Scripture in the Catholic mass

The Burning Bush ^ | 01/01/33 | JC

[Cronos]

 

Scripture in the order of the mass

 

Nearly everything we say at mass has its roots in Sacred Scripture. This guide will help you if anyone you know is in doubt about that. Catholics quote scripture all the time, and their actions are deeply scriptural. After all, scripture flowed out of the early Church. The Church came first, the New Testament and the canon of scripture second.

 

Greeting

Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)
People: And also with you.

 

Liturgy of the Word

 

Penitential Rite

All: I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. (Jas. 5:16) In my thoughts and in my words, (Rom. 12:16) In what I have done and what I have failed to do; (Jas 3:6) and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the angel and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. (1 Thess 5:25)
Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4) Christ have mercy. (1 Tim 1:2) Lord have mercy.

 

Gloria

All: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. (Luke 2:14)
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Rev 19:6)
we worship you, (Rev. 22:9) we give you thanks, (Eph. 5:20)
we praise you for your glory. (Rev 7:12)
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, (2 John 3)
Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us; (John 1:29)
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. (Rom 8:34)
For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)
You alone are Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:32)
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. (John 14:26)

 

[The Liturgy of the Word consists of four readings from Scripture: the first is typically from the Old Testament, the second a psalm, followed by a reading from one of the epistles. Finally, the Gospel is proclaimed during which the people stand out of respect for the Word. The chosen readings change daily.]

A Sermon on the readings follows.

 

(2 Tim 4:1-2)

Profession of Faith

All: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19) of all that is seen and unseen. (Col 1:16) We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, (Luke 1:35) eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. (Heb 1:3) Through him all things were made. (John 1:2-3) For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 3:13) by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18) and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:16) he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4) He ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51) and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1) He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (2 Tim 4:1) and his kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33) We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, (Acts 2:17) who proceeds from the Father and the Son. (John 14:16) With the Father and Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11) We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5) We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38) We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen

 

Liturgy of the Eucharist

[The gifts are brought to the altar. These include the bread and wine and the offering collected from the people.] (Malachi 3:10)

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)
People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)
People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)
Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Heb. 12:28)
People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his Church. (Ps 50:23)

 

Eucharistic Prayers

Priest: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord. (Lam 3:41)
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord Our God. (Col 3:17)
People: It is right to give him thanks and praise. (Col 1:3)

Preface Acclamation

All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Is 6:3) Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)

 

Eucharistic prayer

[There are four of these, based on ancient prayers of the Church. Eucharistic Prayer Two follows as an example:]

Priest: Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. (2 Macc. 14:36) Let your spirit come upon these gifts (water and wine) to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, (Phil 2:8) a death he freely accepted, (John 10:17-18) he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: 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 forgiven. Do this is memory of me. (Mark 14:22-25) Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.

All: Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus, come in glory. (Heb 2:14-15)

Priest: In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. (John 6:51) We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor.10:17) Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love together with our Pope and our bishop, and all the clergy. Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again: bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. (2 Macc 12:45-46) Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory though your Son, Jesus Christ. (2 Thes 1:4-5) Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.

 

All: Amen. (Rom 11:36)

Communion Rite

The Lord's Prayer:

All: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Matt 6:9-13)
Priest: Deliver us, Lord, from every evil and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our savior, Jesus Christ. (John 17:15)
All: For the kingdom the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen

Priest: Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles; I leave you peace, my peace I give to you. (John 14:27) Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live forever and ever.
Priest: The peace of the Lord be with you always! (John 20:19)
People: And also with you!

[The priest then directs the people to exchange a sign, such as a handshake or a kiss, or a word of God's peace to one another.]

 

Breaking of the Bread

All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace. (John 1:29)

Communion

Priest: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper. (Rev. 19:9)
People: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. (Matt 8:8)
[Communion is distributed to the faithful at the altar by the priest and lay ministers.] Dismissal Priest: Blessed be the name of the Lord. Now and forever. (Dan 2:20) May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:51) Go in peace (Luke 7:50) to love and serve the Lord. (2 Chr 35:3)

[During the blessing the people make the Sign of the Cross, the traditional sign of the baptized and a public sign of their belief in the power of God.]

People: Thanks be to God. (2 Cor 9:15)

[Cronos]

For your point, read my posts above, these already address the point of manna (read the post about the 3 different types)

[daniel1212]

I cannot really get into this now, but an overview of the thread seems to be about support from early church “fathers” well as the usual texts. Concerning the former, below are some evangelical responses:
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/response-to-joe-heschmeyer.html

As for the latter, i have an (older) response here. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord’s_Supper.html

[Quix]

THX THX

[Cronos]

Actually the thread itself is not about "support from Church fathers" -- if you read the thread itself it says

Nearly everything we say at mass has its roots in Sacred Scripture. This guide will help you if anyone you know is in doubt about that. Catholics quote scripture all the time, and their actions are deeply scriptural. After all, scripture flowed out of the early Church. The Church came first, the New Testament and the canon of scripture second.

 

Greeting

Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)
People: And also with you.

 

Liturgy of the Word

 

Penitential Rite

All: I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. (Jas. 5:16) In my thoughts and in my words, (Rom. 12:16) In what I have done and what I have failed to do; (Jas 3:6) and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the angel and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. (1 Thess 5:25)
Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4) Christ have mercy. (1 Tim 1:2) Lord have mercy.

 

Gloria

All: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. (Luke 2:14)
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Rev 19:6)
we worship you, (Rev. 22:9) we give you thanks, (Eph. 5:20)
we praise you for your glory. (Rev 7:12)
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, (2 John 3)
Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us; (John 1:29)
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. (Rom 8:34)
For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)
You alone are Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:32)
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. (John 14:26)

 

[The Liturgy of the Word consists of four readings from Scripture: the first is typically from the Old Testament, the second a psalm, followed by a reading from one of the epistles. Finally, the Gospel is proclaimed during which the people stand out of respect for the Word. The chosen readings change daily.]

A Sermon on the readings follows.

 

(2 Tim 4:1-2)

Profession of Faith

All: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19) of all that is seen and unseen. (Col 1:16) We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, (Luke 1:35) eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. (Heb 1:3) Through him all things were made. (John 1:2-3) For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 3:13) by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18) and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:16) he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4) He ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51) and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1) He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (2 Tim 4:1) and his kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33) We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, (Acts 2:17) who proceeds from the Father and the Son. (John 14:16) With the Father and Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11) We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5) We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38) We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen

 

Liturgy of the Eucharist

[The gifts are brought to the altar. These include the bread and wine and the offering collected from the people.] (Malachi 3:10)

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)
People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)
People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)
Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Heb. 12:28)
People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his Church. (Ps 50:23)

 

Eucharistic Prayers

Priest: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord. (Lam 3:41)
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord Our God. (Col 3:17)
People: It is right to give him thanks and praise. (Col 1:3)

Preface Acclamation

All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Is 6:3) Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)

The point at which PNSM pinged you is RnMomof getting fooled by some website/pastor/person false misquotes and twisted meanings of Clement of Alexandria (as explained in post 205 above, here is the link where you can read the entire The Paedagogus (The Instructor) written by Clement.

As you will see once you have read the entire thing, Clement not only supports every aspect of the Catholic liturgy (as this thread points out, the liturgy cites nearly every word from scripture), but strongly defends the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

What she misquoted was Clement's "the instructor" -- taken out of context (standard sola scriptura) and misinterpreted, where the actual text says

But if human wisdom, as it remains to understand, is the glorying in knowledge, hear the law of Scripture: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might; but let him that glories glory in the Lord. But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for you are not yet able, regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.

You can see CLEARLY that Clement is instructing on the role of bishops and priests "Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat"

This completely ignores that Clement of Alexandria IN THE SAME DOCUMENT (The instructor) SAYS

"'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children"

(Paidagogos 1:6;43;3 [A.D. 202]).

Remember this the next time anyone falsely says St. Clement did not support the Eucharist -- they are quoting him out of context and they haven't even read the text in it's entirety.

Rnmomof7 -- have you read the text or is this just passing along an excerpt given by some false website/pastor/person/instruction book by the PCA/OPC/SDA etc. You can read Clements entire "The instructor" here

Do read it before making wrong quotations -- this is the second thread I've seen this error repeated by you, but hopefully now you've learnt that this is a wrong quotation and Clement really believed Jesus delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children"

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Remember this the next time anyone falsely says St. Clement did not support the Eucharist -- they are quoting him out of context and they haven't even read the text in it's entirety.

Which then leads to the question of, "Did Clement mean the same thing that Catholics - today - mean?" The answer is almostly assuredly "No." Clement utilised a lot of metaphorical and symbolic language (indeed, he was pretty much the originator of that hermeneutical technique), so trying to read in the woodenly literal theology of medieval Catholics into his words is spurious, at best.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[metmom]

Which then leads to the question of, "Did Clement mean the same thing that Catholics - today - mean?" The answer is almostly assuredly "No." Clement utilised a lot of metaphorical and symbolic language (indeed, he was pretty much the originator of that hermeneutical technique), so trying to read in the woodenly literal theology of medieval Catholics into his words is spurious, at best.

Which is irrelevant to Catholics. They take the interpretation of Scripture as literal or figurative or metaphorical, on a verse by verse basis.

So when Jesus says He is the true vine, and He is the door, He is the true bread, it's only metaphor. He doesn't REALLY mean that He's made out of wood, leaves, or dough.

When He calls the cup the *fruit of the vine* during the Last Supper meal where they claim He instituted transubstantiation, it's only metaphor, even though when he calls it His blood the sentence before THAT is literal.

When He says that the the flesh profits nothing and the words He spoke about eating his flesh were SPIRIT and life, well, that's irrelevant.

But by gosh, when He says of the cup *this is my blood*, it's rock solid literal, you'd better believe it or your eternal destiny is at stake.

Catholics let their doctrine determine their interpretation of Scripture instead of Scripture determining their doctrine. Instead of consistency in interpreting passages, they do it on a verse by verse basis.

As far as the Scriptural content of the words spoken in mass, well, that's very nice I'm sure, but hardly means that it is Scriptural in nature. I don't see that that exposure to Scripture ever did any good to the Catholics I knew and grew up with.

I worked with *good* Catholics who stole from the company and other employees constantly and one who tried to run someone down with his car. The one guy did all his KofC stuff on the job and ALWAYS came in late and left early. If the company got half the hours of work out of him that he was being paid for, they were doing well. And he was one of the nastiest ones there.

Besides, since the mass is a liturgy, even if most of it is from the Bible, it's ALWAYS the same. You can recite it without thinking, you've heard it so much over the years. It becomes meaningless at that point.

Plus it's always limited to the SAME thing ever week. Aside from the readings out of the Gospels and Epistles, which you do recognize after enough years because it's generally the same ones, there is nothing ever different introduced and expounded on.

[surroundedbyblue]

“Which is irrelevant to Catholics. They take the interpretation of Scripture as literal or figurative or metaphorical, on a verse by verse basis.

So when Jesus says He is the true vine, and He is the door, He is the true bread, it’s only metaphor. He doesn’t REALLY mean that He’s made out of wood, leaves, or dough.

When He calls the cup the *fruit of the vine* during the Last Supper meal where they claim He instituted transubstantiation, it’s only metaphor, even though when he calls it His blood the sentence before THAT is literal.

When He says that the the flesh profits nothing and the words He spoke about eating his flesh were SPIRIT and life, well, that’s irrelevant.

But by gosh, when He says of the cup *this is my blood*, it’s rock solid literal, you’d better believe it or your eternal destiny is at stake.

Catholics let their doctrine determine their interpretation of Scripture instead of Scripture determining their doctrine. Instead of consistency in interpreting passages, they do it on a verse by verse basis.”

This entire rambling makes no sense.

“worked with *good* Catholics who stole from the company and other employees constantly and one who tried to run someone down with his car. The one guy did all his KofC stuff on the job and ALWAYS came in late and left early. If the company got half the hours of work out of him that he was being paid for, they were doing well. And he was one of the nastiest ones there”

I would point out that those you listed above are not “good” Catholics. Furthermore, what does the actions of a sinner have to do with the doctrines of the Church? What a baseless, flimsy argument.

[Judith Anne]

LOL! Yeah, every other religion is perfect, we’re just the awful ones. ;-D They think they can prove it, too.

It’s the old, “Heads I win, tails you lose” argument. Over and over and over again. When we remind them that we do not play by their made up rules, then they REALLY get ugly.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Which is irrelevant to Catholics. They take the interpretation of Scripture as literal or figurative or metaphorical, on a verse by verse basis.

They do that with pretty much everything. Catholicism's hermeneutic is this: "Start from Holy Tradition, make everything fit it, one way or another."

Not a very intelligent hermeneutical technique.

We can see that even in Cronos' own treatment of Clement of Alexandria. See, if we really wanted to take Clement's statements "in context," then we would integrate everything Clement had to say on a subject - in this case transubstantiation - and arrive at a synthesis that takes his words and meanings into account.

Hence, we would understand that even though Clement, on the surface, appears to make a couple of statements that seem like he is supporting the "eat my flesh literally like you were a cannibal in the Congo" interpretation, nevertheless, Clement clearly elsewhere refutes this as a plausible interpretation. I mean, c'mon people, he comes right out and SAYS that the body and blood are symbols, and applies a HEAVILY metaphorical spin to his discussion of these. We don't have to "guess" what Clement meant because he TELLS us what he meant. He TELLS us that John "brought this out by symbols." Hence, Clement was most emphatically NOT taking a Catholic view on this.

Nevertheless, by Cronos' hermeneutic, we just ignore all extenuating evidences, handwaving it away with the assumption that because someone isn't Catholic, they don't really *wink wink nod nod* understand what Clement was saying. Cronos' approach is basically backwards. He forces the conclusion to define the evidences, instead of the other way around.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

bump for later reading.

[wmfights]

TQC: Which then leads to the question of, "Did Clement mean the same thing that Catholics - today - mean?" The answer is almostly assuredly "No." Clement utilised a lot of metaphorical and symbolic language (indeed, he was pretty much the originator of that hermeneutical technique), so trying to read in the woodenly literal theology of medieval Catholics into his words is spurious, at best.

This really gets to the source of the hubris of the RCC. They claim something as true, which isn't, and then based on this claim say because of it they have the authority to determine all orthodoxy. The term "church fathers" leads to this false claim that all the early theologians and all the pre-Nicene Christians were subservient to and members of the RCC.

The term catholic had a very different meaning before the state church emerged. If empowerment of a group of clerics had not been the goal a heresy like transubstantiation would have been done away with long before it became doctrine in the 1200's.

[annalex]

We are saved by the sacrifice of Christ: by grace alone and by Christ alone. We are not saved by faith alone. Good works (nothing to do with works of the law; the good works are described in Matthew 5-7 and Matthew 25:34-36, and toward the ending chapters of most St Paul's letters), -- must co-operate with our faith and prefect it (James 2:22).

One can say that we are saved by perfected faith or by mature faith, but not simply by faith alone.

One wishing to argue otherwise, please join In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day) , find any of my recent posts and argue your head off.

[stfassisi]

TC-””Hence, Clement was most emphatically NOT taking a Catholic view on this.””

Speaking of symbolism does NOT deny a reality,TQ.

Blessed Clement taught the Eucharist is a reality and literally Christ

The following from Blessed Clement should clear this up for you....

‘The blood of the Lord is twofold. In one sense it is fleshly, that by which we have been redeemed from corruption; in another sense it is spiritual, that by which we have been anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of the Lord’s immortality; and the Spirit is the strength of the Word, as blood of flesh.

“’The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye My flesh,” He says, “and drink ye My blood.” This suitable food the Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood; and the little children lack nothing that their growth needs.’ [Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:42,43]” (vol 1, pg 37-38)

You really should take the time to read the completeness of the Church Fathers on The Sacraments because they were completely Catholic/Orthodox,not protestant at all

[metmom]

We are saved by the sacrifice of Christ: by grace alone and by Christ alone. We are not saved by faith alone. Good works (nothing to do with works of the law; the good works are described in Matthew 5-7 and Matthew 25:34-36, and toward the ending chapters of most St Paul's letters), -- must co-operate with our faith and prefect it (James 2:22).

Our works, which are as filthy rags in God's sight, being tainted with sin and impure motivations, cannot *perfect* anything.

Tell me. How do you know if you've done the *right* works? That they were enough? That you shouldn't have done more?

The Catholic church always leaves its adherents hanging with the alleged *hope* of eternal life. The Catholic God is judgmental and demanding. As a Catholic, one always lives in fear that he's not good enough to make it, that all the works done don't measure up.

And then you all have to keep on doing this that and the other thing, and if you sin, too bad for you. No heaven if you sin before your next confession. So Catholics are continual slaves to what the church has established as penance.

It's all based on works.

Galatians 3:1-3 1O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

You can claim all you want that you don't advocate salvation by works, but you do. You say so yourself and if you're depending on your works to save you, then you're not depending on Christ. He's just been demoted to a window dressing to give legitimacy for the religious system the Catholic church has set up which it claims saves people.

Christ came to set us free, not to enslave us to a laundry list of rules and regulations in the vain hope of appeasing divine wrath.

[Cronos]

Titus Clement utilised a lot of metaphorical and symbolic language (indeed, he was pretty much the originator of that hermeneutical technique),

So then as you point out, trying to read either your statement The answer is almostly assuredly "No. or RnMomof7's is spurious at best.

You just said that you can't use Clement's words to prove one side of the debate or the other, hence:

1. Rnmom trying to say Clement says one thing is incorrect
2. You trying to say he doesn't say one thing is equally incorrect.

Finally, We have scripture here that proves the Eucharist:

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

and For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

And Jesus Himself whose words are not: "This bread is my Body", but indefinitely: "This is my Body"

In all the languages of the world the expression "my body" designates a person's natural body, not the mere sign or symbol of that body. The case would be different if the reading were: "This is the bread of my Body, the wine of my Blood". And yet that is NOT what Christ said. Christ did not say "let us imagine this bread to symbolise my body" on the contrary He said "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" (John 6:52), Such language, of course, could be used only by a God-man; so that belief in the Real Presence necessarily presupposes belief in the true Divinity of Christ

Or go further back. In John 6:35 Jesus says 35 And Jesus said to them: "I am the bread of life. He that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes in me shall never thirst. and John 6:41 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."

The whole structure of these statements made by Christ and the reaction of the Jews to this demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood".

For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49,, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion.

This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein)The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56).

This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?

[Cronos]

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

If you say Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing."

This is not the language of metaphor.

[Cronos]

Your rambling hysterical post is funny

I worked with *good* PCA and OPC group members who stole from the company and other employees constantly and one who tried to run someone down with his car. The one guy did all his PCA/OPC stuff on the job and ALWAYS came in late and left early. If the company got half the hours of work out of him that he was being paid for, they were doing well. And he was one of the nastiest ones there.

Besides, since the PCA meetings are chest thumping sessions, with only something from the Pauline Epistles, it's ALWAYS the same. You can recite it without thinking, you've heard it so much over the years. It becomes meaningless at that point.

Plus it's always limited to the SAME thing ever week, just the Pauline Epistles. Aside from the Epistles and how to use excerpts, which you do recognize after enough years because it's generally the same ones, there is nothing ever different introduced and expounded on.

[Cronos]

ha ha! Here's the sign that Opus was correct -- metmom and the OPC/PCA cult crew are flustered -- "what? Catholics read the Bible and can quote scripture back at us!! The leader MAchen and our "ruling elders" said they couldn't. What do we do? It's not in the latest issue of Watchtower!"

What is so clueless about her hysterics is that she didn't even read the text and see that nearly everything we say at mass has its roots in Sacred Scripture. Right from In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19) to Thanks be to God. (2 Cor 9:15)

Now Metmom will have to go back to her handler and tell them that they lied to her as

1. As you see by this post above (pls read it once more), Catholics not only read scripture in Mass, the Mass is scripture lived. Steve Ray and Scott Hahn, ex-Evangelical/Baptist pastor converts who READ their way into the Church (reading the Bible and what the Church really teaches) describe their first masses in wonder where they say "hey! That's from Luke, from Malachi, etc."

2. The lie that Metmom's and Rn's handlers tell them that CAtholics do not read scripture didn't prepare them for FR or for the real Catholic Church where people know their bible pretty well thank you -- those people who told you this may have been lapsed Catholics from the 70s and don't realise that the Church has been reinvigorated and reject the phony words of the PCA and OPC cult handlers

3. With the availability of the internet, more people are able to read about what the Church REALLY teaches, are able to refer to early fathers (and not make the same silly misquotes as RnMomof7 did to Clement above) -- the internet is the best tool to demonstrate the lies that anti-Church folks spread.

no wonder all the sputtering and fluster and buster! Telling us that living God's Word can be boring!

[Cronos]

Ha! Ha! Another funny! So Titus thinks he knows what we believe better than we do ourselves? Titus' cult's hermeneutic is this:"Start from Titus' sola interpretation of the morning's cartoons, make everything fit it, one way or another."

Not a very intelligent hermeneutical technique.

We can see that even in RNMomof7's own treatment of Clement of Alexandria. In every PCA or OPC group they will take some verse out of context and excerpt it so that it reads what they WANT it to say!

They do that to the Bible, so it becomes second nature for a PCA/OPC cultist to do the same thing to everything else.

Now of course the PCA/OPC cultist will ignore Clement saying "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

And of course, the same loon will disregard Christ Himself when he says "I am the bread of life. He that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes in me shall never thirst. and John 6:41 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."

Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede.

The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?"

Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6:68 sqq.).

the Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: "My flesh is spirit", i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, but: "My words are spirit and life".

it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin.