The Errant Origin of the Eucharist & for the Mass In Scripture

Tellastory · Mar 17, 2013

Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

There is an importance to that reference above because believers really should not have a teaching based on a parable.

The errant origin of the Eucharist & the Mass in scripture is based on an answer that Jesus was giving to the Jews that were not believing what He spoke plainly to them before about that bread of life.

This is what the Jews were not believing in how to receive that bread of life to have eternal life.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Jesus told the Jews again about how to receive eternal life by believing in Him as that bread of life.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.

From there, Jesus began speaking the hard thing to the Jews because they would not believe Him about how to receive that bread of life. This is where it becomes a parable because they refuse to believe how to receive the bread of life by coming to & believing in Him.

This is also the errant origin of the Eucharist and for the Mass.

John 6:49 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. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 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.

Proof that this reference above is why no church should be basing a practise on is when Jesus spoke the truth of that parable to His disciples what He had meant below.

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It 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.

So once again, Jesus tells His disciples how to receive the bread of life and that is by believing in Him which by declaring to His disciples that some of them did not believe in Him.

He had pointed out earlier that the flesh profiteth nothing, meaning that the eating thereof profits nothing, but believing Him and His words does.

That also means eating the bread & drinking the wine profits nothing as it is to be done in remembrance of Him. That's all it is about.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Would you rather do a practise that is based on what Jesus has said plainly to His disciples or do a practise as a continual sacrifice for sins that is based on what Jesus had said in a parable to the unbelieving Jews?

Yarddog · Mar 17, 2013

Tellastory said:
Would you rather do a practise that is based on what Jesus has said plainly to His disciples or do a practise as a continual sacrifice for sins that is based on what Jesus had said in a parable to the unbelieving Jews?

I would rather participate in a practice which Jesus taught the Apostles and which they continued to practice before scripture was written down. One which the Apostles taught the Bishops and which all of the Bishops taught their sheep to observe from east to west and whom all had the same teaching. One which the Church has participated in for nigh 2000 years.

You don't even "Tell a good story".

Albion · Mar 17, 2013

Tellastory said:
Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

There is an importance to that reference above because believers really should not have a teaching based on a parable.

The errant origin of the Eucharist & the Mass in scripture is based on an answer that Jesus was giving to the Jews that were not believing what He spoke plainly to them before about that bread of life.

This is what the Jews were not believing in how to receive that bread of life to have eternal life.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Jesus told the Jews again about how to receive eternal life by believing in Him as that bread of life.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.

From there, Jesus began speaking the hard thing to the Jews because they would not believe Him about how to receive that bread of life. This is where it becomes a parable because they refuse to believe how to receive the bread of life by coming to & believing in Him.

This is also the errant origin of the Eucharist and for the Mass.

Well, you're just mistaken or misinformed.

While John 6 is used as a proof text for the Real Presence, the Holy Communion service is primarily based upon the Biblical account of the Last Supper, exactly as any Protestant who observes the Lord's Supper would do.

Tellastory · Mar 17, 2013

Yarddog said:
I would rather participate in a practice which Jesus taught the Apostles and which they continued to practice before scripture was written down. One which the Apostles taught the Bishops and which all of the Bishops taught their sheep to observe from east to west and whom all had the same teaching. One which the Church has participated in for nigh 2000 years.

Regardless of this oral handing down of tradition as you believe it was practised before anything was written down, then what was written down would not be contrary to that so called oral tradition, but it is.

This comparison to the old system for the sacrifice of sins was being replaced as something that will not be practised in the New Covenant.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

That means that singular sacrifice was only done by Him once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Again, the comparison to the old system in verse 11 of the continuing sacrifice for sins means there will be no continuing sacrifice for sins in the new. The fact that He is at the right hand of God means "it is finished" as He had said at the cross: John 19:30 so that He is not needing to be offered up any more.

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: ...

The fact that you do have the Holy Ghost has proven that you had received the remission of sins and are sanctified forever and thus saved.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Now what happens if a believer continues to sin by refusing to believe that knowledge of the truth that there is no more sacrifice for sin?

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

That is like saying that the Son's sacrifice for sin wasn't good enough in having saved you. Pretty insulting to God, brother.

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

You are saved for believing in Jesus Christ, brother, but what you had allowed the RCC to build on that foundation are wood, stubble, and hay of works that deny Him.

Making the bread & the wine more than what it is and thus calling it a sacrament is making it an idol.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

As I understand it, the blessings from the priests makes this Eucharist possible in the Mass, thus how can it not be provoking the Lord to jealousy?

You don't even "Tell a good story".

I concede that the RCC is "good" at telling stories, but the stories are lies when they go against scripture as the scripture proves it to be lies.

Again, the claim of oral traditions being handed down would not go contrary to what the apostles had written down, but it does and thus proves the oral tradition was not handed down from the apostles after all.

Tellastory · Mar 17, 2013

Albion said:
Well, you're just mistaken or misinformed.

While John 6 is used as a proof text for the Real Presence, the Holy Communion service is primarily based upon the Biblical account of the Last Supper, exactly as any Protestant who observes the Lord's Supper would do.

I doubt that. See Post #4 in this thread.

The fact that Protestant uses the term "Holy Communion" means that they have made the breaking of the bread more than what it is.

Scripture did not call the communion as holy communion. In fact the event of communion was just called the breaking of bread.

Acts 2:42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 20:7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Paul had used the term communion, but not in labelling the event, but signifying what believers are to be in agreement on when doing this in remembrance of Him.

The fact that sacrament is a term derived from an origin of a system of works of catholicism that denies Him, should also be dropped altogether if the Protestant churches wishes to have their faith in Jesus Christ stand apart entirely from the works of catholicism in the RCC.

Believers can break bread without using the term sacrament, Eucharist, Holy Communion, and the Mass if they wish to avoid taking the bread in the wrong way.

Even when some Protestant churches begin that service with the traditional saying "We come into His Presence today..." is not scriptural because He is with us always and so there is no coming into His Presence and certainly, there is no walking away from His Presence either after the breaking of bread.

Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Martin Luther wasn't done with the prunings away from the dead works of catholicism. Protestant should not rest on his laurels when there are more things "Catholic" than scripture being practised within.

Albion · Mar 17, 2013

Tellastory said:
The fact that Protestant uses the term "Holy Communion" means that they have made the breaking of the bread more than what it is.

No, it doesn't. Especially since they're just as apt to call it by several other names. My own church refers, in its order for the observance, to it by both the term Holy Communion and The Lord's Supper.

Weareyoung · Mar 17, 2013

Tellastory said:
The errant origin of the Eucharist & the Mass in scripture is based on an answer that Jesus was giving to the Jews that were not believing what He spoke plainly to them before about that bread of life.

This is what the Jews were not believing in how to receive that bread of life to have eternal life.

But he spoke plainly to his disciples, yet they were also tempted to leave. Seems to be pretty obvious to me that the Jews understood this teaching to be literal. Especially because in the original Greek, when the Jews are not accepting it he uses even more visual language, such as the word trogo. (to chew, to gnaw.)

Tellastory said:
He had pointed out earlier that the flesh profiteth nothing, meaning that the eating thereof profits nothing, but believing Him and His words does.

That also means eating the bread & drinking the wine profits nothing as it is to be done in remembrance of Him. That's all it is about.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Would you rather do a practise that is based on what Jesus has said plainly to His disciples or do a practise as a continual sacrifice for sins that is based on what Jesus had said in a parable to the unbelieving Jews?

Does Jesus' flesh profit nothing? If you take that position you must deny the entire gospel. "The flesh profits nothing" means that trying to understand this with your human mind will not help you.

Here's a quote from Ignatius of Antioch. A man who himself heard John (the disciple who wrote John Chapter 6) preach.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." -Ignatius of Antioch 80-110 A.D.

John's Gospel was written around 90 A.D.

From the beginning of the early church, up until the reformation the only accepted doctrine about this was belief in the real presence.

Tellastory · Mar 17, 2013

Albion said:
No, it doesn't. Especially since they're just as apt to call it by several other names. My own church refers, in its order for the observance, to it by both the term Holy Communion and The Lord's Supper.

But the communion is not holy when Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing. To say something is holy when it is nothing is to imply that it is more than what it is and thus something sacred like an idol when it is not.

Either our words meet what we say and line up with our faith, or we are following the crowd, maintaining inserted patented routines and words that we shall be judged for.

But only by trusting Jesus Christ as our Good Shepherd can believers hear that truth and necessity to ask Him for help to be a better witness of Him.

Tellastory · Mar 17, 2013

Weareyoung said:
But he spoke plainly to his disciples, yet they were also tempted to leave. Seems to be pretty obvious to me that the Jews understood this teaching to be literal. Especially because in the original Greek, when the Jews are not accepting it he uses even more visual language, such as the word trogo. (to chew, to gnaw.)

Reread John 6:33-35, because He said it plainly on how to receive this bread of life and that was by coming to & believing in Him...

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

.... from which the Jews and those disciples that did not believe in Him had left.

That's right. Jesus knew those disciples did not believe in Him and that was why they had left.

John 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. 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. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Does Jesus' flesh profit nothing? If you take that position you must deny the entire gospel. "The flesh profits nothing" means that trying to understand this with your human mind will not help you.

Here's a quote from Ignatius of Antioch. A man who himself heard John (the disciple who wrote John Chapter 6) preach.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." -Ignatius of Antioch 80-110 A.D.

John's Gospel was written around 90 A.D.

From the beginning of the early church, up until the reformation the only accepted doctrine about this was belief in the real presence.

In spite of of the claim that Ignatius has heard John, he did not listen to him as evidence in post #4 in this thread.

Weareyoung · Mar 17, 2013

Tellastory said:
Reread John 6:33-35, because He said it plainly on how to receive this bread of life and that was by coming to & believing in Him...

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

.... from which the Jews and those disciples that did not believe in Him had left.

That's right. Jesus knew those disciples did not believe in Him and that was why they had left.

John 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. 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. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

In spite of of the claim that Ignatius has heard John, he did not listen to him as evidence in post #4 in this thread.

Believing in the Eucharist and believing in the Lord Jesus are not at odds with each other.

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
John 15:20 "If they kept my word, they will also keep yours."

Catholics tend to have an all-of-the-above approach to the words of the New Testament.

Tellastory said:
That is like saying that the Son's sacrifice for sin wasn't good enough in having saved you. Pretty insulting to God, brother.

The Mass is actually saying that God the Son's sacrifice for sin is the only thing that's going to prevent us from rotting separated from God for all eternity. All of God's actions are eternal. The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice of Christ. It is the same eternal sacrifice re-presented (not represented) on the altar.

Albion · Mar 17, 2013

Tellastory said:
But the communion is not holy when Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing. To say something is holy when it is nothing is to imply that it is more than what it is and thus something sacred like an idol when it is not.

I see the point, but I believe the sacrament instituted by our Lord for the perpetual remembrance of his work on the cross is fairly termed "holy."

People can disagree about that, but I also have to note that it's hard to keep up with your constantly changing points. First, you said that the sacrament is based on John 6, which I don't think can be sustained as an argument. And you said it was wrong to call the Sacrament the Eucharist or Holy Communion. Then you said it's not a sacrament but it is an idol no matter what it's called.

Tellastory · Mar 18, 2013

Albion said:
I see the point, but I believe the sacrament instituted by our Lord for the perpetual remembrance of his work on the cross is fairly termed "holy."

People can disagree about that, but I also have to note that it's hard to keep up with your constantly changing points. First, you said that the sacrament is based on John 6, which I don't think can be sustained as an argument. And you said it was wrong to call the Sacrament the Eucharist or Holy Communion. Then you said it's not a sacrament but it is an idol no matter what it's called.

Then may the Lord help me to be clearer still.

The term "sacrament" should be dropped. Look up the definition as it varies and why it should be dropped as any seeker will see that term as it would be misrepresenting what the Lord meant for the breaking of the bread to be about.

The same goes for the Eucharist and calling communion as "Holy Communion" as well as when the RCC is naming the event as the Mass.

If a church wishes to be scriptural in her practises, then a reformation is needed, pruning away words with His help and discernment that are not definitive of her faith in Jesus Christ to truly stand apart from being identified with the works of catholicism in the eyes of the world.

Albion · Mar 18, 2013

Tellastory said:
Then may the Lord help me to be clearer still.

The term "sacrament" should be dropped. Look up the definition as it varies and why it should be dropped as any seeker will see that term as it would be misrepresenting what the Lord meant for the breaking of the bread to be about.

The term derives from the Roman word meaning an emblem or symbol.

Tellastory · Mar 18, 2013

Albion said:
The term derives from the Roman word meaning an emblem or symbol.

Did the apostles use the term ever? Answer: No.

What is the origin of sacrament as introduced into the churches? Answer: The RCC in defining grace as a work by the use of the term sacrament.

At this link below shows why sacrament should be dropped as it equates sacrament even for the Protestant to a work and not just the Lord's Supper, but to baptism as well. Then reading on, we see the works of catholicism. This is proof that Martin Luther was not done reproving from the works of catholicism in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

Sacrament | Define Sacrament at Dictionary.com

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Now the Protestant churches may agree with those verses above, but do their words & practises match up? I would say no.

We have such a hard time pinning Catholics down on their doctrines when their catechism speaks out of both sides of their mouths, saying one thing and yet saying something else that opposes what they had just said, leaving their faith in Jesus Christ in doubt.

If the Protestant churches want the Catholic Churches to do away with traditions, words, and practises that are not scriptural and that are opposing themselves by the scripture, then the Protestant churches have to lead by example.

Years ago, I read on the internet that Lutheran leaders in the British Isles now say that it was a mistake to leave the RCC which is to me, evidence of what happens when they do not get rid of the small leaven of catholicism as it will leaven into a whole lump... and yet, we are called to come out of the world so that our light will be seen by men.

John 7:7The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

John 15:19If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

John 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

1 Corinthians 15:33Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Ephesians 4:29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Psalm 19: 12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

May the Lord of Whom I trust as my Good Shepherd, continue to help me to be a true witness of Him and show no partiality toward wicked works.

Albion · Mar 18, 2013

Tellastory said:
Did the apostles use the term ever?

What is the origin of sacrament as introduced into the churches? Answer: The RCC in defining grace as a work by the use of the term sacrament.

No. I've already explained the origin. The word refers to something signified and was in use in Roman society before the Christian church borrowed it.

Tellastory · Mar 18, 2013

Albion said:
No. I've already explained the origin. The word refers to something signified and was in use in Roman society before the Christian church borrowed it.

But how the church "borrowed" it from the beginning is the point since the RCC had used that term as an affiliation with works of catholicism.

What has been used in practise as a work that denies Him, cannot be used by those that protest it.

Protestant refers to the word as per the dictionary as a work in relating to water baptism and the Lord's Supper, and going back to that origin, it is identifying in relation to the works of catholicism that denies Him.

The first use of sacrament in the church in how it is used will be the witness against those that use it because the world will only refer to the original use of the term as it was practised in the churches.... a sacred work.

Thus no longer just an emblem or a symbol.

My former Presbyertian churches consider marriage a sacrament, along with water baptism, the Lord's Supper, and even infant baptism.

How can the world see sacrament as just an emblem or a symbol now?

Albion · Mar 18, 2013

Tellastory said:
But how the church "borrowed" it from the beginning is the point since the RCC had used that term as an affiliation with works of catholicism.

The word is used in Christian circles to mean that the event has visible, physical properties that signify an inner grace.

What has been used in practise as a work that denies Him, cannot be used by those that protest it.

If that were the case, Christians could do almost nothing in worship, since some pagans used the same implements earlier. Of course, they used them for totally different purposes, which most of us think matters.

Neverthless, I get your point; I just don't agree with it.

Tellastory · Mar 18, 2013

Albion said:
The word is used in Christian circles to mean that the event has visible, physical properties that signify an inner grace.

And yet the use of that sacrament in practise is of a work which means not of grace since it is originating from the works of catholicism.

When a word has been carried into practise to have a different meaning, the world will go to the original use of the term as used in the RCC as being the correct definition of the term sacrament.

If that were the case, Christians could do almost nothing in worship, since some pagans used the same implements earlier. Of course, they used them for totally different purposes, which most of us think matters.

The case is that Martin Luther wasn't done reproving from the words & works of catholicism in keeping the faith which is the good fight. Words and practises have been carried over into Protestant churches that can lead the world into believing that Protestants are doing it as a sacred work also, regardless of what they say that sacrament means when it is considered a work to be practised as water baptism and Lord's Supper are mentioned.

Neverthless, I get your point; I just don't agree with it.

How hard is it to drop the use of the terms sacrament, Eucharist, & Holy Communion for those that do not believe in the Mass? The disciples were able to break bread and have communion without those extra words and yet by doing so today, believers that do not believe in the Mass would be standing further apart from the works of catholicism to have their faith in Jesus Christ shine even more when their words match up with their faith.

Tellastory · Mar 18, 2013

Albion said:
The word is used in Christian circles to mean that the event has visible, physical properties that signify an inner grace.

Neverthless, I get your point; I just don't agree with it.

Take a survey. Ask members of your church to define what a sacrament means to them and how they view seeing baptism and the Lord's Supper as a sacrament and what that means when doing them.

Albion · Mar 18, 2013

Tellastory said:
Take a survey. Ask members of your church to define what a sacrament means to them and how they view seeing baptism and the Lord's Supper as a sacrament and what that means when doing them.

I won't be identical to the Roman Catholic Church's view of the sacraments, I can assure you. And that's all there is to this.

The Errant Origin of the Eucharist & for the Mass In Scripture

Hebrews 13:13

Senior Contributor

Facilitator

Hebrews 13:13

Hebrews 13:13

Facilitator

Newbie

Hebrews 13:13

Hebrews 13:13

Newbie

Facilitator

Hebrews 13:13

Facilitator

Hebrews 13:13

Facilitator

Hebrews 13:13

Facilitator

Hebrews 13:13

Hebrews 13:13

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency