The Mass is a sacrifice. Not a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that the priest offers up to God on behalf of the people, but it's Christ's once for all sacrifice for us on Calvary made present for the forgiveness of sins of those who partake worthily.
Since Christ's once for all sacrifice on the cross was propitiatory (Confessional Lutherans and Catholics both believe that) , and the sacrifice the priest offers is that one and the same sacrifice made present, then the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. Just a clarification.
How do you figure. Did Jesus say "do this in sacrifice of me"? No it is done in remembrance. Roman Catholics get everything wrong, it was all wrong on purpose from the start. Wolves ravenous wolves. Where do people get the insane idea to murder Jesus at mass? It's not Biblical. Also Jesus was a Jew and they had other similar things, they have other meals to remember events. They are done to remember he event. They are not done in belief that they are reliving those events. They are remembering those events. Roman catholicism is so evil. It's taint is still in the Lutheran church too. Lutherans are weak cowards.
If Jesus said, It is done! after giving up His spirit on the cross, why do caths feel the need to offer Him up every week or more, and eat Him on top of that?
Roman catholicism and eastern unorthodoxy are cults. Read Scripture: 1 Timothy 4 New International Version 4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
@@sird2333 Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me."
Anglican theologian E.L Maschall puts it well in his book Corpus Christi when he says that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the 'whole Christ offering the whole Christ.' The body of Christ, which includes both Christ and His Church (which is His body), offers up the once for all sacrifice on cavalry, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and offering up our bodies as holy living sacrifices. This is offered up by 'the whole Christ,' which mysteriously includes him as our great High Priest, and also His Church. There is one sacrifice... and we are joined to it in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Rome has corrected their error on saying they're re-sacrificing Christ, but they still very much believe that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that satisfies God's wrath. "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema."
Terrível. Só mostra o quão apegados ao Antigo Testamento os católicos ainda estão. Todas essas questões surgem por eles serem incapazes de distinguir entre Lei e Evangelho, entre Pacto das Obras e Pacto da Graça, entre Antiga e Nova Aliança. Glória a Deus pelos reformadores que foram usados pelo Senhor pra nos resgatarem do ensino judaizante da igreja medieval.
@@josueinhan8436my friend... is because of the old testament, we're able to affirm, confirm and validate that Jesus is the Messiah.. without the old testament, you wouldn't understand the new testament.
@@josueinhan8436 translated from English to Spanish by MS-Word En las dimensiones humanas de tiempo y espacio, el sacrificio de Cristo tuvo lugar de una vez por todas en la cruz. Pero Apocalipsis 13:8 se refiere a Cristo como el Cordero inmolado antes de la fundación del mundo. El verbo griego "matar" está en tiempo perfecto pasivo griego. A diferencia de la del griego español, el tiempo perfecto indica que la acción descrita por el verbo (ser asesinado) se completó en el pasado (antes de la fundación o creación del mundo) con resultados continuos hasta el presente. A modo de comparación, la frase "escrito está", refiriéndose a las Escrituras, también está en tiempo perfecto pasivo griego. Las Escrituras fueron escritas completamente en el pasado y permanecen escritas desde entonces. Cada vez que usted compra una nueva Biblia en cualquier idioma, las Escrituras son REIMPRESAS pero NO SON REESCRITAS. Por lo que Cristo le dijo a María Magdalena después de Su resurrección, sabemos que Él no ascendió a Dios el Padre (quien está) en el cielo después de morir en la cruz (Juan 20:17). Esto significaba que Él no se ofreció a sí mismo en el santuario celestial (Hebreos 8:5, 9:11) después de la crucifixión. La razón es: Él ya lo hizo antes de la fundación del mundo después de haber sido inmolado (Apocalipsis 13:8). Heb. 9:26 incluso dice (NVI) "porque entonces él [Cristo] habría tenido que sufrir repetidas veces desde la fundación del mundo [NO DESDE LA CRUCIFIXIÓN]". Lo anterior debería explicar por qué los católicos creen que Su Sacrificio en la cruz puede hacerse presente en cada Misa y es por eso que tenemos sacerdotes y altar. Heb. 13:10 dice "tenemos un altar" - la palabra griega "nosotros" es la primera persona del plural que incluye a la persona que escribió Hebreos. Las iglesias católicas tienen crucifijos, no cruces vacías como en las iglesias protestantes, porque Pablo escribió en 1 Corintios 1:23 "pero nosotros predicamos a Cristo crucificado" - el verbo griego crucificado en 1 Corintios 1:23 también está en tiempo perfecto pasivo.
Hebrews 13 discusses the sacrifice of our praise and thanksgiving and brotherly love. Being thankful for Christ In prayer and song (verbal praise) and making peace with each other in a service of thanks seems like a moment of theosis to me, so for those of us interested in theosis it seems like Communion should be the first place to look?
Not certain that it can’t be both a sacrament received and a sacrifice offered. Not the priest offering it, but Christ offering himself by the Spirit through the congregation. He intercedes for us continuously on the basis of his once for all sacrifice.
@@toddvoss52 but Luther would argue for the priesthood of all believers. Could it be through the instrumentality of the faith of all of us who are gathered together?
@@NomosCharis Well there is a priesthood of all believers. But we Catholics say a subset of that priesthood is the ministerial priesthood. And only a priest can act in persona Christi and consecrate the bread and wine. Actually, confessional Lutherans also believe that only the Pastor is the one to say the Words of Institution during the Divine Service that bring about the Real Presence (Dr. Cooper or others correct me if I am wrong). I do agree there is an important sense in which the congregation are offering their lives as a sacrifice and in that sense joining the sacrifice being offered by the priest. And, most importantly, drawing closer to union with Christ in doing so.
@@toddvoss52 gotcha. Didn’t realize you were Catholic, thought u might be Lutheran. One thing I’d like to understand is why Catholics believe that only ordained priests can consecrate the elements. Especially in light of the priesthood of all believers, which you seem to affirm. Do you attempt to ground it in the Bible? If so, where?
@@NomosCharis Not explicitly grounded in the Bible in the sense you seek. But we view it as both implicit in the Bible and also part of Sacred Tradition. Drawing out the entire biblical view would be too long. But I will try to summarize. First we view the priesthood as the fulfillment of the Old Testament priesthood (and remember every priest is only acting in persona Christi - and Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the OT priesthood which I think/hope we all agree on). And when Christ spoke to the Apostles and said 'Do this" he was speaking to them , not the other 70 or so disciples. And the Apostles then created Bishop/Presbyters. And just 100-130 or so years after Christ, Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic Liturgy and the "President of the assembly" is the one who "presides" over the "Thanksgiving" and says the "prayer of His Word" (i.e. the Words of Institution) such that "the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." That is a beginning. I take it you are not Lutheran ? And actually, I grew up as a confessional Lutheran but in mid life joined the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks for the charitable back and forth. God Bless
Why do people think that Catholics are not Christians? They believe what is attested to in the creeds. I think that they have some issues but to go as far as saying that they are not Christians is just horrible. I guess I do not get it. I'm so disappointed in that and I hope someone can really help with this. Dr. Cooper, your videos have helped so much and I so thankful for them!
Maybe it's because of the Catholic belief system, which in many ways, teaches their people Church doctrines that are opposite of what Biblical Christianity really is, and that's a huge divide. Catholics are following what the Catholic Church teaches, so, while many may be good Catholics , can it be said that they're good Christians ? If someone is attending a church or a Christian fellowship, and learning Biblical Christianity and sincerely embracing it and walking in it as a way of life...are they a good Catholic ? This is oversimplified, otherwise it would turn into a book (66). One walking in one belief system, would be in contradiction to the other. A man can't walk two paths at once, only one. The final destination will be up to the Heavenly Judge, I'm not Him, He's more than capable. I don't know how much someone else understands, or, what's in the heart , and not seen from the outside, only God and that person knows that. To be willfully ignorant , however, is a dangerous thing because no one, not me, not you, can con Jesus. Judas thought he could, but, found out. While others may have assumed Judas was with Christ, inwardly Judas' heart was evil and he was fully aware of what he was doing, though maybe not his own fate. He was with Christ but wasn't OF Christ, that's something we ALL must re-examine regularly in a personal basis .
Dr.Cooper if possible could you please tell the team at ALTS seminary to put the list of books on the website they refer to in the programs so that who cant join the programs can atleast read from the books in their free time .Thank you
I think Catholic dogma on the Mass is still misconstrued a bit: 1. There is One Sacrifice of Our Lord 2. The Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Cross is Our Lord himself. He is both the Priest and the Lamb. 3. The Mass is the One and Only Sacrifice Made Present and Offered anew by Our Lord to the Father. The priest only acts in Persona Christi 4. As it is the same propitiatory Sacrifice, the Mass is indeed offered for the remission of Sins 5. Communion as a Sacrament is indeed us receiving the Graces from God, as fruits of the one Sacrifice 6. The faithful including the priest associate themselves to this sacrifice This is the whole meaning of the Mass being called the 'Qurbana', the Sacrifice, from the very early days. So, first of all, I don't think we are that far away and indeed, the reformation is probably the reason for the Church to have precise its teachings to fight abuse. What makes us close is the centrality of the Cross. Secondly, one would wish the 2 parties would have the fortitude to carry on arguing rather than splitting during the reformation. it is so worth more than ever to get close to each other and make the effort of absolute precision of terms and meanings. Thank you for giving it your best and relentless effort
@ts-js353. Agree. And I would add another precision. The Catholic "direction" is not only "upward". It is bi-directional. What is offered is first gifted to us by God. In terms of the elements we bring natural elements of bread and wine and Christ transforms them via the instrumentality of the priest through his Words into the gifts that are then supernatural and fitting to offer. The downward is therefore also primary in the sense of being a necessary precondition such that what we offer is one and the same sacrifice on calvary. Dr. Cooper is correct that Lutheran view is one directional - downward. To my mind, a less rich view. Of course there are other dimensions of sacrifice also occurring - the offering of ourselves as sacrifice and thus drawing ever closer to union with Christ (something I would hope we could agree on).
What protestants particularly dislike is the language of an unbloody sacrifice distinct from the bloody sacrifice on the cross.Catholics speak of Christ being mystically slain at each mass by the action of the priest and the church This is rejected by all protestants
I found this in Didache: "And on the Days of the Lord, assembling together, break the bread and do Eucharist, confessing aforetimes sins of yours, so that the SACRIFICE of yours might be pure." (Didache 14:1) This would be an example of Early Church speaking in similar fashion to Catholics and Lutherans, unlike the Radical Reformers and Memorialists.
Tbf to them, however, Zwingli was very clear that he affirmed the Eucharistic sacrifice w/out the real presence. The notion of the memorial meal itself serving as the church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is a longheld view within the historic Reformed/Puritan (and low church Anglican) tradition. The real prezence is really a separate issue.
The celebration of the Eucharist is appointed for each Lord’s Day (XIV, 1). The use of the word θυσία, G2602, (sacrifice) in this connection is not to be understood as a reference to the sacrifice of Christ. The word was a common description of prayers, alms and gifts in the usage of the time. It is the “sacrifice” of the people to which reference is being made.
Does anyone have a reference to Rome or any "infallible teaching" stating the professed belief of Christ being resacrficed as opposed to being represented?
5:10 "The Church Fathers do speak about the supper as a sacrifice".... can we leave it at that? Or Did anyone reject this view? Did someone say before Luther, "The mass was not a Sacrifice? Was it heretical in the 1st 1500 years?...
The celebration of the Eucharist is appointed for each Lord’s Day (XIV, 1). The use of the word θυσία, G2602, (sacrifice) in this connection is not to be understood as a reference to the sacrifice of Christ. The word was a common description of prayers, alms and gifts in the usage of the time. It is the “sacrifice” of the people to which reference is being made.
If Christ offers himself sacrificially in the re-presentation of his bodily death on the cross in the Mass, which is undisputed among the denominations, then why are the graces that flow from this re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross not just as accessible to the whole world as in this sacrifice, whether the individual is physically present or not?
@@paar130Many denominations almost all nondenominational reject your doctrine. The Bible says Lord's table on Last Supper, not Eucharist. The Last Supper was in and inn, not a church. A loaf of common bread, not wafers. Common wine, not special wine. Says it was Memorial, not anything else. Paul rejected denominationalism. It divides the Church. All you will offer is doctrine, not biblical proof.
Contrary to what Dr. Cooper said in the video, Catholics do NOT re-sacrifice Christ in every Mass but His single sacrifice is made present in every Mass. In human time and space dimensions Christ Sacrifice took place once for all on the cross..But Rev. 13::8 refers Christ as the Lamb slain before/from 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 (before foundation or creation of the world) with continuing result 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. The reason is: He already did it before the foundation of the world after being slain (Rev. 13:8). Heb. 9:26 even says (ESV) " for then he [Christ] would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world [NOT SINCE CRUCIFIXION]." The above should explain why Catholics believe His Sacrifice on the cross can be made present in every Mass and that is why we have priests and altar. Heb. 13:10 says "we have an altar" - the Greek word "we" is first person plural that includes the person who wrote Hebrews. Catholic churches have crucifixes, not empty crosses as in Protestant churches, because Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 1:23 (ESV) "but we preach Christ crucified" - the Greek verb crucified in 1 Cor. 1:23 is also in passive perfect tense
If Jesus wasn't with the Father in heaven when he died, how can you explain when Jesus said to the thief on the cross "today you will be WITH ME IN PARADISE" ?
@@murilolinsdacruz4110 The paradise does not refer to heaven. The word originated from Persian word that refers to garden of palace. Where was He then? You should read 1 Pe. 3:19-20. One line of the Apostolic Creed says: "He [Christ] descended to hell". Hell refers to Hades (Greek) or Sheol (Hebrews), not the hell of the damned (Greek Gehenna).
Hebrews 13, 10 "We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat" In the bible, when there's mention of a sacrifice, there's an altar....and when an altar is mentioned, there's always a sacrifice....
@@donhaddix3770 why only in the old testament? You heard Dr. Cooper say that the early church saw it as a sacrifice, which replaces the old sacrifies... but to the generations, it was like they were there ( Ex 13, 8 ( ...because of what the Lord did for ME when I came out of egypt)... how much more is the new sacrifice where God allows us to be part of it. 🙏
read more, your out of context. verse 15 especially.. 9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. 15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise-the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
@@donhaddix3770 out of context? It validates what I said about the altar that there's always a sacrifice... yes, an offering perfect to God who we partake on a daily basis until his second coming. (The pre-weding banquet or dinner rehersal 😅)
1. The church offers bread and wine to the Father. 2. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration. 3. Therefore, the offering of the Mass, interpreted as a single offering of worship, is from Jesus Christ to the Father [from 1 and 2] (the priest being the alter Christus). But, through the elements of the Eucharistic rite, Jesus Christ is offered in which state/stage of his existence? (I) The incarnate Jesus - offers himself “body and blood”. (II) The sacrificed Jesus - notion of a single sacrifice (Hb. 9;10). (III) Jesus sacrificed on Calvary - the sacramental separation of His Body and Blood (Mt. 26); the Eucharistic act of his blood being “shed” for us (Mt. 26) - elements that happened temporally on the cross. Thus, 4. The incarnate Jesus, specifically in his sacrifice on Calvary, is the one offered in the elements of the Eucharistic rite. 5. Therefore, the Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. [from 3 and 4] 6. A bloody sacrifice does not occur again at every Mass - there is no bloodshed. 7. Therefore, the Mass is a bloodless sacrifice, which makes Calvary supernaturally present in each mass in a bloodless way. [from 5 and 6]
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.” no sacrifice,
@@donhaddix3770 Not at all: "Let’s examine the phrase, “in remembrance,” or in the Greek anamnesis. This Greek word calls to mind the Old Testament sacrificial system that included a remembrance or memorial sacrifice, an anamnesis offering. In fact, two psalms (Pss 38 and 70) were written to be chanted during this sacrifice, and in the Septuagint or LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament sometimes used by Our Lord and the Apostles, these psalms are entitled, “For the anamnesis,” that is, for the memorial offering [The psalms are numbered differently in the LXX, so see the titles of LXX Psalms 37 and 69]. Likewise, Jesus’ words as recorded in the Gospels and First Corinthians could be translated, “Do this as my memorial offering.” Although it might accompany an animal sacrifice, the memorial offering consisted only of flour or grain, not meat [Leviticus 2:16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7]. This is significant, as the Eucharist is the bloodless sacrifice that participates in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus. Christ offered his body on the cross, and thereafter we do the “memorial sacrifice,” which consists of the grain which is typified already in the Old Testament system. Thus the phrase “do this as my anamnesis” is fraught with the connotations of the priestly sacrifice of the memorial offering. At the Last Supper, Jesus is authorizing the Apostles to continue his Moses-like, priestly, sacrificial, covenantestablishing sacrifice." Bergsma, Jesus and the Old Testament Roots of the Priesthood, 2021, p. 84-85.
@@matheusdabnei5540 bread and wine are not sacrifices. no, he is not authorizing a formal priesthood. the apostles were not priests. meals in the ot were a coming together, not a formal service. they met in a "food establishment, not a temple,
@@matheusdabnei5540fully agree. That said, historically Lutherans have decisively rejected the concept so if you believe this you’re an inconsistent Lutheran and need to come home 🇻🇦
Hebrews emphasizes that Christ's sacrifice was His suffering and death, made once on the cross, and so unrepeatable, therefore the popular notion that had arisen that He was being repeatedly slain on the altars was wrong, and that is what the Reformers reacted against. As Scripture elsewhere talks of our offering ourselves as living sacrifices, as being His body, nourished by His Body and Blood, it makes sense to see the Eucharist as part of the one sacrifice that He makes, that is, His sacrifice is His death on the cross and the Eucharist. It is all the one propitiation, so the Eucharist is propitiatory.
(CCC) really says: 1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the SACRAMENTAL offering of his unique sacrifice ... 1364 ... Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch [Passover Lamb] has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." - 1 Cor 5:7. 1367 ... the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is ... [now] offered in an unbloody manner. . . " See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation." 1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. 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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).😁😁
How did we manage to divide ourselves on so little ? I mean this sacrement is meant to be the gathering of every believers and we made of it a division object between the believers. But really, what does it change to see through it a sacrifice or a mere commemoration ? We are all one body, saved through faith in Jesus-Christ. Faith which is demonstrated by the fruits we bear by offering continually our bodies in sacrifice to God, for the fullfilment of his will on earth. So one may see the true flesh of Christ in the bread, another only see bread, but in both cases, they see flesh and participate in eating it for the glory of our Lord. As it is written : "that which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," unless we are born of the first, there is no reason for us to divide ourselves on this subject.
Because the Bible (1 Cor. Primarily) say that the Lord’s Supper is a meal of confessing unity and that anyone taking it in an unworthy manner is casting judgment on themselves (or if you wanna get really harsh the kjv even says damnation). So it’s not a matter to be taken lightly.
@@kolab5620 I don't know man, even in baptist churches we are taught that we should not partake in the eucharist unworthily at the risk of eating a judgement upon ourselves. So, we should be able to participate all together in the same Lord's supper in a worthy way, without splitting up on the interpretation of how exactly Christ is present at this meal.
@@mathiasweil3507 But that's the thing. If we are supposed to hold fast to the doctrines of the prophets & apostles, and our church believes the bible very clearly teaches that it's the true body & blood of Jesus, then shouldn't it follow that not giving communion to someone is the best way of showing love to that person? Especially if that person denies the presence of Christ in the sacrament altogether?
Luther flatly denied that the Mass is sacrifice. 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, Luther’s works, Vol. 36, page 146-147 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, page 162
So why not just go along with what the Pope says? We don’t all have PhDs in theology, and the Roman Church does a passable imitation of being distributed _throughout the whole_ world. Catholic means “throughout the whole” with “world” being understood.
As an Evangelical and Reformed Baptist I would have to say that we view this as Pagan. We hold to ordinances and have truly broken with Rome - whom we see as apostate. Lutheranism leverages some of the distorted and errant writings of some of the older professors of faith without proper discernment. Some writings are valuable for a certainty...however.... I would have to conclude, that in this regard, we could not fellowship with Lutherans that hold this view as we celebrate the Lord's supper. I am not suggesting that Lutherans are not saved - that would be foolish, but we could not fellowship with brothers in this ordinance. (As much of Luther's teachings would have to be discarded - so we would have to suggest that the 'church fathers' were also fallible and their writings need to be discerned!) If we are to be Sola Scriptura, then we need to be properly Berean...(yes, yes I can only imagine all the words that you'd like to correct me with - but spare them - IDC - I am simply stating our position and not looking for proselytization) We would also have to say that we hold a vastly different view from Lutherans as it pertains to the 'church' and the nature of the church (the called out ones). We don't believe that we are born into the covenant, rather we elected into the covenant - the re-birth being manifested through the gift of faith. Baptism then is an attestation to the indwelling Holy Spirit - and may come later...as we do no believe Baptism to have any means of grace - rather it is a public declaration of the Lordship of Christ in obedience to His command (this obedience is personal as worked by the Holy Spirit - and so cannot be forced on an individual by proxy...there is so much more to this - so hold your comments). The Holy Spirit is the means of Grace -in fact it is God Himself dwelling in us to Will and Do His good pleasure. As with the law, that is external and cannot change the heart, so the Holy Spirit is the Law written on our Hearts. The Holy Spirit is the seal, not Baptism/confirmation or anything else. (The question of continuity and discontinuity besides. I'm just stating our position - so no commentary or admonishment needed thanks). The breaking of bread has no efficacy, but is a remembrance of the Lord, as we already have God indwelling us i.e. He is not 'up there' accepting sacrifices etc. The ekklesia, is then a community of the regenerate only (since Pentecost). Those who accompany the redeemed, though they be the unregenerate children, are not the 'called out ones'. To be a saint means that we have been set apart - called out if you will. The community of the saints can commit to teaching a child, but that does not constitute any element of the ordo solutis other than the 'preaching and hearing of the gospel' in our view. To round this out then: The breaking of bread needs to be seen in the context of the already indwelling Christ....Tetelestai!
The Righteousness of Christ alone is "imputed" to our account when the Holy Spirit gives us the "gift of faith" to believe in Him. We are not "infused" with His righteousness. The Eucharist is a pagan practice and it is therefore an abomination because it is a denial of His completed work in His obedience to God the Father to fulfill the Eternal Covenant, made before the existence of the creation. The proof is His resurrection, witnessed by many.
Scripture denies double imputation in Eze. 18:20: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Scripture does say in Rom. 5:19 that we are made righteous through Christ - being made righteous is by infusion. Being made righteous is a process because we lose righteousness through sinning as Scripture says in Ezekiel. 33:12-13: "the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die.” What we need to do when we sin is stated in Scripture in Eze. 33:14-16: "Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); he shall surely live. You may still believe that you need to repent but to do what is just and right as stated in the above verses will add what Christ did on the cross and violate solus Christus.
Any theology which implies Christ is sacrificed again, in any way, is anathema to God the Father. For this reason Moses was refused entrance to the promised land and died. He struck the stone a second time, that stone signifying Christ. The Eucharist is typical of the blood sprinkling accomplished by the high priest after the sacrifice.
Then Christ's cross was anathema to the God Father: "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." Reveletion 13.8 You said "in any way", but clearly, "in some way", the cross was the same sacrifice of the eternity. Therefore, your argument is false.
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.” symbolic, no church priest n the nt,
@@donhaddix3770 Not at all: "Let’s examine the phrase, “in remembrance,” or in the Greek anamnesis. This Greek word calls to mind the Old Testament sacrificial system that included a remembrance or memorial sacrifice, an anamnesis offering. In fact, two psalms (Pss 38 and 70) were written to be chanted during this sacrifice, and in the Septuagint or LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament sometimes used by Our Lord and the Apostles, these psalms are entitled, “For the anamnesis,” that is, for the memorial offering [The psalms are numbered differently in the LXX, so see the titles of LXX Psalms 37 and 69]. Likewise, Jesus’ words as recorded in the Gospels and First Corinthians could be translated, “Do this as my memorial offering.” Although it might accompany an animal sacrifice, the memorial offering consisted only of flour or grain, not meat [Leviticus 2:16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7]. This is significant, as the Eucharist is the bloodless sacrifice that participates in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus. Christ offered his body on the cross, and thereafter we do the “memorial sacrifice,” which consists of the grain which is typified already in the Old Testament system. Thus the phrase “do this as my anamnesis” is fraught with the connotations of the priestly sacrifice of the memorial offering. At the Last Supper, Jesus is authorizing the Apostles to continue his Moses-like, priestly, sacrificial, covenantestablishing sacrifice." Bergsma, Jesus and the Old Testament Roots of the Priesthood, 2021, p. 84-85.
The Mass is a both a sacrament (from God) and a sacrifice (from the people). Luther decided he didn’t like half of the story because it didn’t fit his broken theology and only retained the sacramental part but trashed the sacrificial part. This is exactly why we say Protestants don’t have the fullness of faith: because they decided to butcher it down.
The bread is bread. The wine is wine. It is done in remembrance. It is simply beautiful. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every pagan belief of evil Rome must be thoroughly rejected. This has become a stumbling block, a barrier that stops many would be Christians from being Christian. Who cares what Rome said. When they kicked Luther out he should have started with a clean slate. Luther was just an idiot though and was too corrupted from all his time under Roman Catholic brainwashing. It's not complicated at all. People make it complicated for no good reason.
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.”
The Mass is a sacrifice. Not a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that the priest offers up to God on behalf of the people, but it's Christ's once for all sacrifice for us on Calvary made present for the forgiveness of sins of those who partake worthily.
Since Christ's once for all sacrifice on the cross was propitiatory (Confessional Lutherans and Catholics both believe that) , and the sacrifice the priest offers is that one and the same sacrifice made present, then the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. Just a clarification.
How do you figure. Did Jesus say "do this in sacrifice of me"? No it is done in remembrance. Roman Catholics get everything wrong, it was all wrong on purpose from the start. Wolves ravenous wolves.
Where do people get the insane idea to murder Jesus at mass? It's not Biblical. Also Jesus was a Jew and they had other similar things, they have other meals to remember events. They are done to remember he event. They are not done in belief that they are reliving those events. They are remembering those events. Roman catholicism is so evil. It's taint is still in the Lutheran church too. Lutherans are weak cowards.
If Jesus said, It is done! after giving up His spirit on the cross, why do caths feel the need to offer Him up every week or more, and eat Him on top of that?
Roman catholicism and eastern unorthodoxy are cults. Read Scripture:
1 Timothy 4
New International Version
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
@@sird2333 Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me."
Anglican theologian E.L Maschall puts it well in his book Corpus Christi when he says that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the 'whole Christ offering the whole Christ.' The body of Christ, which includes both Christ and His Church (which is His body), offers up the once for all sacrifice on cavalry, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and offering up our bodies as holy living sacrifices. This is offered up by 'the whole Christ,' which mysteriously includes him as our great High Priest, and also His Church. There is one sacrifice... and we are joined to it in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Rome has corrected their error on saying they're re-sacrificing Christ, but they still very much believe that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that satisfies God's wrath.
"If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema."
Terrível. Só mostra o quão apegados ao Antigo Testamento os católicos ainda estão. Todas essas questões surgem por eles serem incapazes de distinguir entre Lei e Evangelho, entre Pacto das Obras e Pacto da Graça, entre Antiga e Nova Aliança. Glória a Deus pelos reformadores que foram usados pelo Senhor pra nos resgatarem do ensino judaizante da igreja medieval.
@@josueinhan8436my friend... is because of the old testament, we're able to affirm, confirm and validate that Jesus is the Messiah.. without the old testament, you wouldn't understand the new testament.
we never had an error to begin with we never believed he was re-sacrificed that's protestant bigot BS✨✨
@@josueinhan8436 translated from English to Spanish by MS-Word
En las dimensiones humanas de tiempo y espacio, el sacrificio de Cristo tuvo lugar de una vez por todas en la cruz. Pero Apocalipsis 13:8 se refiere a Cristo como el Cordero inmolado antes de la fundación del mundo. El verbo griego "matar" está en tiempo perfecto pasivo griego. A diferencia de la del griego español, el tiempo perfecto indica que la acción descrita por el verbo (ser asesinado) se completó en el pasado (antes de la fundación o creación del mundo) con resultados continuos hasta el presente. A modo de comparación, la frase "escrito está", refiriéndose a las Escrituras, también está en tiempo perfecto pasivo griego. Las Escrituras fueron escritas completamente en el pasado y permanecen escritas desde entonces. Cada vez que usted compra una nueva Biblia en cualquier idioma, las Escrituras son REIMPRESAS pero NO SON REESCRITAS.
Por lo que Cristo le dijo a María Magdalena después de Su resurrección, sabemos que Él no ascendió a Dios el Padre (quien está) en el cielo después de morir en la cruz (Juan 20:17). Esto significaba que Él no se ofreció a sí mismo en el santuario celestial (Hebreos 8:5, 9:11) después de la crucifixión. La razón es: Él ya lo hizo antes de la fundación del mundo después de haber sido inmolado (Apocalipsis 13:8). Heb. 9:26 incluso dice (NVI) "porque entonces él [Cristo] habría tenido que sufrir repetidas veces desde la fundación del mundo [NO DESDE LA CRUCIFIXIÓN]". Lo anterior debería explicar por qué los católicos creen que Su Sacrificio en la cruz puede hacerse presente en cada Misa y es por eso que tenemos sacerdotes y altar. Heb. 13:10 dice "tenemos un altar" - la palabra griega "nosotros" es la primera persona del plural que incluye a la persona que escribió Hebreos. Las iglesias católicas tienen crucifijos, no cruces vacías como en las iglesias protestantes, porque Pablo escribió en 1 Corintios 1:23 "pero nosotros predicamos a Cristo crucificado" - el verbo griego crucificado en 1 Corintios 1:23 también está en tiempo perfecto pasivo.
@bibleman8010 what are you, a instagram girl posting about slaying?
Hebrews 13 discusses the sacrifice of our praise and thanksgiving and brotherly love. Being thankful for Christ In prayer and song (verbal praise) and making peace with each other in a service of thanks seems like a moment of theosis to me, so for those of us interested in theosis it seems like Communion should be the first place to look?
What video series so this part of? Would like to see it in context.
Not certain that it can’t be both a sacrament received and a sacrifice offered. Not the priest offering it, but Christ offering himself by the Spirit through the congregation. He intercedes for us continuously on the basis of his once for all sacrifice.
Of course you are right (although we would say "through the instrumentality of the Priest).
@@toddvoss52 but Luther would argue for the priesthood of all believers. Could it be through the instrumentality of the faith of all of us who are gathered together?
@@NomosCharis Well there is a priesthood of all believers. But we Catholics say a subset of that priesthood is the ministerial priesthood. And only a priest can act in persona Christi and consecrate the bread and wine. Actually, confessional Lutherans also believe that only the Pastor is the one to say the Words of Institution during the Divine Service that bring about the Real Presence (Dr. Cooper or others correct me if I am wrong). I do agree there is an important sense in which the congregation are offering their lives as a sacrifice and in that sense joining the sacrifice being offered by the priest. And, most importantly, drawing closer to union with Christ in doing so.
@@toddvoss52 gotcha. Didn’t realize you were Catholic, thought u might be Lutheran.
One thing I’d like to understand is why Catholics believe that only ordained priests can consecrate the elements. Especially in light of the priesthood of all believers, which you seem to affirm. Do you attempt to ground it in the Bible? If so, where?
@@NomosCharis Not explicitly grounded in the Bible in the sense you seek. But we view it as both implicit in the Bible and also part of Sacred Tradition. Drawing out the entire biblical view would be too long. But I will try to summarize. First we view the priesthood as the fulfillment of the Old Testament priesthood (and remember every priest is only acting in persona Christi - and Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the OT priesthood which I think/hope we all agree on). And when Christ spoke to the Apostles and said 'Do this" he was speaking to them , not the other 70 or so disciples. And the Apostles then created Bishop/Presbyters. And just 100-130 or so years after Christ, Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic Liturgy and the "President of the assembly" is the one who "presides" over the "Thanksgiving" and says the "prayer of His Word" (i.e. the Words of Institution) such that "the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." That is a beginning.
I take it you are not Lutheran ? And actually, I grew up as a confessional Lutheran but in mid life joined the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks for the charitable back and forth. God Bless
Why do people think that Catholics are not Christians? They believe what is attested to in the creeds. I think that they have some issues but to go as far as saying that they are not Christians is just horrible. I guess I do not get it. I'm so disappointed in that and I hope someone can really help with this. Dr. Cooper, your videos have helped so much and I so thankful for them!
Catholics ARE Christians...there are just so many papal issues that muddy the waters is all
Maybe it's because of the Catholic belief system, which in many ways, teaches their people Church doctrines that are opposite of what Biblical Christianity really is, and that's a huge divide. Catholics are following what the Catholic Church teaches, so, while many may be good Catholics , can it be said that they're good Christians ? If someone is attending a church or a Christian fellowship, and learning Biblical Christianity and sincerely embracing it and walking in it as a way of life...are they a good Catholic ? This is oversimplified, otherwise it would turn into a book (66). One walking in one belief system, would be in contradiction to the other. A man can't walk two paths at once, only one. The final destination will be up to the Heavenly Judge, I'm not Him, He's more than capable. I don't know how much someone else understands, or, what's in the heart , and not seen from the outside, only God and that person knows that. To be willfully ignorant , however, is a dangerous thing because no one, not me, not you, can con Jesus. Judas thought he could, but, found out. While others may have assumed Judas was with Christ, inwardly Judas' heart was evil and he was fully aware of what he was doing, though maybe not his own fate. He was with Christ but wasn't OF Christ, that's something we ALL must re-examine regularly in a personal basis .
Dr.Cooper if possible could you please tell the team at ALTS seminary to put the list of books on the website they refer to in the programs so that who cant join the programs can atleast read from the books in their free time .Thank you
I think Catholic dogma on the Mass is still misconstrued a bit:
1. There is One Sacrifice of Our Lord
2. The Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Cross is Our Lord himself. He is both the Priest and the Lamb.
3. The Mass is the One and Only Sacrifice Made Present and Offered anew by Our Lord to the Father. The priest only acts in Persona Christi
4. As it is the same propitiatory Sacrifice, the Mass is indeed offered for the remission of Sins
5. Communion as a Sacrament is indeed us receiving the Graces from God, as fruits of the one Sacrifice
6. The faithful including the priest associate themselves to this sacrifice
This is the whole meaning of the Mass being called the 'Qurbana', the Sacrifice, from the very early days. So, first of all, I don't think we are that far away and indeed, the reformation is probably the reason for the Church to have precise its teachings to fight abuse. What makes us close is the centrality of the Cross. Secondly, one would wish the 2 parties would have the fortitude to carry on arguing rather than splitting during the reformation. it is so worth more than ever to get close to each other and make the effort of absolute precision of terms and meanings. Thank you for giving it your best and relentless effort
not biblical.
@@donhaddix3770 Not contrary to the bible 😉 and apostolic. Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium as the ancient churches ....
@@ts-js353 you mean according to Catholicism.
@ts-js353. Agree. And I would add another precision. The Catholic "direction" is not only "upward". It is bi-directional. What is offered is first gifted to us by God. In terms of the elements we bring natural elements of bread and wine and Christ transforms them via the instrumentality of the priest through his Words into the gifts that are then supernatural and fitting to offer. The downward is therefore also primary in the sense of being a necessary precondition such that what we offer is one and the same sacrifice on calvary. Dr. Cooper is correct that Lutheran view is one directional - downward. To my mind, a less rich view. Of course there are other dimensions of sacrifice also occurring - the offering of ourselves as sacrifice and thus drawing ever closer to union with Christ (something I would hope we could agree on).
What protestants particularly dislike is the language of an unbloody sacrifice distinct from the bloody sacrifice on the cross.Catholics speak of Christ being mystically slain at each mass by the action of the priest and the church
This is rejected by all protestants
I found this in Didache:
"And on the Days of the Lord, assembling together, break the bread and do Eucharist, confessing aforetimes sins of yours, so that the SACRIFICE of yours might be pure."
(Didache 14:1)
This would be an example of Early Church speaking in similar fashion to Catholics and Lutherans, unlike the Radical Reformers and Memorialists.
Tbf to them, however, Zwingli was very clear that he affirmed the Eucharistic sacrifice w/out the real presence. The notion of the memorial meal itself serving as the church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is a longheld view within the historic Reformed/Puritan (and low church Anglican) tradition. The real prezence is really a separate issue.
If you read Didache 13, it seems like the "sacrifice" is offerings to the prophets and the poor.
The celebration of the Eucharist is appointed for each Lord’s Day (XIV, 1). The use of the word θυσία, G2602, (sacrifice) in this connection is not to be understood as a reference to the sacrifice of Christ. The word was a common description of prayers, alms and gifts in the usage of the time. It is the “sacrifice” of the people to which reference is being made.
the Didache is not early church.
That’s not what that means my guy
the age old question: why would God allow a _"mistake"_ this huge/fundamental in the interpreatation?
That applies to basically any error in existence bruv.
Could one say that Christ is actually being offered, not as a propitiation, but as a thanksgiving?
Does anyone have a reference to Rome or any "infallible teaching" stating the professed belief of Christ being resacrficed as opposed to being represented?
5:10 "The Church Fathers do speak about the supper as a sacrifice".... can we leave it at that? Or Did anyone reject this view? Did someone say before Luther, "The mass was not a Sacrifice?
Was it heretical in the 1st 1500 years?...
The celebration of the Eucharist is appointed for each Lord’s Day (XIV, 1). The use of the word θυσία, G2602, (sacrifice) in this connection is not to be understood as a reference to the sacrifice of Christ. The word was a common description of prayers, alms and gifts in the usage of the time. It is the “sacrifice” of the people to which reference is being made.
If Christ offers himself sacrificially in the re-presentation of his bodily death on the cross in the Mass, which is undisputed among the denominations, then why are the graces that flow from this re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross not just as accessible to the whole world as in this sacrifice, whether the individual is physically present or not?
the lord's table represents his death, not a catholic mass.
@@donhaddix3770 I do not see, how your comment does answer my question.
@@paar130Many denominations almost all nondenominational reject your doctrine.
The Bible says Lord's table on Last Supper, not Eucharist.
The Last Supper was in and inn, not a church.
A loaf of common bread, not wafers.
Common wine, not special wine.
Says it was Memorial, not anything else.
Paul rejected denominationalism. It divides the Church.
All you will offer is doctrine, not biblical proof.
@@donhaddix3770 I was referring to the video on which I wrote my comment.
@@paar130You're trolling right ? 🤣🤣
Contrary to what Dr. Cooper said in the video, Catholics do NOT re-sacrifice Christ in every Mass but His single sacrifice is made present in every Mass.
In human time and space dimensions Christ Sacrifice took place once for all on the cross..But Rev. 13::8 refers Christ as the Lamb slain before/from 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 (before foundation or creation of the world) with continuing result 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. The reason is: He already did it before the foundation of the world after being slain (Rev. 13:8). Heb. 9:26 even says (ESV) "
for then he [Christ] would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world [NOT SINCE CRUCIFIXION]."
The above should explain why Catholics believe His Sacrifice on the cross can be made present in every Mass and that is why we have priests and altar. Heb. 13:10 says "we have an altar" - the Greek word "we" is first person plural that includes the person who wrote Hebrews. Catholic churches have crucifixes, not empty crosses as in Protestant churches, because Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 1:23 (ESV) "but we preach Christ crucified" - the Greek verb crucified in 1 Cor. 1:23 is also in passive perfect tense
It’s not the same sacrifice.
@@Wgaither1 how do you know?
If Jesus wasn't with the Father in heaven when he died, how can you explain when Jesus said to the thief on the cross "today you will be WITH ME IN PARADISE" ?
@@murilolinsdacruz4110 The paradise does not refer to heaven. The word originated from Persian word that refers to garden of palace. Where was He then? You should read 1 Pe. 3:19-20. One line of the Apostolic Creed says: "He [Christ] descended to hell". Hell refers to Hades (Greek) or Sheol (Hebrews), not the hell of the damned (Greek Gehenna).
@@justfromcatholic that's 20th Century Romanist revisionism. Learn your history.
Hebrews 13, 10 "We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat"
In the bible, when there's mention of a sacrifice, there's an altar....and when an altar is mentioned, there's always a sacrifice....
only in the old testament
@@donhaddix3770 why only in the old testament? You heard Dr. Cooper say that the early church saw it as a sacrifice, which replaces the old sacrifies... but to the generations, it was like they were there ( Ex 13, 8 ( ...because of what the Lord did for ME when I came out of egypt)... how much more is the new sacrifice where God allows us to be part of it. 🙏
read more, your out of context. verse 15 especially..
9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.
11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise-the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
@@donhaddix3770 out of context? It validates what I said about the altar that there's always a sacrifice... yes, an offering perfect to God who we partake on a daily basis until his second coming. (The pre-weding banquet or dinner rehersal 😅)
@@magnumsacramentum but no mention of an alter. and the rapture comes first, which Catholicism denies.
1. The church offers bread and wine to the Father.
2. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration.
3. Therefore, the offering of the Mass, interpreted as a single offering of worship, is from Jesus Christ to the Father [from 1 and 2] (the priest being the alter Christus).
But, through the elements of the Eucharistic rite, Jesus Christ is offered in which state/stage of his existence?
(I) The incarnate Jesus - offers himself “body and blood”.
(II) The sacrificed Jesus - notion of a single sacrifice (Hb. 9;10).
(III) Jesus sacrificed on Calvary - the sacramental separation of His Body and Blood (Mt. 26); the Eucharistic act of his blood being “shed” for us (Mt. 26) - elements that happened temporally on the cross.
Thus,
4. The incarnate Jesus, specifically in his sacrifice on Calvary, is the one offered in the elements of the Eucharistic rite.
5. Therefore, the Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. [from 3 and 4]
6. A bloody sacrifice does not occur again at every Mass - there is no bloodshed.
7. Therefore, the Mass is a bloodless sacrifice, which makes Calvary supernaturally present in each mass in a bloodless way. [from 5 and 6]
Well said brother! 🙏
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.”
no sacrifice,
@@donhaddix3770 Not at all:
"Let’s examine the phrase, “in remembrance,” or in the Greek anamnesis. This Greek word calls to mind the Old Testament sacrificial system that included a remembrance or memorial sacrifice, an anamnesis offering. In fact, two psalms (Pss 38 and 70) were written to be chanted during this sacrifice, and in the Septuagint or LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament sometimes used by Our Lord and the Apostles, these psalms are entitled, “For the anamnesis,” that is, for the memorial offering [The psalms are numbered differently in the LXX, so see the titles of LXX Psalms 37 and 69]. Likewise, Jesus’ words as recorded in the Gospels and First Corinthians could be translated, “Do this as my memorial offering.” Although it might accompany an animal sacrifice, the memorial offering consisted only of flour or grain, not meat [Leviticus 2:16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7]. This is significant, as the Eucharist is the bloodless sacrifice that participates in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus. Christ offered his body on the cross, and thereafter we do the “memorial sacrifice,” which consists of the grain which is typified already in the Old Testament system. Thus the phrase “do this as my anamnesis” is fraught with the connotations of the priestly sacrifice of the memorial offering. At the Last Supper, Jesus is authorizing the Apostles to continue his Moses-like, priestly, sacrificial, covenantestablishing sacrifice." Bergsma, Jesus and the Old Testament Roots of the Priesthood, 2021, p. 84-85.
@@matheusdabnei5540 bread and wine are not sacrifices.
no, he is not authorizing a formal priesthood. the apostles were not priests. meals in the ot were a coming together, not a formal service. they met in a "food establishment, not a temple,
@@matheusdabnei5540fully agree. That said, historically Lutherans have decisively rejected the concept so if you believe this you’re an inconsistent Lutheran and need to come home 🇻🇦
Hebrews emphasizes that Christ's sacrifice was His suffering and death, made once on the cross, and so unrepeatable, therefore the popular notion that had arisen that He was being repeatedly slain on the altars was wrong, and that is what the Reformers reacted against. As Scripture elsewhere talks of our offering ourselves as living sacrifices, as being His body, nourished by His Body and Blood, it makes sense to see the Eucharist as part of the one sacrifice that He makes, that is, His sacrifice is His death on the cross and the Eucharist. It is all the one propitiation, so the Eucharist is propitiatory.
(CCC) really says: 1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the SACRAMENTAL offering of his unique sacrifice ...
1364 ... Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch [Passover Lamb] has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." - 1 Cor 5:7.
1367 ... the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is ... [now] offered in an unbloody manner. . .
" See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation."
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
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.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).😁😁
Do you believe when Jesus says "I'm the bread" he is saying that he's literally a bread ?
How did we manage to divide ourselves on so little ? I mean this sacrement is meant to be the gathering of every believers and we made of it a division object between the believers. But really, what does it change to see through it a sacrifice or a mere commemoration ? We are all one body, saved through faith in Jesus-Christ. Faith which is demonstrated by the fruits we bear by offering continually our bodies in sacrifice to God, for the fullfilment of his will on earth. So one may see the true flesh of Christ in the bread, another only see bread, but in both cases, they see flesh and participate in eating it for the glory of our Lord. As it is written : "that which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," unless we are born of the first, there is no reason for us to divide ourselves on this subject.
Because the Bible (1 Cor. Primarily) say that the Lord’s Supper is a meal of confessing unity and that anyone taking it in an unworthy manner is casting judgment on themselves (or if you wanna get really harsh the kjv even says damnation). So it’s not a matter to be taken lightly.
@@kolab5620 I don't know man, even in baptist churches we are taught that we should not partake in the eucharist unworthily at the risk of eating a judgement upon ourselves. So, we should be able to participate all together in the same Lord's supper in a worthy way, without splitting up on the interpretation of how exactly Christ is present at this meal.
@@mathiasweil3507 But that's the thing. If we are supposed to hold fast to the doctrines of the prophets & apostles, and our church believes the bible very clearly teaches that it's the true body & blood of Jesus, then shouldn't it follow that not giving communion to someone is the best way of showing love to that person? Especially if that person denies the presence of Christ in the sacrament altogether?
The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thankfulness, as Melanchthon uses in the Apology. It is not a representation of Christ’s sacrifice.
Luther flatly denied that the Mass is sacrifice. 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, Luther’s works, Vol. 36, page 146-147
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, page 162
I agree with Luther
@@Wgaither1 Luther was wrong
This is good to know thanks
So why not just go along with what the Pope says? We don’t all have PhDs in theology, and the Roman Church does a passable imitation of being distributed _throughout the whole_ world. Catholic means “throughout the whole” with “world” being understood.
As an Evangelical and Reformed Baptist I would have to say that we view this as Pagan. We hold to ordinances and have truly broken with Rome - whom we see as apostate. Lutheranism leverages some of the distorted and errant writings of some of the older professors of faith without proper discernment. Some writings are valuable for a certainty...however....
I would have to conclude, that in this regard, we could not fellowship with Lutherans that hold this view as we celebrate the Lord's supper. I am not suggesting that Lutherans are not saved - that would be foolish, but we could not fellowship with brothers in this ordinance. (As much of Luther's teachings would have to be discarded - so we would have to suggest that the 'church fathers' were also fallible and their writings need to be discerned!) If we are to be Sola Scriptura, then we need to be properly Berean...(yes, yes I can only imagine all the words that you'd like to correct me with - but spare them - IDC - I am simply stating our position and not looking for proselytization)
We would also have to say that we hold a vastly different view from Lutherans as it pertains to the 'church' and the nature of the church (the called out ones). We don't believe that we are born into the covenant, rather we elected into the covenant - the re-birth being manifested through the gift of faith. Baptism then is an attestation to the indwelling Holy Spirit - and may come later...as we do no believe Baptism to have any means of grace - rather it is a public declaration of the Lordship of Christ in obedience to His command (this obedience is personal as worked by the Holy Spirit - and so cannot be forced on an individual by proxy...there is so much more to this - so hold your comments). The Holy Spirit is the means of Grace -in fact it is God Himself dwelling in us to Will and Do His good pleasure. As with the law, that is external and cannot change the heart, so the Holy Spirit is the Law written on our Hearts. The Holy Spirit is the seal, not Baptism/confirmation or anything else. (The question of continuity and discontinuity besides. I'm just stating our position - so no commentary or admonishment needed thanks). The breaking of bread has no efficacy, but is a remembrance of the Lord, as we already have God indwelling us i.e. He is not 'up there' accepting sacrifices etc.
The ekklesia, is then a community of the regenerate only (since Pentecost). Those who accompany the redeemed, though they be the unregenerate children, are not the 'called out ones'. To be a saint means that we have been set apart - called out if you will. The community of the saints can commit to teaching a child, but that does not constitute any element of the ordo solutis other than the 'preaching and hearing of the gospel' in our view.
To round this out then: The breaking of bread needs to be seen in the context of the already indwelling Christ....Tetelestai!
The Righteousness of Christ alone is "imputed" to our account when the Holy Spirit gives us the "gift of faith" to believe in Him. We are not "infused" with His righteousness. The Eucharist is a pagan practice and it is therefore an abomination because it is a denial of His completed work in His obedience to God the Father to fulfill the Eternal Covenant, made before the existence of the creation. The proof is His resurrection, witnessed by many.
Scripture denies double imputation in Eze. 18:20: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Scripture does say in Rom. 5:19 that we are made righteous through Christ - being made righteous is by infusion. Being made righteous is a process because we lose righteousness through sinning as Scripture says in Ezekiel. 33:12-13: "the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die.” What we need to do when we sin is stated in Scripture in Eze. 33:14-16: "Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); he shall surely live.
You may still believe that you need to repent but to do what is just and right as stated in the above verses will add what Christ did on the cross and violate solus Christus.
I heard that the mass is the same sacrifice of the cross -- very timey wimey
Didnt watch but the answer is yes
Any theology which implies Christ is sacrificed again, in any way, is anathema to God the Father. For this reason Moses was refused entrance to the promised land and died. He struck the stone a second time, that stone signifying Christ. The Eucharist is typical of the blood sprinkling accomplished by the high priest after the sacrifice.
Then Christ's cross was anathema to the God Father:
"the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." Reveletion 13.8
You said "in any way", but clearly, "in some way", the cross was the same sacrifice of the eternity. Therefore, your argument is false.
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.”
symbolic, no church priest n the nt,
@@donhaddix3770 Not at all:
"Let’s examine the phrase, “in remembrance,” or in the Greek anamnesis. This Greek word calls to mind the Old Testament sacrificial system that included a remembrance or memorial sacrifice, an anamnesis offering. In fact, two psalms (Pss 38 and 70) were written to be chanted during this sacrifice, and in the Septuagint or LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament sometimes used by Our Lord and the Apostles, these psalms are entitled, “For the anamnesis,” that is, for the memorial offering [The psalms are numbered differently in the LXX, so see the titles of LXX Psalms 37 and 69]. Likewise, Jesus’ words as recorded in the Gospels and First Corinthians could be translated, “Do this as my memorial offering.” Although it might accompany an animal sacrifice, the memorial offering consisted only of flour or grain, not meat [Leviticus 2:16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7]. This is significant, as the Eucharist is the bloodless sacrifice that participates in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus. Christ offered his body on the cross, and thereafter we do the “memorial sacrifice,” which consists of the grain which is typified already in the Old Testament system. Thus the phrase “do this as my anamnesis” is fraught with the connotations of the priestly sacrifice of the memorial offering. At the Last Supper, Jesus is authorizing the Apostles to continue his Moses-like, priestly, sacrificial, covenantestablishing sacrifice." Bergsma, Jesus and the Old Testament Roots of the Priesthood, 2021, p. 84-85.
Don't Judaize. Moses isn't in the Mass.
The Mass is a both a sacrament (from God) and a sacrifice (from the people). Luther decided he didn’t like half of the story because it didn’t fit his broken theology and only retained the sacramental part but trashed the sacrificial part.
This is exactly why we say Protestants don’t have the fullness of faith: because they decided to butcher it down.
FIRST
@@theodosios2615oh lighten up grumpy pants.
The bread is bread. The wine is wine. It is done in remembrance. It is simply beautiful. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Every pagan belief of evil Rome must be thoroughly rejected. This has become a stumbling block, a barrier that stops many would be Christians from being Christian.
Who cares what Rome said. When they kicked Luther out he should have started with a clean slate. Luther was just an idiot though and was too corrupted from all his time under Roman Catholic brainwashing.
It's not complicated at all. People make it complicated for no good reason.
a memorial, not sacrifice.
A sacrament more than a memorial
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.”
@@donhaddix3770 the 'this' refers to what Jesus also said 'This is my body'. Context context.
@@mysticmouse7261 symbolic,
@@donhaddix3770 so you're saying more than it's a memorial. Something that is not text.