No mass for the masses?
If you are Catholic, than the most important thing you can do every week is go to mass. If you are of any other western religion, than I guess the most important thing you can do every week is explain why mass is wrong. I am not Catholic, but have been studying differences between modern religions. The main argument is that most Protestants and Baptists believe that Jesus's act of atonement was final, it does not need to be repeated. He died for your sins once and for all. I fully understand the argument and even see some merit. I actually see merit to both sides. What I don't understand is why the Protestants and Baptists and so on, rip the Catholics for the action of mass, and yet do the exact same thing. Oh yeah, you don't really believe that the bread turns into Christ's body, and you don't really believe that the wine becomes Christ's blood. You do it symbolically to represent the last supper. You act out the last supper week after week, but say it has no significance to you at this time. Or, is it done by fear, Our savior says "whosal eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." So are you just acting it out just in case? Making sure you cover all the bases. When your pastor hands you the cup and says "the blood of Christ", do you take a sip and think to yourself "he must have his fingers crossed". When your pastor hands you a bread chip and says "the body of Christ", do you think there is a disclaimer stamped on the bottom of the bread that reads "Not really Christ, just a figure of speach".
When Christ told a group of people that this bread was his actual flesh and the wine was his actual blood. He made it clear he was not figuratively speaking. This made people leave in disgust. His disciples tried to stop them. Jesus told his diciples to let them go. He knew if they couldn't accept this than they were not ready to accept him.
I'm not saying you have to believe in mass. I'm am however saying if you don't believe in it, then don't act it out. Am I supposed to believe that the protestants (which were Catholic at one time, until 1600's) act out the same exact ritual as Catholics, every week Just like Catholics, but don't believe it has any meaning, except figuratively.
I understand there is far more to this debate about mass and it meaning, I'm not saying you should agree with the Catholic doctrine about what mass represents. The mass is performed at every Protestant church, just not believed in. I know, I went through it hundreds of times as a Protestant.
When Christ told a group of people that this bread was his actual flesh and the wine was his actual blood. He made it clear he was not figuratively speaking. This made people leave in disgust. His disciples tried to stop them. Jesus told his diciples to let them go. He knew if they couldn't accept this than they were not ready to accept him.
I'm not saying you have to believe in mass. I'm am however saying if you don't believe in it, then don't act it out. Am I supposed to believe that the protestants (which were Catholic at one time, until 1600's) act out the same exact ritual as Catholics, every week Just like Catholics, but don't believe it has any meaning, except figuratively.
I understand there is far more to this debate about mass and it meaning, I'm not saying you should agree with the Catholic doctrine about what mass represents. The mass is performed at every Protestant church, just not believed in. I know, I went through it hundreds of times as a Protestant.
posted by Jim Fisher at 12:23 PM
11 Comments:
"I'm not saying you have to believe in mass. I'm am however saying if you don't believe in it, then don't act it out."
We Protestants don't "act it out." We don't believe in anything that Rome teaches about the Mass in any way shape or form. So there is nothing to "act" like we are doing.
Also, you have the church interpreting the church. Today you may not "have to believe in the Mass", but in past generations you were not considered a Christian in any way shape or form by Rome if you denied it and condemned to hell as a heretic. So who's interpretation should I go by? The teaching magesterium of James and modern Roman Catholic Aapologists or Rome's beliefs from the 1500s?
"The main argument is that most Protestants and Baptists believe that Jesus's act of atonement was final, it does not need to be repeated. He died for your sins once and for all. I fully understand the argument and even see some merit. I actually see merit to both sides."
How can you possibly see the merit to both sides? The problem is the use of language. Let me explain something. Protestants (reformed anyway) believe in substitutionary atonement. Rome does not. Rome has a treasury of merit system by which one performs acts (sacraments) by faith in order to gain the merits of Christ AND THE SAINTS!
This leads to a whole host of problems such as indulgences and purgatory and.....
" When Christ told a group of people that this bread was his actual flesh and the wine was his actual blood. He made it clear he was not figuratively speaking. This made people leave in disgust."
I suggest you read the text carefully and read the WHOLE text and not force your presuppositions into the text.
You say Jesus makes clear that He is speaking literally. I say if you allow the text to be exegeted in its own context and not importing Rome's dogmas which were not defined for hundreds of years later, you will find you are incorrect and the reformed position right on.
"When your pastor hands you the cup and says "the blood of Christ", do you take a sip and think to yourself "he must have his fingers crossed"."
Before you mock a position that you obviously know nothing about, you need to study the real issues.
I have spoken to this issue in my congregation several times. You might even catch it if you listen carefully to last Sunday's sermon on Memorial Day. http://www.firstbaptistscottcity.com/media/Other_sermons/Joshua_4.mp3
God Bless
Howard
You say "we Protestants dont act it out", but you do. I did. I have been to both churches countless times. They're Identicle, not close, exactly the same (in this peticular act). Now I understand the differences in beliefs. My point is, the action that Protestants perform, comes from mass. Now, you can say that it doesn't. In the 1600's the Protestants rebelled from Rome and read the scripture and came up with there own service, and it just happens to be exactly the same as the Catholics? Howie, I'm not talking about similarities, I'm talking about the exact same action. On Sunday, you and Catholics are doing exactly the same thing. Perhaps coincidince? Why are you acting out Mass if you don't believe in it?
Also, I am not interpeting the scripture. I am actually quite poor at understanding the Bible. The way it is written is difficult for me to understand. I very rarly quote scripture, due to my lack of understanding the language. I can tell you for sure that Jesus says to his followers (without quoting the actual scripture) that his means literally not figurativly. This is why they walk away from him. I know Jen has read this passage to you before. You told her you would get back to her.
The actual quote from John 6
So the Jews were arguing with each other saying "how is this one able to give us his flesh to eat?"
So Jesus said to them "Truly, truly I say to you,unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood,you do not have life in yourselves. The one gnawing my flesh and drinking my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. The one gnawing my flesh and drinking my blood abides in me and I in him.
I think Jesus is careful to show he is not speaking figurativly. He uses the word TRUE 4X to show his meaning is literal. I dont believe I am making an interpertation of scripture.
Hello S,
So receiving communion comes from Passover? So if Christ never said this is my body and blood, communion would be identical to the way it is performed by Protestants now? Explain communion, Where does it come from? Why do you receive the body and blood of Christ. Are the ceremonies between Churches identical by coincidence?
You say I'm mystified by the majic presented at Mass, I assure you I am not. Having a wife who is a devout Catholic, I want nothing more than to worship by her side and have similar faith to bring us even closer. Mass is one of things that has prevented me from joining the church. Not that I dont believe in it, I'm just still not sure yet. Unlike you lucky people that know your beliefs are the right ones. I'm still wandering. The origional articles point is that the actions (in communion) between both churches are the same, except I am not always reading articles on the internet written by Catholics explaining why the Protestants communion is wrong, but I do see the opposite constantly. Have you been to Mass? I have done both, If I blind folded you during communion you wouldn't be able to tell which church you were in, but, oh yeah..one has nothing to do with the other.
"You say "we Protestants dont act it out", but you do. I did. I have been to both churches countless times. They're Identicle, not close, exactly the same (in this peticular act). Now I understand the differences in beliefs."
How can you say you understand the difference in beliefs? Rome teaches (when they act it out) that the priest has the power to bring Christ down out of heaven and turn the bread in Christ's literal body and the wine into His literal blood.
Please understand this is a true miracle that can only be believed by faith without any evidence whatsoever. For the bread remains in its "accidents" to be bread, but in essence is Jesus' body.
Where, I pray, do Protestants repeat this act? Where do any Protestants call Jesus down out of heaven to become the Mass? I'd like to know.
Please understand, this belief of the Mass did not come about till many hundreds of years later.
"Also, I am not interpeting the scripture."
Then what are you doing if not interpreting?
"So receiving communion comes from Passover? So if Christ never said this is my body and blood, communion would be identical to the way it is performed by Protestants now?"
Jim, please understand that on the night Jesus was betrayed, they were celebrating a most Holy meal, the Passover. Jesus takes two portions of that meal which signified certain aspects of the deliverance out of Egypt and CHANGES their meaning from a Memorial of that deliverance to a Memorial of deliverance of the work of Christ delivering His people from their sin.
Context is everything. Rome's teachings are a part of a system that denies substitutionary atonement. What you think is similar is very shallow. I have watched the Mass and as an aware person of words and their meaning, I would recognize a Mass verses my own church's communion service blindfolded. The fact you cannot doesn't I cannot. You assume too much.
Ultimately Jim, it comes down to this. Does Rome possess the gospel? Can you have peace with God? The Mass is a perpetual reminder (as was the Old Testament sacrifice) that a Roman Catholic does not have peace with God. Which is why I will pose this last question. Do you have peace with God?
Romans 5:1 "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Savior Jesus Christ"
Rome does not believe in justification as Paul teaches here. Therefore RCs do not have peace with God through the perpetual Mass that can NEVER take away sins.
Therefore Rome has nothing of substance to offer. Only a show ceremonies and beautiful buildings and ahistorical claims.
What is the gospel Jim?
God Bless
Howard
Howie,
You say "Romes'teachings denies Substitutionary atonement". Are you saying that Rome teaches that Jesus cannot or did not die for our sins? When you discribe the purpose of mass, it sounds very different than when a Catholic discribes the purpose of mass. I hear the phrases from you and S and others like "the mass is a perpetual reminder that the RC does not have peace with god" and "Catholics worship what they eat" and "Papal Infalubility". But you dont hear them from Catholics.
To answer your question, Do I have peace with God? I'm not sure. Still working on it. But I do have a relationship with God. I talk to him daily. He has taken good care of my family. I feel he is doing that for a reason. Is that peace? dunno? Guess I'll find out when it's my turn to find out (hopefully not for a while)
What is the gospel? I'd have to put some thought into that answer. Although Ive read the 4 main gospels, haven't read much of the old Testament (can't understand much of it after Abraham).I Have read Genisis several times. If you are asking what is the bible or just the main gospels, I would give different answers (probly not much to you liking).
"You say "Romes'teachings denies Substitutionary atonement". Are you saying that Rome teaches that Jesus cannot or did not die for our sins?"
Ask a RC if he accepts substitutionary atonement as defined by Reformed Protestants. Theirs is a sacerdotal system. Nothing similar. They may use reformed language, but they do not believe in reformed definitions.
"When you discribe the purpose of mass, it sounds very different than when a Catholic discribes the purpose of mass."
I never described the purpose of the Mass from a RC perspective, only what I believe the logical results are.
""Catholics worship what they eat" and "Papal Infalubility". But you dont hear them from Catholics."
Jim, I have spoken to many Roman Catholics over the years. I have interacted with their apologists.
Also Catholics can and should worship the Mass for they believe it to be truly Jesus. You may read the catechism if you would like to know if that is true.
"Do I have peace with God? I'm not sure. Still working on it. But I do have a relationship with God. I talk to him daily. He has taken good care of my family. I feel he is doing that for a reason. Is that peace? dunno?"
I also believe God has taken care of you, perhaps in ways we will never understand. I have no doubt you are praying to Him. I believe His Spirit is dealing with your soul.
But peace is the thing Jesus came to give. Rome cannot give that peace with her sacraments or anything else she can dream up.
Peace comes from entrusting yourself to Christ and His finished work. Read Romans 4. Who is the Blessed man, Jim? It is the man whom God does not impute (credit) sin. He is the man who receives the righteousness from Christ by faith alone. For it is Christ's work and His ALONE that we must possess. It is an alien (foreign) righteousness that we must have.
Men are sinners and wicked. All men are at war with God whether they know it or not. Only by Christ's finished work may we have the peace we need with God.
If you do not possess this righteousness (Christ's righteousness) then you are as Obi-Wan says Anakin, "lost".
God Bless
Howard
Jim, Eric Svendsen is a Christian apologist that I occasionally like to read. I don't always agree with him, but he challenges some of my assumptions from time to time.
He recently did a series on the Lord's Supper. You might find it interesting. It is based on a paper he did in college.
http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/
lords-table-is-not-funeral.html
Just in case you are wondering "Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill", please realize when you stepped into the world of religion, you stepped into another world that includes a lot of views.
If you are seeking truth, sound logic and reasoning should not be abandoned. But you also need to dig a little deeper into what the Bible actually says and not just look to some Tradition or experience. These things take time brother. Hang in there.
God Bless
What actually brought on the origional blog was while I was researching mass and the origions of mass, I found just as many articles from non-catholics degrading the mass as I did articles about mass. I am scheduling a visit with A priest from Jens church for a discussion. One thing I did incorrectly in writing the blog was I said "mass" is the same, but I meant that the communion from mass is the same as the communion from protestants. "S" had said that by my logic, that Jews did the same thing so their Passover cerimony must be from mass. He had a point. I had asked my good friend Billy (Orthidox Jew) if their cerimony was similar to our communion. He told me that they do not break bread during temple, but they do it after at home. Passover is to be celebrated at home by the Jews. In saying that communion comes from Mass, I still have to stick to my guns. Jews do not say the body of Crist (obviously) while handing out bread and wine. Although I understand "S" point since Jews do break bread every week. Its just the actually cerimony of communion is extreemy similar in both churches. Will god condem the Catholics for believing this is Jesus's flesh and blood, thats really what it comes down to. You say that the priests believe they can bring Jesus down from heaven. Catholics would say Jesus is bring him self down. It's all a matter of wording.
We all know about the gruesome history of Rome, Any church with 2000 years of history will have corruption. Look at the Jews at the time of Christ. What is the result for a person today that is a Catholic, that is what I'm interested in. Are they teaching the truth. I really don't care about Rome, and Romes history. I care about the values my daughter and twins will be taught. There are many things about the Catholic church I dont like, I hate the fact a Priest cannot be married, when church is about family. I hate that it has a huge government within itself. But I would not even think about asking my wife to change her beliefs (as all these condeming articles I read). This is what America is about (religous freedom), It is important for me to worship with my wife, more important than subtle differences in translation of scripture. I'm tired of everyone thinking you must believe what they do, or your going to hell.
"In saying that communion comes from Mass, I still have to stick to my guns."
If you are saying that the Mass dates back 2000 years, then you are mistaken. RCs will keep repeating the mantra that their beliefs are 2000 years old, but that notion is blatantly false.
"Will god condem the Catholics for believing this is Jesus's flesh and blood, thats really what it comes down to."
It is not the specific belief. It is the reason why. Rome has a system of sacramentalism. They dispense God's grace. So God's grace is controlled through the church.
The Scriptures teach that God's grace is proclaimed by the church and therefore she has a proclamative power, not a sacramental system of works.
"I really don't care about Rome, and Romes history. I care about the values my daughter and twins will be taught."
The question is, Jim, what is the gospel? Does Rome teach it. You may think it doesn't matter what Rome does, but true Roman Catholicism demands that you believe her. If you do not, you cannot be RC. Could you imagine saying you were a soldier fighting in Iraq, but you never obeyed your commanders? Little odd, don't you think?
"I would not even think about asking my wife to change her beliefs (as all these condeming articles I read)."
Of course you should not ask your wife to change her beliefs. You do not even know what the gospel is yet. You first need to know what the truth is. Jesus says He is the truth. There are many Jesus and many gospels. Truth demands that there be only one.
So go to the Scriptures which is God's Word. It is there where you will find it.
Post a Comment
<< Home