A Contradiction In The Mass

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge, I'm hurt...you read this thread and then didn't reply...still.

I repeat my humble request to the moderators. If Budge doesn't really want to debate, but just to use the phorum as a soapbox and avoid debate, please lock this thread.

[desertwoman]

It's good to see you once more Cam. And thanks for the post.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Budge' post='1071412' date='Sep 22 2006, 01:29 PM']
I know some of you may have a hard time keeping up with me... :

Ok...lets go back to original topic.

If the Mass is a representation of Christs one time SUFFICIENT sacrifice on the cross, [u]why does the priest ask if it is acceptable[/u]?

Isnt this blasphemous to Christ, because how could anyone even conceive of the idea that what Jesus Christ did on the cross was unacceptable to God?

Ok start with that point and work from it.
[/quote]

OK Budge,

If you are going to be camping out on that verse and taking it super-literally, then how do you reconcile it with Colossians 1:24, the verse about how Paul makes up in his own flesh "that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ"?

How can Christ's sufferings and death be both sufficient and lacking within the same Bible? If we go with your interpretation, the the Bible contradicts itself.

EVERYONE: please let Budge answer this.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Norseman82

[Cam42]

The Church goes on to state in a question and answer format:

[quote name='Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church #272']When did Jesus Christ institute the Eucharist?

Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday “the night on which he was betrayed” (1 Corinthians 11:23), as he celebrated the Last Supper with his apostles.[/quote]

[quote name='CCCC #273']How did he institute the Eucharist?

After he had gathered with his apostles in the Cenacle, Jesus took bread in his hands. He broke it and gave it to them saying, “Take this and eat it, all of you; this is my Body which will be given up for you”. Then, he took the cup of wine in his hands and said, “Take this and drink of this, all of you. This is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgive. Do this in memory of me”.[/quote]

[quote name='CCCC #276']Where does the Eucharist fit in the divine plan of salvation?

The Eucharist was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant above all in the annual Passover meal celebrated every year by the Jews with unleavened bread to commemorate their hasty, liberating departure from Egypt. Jesus foretold it in his teaching and he instituted it when he celebrated the Last Supper with his apostles in a Passover meal. The Church, faithful to the command of her Lord, “Do this in memory of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24), has always celebrated the Eucharist, especially on Sunday, the day of the Resurrection of Jesus.[/quote]

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

[quote name='CCCC #280']In what way is the Eucharist a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ?

The Eucharist is a memorial in the sense that it makes present and actual the sacrifice which Christ offered to the Father on the cross, once and for all on behalf of mankind. The sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution, “This is my Body which is given for you” and “This cup is the New Covenant in my Blood that will be shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20). The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. The priest and the victim are the same; only the manner of offering is different: in a bloody manner on the cross, in an unbloody manner in the Eucharist.[/quote]

Pure and unadulterated support for my presented position in support of Catholic Sacramental Theology.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge, either face the evidence or give up your debate. You have ignored too many threads, too many posts, and too many good arguments. Be honest.

[angelusdomini]

[quote name='Budge' post='1072603' date='Sep 23 2006, 09:36 AM']
Jesus is alive and had victory over sin and death.

the fact that Catholics dwell only on the death part ignoring the resurrection speaks for itself.

[img]http://www.saint-peter.org/Church%20Images/CROSS.jpg[/img]

Why is Jesus always DEAD on 90% of Catholic crucifixes...

head hanging down...
[size=4]
Hbr 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.[/size]
[/quote]


Hey Budge,
One thing about the mass that you may not have noticed (it was only explained to me recently) is that in the mass itself we do proclaim the resurrection of our Lord. In the Communion Rite , the priest breaks a piece of the consecrated host and drops it into the chalice of the consecrated wine. This is to symbolise that Christ indeed is Risen, He indeed is alive by showing the union of the Body and Blood of our Lord. In one of the readings this week- it was from one of the epistles by St. Paul where here reminded (and continues to remind) the faithful that our faith is based on the fact that Jesus did trully rise. That if He did not rise then in vain too is our faith. I read the earlier post that Akalyte had put up dealing with your specific questions. I think he broke it down pretty well. I don't have mush to add to this except maybe that the one and only sacrifice is a participation in the eternal sacrifice that is ever-going in heaven with Christ as the Eternal High priest and the Eternal Spotless victim (cf Rev.). One other thing to keep in mind is that the efficacy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass does not come from the priest or his own merits but from the Eternal High Priest- Christ Himself. And also that the sacrifiec He offers is He Himself. What an awsome reality this is, let us rejoice and Give thanks to God.
I would also recommend that you pick a book by Scott Hahn called the lamb's Supper which gives a pretty thorough guide/explanation to the Catholic understanding of the Mass firmly grounded in the book of Revelations.
Anyone feel free to correct me in any error I may have made in my explanation.

[thessalonian]

Yes, the bread and the wine is our sacrifice to be offered. It is not yet the Eucharist and so the words make perfect sense. Once again budge you are not asking for an answer. You think you already know and no matter how many Catholics answer you, you will not in humility acknowledge that your trap may only be for a mouse when your think you are going to catch a bear.

Be humble. Be corrected.

Thess

[thatmanjose]

Maybe it would help to look at the Church's response.... the response of a bride to her bridegroom
"May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your (the priest's) hands for the praise and glory of His name for our good and the good of all of the Church."

Christ's sacrifice re-presented on the altar has the same effect on the Church today as it did on Calvary. It moves the Church to praise.

"And whenever you do this, do it in memory of me" The Church does not gather to remember as if Christianity were just a mental exercise, but to bring forth praise and glory.

[Cam42]

[quote name='thatmanjose' post='1072935' date='Sep 23 2006, 04:16 PM']
Maybe it would help to look at the Church's response.... the response of a bride to her bridegroom
"May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your (the priest's) hands for the praise and glory of His name for our good and the good of all of the Church."

Christ's sacrifice re-presented on the altar has the same effect on the Church today as it did on Calvary. It moves the Church to praise.

"And whenever you do this, do it in memory of me" The Church does not gather to remember as if Christianity were just a mental exercise, but to bring forth praise and glory.
[/quote]

If you look to my earlier post, you'll see the definitive teaching of the Church. Not only the view from Sacramental theology, but also the Catechetical view.

Very clear indeed.

[Budge]

[quote]Yes, the bread and the wine is our sacrifice to be offered[/quote]

The Bible teaches no more offerings, no more sacrifices, so why does your church go against this?

The claim that the "sacrifice" of bread and wine is the same sacrifice Jesus did on the cross, just doesnt hold up.

Sacramentalism is wrong and goes against this verse.

Hbr 10:11 ¶ [u]And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:[/u]

Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Sacramentalism...refutes the gospel.

Ive chosen to believe this....

[size=4]
"For by Grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God not of works, lest any man should boast"

Ephesians 2:8-9[/size]

rather then this...

[size=4]
1129 The Church affirms that for believers [u]the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.[/u] "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.[/size]

Unlike you folks, I do not believe that Jesus instituted your Eucharist as a sacrament or another offering. He said Do this IN MEMORY of me, He didnt say set up a priest caste system where you will do spells over pieces of bread to turn them into Me.

[Winchester]

Do this in memory of me.

Do this
Do this.

What part don't you get? What are we doing? If I perform a certain activity and then tell people do this in memory of me, are they not to do that same activity?

Yes, we know only Jesus's sacrifice took away sins. We teach it is neccesary. You're preaching to the choir.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1073648' date='Sep 24 2006, 08:57 AM']
The Bible teaches no more offerings, no more sacrifices, so why does your church go against this?

The claim that the "sacrifice" of bread and wine is the same sacrifice Jesus did on the cross, just doesnt hold up.

Sacramentalism is wrong and goes against this verse.

Hbr 10:11 ¶ [u]And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:[/u]

Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Sacramentalism...refutes the gospel.

Ive chosen to believe this....

[size=4]
"For by Grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God not of works, lest any man should boast"

Ephesians 2:8-9[/size]

rather then this...

[size=4]
1129 The Church affirms that for believers [u]the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.[/u] "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.[/size]

Unlike you folks, I do not believe that Jesus instituted your Eucharist as a sacrament or another offering. He said Do this IN MEMORY of me, He didnt say set up a priest caste system where you will do spells over pieces of bread to turn them into Me.
[/quote]

Ummmm....that was answered.

And actually he did set up a priestly system and Pentecost confirms this and starts the resurrected mission of Christ.

What do you think the bishops of scripture are? They are the appointments of the Apostles and/or the Apostles themselves. You are funny.

The whole "spells" issue that you are trying to bring up is sooooo cliche. That merits no further response. God Bless you on that.

So, as we move along, we have answered apparently to your satisfatction the original question of the contradiction in the Mass. You have offered nothing of consequence to refute the Truth of the Catholic view. Since you have no more to offer, I assume that the question has been answered.

Thanks for playing, start a new thread and ask a new question. I will be happy to answer it as would most others on this board.

[Budge]

[quote]
And actually he did set up a priestly system and Pentecost confirms this and starts the resurrected mission of Christ.

What do you think the bishops of scripture are? They are the appointments of the Apostles and/or the Apostles themselves. You are funny.[/quote]

I dont believe in apostolic succession.

Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church simply holds no water.

Sorry but Mahony and Law do not represent TODAY'S APOSTLES.


[size=4]
"The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church,[u] which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." [/u]Pg. 215, #816[/size]

But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church:
[size=4]"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15 [/size]

The Bible says there is even to be no more GOVERNANCE...

Gal 4:1 ¶ Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

Gal 4:2 [size=4]But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.[/size]

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

[Cam42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1073711' date='Sep 24 2006, 11:49 AM']
I dont believe in apostolic succession.

Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church simply holds no water.

Sorry but Mahony and Law do not represent TODAY'S APOSTLES.
[size=4]
"The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church,[u] which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." [/u]Pg. 215, #816[/size]

But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church:
[size=4]"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15 [/size]

The Bible says there is even to be no more GOVERNANCE...

Gal 4:1 ¶ Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

Gal 4:2 [size=4]But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.[/size]

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
[/quote]


On whose authority do you not accept Aposotlic Succession? Care to prove it? Simply throwing out Bible verses proves nothing except that you can cut and paste.

Also, it has been shown that you do not take things in context, so if we use PROPER exegesis, we will find; rather quickly, I might add; that your personal subjective view is one built upon sand.

While Cardinals Mahoney and Law most certainly are poor sinners, so were Peter (he actually denied Christ) and Paul (he actually persecuted Christians). I do believe that being upright of heart is not prerequisite of being a Christian. However, I also believe that conversion of heart is necessary and that conversion is a lifelong challenge.

We are not simply snow covered dung heaps.

Next issue.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Again, I request that, since Budge is not debating (since that would necessitate actually [b]answering[/b] his opponents), this thread be closed.