Zone1 is it a mass or? (eucharist)

ninja007

Gold Member
Aug 4, 2014
9,752
3,007
325
Living rent free in libs heads
IS IT A MASS OR ?


The consecrated bread and wine are heavenly food which help one to attain to eternallife. ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 1392, 1405, 1419. )


The evangelical church believes it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, Catholicsbelieve the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist ismanifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given foryou" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in myblood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the VERY body which he gave up for us on thecross, the VERY blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness ofsins."


The New Catholic Catechism of 1992 said, “The sacrifice of Christand the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice ... In this divinesacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himselfonce in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in anunbloody manner.” (Can it be unbloody and bloody at the same time?)


The priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements ofbread and wine into the body and blood of Christ ... the more often the sacrifice[of the Mass] is offered the more benefit is conferred" (John A. Hardon, S.J., PocketCatholic Dictionary (1985), pp. 248-249).


Catholics claim the mass is not a re-sacrifice of the event of Christ's death, let thereown literature speak..."Hence the Mass...[is] a sacrifice in which thesacrifice of the cross is perpetuated...in the sacrifice of the Mass ourLord is immolated...the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and the summit of...theChristian life....In the sacrifice of the Mass in fact, Christ offers himself forthe salvation of the entire world" (Vatican II,Eucharisticum Mysterium, 3.,18).


To Catholics it is a current event, not something that just occurred almost 2,000years ago.


When did this view actually begin in history because It is not mentioned in theScripture nor Apostles' Creed from the 2nd century A.D. or the Nicene Creed 325A.D, There had been individual opinions from this period which supported various views,but none were the teaching of the church at the time.


We can trace this from the ninth to the twelfth century. Like other Catholic doctrinesthe belief that the nature of the host changed at the priests consecration did not becomean official doctrine of the Catholic Church until much later .It was made dogma officialdogma by Pope Pius III at the Lateran Council of 1215. This began the CatholicChurch’s new sanction of the "theory of transubstantiation." The Vaticancontinued to develop this teaching through the16th century. At that time, the Council ofTrent used it to counter the challenges from the Reformation. The creed of PopePius IV, which authoritatively summarized the teaching of the Council of Trent,stated: “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true,proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in themost holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially,the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord JesusChrist.” Trent further defined thetheory and then placed a solemn curse upon anyone who denied it .(Session XIII, can. 2, D.B., 884). By doing so they challenged God,denying his word in Rom.4-5 and in Galatians which teaches the very opposite.

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary forsalvation…that without them…man obtain from God through faith alone the grace ofjustification…let him be anathema" (Council ofTrent,7.general,4)


"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thatnothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification lethim be anathema." (Council of Trent)


The Council of Trent summarized the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christour Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species ofbread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council nowdeclares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a changeof the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord andof the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holyCatholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." Thisinterpretation held by the Catholic Church is found where Jesus spoke the words:"Take, eat; this is My body… this is My blood," he turned the bread theywere eating into his body and the wine into his blood at the Passover. The official namefor this is transubstantiation. It means that the substance is changed. Although theoutward appearance remains of the bread and wine look the same to the eye, no one can seethat underneath they have been changed. This is done today by the priest who can thensacrifice Christ afresh on the altar. Christ becomes the actual sacrifice but an"unbloody sacrifice". The wafer is the "host" which means hebecomes the victim. Christ is actually "immolated" or offered as the victim overand over, each week, each year throughout the world on all the Catholic altars. Thiscurrent offering of the host makes satisfaction for the sins of both the living and thedead. Those receiving Holy Communion eat the actual body of Christ. Participation isessential for a Catholics spiritual life, it is essential for salvation. This is theSacrifice of the Mass or the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.


However this is not what the Bible teaches.


The word "mass" is never used in Scripture, it is an invention oftheir church for an unbiblical practice. The communion is referred to byusing the word "Koinonia".


1 Cor. 10:16 Communion-- a memorial: a visible way of illustrating His death.


The mass is a misunderstanding of what the Lord meant when He said " Take eat,this is My body and drink, this is My blood shed for the remission of sins." Takingmeanings out of their Jewish concept and culture and giving Gentile meanings(Aristotelian) destroys the message he conveyed. Jesus took the Passover and showed thathe was the fulfillment of this feast ,as he is for all of them. If he was giving his bodyat the last supper for our sins then he didn't have to go to the cross, it already wasaccomplished.


Questions that Need Answering ??????​


"Take eat for this is my body." For 1500 years prior to Jesus statement theJewish people partook of this feast day ritual of Passover. It was in remembrance of theirExodus from Egypt. Jesus stated that He was the fulfillment of this (the matzoh is thebread he held up, it is unleaven, striped, with holes and broken Isa.53). It couldn't beliteral or all of Israel would be partaking of his body before He ever had a humanbody which came by the virgin conception of Mary. It pointed toHis person as the sinless lamb and the work He would accomplish on the cross, what would happen to himself on the cross. Paul appliesHis death to the Passover in 1 Cor.5:6-8. If this passage was meant to be taken literally,then were the Jews eating of His body and blood before He was physically here, before Heeven became a man here on earth? It couldn't be literal because He did not die yet,no blood was spilled, and His body was not broken, the Passover was looking forward to the future, just as we partake of the bread and the cup looking back to the past. If this bread turned into his body atthe last supper then He gave himself for us before the cross. In fact if you think it through, there would be no need forJesus to go to the cross, we would only have to take communion (The Eucharist) since it the actual event.
Heb. 11:28 says of Moses, "By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood,"Faith that looked to the future for the substance which is Christ. It's about faith in the real thing not a ritual in manmade things.


If this was literal, which part of His body was eaten that night? Did Jesus bodyactually consist of bread and have wine flowing in his veins when he spoke take eat thisis my body. If not, then why should we think it does now. Since His physical body was likeours in a substantial limited amount, would it not be totally consumed already? Alsoremember Jesus also ate the bread and wine, was he eating himself? Did he need salvation?


Jesus holding the bread he distinguished between his body and the emblem inhis hand. Peter whom the Catholics hold to be the first pope said “who Himselfbore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24).


Why does the Eucharist have the body and the blood separate, while the real Christ hadthe blood in his body. When He shed His blood for our sins He arose again in the samebody, a body without blood but flesh and bone glorified. A new body was given, poweredby a different operation than the old humanity of blood. The blood was given andaccepted. The sacrifice was over, he said it is finished, not it will continue! How can hegive us blood today when he himself has none to give today (Luke 24:39). What kind of Jesus are they presenting in manmade objects?


When the Son of God became a man, he took upon himself human flesh. Is Holy Communionactually eating Christ's physical body. Why would God want us eating human flesh? Whywould he want us drinking human blood? When the drinking of blood is repeatedly forbiddenin the Scriptures, including the New Testament. It doesn’t matter if it was sinlessblood. The apostles were Jews who would not partake of eating anything but clean food. Fora Jew, you cannot find a food more unclean than blood, this is why they were shocked whenhe said this in Jn.6, they misunderstood him.


A careful look at Jesus' Teaching Style proves what is correct. The Jews often spoke infigurative language. Jesus, being a Jew, was no exception to this manner of teaching tobring across a point. John records in his gospel seven figurative statements that Jesusmade about himself. Each uses the same verb translated "is" in the words"This is My body." Jesus said in Jn.6, "I am the bread of life," Healso states in the same manner "I am the light of the world," "I am thedoor," "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the goodshepherd," "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," "I am the truevine." If we take the bread literally then all other illustrations should be taken inthe same manner.


There are many statements that Jesus used in a figurative sense for example destroythis temple in Jn.2:19 the Pharisee’s interpreted this as the literal temple he saidthey were wrong it is the temple of his body. When he said to the people to beware of the"leaven of the Pharisees," they thought he meant bread. when he spoke of eatinghis flesh and drinking his blood, they argued, murmured, and left baffled. He summed it uphis meaning by saying my words are spirit and they are life. This should not be confusedin thinking that everything Jesus said was figurative, only that he often employedfigurative language to teach and illustrate truth. Jesus' Jewish audience oftenmisunderstood his teaching. They lacked perception. They were unable to discern when hewas speaking figuratively or literally.


When he said he offered new life as living water, or I am the light ", I am theDoor", I am the vine" should we take these to be the actual literal meaning orsymbolic of another literal substance. When he said to the disciples you are the salt ofthe earth were they actually salt ? We need to look at the spiritual intent of thepassage.


1 Cor.11:28 Paul says, "Let each man eat of the bread and drink of thecup..." Paul clearly is stating that there is no change of the former substance toChrist, this is really bread and a cup.


In 1 Cor.11:25 Paul states this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Obviously this cupwas not the actual covenant itself but a representation of it. He didn't say the newcovenant is the cup! "for as often as you eat this bread drink the cup, you proclaimthe Lord’s death until he comes." Do we drink the cup or what is inside it?Notice it says bread not a body. "For as often as you eat this bread and drinkthe cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Did he come back as awafer and wine? Then we can't take the bread or the cup? This is what we are presented bythe Roman view. If so we should stop taking the bread.


Physically speaking, one can only be in 1 place at 1 time. Lk.22:17- 20 Jesus says todivide the cup among them He states "I will not drink of the fruit of the vineuntil the kingdom of God comes." Jesus is stating that what they drank was winenot blood, which was forbidden. This is not like the wedding feast where he changed waterto wine so he changed wine to blood.


Pope John Paul II wrote: "The Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is thesacrifice of the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant.( Pope John Paul IIon the mystery and worship of the Eucharist no.9)


Vatican II declares, "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in thedivine sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass], 'the work of our redemption is accomplished... (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, par. 2).


The Bible says the very opposite


The Eucharist is either the symbol of the sacrificial event or the event itself .Scripture tells us which is true.


Whose blood cleanses us? Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified byHis blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him."


When did this occur?


Answer: Rom. 3:25, "Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood,through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passedover the sins that were previously committed, "The bible says it is a past event.


Where did this happen? Col. 1:14, "In whom we have redemption throughHis blood, the forgiveness of sins. :20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself,by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through theblood of His cross." The bible says it took place at the cross when hedied not today.


In Whom did this happen? Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemptionthrough His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of Hisgrace." The bible says its in the person of Christ when he was a human on earth nottoday.


According to the Church, each Mass... reminds us that there is no salvation except inthe cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and that God Himself wishes that there should be acontinuation of this sacrifice....(Mediator Dei 2nd Vatican councilInstruction on the manner of distributing the Holy communion no.55)


The Bible says He sat down on the right hand of God, never to repeat thesacrifice again. For to do so he would have to come back to earth, which is exactly whatthe Catholics priest are saying, they call him down from heaven onto their altar eachtime.


The blood on the cross is what cleanses not the mass. One is from God the other is fromman! No where did he say it continues as a sacrifice he only said to do this toremember the sacrifice that occurred. In the OT the looked forward to it today we lookbackward at it.


The book of Hebrew which compares Christ to the O.T. sacrifices says these emphaticalstatements


Hebrews.1:3 "When he (Christ) had by himself purged our sins."


9:12 "By his own blood entered in once into the Holy Place."


9:22 "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."


10:10 "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus oncefor all."


7:27 "Who does not need daily, as those high Priests (O.T.), to offer upsacrifices, for he did once for all."


9:25 "Not that he should offer himself often’ Vs.26 "hewould then have to suffer often"… "he has appeared to put away sin bythe sacrifice of himself."


V. 28 "And so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many." Thisis a single event for all eternity. Is this the event that took your sins away or does thepriest in the mass do this? Why does the mass try to repeat and duplicate it. It is allfrom the real live person of Christ almost 2,000 years ago. Salvation is in a person notbread or drink.


Is Christ’s payment at the cross sufficient ornot ?


JESUS cried "it is finished!"

The Catholic Church says, it is continued!
 
A great technique for capturing Gullibles .
Sort of like a fore runner of MK Ultra .
 
IS IT A MASS OR ?


The consecrated bread and wine are heavenly food which help one to attain to eternallife. ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 1392, 1405, 1419. )


The evangelical church believes it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, Catholicsbelieve the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist ismanifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given foryou" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in myblood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the VERY body which he gave up for us on thecross, the VERY blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness ofsins."


The New Catholic Catechism of 1992 said, “The sacrifice of Christand the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice ... In this divinesacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himselfonce in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in anunbloody manner.” (Can it be unbloody and bloody at the same time?)


The priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements ofbread and wine into the body and blood of Christ ... the more often the sacrifice[of the Mass] is offered the more benefit is conferred" (John A. Hardon, S.J., PocketCatholic Dictionary (1985), pp. 248-249).


Catholics claim the mass is not a re-sacrifice of the event of Christ's death, let thereown literature speak..."Hence the Mass...[is] a sacrifice in which thesacrifice of the cross is perpetuated...in the sacrifice of the Mass ourLord is immolated...the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and the summit of...theChristian life....In the sacrifice of the Mass in fact, Christ offers himself forthe salvation of the entire world" (Vatican II,Eucharisticum Mysterium, 3.,18).


To Catholics it is a current event, not something that just occurred almost 2,000years ago.


When did this view actually begin in history because It is not mentioned in theScripture nor Apostles' Creed from the 2nd century A.D. or the Nicene Creed 325A.D, There had been individual opinions from this period which supported various views,but none were the teaching of the church at the time.


We can trace this from the ninth to the twelfth century. Like other Catholic doctrinesthe belief that the nature of the host changed at the priests consecration did not becomean official doctrine of the Catholic Church until much later .It was made dogma officialdogma by Pope Pius III at the Lateran Council of 1215. This began the CatholicChurch’s new sanction of the "theory of transubstantiation." The Vaticancontinued to develop this teaching through the16th century. At that time, the Council ofTrent used it to counter the challenges from the Reformation. The creed of PopePius IV, which authoritatively summarized the teaching of the Council of Trent,stated: “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true,proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in themost holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially,the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord JesusChrist.” Trent further defined thetheory and then placed a solemn curse upon anyone who denied it .(Session XIII, can. 2, D.B., 884). By doing so they challenged God,denying his word in Rom.4-5 and in Galatians which teaches the very opposite.

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary forsalvation…that without them…man obtain from God through faith alone the grace ofjustification…let him be anathema" (Council ofTrent,7.general,4)


"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thatnothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification lethim be anathema." (Council of Trent)


The Council of Trent summarized the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christour Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species ofbread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council nowdeclares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a changeof the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord andof the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holyCatholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." Thisinterpretation held by the Catholic Church is found where Jesus spoke the words:"Take, eat; this is My body… this is My blood," he turned the bread theywere eating into his body and the wine into his blood at the Passover. The official namefor this is transubstantiation. It means that the substance is changed. Although theoutward appearance remains of the bread and wine look the same to the eye, no one can seethat underneath they have been changed. This is done today by the priest who can thensacrifice Christ afresh on the altar. Christ becomes the actual sacrifice but an"unbloody sacrifice". The wafer is the "host" which means hebecomes the victim. Christ is actually "immolated" or offered as the victim overand over, each week, each year throughout the world on all the Catholic altars. Thiscurrent offering of the host makes satisfaction for the sins of both the living and thedead. Those receiving Holy Communion eat the actual body of Christ. Participation isessential for a Catholics spiritual life, it is essential for salvation. This is theSacrifice of the Mass or the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.


However this is not what the Bible teaches.


The word "mass" is never used in Scripture, it is an invention oftheir church for an unbiblical practice. The communion is referred to byusing the word "Koinonia".


1 Cor. 10:16 Communion-- a memorial: a visible way of illustrating His death.


The mass is a misunderstanding of what the Lord meant when He said " Take eat,this is My body and drink, this is My blood shed for the remission of sins." Takingmeanings out of their Jewish concept and culture and giving Gentile meanings(Aristotelian) destroys the message he conveyed. Jesus took the Passover and showed thathe was the fulfillment of this feast ,as he is for all of them. If he was giving his bodyat the last supper for our sins then he didn't have to go to the cross, it already wasaccomplished.


Questions that Need Answering ??????​


"Take eat for this is my body." For 1500 years prior to Jesus statement theJewish people partook of this feast day ritual of Passover. It was in remembrance of theirExodus from Egypt. Jesus stated that He was the fulfillment of this (the matzoh is thebread he held up, it is unleaven, striped, with holes and broken Isa.53). It couldn't beliteral or all of Israel would be partaking of his body before He ever had a humanbody which came by the virgin conception of Mary. It pointed toHis person as the sinless lamb and the work He would accomplish on the cross, what would happen to himself on the cross. Paul appliesHis death to the Passover in 1 Cor.5:6-8. If this passage was meant to be taken literally,then were the Jews eating of His body and blood before He was physically here, before Heeven became a man here on earth? It couldn't be literal because He did not die yet,no blood was spilled, and His body was not broken, the Passover was looking forward to the future, just as we partake of the bread and the cup looking back to the past. If this bread turned into his body atthe last supper then He gave himself for us before the cross. In fact if you think it through, there would be no need forJesus to go to the cross, we would only have to take communion (The Eucharist) since it the actual event.
Heb. 11:28 says of Moses, "By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood,"Faith that looked to the future for the substance which is Christ. It's about faith in the real thing not a ritual in manmade things.


If this was literal, which part of His body was eaten that night? Did Jesus bodyactually consist of bread and have wine flowing in his veins when he spoke take eat thisis my body. If not, then why should we think it does now. Since His physical body was likeours in a substantial limited amount, would it not be totally consumed already? Alsoremember Jesus also ate the bread and wine, was he eating himself? Did he need salvation?


Jesus holding the bread he distinguished between his body and the emblem inhis hand. Peter whom the Catholics hold to be the first pope said “who Himselfbore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24).


Why does the Eucharist have the body and the blood separate, while the real Christ hadthe blood in his body. When He shed His blood for our sins He arose again in the samebody, a body without blood but flesh and bone glorified. A new body was given, poweredby a different operation than the old humanity of blood. The blood was given andaccepted. The sacrifice was over, he said it is finished, not it will continue! How can hegive us blood today when he himself has none to give today (Luke 24:39). What kind of Jesus are they presenting in manmade objects?


When the Son of God became a man, he took upon himself human flesh. Is Holy Communionactually eating Christ's physical body. Why would God want us eating human flesh? Whywould he want us drinking human blood? When the drinking of blood is repeatedly forbiddenin the Scriptures, including the New Testament. It doesn’t matter if it was sinlessblood. The apostles were Jews who would not partake of eating anything but clean food. Fora Jew, you cannot find a food more unclean than blood, this is why they were shocked whenhe said this in Jn.6, they misunderstood him.


A careful look at Jesus' Teaching Style proves what is correct. The Jews often spoke infigurative language. Jesus, being a Jew, was no exception to this manner of teaching tobring across a point. John records in his gospel seven figurative statements that Jesusmade about himself. Each uses the same verb translated "is" in the words"This is My body." Jesus said in Jn.6, "I am the bread of life," Healso states in the same manner "I am the light of the world," "I am thedoor," "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the goodshepherd," "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," "I am the truevine." If we take the bread literally then all other illustrations should be taken inthe same manner.


There are many statements that Jesus used in a figurative sense for example destroythis temple in Jn.2:19 the Pharisee’s interpreted this as the literal temple he saidthey were wrong it is the temple of his body. When he said to the people to beware of the"leaven of the Pharisees," they thought he meant bread. when he spoke of eatinghis flesh and drinking his blood, they argued, murmured, and left baffled. He summed it uphis meaning by saying my words are spirit and they are life. This should not be confusedin thinking that everything Jesus said was figurative, only that he often employedfigurative language to teach and illustrate truth. Jesus' Jewish audience oftenmisunderstood his teaching. They lacked perception. They were unable to discern when hewas speaking figuratively or literally.


When he said he offered new life as living water, or I am the light ", I am theDoor", I am the vine" should we take these to be the actual literal meaning orsymbolic of another literal substance. When he said to the disciples you are the salt ofthe earth were they actually salt ? We need to look at the spiritual intent of thepassage.


1 Cor.11:28 Paul says, "Let each man eat of the bread and drink of thecup..." Paul clearly is stating that there is no change of the former substance toChrist, this is really bread and a cup.


In 1 Cor.11:25 Paul states this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Obviously this cupwas not the actual covenant itself but a representation of it. He didn't say the newcovenant is the cup! "for as often as you eat this bread drink the cup, you proclaimthe Lord’s death until he comes." Do we drink the cup or what is inside it?Notice it says bread not a body. "For as often as you eat this bread and drinkthe cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Did he come back as awafer and wine? Then we can't take the bread or the cup? This is what we are presented bythe Roman view. If so we should stop taking the bread.


Physically speaking, one can only be in 1 place at 1 time. Lk.22:17- 20 Jesus says todivide the cup among them He states "I will not drink of the fruit of the vineuntil the kingdom of God comes." Jesus is stating that what they drank was winenot blood, which was forbidden. This is not like the wedding feast where he changed waterto wine so he changed wine to blood.


Pope John Paul II wrote: "The Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is thesacrifice of the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant.( Pope John Paul IIon the mystery and worship of the Eucharist no.9)


Vatican II declares, "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in thedivine sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass], 'the work of our redemption is accomplished... (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, par. 2).


The Bible says the very opposite


The Eucharist is either the symbol of the sacrificial event or the event itself .Scripture tells us which is true.


Whose blood cleanses us? Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified byHis blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him."


When did this occur?


Answer: Rom. 3:25, "Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood,through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passedover the sins that were previously committed, "The bible says it is a past event.


Where did this happen? Col. 1:14, "In whom we have redemption throughHis blood, the forgiveness of sins. :20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself,by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through theblood of His cross." The bible says it took place at the cross when hedied not today.


In Whom did this happen? Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemptionthrough His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of Hisgrace." The bible says its in the person of Christ when he was a human on earth nottoday.


According to the Church, each Mass... reminds us that there is no salvation except inthe cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and that God Himself wishes that there should be acontinuation of this sacrifice....(Mediator Dei 2nd Vatican councilInstruction on the manner of distributing the Holy communion no.55)


The Bible says He sat down on the right hand of God, never to repeat thesacrifice again. For to do so he would have to come back to earth, which is exactly whatthe Catholics priest are saying, they call him down from heaven onto their altar eachtime.


The blood on the cross is what cleanses not the mass. One is from God the other is fromman! No where did he say it continues as a sacrifice he only said to do this toremember the sacrifice that occurred. In the OT the looked forward to it today we lookbackward at it.


The book of Hebrew which compares Christ to the O.T. sacrifices says these emphaticalstatements


Hebrews.1:3 "When he (Christ) had by himself purged our sins."


9:12 "By his own blood entered in once into the Holy Place."


9:22 "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."


10:10 "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus oncefor all."


7:27 "Who does not need daily, as those high Priests (O.T.), to offer upsacrifices, for he did once for all."


9:25 "Not that he should offer himself often’ Vs.26 "hewould then have to suffer often"… "he has appeared to put away sin bythe sacrifice of himself."


V. 28 "And so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many." Thisis a single event for all eternity. Is this the event that took your sins away or does thepriest in the mass do this? Why does the mass try to repeat and duplicate it. It is allfrom the real live person of Christ almost 2,000 years ago. Salvation is in a person notbread or drink.


Is Christ’s payment at the cross sufficient ornot ?


JESUS cried "it is finished!"

The Catholic Church says, it is continued!
John 6:22-71
 
The Eucharist is at the center of Christianity.

People who reject it reject Christ's biggest gift he gave us.

The eucharist is a god made man made matzo made by human hands that believers eat for spiritual life even though it cannot see hear speak or walk has no spiritual life to give and is not God or the body of Christ,(his words). The eucharist is an abomination that causes desolation.

Remember? I have not come to bring peace but a sword?

Take from my hand this fiery cup of wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them." Jeremiah 25:15

Jesus gifted whoever "us" is with a curse, however many of you are there. You may not realize this but to Jesus, his disciples, followers, and unknown authors of the Gospels who witness the destruction of Judea, the temple, their way of life, and the slaughter, enslavement, and exile, of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men women and children "the nations" were the enemy. DUH

The gospels are the 1st century equivalent of the nuclear option. Still works like a charm! Eat that

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations." Revelation 19:15

"Just art thou, in these thy judgments, thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink." Rev. 16:5

:wine:
 
Last edited:
It is allfrom the real live person of Christ almost 2,000 years ago. Salvation is in a person notbread or drink.

For he who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself
 
Last edited:
When did this view actually begin in history because It is not mentioned in theScripture nor Apostles' Creed from the 2nd century A.D. or the Nicene Creed 325A.D, There had been individual opinions from this period which supported various views,but none were the teaching of the church at the time.

Heres what Tertullian, an ante Nicaean father, wrote on the subject....

“Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith,” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37).
 
"The eucharist is an abomination that causes desolation" is one of the more stupid statements of the day.

Hobelim would have fit in with the Masters and Doctors at the University of Paris in the 1270s. The 13 condemnations were enacted to restrict certain teachings as being heretical, when, in fact, many of them made great sense.

Hobelim, please stop trying to make cannibalistic mythology as part of religious theory and behavior.
 
Hobelim, please stop trying to make cannibalistic mythology as part of religious theory and behavior.
Read what tertullian wrote around the year 200. #9 This is what Christians believed a century before Rome assimilated and perverted Christianity into the image and likeness of Mithraism. The words of Jesus, teaching that Jesus received from God like manna from heaven are not edible, not a memorial, not a celebration of a his death, not God or the Body of Christ. Smarten up!

Mithraism was the secret mystery religion of the roman government and military that originated in Babylon. A "Mystery religion" that is the mother of every abomination on earth. see Rev 17

* Mithra was born on December 25th. Called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun", it was incorporated into the church in the 4th century AD as the birthday of Christ. Although Jesus was born in October, christians today celebrate Mithra' birthday, believing it was Jesus' birthday.

* Mithra' birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi (wise men) who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock

* He was considered a great travelling teacher and master.

* He had 12 companions or disciples, which in Mithraism were represented by the 12 astrological signs.

* He performed miracles.

* He was buried in a tomb.

* After three days he rose again, but with no witnesses to the event

* His triumph over death and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the Mithran's most important festival, Easter, held at the spring equinox when the sun rises toward its apogee

* Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."

* He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."

* In the cult's rituals, Mithra was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.

* His sacred day was Sunday, and was called "the Lord's Day" hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

* Mithraism had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper" in which bread was eaten as a symbol of Mithra' body, and wine was drunk as a symbol of the blood shed when Mithra overpowered and killed the bull

* Mithra performed many miracles, including raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils.

* Mithra was said to carry keys to the kingdom of heaven.

* Mithra was called the god of light and truth, the god of mediation between god and man. He was to his worshippers The creator of life; The Mediator between man and the higher gods; The God of light; The All-seeing one; The Guardian of oaths (covenants); The Protector of the righteous in this world and also in the next.

* A trinity godhead comprised of Mithra (divine god of truth), Rashnu (divine god of justice, judgement and righteousness), Vohu Manah (divine spirit of enlightenment). These three persons were separate yet they were one.

Before returning to heaven, Mithra was said to have celebrated a Last Supper with followers, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. IN MEMORY OF THIS, his worshippers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with the Mithran cross of light. This was one of the seven Mithraic sacraments, believed to be the models for the Christians' seven sacraments, which follow them identically. It was called mizd, latin missa, in other words, in English, mass. Mithra' image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that represented his mother's womb. He was withdrawn from it and said to live again.

Mithraism was an ascetic, anti-female religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only.
 
Last edited:
You can tie Holy Eucharist to the mythology of blood and flesh sacrifice all you want, and what you are demonstrating is that such practices transcend Christianity, are not unique, and certainly not holy.
 
You can tie Holy Eucharist to the mythology of blood and flesh sacrifice all you want, and what you are demonstrating is that such practices transcend Christianity, are not unique, and certainly not holy.

What I have demonstrated is that religion has become the habitation of every sort of foul and loathsome beast and bird and all of you zombie believers out there have been duped by lies.

Is that really too hard to believe? Even after being shown the evidence? Even after living in hell?

The truth is Rome perverted the teaching of Jesus and buried it under a mountain of blasphemy.

This is my flesh. Eat it or stay dead.


 
Last edited:
What I have demonstrated is that religion has become the habitation of every sort of foul and loathsome beast and bird and all of you zombie believers out there have been duped by lies.

Is that really too hard to believe? Even after being shown the evidence? Even after living in hell?

The truth is Rome perverted the teaching of Jesus and buried it under a mountain of blasphemy.

This is my flesh. Eat it or stay dead.



Karl Marx believed the exact same thing.
 
IS IT A MASS OR ?


The consecrated bread and wine are heavenly food which help one to attain to eternallife. ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 1392, 1405, 1419. )


The evangelical church believes it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, Catholicsbelieve the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist ismanifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given foryou" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in myblood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the VERY body which he gave up for us on thecross, the VERY blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness ofsins."


The New Catholic Catechism of 1992 said, “The sacrifice of Christand the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice ... In this divinesacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himselfonce in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in anunbloody manner.” (Can it be unbloody and bloody at the same time?)


The priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements ofbread and wine into the body and blood of Christ ... the more often the sacrifice[of the Mass] is offered the more benefit is conferred" (John A. Hardon, S.J., PocketCatholic Dictionary (1985), pp. 248-249).


Catholics claim the mass is not a re-sacrifice of the event of Christ's death, let thereown literature speak..."Hence the Mass...[is] a sacrifice in which thesacrifice of the cross is perpetuated...in the sacrifice of the Mass ourLord is immolated...the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and the summit of...theChristian life....In the sacrifice of the Mass in fact, Christ offers himself forthe salvation of the entire world" (Vatican II,Eucharisticum Mysterium, 3.,18).


To Catholics it is a current event, not something that just occurred almost 2,000years ago.


When did this view actually begin in history because It is not mentioned in theScripture nor Apostles' Creed from the 2nd century A.D. or the Nicene Creed 325A.D, There had been individual opinions from this period which supported various views,but none were the teaching of the church at the time.


We can trace this from the ninth to the twelfth century. Like other Catholic doctrinesthe belief that the nature of the host changed at the priests consecration did not becomean official doctrine of the Catholic Church until much later .It was made dogma officialdogma by Pope Pius III at the Lateran Council of 1215. This began the CatholicChurch’s new sanction of the "theory of transubstantiation." The Vaticancontinued to develop this teaching through the16th century. At that time, the Council ofTrent used it to counter the challenges from the Reformation. The creed of PopePius IV, which authoritatively summarized the teaching of the Council of Trent,stated: “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true,proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in themost holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially,the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord JesusChrist.” Trent further defined thetheory and then placed a solemn curse upon anyone who denied it .(Session XIII, can. 2, D.B., 884). By doing so they challenged God,denying his word in Rom.4-5 and in Galatians which teaches the very opposite.

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary forsalvation…that without them…man obtain from God through faith alone the grace ofjustification…let him be anathema" (Council ofTrent,7.general,4)


"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thatnothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification lethim be anathema." (Council of Trent)


The Council of Trent summarized the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christour Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species ofbread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council nowdeclares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a changeof the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord andof the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holyCatholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." Thisinterpretation held by the Catholic Church is found where Jesus spoke the words:"Take, eat; this is My body… this is My blood," he turned the bread theywere eating into his body and the wine into his blood at the Passover. The official namefor this is transubstantiation. It means that the substance is changed. Although theoutward appearance remains of the bread and wine look the same to the eye, no one can seethat underneath they have been changed. This is done today by the priest who can thensacrifice Christ afresh on the altar. Christ becomes the actual sacrifice but an"unbloody sacrifice". The wafer is the "host" which means hebecomes the victim. Christ is actually "immolated" or offered as the victim overand over, each week, each year throughout the world on all the Catholic altars. Thiscurrent offering of the host makes satisfaction for the sins of both the living and thedead. Those receiving Holy Communion eat the actual body of Christ. Participation isessential for a Catholics spiritual life, it is essential for salvation. This is theSacrifice of the Mass or the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.


However this is not what the Bible teaches.


The word "mass" is never used in Scripture, it is an invention oftheir church for an unbiblical practice. The communion is referred to byusing the word "Koinonia".


1 Cor. 10:16 Communion-- a memorial: a visible way of illustrating His death.


The mass is a misunderstanding of what the Lord meant when He said " Take eat,this is My body and drink, this is My blood shed for the remission of sins." Takingmeanings out of their Jewish concept and culture and giving Gentile meanings(Aristotelian) destroys the message he conveyed. Jesus took the Passover and showed thathe was the fulfillment of this feast ,as he is for all of them. If he was giving his bodyat the last supper for our sins then he didn't have to go to the cross, it already wasaccomplished.


Questions that Need Answering ??????​


"Take eat for this is my body." For 1500 years prior to Jesus statement theJewish people partook of this feast day ritual of Passover. It was in remembrance of theirExodus from Egypt. Jesus stated that He was the fulfillment of this (the matzoh is thebread he held up, it is unleaven, striped, with holes and broken Isa.53). It couldn't beliteral or all of Israel would be partaking of his body before He ever had a humanbody which came by the virgin conception of Mary. It pointed toHis person as the sinless lamb and the work He would accomplish on the cross, what would happen to himself on the cross. Paul appliesHis death to the Passover in 1 Cor.5:6-8. If this passage was meant to be taken literally,then were the Jews eating of His body and blood before He was physically here, before Heeven became a man here on earth? It couldn't be literal because He did not die yet,no blood was spilled, and His body was not broken, the Passover was looking forward to the future, just as we partake of the bread and the cup looking back to the past. If this bread turned into his body atthe last supper then He gave himself for us before the cross. In fact if you think it through, there would be no need forJesus to go to the cross, we would only have to take communion (The Eucharist) since it the actual event.
Heb. 11:28 says of Moses, "By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood,"Faith that looked to the future for the substance which is Christ. It's about faith in the real thing not a ritual in manmade things.


If this was literal, which part of His body was eaten that night? Did Jesus bodyactually consist of bread and have wine flowing in his veins when he spoke take eat thisis my body. If not, then why should we think it does now. Since His physical body was likeours in a substantial limited amount, would it not be totally consumed already? Alsoremember Jesus also ate the bread and wine, was he eating himself? Did he need salvation?


Jesus holding the bread he distinguished between his body and the emblem inhis hand. Peter whom the Catholics hold to be the first pope said “who Himselfbore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24).


Why does the Eucharist have the body and the blood separate, while the real Christ hadthe blood in his body. When He shed His blood for our sins He arose again in the samebody, a body without blood but flesh and bone glorified. A new body was given, poweredby a different operation than the old humanity of blood. The blood was given andaccepted. The sacrifice was over, he said it is finished, not it will continue! How can hegive us blood today when he himself has none to give today (Luke 24:39). What kind of Jesus are they presenting in manmade objects?


When the Son of God became a man, he took upon himself human flesh. Is Holy Communionactually eating Christ's physical body. Why would God want us eating human flesh? Whywould he want us drinking human blood? When the drinking of blood is repeatedly forbiddenin the Scriptures, including the New Testament. It doesn’t matter if it was sinlessblood. The apostles were Jews who would not partake of eating anything but clean food. Fora Jew, you cannot find a food more unclean than blood, this is why they were shocked whenhe said this in Jn.6, they misunderstood him.


A careful look at Jesus' Teaching Style proves what is correct. The Jews often spoke infigurative language. Jesus, being a Jew, was no exception to this manner of teaching tobring across a point. John records in his gospel seven figurative statements that Jesusmade about himself. Each uses the same verb translated "is" in the words"This is My body." Jesus said in Jn.6, "I am the bread of life," Healso states in the same manner "I am the light of the world," "I am thedoor," "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the goodshepherd," "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," "I am the truevine." If we take the bread literally then all other illustrations should be taken inthe same manner.


There are many statements that Jesus used in a figurative sense for example destroythis temple in Jn.2:19 the Pharisee’s interpreted this as the literal temple he saidthey were wrong it is the temple of his body. When he said to the people to beware of the"leaven of the Pharisees," they thought he meant bread. when he spoke of eatinghis flesh and drinking his blood, they argued, murmured, and left baffled. He summed it uphis meaning by saying my words are spirit and they are life. This should not be confusedin thinking that everything Jesus said was figurative, only that he often employedfigurative language to teach and illustrate truth. Jesus' Jewish audience oftenmisunderstood his teaching. They lacked perception. They were unable to discern when hewas speaking figuratively or literally.


When he said he offered new life as living water, or I am the light ", I am theDoor", I am the vine" should we take these to be the actual literal meaning orsymbolic of another literal substance. When he said to the disciples you are the salt ofthe earth were they actually salt ? We need to look at the spiritual intent of thepassage.


1 Cor.11:28 Paul says, "Let each man eat of the bread and drink of thecup..." Paul clearly is stating that there is no change of the former substance toChrist, this is really bread and a cup.


In 1 Cor.11:25 Paul states this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Obviously this cupwas not the actual covenant itself but a representation of it. He didn't say the newcovenant is the cup! "for as often as you eat this bread drink the cup, you proclaimthe Lord’s death until he comes." Do we drink the cup or what is inside it?Notice it says bread not a body. "For as often as you eat this bread and drinkthe cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Did he come back as awafer and wine? Then we can't take the bread or the cup? This is what we are presented bythe Roman view. If so we should stop taking the bread.


Physically speaking, one can only be in 1 place at 1 time. Lk.22:17- 20 Jesus says todivide the cup among them He states "I will not drink of the fruit of the vineuntil the kingdom of God comes." Jesus is stating that what they drank was winenot blood, which was forbidden. This is not like the wedding feast where he changed waterto wine so he changed wine to blood.


Pope John Paul II wrote: "The Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is thesacrifice of the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant.( Pope John Paul IIon the mystery and worship of the Eucharist no.9)


Vatican II declares, "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in thedivine sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass], 'the work of our redemption is accomplished... (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, par. 2).


The Bible says the very opposite


The Eucharist is either the symbol of the sacrificial event or the event itself .Scripture tells us which is true.


Whose blood cleanses us? Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified byHis blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him."


When did this occur?


Answer: Rom. 3:25, "Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood,through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passedover the sins that were previously committed, "The bible says it is a past event.


Where did this happen? Col. 1:14, "In whom we have redemption throughHis blood, the forgiveness of sins. :20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself,by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through theblood of His cross." The bible says it took place at the cross when hedied not today.


In Whom did this happen? Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemptionthrough His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of Hisgrace." The bible says its in the person of Christ when he was a human on earth nottoday.


According to the Church, each Mass... reminds us that there is no salvation except inthe cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and that God Himself wishes that there should be acontinuation of this sacrifice....(Mediator Dei 2nd Vatican councilInstruction on the manner of distributing the Holy communion no.55)


The Bible says He sat down on the right hand of God, never to repeat thesacrifice again. For to do so he would have to come back to earth, which is exactly whatthe Catholics priest are saying, they call him down from heaven onto their altar eachtime.


The blood on the cross is what cleanses not the mass. One is from God the other is fromman! No where did he say it continues as a sacrifice he only said to do this toremember the sacrifice that occurred. In the OT the looked forward to it today we lookbackward at it.


The book of Hebrew which compares Christ to the O.T. sacrifices says these emphaticalstatements


Hebrews.1:3 "When he (Christ) had by himself purged our sins."


9:12 "By his own blood entered in once into the Holy Place."


9:22 "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."


10:10 "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus oncefor all."


7:27 "Who does not need daily, as those high Priests (O.T.), to offer upsacrifices, for he did once for all."


9:25 "Not that he should offer himself often’ Vs.26 "hewould then have to suffer often"… "he has appeared to put away sin bythe sacrifice of himself."


V. 28 "And so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many." Thisis a single event for all eternity. Is this the event that took your sins away or does thepriest in the mass do this? Why does the mass try to repeat and duplicate it. It is allfrom the real live person of Christ almost 2,000 years ago. Salvation is in a person notbread or drink.


Is Christ’s payment at the cross sufficient ornot ?


JESUS cried "it is finished!"

The Catholic Church says, it is continued!
John 6:53
 
The Cultists showing us yet again how confused they are even
about the principles of their own Cult .

Jesus was an Essene Priest who preached love but like his cousin was also was a zealot -- which is how he upset other Jews and the Sanhedrin .Let alone the Romans .

More , "Mess and Oh Christ ", than "Mass and Eucharist ".
 
What I have demonstrated is that religion has become the habitation of every sort of foul and loathsome beast and bird and all of you zombie believers out there have been duped by lies.

Is that really too hard to believe? Even after being shown the evidence? Even after living in hell?

The truth is Rome perverted the teaching of Jesus and buried it under a mountain of blasphemy.

This is my flesh. Eat it or stay dead.
You have demonstrated the Mass is not the holy eucharist.
 
You are associated with the female popes, the Inquisitions, Catholic officials who supported Hitler, and thousands of other crimes.

You need to apply your logic to your religions that you put other faiths.
 

Forum List

Back
Top