

[jgb321]

I know why the Roman Catholic Church only serves a wafer, but denies the wine to the laity

Just for the record, in the UK wine is served to the laity, but not for all masses.

This whole fanaticism about John 6 having to be literal, is a religious hallucination. In theological terms, its called letterism. The Mormons also do this with 1 Cor. 15 (baptising the dead.)

The other problem when it comes to witnessing to fundamentalist Catholics, is the sad reality that when one is indoctrinated, much prayer and fasting is needed, for the person to make any sort of headway. Francisdesales, you've just been added to our list of prayers, along with many JWs and Mormons.

 

[D46]

Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but not their normal physical charecteristics. Jesus' normal appearance is hidden under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine. Thus, we consume Jesus real self, but not in His normal condition. We don't eat bits and pieces of Christ's flesh. We eat His entire self, no matter the size of the Eucharistic bread we ingest - under the appearance of bread and wine.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. "Jesus' normal APPEARANCE is hidden under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine." According to Trent...

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

And, according to a previous post by thessolonian...

I do have to say one thing about this with regard to the Eucharist. If the Eucharist is not true then I don't believe Chick is an extremist. I will convict myself if it is false.

Is one who blatantly disregards his parents going to heaven?
Is one who kills daily or at least has first of anger daily toward his brother going to heaven?
Is one who committs adultery going to heaven?
Is one who lies continuously going to heaven?
Is one who steals all the time going to heaven?
Is one who covets another wife or goods daily going to heaven?
Is one engaged in homosexual activity daily going to heaven?

I stand before the Eucharist, even bow down before it in reverence to my God on a weekly basis. Even daily if I could. I think about the Eucharist daily. It is God. Now if it is not God I am one of the above and should rightly be condemned as an idolater, no better than the homosexual that has come on this board and said "what I am doing is fine" or those who have defended him and been censored. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ and I proclaim it from the rooftops. There is no silencing me on that matter.


So, is Jesus REALY in there or not?

God's word says...

Luke 22:19 (KJV) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:24 (KJV) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The key word appears to be REMEMBRANCE. so, it is symbolic, not in actuality his very being. Hard to believe that hundreds of years after believers were burned for this statement, we're still discussing it!! I'm glad there's no "faggots" around. That's a 16th century term...not a 21st century one! :-D