Not Scripture plus the Catechism

Lutero:

Scripture alone is inspired by God.

That's not what Scripture says:
2 Peter 1:21

King James Version (KJV)
²¹For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Not Scripture plus the Catechism

The Catechism contains the Traditions of Jesus Christ. Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

or Scripture plus the Book of Mormon etc..

Scripture warns against the Book of Mormon and the Koran, books brought by alleged angels:
Galatians 1:8

King James Version (KJV)
⁸But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Faith in Christ alone.

Faith in Christ, yes. But faith in Christ alone is a contradiction of the Bible:
Hebrews 13:7

King James Version (KJV)
⁷Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

1 Corinthians 11

¹Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Not faith plus works. Grace unmerited favor alone. Not grace plus merited favor.

Again you contradict the Word of God:
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
²⁴Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Romans 2:13

King James Version (KJV)
¹³(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

I partake of the Lord's Supper, not your tradition, in which you turn the communion of the body and blood of Christ into literal cannibolism. You miss the spiritual application of "one bread, one body, partakers of that one bread." The word "Mass" is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

The word "mass" is nowhere found in Scripture. But it is everywhere depicted and practiced:
1 Corinthians 10:16

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁶The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Point me to the Scripture which specifically states: "miss the MASS is a MORTAL sin."

Hebrews 10:25-31

King James Version (KJV)
²⁵Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
²⁶For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
²⁷But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
²⁸He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
²⁹Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
³⁰For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
³¹It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

In Hebrews 10:26, to "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Though the knowledge was not defective or incomplete, the application of the knowledge was certainly flawed. Now we don't walk along our daily life and accidently fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21 not the righteous, who have been born of God - 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9.

In other words, those who stay home to watch football on Sundays, rather than attend the Mass, are guilty of the sinning wiillfully against the Body of Christ and the Blood which sanctified him.

The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in v. 29, which you highlighted, seems to be referring to a believer, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is a term often applied to Christians; it is the verb form of the adjective "holy") really just means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

Let me get this straight, you don't believe that when you are saved, you are washed in the Blood of Christ? Interesting.

In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "made holy" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" and from other non-Christians and sinful things without experiencing salvation as Paul clearly explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that just do not line up with scripture.

Ok, I believe you. You don't believe you are saved by the Blood of Christ. Gotcha!

Hebrews 9:14

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁴How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1 John 1:7

King James Version (KJV)
⁷But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

In vs. 39, which you did not bother to read, the author sets up the contrast that makes it clear that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

What does the term "draw back" mean?

And now, lets go back a few verses:
²³Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
²⁴And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
²⁵Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
²⁶For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Obviously, he is talking to Christians. People who have made a profession of faith. Just as you, (I presume) and certainly I have.

Now, lets go back a few lines from v. 39:
³⁴For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
These people had done good deeds on behalf of St. Paul


³⁵Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.What? He warns them not to cast away their confidence?
³⁶For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

He warns them they need patience to wait on receiving the promise that they MIGHT receive. Not that they are guaranteed of receiving.


³⁷For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
³⁸Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
³⁹But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Note that the just live by faith, but not faith alone as he has already enumerated two other virtues, confidence and patience. And he made sure to explain that they MIGHT receive the promise, IF THEY PERSEVERE.

It's likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as an active participant in the Christian community of believers, but who has subsequently committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by denying the knowledge of the truth that he received, and by repudiating the work of the person of Christ Himself. Such a person's apostasy is evidence that his identification with believers was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

Yeah, well, I believe I will be saved by the Blood of Christ. You can go on justifying anything you want.

You will not find the words "Eucharist or Transubstantiation" in Scripture.

Nor will you find the word Trinity.

When Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." How could that be His "literal" body when He was still alive?

Do you not believe that Jesus is God? Do you not believe that with God all things are possible? Do you not believe that with but a word, He created all things? How can you ask then, "How can this be?" He said it, it is so.

Since Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism (transubstantiation)

Really? Cannibalism is defined as the eating of flesh which appears to be bread? Since when?

this doctrine requires serious examination.

You go on examining. I will continue believing Christ.

The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic church loves to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and wine as symbols.

Really? You also want to bring up the Church Fathers? I love it. Let us study the Church Fathers. Not one little snippet taken out of context here and there. But everything they taught. I'm game whenever you are. Other Protestants have made the same mistake:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...Sola-Scriptura

Let me know which Church Father's teachings you would like to begin to examine.

Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century. Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the salt of the world, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world etc.. (Matthew 5:14) Since Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism, this doctrine requires serious examination. To begin with, we must determine this doctrine's origin. Is it from God, or is it a tradition of men? Catholicism insists it is scriptural, citing the words of Jesus in John 6:

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54). If you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said: "... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35 This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ for salvation, not eating His literal body. The Lord goes on to further clarify: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." John 6:40 Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

You are talking circles around Jesus.

First, let us start with Transubstantiation which you sort of touched upon but dropped. Transubstantiation is the changing of one substance to another. The changing of bread to the substance of the Flesh of Our Lord. What does Jesus say:
John 6:51

King James Version (KJV)
⁵¹I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Very simple and straight forward, nothing confusing there. The BREAD that I will give is my FLESH.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Now, let's focus on what Jesus said about the spirit and life. 

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

First He says, THE flesh profits nothing. Of course, knowing Scripture, we know that THE flesh is one of the enemies of God:
Romans 8:7-8

King James Version (KJV)
⁷Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
⁸So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But what are His Words that are Spirit and Life? He repeated them often enough for anyone to see:
⁵³Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

⁵⁴Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

⁵⁵For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

⁵⁶He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Now, perhaps you see, THE flesh profits nothing. But Christ's flesh and blood, profits to eternal life.

Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically.

You are right that He was talking spiritually:
1 Corinthians 2:14

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁴But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His literal body. Why does the Roman Catholic church deliberately take one verse of Scripture out of context and build a doctrine the Bible obviously does not teach? Why would the Roman Catholic church rather have you eating Christ than placing your faith in Him?

Jesus repeats it over and over.
The Apostle also teaches the same thing:
1 Corinthians 11:27

King James Version (KJV)
²⁷Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

and the Church Fathers believed the same thing:
The Early Fathers recognized the clear meaning of Scripture regarding the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. While some found it hard to accept (John 6:60-66) Jesus was adamant in proclaiming that his flesh and blood were real food and drink. He did not call out to those who abandoned him over this to explain that he was only speaking symbolically. And that is because he wasn’t. The early Christians were even persecuted for their belief as they were accused of being cannibals. While the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ it retains the appearance of bread and wine.
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm

No literally eating of any flesh can give spiritual life. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and His shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ for salvation, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare for example the following verses:

If we are not sanctified body and soul, we won't enter the Kingdom of God. Nothing impure will enter therein.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v47).

“He who eats this bread will live forever” (v58).

“He who believes” in Christ is equivalent to “he who eats this bread” because the result is the same, eternal life.

He who believes that the Bread which Christ left is His flesh will eat of it and be saved. Yes.

The parallel is even more striking between verses 40 and 54:

“Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (v40).

“Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (v54).

Again, believing is not something that we claim. It is something which we prove by our life. Those who claim to believe Christ but do not believe His Words, do not truly believe Him.

John 6 does not afford any support to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him for salvation. Flesh and blood here point to Christ as the crucified One and the source of life. Jesus speaks of faith's appropriation of Himself as God's appointed sacrifice.

On the contrary, it is the test of faith. Those who did not believe Christ's words, left Him saying, "Who can believe this?" 

Sincerely,

De Maria