The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass

[Katholikos]

The first-century Didache, whose full title is The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, was used by the Catholic Church for the instruction of adult pagan converts.

In it the following is written:

"On the Lord's own day [sunday], assemble in common to break bread and give thanks [eucharistia], but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. . .your sacrifice must not be defiled." Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 6, translated by James A. Kleist, SJ, Ph.D., Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 1948, Paulist Press

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered non-stop since the days of the Apostles.

The same Sacrifice is offered by the two most ancient Churches, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. The Orthodox kept the apostolic teaching and traditions when they split from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Protestants deny that the Mass is a sacrifice and hold that sacrifice is neither necessary or efficacious. Why?

[Donna]

This former Protestant answers because:

1. Then one would believe in the need for a priesthood.

2. Then one would believe in the priesthood.

3. Then one would believe in Holy Orders (a sacrament).

4. Then one ould believe in Bishops to ordain.

5. Then one would probably discern the need for the other sacraments, given by the priest.

6. And on and on.

It gets very sticky and involved, yes, Likos?

And one is on the Titanic, faced with finding these things out.

[kdewolf2]

I think the good old Protestant reformer John Knox could explain it best. Check out The Mass is Idolatry. It should give you a good laugh.

[Anna]

A pox on Knox. :lol:

[willguy]

I agree with Donna. One thing I've noticed is that all of the beliefs of Catholicism are beautifully intertwined. Therefore, when Protestants got rid of one, another had to go with it, and another, and another, etc, till there was a whole list of things that they were against.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

funny how no prots have answered this thread yet.. I am curious as to what they have to say

[Anna]

I agree with Donna.  One thing I've noticed is that all of the beliefs of Catholicism are beautifully intertwined.  Therefore, when Protestants got rid of one, another had to go with it, and another, and another, etc, till there was a whole list of things that they were against.

So true, willguy...

The One True Faith is like a beautiful tapestry, woven by Christ Himself...the silken threads spun by the people of Israel...

The "reformers" have been unravelling it and weaving in their own coarse and hideous threads since the 1500's, creating thousands of desecrated copies.

The remaining original is still preserved and maintained by the Catholic Church.

One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church!

Pax Christi. <><

[kdewolf2]

Protestants just think the Mass couldn't be a sacrifice because Christ's sacrifice on the cross was complete, sufficient, and perfect. What they don't see is that the Mass is nothing but an extension of Christ's sacrifice, a re-presentation of it, and a not a new sacrifice added onto it.

[ICTHUS]

I skimmed over Knox's argument. It makes false assumptions about what the Mass is, and makes no attempt to faithfully present, and then (if necessary) to attack, the Mass, it just attacks it on the basis of his previous (erroneous) assumptions about the Sacrifice being offered (i.e. that it is a new sacrifice, which it is NOT!)

He sounds good, though. I must admit, if I were a Catholic who were weak in my faith, hearing his argument - he would probably get me.

But I'm not, and I know he's a liar. So its all good!

[Anna]

ICHTHUS,

You make me smile.

Pax Christi. <><

[Ellenita]

On the Lord's own day (Sunday), assemble in common to break bread and give thanks (eucharistia) but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure....your sacrifice must not be defiled.

Isn't that quote talking about our personal sacrifice to Him as in when we confess our sins, repent, ask His forgiveness and invite Jesus into our lives as our Lord and Saviour? The need for absolution of sin by a priest isn't neccessary if you believe you can pray directly to God, and, if your act of contrition is genuine receive His forgiveness.

[Uncle Gus]

Protestants just think the Mass couldn't be a sacrifice because Christ's sacrifice on the cross was complete, sufficient, and perfect.  What they don't see is that the Mass is nothing but an extension of Christ's sacrifice, a re-presentation of it, and a not a new sacrifice added onto it.

Even that isn't a completely accurate description of the Sacrifice of the Mass. It isn't an extension, per se. That would imply that it is making the Sacrifice longer, or bigger. The Mass is the very One and same Sacrifice of Calvary. When we celebrate Mass, we are there, at Calvary.

[ICTHUS]

ICHTHUS,

You make me smile. 

Pax Christi. <><

Thanks. Knox makes one good point, though.

The Cup should not be denied to the laity - why, therefore, was it denied?

[cappie]

As a sacrament, the Holy Eucharist imparts to us Jesus’ abiding presence in our souls. We share in His divine life, which is an assurance of eternal life and the conviction that we are children of God the Father. God shares His life with Jesus and with all other people. In this sacrament, Jesus gives his own Body, broken for us on the cross, and his precious Blood, poured out for us in order that sins might be forgiven.

Thus, the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice as well as a sacrament. By means of signs, symbols and prayers, it is the bloodless repetition of Christ’s death. It is a re-enactment of His sacrifice on the cross, and a memorial repeated at every Mass. It assures us of Jesus' love for us, and His forgiveness of our sins. It is the sacrament of our union with Him. Through this sacrifice, the risen Jesus becomes present on the altar, offering himself to the Father through the ministry of the priest.

Vatican II states that, as a sacrifice, the holy Eucharist is the centre and culmination of Christian life." Why? 1) Because it enables us to participate in Christ’s sacrifice as a present reality and to merit from its fruits in our own lives. 2) Because it helps us to worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the most perfect way. 3) Because, it strengthens our charity and unity in a joint offering of His body and blood. 4) Because it gives us a lasting memorial of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection, reminding us of our obligation to make loving sacrifices for others.

This Holy Memorial is known by various names: 1) "The Eucharist” because Jesus offered Himself to God the Father as an act of thanksgiving. 2) "The Lord’s Supper"--or “Breaking of the Bread”--because we celebrate it as a meal. 3) "Holy Communion" because, we become one with Christ by receiving Him. 4)"Holy Mass” (=holy sending), because it presents us with a mission: “go in peace to love and serve others”.

[ICTHUS]

Oh boy. Knox doesn't stand up to reason and a sound knowledge of Catholic doctrine.

1. His first point he makes is that Samuel rebukes Saul for offering sacrifice to God when he is not of the tribe of Levi.

There are two problems with attempting to prove the Mass idolatrous by this passage.

1. Christ has done away with Levitical sacrifices by His own Blood.

2. Knox says that Saul usurps the rightful priesthood of God when he offers sacrifice to God, since Saul is not of the Tribe of Levi. Since the priest in no way usurps the High Priesthood of Christ, but rather shares in His Priesthood by acting in persona Christi, the priesthood is in no way usurped. It is Christ, (through the ministry of the priest) who makes Himself present on the altar, through the ministry of the Priest. He is both priest and sacrificial Victim Who has already been sacrificed.

As Knox says

"Here is the ground of all his iniquity, and of this proceeds the cause of his dejection from the kingdom: that he would honour God otherwise than was commanded by his express word. For he [saul], being none of the tribe of Levi (appointed by God's commandment to make sacrifice), usurps that office not due to him, which was most high abomination before God, as by the punishment appears."

Thus, his first arguments are proved to be the empty rantings of a bag of hot air.

And then he goes on to say that the reason Pope Gregory and the people whom he led around in the recitation of the Litany of the Saints died is because of God punishing them for the plague.

Yet Knox fails to mention that that plague, which occured during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, ALSO raged other parts of Europe. inDouche, it began widespread infection of the Empire from ALEXANDRIA, NOT ROME! Was God, therefore, punishing Alexandria, Constantinople, Milan, Pisa, Florence, and every single frickin city in Europe, when He was pissed off at the Bishop of Rome and his "idolatry"?!!!

I THINK NOT!! Knox makes it sound like this plague was isolated to Rome, and thus, was a direct punishment ON ROME. It is just as plausible that a similar number of people as described by Knox could have died in the space of one hour, in Florence or Pisa or London.

I'm not going to bother wasting any more time refuting Knox. Suffice it to say, the man was an idiot.