The false mass

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#1
#1
I have read that Catholics believe that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. That seems very strange to me. If you could see into ones stomach that a chunk of flesh and blood would be in there. How can they realize it is just a symbol?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#2
#2
Reformedjason said:
I have read that Catholics believe that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. That seems very strange to me. If you could see into ones stomach that a chunk of flesh and blood would be in there. How can they realize it is just a symbol?
Click to expand...

It comes from taking john 6 out of context.

It is one of there sacraments.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#3
#3
personally i lean towards believing it is more than just a symbol...

the parallel for the bread which jesus calls his body is the old testament fellowship offering or peace offering...the offerer would eat the meat of the sacrifice along with the priest to express that they are on good terms with God...

what would -not- work would be to eat a symbolic substitute for the meat of the sacrifice...

the parallel for the wine which jesus calls his blood of the new covenant is the establishment of the mosaic covenant in the old testament...moses sprinkled the blood of the covenant sacrifice on the people...

what would -not- have worked would be if moses had sprinkled a symbolic substitute on the people...

however i will say that i do not agree with the roman catholic belief that the 'mass' is another sacrifice of christ's body and blood...i think it is the same body and blood from the original sacrifice done 2,000 years ago...
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#4
#4
oh i should add that i also disagree with the roman catholic belief that the priest changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of jesus...

i think it is changed by the words of jesus 2,000 years ago that still have the same power today when accepted in faith...
 
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#5
#5
In my original post. I said " just a symbol". I see that as a bad choice of words. It is symbolic, and it does not turn into the body and blood , but saying " just a symbol" makes me sound irreverent. It is serious and should not be taken without reverence
 
A

Abiding

Guest
#6
#6
id at least call it a repesentation if not a symbol.
the blood of animals was not Jesus blood...circumcisiom did not effect the actual nature of man.
Faith is what mattered. Nothing in scripture tells us the bread and wine changes.
 
Photoss

Photoss

Senior Member
#7
Sep 15, 2012
213
10
0
#7
People have argued about this topic for centuries, and a few were even burned at the stake for holding a doctrine different than orthodoxy.
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#8
#8
Raised as a Catholic, I sat through many hours "explaining" the contradiction. The belief is that the bread and wine still look like bread and wine, no matter what physical method is used to observe or test them. So if you look into the stomach, you see bread and wine. It is digested as bread and wine, and it circulates though the blood as bread and wine, i.e. carbohydrates, sugars and vegetable matter, no animal blood or fat. The argument is that it is not really bread and wine, but is the body and blood of Christ, "because He said so". They take the Scripture (in translation) word for word, unlike in other cases where it does not serve their fancy, such as in believing that Jesus' "brothers" are really cousins, so Mary could stay a virgin, for example, or how the priests are called "father" when Jesus says "call no man your father", since "father" used for the priest, is just a title of respect, and has no further meaning.
 
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#9
#9
That is strange
 
You must log in or register to reply here.