A Protestant attending a Catholic service.

[Filia Mariae]

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."

I was responding to a question someone else asked. Their question was deleted, as were many other posts, because the poster broke the forum rules. I cann't respond to your post here, for obvious reasons.

 

[Bob Moore]

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.

No.

John 6:64-66, "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father. Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Here is what 6:66 is talking about:

From that time many of his disciples went back,.... Not any of the twelve apostles, for they are distinguished from these in the next verse; nor any of the seventy disciples, for their names were written in heaven, and could not apostatize totally and finally, as these did; but some of the multitude of the disciples, who followed Christ, heard him, and professed to believe in him, and were baptized in his name, but were not true disciples, only nominal ones: they had never heard and learned of the Father, otherwise they would have known what it was to come to Christ, as the Father's gift, and under the drawings of his grace; and would not have been offended at the words of our Lord, just now spoken by him, concerning that sort of coming to him: but from the time he spoke those words; "because of this word", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it; they withdrew themselves from his ministry, they dropped their profession of faith in him, and relinquished him as a Saviour and Redeemer: for finding that he would not be made king, nor set up for a temporal redeemer; and talking of himself as the bread of life, and of coming to him, in a sense they did not understand; they turned their backs on him; and as the words may be literally read, "returned to the things that were behind"; to the world, and to their old companions, to Satan and their own hearts lusts; like the dog to its vomit, and the swine to its wallowing in the mire: their true picture is drawn, in the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man, and returning, Mat_12:43. And they returned to their quondam teachers, the Scribes and Pharisees, and to the law of works, and to seek for righteousness by it; setting up their own righteousness, and not submitting to the righteousness of Christ; and thus to look back and draw back, is a sad case indeed:

and walked no more with him; never returned to him more, or went with him from place to place as before: never more attended on his ministry, or had any intimacy and fellowship with him: and so it commonly is with apostates from the profession of Christ; they seldom or ever return, or are recovered; it is difficult, if not impossible, which is sometimes the case, to renew them again to repentance." {Gill's commentary}

This passage has nothing whatever to do with communion.

 

[Bob Moore]

I was responding to a question someone else asked. Their question was deleted, as were many other posts, because the poster broke the forum rules. I cann't respond to your post here, for obvious reasons.

Ah. It did seem a little disjointed. Thanks for clearing it up. However, if you do believe that it is baptism which justifies, I would like to discuss it with you in another thread.

 

[Cal]

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.

He did, He said:

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.

But they still walked away and followed Him no more even after He told them the obvious that it was not His actual "flesh" that He was talking about. It was dining on Jesus Christ "spiritually" as He put it.

But back to my questions for a moment, do you believe the Catholic belief is Scriptually accurate in that the priests are actually sacrificing Jesus Chist and He is permitting Himself to be sacrificed again as The Council of Trent has dictated?

 

[bigsierra]

He did, He said:

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.

But they still walked away and followed Him no more even after He told them the obvious that it was not His actual "flesh" that He was talking about. It was dining on Jesus Christ "spiritually" as He put it.

But back to my questions for a moment, do you believe the Catholic belief is Scriptually accurate in that the priests are actually sacrificing Jesus Chist and He is permitting Himself to be sacrificed again as The Council of Trent has dictated?

If you're asking me to say it's a new sacrifice, I can't do that. I will respond since you asked. As you know, the Catholic Church doesn't believe OSAS, so there is going to be a difference of opinion on the way in the way Christ's death on the cross plays out. It's would be as different to you as your views would be with your Protestant brothers and sisters in the Anglican/Wesleyan traditions. I'm not saying they are similar, but both would require quite a different epistemology.
Bear with me, since 3-4 months ago, I also had the

icon(whenever it was introduced) so am not at this point the greatest of apologist. I still haven't attended RCIA or any other classes, so I'm not yet associated with the Catholic Church, except by desire. Anyway, back to the point, and to answer you're question I agree with what the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) says. I believe the Early Church Fathers held to that belief, as well as the Church in the book of Acts, in partaking in the Lord's Supper daily.
Here are some links that I've been reading:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ378.HTM
http://www.childrenofhope.org/quotes.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Here is what the CCC says:

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

150 Heb 13:15; cf. 1 Pet 25; Ps 116:13, 17; Mal 1:11.

It's not saying that it is any other than the "One" sacrifice, being made present.

Further down, it goes on to say:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

189 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.

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." "And since 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. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

It seems dangerous to me, to take a view that is somewhat new (~500 years), as far as basis of God's method of bringing us to Heaven. I will also add that I have a great respect for the Calvinist doctrine, and believe that there is a lot of truth, contained within it. As I said in another thread, I thank God for excellent preachers and teachers of the faith, such as D James Kennedy and RC Sproul; Kennedy for making witnesses of the early Americans, to this generation and Sproul for revealing the Holiness and sovereignty of God.

 

[Cal]

It seems dangerous to me, to take a view that is somewhat new (~500 years), as far as basis of God's method of bringing us to Heaven. I will also add that I have a great respect for the Calvinist doctrine, and believe that there is a lot of truth, contained within it. As I said in another thread, I thank God for excellent preachers and teachers of the faith, such as D James Kennedy and RC Sproul; Kennedy for making witnesses of the early Americans, to this generation and Sproul for revealing the Holiness and sovereignty of God.

But it is not new. The way of salvation has always been Jesus Christ and His work alone.

It is us men who constantly mess it up. We want to sacrifice Christ again to earn points, we want to work for salvation so we can claim credit, we want our baptism to count because we did a good deed. But the Bible teaches we are saved by Christ's good deeds and His death for our sins alone. Even our faith in Him is from God.

So He gets all the credit and we get none! Zero!

That is the difference between all religions and Christianity as a matter of fact. All other religions provide for man to boast for their good deeds, but God wants all credit to go to His Son, ALL!

EPH 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

EPH 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[LynneClomina]

question:

someone said that Christ was the great high priest that made the offering of Himself on the cross - thus, offerer and offering.

the "host", the offering, is consedered by the RC to be Christ Himself... do they consider the same thing about the offerer? the preist? is he claiming to take the place of Christ????

truly ignorant on this point. i want to ask this here becuase i dont want to be swamped in OBOB. thnx.

 

[Caedmon]

the "host", the offering, is consedered by the RC to be Christ Himself... do they consider the same thing about the offerer? the preist? is he claiming to take the place of Christ????

Of course not... The priest is not the Christ.

 

[santos]

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

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

 

[Holy Warrior]

Chill santos, just because darklite occasionally attends mass doesn't necessarily mean (s)he partakes of the Eucharist.

 

[II Paradox II]

Chill santos, just because darklite occasionally attends mass doesn't necessarily mean (s)he partakes of the Eucharist.

geez... Last time I went to a catholic church (with my in-laws) I was guilt tripped by them and the priest for not wanting to take communion there. And yes, they are a little on the liberal side there.

ken

 

[Bulldog]

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

He never said he received communion, just that he attends mass.

If I am correct, protestants are allowed to attend Mass, but just not allowed to recerive communion, right?

 

[BjBarnett]

He never said he received communion, just that he attends mass.

If I am correct, protestants are allowed to attend Mass, but just not allowed to recerive communion, right?

you are right my friend.

 

[bigsierra]

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

I go to Mass 2 or 3 times a week and am not Catholic...yet. I don't partake of the Eucharist though.

 

[LynneClomina]

How dare you,it is against cannon law if you receive communion that is not even funny why would you put a smiley icon not even to kid.

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

do y'all think it's ok to do that? isnt it up to Christ, and our convictions, as to what we do in that case? if i feel God wants me to take communion, i will, if i dont, i wont. if it is against my concience, it is sin.... do you agree?

(i know this is a hot issue with some people, so i remind everyone that is not reformed to please not debate. thnx.)

 

[Lilac]

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.

This I feel is sad rmwilliams -that you're basing your entire perception of a faith on an unfortunate event. This reminds me of what someone just said to me tonight on the phone which disturbed me as well:

That they would not give one penny to the Episcopal Church because of the "gay" issues involved. This is most sad too!

We are all sisters and brothers in the Lord----

God Bless~~

 

[BjBarnett]

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

come on surely you would have more respect about you then that. I wouldnt come into your church and do something I wasnt supposed to knowing that I wasnt supposed to do it.

 

[Caedmon]

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

do y'all think it's ok to do that? isnt it up to Christ, and our convictions, as to what we do in that case? if i feel God wants me to take communion, i will, if i dont, i wont. if it is against my concience, it is sin.... do you agree?

First, the Catholic Church asks non-Catholics not to partake in her Communion because non-Catholics disagree with certain Church teachings, and thus, are not in Communion with the Catholic Church. Also, and more importantly, the Church believes that the Host (wafer) becomes the literal Body and Blood of Christ, and that to partake of it while in a state of mortal sin (if you are) is to potentially eat and drink judgment upon one's self.

Of course, there is no way for the priest to refuse you Communion if he doesn't know you. If you go to receive the Eucharist, he must assume (without prior knowledge of you) that you are a Catholic and are not in a state of mortal sin. But if he does know that you are either not a Catholic or are in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, he sometimes has the right to refuse you Communion. As stated earlier, he would do this in order to protect your soul from judgment, and not out of spite. Does that make sense?

 

[bigsierra]

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.

Ease up... He who is without sin and so forth

John Calvin 7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."

 

[Kripost]

well, if i went to mass (and i won't) i would take communion if i wanted to, if i could, becuase i dont believe it's up to the Catholic church to decide for me. i am not "under" canon law, becuase i am not Catholic.

do y'all think it's ok to do that? isnt it up to Christ, and our convictions, as to what we do in that case? if i feel God wants me to take communion, i will, if i dont, i wont. if it is against my concience, it is sin.... do you agree?

(i know this is a hot issue with some people, so i remind everyone that is not reformed to please not debate. thnx.)

Well, as far as I know, most priests will give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are Catholic.

The problem is that it puts the priest in a bad position. He cannot, in good conscience, distribute comunion to those whom he knows are not Catholic. Do remember that Canon Law applies to priests more strictly than laity.

In order of importance, firstly, he has to protect the sacraments, secondly he has to protect the 'communicant', and thirdly, he has to protect himself.