is Mass biblical?

[gordonhooker]

It's apostolic in the sense the Scriptures are read and the sacraments are administered.

Every church has changed some externality. Nor does the Bible provide alot of information about how the early church worshiped.

Hence the reason why the Apostolic Churches respect Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

 

[FenderTL5]

As I see it, there's no doubt that the early church was liturgical and eucharistic.
We can quibble over specifics and matters of meaning/symbolism and specific Theologies associated with this but there's enough information within the scriptures to know that this is true.

The easier to demonstrate is the Eucharist, First there's Christ's command to to repeat the service (This do..), there are specific references to the church in communion, plus the continuing in the "breaking of bread (an obvious one)" and the "giving of thanks" are direct references to the Communion meal as well. In fact the very word "Eucharist" is what is translated as "giving of thanks" or "thanksgiving" in the New Testament (εὐχαριστίᾳ eucharistia) link.

The Liturgical aspect is more difficult to show but it's there. (copy/paste from here)
"Christianity did not spring from a vacuum. Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jewish. They all worshipped according to the tradition of the Jewish nation as handed down by Moses and the Prophets. No one doubts or denies that Judaism is a liturgical religion. Within the New Testament there is evidence that the Apostles continued to observe Jewish liturgical practices. When we approach the New Testament we must read it in the framework in which it was written: the early Church meeting in the Temple and Synagogue and putting Christ in the center of what they did as Jews. Christ FULFILLED the Law, He did not destroy it (Matt. 5:17). The OT was a type and shadow of the New as Hebrews teaches. Thus the first Christians worshipped according to the pattern of the Law, but saw the worship as directed to and fulfilled in Christ.

NOTE: Liturgical prayer does NOT supplant or replace “personal prayer”. Liturgical prayer is usually “corporate”, private prayer is usually a combination of “set prayers” and personal expression.

Liturgy in the New Testament Scriptural references:

Acts 2:42 – continued in THE prayers (in the GreeK), were day by day IN THE TEMPLE…

Acts 5:42, The apostles were continually in the Temple praying and teaching, 6:4 they appoint deacons so they can devote themselves to THE prayers (Greek) and ministry of the word.

Acts 10:2-3 Cornelius prayed continually, 9th hour., 10:9 Peter at the 6th hour went to the roof to pray. These were “liturgical hours of prayer”.

Acts 13:2 While they were “ministering” to the Lord, literally in liturgy, the Holy Spirit spoke to them. The Spirit works in liturgy.

Acts 15:22, 18:8, 17: “leaders” of synagogue, ie., liturgical worship leaders.

Acts 18:7 “Worshipper of God” house next to the synagogue.

Acts 16:25 midnight praying and singing hymns of praise to God.

Acts 20:6, 16 After the Days of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost are mentioned. Paul says in I Cor. 16:8 that he will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. The early Church kept a liturgical “church calendar”.

Hebrews 8:2 High Priest Jesus a “minister” (lit. “liturgist” λειτουργὸς) in the heavenly sanctuary."

In Acts 13:2, listed above, the word used is Λειτουργούντων (pronounced Leitourgountōn), it doesn't take a Greek scholar to understand what is being said.
Then there are the writings of the post-New Testament church fathers, Justin the Martyr (about 150 AD), the author of 1 Clement (about 96), Ignatius of Antioch(about 108), the Didache and others.

As I see it, there is no question that the church began Liturgical and Eucharistic.
For me, the bigger question would be (and was*), when did the various denominations stop being Liturgical and Eucharistic and why?



* this was an important step in my becoming Orthodox, leaving my former evangelical background.

 

[amariselle]

Jesus himself is the sacrifice. Therefore, there cannot be two sacrifices, so the argument doesn't hold water. We, and our Roman brothers, do not believe in two sacrifices, only one.

Which is what I said. The Catholic church claims to be offering the same sacrifice, repeatedly. Yet, Scripture says plainly that it was offered ONCE.

Most of your arguments amount to tired polemics that don't persuade educated people.

It’s strange that “educated people” choose not to actually read and understand the Catholic position regarding Mass (some of which I shared from the Catholic Catechism), and how they can’t seem to understand that claiming that a priest can repeatedly offer the same sacrifice for sin that the Bible says was offered ONCE, by Jesus Christ, is in fact a problem.

Either Scripture is right on this, or Catholic teaching and tradition is. It can’t be both, and “educated people” would surely understand.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I've heard it said Mass is biblical and links like the following are cited:
THE MASS IN THE VISION OF THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

What I see is a mash up of verses in Revelation acted out in some sort of tableau style—can that be called biblical? I know it all points to biblical meaning when dissected (as the link above points) but it seems like a cheat to say Mass is biblical as the actual event is not found in the bible.

Assembly is one thing [i.e. "forsake not the assembly"], while the gathering known as mass is altogether different, as Mass is equated to the liturgy of the Eucharist.
A good source read for it:
What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist?

 

[BobRyan]

I've heard it said Mass is biblical and links like the following are cited:
THE MASS IN THE VISION OF THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

What I see is a mash up of verses in Revelation acted out in some sort of tableau style—can that be called biblical? I know it all points to biblical meaning when dissected (as the link above points) but it seems like a cheat to say Mass is biblical as the actual event is not found in the bible.

The Bible does not support the doctrines taught in the Mass.

1. No earthly priests after the cross (Hebrews 7)
2. No powers of the earthly priest - if no priest.
3. No ongoing sacrifice of Christ -- it was "once for all time" Hebrews 10:12 "Otherwise He would need to suffer often" Hebrews 9
4. Forgiveness of sin only comes from Christ - not earthly priest - Acts 4:12
5. No mediator between God and man- except Christ - 1 Timothy 2
no "confecting the body soul blood and divinity of Christ" by any human... nor does God Himself engage in such a thing.

as far as "what we eat" in the communion service "literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE" John 6

"the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1

Think about it - a "memorial" service has no need to "confect the body, blood, soul..." of the person... but an ongoing-repeated sacrifice needs the body,blood,soul,divinity of Christ in the sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:12 "sacrificed once for all time" not "once and ongoing"

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God

He moves to the next phase "He sat down at the right hand of God" not "he continues to have anything to do with being sacrificed over and over by whoever claims to confect his body blood soul and divinity"

Which is what I said. The Catholic church claims to be offering the same sacrifice, repeatedly. Yet, Scripture says plainly that it was offered ONCE.

Indeed.. in fact "once for all time" and then He "Sat down at the right hand of God" -- rather than "still looking to be sacrificed each time someone claims to confect the body blood soul and divinity of Christ".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where does Scripture teach that Christ’s actual body and blood are offered more than once?

If the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, as Scripture repeatedly states, and if this Sacrament is for us then this is Christ giving Himself to us through the Sacrament. It is not a repeated sacrifice, it is Jesus Himself giving Himself to us through this means of grace. Christ also gives Himself to us in His word, as we have received Him through faith in the preaching of the Gospel. And Christ gives Himself to us in Baptism, by which we were buried with Him. Jesus gives Himself to us through Word and Sacrament.

To be clear, it’s not about denying that Jesus is capable of doing something, it’s a matter of what Scripture teaches.

Except the argument you gave was precisely that Jesus can't be present in the Eucharist because He's seated at the right hand of the Father. As for what Scripture says, it says what it says: the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Yes, He is with us always, as we have the Holy Spirit. As Jesus told His disciples, it was good He was going to be with the Father so that the Holy Spirit would come.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. - John 16:7

And yet both Paul and John of Patmos had encounters with the Risen Jesus. Yes, the Spirit is at work, yes, Jesus gives Himself to us through the Holy Spirit. Yes, to those things. But also yes, Jesus gives Himself to us in His Word. Yes, Jesus gives Himself to us in His Sacraments. That the Lord is seated at the right hand of the Father does not mean that the Person of the Lord Jesus cannot Himself act and be where He wills Himself to be. The Apostle St. Paul encountered the risen Lord--as a vision, a mystical experience, but still an encounter with the Person--on the road to Damascus.

Hebrews 9 & Hebrews 10

ONE sacrifice
No more Levitical priesthood offering sacrifices, Jesus is our High Priest, He has offered ONE sacrifice which is entirely sufficient to take away sin, once for all.

Agreed. The once and finished work of Christ is once and finished.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Before Protestants (incl me) leap out to attack the Catholic faith, it might be wise to remember the huge aberrations that exist in some Protestant churches today. There are people putting their feet on rattlesnakes and claiming they are holy; there are pastors preaching that Christianity is a road to owning millions of dollars. There are plenty of 'horror shows' happening on the Protestant side.

The subject is not Protestant worship, however; and it is quite wrong to talk as though what a rattlesnake handler might do is somehow part of the religion of, for example, a Lutheran. Or at least, if one is determined to do that, he should recognize that he is also saying that it is part of the Catholic worship, too, being that both are Christian.

 

[Albion]

It's apostolic in the sense the Scriptures are read and the sacraments are administered.

Sure. What I meant by use of the word is that it is not how Christians worshipped during the era when the Apostles were still alive.

 

[BobRyan]

If the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, as Scripture repeatedly states, and if this Sacrament is for us then this is Christ giving Himself to us through the Sacrament.

If Jesus is "the door" as Christ explicitly stated in John 10 and if Christ is being "confected" in the mass - then it is wood that is being confected.

The alternative is to "accept a certain level of symbolism" is being used ... for example.

"I AM the living bread that came down out of heaven" John 6:41... not talking about a loaf of bread dropping out of the sky"

and "The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us" John 1 - not a claim that all God the Son was -- was "breath" or "words".

"my SHEEP hear my voice" John 10 - does not mean we are literally "bovidae"

"I am the vine you are the branches" John 15:5 does not mean we are all wood/plants

 

[amariselle]

If the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, as Scripture repeatedly states, and if this Sacrament is for us then this is Christ giving Himself to us through the Sacrament.

And this is where the issue and it’s associated confusion stems from. The Scriptures do not state that the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood literally, Jesus was teaching a parable as He so often did when He taught publicly.

John 6, read in context, makes this abundantly clear, as Jesus (after the Jews demanded a sign and brought up their ancestors eating manna in the wilderness) tells them that He is the true bread from Heaven. (John 6:35) Obviously He was not saying He is literal bread. Using physical, material and historical realities, (specifically Jewish ancestral history, which ultimately pointed to Him) Jesus is teaching a spiritual truth, His words, as He says are “spirit and life.” (John 6:63)

First of all in this parable, Jesus emphasizes believing, and He equates eating with believing as He continues teaching.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 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, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. -John 6:38-54

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. - John 6:58

And Jesus ends the parable by reiterating that He is speaking about believing (not literally eating and drinking):

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. - John 6:63-64

Here are the two parallel verses from John 6 next to each other to show this:

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Believing on the Son and His sacrifice, (which is what is required for eternal life) is equated with eating. Obviously Jesus is not speaking of cannibalism here, which the Jews understood was reprehensible to God. Many did take His words literally, however, and so they left Him. Many more make the same mistake today, in taking a parable, which was meant to convey a spiritual truth, literally.

Jesus told many other parables as well, where He referred to Himself as the “gate”, a “door”, a “shepherd”, “a vine” etc.

And we must also remember and understand that Jesus gave Himself once, on the cross at a very specific time and place in history, this is not a sacrifice that is ongoing and continual, it is finished. Through the Lord’s Supper we remember the sacrifice which was once for all, we do not and cannot continue it. To claim we can is to say it is in fact unfinished and ongoing. Scripture clearly tells us otherwise.

It is not a repeated sacrifice, it is Jesus Himself giving Himself to us through this means of grace.

Jesus gave Himself on the cross, once for all. It is finished and He has risen victorious and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. He will return, as promised, just as He left when He ascended. (Not on church alters at the initiation of a priest or pastor).

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. - Matthew 24:23-27

The central claims of the Catholic Mass fly in the face of those verses as the Catholic church claims that Christ is in fact wholly present, body, soul and divinity, on innumerable Catholic alters during every single Mass, over and over again.

Jesus warned about such claims and said “believe not.”

Christ also gives Himself to us in His word, as we have received Him through faith in the preaching of the Gospel.

Agreed. Faith comes by hearing and hearing of the word of God. And by the “foolishness of preaching.”

And Christ gives Himself to us in Baptism, by which we were buried with Him. Jesus gives Himself to us through Word and Sacrament.

The ”Sacrament of Baptism” is perhaps a topic for another thread, as this thread deals with the Mass specifically.

Except the argument you gave was precisely that Jesus can't be present in the Eucharist because He's seated at the right hand of the Father.

Yes, Scripture is clear, numerous times it tells us that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father and He will come a second time. How many times has He been said to return on Catholic alters?

Again, Jesus warned about such claims.

As for what Scripture says, it says what it says: the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Again. A parable Jesus taught to convey spiritual truth, not to be taken literally. It was those who could not understand what He truly meant who believed He was speaking literally.

And yet both Paul and John of Patmos had encounters with the Risen Jesus.

Descriptive and not prescriptive. There is no reason, Biblically to believe that such encounters are true for all Christians, nor do such select encounters justify the claim that through the blessing of the Eucharistic elements, performed by the priest, they become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Yes, the Spirit is at work, yes, Jesus gives Himself to us through the Holy Spirit. Yes, to those things. But also yes, Jesus gives Himself to us in His Word. Yes, Jesus gives Himself to us in His Sacraments. That the Lord is seated at the right hand of the Father does not mean that the Person of the Lord Jesus cannot Himself act and be where He wills Himself to be. The Apostle St. Paul encountered the risen Lord--as a vision, a mystical experience, but still an encounter with the Person--on the road to Damascus.

Again, I’ve addressed the major issues with all of these claims. The sacrifice of the Mass is in direct conflict with and contradiction of Scripture.

ONE sacrifice was offered for all, at ONE specific time in history, at ONE specific place. This ONE sacrifice was and is completely and entirely sufficient. It is NOT ongoing or continual. It is FINISHED. We, in and through participation in the Lord’s Supper, remember this ONE sacrifice and proclaim Christ’s death until He comes.

There are no priests who can offer Christ’s sacrifice continually. The sacrifice was offered ONCE by Christ on the cross and He Himself is our Great High Priest, Who tore the veil to the Holy of Holies. Christ alone is the Mediator and Intercessor between God and man.

There is no longer a need for any kind of Levitical type priesthood offering a sacrifice for sin on our behalf.

Agreed. The once and finished work of Christ is once and finished.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes. It is finished and it is sufficient. It is not continual and ongoing on every Catholic alter in every single Mass.

 

[Philip_B]

I am (or am not) confused as to what this thread was intending. As an Anglican it is not my great endeavour to keep abreast of the eucharistic thinking of the Catholic Church, nor do I avoid it. I was significantly helped by reading Laudate Si, and the paragraphs from it on the Eucharist I copy here, as it seems to me that when I hear other people telling me what Catholics teach and why it is wrong, it does not always seem to match up with what I read Catholics teaching.

It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself”. Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.

On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the “first day” of the new creation, whose first fruits are the Lord’s risen humanity, the pledge of the final transfiguration of all created reality. It also proclaims “man’s eternal rest in God”. In this way, Christian spirituality incorporates the value of relaxation and festivity. We tend to demean contemplative rest as something unproductive and unnecessary, but this is to do away with the very thing which is most important about work: its meaning. We are called to include in our work a dimension of receptivity and gratuity, which is quite different from mere inactivity. Rather, it is another way of working, which forms part of our very essence. It protects human action from becoming empty activism; it also prevents that unfettered greed and sense of isolation which make us seek personal gain to the detriment of all else. The law of weekly rest forbade work on the seventh day, “so that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your maidservant, and the stranger, may be refreshed” (Ex 23:12). Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centred on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor.

Laudate Si, Pope Francis, May 2015 paragraphs 236-7
Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis​

As to the Biblical origins for the breaking of the bread, the synoptic institution narratives are clear evidence of a Biblical warrant for the practice, John 6 clearly has something quite strong to say on the subject, The walk to Emmaus from Luke's Gospel reminds us yet again, and Acts attests to the practice in the Early Church, and Paul makes some quite strong statements as well.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread​

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, as Scripture repeatedly states...it says what it says: the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ. -CryptoLutheran

Which argument by assertion is merely begging the question, asserting the very meaning of the words which need to be proven as literal, but which are not.

For as said already, "This is MY body" either must either refer to actual bloody human flesh, which manifest physicality John emphasizes in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not physically correspond to the Christ of Scripture, whose body would scientifically test as corporeal flesh. Or it must be understood as metaphorical, which understanding alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture

It certainly is not taught as referring to what looked, felt, smelled, behaved and would taste and scientifically test merely as inanimate objects (bread and wine), down to the smallest particle, but which bread and wine had ceased to exist at the "words of consecration, becoming instead “the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross" of the Catholic christ. Until that is, the non-existent hosts manifests decay, at which point the Catholic christ no longer exists under the appearance of the non-existent bread or wine.

Moreover, if you take John 6:53 as literal, like as other "verily, verily" statements, then you must hold that believing in the "Real Presence" and partaking of the Eucharist is essential in order to have spiritual life in oneself, and that those who (at least) knowingly reject it do not have spiritual life in themselves.

See my posts on page one and read here . Due to technical issues on my end (possibly reinstall Windows) I do not know when I shall be back.

 

[Philip_B]

"This is MY body" either must either refer to actual bloody human flesh, which manifest physicality John emphasizes in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not physically correspond to the Christ of Scripture, whose body would scientifically test as corporeal flesh. Or it must be understood as metaphorical, which understanding alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture

I don't accept that these are the only two options, and effectively that is simply a debating technique trying to reduce ity down to the simply proposition of agree with me or be wrong. Real Presence does not have to mean physical presence as if physicality was the only way to be real. The position you seem to take on these matters is couched far more in terms of what you are against than what you are for.

For my mind, the John 6 narrative should encourage Christians to be mindful of the Holy Eucharist, to take it not lightly or flippantly. I understand that it is possible to read John 6 and not see the Eucharist there at all, however I think that is not the easier reading of the text. We do know that the Eucharist was important in the mind of the early Church and the fourth Gospel no doubt reflects and inspires some of the importance it had for them. In some ways Paul is even stronger in 1 Corinthians 10.

 

[BobRyan]

Which argument by assertion is merely begging the question, asserting the very meaning of the words which need to be proven as literal, but which are not.

For as said already, "This is MY body" either must either refer to actual bloody human flesh, which manifest physicality John emphasizes in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not physically correspond to the Christ of Scripture, whose body would scientifically test as corporeal flesh. Or it must be understood as metaphorical, which understanding alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture

in fact Jesus was sitting at the table talking to them and they could "see Jesus" and knew not to "bite his finger" but rather to "eat the bread". What is more -- Jesus had not yet died - so no sacrifice had been made at all at that point. It was pure symbolism. Nobody biting Christ... nobody thinking that Christ had died on the cross...

(Sorry for the bold type - but I love that point... )

And the same is true in John 6 when Jesus said they must eat his flesh... nobody bites Christ there either. Not even the loyal disciples.

Which is interesting that this is the same place He reminds them that "eating literal flesh" is pointless - and it is His "Words" that are Spirit and life!

 

[Albion]

I don't accept that these are the only two options, and effectively that is simply a debating technique trying to reduce ity down to the simply proposition of agree with me or be wrong. Real Presence does not have to mean physical presence as if physicality was the only way to be real.

 

[FireDragon76]

Which is what I said. The Catholic church claims to be offering the same sacrifice, repeatedly. Yet, Scripture says plainly that it was offered ONCE.

It is possible for something to be instantiated over and over.

It’s strange that “educated people” choose not to actually read and understand the Catholic position regarding Mass (some of which I shared from the Catholic Catechism), and how they can’t seem to understand that claiming that a priest can repeatedly offer the same sacrifice for sin that the Bible says was offered ONCE, by Jesus Christ, is in fact a problem.

I am educated, much moreso than you, in matters of religion of all kinds. I know exactly what Catholics believe. And it's more nuanced than what you are presenting. Catholics do not believe Christ dies again, it is a "bloodless sacrifice". It is a memorial, but it is a memorial in which Christ is really present.

 

[amariselle]

It is possible for something to be instantiated over and over.

My point was not that it isn’t possible, my point was that Scripture is more that clear that the sacrifice of Christ occurred at a specific time and place and that it was once for all and all sufficient.

I am educated, much moreso than you, in matters of religion of all kinds.

Alright. I’m certainly not going to argue such points with you. We actually don’t know each other at all or what “education” each of us may or may not have.

I know exactly what Catholics believe. And it's more nuanced than what you are presenting.

I know what Catholics believe in this regard too. There is always the risk of oversimplification, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand or know Catholic doctrine and traditions.

Catholics do not believe Christ dies again,

I know, and I never once said they do. It seems you are reading into my post something that I did not say. Perhaps that’s why you have come to the conclusion that I don’t understand the Catholic doctrines of the Mass.

it is a "bloodless sacrifice".

I know this as well.

It is a memorial, but it is a memorial in which Christ is really present.

You say you are far more educated than me “in matters of religion of all kinds”, but here you are incorrect. The Catholic Mass is not only a “memorial” it is a real sacrifice. And, it is not simply that Christ is “really present” in the Eucharistic elements, through transubstantiation, those elements are believed to become the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. As this is the Catholic belief, it is therefore accepted that these elements are Christ Himself, and so they are “worshipped.”

From the Catholic Catechism:

III. The Eucharist in the Economy of Salvation

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood.

V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206

From the Council of Trent:

Session 13: CHAPTER IV.

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

CHAPTER V.

On the cult and veneration to be shown to this most holy Sacrament.

Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received: for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the apostles in Galilee.

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

CANONS

CANON I.-If any one denieth, 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 saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema
.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema

 

[amariselle]

Continued:

The Catholic Encyclopedia: The Sacrifice of the Mass

In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.

The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture, e.g. in Ecclesiasticus 35:4: "All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice"; and in Psalm 140:2: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice." These figurative offerings, however, necessarily presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture presupposes its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors — a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Hosea 14:3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Hebrews 13:15) — expressions which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the Old Law bears witness. It is true that we may and must recognize with St. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God. Hence, the holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit" (Psalm 51:18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.

 

[FireDragon76]

We do not believe the priest has sacerdotal powers, nonetheless, there is an element of sacrifice taking place where we commune with the divine through the ritual enactment of the memorial combined with our praise and thanksgiving.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't accept that these are the only two options, and effectively that is simply a debating technique trying to reduce ity down to the simply proposition of agree with me or be wrong. Real Presence does not have to mean physical presence as if physicality was the only way to be real. The position you seem to take on these matters is couched far more in terms of what you are against than what you are for.
.

Certainly there are more than two options, but not without engaging in absurdity which is not what we see the NT manifestly believing. Do you really subscribe to the metaphysical nonsense that is required to explain how "this is My body" (which Catholics claim they take literally) - that of the body and blood of the manifestly incarnate Christ - was that of inanimate objects which looked, felt, smelled, behaved and would taste and scientifically test merely as bread and wine but which had ceased to exist at the "words of consecration, becoming instead “the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross" of the Catholic christ. Until that is, the non-existent hosts manifests decay, at which point the Catholic christ no longer exists under the appearance of the non-existent bread or wine.

You can come up with some other meaning of the "Real Presence" (which according to a RC researcher, was actually originally an Anglican term for their different view of it) but Catholicism itself finds that intolerable, while only a literal take on "this is My body" as meaning the same manifestly physical incarnated body that would bleed on the cross, or the metaphorical understanding which easily conflates with Scripture, can do justice to those words.

For my mind, the John 6 narrative should encourage Christians to be mindful of the Holy Eucharist, to take it not lightly or flippantly. I understand that it is possible to read John 6 and not see the Eucharist there at all, however I think that is not the easier reading of the text.

Rather, John is the one who especially emphasizes the manifest and tangible physicality of Christ, in contrary with one whose appearance did not physically correspond to who He was.

And he also emphasizes that eternal life comes by believing on Christ, not eating, and it is his practice to contrast the physical with the spiritual. And in most every chapter before cp. 6 the Lord or the l means of obtaining spiritual life is referred to using non-literal terms (lamb of God; the temple; the brazen serpent; birth; water; bread)

Moreover, if John 6:53 is to be taken literally as other "verily verily" statements are - and a consistent literal view is what must be required of Catholics - then taking part in the Lord's supper is the essential means of obtaining spiritual life within.

But which is nowhere taught in Scripture, nor the Lord's supper being spiritual food, instead it is by preaching, (1 Timothy 4:2) by which pastors “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7)

And thus John 6:57 states "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And just how did the Lord live by the Father? By consuming His flesh? Nay, as Mt. 4:4 states,

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

And thus in John 4, before he gts to cp. 6, John records, Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

And which corresponds to flesh itself being useless as providing Eternal Life, but which comes by believing His words, most immediately on Christ being the Messiah, and His death and resurrection as the means of obtaining forgiveness and life in oneself. Which is what John teaches, and nowhere presents the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration or spirtual nourishment. But Catholics much take Jn. 6 in isolation.

We do know that the Eucharist was important in the mind of the early Church and the fourth Gospel no doubt reflects and inspires some of the importance it had for them. In some ways Paul is even stronger in 1 Corinthians 10

And just how do you know this? Do you see the sacerdotal Catholic priestly Eucharist in Acts with its mention of "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) Or in Acts 20? How is that the Catholic Eucharist vs a Baptist Lord's supper?

Where is the Lord's supper in Romans? Or Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews(!), 1+2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, and Revelation. That leaves Jude ("feat of charity") and 1 Corinthians 10,11. Which does not teach the Catholic Eucharist as being the body of Christ either.