-
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.
From Chabad.org
Jewish Law makes it our duty to pray three times daily: in the morning, in the afternoon and at nightfall. These prayers are called morning prayer (shacharit), afternoon prayer (minchah) and evening prayer (arvith or maariv ).
Our Sages tell us that the custom of praying three times a day was originally introduced by our Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham introduced prayer in the morning, Isaac—in the afternoon, and Jacob added one at night.1
In the Zohar2 (where the inner meaning of the Torah is revealed) and in Chabad philosophy3 it is explained further that each of the three Patriarchs represented a particular quality which they introduced into the service of G‑d. Abraham served G‑d with love; Isaac—with awe; Jacob—with mercy. Not that each lacked the qualities of the others, but each had a particular quality which was more in evidence. Thus Abraham distinguished himself especially in the quality of kindness (חסד) and love (אהבה),while Isaac excelled especially in the quality of strict justice (דין) and reverence (יראה), while Jacob inherited both these qualities, bringing out a new quality which combined the first two into the well-balanced and lasting quality of truth (אמת) and mercy (רחמים). We, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, have inherited all these three great qualities of our Patriarchs, and this enables us to serve G‑d and pray to Him with love and fear (awe) and mercy. The quality of mercy enters when we realize that our soul is a part of G‑dliness, and we feel pity for it because it is so often distracted from G‑d by the material aspects of the daily life.
When the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, our way of life was set out for us by G‑d. Torah means "teaching," "instruction," "guidance"; for the Torah teaches us our way of life in every detail of our daily life. The Torah contains 613 commandments. Among them is the command to "serve G‑d with all our heart and all our soul."4 How do we serve G‑d with our heart? By praying to Him. In doing so, we fulfill not only the commandment of praying to G‑d, but also other commandments, such as to love G‑d and to fear Him, which are separate commandments.
During the first one thousand years, or so, since the time of Moses, there was no set order of prayer. Each individual was duty-bound to pray to G‑d every day, but the form of prayer and how many times a day to pray was left to the individual.5
There was, however, a set order of service in the The Holy Temple in Jerusalem, known as the Beit Hamikdosh, in connection with the daily sacrifices, morning and evening,while the evening sacrifice extended into the night. On special days, such as Shabbos, Rosh-Chodesh and Festivals, there were also "additional" (musaf) sacrifices. Accordingly, it was perhaps not unusual for some Jews to pray three times a day, morning, evening and night, in their own way. King David, for example, declared that he prayed three times daily,6 and Daniel (in Babylon) prayed three times daily facing in the direction of Jerusalem.7 There is evidence that there were, even during the time of the first Temple in Jerusalem, public places of prayer, called Beit Ha'am,8 which the Chaldeans (Babylonians) destroyed when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple.
After the Holy Temple was destroyed and the Jews were led into captivity in Babylon, Jews continued to gather and pray in congregation. The places of prayer became like "small sanctuaries"—Beit Mikdash Me'at,9 during the years of exile, the children who were born and brought up in Babylon lacked adequate knowledge of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) and spoke a mixed language. Therefore, when the Jews returned to their homeland after the seventy years' exile was over, Ezra the Scribe together with the Men of the Great Assembly (consisting of prophets and sages, 120 members in all) fixed the text of the daily prayer (Shemone Esrei—the "Eighteen Benedictions"), and made it a permanent institution and duty in Jewish life to recite this prayer three times daily. Ever since then it became part of Jewish Law (Halachah) for each and every Jew to pray this ordained and fixed order of prayer three times daily, corresponding to the daily sacrifices in the Holy Temple, with additional (musaf) prayers on Shabbat, Rosh-Chodesh and Festivals, and a special "closing" prayer (Neilah) on Yom Kippur.
Thus, the main parts of the daily prayers were formulated by our Sages. These included the Shema prayer and Shemone Esrei, which still are the main parts of our morning and evening prayers, while the Shemone Esrei is the main part of the Minchah service also. The daily Psalm (from Tehillim) which used to be sung by the Levites in the Holy Temple, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, became part of the morning prayer. Other Psalms of David were included in the morning prayer, and special benedictions before and after the Shema were added. By the time the Mishnah was recorded by Rabbi Judah the Prince (about the year 3910—some 500 years after Ezra), and especially by the time the Talmud was completed (some 300 years later, or about 1500 years ago), the basic order of our prayers, as we know them now, had been formulated.
Jewish Law makes it our duty to pray three times daily: in the morning, in the afternoon and at nightfall. These prayers are called morning prayer (shacharit), afternoon prayer (minchah) and evening prayer (arvith or maariv ).
Our Sages tell us that the custom of praying three times a day was originally introduced by our Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham introduced prayer in the morning, Isaac—in the afternoon, and Jacob added one at night.1
In the Zohar2 (where the inner meaning of the Torah is revealed) and in Chabad philosophy3 it is explained further that each of the three Patriarchs represented a particular quality which they introduced into the service of G‑d. Abraham served G‑d with love; Isaac—with awe; Jacob—with mercy. Not that each lacked the qualities of the others, but each had a particular quality which was more in evidence. Thus Abraham distinguished himself especially in the quality of kindness (חסד) and love (אהבה),while Isaac excelled especially in the quality of strict justice (דין) and reverence (יראה), while Jacob inherited both these qualities, bringing out a new quality which combined the first two into the well-balanced and lasting quality of truth (אמת) and mercy (רחמים). We, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, have inherited all these three great qualities of our Patriarchs, and this enables us to serve G‑d and pray to Him with love and fear (awe) and mercy. The quality of mercy enters when we realize that our soul is a part of G‑dliness, and we feel pity for it because it is so often distracted from G‑d by the material aspects of the daily life.
When the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, our way of life was set out for us by G‑d. Torah means "teaching," "instruction," "guidance"; for the Torah teaches us our way of life in every detail of our daily life. The Torah contains 613 commandments. Among them is the command to "serve G‑d with all our heart and all our soul."4 How do we serve G‑d with our heart? By praying to Him. In doing so, we fulfill not only the commandment of praying to G‑d, but also other commandments, such as to love G‑d and to fear Him, which are separate commandments.
During the first one thousand years, or so, since the time of Moses, there was no set order of prayer. Each individual was duty-bound to pray to G‑d every day, but the form of prayer and how many times a day to pray was left to the individual.5
There was, however, a set order of service in the The Holy Temple in Jerusalem, known as the Beit Hamikdosh, in connection with the daily sacrifices, morning and evening,while the evening sacrifice extended into the night. On special days, such as Shabbos, Rosh-Chodesh and Festivals, there were also "additional" (musaf) sacrifices. Accordingly, it was perhaps not unusual for some Jews to pray three times a day, morning, evening and night, in their own way. King David, for example, declared that he prayed three times daily,6 and Daniel (in Babylon) prayed three times daily facing in the direction of Jerusalem.7 There is evidence that there were, even during the time of the first Temple in Jerusalem, public places of prayer, called Beit Ha'am,8 which the Chaldeans (Babylonians) destroyed when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple.
After the Holy Temple was destroyed and the Jews were led into captivity in Babylon, Jews continued to gather and pray in congregation. The places of prayer became like "small sanctuaries"—Beit Mikdash Me'at,9 during the years of exile, the children who were born and brought up in Babylon lacked adequate knowledge of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) and spoke a mixed language. Therefore, when the Jews returned to their homeland after the seventy years' exile was over, Ezra the Scribe together with the Men of the Great Assembly (consisting of prophets and sages, 120 members in all) fixed the text of the daily prayer (Shemone Esrei—the "Eighteen Benedictions"), and made it a permanent institution and duty in Jewish life to recite this prayer three times daily. Ever since then it became part of Jewish Law (Halachah) for each and every Jew to pray this ordained and fixed order of prayer three times daily, corresponding to the daily sacrifices in the Holy Temple, with additional (musaf) prayers on Shabbat, Rosh-Chodesh and Festivals, and a special "closing" prayer (Neilah) on Yom Kippur.
Thus, the main parts of the daily prayers were formulated by our Sages. These included the Shema prayer and Shemone Esrei, which still are the main parts of our morning and evening prayers, while the Shemone Esrei is the main part of the Minchah service also. The daily Psalm (from Tehillim) which used to be sung by the Levites in the Holy Temple, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, became part of the morning prayer. Other Psalms of David were included in the morning prayer, and special benedictions before and after the Shema were added. By the time the Mishnah was recorded by Rabbi Judah the Prince (about the year 3910—some 500 years after Ezra), and especially by the time the Talmud was completed (some 300 years later, or about 1500 years ago), the basic order of our prayers, as we know them now, had been formulated.
I have engaged in nothing but peaceful dialogue.. It is you who has falsely projected upon me a combative attitude.. All my replies in here have been well thought out and given without any malice... I do not need to reconcile with you because i have not been in conflict with you .. I stand against catholicism,, the religion.. Not against catholics,, those deceived by catholicism..
I respect God, who is true and perfect.. And nothing in my posting has been a personal attack upon anyone.. Indeed it is you who have been engaging in sarcasm and personal attacks upon people.. Again you seem to be confusing peoples attacks against catholicism to be an attack upon catholics.. The are two different things..
I never called upon you to apologize to me.. You simply have become way to emotional to have a frank and clear theological discussion.. Maybe you should find another avenue to finding out information on Christianity because you seem unable to see any statements against catholicism to be anything other then a personal attack upon you..
I never had a bad experience with the catholic church at all.. I had a nice Priest most of the nuns where nice.. All of the brothers at the Marist college where top guys.. But i read the Bible you see.. And once i did that i could not longer remain as a member of that religion because it is not Christianity..
Then why did you engage with posts that talked about other things? My replies to you where on point until you started to lash out because some of the replies where focused more on catholicism.. Once you made catholicism an issue i was not going to remain silent about it.. I was happy just to remain in the realms of the many and varied flavours of Protestantism but that was not to be..
I respect God, who is true and perfect.. And nothing in my posting has been a personal attack upon anyone.. Indeed it is you who have been engaging in sarcasm and personal attacks upon people.. Again you seem to be confusing peoples attacks against catholicism to be an attack upon catholics.. The are two different things..
I never called upon you to apologize to me.. You simply have become way to emotional to have a frank and clear theological discussion.. Maybe you should find another avenue to finding out information on Christianity because you seem unable to see any statements against catholicism to be anything other then a personal attack upon you..
I never had a bad experience with the catholic church at all.. I had a nice Priest most of the nuns where nice.. All of the brothers at the Marist college where top guys.. But i read the Bible you see.. And once i did that i could not longer remain as a member of that religion because it is not Christianity..
Then why did you engage with posts that talked about other things? My replies to you where on point until you started to lash out because some of the replies where focused more on catholicism.. Once you made catholicism an issue i was not going to remain silent about it.. I was happy just to remain in the realms of the many and varied flavours of Protestantism but that was not to be..
Hi WimpyPete….It not the repetitions that are vain but what is being conveyed as to what kind of spirit it is in respect to , whether its the same spirit of faith according as it is written or one that rises above all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura)
Scripture as far as being an authriority that can quicken a person soul as being taught of God giving us His understanding without man teaching is the one thing the Catholic must avoid at all costs .
Sola scriptura as doctrine of God is that which reforms any denomination.
True, a prayer has His "doctrine" contained within it not the doctrines of men as a law of the Catholic fathers.(apostolic succession) There is one manner of prayer that we do pray and not manners as more than one. Praying after the manner of the Catholics use, many fathers (patron saints ) simply makes all things written in the law and the prophets to no effect.
It is why commandments like; "call no man father on earth" have no effect with Catholics. they simply dismiss it as Protestantism (no Catholic fathers)
True, a prayer which has His "doctrine" contained within it again come after one manner and not manners (plural 3500 and rising)
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, (not Rome) Hallowed be thy name.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for "one" (not 3500 and rising) is your Father, which is in heaven. (not Rome)
Scripture as far as being an authriority that can quicken a person soul as being taught of God giving us His understanding without man teaching is the one thing the Catholic must avoid at all costs .
Sola scriptura as doctrine of God is that which reforms any denomination.
True, a prayer has His "doctrine" contained within it not the doctrines of men as a law of the Catholic fathers.(apostolic succession) There is one manner of prayer that we do pray and not manners as more than one. Praying after the manner of the Catholics use, many fathers (patron saints ) simply makes all things written in the law and the prophets to no effect.
It is why commandments like; "call no man father on earth" have no effect with Catholics. they simply dismiss it as Protestantism (no Catholic fathers)
True, a prayer which has His "doctrine" contained within it again come after one manner and not manners (plural 3500 and rising)
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, (not Rome) Hallowed be thy name.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for "one" (not 3500 and rising) is your Father, which is in heaven. (not Rome)
Hi WP
Everything you've said is right on.
Many protestants believe that Catholics re-sacrifice Jesus at every Mass.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a memorial. As if we were standing at the foot of the cross.
jesus' sacrifice goes on and is valid for all of time.
HE was on the cross only ONE time but the sacrifice if forever.
I spoke to a priest I know only Yesterday and he confirmed that he does NOT sacrifice Christ again in the Consecration.
He is only offering THE sacrifice. ONE TIME ONLY SACRIFICE.
A type, as it were. He is offering the perfect sacrifice of Christ. He even brought up Hebrews.
Any priest will confirm this for anyone interested.
I confirm all my Catholic doctrine (if I'm not sure of it) with the CCC and also with a priest, of which I know 3 or 4 personally and have access to at any time. Make that 3. One is really difficult to reach !!
Just wanted to confirm everything you said.
Everything you've said is right on.
Many protestants believe that Catholics re-sacrifice Jesus at every Mass.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a memorial. As if we were standing at the foot of the cross.
jesus' sacrifice goes on and is valid for all of time.
HE was on the cross only ONE time but the sacrifice if forever.
I spoke to a priest I know only Yesterday and he confirmed that he does NOT sacrifice Christ again in the Consecration.
He is only offering THE sacrifice. ONE TIME ONLY SACRIFICE.
A type, as it were. He is offering the perfect sacrifice of Christ. He even brought up Hebrews.
Any priest will confirm this for anyone interested.
I confirm all my Catholic doctrine (if I'm not sure of it) with the CCC and also with a priest, of which I know 3 or 4 personally and have access to at any time. Make that 3. One is really difficult to reach !!
Just wanted to confirm everything you said.
Just for Catholics
ANSWERS | 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. - The Mass is a sacrifice for sin
ANSWERS | 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. - The Mass is a sacrifice for sin
There is no Catholic priest that will even try and confirm A type as it is.
Just ask them if the flesh of Christ profits for something? It can be very offensive to them as a hard saying just as it was to the disciples who were following Christ until he told them His flesh profits for nothing, nada, zip .
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?It is the spirit that quickeneth; "the flesh profiteth nothing": the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.Joh 6:60
Catholics simply do not walk by the faith that exclusively comes by hearing God but rather a faith that comes from hearing what they call fathers after the imganinations of thier own heart
Strongs lexiocon (hard saying) 4642 skleros {sklay-ros'}
from the base of 4628; TDNT - 5:1028,816; adj
AV - hard 5, fierce 1 - 6
1) hard, harsh, rough, stiff 1a) of men: metaph. harsh, stern, hard 1b) of things: violent, rough, offensive, intolerable
Those Cathlic fathers from my experiences will say its not offensive.. just hard for a Protestant to understand if a person does not have the understanding of thier fathers
Just ask them if the flesh of Christ profits for something? It can be very offensive to them as a hard saying just as it was to the disciples who were following Christ until he told them His flesh profits for nothing, nada, zip .
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?It is the spirit that quickeneth; "the flesh profiteth nothing": the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.Joh 6:60
Catholics simply do not walk by the faith that exclusively comes by hearing God but rather a faith that comes from hearing what they call fathers after the imganinations of thier own heart
Strongs lexiocon (hard saying) 4642 skleros {sklay-ros'}
from the base of 4628; TDNT - 5:1028,816; adj
AV - hard 5, fierce 1 - 6
1) hard, harsh, rough, stiff 1a) of men: metaph. harsh, stern, hard 1b) of things: violent, rough, offensive, intolerable
Those Cathlic fathers from my experiences will say its not offensive.. just hard for a Protestant to understand if a person does not have the understanding of thier fathers
Last edited:
Rome never took Jesus off the cross. The doctrine of trans-substantiation teaches that the priest actually changes the elements into the actual body and blood of Christ. 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
For the cause of Christ
Roger
W
Hey Willie, when I said I had never heard of that theory before I was referring to the apostles asking Christ to teach them His "doctrine" rather than to teach them how to pray. I am not questioning the fact that the Jews had a prayer life, this I clearly agree with. My only point originally was that formula prayers are certainly acceptable since Jesus taught us a formulary prayer with the 'Our Father'. So my question to you was about how it is that you believe that the disciples meant to ask our Lord in this situation about His "doctrine" rather than about prayer? The reason I ask is because the text itself says "prayer" rather than "doctrine", and Jesus responds by teaching them a prayer, even though it contains doctrine. Also if we look at the context the question is asked directly after the disciples find Jesus Himself praying, "He was praying in a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." (Luke 11:1). I guess it just seems that prayer rather than doctrine is the focus of the passage, so that is why I was asking if you could give me a further explanation of why you thought that. I hope that makes sense
Amen! Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these great spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
The literal interpretation is absurd, leading to cannibalism and the drinking of blood contrary to the commandment of God. No eating of any flesh can give spiritual life. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and the merits of His shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare for example the following two verses:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47).
"He who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:58).
"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread" and as we can see, the result is the same, eternal life. Also notice the parallel in verses 40 and 54:
"Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54).
John 6 does not afford any support to the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.
Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which is essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.
The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
The literal interpretation is absurd, leading to cannibalism and the drinking of blood contrary to the commandment of God. No eating of any flesh can give spiritual life. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and the merits of His shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare for example the following two verses:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47).
"He who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:58).
"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread" and as we can see, the result is the same, eternal life. Also notice the parallel in verses 40 and 54:
"Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54).
John 6 does not afford any support to the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.
Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which is essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.
The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
W
Adstar, I am not trying to say that you have been a jerk or something, what I mean is that both your posts as well as Magenta's are based on inaccurate understandings of Catholicism as well as a lot of assumptions about me and my own relationship with the Lord.
You accuse me of believing in works righteousness on par with the pharisees and thus of being on the path to eternal destruction; you say that Catholicism is simply following traditions of men and that it is not Christian. You also accuse me of not being here with honest intentions and of simply trying to sneak on to preach Catholicism.
Magenta began by accusing me of not knowing God or the Bible. When I try to respond by showing how central the Bible is to my daily life and how I am dedicated to seeking intimacy with the Lord you simply accuse me of attempting a self-righteous works righteousness. (I again refer to the "Join Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", if you want to see how untrue it is to accuse Catholics of believing in salvation by works apart from faith, and to see how much progress has been made in understanding between Catholics and various Protestant denominations).
This is why I find it hard to dialog with either of you. Magenta presumes I have no relationship with Christ, you accuse me of not believing in His act of salvation for me, and then you misunderstand what we believe about salvation and condemn me for a belief that I don't believe in.
I didn't come to preach Catholicism, but when so many responded to my posts with inaccurate understandings of Catholicism I simply tried to respond with what the Church actually believes. I'm not asking people here to become Catholic, but it would be nice if people actually knew what actually is truly Catholic. If you want to disagree with us, fine, but at least disagree with what we actually believe and not a misconstrued version of it
W
I think if you read carefully what I said you will see that it is not a contradiction, it is making a distinction.
We are not saying that Christ's work is somehow insufficient, we say that even though He in Himself accomplished all through His paschal mysteries, WE the people have not yet received the full fruits of this work (hence the quote from St. Paul Col. 1:24 about making up what is "lacking"; the lack is not in Christ's work but in our reception of it).
Thus:
Christ's work is sufficient and lacking in nothing; the redemption He won is total
but
We have not yet received the fullness of that redemption (as we see in all of the problems/sin that still remains in the world)
That is to show that I am not contradicting myself, I am speaking of two different aspects of salvation: what Christ did, and what we have received.
Here is probably the dividing difference: Protestants generally see justification as something "extrinsic", that is, it is imposed on us from without. It is God's decision to no longer condemn us because of Christ. It doesn't involve the transformation of the person so much as it is a juridical revoking his condemnation.
Catholics on the other hand believe justification is the begenning point; it is not merited, it is offered freely by God's grace, and received through faith AND baptism (Acts 2:38) but THEN this justification must be brought to its fullness in our sanctification (becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), being raised "from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18) etc.
Catholics understand "salvation" in terms of the the big picture of the Bible and its two major themes: God's wedding humanity through His covenant with us, and God's project of re-creation; that is renewing and glorifying the creation which has been wounded by sin in His act of "new-creation" through Christ and the Spirit. God promised to give us new hearts (Ezekiel 36), and to transform us into a "spotless bride" "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5: 27).
All we mean when we speak of redemption not being "finished" is that clearly we as Christians on earth are not yet fully holy and spotless brides. We are growing in that sanctity as Christ's life grows in us, but we are still striving until it "come to full stature" (Eph. 4:13).
We are not saying that Christ's work is somehow insufficient, we say that even though He in Himself accomplished all through His paschal mysteries, WE the people have not yet received the full fruits of this work (hence the quote from St. Paul Col. 1:24 about making up what is "lacking"; the lack is not in Christ's work but in our reception of it).
Thus:
Christ's work is sufficient and lacking in nothing; the redemption He won is total
but
We have not yet received the fullness of that redemption (as we see in all of the problems/sin that still remains in the world)
That is to show that I am not contradicting myself, I am speaking of two different aspects of salvation: what Christ did, and what we have received.
Here is probably the dividing difference: Protestants generally see justification as something "extrinsic", that is, it is imposed on us from without. It is God's decision to no longer condemn us because of Christ. It doesn't involve the transformation of the person so much as it is a juridical revoking his condemnation.
Catholics on the other hand believe justification is the begenning point; it is not merited, it is offered freely by God's grace, and received through faith AND baptism (Acts 2:38) but THEN this justification must be brought to its fullness in our sanctification (becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), being raised "from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18) etc.
Catholics understand "salvation" in terms of the the big picture of the Bible and its two major themes: God's wedding humanity through His covenant with us, and God's project of re-creation; that is renewing and glorifying the creation which has been wounded by sin in His act of "new-creation" through Christ and the Spirit. God promised to give us new hearts (Ezekiel 36), and to transform us into a "spotless bride" "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5: 27).
All we mean when we speak of redemption not being "finished" is that clearly we as Christians on earth are not yet fully holy and spotless brides. We are growing in that sanctity as Christ's life grows in us, but we are still striving until it "come to full stature" (Eph. 4:13).
W
One final point, it is true that I did come onto this forum to ask questions about Luther and Calvin and modern day followers of them. It is also true that this topic was quite quickly derailed. If you want to blame me for that fine, but the point is, I am asking questions to understand other perspectives more. I wish the favor would be returned for us as Catholics.
Robert Louis Wilken says that "The first task of a serious interpreter is to give oneself to the author", and T.S. Eliot says that "You don't really criticize any author to whom you have never surrendered yourself".
I think these are principles that we all try to use when doing exegesis on a Biblical text: we seek to understand what is the purpose of this particular text, who was its audience, where in the work does this particular passage fall etc. We try to understand things in context.
I think if you want to truly understand what Catholics believe you have to be willing to engage our thought honestly without trying to read a particular bias or agenda into it.
So far in these posts people have assumed that if we don't believe in faith alone then we must believe in works righteousness; if we believe the mass is a sacrifice we must think of it as a re-sacrificing of Christ, as a work, as a lack of faith in what Christ has accomplished etc; if we believe in intercessory prayer we are somehow compromising the primacy of Christ etc.
I think it would just be helpful that if you really want to engage in dialog with Catholics to perhaps try to understand Catholicism through some of its own authors, rather than through what people assume or have said that we believe
Robert Louis Wilken says that "The first task of a serious interpreter is to give oneself to the author", and T.S. Eliot says that "You don't really criticize any author to whom you have never surrendered yourself".
I think these are principles that we all try to use when doing exegesis on a Biblical text: we seek to understand what is the purpose of this particular text, who was its audience, where in the work does this particular passage fall etc. We try to understand things in context.
I think if you want to truly understand what Catholics believe you have to be willing to engage our thought honestly without trying to read a particular bias or agenda into it.
So far in these posts people have assumed that if we don't believe in faith alone then we must believe in works righteousness; if we believe the mass is a sacrifice we must think of it as a re-sacrificing of Christ, as a work, as a lack of faith in what Christ has accomplished etc; if we believe in intercessory prayer we are somehow compromising the primacy of Christ etc.
I think it would just be helpful that if you really want to engage in dialog with Catholics to perhaps try to understand Catholicism through some of its own authors, rather than through what people assume or have said that we believe
I assumed nothing about you! You even admitted to your bad behavior and now you lie about it... plus, I do not misunderstand Catholicism, and have presented nothing false, except YOUR pretenses and falseness. Ex Cathedra dogmas are considered infallible, you just can't handle the truth and now make yourself out to be a liar, AGAIN, like another defender of Catholicism here.
This is hilarious. You come here pretending you want to better understand what we believe except you find it so offensive to be presented with the many errors and perversions of Catholicism plus your own bad attitude, you resort to further pretending we do not understand Catholicism but you do LOLOLOL. Like the other Lying Catholic defender, telling us that Catholics are not told to pray to Mary, when the whole month of May is devoted to corporate prayers to Mary. If you want to engage in dialogue you must stop being so dishonest.