A Protestant attending a Catholic service.

[TomUK]

Someone posted this link over in OBOB, in i thought it was very interesting so am posting it here aswell. Please note- i'm not trying to convert anyone (as i'm not a catholic myself). I'm just always very interested in how people from different denominations react when they attend a service of another denomination.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/114/story_11436_1.html

 

[II Paradox II]

Someone posted this link over in OBOB, in i thought it was very interesting so am posting it here aswell. Please note- i'm not trying to convert anyone (as i'm not a catholic myself). I'm just always very interested in how people from different denominations react when they attend a service of another denomination.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/114/story_11436_1.html

It is an interesting article. Overall, it really does point to how far modern evangelicalism has gotten from it's historic Reformational and broadly catholic roots.

One thing that does strike me as very interesting is his observation that the re-introduction of such historic elements has been largely under the banner of the "emerging church" and postmodern constructions. It seems oddly appropos to advocate such a reawkening under this banner. The postmodern world is mired in so much subjectivism that it almost idolizes the communal expressions of faith simply because they transcend the individual's solipsistic experience. Having run into a few of these post-modern classical revivalists, it is an odd experience to contrast this with my own much more objectivist advocacy of the same things.

Personally, I hope we see more interaction with the early church and ancient forms of thought. Not that I think they're all right, but they do point the way to a form of Christian ecumenism without liberalism (i.e... unity based around a common gospel and the fundamental creeds of the church instead of division over such minutia as eschatology or odd marian doctrines) as well as a recognition of the centrality of the scriptures. Catholic apologetic views aside (which seem to be more concerned with justifying a skepticism towards scriptural knowledge than recovering a patristic attitude toward the revelation of God), the patristic period had a respect for the scriptures which easily equals the pared down biblicism of our own post-modern age. The more I study this the more I am convinced that we need to study and reach back into history to find the way out of some of our modern vexations.

ken

 

[Cal]

Someone posted this link over in OBOB, in i thought it was very interesting so am posting it here aswell. Please note- i'm not trying to convert anyone (as i'm not a catholic myself). I'm just always very interested in how people from different denominations react when they attend a service of another denomination.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/114/story_11436_1.html

It was exactly these imaginations of "monks in robes," "Harry Potter's (hehe)," and "dark mystery's" that the reformers wanted to exclude from the worship of God. They insisted on plain services so as not to distract from the preaching of the Word of God and from meditations on your sins, repentance, Jesus Christ, forgiveness and prayer. These are the true beauty's and jewels of the Church.

Thank God for the Reformation!

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I have attended a mass before - a few times. My perception may be a bit tainted as I was not 'saved' at the time.

Although I agree with the article, surrounding some of the beauty and significance during Mass ( hearts seemed to be so devoted to Christ from what I saw, although the prayers seemed to be a bit repetative, almost to the point where I wondered if they were 'truly' saying them, or just bablling a well known word) - I felt differently than he did regarding the Eucharist. I felt it to be cold. Lines of people waiting to receive the bread and wine, in a way that seemed to be so dry to me. I also saw my friends, a married couple not married the 'the Church', watch on as their 'confirmed' children receive the Eucharist, they too so wanted to receive - but couldn't, because they were unworthy to receive. (they were not married in the Catholic Church because they were both married prior - and an annulment needed to take place with their former spouses- something that is a long process, and that would cost them $$$ in the thousands). This did bother me.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i live in a spanish speaking barrio, all my neighbors are Roman Catholic because they get baptised, married and buried in the church. therefore i have been inside a RC church for several funerals of good friends.

i am aware of being in the wrong place, i do not belong there. the idols, the images, etc are direct violations of the commandments. but because my purpose and motivation is clearly not to worship God there, but to pay my respects to the dead and show comfort for the still living. i don't feel any pains for being there. however i would never go into a RC church for a worship service etc. as it would be a sin against the right worship of God. Thoughts like the destruction of the Huguenots, the burning of Latimer and Ridley are never far from my mind, i can not forgot, nor forgive the history.

 

[Gabriel]

I would remind you that we are commanded to forgive as we were forgiven.

My daughter's best friend invited my daughter to her first communion and the party afterwards. We will be attending the party only.

 

[bigsierra]

i live in a spanish speaking barrio, all my neighbors are Roman Catholic because they get baptised, married and buried in the church. therefore i have been inside a RC church for several funerals of good friends.

i am aware of being in the wrong place, i do not belong there. the idols, the images, etc are direct violations of the commandments. but because my purpose and motivation is clearly not to worship God there, but to pay my respects to the dead and show comfort for the still living. i don't feel any pains for being there. however i would never go into a RC church for a worship service etc. as it would be a sin against the right worship of God. Thoughts like the destruction of the Huguenots, the burning of Latimer and Ridley are never far from my mind, i can not forgot, nor forgive the history.

Am I to understand that your church doesn't put out a Nativity?

 

[Cright]

hi all...

I stuck my head in this room because I grew up Catholic. I'm not Christian with baptist-type beliefs, which since the split of p/r/e is where i've been.

Hope ya'll don't mind me adding my $0.02.

There are many "reminders" in the church, they are not idols. Catholics are Christians too. Although, many things the church does I would deam "unnecessary" and a few things I just disagree with not that I've read my bible and have been attending several bible classes weekly for more than 1/2 a year.
I do agree it's completely different. I do think it's important for children not to attend ceremonial services of any other church until they know their own faith and can answer questions about both, before going.
If you saw anything that you have questions about during the masses you've attended I'd be happy to answer questions... just know that, I most likely do not agree with the things that I explain in catholisism.

I will close my post now and be on my way...
... so someone else can answer

 

[Cal]

hi all...

I stuck my head in this room because I grew up Catholic. I'm not Christian with baptist-type beliefs, which since the split of p/r/e is where i've been.

Hope ya'll don't mind me adding my $0.02.

There are many "reminders" in the church, they are not idols. Catholics are Christians too. Although, many things the church does I would deam "unnecessary" and a few things I just disagree with not that I've read my bible and have been attending several bible classes weekly for more than 1/2 a year.
I do agree it's completely different. I do think it's important for children not to attend ceremonial services of any other church until they know their own faith and can answer questions about both, before going.
If you saw anything that you have questions about during the masses you've attended I'd be happy to answer questions... just know that, I most likely do not agree with the things that I explain in catholisism.

I will close my post now and be on my way...
... so someone else can answer

Athough many Catholics are Christians whom we love, many of Catholic Church doctrines are not Christian which we hate, for example:

Mary Co-redemptrix (Mary Co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ)
Praying to saints
Statutes and other images of adoration
Salvation by works
The Assumption of Mary

The mass is the "re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ again" on their alter, it is repulsive.

 

[bigsierra]

Athough many Catholics are Christians whom we love, many of Catholic Church doctrines are not Christian which we hate, for example:

Mary Co-redemptrix (Mary Co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ)
Praying to saints
Statutes and other images of adoration
Salvation by works
The Assumption of Mary

The mass is the "re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ again" on their alter, it is repulsive.

I won't respond to all you're issues, but it's isn't a "re-sacrifice." It's the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago.

This graphic isn't exactly accurate, but it's gives you an idea of the mystery that takes place at Mass. I'm new to the concept, so forgive me if I'm off a bit.

Edited to add that I have come to understand that the image is a bit over simplified. I think it still has some validity.

 

[ufonium2]

they were both married prior - and an annulment needed to take place with their former spouses- something that is a long process, and that would cost them $$$ in the thousands). This did bother me.

What state do your friends live in? Is one of them a billionaire with several other ex-spouses already? Are either of their exes in a coma or in another country? There's no way a legal annulment should cost anywhere approaching even $1000 unless one of the situations above is present, which I'm guessing isn't the case. Your friends are being ripped off and should get a new lawyer.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the RCC is concerned with having a church annulment rather than a legal one, and I think they are different, but I'm not Catholic so I can't be sure.

 

[Filia Mariae]

What state do your friends live in? Is one of them a billionaire with several other ex-spouses already? Are either of their exes in a coma or in another country? There's no way a legal annulment should cost anywhere approaching even $1000 unless one of the situations above is present, which I'm guessing isn't the case. Your friends are being ripped off and should get a new lawyer.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the RCC is concerned with having a church annulment rather than a legal one, and I think they are different, but I'm not Catholic so I can't be sure.

Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an "annulment," it is a decree of nullity. And you are correct that it doesn't cost thousands of dollars.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm fine with attending Mass. If I live in a place where there's no Methodist church, I'd go find the nearest Catholic one

 

[Filia Mariae]

We are justified in baptism.

 

[Cal]

I won't respond to all you're issues, but it's isn't a "re-sacrifice." It's the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago.

This graphic isn't exactly accurate, but it's gives you an idea of the mystery that takes place at Mass. I'm new to the concept, so forgive me if I'm off a bit.

Edited to add that I have come to understand that the image is a bit over simplified. I think it still has some validity.

You are right in that it is the same sacrifice, but the point is that the Catholic doctrine states that the Mass is an "actual and real sacrifice" being made again and again and again by priests of Jesus Christ. The priest is modeling himself after the Levite priests of old who made animal sacrifices on the alter. The Catholic doctrine states that these same priests are authorized today to "actually" sacrifice Jesus Christ on the alter in front of the church at every mass.

But it's best to quote the Catholics on their own doctrine:

"The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." ("The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass" by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.)

And in the words of Pope Pius IV...

"I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)

The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead as well!). Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. Not a symbolic re-creation! But a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago ("The Catholic Home Instruction Book", #3, P. 90.).

That's why the elements must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin:

"The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." ("The Spirit of Jesus" pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph Cardinal Carberry, Archbishop of St. Louis.)

"He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will never cease." ("Sons of God in Christ" Book 4, P. 117.)

"The Mass is identical to Calvary it is a sacrifice for sin it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (For Them Also, pp.289-299.)

The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST". (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 2, p.77.) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a renewal of the sacrifice of the cross"! ("A Catholic Word List" p. 45.)



THE COUNCIL OF TRENT ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

The Council of Trent was called to clarify and standardize Catholic doctrine in response to the challenges of the Reformation. The canons on this subject (passed in Session XXII. Cap II.) are as follows:

"If any one shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema."

"If any one shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me', Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."

"If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."

"If any one shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass let him be accursed."


BUT IS THIS THE BELIEF OF ROME TODAY?

If any be in doubt as to the modern Roman position, we shall quote the recent (1963-65) Second Vatican Council:

"At the Last Supper. . . our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross. . . " p. 154, The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.

The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. ("The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host", which is the Latin word hostia which literally means "victim" (Webster's New World Dictionary.)


BUT WHY "THE SACRIFICE" OF THE MASS?

We will now quote the Church's own contemporary literature to fully answer this question (taken from the book, This Is The Catholic Church, published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, Imprimatur: (sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary.) Most Reverend John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford:

"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation of that sacrifice that this union may be maintained.

"What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and death. Jesus then, is the priest, the offerer of the sacrifice. But Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice.

"The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass." (pp. 20-24.)

Source: http://users.ev1.net/~damonm/catholic-chronicles/chron_2.html


Of course all of this flies in the face of plain Scripture teachings that:

ROM 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

HEB 7:27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

HEB 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

HEB 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

1PE 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

HEB 6:6 ....since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. This doesn't refer to the Mass but it speaks to just how awful another sacrifice of Jesus Christ would be.

 

[bigsierra]

Again, everything goes back to the "once for all sacrifice" on the Cross. Covenants are often renewed. How often do husbands and wives like to renew their covenant in the marriage bed?

Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace.

I updated my diagram from yesterday

 

[Bob Moore]

I won't respond to all you're issues, but it's isn't a "re-sacrifice." It's the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago.

It is an on-going and repetitive sacrifice. Hebrews 7:27 has this to say: "Who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself." Jesus made the sacrifice once for all. We remember that in the communion (which He commanded), but recognize that what we partake of is bread and wine (or juice), not the actual body and blood of Christ for the very reason that were it taken otherwise then Christ would be sacrificed anew at every communion. Nor is the office or intercession of a priest required because "we have a great high priest" (Hebrews 4:14), who is "the only mediator between God and man" (1 Timothy 2:5).

 

[Cal]

Again, everything goes back to the "once for all sacrifice" on the Cross. Covenants are often renewed. How often do husbands and wives like to renew their covenant in the marriage bed?

Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace.

I updated my diagram from yesterday

But Catholic priests can't sacrifice the Son of God. Do you think they do?

And Jesus won't sacrifice Himself again, ever, do you think He does in the mass?

Christ said the Lord's Supper was spiritual not physical:

JOH 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

JOH 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This was one of the main points of the reformation, to eliminate these practices from the Church.

 

[Bob Moore]

We are justified in baptism.

Oh?

Acts 13:39, "And by him (Jesus) every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Titus 3:5-7, "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

 

[bigsierra]

But Catholic priests can't sacrifice the Son of God. Do you think they do?

And Jesus won't sacrifice Himself again, ever, do you think He does in the mass?

Christ said the Lord's Supper was spiritual not physical:

JOH 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

JOH 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This was one of the main points of the reformation, to eliminate these practices from the Church.

There is only one sacrifice, of which we are partakers

The priest consecrates the bread and wine.

John 666, they left him, when he said that that they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood. you left all some key verses

John 6
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

This would have been a good spot for him to say "Hey guys, don't worry, it's just symbolic." Instead he let them all go away.