The Folly of the Mass

[Floatingaxe]

All I know is that Jesus is in ME when I partake in His remembrance!

[billie]

Jesus is always in me!

[apothanein kerdos]

OK. You win. I will not attempt to argue you out of self-imposed limitations. Don't bother to study it out well, it really isn't necessary after all.........

Leonard, look at who you are talking to here...I don't think it's necessary to jump to such a conclusion simply because I disagree on the use of the word. I'm open to discussion on it. Just keep in mind that I do come from a reformed background, so I am less likely to believe that Jesus is physically with us in the taking of communion.

Well, AK: IF you really hold Calvinist teaching then you ought to believe in Real Presence, as Calvin did; sometimes even hazarding his own life to protect the Communion elements.....

If I remember right, though, Calvin did not teach that the bread turned into the literal flesh of Christ. He did teach that Christ was spiritually present in the communion, but not that He was physically present. This is what I have half-hazardly been advocating.

If it were physical, then it could not be "in remembrence" and it would likewise violate many other scriptures about eating flesh and blood.

[TheProcess]

If it were physical, then it could not be "in remembrence"

Why not?

and it would likewise violate many other scriptures about eating flesh and blood.

Yes, I think both the O.T. and N.T. prohibit blood drinking. However, the Jesus sacrifice breaks Old Testament law in other ways too, so the blood drinking may not be seen as that much of a problem I guess.

Edited August 4, 2006 by TheProcess

[Leonard]

Quite right, AK; Calvin did NOT believe in the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation, and neither do I. With the Orthodox, and with Calvin, I believe that He is truly Present in the eucharist.

[apothanein kerdos]

Quite right, AK; Calvin did NOT believe in the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation, and neither do I. With the Orthodox, and with Calvin, I believe that He is truly Present in the eucharist.

Then why are we debating?

I was refering that if there was a PHYSICAL Christ present (such as with the Trasubstantiation) then it would be very difficult to "remember" the person who is currently present.

I did a horrible job at first describing this, but I believe just as you and Calvin do.

[Leonard]

I think the true Body and Blood of of Christ ARE present at the Eucharist, but the Roman argumentation of 'appearances' and 'substances' are all based on Greek categories of logic, quite foreign to the Scriptures. The Scripture not only does NOT define the whens and hows, but Hebrew thought does not even give us categories for pursuing such questions.

I believe it is the Body and Blood of the Savior, but with the early Reformers, and with the very ancient tradition of the Orthodox churches of the East, I decline to try to be more precise in my definition. It is uncalled for and leads to such corruptions of the real intent of the anemnesis, as we see among the Romans.

[Pax]

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the actual presence of Jesus Christ. It is not a symbol, it is not a representation but actually Jesus Christ. A a Catholic I would like to make this very clear. It has been this way for 2,000 years.

When I receive communion, this is not cannibalism as many have tried to point out during this thread. The scriptural evidence is John: 6 35:71. I would encourage all of you to read this.....it can't get much clearer.

35: And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thrist.

41: The Jews then murmured agaisnt Him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from Heaven."

48: I am the bread of life.

49: Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and are dead.

50: This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.

51: I am the living bread which came down heaven. IF ANYONE EATS OF THIS BREAD, HE WILL LIVE FOREVER; AND THE BREAD THAT I SHALL GIVE IS MY FLESH, WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. Remember this is Jesus Christ talking not me.

52: The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves saying, How can this man give us His Flesh to eat? (Sounds just like most people on this thread.)

53: Then Jesus said to them. "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you.

54: Whoever eats MY FLESH and DRINKS MY BLOOD has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55: "FOR MY FLESH is food indeed and MY BLOOD is drink indeed.

56: He who eats MY FLESH and drinks My blood abides in ME and I in him.

57: As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live becasue of Me.

58: This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.

No fewer than 5 times did Jesus Christ refer to His Flesh as the bread of life.

As you read on, most of the people turn away because they can't understand what Jesus is saying. Jesus then turns to the 12 disciples and ask if they to want to walk away.

The Catholic Church is following the commandents of Jesus Christ. Also I would like to point out that at no time in John 6 when Christ was telling the Jews to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood did he say, "hey just kidding, I don't really mean to do this. Just the opposite he repeated himself 5 times. And when most of the people walked away, Christ didn't say, "hey come back I was only using this as a symbol. No, he turned to the discilpes and asked if they would also walk away. So I say to you, are you also going to walk away?

[Pax]

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, actually 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 my piece:

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/articl...20Eucharist.htm

Unfortunantly, you were not properly catechized. The Catholic Church doesn't (Curse) people who don't believe in the actual pressence. I have many family and friends who are not Catholic and they don't believe in the true pressence. I don't think for a minute they are cursed.

As far as people paying for a mass to be said for a special intention, what is wrong with that? In my parish you can make a donation of any amount to have a mass said. If you don't have money the Priest will do it for free. Our Diocese pays Priest $12,000 a year and half of there salary is made up from people paying to have a mass said for a special intention. I assume the pastor of your Church is payed. And I bet he makes more than $12,000 a year. A preist should be payed for his services. Just like a teacher is payed to teach, a doctor is payed to help people get well. A preist should be payed for admininstering the Sacraments.

[Leonard]

If I may offer one minor correction to what you said: "As you read on, most of the people turn away because they can't understand what Jesus is saying. Jesus then turns to the 12 disciples and ask if they to want to walk away.

Actually these people left because they understood EXACTLY WHAT JESUS IS SAYING. They simply refused to receive of Him that which is most precious and holy! Jesus could have had all these 'disciples' back in a moment simply by yelling to them: "Hey guys! I WAS ONLY SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY," but Jesus never said any such thing. If someone does not want the most intimate and full fellowship with Jesus, then it is their loss. They refuse Real Presence to their own spiritual impoverishment.

PS: I'm not a Roman (though my training is with the Jesuits), and not only have I done a lot of Special Masses free of charge, most the Roman Catholic Priests I know do too......