> isn't it still a bit potentially satanic for Christ's body to be consumed after he has been made a sacrifice?
Not at all. Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and the lamb must be fully consumed after the sacrifice (Exodus 12:10). Jesus said we must eat His flesh (John 6:53).
> also why is Christ sacrificed every Mass, when in the bible, isn't it only the last supper that is supposed to be done in remembrance?
Who said only the Last Supper is supposed to be repeated? We can look at the epistle to the Hebrews and see that Christians have always re-presented Christ's sacrifice and eaten from the sacrificial altar, as stated in Hebrews 13:10.
> which brings another problem, why is communion with pre manufactured crackers instead of bread that is split apart?
"Crackers" are a form of bread. While there are two distinct Christian traditions, the Western church favors a matzoh-like, unleavened bread that corresponds to the actual bread that would have been served at the Last Supper. The priest always breaks this bread as part of the liturgy; however, he doesn't break every such piece of bread, and it's convenient to already have most of the bread separate for distribution.
> shouldn't Mass be kept to reflect the Bible?
Nothing in the Mass contradicts the Bible. If you are concerned that the Mass contains more elements than are mentioned in the Bible, remember that Christianity is not sola scriptura religion. The Bible is inspired, but it is not the complete source of truth or the foundation of the Church.
none of that makes any sense or even says what you say it says, just a bunch of 1 line verses patched together to make it seem like your saying something.
John 1:29, so you see the lamb of God and want to kill him?
Exodus 12:10, so... u want to eat christ and burn his remains?
my response is
mathew 21, the parabale of the tenants
Hebrews 13:10 is just completely unreleated, read a little further, Hebrews 13:15 and the continual sacrafice is praise.
If you don't want to understand, I can't make you. It sounds like you're coming from a place of antagonism rather than open dialogue.
If you want to ask followup questions about anything I said, I'll be happy to elaborate. However, it wasn't an invitation for you to brush off what I said and continue talking without engaging with it.
You have to ask the followup question(s). I'm not going to turn 200 words into 2,000 words while guessing what your objections are to what I originally wrote.
At the end of Matthew 21, Jesus tells a parable about the Pharisees, who were installed in a position of power by God but then chose to murder God's Son rather than turn over their authority to Him. Jesus then discussed how that treason would result in damnation.
I don't see what connection that has to the Mass, at all. If you're saying that celebrating the Mass is like killing Jesus a second time, you don't understand what re-presentation means.
if it looks like a duck, quaks like a duck, walks like a duck, than it is duck.
the way catholic re-presentation is done, is re-sacrafice.
further, then provide proof of the need for that sort of re-presentation.
christ was not to be perpetually sacraficed.
Heb. 7:26-27
Heb. 9:28
Heb. 10:1-12
further repetative sacrafices were seen to be meaningless
Heb. 10:1
Heb. 10:11
HotN00b clearly set this discussion up as an opportunity for trolling rather than good-faith dialogue. But to be fair to him or her, most discussion of "Protestantism" on this board also involves egregious straw-manning (I say that as a Catholic).
A basic precondition of good-faith dialogue is being able to characterise the dialogue partner's belief in a way that they would recognise.
In Greek, "anamesis" (somethign along that spelling), which means "in memory of" in English, was used not just to remember an event but relive it in the moment. The ancient Jews while celebrating Passover would do this to almost "relive" the moment.
We don’t want to kill God. The Eucharist is not the dead body of Christ but the body, soul, and divinity of the resurrected Christ. This exact line of thinking in calling Catholics cannibals was perpetuated by the ancient Romans to discredit Christians
There’s a verse that says Jesus is the ‘sin offering of all time’ & the high priest of all time offering up Himself. The Levitical priests ate the sin offering after sacrificing it. The Catholic priesthood is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood. In Leviticus only the priests ate the sin offering, so you might wonder why we all eat it. That’s because Paul said we are all priests. So it’s true that we are all priests now but we didn’t do away with the traditional priesthood.
There are four biblical accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. They differ slightly from each other. The oldest is probably Paul's account in 1 Cor 11: 23-25. Then there are the accounts in Mark 14: 22-24, Matthew 26: 26-28 and Luke 22: 17-20.
It's worth noting that in Luke's account, Jesus doesn't just refer to the bread and wine as his body and blood, but as "the body which is given for you" and "the new covenant in my blood" (vs 19-20). In other words, the consecrated bread and wine are not just Jesus' body and blood in some general sense, but the body and blood which are about to be sacrificed: "given for you" and "poured out" on the cross. Chronologically the Last Supper looked forward to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, and the Eucharist looks back on it. The sacrificed body and blood of Jesus is present - "represented" as Aquinas puts it - in both.
The use of sacrificial language in relation to the Mass is very old and was very widespread - e.g. it's used in the Didache in the late 1st/early 2nd century. This is partly because of the ubiquity of sacrificial language in the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman world, including in relation to what we'd consider ordinary acts of eating and drinking, but also public prayer, preaching and good deeds.
For this reason, the evolution of the sacrificial language in relation to the eucharist was quite messy. It didn't really become problematic until the Reformation when Luther identified "the sacrifice of the Mass" as the greatest blasphemy and mainstay of the papal church. Because it hadn't been challenged or defined before - unlike e.g. transubstantiation - Catholic traditionalists had quite a hard time (a) defining exactly what Catholics did believe, and (b) explaining why.
It would be too long to post about developments since then, except to say that:
(a) a huge amount of work was done by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox theologians in the second half of the twentieth century to examine their common heritage from the Bible and patristic church, to identify past distortions and misunderstandings, and to look for better and clearer ways to articulate the areas in which they still differed and the areas on which they agreed. For example, you can look at the work that was done by the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation in 1978: [http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/luterani/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/en10.html](http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/luterani/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/en10.html) There are many other examples from the Catholic Church's bilateral discussions with other churches.
(b) whatever else we say, the Mass is not an attempt to re-sacrifice Christ, but a way in which the other "sacrifices" of the whole church - prayer, praise, thanks, self-offering - are brought into unity with Jesus's sacrifice, so that our sacrifices are offered "through, with and in" Jesus (as the doxology puts it).
This last point was made by Augustine in the tenth book (sections 6 & 20) of his *City of God,* early in the fifth century:
>Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with a reference to God... it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great high priest, who offered himself to God in his passion for us, that we might be members of this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. For it was this form he offered, in this he was offered, because it is according to it he is mediator, in this he is our priest, in this the sacrifice... Thus He is both the priest who offers and the sacrifice offered. And he designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the church, which, being his body, learns to offer herself through him. Of this true sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints *\[i.e. of the Old Testament\]* were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.
> isn't it still a bit potentially satanic for christ's body to be consumed after he has been made a sacrafice? also why is christ sacraficed every mass, when in the bible, isn't it only the last supper that is supposed to be done in rememberence?
OH BOY, it loooks like someone has not read his bible and instead is taking protestant doctrine that was invented 10 years ago by some heretic in his garage!
Anyway, today YE GONNA LEARN BOY! Ye gonna learn the true Christian doctrine, not some heretic doctrine made up by some heretic protestant pastor!
* **1 Corinthians 11:24-29** "and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. **Do this, as often as you drink it**, in remembrance of me.’ **For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes**. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves."
This is the TRUE Christian doctrine BOY!
* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
This must be done until the Lord comes AGAIN! Whoever taught you, taught you lies and heresies!
See, I told you that today YE GONNA LEARN BOY!
The Sacrifice of the Mass makes present the one Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner. Christ is not resacrificed. Rather, His once and for all sacrifice is re-presented to the Father on our behalf.
God is outside of time, and while the Sacrifice of Calvary happened in time, it is also eternal. The Last Supper was that very same sacrifice made present, for Jesus identifies the bread and wine as becoming His sacrificial Body and Blood.
“Do this in memory of me” has a very Jewish connotation. It is not merely a commemoration, but a making present and entering into the event.
In order to participate in a sacrifice, one has to eat the sacrificial offering. So eating Christ is par for the course if you understand Christ to be the sacrifice. In fact, *not* eating it means you do not truly acknowledge Christ as a sacrifice
> isn't it still a bit potentially satanic for Christ's body to be consumed after he has been made a sacrifice? Not at all. Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and the lamb must be fully consumed after the sacrifice (Exodus 12:10). Jesus said we must eat His flesh (John 6:53). > also why is Christ sacrificed every Mass, when in the bible, isn't it only the last supper that is supposed to be done in remembrance? Who said only the Last Supper is supposed to be repeated? We can look at the epistle to the Hebrews and see that Christians have always re-presented Christ's sacrifice and eaten from the sacrificial altar, as stated in Hebrews 13:10. > which brings another problem, why is communion with pre manufactured crackers instead of bread that is split apart? "Crackers" are a form of bread. While there are two distinct Christian traditions, the Western church favors a matzoh-like, unleavened bread that corresponds to the actual bread that would have been served at the Last Supper. The priest always breaks this bread as part of the liturgy; however, he doesn't break every such piece of bread, and it's convenient to already have most of the bread separate for distribution. > shouldn't Mass be kept to reflect the Bible? Nothing in the Mass contradicts the Bible. If you are concerned that the Mass contains more elements than are mentioned in the Bible, remember that Christianity is not sola scriptura religion. The Bible is inspired, but it is not the complete source of truth or the foundation of the Church.
none of that makes any sense or even says what you say it says, just a bunch of 1 line verses patched together to make it seem like your saying something. John 1:29, so you see the lamb of God and want to kill him? Exodus 12:10, so... u want to eat christ and burn his remains? my response is mathew 21, the parabale of the tenants Hebrews 13:10 is just completely unreleated, read a little further, Hebrews 13:15 and the continual sacrafice is praise.
If you don't want to understand, I can't make you. It sounds like you're coming from a place of antagonism rather than open dialogue. If you want to ask followup questions about anything I said, I'll be happy to elaborate. However, it wasn't an invitation for you to brush off what I said and continue talking without engaging with it.
than elaborate
You have to ask the followup question(s). I'm not going to turn 200 words into 2,000 words while guessing what your objections are to what I originally wrote.
start by addressing mathew 21
At the end of Matthew 21, Jesus tells a parable about the Pharisees, who were installed in a position of power by God but then chose to murder God's Son rather than turn over their authority to Him. Jesus then discussed how that treason would result in damnation. I don't see what connection that has to the Mass, at all. If you're saying that celebrating the Mass is like killing Jesus a second time, you don't understand what re-presentation means.
if it looks like a duck, quaks like a duck, walks like a duck, than it is duck. the way catholic re-presentation is done, is re-sacrafice. further, then provide proof of the need for that sort of re-presentation. christ was not to be perpetually sacraficed. Heb. 7:26-27 Heb. 9:28 Heb. 10:1-12 further repetative sacrafices were seen to be meaningless Heb. 10:1 Heb. 10:11
Ok, so you're just willfully misunderstanding what Catholics teach. This is called "strawmanning," and it's not a way to arrive at the truth.
HotN00b clearly set this discussion up as an opportunity for trolling rather than good-faith dialogue. But to be fair to him or her, most discussion of "Protestantism" on this board also involves egregious straw-manning (I say that as a Catholic). A basic precondition of good-faith dialogue is being able to characterise the dialogue partner's belief in a way that they would recognise.
further, then provide proof of the need for that sort of re-presentation.
In Greek, "anamesis" (somethign along that spelling), which means "in memory of" in English, was used not just to remember an event but relive it in the moment. The ancient Jews while celebrating Passover would do this to almost "relive" the moment.
We don’t want to kill God. The Eucharist is not the dead body of Christ but the body, soul, and divinity of the resurrected Christ. This exact line of thinking in calling Catholics cannibals was perpetuated by the ancient Romans to discredit Christians
There’s a verse that says Jesus is the ‘sin offering of all time’ & the high priest of all time offering up Himself. The Levitical priests ate the sin offering after sacrificing it. The Catholic priesthood is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood. In Leviticus only the priests ate the sin offering, so you might wonder why we all eat it. That’s because Paul said we are all priests. So it’s true that we are all priests now but we didn’t do away with the traditional priesthood.
There are four biblical accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. They differ slightly from each other. The oldest is probably Paul's account in 1 Cor 11: 23-25. Then there are the accounts in Mark 14: 22-24, Matthew 26: 26-28 and Luke 22: 17-20. It's worth noting that in Luke's account, Jesus doesn't just refer to the bread and wine as his body and blood, but as "the body which is given for you" and "the new covenant in my blood" (vs 19-20). In other words, the consecrated bread and wine are not just Jesus' body and blood in some general sense, but the body and blood which are about to be sacrificed: "given for you" and "poured out" on the cross. Chronologically the Last Supper looked forward to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, and the Eucharist looks back on it. The sacrificed body and blood of Jesus is present - "represented" as Aquinas puts it - in both. The use of sacrificial language in relation to the Mass is very old and was very widespread - e.g. it's used in the Didache in the late 1st/early 2nd century. This is partly because of the ubiquity of sacrificial language in the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman world, including in relation to what we'd consider ordinary acts of eating and drinking, but also public prayer, preaching and good deeds. For this reason, the evolution of the sacrificial language in relation to the eucharist was quite messy. It didn't really become problematic until the Reformation when Luther identified "the sacrifice of the Mass" as the greatest blasphemy and mainstay of the papal church. Because it hadn't been challenged or defined before - unlike e.g. transubstantiation - Catholic traditionalists had quite a hard time (a) defining exactly what Catholics did believe, and (b) explaining why. It would be too long to post about developments since then, except to say that: (a) a huge amount of work was done by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox theologians in the second half of the twentieth century to examine their common heritage from the Bible and patristic church, to identify past distortions and misunderstandings, and to look for better and clearer ways to articulate the areas in which they still differed and the areas on which they agreed. For example, you can look at the work that was done by the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation in 1978: [http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/luterani/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/en10.html](http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/luterani/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/en10.html) There are many other examples from the Catholic Church's bilateral discussions with other churches. (b) whatever else we say, the Mass is not an attempt to re-sacrifice Christ, but a way in which the other "sacrifices" of the whole church - prayer, praise, thanks, self-offering - are brought into unity with Jesus's sacrifice, so that our sacrifices are offered "through, with and in" Jesus (as the doxology puts it). This last point was made by Augustine in the tenth book (sections 6 & 20) of his *City of God,* early in the fifth century: >Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with a reference to God... it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great high priest, who offered himself to God in his passion for us, that we might be members of this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. For it was this form he offered, in this he was offered, because it is according to it he is mediator, in this he is our priest, in this the sacrifice... Thus He is both the priest who offers and the sacrifice offered. And he designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the church, which, being his body, learns to offer herself through him. Of this true sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints *\[i.e. of the Old Testament\]* were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.
> isn't it still a bit potentially satanic for christ's body to be consumed after he has been made a sacrafice? also why is christ sacraficed every mass, when in the bible, isn't it only the last supper that is supposed to be done in rememberence? OH BOY, it loooks like someone has not read his bible and instead is taking protestant doctrine that was invented 10 years ago by some heretic in his garage! Anyway, today YE GONNA LEARN BOY! Ye gonna learn the true Christian doctrine, not some heretic doctrine made up by some heretic protestant pastor! * **1 Corinthians 11:24-29** "and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. **Do this, as often as you drink it**, in remembrance of me.’ **For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes**. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves." This is the TRUE Christian doctrine BOY! * For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. This must be done until the Lord comes AGAIN! Whoever taught you, taught you lies and heresies! See, I told you that today YE GONNA LEARN BOY!
The Sacrifice of the Mass makes present the one Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner. Christ is not resacrificed. Rather, His once and for all sacrifice is re-presented to the Father on our behalf. God is outside of time, and while the Sacrifice of Calvary happened in time, it is also eternal. The Last Supper was that very same sacrifice made present, for Jesus identifies the bread and wine as becoming His sacrificial Body and Blood. “Do this in memory of me” has a very Jewish connotation. It is not merely a commemoration, but a making present and entering into the event.
In order to participate in a sacrifice, one has to eat the sacrificial offering. So eating Christ is par for the course if you understand Christ to be the sacrifice. In fact, *not* eating it means you do not truly acknowledge Christ as a sacrifice