In the Norwegian Lutheran church, between the words of Institution and The Lord's Prayer, it is usually said: Liturgist: Great is the mystery of faith. All: Christ died. Christ rose from the dead. Christ shall come again. All: Glory be to Him for the love that is stronger than death. Liturgist: Merciful God, we celebrate this meal with joy and thanksgiving for your Son's accomplished sacrifice, in the faith of his victorious ressurection and ascension and in expectation of his return in glory. We pray: Fill us with your love, so that we can recognise Christ in those who hunger and thirst. Teach us to love one another as you have loved us, and let us one day be reunited with you in your perfect kingdom. So it does subtly mention the once and for all, completed/accomplished sacrifice, and our sacrifice of thanks for it. Mind you, I don't know how much German and American Lutheranism differs liturgically from Nordic/Baltic Lutheranism, if at all.

Enjoying these videos very much. You're answering a number of my questions.

Thanks, I appreciate your candid, non-invective answers. As a Catholic, the nature of Christ's sacrifice as described in the letter to the Hebrews, doesn't suffer any diminution because the foremost celebrant of any of the Sacraments is none other than the LORD Christ. The priest does offer the Mass in sacrifice to the Father, but it's substantially Christ Himself who offers and confects the presence of His one bloody sacrifice on Golgotha as the unbloody oblation. I recall Augustine's statement somewhere, "Christ prays in us as our Head, for as our Priest, and as the recipient of our prayers as our God". It's also true that we the laity offer the sacrifice through the hands of the priest as far as our baptismal/priestly capacity permits. here's my question to you-my training is in a ancient Near Eastern languages not theology, so I hope I'm making some sense here,--but I've always had a layman's interest in Luther's theology. In the Christian Encyclopedia -published by the LCMS under the "Mass", the compilers quote Luther as stating (I'm sorry I'm only citing from memory) "The New Covenant is the Mass, for Christ Himself stated, 'This Chalice is the Blood of the New Covenant' " . This statement is something I would heartily agree with. What was the context of Luther's words here, and how could the Mass be anything but propitiatory if it's acknowledged as the very New Covenant itself? Thanks, I value your time and am sincerely interested in how to understand Luther here.

@vngelicath1580

3 жыл бұрын

The Mass (the Liturgy of the Eucharist) gives us access to Christ's slain and yet resurrected flesh and blood. Calvary understood. Christ is yet always offering himself to the Father on the Altar of Heaven, and thus as we eat and drink his body and blood (in, with, and under the bread and wine) we are connected by faith to his eternal act of mediation and intercession. The issue is whether the priest (and the Christian community generally) step into the role of Christ in his office as mediator per se. Lutherans confess that The Church (and her ministry) stands "in persona christi" in Jesus' official acts of grace (word and sacrament) -- but while the church (for us) delivers and administers these gifts of the gospel; including administering the very body and blood which unite us to the ever-sacrificing priest -- we do not ourselves offer Christ through the celebration of the Eucharist. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that "in celebrating the Mass, the Christian community offers their unbloody sacrifice (verb) of thanksgiving (symbolized by prayer, praise and the offering of the gifts of bread and wine on the altar to be hallowed) all the while receiving THE propitiatory sacrifice (noun) who in a sense offers THEM (and their sacrifice within His)." The difference is subtle, but the main difference between Lutherans and Catholics is not "what happens" in the mass, but "who does what"? Christ's work of redemption is not something that the Church participates in -- rather, the Church is the bride that receives the benefits of her husband's work (to give to her children, and in that sense she mediates) but in a strict sense, all a Christian can do really is respond with sacrifices and good works of praise and thanks -- never can they add to his work (even if they tried. You may see how this subtlety is reflected in our differences in Justification -- it's all connected).

@scottforesman7968

2 жыл бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 No, He is interceding for us on the basis of His Sacrifice and His Person.

@florida8953

Жыл бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 Christ is not always offering himself. He already did once and for all. A proper understanding of John 6 and Hebrews effectively destroys the Roman Catholic conception of the Eucharist. Their position doesn’t make any sense.

That`s wonderful! Thank you so much for such an explicit way of explaining the matter. I am impressed and gained some understanding. Thank you!

Excellent video Dr Cooper

Thanks for your videos. They are grwat to hear!

I'm really enjoying your videos. I have learned a lot from them. May God keep on blessing you.

this is so timely. I'm new to lutheranism and was looking for info about this a couple days ago. Still trying to figure out what transubstantiation etc is all about. Thank you. 🙏🏽👍🏽👌🏽😎

@michaelverde4844

5 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor you are correct that the word Transubstantiation does not show up in the Holy Bible, but then again neither does The Trinity.

@michaelverde4844

5 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor what's your question? I agreed with you that the word Transubstantiation does not show up in the Holy Bible and neither do the word(s) The Trinity. What are you new to Lutheranism from?

@michaelverde4844

5 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor wrote: " Doctrines can be proven from 2 or more verses. You DO NOT need the exact words to prove its doctrine." Thanks you've made all of my points for me before I even needed to add anything. I like how you come right out the gate assuming that I'm "ignorant" about the bible. Too funny.

@weepingprophet411

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor you are a devil.....u will have no peace u satan

Very helpful - TY, Pastor!

The way you explain the Lutheran view, it sounds a lot like the essence-energies distinction the Eastern Orthodox employ in talking about the Eucharist.

@composaboi

2 жыл бұрын

The essence and energies are of the Trinity, not the Eucharist

The Eastern Orthodox have a similar view of eucharistic sacrifice. They also believe its an unbloody sacrifice and Jesus' body and blood is truly present.

I converted to Catholicsm 7 years ago. This element of continual sacrifice within the Roman church is literally terrifying me. There are allot of things about this faith I see as contrary to scripture. But this key issue that you are explaining helps me so much. I think the Lutheran view is far more Biblical in terms of Christ being our Passover Lamb. I even had a priest from Rome visit our mass one time and say "Don't you want to sacrifice Jesus on the Alter with me?" When referencing a conversation he had about church attendance. Despite the pretzels that is Roman theology......there are still Priests who see the Mass in this way. I will not be staying in the Catholic Church

@private2371

3 жыл бұрын

@Dillon Werner that's a fair statement. I just don't wanna re-crucify Jesus and have met clergy who view it like that. I don't know what to do anymore. Maybe go back to Catholicsm

@private2371

3 жыл бұрын

@Dillon Werner but why are WE offering it. Why do we say ".....my sacrifice and yours be acceptable to the Lord our God"

@private2371

3 жыл бұрын

@Dillon Werner fair enough, but why is a Priest offering a sacrifice when Christ is our High Priest? I'm Hebrews it speaks of this. Why is an ordained man offering a sacrifice? Obviously it's getting into deep waters of theology, but what is the purpose of continually re-presenting a once and for all final sacrifice? And if the Eucharist is something of that sacrifice, are we adoring a dead corpse of Christ?

@private2371

3 жыл бұрын

@Dillon Werner thanks for taking the time. I've been a bit spooked. I live in a heavily Hispanic area and have seen all types of evil crap mixed and blended with this faith. I started to forget why I converted 7 years ago. I'll be going back to confession and will look for a parish with a bit more of my culture to hopefully ground myself.

@florida8953

Жыл бұрын

@Dillon Werner because you believe it’s propitiatory in nature, which is utterly false. Christ doesn’t need to be represented again. He died once for all time. He saves to the uttermost. You believe you can go to mass 20,000 times and one day fall into mortal sin and end up in hell. Completely backwards!

I would enjoy an episode on what particular elements of the liturgy were removed and added again in the 20th c

This is a late question, but what do you think of the Eucharistic Prayers in the LBW ( _Lutheran Book of Worship_ 1978) or even earlier in the SBH ( _Service Book and Hymnal_ 1958)? I'm just curious what your thoughts are and / if you're familiar with them given TAALC'S _ALC_ heritage.

The directional point of sacrifice vs sacrament was compelling!

@donhaddix3770

4 ай бұрын

remembrance, not sacrifice.

Not to mention that Christ's work as our mediatorial and intercessory high priest is an on-going (and in fact, eternal) reality on the Altar of Heaven. While Calvary was once-for-all, he was (and is) "slain from the foundation..." and is always offering (i.e. sacrificing) Himself to the Father; even into eternity. And in this sense, as we eat his slain (yet risen) body and blood in faith-- we are united to him and (in a sense) while the Church doesn't "offer Christ" to the Father, the Church's communion with his eternally sacrificial and intercessory body and blood results in Christ "offering us" (and our sacrifices of praise) to the Father.

The Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice in the sense that the grain offering (mincha) was. It was always understood as the sacrifice referred to at Malachi 1:11. It is to be offered many times, not because of any imperfection in the sacrifice, but because the Law imposes on the High Priest the duty of making a daily grain offering (minchat kohen moshiach).

In Eastern Orthodoxy they say in the greek language ''καθίσταται παρούσα η θυσία που άπαξ έκανε ο Χριστός''. Something like ''it is renewed the one and only sacrifice Christ did for us''. But for the Eastern Orthodox you can't take communion if first didn't take Absolution. And you can't take Absolution if you don't ''do'' some things so you prove you are in a ''state of grace''...

If you take the sin offering and burn offering that Mary brought when Jesus was a baby, and put them together with the Last Supper and the sacrifice of Calvary, you find that they follow the sequence at Leviticus 9 for the inaugural sacrifices for the sins of the people. The law is that a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered for a different purpose at a time other than Passover eve attains the status of a peace-offering and is therefore valid. (Pesahim 60b). The third in the sequence, a grain offering, inaugurates the priesthood of Christ and is similar to the one-time offering a priest had to make on his first day. The High Priest uniquely had to make the grain offering every day of his service. It is the offering referred to at Malachi 1:11.

Thanks.

How to understand that Catholic priests make present the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross in every Mass? Rev. 13::8 refers Christ as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The Greek verb "slain" is in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be slain) was completed in the past with continuing effect to the present. For comparison the phrase "it is written", referring to Scripture, is also in Greek passive perfect tense. Scripture was completely written in the past and remains written ever since. Whenever you buy a new Bible in any language, Scripture is REPRINTED but it is NOT REWRITTEN. From what Christ told Mary Magdalene after His resurrection we know that He did not ascend to God the Father (who is) in heaven after He died on the cross (John 20:17). This meant He did not offer Himself in heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:5, 9: 11) after crucifixion. He already did it before the foundation of the world after being slain (Rev. 13:8), which is affirmed in Heb. 9:26! The above should explain why Catholics believe His Sacrifice on the cross can be made present in every Mass. Christ is not re-sacrificed in every Mass, just like Scripture is NOT rewritten whenever you buy a new Bible in any language.

Luther denied the sacrificial nature of Eucharist. In his own words: "Where is it written, that the mass is a sacrifice, or where has Christ taught that one should offer consecrated bread and wine to God? Do you not hear? Christ has sacrificed himself once [Heb. 7:27; 9:25-26]; henceforth he will not be sacrificed by anyone else. He wishes us to remember his sacrifice. Why are you then so bold as to make a sacrifice out of this remembrance? Is it possible that you are so foolish as to act upon your own devices, without any "scriptural authority? (Luther: The Misuse of the Mass, English translation from Luther's Works, Vol. 36, pp. 136-137) "I have consoled those whose consciences are weak and have instructed them so that they may know and recognize that there is no sacrifice in the New Testament other than the sacrifice of the cross [Heb. 10:10] and the sacrifice of praise [Heb. 13:15] which are mentioned in the Scriptures; so that no one any longer has cause to doubt that the mass is not a sacrifice." (ibid, p. 192) You made a wrong statement that Eucharistic celebration is only way from man to God and we do not receive grace from God. The classic definition of Sacrament is visible sign of invisible grace. Catholics do receive grace through Partaking the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

My Lutheran family has put me on gangstalking list. Please explain. My sister said "I always run" please help

Good video, I come from the Reformed tradition but got interested in Lutheranism after stumbling upon one of your videos. If you don't mind me asking, there's a claim in the Reformed tradition that the Lutheran view of Christology goes against the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith and I'd love to know what your response is to this claim! God bless and keep up the good work!

@k.schmidt2740

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor : Protestants cannot ignore what other Christians are confessing.

@k.schmidt2740

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor : As I am most definitely not a Roman Catholic, those are not "my" opinions. Nonetheless, I can learn a great deal by considering the thoughts of others and asking myself what kind of assumptions they had to make to get to those thoughts. That is what I meant.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

@Jimmy King Do you mean the tradition of Lutheran Lenten hymns and preaching being unashamed to declare,"My God is dead"?

@MyName42

3 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Most Protestants accept the first 4 Ecumenical Councils, and most Lutherans and Anglican accept all 7. Chalcedon is the 4th. Calvin accepted Chalcedon. Protestants don't regard the Councils as absolutely infallible, but as Biblically and foundationally solid theology that clearly defines Christological orthodoxy.

@MyName42

3 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) both denounced the heresy of Arianism and codified the Nicene Creed, to clearly summarize the doctrine of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed remains the most universal standard of unity across Christianity, from Oriental Orthodox Churches to Pentecostals. Ephesus (431) described Mary as the Theotokos ("God-bearer"), because Jesus was in fact God from the point he was conceived. (Some Protestants, including Calvin, reject the colloquial way of describing Mary as "Mother of God," but the Christological point the Council was making still stands.) Chalcedon (451) established a Definition that describes what it means for Christ to be both fully human and fully God--"one person in two natures." Constantinople II (553) dealt with fallout from Chalcedon, as there were ongoing controversies concerning the terms used in the Definition. Constantinople III (680) condemned monothelitism and declared that Jesus had both a human and a divine will, not merely a divine will. Nicaea II (787) ended the iconoclastic controversy in the Byzantine Empire and approved icons for use in churches. They get more controversial as they go, and Protestant opinion is varied, especially on the last 3. But in general Protestants do agree that the various heresies condemned are heresies, and do regard the Nicene Creed and Definition of Chalcedon as strong foundations of orthodox theology. I think we ought to accept all 7, though the last one with certain limitations in interpretation. That's all I can summarize in a comment, but there's tons of resources out there if you want to understand more.

Hi Jordan. You say "church fathers" a lot. What precisely do you mean by "church fathers," please? Thanks.

In the Roman catholic mass there is also an understanding that Christ is giving himself to us... so sacramental. It sounds like you said the Roman catholic mass is only sacrificial... am I misunderstanding you or are you misunderstood?

@donhaddix3770

4 ай бұрын

remembrance, not sacrifice.

"In remeberance of me"(Luke 22:19, 1 corinthians 11:25, Mark 14:22-25) You said in disagreement that "a memorial act of the people to God to remember what Christ has done" at 9:04 in the video That is exactly what it is according to Scripture so i struggle to see you point here

The Catholic re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice is also a sacrament where god comes to us.

Both/and ?

The problem for me and many others like me (Lutherans with theology and philosophy backgrounds) is the sacrificial (not sacramental) mentality itself. Human beings had - and usually have to this day - a sacrificial mentality, so the “language of sacrifice” keeps coming back into our liturgies, no matter how often we try to throw it out. The entire topos of the “lamb of God” definitely belongs to this language of sacrifice. This mentality assumes that the “great abyss” (Lukas 16,26) between God and hell (or the “state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed“) is somehow bridged by sacrifice. Therefore, not repeating the sacrifice regularly becomes very dissatisfying and feels dangerous. It is then no wonder that from the earliest times of the church people have used the sacrament of the altar as a replacement for the sacrifice they instinctively miss. The antiquity of this practice is, in my opinion, Mr. Todd Voss, not a support for its perpetuation and continued validity, but rather an indication that even the early church was loathe to let go of such propitiatory functions, fearing the proverbial “wrath of God”, if this sacrificial element were to be put to rest, because “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation“ (2 Corinthians 5, 19). That was not enough for many, whose view of the world rested on the idea of “balance”, that cosmological justice depended on human and divine action and retribution to maintain the equilibrium of the world (Any Google search yields an avalanche of material on the subject of religion and cosmological balance). The radical concept Jesus lived and taught that God loves humanity and disregards the gap because of this love, takes place in another dimension. Any idea of balance or perpetual propitiation becomes irrelevant and even counter-productive in a world, where we are the hopelessly fallen creatures (Just look at the world we have made), and God is love - to which we gained access through his Son, who lived the love of God “unto death, even the death of the cross“ (Philippians 2,8). I am sure that one or the other theology adept will find a heresy or two here - but I think this is where “the dog lies buried” (translating an old German saying). Keep the faith!

@l21n18

4 жыл бұрын

A bunch of psychoanalysis of people living centuries ago and there is hardly a universal sacrificial instinct

@k.schmidt2740

4 жыл бұрын

@@l21n18 That is not what is at issue here! Seeing the sacrament as a sacrifice is the problem. You don't need psychoanalysis to analyze a form.

@vngelicath1580

3 жыл бұрын

​@@k.schmidt2740 I think this mindset is dangerously close to Forde and Paulson. The idea that the problem with mankind is his propensity to construe soteriology in terms of a "ladder system" of sacrifices and appeasements (man to God) -- and that Christ's ministry was one of overthrowing this paradigm, in its place establishing a radical gospel of God to man, is simply untrue. Christ came to fulfill the Law (for us), not to abolish "legal schemes." Christ's offering on the cross was directionally to the Father (to satisfy the divine law in our place), not directionally to us. The desire to recognize the place of sacrifice in Christian worship is simply a proper recognition that we were saved by sacrifice and law-keeping, so "how shall we then live?" Mankind's primary problem is not that he desires to justify himself (hence legalism), but rather, his main problem is that DUE TO SIN he cannot live perfectly and thus needs a perfect substitute to live the perfect life of oblation _for him_ ...

2:57

Really enjoy your thoughtful and engaging videos. Thank you for your attempt to be accurate and fair to Catholic teaching. However, you didn’t get it quite right. As someone below noted (Peter Coleman), the Priest is acting “in persona Christi” so it is more accurate to say that Christ is offering himself to the Father exactly as He did at Calvary on the Cross. And of course, that is coherent and consistent with the assertion that the Sacrifice of Calvary, which was a propitiatory sacrifice (which you agree it was), is made sacramentally present at the Eucharist. And you can see from this last sentence that the dichotomy between sacrifice and sacrament is a false dichotomy in our view ( we are very “and/both”). Of course there is also a sense in which the people are offering themselves to God in thanksgiving (and in union with Christ and his sacrifice - that’s important) just as you note. And despite the Priest acting in persona Christi, there is at least some sense in which the Priest has a special role in this sacramental offering (and of course he is also offering himself). As you yourself noted at the end of your video, even you believe that the benefits of the Sacrifice of Calvary are present in Communion and given to His people (and you noted that the Sacrifice of Calvary was propitiatory). Finally, this language and at least the basic element of these ideas have always been present in the Liturgy as far as we know. For example, the Eastern Orthodox have the same basic understanding in terms of propitiatory sacrifice being made mysteriously present. See this Orthodox Wiki which clearly states the Orthodox do view it as a propitiatory sacrifice as well as a sacrifice of praise. orthodoxwiki.org/Eucharist#Eucharist_as_a_sacrifice. And yes, I know they don’t like the Thomistic language of transubstantiation but that is another matter and doesn’t detract from our common belief in Christ’s Sacrifice made present (just explaining “how” ). As it is said, Lex orandi, lex credenda. Both Eastern and Western Churches used such sacrificial language in their ancient liturgies as far back as we can reasonably see. As for the letter to the Hebrews, I can see your point, but it loses force in three ways: 1) one has to explain away the ancient Lex Orandi, Lex credenda which always viewed the Liturgy as a propitiatory sacrifice in addition to it as a sacrifice of praise (and many other things) 2) I believe that the letter to the Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple and so it naturally emphasizes a typology of difference rather than a typology of similarity (at least ritual similarities). 3) Since it is Christ who offers himself in the Mass, that is entirely consonant with the argument in Chapters 9 and 10. In particular, since in the liturgy our worship is joined to the heavenly worship, when Chapter 9, verse 24 says “For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” this self -offering is made present through the sacrament. Christ brings heaven to earth for us in every Mass. To be honest, at the end of the video I sensed you realize this is one of the weakest points in Lutheran theology and especially Liturgy. One could have asserted all the arguments about justification and left this entirely as it was. It seems so unnecessary. This is one of a number of things that ultimately led me to believe Luther had, in the end, broken from the “Rule of Faith” that had been handed down through the ages by the ancient Church.

@k.schmidt2740

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I don't agree with you on the essence of the "Rule of Faith", but the way you lay out propitiatory sacrifice is very helpful.

@toddvoss52

3 жыл бұрын

@@k.schmidt2740 You're welcome. Glad you found it helpful and I can understand one may still disagree with me on the essence(s) of the Rule of Faith.

@j.g.4942

3 жыл бұрын

As one raised in the Lutheran tradition, this makes it sound like the Roman church has rejected the abuses of the medieval and renaisssance church and followed Luther. Because this is by and large what I've grow up with: pastor officiating in the person of Christ, union with the heavenly worship, Law of prayer/worship is law of belief/confession, reception of Christ's body and blood and the benefits of His life, death and resurrection ... Perhaps the difference is that we might tend to focus more on the Eucharist's union with the Last Supper and as a foretaste of the feast to come, rather than the cross? It's an encouragement to me that everything falls back onto Jesus, the fullness of time; that we are united in His life, baptism, death and resurrection, ascension; and that all our worship, our time in His presence, in united at once with all the church with Him in heaven waiting for the consumation. It seems to me that one of the major concerns of the reformers was for the people to hear the promises of God and to trust them. So, the fact of Christ coming to us and offering us forgiveness, life and union with Him, in His Most Holy and Precious Body and Blood; this has been emphasised or unobscured (however you might like to phrase that).

@toddvoss52

3 жыл бұрын

@@j.g.4942 Although our divisions are real, there is still much that can unite us. I appreciate your comment.

What about someone in a vegetative state? How would that give back? This isn't limited to just people that are mind/body incapable. For example, someone with bipolar may have days when they're incapable. Even someone wishing to sleep in may be incapable for those hours. I know that mortally, those seem to be pathetic excuses but the lutheran church is the most inclusive church among others I know within Christian religions and when I go to church, I hope that we can offer the connect to all, even those not giving back for whatever reason that's none of my business

What about a "descending sacrifice", God to us, instead of an "ascending sacrifice" of the RC Mass? We don't offer Christ to God. God brings Christ's sacrifice to us in His body and blood?

@Pop-wn3il

4 жыл бұрын

"Your own of Your own do we offer to You on behalf of all an for all" these words from the liturgy of St John Chrysostom sol e this debate in my view. And again " for You are the Offerer and the Offered,, the Giver and the Gift O Christ or God..."

Can we offer our sufferings to God?

The Son offers his sacrifice to the Father from all eternity. This eternal act broke into history at the Lord's Supper. The Mass is the reenactment of this sacrifice sacramentally (not mimetically or dramatically). Like Jesus' and _in persona Christi,_ the priest's eucharistic prayer is directed to the Father, before whom the Son's eternal sacrifice is eternally present. The Mass thus participates in this eternal reality. It is the same "hour": Christ's, when his body and blood is shed for sin and given to us as food for our salvation. It is the hour he swings wide open the doors of heaven and says, Blessed are those called to the (eternal) supper of the Lamb. The Eucharist is permeated by this "final setting," when worldly time is subdued to heavenly time: it reenacts Christ's accomplishment and anticipates this accomplishment in the future. It is the in-breaking of eternity into time; all the dogmas are there to indicate just that. If we participate in the Mass in reverence, we are with Christ at the Lord's Supper, and we are with Christ at the heavenly banquet at the end of time. The Mass is the "moving image" of this celebration in eternity. Each Mass adds another appearance of the one sacrifice of Christ, thus disclosing further its eternal identity and increasing the fullness of its manifestation on earth. Let us approach the altar, then, with the awe and respect for mystery it is due, centered in our own eternal soul in deepest prayer, for there we really receive Christ, he prays in us, and we are changed forever, in transit to our true home in Him, Amen. Cf Robert Sokolowski, _Eucharistic Presence_

Well, the thing is the Didache very clearly refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and goes further and instructs the Christians of the first century that prior to celebrating the Eucharist, Christians must both confess their transgressions and reconcile with those with whom they had been in conflict so that their sacrifice will be pure. This does undermine one of the arguments above. The speaker tried to make the case that if the Catholic Position were true that the mass itself is a sacrifice which takes place repeatedly every time it is celebrated than the author of Hebrewd would have mentioned it. Why???????? That argument may make sense to someone raised in the post reformation culture which assumes that the principle of Sola Scriptura is valid. The truth is that at the time Hebrews was being written the Apostles were giving oral instruction and were teaching the Christ ians how to worship God. The letter to the Hebrews was written to correct the belief among many Jewish Christians who were continuing to worship at the Jewish temple despite Christ's sacrifice having done away with the old system. Other Christians were not under the same misunderstanding.The speaker's argument might have had some merit if we didn't already have documentation which indicates that at more or less the same period that Hebrews was written, Christians were being taught that every lord's day a true sacrifice was to be made in the form of a sacrificial offering of bread and wine. BTW, a sacrifice of bread and wine is a form of sacrifice Jews of the Old Law would recognize as an offering of Thanksgiving (aka Eucharist in Koine Greek influenced English usage). On the other hand, we do have the Didache. The Dudache is accepted as ancient (circa 90 AD or ealier) and as authentic teach ing representative of the the nacent Christian Community. The text of the Didache demonstrate that its author/s and the commumity instructed through the Didache saw no conflict between the Once and for all Sacrifice on Calvalry described in Hebrews and the fact that a memorial meal/Eucharist repeated every Lord's Day is itself a sacrifice. That really is irrefutable since the Didache informs its readers that Christians needed to take various measures to keep pure their sacrifice of the Eucharist which was and is repeatedly celebrated each and every Lord's day.

@adamsmith4195

4 жыл бұрын

Asaph Vapor 100%. The theology of the mass doesn’t fit well with the language of the Didache. The underlying assumptions are (fairly) clearly quite different.

@pacoarias3102

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Thanks for your response of long ago. I apologize 4 not responding in a timely manner. I work 60 hrs per week so I don't have much time to respond & I rarely check this KZread account 4 updates. Real quick. No one claims Jesus is sacrificed repeatedly. Once and for all is once and for all. The point made in the Didache is that the central act of Christian worship by each Christian every Lord's day is an act of Sacrifice. An act which would be made impure on the part of any individual believer should that individual believer harbor hatred against his brother. All believers are members of the Preisthood while only Christ is our High Preist whose single act on Calvary fulfilled all of the Old Law. We participate in Christ's preisthood by offering our own lives as a sacrifice to the Father and do so in a unique way each Lord's Day in the sacrificial act of worship described in the Didache as a sacrifice of Bread and wine through which the many members of the assembly of believers are made one Body, the Body of Christ. The elders of the individual Church participate in the weekly act of worship/sacrifice in a manner different from Christ (His act was once and for all on Calvary) and different from the rest of the believrs present on the Lord's Day; however, all participate in the Preisthood (of all believers) who are present at the weekly act of worship/sacrifice described in the Didache. The point of my original post is that all post-Luther/Reformation attempts to define Christian worship as non-sacrificial conflict with the teaching of the Didache, a 1st Century Christian document accepted as authentic by all serious scholars of the Patristic age of the Church established by Christ. Thanks

@pacoarias3102

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor completely unbiblical? Define unbiblical and please give specific references to how Hebrews 7 thru 9 demonstrate that Christian worship a sacrifice is unbiblical because of use of alters. Friend, use of altars is not essential to sacrifice in the New Covenant. Also, your argument is quilty of the fallacy of "beging the question" as is the case of all post-Reformation Christian traditions. You have not established that all that is required to follow Christ is written in Scripture. I don't accept that false premise as it is unbiblical. The Apostles taught the Christians how to worship God under the New Testament. Where in the entire Bible does God tell us exactly how to worship Him after Christ put an end to the shadow of things to come described in Hebrews? Not even in the NT is the day set aside for Christian worship even given. If your unproven premise of Sola Scriptura (implied above in your argumentation) were true, then the very minimal amount of information contained in scripture would be how we are to worship God under the NT. Where is that information given? Since Apostlalic times, Christians all over the world from Cites like Rome to those parts of India evangrlized by the Apostle Thomas knew how to worship Christ in a sacrificial manner as taught orally by the Apostles. The Didache was not rediscovered until the 1800's. We Christians worship how the Apostles taught and the Didache provides the testimony of the antiquity of the practice among orthodox Christian believers. It is not why we practice per se. We practice as we do because we were taught to do so in the 1st Century by various Apostles. The Didache is the summation of their teaching and its authenticity testifies to how Christians of the 1st century worshipped and understood aspects of their practice. No more, no less.

@pacoarias3102

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor You made a claim that NT Churches do not have altars. If you want to waste time on that, please prove your claim. Don't try to switch burden of proof unto me. I made no claim regarding the presence or absence of altars. I don't have much time for a debate with anyone. I am at work. I didn't have time to read anything you may have sent since my last response other than your above response to which I am now responding. I did notice you seem to be ducking the issue of begging the question of Sola Scriptura as you continue to argue on the assumption that Scripture Alone provides the ultimate rule of faith. Please either prove that premise or construct arguments which do not rely on unproven premises. I will probably not be checking this KZread account for some time. That will provide you a good opportunity to organize a good argument which establishes Sola Scriptura as a valid premise. Until that premise is established, I see no point in engaging with fallacious arguments. I will look forward to your presentation for the validity of your Sola Scriptura premise. I gaurantee I will check for it by May 30th if not before. Good luck my bro in Christ.

@pacoarias3102

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor That is a non-response. In fact, it is itself a further example of begging the question since you provided no reason/evidence which establishes that I am guilty of "begging the question." Please construct an argument that establishes the validity of Sola Scriptura as a premise or retract the arguments against my original argument in which you assume the validity of Sola Scriptura. (As far as I can see your arguments revolve around this central assumption: that the Apostles made no Deposit of Faith which survives as Sacred Tradition in an Oral Form, including the oral teachings/ Deposit of faith regarding the manner of Christian worship. This worship being understood as liturgical and sacrificial as attested to by the Didache as documentary evidence rather than any claim that the testimony of Didache itself is one of an inspired text). That was the subject of my original post. My post made the simple point that the KZread presenter made a fallacious argument from silence which was demonstrated to be false from the testimony of the 1st Century Christian movement as provided by a 1st Century orthodox Christian document. To my understanding, your prior arguments against my initial post have had Sola Scriptura as an embedded assumption. I will be back no latter than May 30th. I hope to see your argument in support of Sola Scriptura as a valid premise onto which those arguments could be built. Then we can continue. Otherwise, stop posting arguments based on an unfounded assumption (i.e. Scripture Alone is the Ultimate sole rule of faith). Thanks, my buddy and fellow follower of Scripture. BTW, you are welcome for our proclamation and preservation of the Canon of the New Testament. I always find it odd that post-Reformation traditions attempt to use the writings we proclaimed to be the ones God inspired to build a case that we (the Assembly of Believers which was established by Christ) are somehow acting contrary to the very documents we recognized as being part of the set of inspired NT writings in large measure precisely because they have been part of our liturgical worship since the 1st Century. It is as if we were trying to deceive the world by holding up as God-breathed the writings which proof we are liars. Wouldn't it have been easier to just proclaim a different Canon if Hebrews somehow conflicted w our practice? You do realize the Book of Hebrews has been read as part of our liturgies since it was 1st written, right? Oh well. The burden of proof to establish the position that the Canon we proclaimed proves we are "unbiblical" falls unto supporters of post-Reformation traditions. 1st establish Sola Scriptura and we can go from there. Hebrews describes both how Christ's sacrifice was once and for all at Calvary and how Christ's Priesthood is Eternal and that He is in the Heavenly Sanctuary forever acting as our intercessor with the Father. Although I currently am refraining from making any claim beyond that claim made in my initial post, the Apostalic Deposit of Faith teaches how all this fits together with the liturgy described in ancient Patristic writings such as the 1st Century Didache. That discussion has to wait. For now, the topic has to be your response to my initial post which refuted the KZread speaker's argument from silence. After you provide proof of Sola Scriptura, we could then discuss any arguments against my original posting which are based on that premise. Thanks again.

Man Lutheran theology is unfathomably based

If the Eucharist provides forgiveness of sins, what of Luther's justifcation by faith alone. Perhaps this explains why some RCs I know attend Mass almost every day.

@florida8953

Жыл бұрын

Must be hard to go to mass tens of thousands of times throughout your life and then one day you commit a mortal sin and die before going to mass and end up in hell.

remembrance, not sacrifice.

I think you make the catholic perspective sound unfairly bad by neglecting to mention that the priest in a catholic mass represents Christ, so it is not people offering Christ as a sacrifice to God for themselves, but Christ offering himself as a sacrifice to God for the people. So the people are in a receiving role even in catholic mass by being allowed to partake in a sacrifice offered by someone else (Christ).

@gottenspider2057

Ай бұрын

Yes. Christ unites us to Himself spiritually and even physically in the Eucharist and thus unites us to His eternal offering to the Father. We don’t offer Christ on our own. “Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, O God almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours forever and ever” summarizes the the Mass

I love people who correctly write ROMAN catholicism, that's the accurate word for that denomination

@BibleLovingLutheran

2 жыл бұрын

You spelled institution wrong.

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

@@BibleLovingLutheran Why?

@BibleLovingLutheran

2 жыл бұрын

@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 you wrote denomination on accident 😆

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

@@BibleLovingLutheran And it's wrong to call it a denomination?

@BibleLovingLutheran

2 жыл бұрын

@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 it was a joke

The Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice of Christ but it is a participation of His once for all sacrifice.

@donhaddix3770

4 ай бұрын

remembrance, not sacrifice.

@gabrielbridges9709

4 ай бұрын

@@donhaddix3770 ”The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?“ ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭10‬:‭16‬ ‭ In your view in which the inventor of it openly admits he think all of the church After the apostles got it wrong. How is the Lords supper a participation in the body and blood of the Lird

@donhaddix3770

4 ай бұрын

@@gabrielbridges9709 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 New International Version 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

@gabrielbridges9709

4 ай бұрын

@@donhaddix3770 so how are we participating in the blood of Christ?

@donhaddix3770

4 ай бұрын

as a remembrance, not participation. Luke 22:19 New International Version 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” common loaf of bread, not a holy wafer, common wine, not holy wine, rented room at a inn, not a holy space with a priest. loaf of bread symbolizes his body ripped apart. flask of wine his shed blood.

You were mistaken that the Catholic priest offers the sacrifice to God in a similar way the priests offered the animal sacrifices to God. In the Catholic Tradition the priest acting in persona christi (in the person of Christ) to the God the Father. That's important point - Jesus is offering himself to the Father, as he did on the cross. There is one perpetual sacrifice in time that happens in the Catholic Mass. It is a not a clever way of reconciling with Hebrews - it is what it is.

@mosesking2923

5 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Unfortunately, the Protestant churches themselves are not biblical. Neither the term "Protestant" or "Lutheranism" are anywhere to be found in the bible. Thankfully, the Catholic Church which wrote and preserved the bible is indeed biblical and can be seen in Matt 16:18. Please leave your false church and submit to Rome and you may be saved.

@harktheheral

5 жыл бұрын

...did you just prove his point without realizing it? Yes, yes you did.

@ameosayande5741

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor that's untrue.

@ameosayande5741

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Catholic Doctrines are scriptural .... I'm not sure where ur 98% stems from. And we do not claim sola scriptura too. Even at that it is still very scriptural. Could u name the 98% that isn't scriptural?

@ameosayande5741

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor seems to me you are debating a strawman or what u think Catholics think, just a skimming through your refutations seem to me what u think Catholics think, you don't have the official statements of the Church neither have you presented the Catholic position. I'd be happy to do so myself and we we go from claim to claim not the barrage of stuff u have given. For instance we do Baptism then go to maybe justification and so on. Let me know if you want it here or by email.

Catholicism seems to force together a lot of pieces that do NOT fit together. The sacrifice of the Eucharist being both obvious and blasphemous.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a sacrifice. Therefore it is a sacrifice. Case closed. "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." ---Malachi 1:11

The difference is, catholics would regard their eucharistic sacrifice as valid where as the lutheran eucharist sacrifice as not valid.

@frogleg10

5 жыл бұрын

Oh please get of your high horse and start arguing as an adult.

@ArgyllPiper90

5 жыл бұрын

@@frogleg10 lol says you with a "throw your toys out of the pram" response lol if you have an issue with the comment, please respond accordingly and by accordingly I mean a response based on scripture, history, theology perhaps. Is that too much for you to figure out?

@frogleg10

5 жыл бұрын

@@ArgyllPiper90 I think that the Roman Church's claim of the Pope being the unique successor of St. Peter is a huge stretch. The church was founded on the apostles and the bishop of Rome was only one of the original 5 patriarchs. Only the Roman of the 3 or 4 "Catholic" churches which acknowledge the apostolic succession accept that the pope as the head of the church. The history of the papal office is very cloudy with several popes at times and much corruption. Which pope is the real pope. The bishops of the church catholic (Roman included) are the successors of the apostles and not just the pope's see. The modern office of the pope is not biblical. The eastern catholic churches and others have never accepted the convoluted Roman description of the body and blood as transubstantiation among other recent innovations. Why not stop with the RC brainwashed knee jerk reaction that others' eucharists are not valid. That is not an adult argument. Substantiate your claims that your RC Church is the only true church. This is in disagreement with all other christians, especially the eastern church which has not undergone the many changes of the RC Church over the centuries.

@drewmann856

5 жыл бұрын

@@frogleg10 To be fair, the Eastern Churches would say the same thing about most modern-day protestant churches. That they aren't even "Churches" in the proper sense, as they lack apostolic succession. The only Protestants to actually maintain Faith and morals, from they're perspective, would be small, conservative Anglican churches.

@frogleg10

5 жыл бұрын

@@drewmann856 There are lutheran Churches which have maintained the Apostolic succession of its bishops

I think Martin and Philip would 💯 embrace the modern roman mass.

Too bad for all of the Lutheran and other "Reformers", that do not understand the TRANSSUBSTANTION in the Roman Catholic sense. You are IN ERROR, as usual, and therefore have NO MIRACLES at your altars, neither is God with you in HIS TRUE PRESENCE. I pray for your conversion. Luther's writings are horrific. He wasn't even an Augustinian monk, as history falsely tells us.

@DrJordanBCooper

5 жыл бұрын

Ok.

@frogleg10

5 жыл бұрын

Transubstantiation is a later philosophical invention in a silly attempt to explain the Real Presence and is not found in the bible. The lutheran and the Orthodox church also believe in the Real Presence but do not accept the silly Roman description called Transubstantiation

@billmartin3561

Жыл бұрын

Consubstantiation is no less of a leap than transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the most consistent theology with John 6.