Is the Mass the Real Sacrifice of Christ?

Read this twice and I still can’t see what you are trying to get at, but at least it is shorter, please stop rambling.

Jesus responded to Peter then -- "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you", even though previously, Peter's own flesh and blood brother Andrew, had done very much that exact same thing (reveal that Jesus was the Messiah, using human speech to convey that concept).

That is a very interesting point. Very interesting, worthy of more Scripture study, prayer and meditation.

When they state what they think it is, you won't find any believers accepting that definition either.

Yes, that is mainly true, but there are outliers among those whom profess to be Christians, whom at times do seem to shut out far too much else, including but not limited to -- the testimonies of others, including from persons throughout Church history.

Yet many of the teachers and preachers whom I myself have encountered do not limit themselves to "bible" only, even when or if they call themselves a "bible church", resulting in myself encountering a great amount of agreement among a wide array of other-than-Roman Catholic churches, and pastors.

Of all of those whom could be looked upon, or declare themselves to be "bible believing" churches, and pastors also, there are those whom; eschew much of any sort of ongoing "revelation" (being wary of the many frauds down through the centuries whom have claimed mysticism & Gnosis), and those whom go too much to the other extreme (relying on "inspiration"), while there are also those whom often enough do appear to myself to be in something of a goldilocks zone of 'just right', or close enough for government work, as that saying goes.;^')

The critics we face here, exclude the middle, thinking only those of their own ecclesiastical community stand a snowball's chance of finding that "middle", the not too hot, and not too cold, warm enough to not be lukewarm, though not so hot to scream as if their hair was on fire.

Speaking of which (and Big Hair, you know who I'm talking about) too much all in one place can be hazardous?

Applying s.s, all Tradition, teaching & experience of others --- is not set fully aside, but instead weighed and measured comparatively, by the Scriptures themselves.

The ceaseless efforts by some here against that principle (if I fairly enough described it, myself --- there is better and more complete wording for how the principle should function) are in effort to assert sola ecclesia instead, while claiming "they" are still in the middle of "just right", yet measuring that by nothing other than their own selves. How convenient...

In the early Church, when there were thorny controversies, and none could claim singular 'authority' over another, the way we can examine the records now as for who was wrong, and who was more correct in comparison --- is judged, is determined by --- what else other than the Scriptures themselves? ...for that is how the majority more often than not reached majority consensus in the first place.

Not only is the guiding principle of s.s (among a gathering of principles to be put into application) in the Scripture, but was utilized by the early Church also (!). I mean, how plain does it have to be?

If one needs convoluted, read-between-the-lines edgewise sort of interpretations, layered one upon another, and cannot otherwise find whatever it is which is being doctrinally constructed, or justified after the fact -- and runs into too much Scripture which refutes the doctrinal position (which can flow from mere "custom", not to be confused with more well-founded Tradition), and early church customs & traditions also do not provide enough support for doctrinal positions -- something is wrong with the doctrines, particularly when one is asserting that ALL of the doctrine was as passed down by the Apostles.

One RC trick is to assert that they alone can "discover" or have new revelation, with one of those discoveries having been the accumulated theological baggage associated with the papacy itself.

One of the FRomans here continues to speak of others positions as "wrong from the beginning" thus poisoned fruit --- so nothing which follows can be any good, yet cannot seem to turn their own standards of judgement and measurement towards their own ecclesiastical community. But then you've noticed that sort of restful-heart action, I'm sure. ;^')

The Great Commission empowered the Church to preach the Gospel. Not something else, nor extend that authority yet further, and force persons to kiss other persons feet because of the Gospel. (washing others feet is another story...)

It's how we all judge church assemblies. Are they preaching the Word of God? Are they preaching Him crucified for the sins of many? Is it preached that the sacrifice of Christ enough to restore us to place of relationship with the Almighty God, the Creator? Is it stressed that He will respond to those whom call upon His name? Are the persons there being positively fed, and grow? Do they practice the Gospel, treating friends and strangers both --- peacefully, as much as possible? (there is a time for not sitting around passively taking abuse and injury, just as there is a time to put up with a great deal).

Turn turn turn

The Byrds

Thank you for your reply, and your continuing patience with myself and others.

Stop rambling?

Others here understand me perfectly well.

What's the matter, professor?

Subtleties not your bag?

Things blow right past you, if they are not painfully simple?

Other than the last postscript as it were, concerning possible lurkers, I bracketed the entire affair with your own words, your own statements. Do you not understand the implications of your own words?

Packaged all together, rather than what is called a &*^$ sandwich, wherein the opening is all nicey-nicey, the bad news &*^$ is in the middle, ending with more nicey-nicey noise, I put the good stuff in the middle, the meat of the matters there, bracketed by your own words, and how those words of your own can be seen to support my own positions while refuting your own, and at the same time also be used to judge your own way of using this forum to harass those whom are perceived in some way as critics of RCC theology, attitude, or practice.

Each time I do such a thing, all of a sudden you seem to not understand (yet of course always include note of yet further insult of a personal nature towards my own self, as you do in most every comment/reply to those whom are so-called "protestant", of course)

If you are still experiencing difficulties in understanding me, try hitting the links, reading there to see who is saying what. I formatted them to open in new tab.

And still rambling

LOL I saw your lame attempt at twisting the words of that passage. I doubt anyone with reading comprehension bought your tripe.

Setting the record straight, because the truth is important, and your comment is false.

Your post in 161, bold for emphasis on the blatantly false portion: "Paul said anyone who teaches something pertaining to the gospel that they didn’t to consider them accursed. He also said to “search the scriptures daily to see if what they teach is true”. If you can’t prove that some “oral tradition” was taught by the apostles but still teach it I will consider you accursed as Paul said to. What “oral tradition” do you keep that is not found in scripture but that you can prove the apostles taught?"

First, Paul to whom the pronoun in the sentence refers, neither wrote nor said (unless your anonymous faith community has a secret tradition) “search the scriptures daily to see if what they teach is true”. Any student of the scriptures should know there are two passages (which I will cover) that resemble your claim after some fashion, though neither is from Paul, and neither say what you teach they say.

In the first referenced scripture below it should be obvious from the text that Jesus the Messiah is challenging Jews who do not believe he is Messiah to search the scriptures which testify of him, not to prove whether what he says is true or false. He is truth ! No amount of Bible study is required to validate what he said. He said it. It is true.

As to the second passage, Luke, not Paul, is contrasting two Jewish synagogue communities, neither already believers. The one at Thessaloniki stirred up violence against Paul and Silas when he taught that Jesus is Messiah, suffered, and rose from the dead. Some Jews at Thessaloniki believed, and many Greeks, yet a baser sort stirred up the mob out of envy that the Greeks believed when they themselves did not, so that Paul and Silas were taken to relative safety in Berea where the unbelieving Jews received them with more nobility and grace than those at Thessaloniki. Paul preached the same truth in Berea. Unbelieving Jews searching the scriptures did not validate his truth. The Spirit of God validated it. Paul was a chosen vessel and woe to him if he preached not the Gospel.

Yet because the Jews at Berea received the apostolic teaching from Paul with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he said was found there, they were more noble and many believed. They did not validate Paul's Gospel. They helped themselves to believe Jesus is the Messiah who suffered for our sins and rose from the dead. They were not some iconoclastic community with veto power over which doctrines were true or false. The holy catholic apostolic church came to them in the persons of Paul and Silas who taught them the true doctrine. All they, or we, had to do was believe them.

By way of comparison, the Jews of Thessaloniki and Berea might be compared with different factions of Jews in the Sanhedrin. Consider Gamaliel who spoke up on behalf of Peter and John, that the Council leave them alone and not be found to fight against God. He was certainly more noble, and searched the scriptures. We shall see if it availed him.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.

Acts 17:11 directly from the Greek text.

Acts 17:11 received the word with all readiness on the every day examining the scriptures if were these things so many indeed therefore out from them believed and of the Grecian women prominent and men not a few.

>>As to the second passage, Luke, not Paul<<

Ok, so let's attribute the statement to Luke. No less true.

>>They were not some iconoclastic community with veto power over which doctrines were true or false.<<

Dude!!! They were searching the scripture to see if what Paul preached was true. Not whether the gospel was true.

Take your "did God really say" diatribe somewhere else.

Acts 17:11 directly from the Greek text. Acts 17:11 received the word with all readiness on the every day examining the scriptures if were these things so many indeed therefore out from them believed and of the Grecian women prominent and men not a few. >>As to the second passage, Luke, not Paul<< Ok, so let's attribute the statement to Luke. No less true. >>They were not some iconoclastic community with veto power over which doctrines were true or false.<< Dude!!! They were searching the scripture to see if what Paul preached was true. Not whether the gospel was true. Take your "did God really say" diatribe somewhere else.

In either case, they searched the scriptures daily, either as unbelievers or newborn babes, with no authority to determine which apostolic teaching was true or false. It was all true. Paul preached the Gospel, and if you know the scriptures, you would know the Torah and Nevi'im portions he referred to and which they would search. The Bereans were not the authority. They were babes in Messiah, if even there yet. Their scripture studies were not the authority. The Spirit of God was with Paul because Messiah himself selected him as a chosen vessel and gave him the Gospel to preach. No doubt their study benefited them, if they cooperated and continued in God's grace.
Finally an acknowledgement that what you attributed to Paul was false.
Once again, you are using false quotations and falsely attributing them to me. Own your words.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I had to go on a small trip.

That is a very interesting point.

So you can relate to that, can you?

I thought so.

You are one of those kind.

A Christian.

Be encouraged?

Your posts on this thread are very enlightening on several fronts.

We dogs need the crumbs and you have my gratitude.

Be encouraged?

Of course. Thank you.

I’m sorry, that doesn’t make sense to me with what I understand of Catholic belief that the wine and bread actually turning into the blood and body.

I have been busy, so am just now catching up with this thread.

If I am not mistaken, LCMS teaching is that the real presence is a sacramental union; that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine, so that the communicant receives the Body and the Blood of Christ as well as the bread and wine. Catholic teaching is that the bread and wine actually become, in a way beyond understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the communicant receives the Body and Blood of Christ in substance under the appearance of bread and wine.

Lutherans and Catholics both believe the what, that in communion we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. But how the Body and Blood of Christ is present in the bread and wine (LCMS) or how the Body and Blood of Christ becomes the bread and wine (Catholic) is beyond our ability to comprehend.

Yes, what you explained is correct for the LCMS and what I understood for the Catholic faith. Thank you for confirming.

Are you saying (like Bill Clinton) that you don’t know what the meaning of ‘IS’ is?
Jesus said, “This IS my Body.” Similarly “This IS my Blood.”
I believe Jesus’ words and don’t question them at all.

Picture a teacher at a black board. He writes the formulas for different elements, teaching his students which elements make up different gems. He says as he points to the symbol for carbon "This primarily that makes up diamonds". Now do you think the students think that the ink and letter forms symbolizing carbon are the things in large quantity that make up diamonds or do you think that the students, being at least normally intelligent, realize that is understood that what the Professor means is that the carbon which that symbol represents makes up diamonds?

Jesus knew that He wasn't talking to morons and that there wasn't any need to spell it out to them that He was speaking symbolically in metaphors, especially since He ended the direction with "As often as you do this, do this in remembrance of Me", which expressly gave the reason being as a memorial.

Only someone with really strange reasoning would twist what He said and declare that He meant that what was intended to be symbolic was actual. Not even really actual because if it was actual, as the water being turned into wine was, the bread would actually become flesh and the wine would actually become blood. Not just in someone's convoluted imagination. If you twist the plain meaning of Scripture you can twist it into meaning just about anything if you want to.

Jesus often spoke metaphorically to express deeper truth. This is a constant in the Gospels and cannot be disputed, but only understood. His parables are a form of metaphor. His being our Good Shepard, the vine, the door etc. are all metaphors. Since Christians are the sheep of His pasture, when was the last time you baaed? When was the last time you had to have your wool shorn? Do you live in pastures?