From: MX%"gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu" 28 OCT 1995 Dear Ferenc, > 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. Don't concern yourself by a polemic tone. You and I have an understanding about this. Our discussion *must* incite the passions if we truly embrace our own respective positions. -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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." Correct so far. But of course we must bear in mind that the priest serves _in persona Christi_, and thus is more than a mere administrator; he actually offers the sacrifice to the heavenly Father. > The same applies with the Church: she claims to be a necessary means > of salvation (qualified with the "security" doctrine of invincible > ignorance). Yes. Actually, she claims to be _the_ necessary means of salvation on earth. Invincible ignorance would fail as a means of uniting a person to Christ's sacrifice if the Church were not to re-present this sacrifice daily. > The duties of the Church are clearly outlined in Scripture, I question this. I think that the duties of the Church are sketchily ("barely") outlined in Scripture. Catholics need Apostolic Tradition to fill in the gaps. > 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. Perhaps not an atheist, but why not a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, pagan or other who believes in God, if only in shadows? What I am saying here is that _not_ everyone _must_ physically eat the flesh of Christ, as Catholics do, in order to receive the benefit of the re-presentation of the sacrifice to God the Father. The sacrifice and its re-presentation (even if only in one place) daily is sufficiently potent to cover the entire world. > It means that we can't directly apply the Eucharist to an > unbeliever's forgiveness Define "unbeliever" for me. > 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. As I said above, not everyone must eat the physical flesh in order to benefit from it's offering. >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. You'll have to convince me of this in light of what I just wrote above. Why is it that you believe that the Eucharist cannot benefit non-Catholics who do not physically eat the flesh? These can, and indeed are, benefitted merely by the sacrifice being re-presented _somewhere_. >Thus, in harsh words, Mass first has to "make use of" >some other means for example baptism and teaching. Not true. Those who are invincibly ignorant are presumed to never have heard the truth preached to them. They are presumed to be baptized _of desire_, to be sure, but they are not presumed to have been taught anything of the faith. Thus they would not be likely candidates for admission to the sacrament of Eucharist were they to approach the altar in their ignorant state, but they nonetheless would be able to benefit from the sacrifice, just as do all the Catholics present at Mass who _do not_ take the Eucharist, but prefer on examination of conscience to remain in the pew until they either have received absolution in the confessional or have made an act of "perfect" contrition. >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; Baptism was made effective the day that Christ ascended into heaven. The door was first opened on that day, and remains open to this day. Of course, this is assured in our age by the daily offering of Eucharist. So we now see cause and effect: 1. Christ ascended to heaven. 2. Christ sent His Holy Spirit to empower the Church. 3. The Church re-presents Christ's sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. 4. Baptism can be efficacious as a result of this history of events. >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. Malachi 1:11 prophecies daily Mass all over the world. >Then, if the Mass can exceed boundaries of space and time, >then why cannot it be said about the cross? It is said about the cross. The Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross, beginning with Christ's Passion on the eve of Good Friday. >But if the cross is what gives efficacy to baptism directly, >then we found an area in which people But the Church teaches that the cross is _not_ what gives efficacy to baptism _directly_. Rather, it gives efficacy to baptism _sacramentally_. This is an important distinction, and is what separates the sacramental confessions of faith from the others. >living here and now are included, and there is no need of >the mediation of the Mass. >Each one led to contradiction. Yes, but the reasoning is fallacious, as shown above. > Suppose that the mass doesn't nurture the believers directly > but through the various sacraments. Ok. >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. Yes. >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? He does. It is by His grace that the sacraments can benefit us today. > 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). The Mass is a prayer, and as such it can be directed toward specific needs. This makes for a good argument in favor of multiple Masses across the world. >It makes the mass somewhat similar to prayer, >or to an OT sacrifice. The Mass is both of these, and more. Now you are beginning to see the picture. >But isn't it the re-presentation of the cross? >Doesn't it have all grace that is given us by the Golgotha? Yes to the first question. For the second question, let me define grace as "a participation in the divine life" (from Hardon's dictionary entry for "sanctifying grace"). By this definition (there are at least half a dozen other "forms" of grace defined by Catholic theology, but this is the most essential grace), the Mass is said to _increase_ sanctifying grace, but cannot do so if sanctifying grace _does not already_ inhere in the soul of the communicant. The first installment of sanctifying grace happens at baptism, and it may be regained at sacramental absolution or by an act of perfect contrition. Thus I am not certain that we can talk about the Mass "having" grace. Rather, it is able to "confer" certain forms of grace and increase others. > If the cross was a sacrifice for all sins (except one) Which "one?" The "one" against the Holy Ghost? This sin may take more forms than only "one." >then why doesn't the mass work in a similar way? >(The only difference is in visible signs, the Victim is the same...) I do not understand the question. You have already included the answer in the parenthetical remark: humans need visible signs by nature. Maybe God requires them of us as well. >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. Actually, God's grace is subject to Christ, who acts _in persona_ through the priestly ministry of men. But I do agree with the assessment that the Church and the sacramental system are necessary for the salvation of _all_ men without exception. Catholics believe that they must obey God's design (or "economy") for salvation, and this design includes the active participation of His Church in the life of grace. Thus we only do what God has commanded us, just as the Old Covenant people did what God had commanded them. We believe God to be consistent in His temporal manifestations. >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. On the contrary. The sacraments free us to obey God as we should. By Catholic theology, faith cannot exist in the absence of knowledge because knowledge is necessary in order for a person to serve God. Man's highest ideal is to act in accord with truth which comes by knowledge. If the Catholic faith is false, then we Catholics act in _honest_ error. But if the Catholic faith is true, then the Mass provides the greatest service possible to mankind. As I often say, choose your poison. I choose the Catholic faith. If I fall, it is not for lack of humility (a prideful statement if ever I saw one), but for lack of sufficient grace. However, since I believe that God provides sufficient grace to all, I therefore believe that a true seeker will find the true path the Holy Spirit lays out for him. We Catholics consider the path within the Church to be superior to the path outside the Church. So we choose to remain in her. >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. We believe that these habits _dispose_ a person to receive grace, but that contrition in humility and the sacramental system are what _actually_ transmit sanctifying grace. >(As far as I know, the first and the second are alleged to >remit some amount of "temporal punishment".) All three are able to do this. (Col 1:24-29) > [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"; Yes. >which, in its turn, cannot be questioned, challenged or refuted; True, but this is only because we believe it to be public revelation that can only be refuted to our demise; just as Protestants believe the Bible alone to be public revelation that cannot be refuted (so do we). >because it's not written, can be cautiously hidden and unnoticedly >re-worded; so it depends on the will of the Magisterium. Not correct. The Tradition is and has been guarded, preserved and handed on from generation to generation of bishops under the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit, who according to Scripture, protects the Church from error in matters of faith and morals. > :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. True. But then again, as I recall, those event happened in Apostolic times, sharply divergent from later ages. The original Apostles are in heaven now. The Apostolic age is long since passed. > :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, No. My point is that all sin was _not_ forgiven 2,000 years ago when Christ made the ultimate sacrifice, but the condition was set so that sin _was able_ to be forgiven. See the distinction? This is why I asked about forgiveness of future sins. According to some theologies, a person's sins were forgiven 2,000 years ago. To my mind, this _must_ include a person's _future_ sins as well as his past sins. See? By Catholic belief, a person's sins were "paid for" 2,000 years ago, but they are not _actually_ forgiven an _individual_ until God does so _in time_ today. Thus we do not believe that my past, present or future sins were forgiven 2,000 years ago, _although_ they were certainly "paid for" then. This "payment for my sins" is the condition by which they are able to be forgiven now (not then). > 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 :( It is true that the Church has infallibly pronounced on certain interpretations of certain verses of Scripture (very few, actually), but it does not follow by this that _material_ heretics cannot attain the beatific vision. This is reserved only for obstinate sinners who do not persevere in grace until the end. > :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.) Gee, I sure hope that these men don't exercise this "power" over me anytime soon! That would tend to negate the freedom won for me by Christ and would turn the Church from being the means of grace to a dictator of damnation. >Then doesn't the existence of another means of forgiveness >make your statement of in ... cases> somewhat weaker? Not really, in as much as the act of perfect contrition is useless to those who are able after making it to confess their sin in the confessional, but refuse to do so. This act is of benefit primarily to those who are about to die and to those who are unable to make a sacramental confession prior to receiving Eucharist. > How is perfect contrition inferior to (less efficacious > than) penance? Because it's not defined as a sacrament? It for the most part is dependent on the sacrament of Penance. Read n. 1452 in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church if you can find a copy. I posted it a few days ago, but maybe you missed it. > :>: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. The first citation says that forgiveness happens at baptism. The second says that sins are forgiven on a genuine conversion of heart (just another way of saying "act of perfect contrition"). The third says that Christ is Israel's savior and by His grace grants her the ability to repent and receive forgiveness for sinning. The fourth says that the eunuch got baptized. The fifth says that Jesus _will_ forgive the true believer, but it does not specify by what means this will happen. The sixth says that the Gospel is being proclaimed to the brothers. The Gospel is the "good news" that forgiveness of sins is possible, but only in Christ's name. The seventh says that baptism is able to save everyone without exception. The eighth says that justification happens because of grace given freely by God through Christ and that the Law of Moses is of no benefit in conferring the free gift. What else do you care to know? :) The only _means_ mentioned in any of these verses for the forgiveness of sin are baptism and conversion of heart. But this is nothing more than what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years. >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? He can and does. >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 It does. The Catholic Church does not teach anything contrary to this. > to remain in the state of righteousness, then isn't it also true that > faith in the Gospel can guarantee the same? It is possible, but again, only because the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice makes it so. > And if occasionally we fall, Catholics say that by penance our sins are > forgiven, and by indulgences our <> are remitted; Either our own temporal punishment or that of members of the Church Suffering. > isn't it possible that at least to the same degree can Christ's one, > eternal, unique, unrepeatable sacrifice cleanse us from sins? It does - because it is re-presented daily, as commanded by Him, in Mass. "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) St. John does partially describe the _means_ proper to forgiveness here. Good quote. > His blood cleanses us of sins. You may say that it's the Eucharist. No, I say that it's Baptism, Penance and Extreme Unction, with an act of perfect contrition always being a viable option in certain cases, that cleanses us of sins. The Eucharist _makes possible_, in a manner _similar_ to the bloody sacrifice, the forgiveness of sins. >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. So what? It is discussed elsewhere in Scripture. St. John was preaching the Gospel in these verses. His purpose here was not to describe the Mass, but to proclaim the good news. >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. But is the blood of expiation efficacious if not sprinkled on the altar? When Christ's propitiation is carried by the hand of an angel to His Father's altar in heaven during the celebration of the Eucharist (Roman Canon), we see again that the tabernacle of the OT was a shadow of reality and that the Mass of the NT is a more perfect re-presentation of the _true and perfect_ sacrifice on the altar - Christ's Passion and Death 2,000 years ago. (Note: "Roman Canon" means "Eucharistic Prayer 1," if you would care to check your Novus Ordo missal.) >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. No, because the sacrifice does not arrive on God's heavenly altar prior to the Eucharistic celebration. It is a cause and effect relationship. > 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. I'll have to look this up at home. Is this a quote of a gloss or of an actual magisterial document? Sounds more like an opinion of someone to me. The Church in official documents never speaks this informally. > 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? I'll have to look it up. I need some context here. > 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) Not exactly accurate. Last Supper + Cross -> Mass Ascension + Jn 20:23 + Pentecost + Acts 1:20, 26; 20:28 -> Penance Reception of all sacraments serves to increase or confer sanctifying grace. All do this directly from Christ. The Mass makes forgiveness possible here and now. Penance, Baptism and Extreme Unction are dependent on the Mass for their ability to confer or increase sanctifying grace. Visible eating has absolutely no relevance for a large class of believers (Protestants, for example). > A hidden type of link is installed. This one cannot be supported But this "hidden" link is only applicable in the strict sense to Catholics, and not to those who do not profess the Catholic faith. >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 like the following: --- Last Supper + Cross + Ascension + | + Jn 20:23 + Pentecost + | + Acts 1:20, 26; 20:28 + ----> Sacraments -> Catholics Other Scripture relevant to | the sacraments | --- > :>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 < necessary for us to remind the Father of the sacrifice for the > reason that there is no other way to appeal to His mercy>>. Well, neither I nor my Church (I believe) knows of another way. But I can ask you the same type of question: Why does Christ have "position" Himself between the soul and the Father at the particular judgment at death? Wasn't it Luther who said that Christ "blinds" the Father to the filthy rag that our soul is (or something like that)? But maybe you do not accept this theology. If not, then no need to answer. The alternative is the Catholic teaching that Christ's righteousness actually becomes a part of a person's soul when he receives sanctifying grace so that he is able to stand on his own before the Father at the particular judgment, while Christ remains at His right hand. > :>#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. See. Jn 20:22 and the chart above. > Yes, "through penance". And penance takes its efficacy from the > cross, with the mediation of the mass. Maybe it would be better to say that Penance takes its efficacy directly from Christ's immediate intervention when channeling grace to the soul from heaven on absolution. The Mass insures that the channel always remains open. > Then the mass works twice: first by energizing other sacraments, > second time directly, by the believers eating it. Not exactly. The Mass _makes possible_ the forgiveness of sins by re-presenting the Passion and Death of Christ. This happens whether non-Catholics eat the Eucharistic species or not. Catholics who eat the species receive an increase of sanctifying grace that is already inhering in the soul. >The problem: cannot penance be powerful on the grounds that >it was (allegedly) instituted by Christ? It is. > Does a divinely instituted sacrament need continual refreshment? It is not refreshed. It stands on its own. The Mass is obedience to the command to re-present the Eucharist to the Father. By obeying this command, the channel of grace remains open and sins _are able to_ be forgiven. Please realize that the Mass per se _does not_ forgive mortal sin. It _makes possible_ the forgiveness of sin. Other sacraments _on their own_ confect forgiveness immediately. > :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. > > ?? If you could read about the Mass and sacraments in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, you could ask me meaningful questions. We could proceed much more easily that way because the Catechism bases itself primarily on Scripture. That way I won't have to miss anything in Scripture when we discuss these topics. >: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. Right. As above. > You spoke about re-presentation to us, which in literal sense by no > means can be the only way of making someone contrite. "Re-presentation?" The context for this word is the sacrament of Eucharist, not of contrition (Penance). ?? > (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. No. Eucharist is to Penance as apples are to oranges. They are independent sacraments which work on their own and serve two completely different purposes, as shown above. And you also must recall the limitation on the act of perfect contrition - i.e., that it is worthless without the intention to confess sacramentally at the earliest possible convenience. > :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? Sure, why not? > 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. Right. > But praying in Jesus' name was indeed diligently taught by the Lord > and by the apostles, while this sophisticated system of forgiveness > wasn't. But the Mass _is_ precisely "praying in Jesus' name," and more. >Then why should we replace a biblical practice with an > extra-biblical one? Because it is true? :) It is also based on Scripture, as can be clearly seen in the Catechism. > :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". But what does St. Paul's forgiveness of this man have to do with Christ's forgiveness? St. Paul says nothing of sacramental confession in this episode because he is teaching love of neighbor, not love of God in this instance. He is reminding them of the part of what they already know (Christ's two commandments) that they have been failing to do. >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 >know how to excommunicate someone. And what if he didn't know this? The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation did not end until the _close_ of the Apostolic age. Thus I am sure that there was enough learning to be done by everyone. This is why the missionaries were sent out from Jerusalem to correct the errors. > :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? Because we live in time, but those in heaven do not. The cross to those in heaven is happening right now, but for us it happened 2,000 years ago. All the shadows illustrated in the OT were for _our_ benefit, not for God's. The cross, the Mass, and the sacraments are all for _our_ benefit, not for God's. We do what we are commanded to do with the same obedience and trust in God that the Israelites had. This is why we retain the OT in our Bible - to illuminate and confirm the truth of the NT. Each testament requires the other. Another reason for "why not the cross?" is this: Christ did not command His Apostles to do the cross in memory of Him, but rather He commanded them to do the _beginning of His Passion and Death_ in memory of Him. The Mass does _not_ re-present the cross, but it does re-present _the sacrifice_ of the cross. This distinction is imperative. The sacrifice of the cross began the night before and did not end until the Resurrection - the Easter Tridium. The Mass re-presents this drama in summary. Perhaps if you would spend a little time studying the Mass, you might have a better idea of what I am getting at. 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. Yes. And this is why Catholics _reject_ the Law of Moses being referred to here, but accept the Law of Life, the Law of the New and Eternal Covenant, the Law of Christ. We agree with every St. Paul wrote in this letter. We do _not_ worship in shadows as those who followed the Law of Moses did. Instead we worship in light and life, re-presenting the sacrifice that was done once for all, as Christ commanded us. > The theory of "in persona Christi" collapses at once when it comes to > citations. Christ said "in remembrance of me". In St. John's Gospel we are told repeatedly that we must _literally_ eat the body and drink the blood of Christ if we desire to have life within us. Thus what has apparently "collapsed" is once again resuscitated. When we eat the flesh and drink the cup, we proclaim His death in remembrance of Him until He comes again in glory. (This prayer is found in your missal.) > 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? Jesus is the _only_ person capable of making the one and eternal sacrifice. Thus He becomes at Mass both priest _and_ victim, just like He was 2,000 years ago. > 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.) Well, I suppose that He made a Church for a good reason. We Catholics believe He made the Church for the sole purpose of saving souls _in time_. Thus we believe that we must obey what He commanded us to do - all of it. " 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. That is because for us temporal beings Christ died 2,000 years ago, but for those in heaven His sacrifice is both once and eternal. Again, why does ritual have to be spelled out a million times everywhere in Scripture for some to believe that it was instituted by Christ? Once mentioned should be sufficient. 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. The sacrifice of the Mass repeats _nothing_ of Christ's one and eternal sacrifice - rather, it _re-presents_ the _same_ sacrifice. > And if there had been a custom of calling the Eucharist > a sacrifice then this whole message would have been diluted, No it would not have been diluted, for this message was directed to those who were raised in the Law of Moses. The message contrasts the new and eternal law with the temporary and defunct law of the Hebrew temple. >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 sacrifice> then what was the point of the reference without >dissolving the obvious contradiction? As a gloss in the NAB points out: "We have an altar:" This does not refer to the Eucharist, which is never clearly mentioned in Heb, but to the sacrifice of Christ. > 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? He is sacrificed in the Mass "sacramentally." The Mass re-presents "sacramentally" the one and eternal sacrifice. His blood is "sacramentally" separated from His body when the water and bread are consecrated separately. "Sacramentally" means a sign of an inward and spiritual event. Corollary: Heb 10:5-18 "Wherefore, coming into the world, he says: >. Above, saying , then he said, ". Note that all here is in reference to the _Law of Moses_, not the new and eternal law of Christ. "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. The Mosaic sacrifices. "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. > :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 Catholic Church indeed wouldn't have had to argue against Protestants, > saying "Their Communion is not valid", because they themselves deny > that they want to transsubstantiate the bread and wine into the blood > and flesh of the Lord, and they don't intend to offer a sacrifice, > thus the whole apologetic zeal against invalidity was vain.> Oh. > The other part won't be completed until Tuesday. > I ask for your patience. Sure. These replies really kill me. They take hours. Will we never finish? :)