Help a Catholic understand Protestantism better please

[Nehemiah6]

For the last fifty years or so this has been the tactic that has taken a great toll on the true church. It you teach the gospel and believe that there is only one way to be saved and have eternal life you are cast as unloving.

And yet the most unloving thing that one can do to another is to let them be deceived into believing the lies of Satan and be ultlmately cast into the Lake of Fire. Yes, there is only one true Gospel, and there is only one true way of salvation. And that is not to be found in the RCC.

We need to distinguish between the VICTIMS of the RCC (its adherents who fail to study the Bible) and the VICTIMIZERS (the entire hierarchy of the RCC along with their Catechism and their "Holy Tradition"). After all that a faithful Catholic does, the best he or she can expect is the fires of Purgatory. That in itself should be a wake-up call,

 

[WimpyPete]

Dang man I read this and was like "when did I say he didn't know Jesus", but after I reread my post I can see how you got that. I didn’t mean it like that and don’t believe it’s possible for any of us to KNOW anyone else’s salvation status, although there are assumptions that can be made given evidences shown. That was my point and when I was saying all this

"I'm telling you man that His Spirit is a very real thing that I can't "show" you, nor can the RCC declare you "saved" either. God has to show you, and until He does it's all just words. So as long as you love the "RCC", then no one will ever be able to lead you to truth, you have to love Jesus more and before the RCC and anything else. The RCC is not the author and distributor of all truth as they tell you they are, Jesus alone is, and if you start from scratch with no preconceived notions and read the Bible you will see how off the RCC really is, but if your only angle is defending the RCC and proving them right then there is no way you will ever see it. That goes for anyone and any ideology as well though, truly seeking God isn't as easy as it sounds. It took me losing a limb for me to even start asking questions and looking into to roots of these beliefs. "

I didn't mean it to "you personally”, I meant “you” in a general generic sense to means "anyone", and I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. You seem to be looking for an authority on all things God on this earth, which is what you keep asking for, and that is how you keep referring to the RCC. Your question suggest you're looking for the "cannon" before the Catholic Church (not the same as the RCC for the record) says it “made” it cannon. The teachings you’re asking for are in the books of the bible first and foremost, all of which existed before the RCC. Jesus Christ is the authority over all, and the apostles and early church fathers are the ones He used to make sure they passed it all along to all future generations in its fullness. I'm sorry if my words offended you but I stand by every one of them because I serve only one, and am speaking truth as He commands us to. I also would like to add I also believe He could have used the RCC to help do that in ways, I just can’t give them the authority and credit you do for it.

The RCC did all it could do to keep His word out of the common man’s hands, because if the common man knew His word they would know how far from it the RCC was straying from it. That's history, do you deny that? Do you know why the “dark age” was so named? That's just like the cults of today telling their members not to research on the internet, to me it's a HUGE red flag, but how much of that is just like the RCC trying to keep the bible from the common man then. Same thing. Before the RCC Rome dealt with anyone that came against it by killing them, before the RCC Christians were slaughtered by Rome as fast as they could do it, but didn't kill His church off, after the RCC came to be all of a sudden the Roman Church "Christians" dealt with their problems the same way Rome always had, nothing telling about that huh? Look man I'm not trying to just be offensive, but when the only truth you accept is the “truth” the RCC feeds you I think that is a very dangerous place to be. Look at all history, for as many different sources as possible to come to your conclusions, it’s too cultish not too. Scientology, the Watchtower Society, and any other cult you can name do the exact same thing “only listen to us, everyone else is wrong”. When you follow Jesus you can do this, look into everything, get any perspective and draw your own conclusion. I can tell you I’ve yet to hear a worldview or any other ideology that fit’s with everything I see and look at around me as well as the Truth Jesus. Again I’m really sorry you were so offended by my comments, but with all due respect it’s not you I’m trying to please.

Jim you seem to be a solid guy, and you clearly are dedicated to the Lord, but I think I would have to compare your opinions of Catholicism to something like a naive American who believes that all Australians ride kangaroos and all Russians live in igloos. It strikes me as an understanding formed more by anti-Catholic myths and legends that get passed on as propaganda either by word of mouth or by amature websites.

This folklore however is so grossly inaccurat that even honest non-Catholic historians such as Rodney Stark have written specifically to debunk these lies. I would challenge you and Magenta to look at his book "Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History". He gives an actual scholarly account with citations and footnotes, rather than just making vague references to supposed events and rumors. Or if you don't like him just read any serious historian like Peter Brown or Robert Louis Wilken and you will see the same facts.

Also, as I have already said, if you would simply read any work by Scott Hahn or Pope Benedict XVI any idea that Catholicism is not Biblical or Christocentric would be refuted as clearly as the naive American would be if he simply traveled to Australia or Russia.

I have made the effort to read Protestant authors. I have read Luther and Calvin, Karl Barth, Hans Boersma, Gordan Fee, Joel Green, Scott Mcknight, NT Wright etc. I also did come to this forum originally to seek clarifications on what I understood from reading Calvin by possible modern followers. I wish that if people want to try to criticize Catholicism they would atleast make a similar honest effort to understand us on our own terms. If someone is not willing to put in the effort to honestly try to understand us then they really have no qualification or justification to criticize us according to the mythic understanding they have of us.

Also, while you may think I see the bible through a corrupt Catholic lens, you might realize that you too see the Scriptures through a Protestant lens. It seems that your's and Magenta's claim is that if one reads the Scriptures under the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" then they will understand it to correctly teach salvation by faith alone, and sola scriptura etc. But if you do do some historical research you will see that before Martin Luther practically no one for 1500 years ever believed in either of those doctrines. Likewise before berengarius, Calvin or Zwingli there is practically no historical attestation to any Christian denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So were there no true Christians before the 1500's? Was no Christian inspired between the time of Paul and Martin Luther?

I'm sorry if I have developed a more negative tone, but it is just disturbing to me how poorly Catholicism has been mischaracterized on this forum, and how badly any real historical study has been neglected. Anyways, as I said I don't expect I will continue much on this forum for the time being, but I wanted to at least give you a last response since you took the time to respond to me. Peace

 

[Nehemiah6]

I'm sorry if I have developed a more negative tone, but it is just disturbing to me how poorly Catholicism has been mischaracterized on this forum, and how badly any real historical study has been neglected. Anyways, as I said I don't expect I will continue much on this forum for the time being, but I wanted to at least give you a last response since you took the time to respond to me. Peace

The real issue is what's more important to you -- Roman Catholicism or Bible Christianity? If they had been equivalent, we would not have needed a Reformation. And even the Reformers could not get rid of some of their Catholic baggage.

Every individual -- regardless of church affiliation -- needs to study the Bible carefully, and particularly the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. There are too many man-made and false doctrines floating around.

 

[cyberman]

I do do not understand how the crucifixion happen in every mass and you said crucifiction is happen once.

let me ask you question brother

do you believe crucifixion happen on this Sunday mass

do you believe crucifixion happen last Sunday mass?

if so, that is twice.

you believe what happen on Calvary is happen in mass am I correct?

what happen in Calvary is crucifixion.

I do not believe that they are separate events. They are one and the same. Just like when I receive Communion. I receive Communion last weekend and this weekend. It is the same Jesus that I'm receiving. Not a different One.

 

[cyberman]

Last thought before I sneak back to work, Catholics agree that Christ's work of salvation is perfect and provides the fullness of grace. No Catholic, who is following the Church's teachings, can disagree with that or ever hope to add to that work as if somehow needed to be supplemented. So on this point we can happily agree.

But Cyberman is right to ask, what is it that is finished?

I think we can all agree that Christ in His death, resurrection and sending of the Spirit has redeemed the world while at the same time saying that the world is still not fully redeemed; meaning, look at the world, it is a mess, there are still lots of problems. That doesn't mean what Christ did was insufficient, but rather that the fullness of the grace His paschal mysteries unleashed has not yet born its full fruit in the whole of creation. Each of us still suffers from sin, but we hope, that as Christ's life and grace continue to grow in us that we become ever more sanctified and grow "from glory to glory" (2 Cor 3:18).

How does the Mass factor into this? We all agree that Christ's singular act on the cross extends through all eternity correct? That is why we can still be redeemed by it in the present. Well, we simply believe that His death is intimatly tied to the Eucharist, which He gives us in anticipation of His death with the command to "do it" in rememberance of Him (remberance, zikeron or anamnesis, the Hebrew idea from Passover of making a past action present and real in the future). This obviously is but a short and inadequate explanation but it just gives you the idea that what we understand happening in the Mass is not a re-sacrificing of Christ, but rather that we are entering into this eternal act so as to receive it's full and complete grace ever more deeply into ourselves. This is how we would understand something like the thinking of St. Paul when he says "Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." (Col 1:24). It is not a lack in what Christ has accomplished but rather it is that the full effects of Christ's redemption have not yet been accomplished in the world, and won't be until the completion of the New Creation in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

I agree. Awesome response.

 

[cyberman]

The atonement was made and Gods justice was satisfied. No longer any condemnation for those who place their trust in Christ. Grace is complete and nothing is to be added.

The mass makes a mockery of the humiliation and sacrifice of Christ by keeping Him nailed to the cross. Like the angels at the empty tomb commented "He is not here for He is risen".

He is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies be made His footstool.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

We do believe that Our Lord made atonement for us and His grace is free to us if we are willing to accept it and walk in His grace but you are seriously in error regarding to what you think the Mass is.

 

[mailmandan]

We do believe that Our Lord made atonement for us and His grace is free to us if we are willing to accept it and walk in His grace but you are seriously in error regarding to what you think the Mass is.

Just for CatholicsANSWERS | HOME

The Mass: A Sacrifice for Sins

Question: I am a Roman Catholic but I was never taught that the Mass is a sacrifice for sin as you wrote in your website. The mass is the commemoration of Jesus giving himself for us on the cross. In fact Christ himself said, "Do this in remembrance of me."

Answer: Many people wrongly think that the Mass is a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, much the same as the Lord's Supper in Evangelical churches. It is not; the Mass is something more than a memorial. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a real sacrifice for sin. Please read carefully the following citations from Catholic sources.

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3).

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ...The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same - Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross...The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were to honor and glorify God; to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; to satisfy God's justice for the sins of men; to obtain all graces and blessings (Baltimore Catechism).

As often as the Sacrifice of the Cross in which 'Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed' (1 Corinthians. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar (i.e. during the mass), the work of our redemption is carried on (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366).

The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross (Mediator Dei, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII)

It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day (Mysterium Fidei; Encyclical of Pope Paul VI).

*So, the Catholic Church officially teaches the Mass is a sacrifice -- indeed the very same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary -- and it is offered to satisfy God's justice and atone for sins. During the Mass Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not only remembered but it is also carried on, perpetuated, renewed, re-presented and re-enacted.

*The Catholic doctrine on the Mass is a distortion of the biblical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The Bible describes the Eucharist as a "memorial" or "commemoration" of Christ, and a "proclamation" of His death, and not as a sacrifice for sin. More seriously, the Mass is the denial of the perfection and sufficiency of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary. If it needs to be carried on, perpetuated, renewed re-presented and re-enacted, the implication is that His once-for-all sacrifice was not enough for the forgiveness of His people. Let's say that I go to my friend's house. If there is no answer when I knock at the door, I will renew my efforts and keep on knocking. If, however, the door is opened, I would stop knocking because my purpose would have been achieved. Even so, having accomplished the redemption of His people by His death on the cross, Christ ascended into heaven and is now seated on the right hand of God. His mission is accomplished!

Please read the following passages from the book of Hebrews and note carefully how the author emphasizes that the sacrifice of Christ is done once for all:

Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:25:27).

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin (Hebrew 10:10-18).

The Bible repeats over and over again that Christ offered His sacrifice "once" and "once for all." He "does not need daily to offer up sacrifices." He is in heaven "not that He should offer Himself often." Today "there is no longer an offering for sin." His purpose was achieved: by His once-for-all sacrifice, He "put away sin" and thus He "sanctified" and "perfected forever" His people.

You have two choices. You can either continue to attend Mass, thus showing that you do not really believe that Jesus can save you to the uttermost by His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. Or else, if you are certain that His sacrifice is finished, perfect and complete, put your trust in Him, and join a Christian community where the Gospel is faithfully preached, and Christ's ordinances (Baptism and the Eucharist) are observed according to the pattern and teaching of the New Testament. It is the great privilege of all believers to meet together to remember the Lord and proclaim His death by observing the Lord’s Supper together. - Just for Catholics: Search

 

[cyberman]

Catholics can dance around and speak about consecration but they are rarely candid about the inner layers of their doctrines.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome wrote,

Rome never took Jesus off the cross.

You do not understand the Mass or Catholic doctrine.

The doctrine of trans-substantiation

"Transubstantiation" is not the doctrine. It is the theological/philosophical explanation for the doctrine of the Real Presence.

teaches that the priest actually changes the elements into the actual body and blood of Christ.

It is by the power of the Holy Spirit through the words of consecration, by the priest, that this change happens.

 

[cyberman]

There are things wrong with that Church. There are only TWO doctrine I cannot agree with:
The assumption of Mary
And her perpetual virginity.

There ARE biblical reasons for the other doctrine, even though I may not agree with them.

I mean, don't WE listen to men?
Some here believe Calvin is God and listen to evey single word he said !
What's the difference ?

I do believe the anti-Christ will be coming out of Mecca but I don't know enough
about eschatology to speak to it.

Have you studied that religion?
Is this what you base your ideas on?

Hi FranC.
If you do not mind me asking, what do you disagree with concerning the Assumption and the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady?

 

[cyberman]

If you believe antichrist come out from Mecca than you do not believe the Bible, you accuse Bible lie

I can't believe Christian say bible lie

Antichrist went out from us/Christian, not Islam

1 john 2
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us

I do not believe that FranC is off base with this. I say this for a few reasons.
1. Islam should be considered an anti-Christ religion. They do not believe that Jesus is the Christ. They only believe that He was a prophet. In 1 John 2:22 we read the following,
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Since that is the case then that would fit Islam.

2. You also have to know something about Mohammad. Mohammad went out into the desert and came into contact with various Christian heretics who denied some aspect about Christ. Since this is the case then, in a round about way, he did go out from Christians.

 

[cyberman]

What was finished, and this is how I've come too understand it, was the only path we have to be reconciled to God. That was the whole point of everything and the only way God's infinite love, mercy, and justice could come together. I'm sorry but when my Lord says "it is finished" then yes it was really finished, Jesus wasn't a liar He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life.

But "what" was finished?

 

[garee]

I have made the effort to read Protestant authors. I have read Luther and Calvin, Karl Barth, Hans Boersma, Gordan Fee, Joel Green, Scott Mcknight, NT Wright etc. I also did come to this forum originally to seek clarifications on what I understood from reading Calvin by possible modern followers. I wish that if people want to try to criticize Catholicism they would atleast make a similar honest effort to understand us on our own terms. If someone is not willing to put in the effort to honestly try to understand us then they really have no qualification or justification to criticize us according to the mythic understanding they have of us

.

In the end of the matter it is always about how we can "hear God" as the things of God and not by the things of men (oral traditons )

I spent almost tens years daily on a Catholic Protestant discussion board. It does not make me an authority but have learned some things, for instance, as to how there foundation is built on necromancy as disembodied workers with a familiar spirit that the pew Catholics must call patron saints as a source of their faith and the need for image idols to put a face on the legion (3500 and rising) when they are called up

First and foremost a Catholics must seek the approval of men as the ideology of the antichrists. The warning below applies to the them that attempt to seduce others.

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.1Jo 2:26

Scripture of itself is of no authority, none to a Catholic .To them the living abiding word of God cannot quicken our soul and give us his understanding without the approval of the fathers .

They make the private interpretations of men Sacred making the word of God without effect...therfore usurping the authority by which we can "hear" God and believe Him, not believe the Pope as if there was a daysman betwen God and man as a infalible umpire.

The law of the Catholics fathers read..Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.

Another thing is they teach it is the Protestant have a private interpretation making their interpretation the standard. or law.

They have developed a mind set a win win situations in order to keep the flock

Pope Urban VIII on Private Revelation even though God is bringing no new revelation we have the whole word of God to ad to it the oral traditions of men called private revelation show us they will not get under the authority of scripture and do what is commands us to not add or subtract


His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our "Holy Mother" asked it. If you believe, and “it should be proven false”, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

 

[garee]

But "what" was finished?

I would offer, the whole perfect work of salvation, according to the promise found in Isaiah 53.

He said it was finished which gives us his faith to believe it is. Some think it was down payment which will be worked off after they are dead and their flesh returns to dust in respect to a unknown source of suffering or how long that person would have to suffer for his own sin which could be one day short of eternity. Therefore showing they believe the promise was not fulfilled that Christ's suffering brings eternal life as a finished work. His gift to us.

It has actualy been finished from the foundation of the world.Its why he gave us a demonstration we could see through the light of His word

 

[garee]

Originally Posted by Jackson123

Jesus want one? And that is catholic because pope is Peter successor?

Successor of what, denying Christ as to who is in charge ?

I think God knew ahead of time men would look to worship called venerating other men as if they were in the place of God as a source of faith . God did not send a strong delusion to Peter to believe the lie, as he would to one who did not have the Spirit of Christ. Christ’s cannot deny his own self that he had paid the whole wage of sin. He reinstated him over and over every time Peter denied Him over and over.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men". Mat 16:22

I would offer the words from above….for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men". In regard to that I would suggest it is the key in verse 19 that will not prevent the gospel of Christ opening the gates of hell .

Not Peter as the things of men.


God is not a man as us and neither is theri any infalible umpire called a Pope to stand betwen God and man .One mediator between God and man, as the things of God. there are no successors of God.

 

[FranC]

Hi FranC.
If you do not mind me asking, what do you disagree with concerning the Assumption and the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady?

Hi CM

I don't mind anythnig. We're here to talk and shed some light on Catholicism.
A VERY MUCH MISUNDERSTOOD Church.

1. The perpetual virginity of Mary:

Mathew 1:25
"and kept her a virgin (Joseph) until she gave birth to a Son, and he called His name Jesus."
NASB

"and did not know her till she brought forth her son - the first born, and he (Joseph) called His name Jesus."
YLT


It would seem from the above that Mary and Joseph did not "know" each other till after Jesus was born.
But that the did become intimate at some point after He was born. There is nothing in the N.T. that speaks to
Mary remaining a virgin. I truly doubt that she would have spoken about this to the Apostels so that it could be passed
down in Tradition.


Luke 2:23
"as it is written in the Law of the LORD, 'every first-born male that opens the womb shall be called Holy to the LORD' "
NASB

In the above, Jesus was brought to jerusalem by His parents to preent Him to the Lord as was the custom.
He was the firs-born male that 'opened the womb'.

I'd also like to mention that I find it most difficult to believe that Mary gave Birth with NO PAIN, and that she remained virgin after that. Was she human or not? You may say that God can do what He will, and I'd agree (of course) but WHY did God have to do so many miracles for Jesus to be born? The reason is because the CC wants Mary to be without sin, ever, and to almost be a co-redemptrix. This is taking her role too far for me.

2. The Assumption

Because of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception, we must now declare that since Jesus had no sin and was take up, then Mary, having no sin, must also be taken up and not made to have bodily corruption. I believe one mistake led to another.

The above does not mean I do not Honor Mary.

 

[UnderGrace]

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

Lateran Decree
​

[/TD]
[TD]

Tridentine Decree​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]"In qua (Ecclesia) idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium J. C., cuius corpus et sanguis in Sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem, potestate divina."
[/TD]
[TD]"Persuasum semper in ecclesia. Dei fuit . . . per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Xti Dni nostri, et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis eius Quae conversio convenienter et proprie . . . transubstantiatio est appellata."
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


By a substantial change we mean one by which the ultimate and basal reality in a thing which makes it that thing and nothing else—e.g., bread, and not a plant,—is changed into another ultimate reality, —so that what a moment previously was bread becomes the Body of Christ;

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1192

notuptome wrote,



You do not understand the Mass or Catholic doctrine.



"Transubstantiation" is not the doctrine. It is the theological/philosophical explanation for the doctrine of the Real Presence.



It is by the power of the Holy Spirit through the words of consecration, by the priest, that this change happens.

 

[FranC]

Just for CatholicsANSWERS | HOME

The Mass: A Sacrifice for Sins

Question: I am a Roman Catholic but I was never taught that the Mass is a sacrifice for sin as you wrote in your website. The mass is the commemoration of Jesus giving himself for us on the cross. In fact Christ himself said, "Do this in remembrance of me."

Answer: Many people wrongly think that the Mass is a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, much the same as the Lord's Supper in Evangelical churches. It is not; the Mass is something more than a memorial. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a real sacrifice for sin. Please read carefully the following citations from Catholic sources.

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3).

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ...The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same - Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross...The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were to honor and glorify God; to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; to satisfy God's justice for the sins of men; to obtain all graces and blessings (Baltimore Catechism).

As often as the Sacrifice of the Cross in which 'Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed' (1 Corinthians. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar (i.e. during the mass), the work of our redemption is carried on (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366).

The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross (Mediator Dei, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII)

It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day (Mysterium Fidei; Encyclical of Pope Paul VI).

*So, the Catholic Church officially teaches the Mass is a sacrifice -- indeed the very same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary -- and it is offered to satisfy God's justice and atone for sins. During the Mass Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not only remembered but it is also carried on, perpetuated, renewed, re-presented and re-enacted.

*The Catholic doctrine on the Mass is a distortion of the biblical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The Bible describes the Eucharist as a "memorial" or "commemoration" of Christ, and a "proclamation" of His death, and not as a sacrifice for sin. More seriously, the Mass is the denial of the perfection and sufficiency of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary. If it needs to be carried on, perpetuated, renewed re-presented and re-enacted, the implication is that His once-for-all sacrifice was not enough for the forgiveness of His people. Let's say that I go to my friend's house. If there is no answer when I knock at the door, I will renew my efforts and keep on knocking. If, however, the door is opened, I would stop knocking because my purpose would have been achieved. Even so, having accomplished the redemption of His people by His death on the cross, Christ ascended into heaven and is now seated on the right hand of God. His mission is accomplished!

Please read the following passages from the book of Hebrews and note carefully how the author emphasizes that the sacrifice of Christ is done once for all:

Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:25:27).

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin (Hebrew 10:10-18).

The Bible repeats over and over again that Christ offered His sacrifice "once" and "once for all." He "does not need daily to offer up sacrifices." He is in heaven "not that He should offer Himself often." Today "there is no longer an offering for sin." His purpose was achieved: by His once-for-all sacrifice, He "put away sin" and thus He "sanctified" and "perfected forever" His people.

You have two choices. You can either continue to attend Mass, thus showing that you do not really believe that Jesus can save you to the uttermost by His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. Or else, if you are certain that His sacrifice is finished, perfect and complete, put your trust in Him, and join a Christian community where the Gospel is faithfully preached, and Christ's ordinances (Baptism and the Eucharist) are observed according to the pattern and teaching of the New Testament. It is the great privilege of all believers to meet together to remember the Lord and proclaim His death by observing the Lord’s Supper together. - Just for Catholics: Search

Hi MMD

Sorry, I can't just let yuor post go by without comment.

This is what you should do, and I've told you this before...

Stop reading the Council of Trent. It was 500 years ago.
How come you don't believe Christianity the way it was 500 years ago but
you insist on believing the new and modern Christianity?
The one that is afraid to use the word WORK and everything is FREE.
Isn't this a bit hypoctritical??

Second of all, the Mass is NOT OFFERING UP JESUS AGAIN.
Jesus died once.

Just FOR CHRISTIAN ANSWERS Leaves MUCH to be desired.
I wonder where they get their information from.

Here's what you SHOULD do.

ASK A PRIEST if he's OFFERING JESUS AT THAT MOMENT.

He'll answer you NO.

Now, WHO SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING AT A MASS?
I'd venture to say that A PRIEST will certainly know.

Ask MORE THAN ONE priest. See what answer you get.

I'm serious.
you should really do this.

I HAVE.

 

[mailmandan]

Hi MMD

Sorry, I can't just let yuor post go by without comment.

This is what you should do, and I've told you this before...

Stop reading the Council of Trent. It was 500 years ago.
How come you don't believe Christianity the way it was 500 years ago but
you insist on believing the new and modern Christianity?
The one that is afraid to use the word WORK and everything is FREE.
Isn't this a bit hypoctritical??

Second of all, the Mass is NOT OFFERING UP JESUS AGAIN.
Jesus died once.

Just FOR CHRISTIAN ANSWERS Leaves MUCH to be desired.
I wonder where they get their information from.

Here's what you SHOULD do.

ASK A PRIEST if he's OFFERING JESUS AT THAT MOMENT.

He'll answer you NO.

Now, WHO SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING AT A MASS?
I'd venture to say that A PRIEST will certainly know.

Ask MORE THAN ONE priest. See what answer you get.

I'm serious.
you should really do this.

I HAVE.

Has the Roman Catholic church evolved? Joe Mizzi is a former Roman Catholic and understands their beliefs. It's interesting how Roman Catholics always complain about being misunderstood.

Just for Catholics

About Us

Biography
Our Faith

"Just for Catholics" is an evangelical and evangelistic ministry - evangelical (or Protestant) because we uphold the Holy Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith, and because we believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone; it's evangelistic because we want to share the evangel (the gospel, good news) with others, especially with Catholics whom we know and love dearly. This work is not authored by Roman Catholics, but it is intended especially for Catholics. While acknowledging with gratitude the help from my pastor and home church, as well as scores of individual Christians worldwide, I take full responsibility for the contents of this website.

Biography

I was born in Malta, 1966. My country is a densely populated island in the center of the Mediterranean. Malta is mentioned in the book of Acts (chapter 28) - the vessel taking the apostle Paul to Rome was shipwrecked on our shores.

I am a pediatrician by profession and work as a community paediatrician. I'm married to Joanne, and we have three children, John, Elizabeth and Mari. I am a member of a local Reformed Baptist church. If you ever visit Malta, whether for historical and cultural interest or just to enjoy the sun and the sea, you're welcome to visit our fellowship.

I was brought up in a devout Catholic family. I thank God for my parents and my Catholic teachers who taught me the fear of the Lord as best as they knew how.

Early in my teenage years, I was challenged with the Gospel message by my brother Paul, who had recently converted to the Evangelical faith. I turned to the Bible for answers. I wanted to know the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. How can a sinner like me be saved? After two years of studying the Scriptures, it pleased the Lord to show me the glorious truth of the Gospel and give me the gift of faith. From then on, I would not depend on my church, good works, penance or Mary for salvation. Now I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. He alone died for my sins. He alone is my living Saviour who secures the salvation of my soul.

I left the Roman Catholic church a few weeks later, because I felt uneasy in a church that taught salvation by human merit. I still love Roman Catholics dearly. My website is a token of my love for Catholics. There would be some who simply dismiss it as another 'anti-catholic' site. It is not! It is precisely because I love Catholics that I speak out the truth to them, even when it hurts. I do not seek to steal their faith, but only to purify it from the human traditions which choke the message of Christ. My sincere desire is that Catholics - and everyone else, whatever their religion - would trust completely in the Lord Jesus Christ alone and be obedient to his Word.

Some may feel that I misunderstand or misrepresent the Catholic religion. My answer is that I know Catholicism from personal experience; and for many years I continue to study Catholic literature - the creeds, councils, decrees, the catechism and the modern apologists. I do my best to represent catholic doctrine accurately.

My criticism of some aspects of Roman Catholic religion is not an end in itself. In everything, I want to present the biblical truth and lead people to Christ. He saved me and gave me new life. Praise his name! I pray that you too would find salvation and rest at the foot of the cross and worship Christ the Lord.

 

[FranC]

Has the Roman Catholic church evolved? Joe Mizzi is a former Roman Catholic and understands their beliefs. It's interesting how Roman Catholics always complain about being misunderstood.

Just for Catholics

About Us

Biography
Our Faith

"Just for Catholics" is an evangelical and evangelistic ministry - evangelical (or Protestant) because we uphold the Holy Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith, and because we believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone; it's evangelistic because we want to share the evangel (the gospel, good news) with others, especially with Catholics whom we know and love dearly. This work is not authored by Roman Catholics, but it is intended especially for Catholics. While acknowledging with gratitude the help from my pastor and home church, as well as scores of individual Christians worldwide, I take full responsibility for the contents of this website.

Biography

I was born in Malta, 1966. My country is a densely populated island in the center of the Mediterranean. Malta is mentioned in the book of Acts (chapter 28) - the vessel taking the apostle Paul to Rome was shipwrecked on our shores.

I am a pediatrician by profession and work as a community paediatrician. I'm married to Joanne, and we have three children, John, Elizabeth and Mari. I am a member of a local Reformed Baptist church. If you ever visit Malta, whether for historical and cultural interest or just to enjoy the sun and the sea, you're welcome to visit our fellowship.

I was brought up in a devout Catholic family. I thank God for my parents and my Catholic teachers who taught me the fear of the Lord as best as they knew how.

Early in my teenage years, I was challenged with the Gospel message by my brother Paul, who had recently converted to the Evangelical faith. I turned to the Bible for answers. I wanted to know the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. How can a sinner like me be saved? After two years of studying the Scriptures, it pleased the Lord to show me the glorious truth of the Gospel and give me the gift of faith. From then on, I would not depend on my church, good works, penance or Mary for salvation. Now I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. He alone died for my sins. He alone is my living Saviour who secures the salvation of my soul.

I left the Roman Catholic church a few weeks later, because I felt uneasy in a church that taught salvation by human merit. I still love Roman Catholics dearly. My website is a token of my love for Catholics. There would be some who simply dismiss it as another 'anti-catholic' site. It is not! It is precisely because I love Catholics that I speak out the truth to them, even when it hurts. I do not seek to steal their faith, but only to purify it from the human traditions which choke the message of Christ. My sincere desire is that Catholics - and everyone else, whatever their religion - would trust completely in the Lord Jesus Christ alone and be obedient to his Word.

Some may feel that I misunderstand or misrepresent the Catholic religion. My answer is that I know Catholicism from personal experience; and for many years I continue to study Catholic literature - the creeds, councils, decrees, the catechism and the modern apologists. I do my best to represent catholic doctrine accurately.

My criticism of some aspects of Roman Catholic religion is not an end in itself. In everything, I want to present the biblical truth and lead people to Christ. He saved me and gave me new life. Praise his name! I pray that you too would find salvation and rest at the foot of the cross and worship Christ the Lord.

MMD

I have to leave in two mintues....
BUT

Who is this Joe Mizzi guy?
Who cares?

Does HE know more about Mass than a PRIEST ????

His biography does no one any good.
Either use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is not very clear BTW)

OR

You'll have to learn FROM THE CC, like I did, and I don't mean at Mass or bible study..

Speaking to priests who are willing to share would be the best thing to do. But I understand that not everyone could.

Do you have the CCC?
Use that...

 

[UnderGrace]

Priests know what they are told. The mass/transubstantiation has its roots in alchemy the changing of elements.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the "body and blood of Christ." From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518. Tenth complete American edition, PP. 405-409.

MMD

I have to leave in two mintues....
BUT

Who is this Joe Mizzi guy?
Who cares?

Does HE know more about Mass than a PRIEST ????

His biography does no one any good.
Either use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is not very clear BTW)

OR

You'll have to learn FROM THE CC, like I did, and I don't mean at Mass or bible study..

Speaking to priests who are willing to share would be the best thing to do. But I understand that not everyone could.

Do you have the CCC?
Use that...