95.X.26. Dear Randal, I apologize for not responding sooner. My week is packed tight with duties (tests, classes), so I can take part in our dialogue only in the evening. Due to the length of the letter, I split it into two. One of them is on your screen; the other one is not ready yet. It means primarily that it needs a complete rewriting. I can't send it as it is now because its tone is rather impolite. ---------- :>That is, it does not remind US of the cross, but :>it reminds the FATHER. As if Catholics believed that the cross fades :>over the years, and God tends to view us with less compassion and love :>unless we perform a religious act to refreshen the sacrifice. :Is this your understanding of why Catholics hang crucifixes :in their parish buildings, homes and offices? If the word :"renew" bothers you, then use a better one, such as the one :I normally use - "re-present." This term is more descriptive :as well. Ugh...You will consider me a meticulous fellow who lacks all understanding, but I am not satisfied with this word either. The other day I bought a missal (basically to read some Latin, which may help me in understanding some foreign languages) and found the same reasoning in it. It was issued in 1933 (thirty-three). In the introduction it says: => ... the only sacrifice of the New Testament is the one of Christ => on Golgotha. Through it Jesus Christ has redeemed us, and putting => on the person(ality) of the whole humankind, made a satisfaction to => God instead of us, in a manner which is never excessible and not in => the need of completion in any way. Thus objectively and intrinsically => there is no necessity of other or more sacrifice. (The last sentence => is in italics. The following one too.) => But there is a subjective necessity, that is, from the scope of the => believers and the Church. Namely, for the given two reasons: => (a) First, what would be the value of Christ's sacrifice on the cross => if there weren't any means for the later centuries to participate of => its grace? In vain does the spring of grace burst out from the foot => of the cross if there is no channel to conduct it to us. Mass is => a channel of this kind (OR: Mass is this kind of channel). => (b) Second, it is necessary for every human to offer a sacrifice => on their part. But our sacrifice would be almost worthless if we => didn't have a way to unite our self-sacrifice with the sacrifice of => Christ our Lord, in order to be partakers of its merits." As for the first part, it can be accepted by most Protestants. Hebrews 7:27; 9:12,14,25-28; 10:10,12,14,18 speak about that. (I'll make some comments on these scriptures later.) Yet the second part seems to me as the concealed denial of the above truth. Why? Because it suggests that our weakness (I don't mean our sin but only our being human and seeing dimly) is what causes the institution of Mass, and that Mass becomes a means which has influence on the effectiveness of God's grace. (Something like Need grace => need mass. More masses => more grace.) The statement " what would be the value of Christ's sacrifice on " the cross if there weren't any means for the later " centuries to participate of its grace?" is to be understood in a subjective context: "how could we benefit from Christ's sacrifice?" as it is clear from the text. So I don't pervert the argument "the Mass is a necessary re-presentation of the cross" when I interpret it as: "God ordained this channel of grace, appointed priests to administer it, and he refuses to give us the fruit of the Cross except this way." The same applies with the Church: she claims to be a necessary means of salvation (qualified with the "security" doctrine of invincible ignorance). And why is the Church necessary for salvation? First, as you had mentioned, because in her is the cross "re-presented" (disagreement later), second, she has the commission to teach and baptize. It's easy to understand that without the Church there would be no one who baptizes and teaches. But the communication of truth happens in an intelligible way: through words. Thus it can be said that the Church brings God "closer" to people. (But of course, only in subjective sense. It isn't God who depends on human acts but humans are.) Unbelievers wouldn't repent from their sins, and believe in the Saviour if they weren't acquainted with their state - being fallen short of God's grace. The duties of the Church are clearly outlined in Scripture, and it also seems clear that the main reason for it is that God did indeed appoint her to be His ambassador to the nations. What I am trying to explain here is that the Mass doesn' have this kind of theological support. The most banal among the arguments against its re-presenting Christ's sacrifice is that when an atheist (like I was) comes to God to repent and join the Church. In this case the Eucharist, which, in your opinion, re-presents the cross, and according to my missal, provides its blessings to us (maintained that only subjectively can it do so), cannot bless this atheist by , that is, by eating. It means that we can't directly apply the Eucharist to an unbeliever's forgiveness because of God's command (preserved explicitely in Didache 9:5 and stated implicitely in 1Cor 11:29) that no one should eat from the Eucharist unless he is baptized. But herein lies a theoretical difficulty, and I'd like to call your attention to it: while you and the missal argue in favour of making Christ's sacrifice for men here and now (only or mainly) by the Mass, in this critical moment even this very Mass proves ineffective, not because of human weakness, but on the grounds of divine command. I repeat, it fails to fulfill the alleged purpose of re-presenting the cross and revealing its power in a way that it may have use and effect "here and now", as the chief proof for re-presenting theory says. Thus, in harsh words, Mass first has to "make use of" some other means for example baptism and teaching. But the usefulness of these latter ones derives from somewhere! And if (1) the conferment of power to these means has to be continually completed by the eucharist then surely no one can be baptized unless a priest offers a mass on the spot ("here and now" -> -> there and then) to make this baptism effective; and it no priest is there then the baptism isn't valid (it would be a complete nonsense); or if (2) one Mass is enough for making several baptisms powerful then surely one Mass is enough for all. Then, if the Mass can exceed boundaries of space and time, then why cannot it be said about the cross? But if the cross is what gives efficacy to baptism directly, then we found an area in which people living here and now are included, and there is no need of the mediation of the Mass. Each one led to contradiction. Suppose that the mass doesn't nurture the believers directly but through the various sacraments. If I understand you properly, the mass transmits the effect given by the cross to all other sacraments, independent of how many people eat it literally. Then your argument about the necessity of transferring grace to the falls, because the sacraments are alleged to have been founded by Christ, then why not suppose that Christ also provided their effectiveness? And if the mass provides the efficacy of other sacraments all over the world then why is there any need to devote a mass to a particular purpose (e.g. for those who are dying now). It makes the mass somewhat similar to prayer, or to an OT sacrifice. But isn't it the re-presentation of the cross? Doesn't it have all grace that is given us by the Golgotha? If the cross was a sacrifice for all sins (except one) then why doesn't the mass work in a similar way? (The only difference is in visible signs, the Victim is the same...) Thus I am convinced that the Mass reduces the sacrifice: it lessens the efficacy of the cross by being alleged to re-present it, yet having to use several other sacraments to be useful. Mass replaces the thought that the one and eternal sacrifice on the cross can directly provide all grace of God to us, but all what it can do is to force God's abundant mercy in channels which are totally subject to the clergy, that is, to certain men. The Bible, in my opinion, shows us a God who is more generous and even wiser that men. The testifies about the process of limiting God. For example, reading the Bible, listening to teaching, prayer, etc. certainly "offers", "confers", "transmits" grace, yet they are not included in the list of sacraments. (As far as I know, the first and the second are alleged to remit some amount of "temporal punishment".) ------------------------------------------------------------------ [In my opinion Catholics teach that] :> the former two Testaments shed less light :>if they are not subjected to the fixed viewpoint of the RCC. :I think you are catching on now. Good man! That's the problem! Then clearly the Bible is SUBJECT TO (rests upon, is less useful/valuable/reliable source than, derives/descends from, is exposed to the changes of) "APOSTOLIC TRADITION"; which, in its turn, cannot be questioned, challenged or refuted; because it's not written, can be cautiously hidden and unnoticedly re-worded; so it depends on the will of the Magisterium. :>:Who says that they are already forgiven? :>Among others, Jesus: : <15 Gospel citations deleted> :I looked these over but did not see any evidence there :that the sins I will commit _tomorrow_ are already :forgiven. Excuse me... they aren't forgiven even supposing that the sacrament of penance works in the way you say. I tried to show some cases of forgiveness of sins, and didn't want to say the thing you searched in my citations. If you re-read those events you won't find a powerful support to the subject of penance in them. :What I read in these verses are some applications :to specific cases and persons, and also some peripheral :information, but nothing that informs me that my future :sins are already forgiven before I have even confessed, :repented of, and been sorry for them. I understand now what your point is. :) The scriptures which others use don't refer to that debated issue, deal with specific cases, contain only some peripheral information, while verses like "You are Peter and upon this rock..." or "...Strengthen your brethren" or "<> of grace" or "Behold, your mother" etc. are definitive in matters of faith. The Church which claims to be the final authority to make decisions on the usage and interpretation of Scripture is clearly <>. Then whoever disagrees is a heretic :( :But there is quite a bit more to the story :than simple sacramental penance. Certainly it is _the_ efficacious :sacrament of forgiveness after baptism and prior to impending death, :but there is also a type of non-sacramental forgiveness that I left :unmentioned. Perhaps you would find the doctrine of the "act of :perfect contrition" less pharisaical? Let me know. I would. It has more Biblical basis. It doesn't expose God to men's desire for power over men. (It can be perverted more difficultly.) Then doesn't the existence of another means of forgiveness make your statement of somewhat weaker? How is perfect contrition inferior to (less efficacious than) penance? Because it's not defined as a sacrament? ----------------------------------------------------------------- :>:The sacrifice of the cross re-presented daily all over the :>:world (Mal 1:11) makes this forgiveness possible. :>No. The once and forever accomplished sacrifice of the cross :>makes possible that we are forgiven by God. (Eph 1:7) :But how is this forgiveness applied to people's souls :today, by your reckoning? By faith. I try again to provide some "peripheral" scriptural support: Acts 2:37-38, 3:19, 5:31, 8:35-38, 10:43, 13:37-39, 16:30-33, Rom 3:22,25 - here I stop. One of the basic Catholic arguments for praying to the saints is that for God everything is possible, so the saints in heaven can surely hear us. Then why shouldn't we suppose that God, who certainly isn't confined by time and space, can hear what we say or pray on earth? Catholics also say that deceased saints can perform miracles, that is, by their efficacious intercession God performs them. Then why not say that prayer to God has its results, too? And if living works help us to remain in the state of righteousness, then isn't it also true that faith in the Gospel can guarantee the same? And if occasionally we fall, Catholics say that by penance our sins are forgiven, and by indulgences our <> are remitted; isn't it possible that at least to the same degree can Christ's one, eternal, unique, unrepeatable sacrifice cleanse us from sins? "But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship "with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses "us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, "and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful "and righteous to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all "unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a "liar, and his word is not in us. "My children, these things I write to you in order that you may not sin; "and if any one sin, we have a patron with the Father, Jesus Christ the "righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours "alone, but also for the whole world. (1 John 1:7-2:2) His blood cleanses us of sins. You may say that it's the Eucharist. But John, speaking about the things to do when someone falls, mentions Jesus Christ who is a patron on our behalf at the Father, so he omits the alleged link between God and us: the mass. Rev 5:6 depicts Christ as a slaughtered Lamb in heaven. Then obviously He has the blood of expiation, and we don't have to offer a mass to remind the Father of it. And if the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that is present in heaven then the Church obviously felt it dangerous that the lay should participate of the "blood of forgiveness" in the original form. It was only the bread of which Christ and Paul said that it's Christ's flesh, and it was only the wine of which they said that it's Christ's blood. Yet some councils, when defending the custom of participation under one species, tried to prove (with the aid of grammar and logic) that both the bread and the wine contain the whole flesh and blood of Christ, therefore it is understandable that the Church, when she instituted this custom in order "to avoid certain scandals and dangers", didn't go "sacrilegious", and thus can be said that those asserting the opposite need to be "treated as heretics". (using TCT on the Council of Constance, D 626) As this council admits, Christ did the opposite, moreover, it doesn't deny that the practice of the Church in the early centuries was the opposite, yet it condemns the dissenting opinion. Thus explicit biblical passages are neglected by referring to some hardly understandable "danger" or "scandal". I ask you: what in specific does it consist of? Why didn't Paul deprive the lay of the species of wine when he faced scandals? Why was the danger recognized only after the mentioned period? Is this an unregrettable dogma? --------------------------------------------------------------- :>:His flesh is real food and His blood real drink - it indeed :>:nourishes him who feeds on it. :>Provided that he is worthy... so how can we apply it to the :>forgiveness of sins? :Through the sacrament of penance. Yes, you testify according to my new theory about conferment of grace by the mass. That is CROSS -> MASS --------------------> OTHER SACRAMENTS -> THE BELIEVERS | hidden (giving power) ___________ ^ |______________________________|EUCHARIST|________| visible (eating) A hidden type of link is installed. This one cannot be supported with mentioning our being human and our need of God's grace being brought close to us. For the sacraments are not human... That is, why not CROSS ---------------------------> OTHER SACRAMENTS -> THE BELIEVERS | hidden (giving power) ___________ ^ |________________________________|EUCHARIST|_______________| visible (eating) ------------------------------------------------------------- :>I guess you have some scriptural support for this theory... :>(Reminding God of the sacrifice) :None comes immediately to mind, except for some passages :from the OT, like Gn 9:15, 16; Lv 26:42; Ezek 16:60; Apart from the fact that the One who has been sacrificed sits at the righ hand of the Father to remind Him of what happened, these are quite close shots. I wanted you to prove that <>. ---------------------------------------------------------- :>#0. Question: How can I have my sins forgiven? [...] :>So the answer is: by applying the Eucharist to our sins. :Wrong answer. The correct answer is: by applying the :merit won by Christ on the cross to the soul of the :one who has been absolved of his mortal sins prior :to approaching the altar. But how can one be absolved? The same question still remains open. Yes, "through penance". And penance takes its efficacy from the cross, with the mediation of the mass. Then the mass works twice: first by energizing other sacraments, second time directly, by the believers eating it. The problem: cannot penance be powerful on the grounds that it was (allegedly) instituted by Christ? Does a divinely instituted sacrament need continual refreshment? -------------------------------------------------------------------- :>:Besides, as I said above, the sacrament of Eucharist most certainly :>:*is* of benefit to those outside the Catholic Church because all are :>:_able_ to be nourished in faith as a consequence of it. :>But alas, Protestants, having no valid apostolic priesthood, cannot :>participate in the "application of the sacrifice" of Calvary to the :>forgiveness of sins, because D 2300 testifies that only the priest :>is appointed to offer the "sacrifice of Mass" in its fullness; so they :>are still in their sins. Or have I misunderstood your words? :Yes, you do misunderstand the profundity of the sacrament. :The sacrifice of the Mass _makes possible_ the forgiveness of sins :here and now. It does this by re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ :to the Father and to us. The latter was commanded us by Christ. ?? : The former is known to us by the Apocalypse and other revelation. ?? :Forgiveness of sin is possible extra-sacramentally; i.e., by an act of :perfect contrition. Anyone is capable of making this act so long as :they have received the grace of God to do so. Through what? Through penance in a mysterious way? The term "extra- sacramentally" suggests the opposite. You spoke about re-presentation to us, which in literal sense by no means can be the only way of making someone contrite. (I know it from experience, too.) Saying "the cross has to be re-presented the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven" must be followed by a lot of explanation wich at last opens up extra-sacramental ways, thus it makes the primary assertion vain. :All they need do is cooperate with this salvific grace, without even :knowing that the Eucharist makes forgiveness possible here and now, Without knowing?... Without the cross being re-presented to us? Thus the mass has to be re-presented to to serve as the Church's prayer to ask Him to give grace to a man who fell. But praying in Jesus' name was indeed diligently taught by the Lord and by the apostles, while this sophisticated system of forgiveness wasn't. Then why should we replace a biblical practice with an extra-biblical one? :and their sins may be forgiven. The follow-on requirement for :Catholics is sacramental confession if possible, but this is :likely of little consequence to a non-Catholic. It's too sketchy for me, but I see that my examples mainly belong to this category. But if (1) the Catholic Church was the only one that was present in the New Testament, and (2) for Catholics it is compulsory to do this sacramentally, then why doesn't Paul require this in 2Cor 2:1-11? The man about whom he speaks somehow offended Paul, or more likely, he was the one whom they had to excommunicate in 1Cor 5. He simply says "forgive him". Based on his lack of writing about the sacramental act of penance in 2Cor, we may suppose that there was a bishop or at least a priest in Corinth who can be supposed to have known it without any reminder. But then this bishop had to be somewhat untrained, because he didn't knew how to excommunicate someone. ------------------------------------------------------------------- :>Once again: first you argue for the necessity of the "sacrifice of :>Mass" in forgiveness of sins. Then again you testify that the reason :>why the Church is necessary for salvation is that the "sacrifice of :>Mass" is validly offered there. Then you make a 180 degree turn, and :>say that they are all able to be nourished in faith as a consequence :>of it. But how on earth can it be, if they are still in their sins, :>before it, during it and after it? :Baptism forgives of all sin: original and actual. It constitutes the :first infusion of sanctifying grace to a wanting soul. :The re-presentation of Calvary to the Father and to us makes possible :all forgiveness here and now. This still sounds Chinese to me. Why not the cross? :Should a Catholic fall into a condition of :mortal sin subsequent to receiving baptism, he must discern the body :and blood on the altar and _not_ partake of the Eucharist until he has :regained the sanctifying grace he has lost. He does this by either :sacramental penance or an act of perfect contrition. Once back in the :state of sanctifying grace, he is again free to bring his gift to the :altar (an offering of his labor, his intentions and his very self) :and eat the bread of life. Hebrews 7:25-27 "...Whence also he is able to save completely those who approach by "him to God, always living to intercede for them. For such a high "priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, "and become higher that the heavens: who has not day by day need, "as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, "then for those of the people, for this he did once for all, in "having offered up himself. For the law constitutes men high priests, "having infirmity; but the word of the swearing of the oath, which "is after the law, the Son perfected for ever. The theory of "in persona Christi" collapses at once when it comes to citations. Christ said "in remembrance of me". The high priest was the only man to make an expiation for the sins of the people on that feast. Transferring the case into the NT, does this "cast" change for the only reason that Jesus is a "remote" high priest? Do we thus have to act in his person? Why insert other priests? Doesn't he have ears to incline his ears unto our requests? (I don't question intercessory prayer, don't shoot me with this. I have in mind the exclusiveness of priests' mediation.) Heb 9:11-14 "But Christ, being come high priest of the good things to come, "by the better and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, (that is, "not of this creation), nor by blood of goats and calves, but by his "own blood, has entered in once for all into the holy of holies, having "found an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and a "heifer's ashes, sprinkling the defiled, sanctifies for the purity of the "flesh, how much rather shall the blood of Christ, who by the eternal "Spirit offered himself spotless to God, purify our conscience from dead "works to worship the living God? Note: the blood of Christ, who offered himself in the past, purifies us now. No mention of mass. It seems to be working without it as well. Heb 9:24-28 "For the Christ is not entered into holy places made with hand, "figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the "face of God for us; nor in order that he should offer himself often, "as the high priest enters into the holy places every year with blood not "his own, since he had [then] been obliged often to suffer from the "foundation of the world. But now once in the consummation of the ages "he has been manifested for the putting away of sin by his sacrifice. "And forasmuch as it is the portion of men once to die, and after this "judgment, thus the Christ also, having been once offered to bear the "sins of many, shall appear to those that look for him the second time "without sin. For the author, the mere fact that a sacrifice has to be repeated is sufficient proof to say that it's inferior to that of Christ on the cross. And if there were a custom of calling the Eucharist a sacrifice then this whole message would have been diluted, unless we suppose that the Jewish Christians who needed correction in the fundamentals of faith - knew every subtle aspect of the doctrine on Mass. In this same letter Paul (let's call him so) refers to our altar (13:10). But if it meant the then what was the point of the reference without dissolving the obvious contradiction? I'd rather say that "altar" means here "table". It's funny that the commentary of my Catholic NT (cca. 1930) calls the table an altar in 1Cor 10:21 despite the fact that in the previous sentences Paul defined the aspect of the Eucharist which he used: "communion". And he used the pagans' sacrifice as meaning communion, too. If Christ Himself in His wholeness is present in the mass then is He suffering and dying? Or is He hanging dead? Or neither of these apply, for He is not perceivable for human eye? Then what about the re- presentation to us? Corollary: Heb 10:5-18 "Wherefore, coming into the world, he says: >. "Above, saying , then he said, . "He takes away the first that he may establish the second; by which we have "been sanctified through offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. "And every priest stands daily ministering, and offering often the same "sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But he, having offered one "sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity at the right hand of God, "waiting from henceforth until his enemies be set for the footstool of "his feet. For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the "sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears us witness of it; for after "what was said: This is the covenant which I will establish towards them "after those days, saith the Lord: giving my laws into their hearts, "I will write them also in their understandings, and their sins "and their lawlessnesses I will never remember any more. But where there "is remission of these, there is no longer a sacrifice for sin. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- :>(Context: what can play the role of the subjects on which Catholics :>can begin a dialogue with the dissented western communities, and not :>the "validity" of the Protestant celebration. Once a priest told me :>that one can't apply the word "valid" or "invalid" to it, for it is :>not a intended to be a sacrifice at all.) :The priest is correct. Invalid Orders cannot a valid sacrifice make. My remark had a different aim. This priest, who had translated the NT in 1955 into Hungarian, and whom I respect even after having talked two hours with him in a club meeting about Vatican II, explained that ---------------------------------- The other part won't be completed until Tuesday. I ask for your patience. God bless you. Ferenc