Dear Randal, I am awfully sorry to pick up this dust-covered issue again. The reason is that I aged some years since our last discussion, and my concerns about RC Eucharistic theology grew by 0.5 calvin. ----------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Transubstantiation Rerun From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Mandock) Someone (probably a zealous Protestant reared on pamphlets) said: >This is the main problem with the transubstantiation - >it claims to be another sacrifice of Jesus' body. :It is you who are making this claim. The Church of Christ teaches :that Christ died one time _only_ on a tree and that this one sacrifice :resulted in eternity meeting time in the Person of the Logos of God :who assumed human flesh, thereby definitively sanctifying it. Right. The Roman Catholic Church can and does preserve orthodoxy regarding some aspects of the Christian faith. :) However... :That this one physical sacrifice of two millenia ago must be :renewed daily is evident in Scripture. Is it? I have never found these words and this concept in my Bible. In my opinion, the opposite of the above is evident. :Consider the following passages, which are just a few of the :many that implicitly support Church teaching on the nature :of the Word of God. Thank you for this "implicitly". : Rv 5:6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the : four living creatures and the elders a Lamb that seemed to : have been slain. [NAB] :This passage indicates that Christ's sacrifice continues to the :present. No. Only His wounds continue to be His attributes, even in Heaven. This verse refutes the doctrine of the Mass. John could see the signs of His having been once slain - so why should we need any "re-presentation" in the Mass? The Lord bears His wounds even in His glory - we have to be reminded of the cross by it, and not by the Mass, which cannot cause Him more wounds or make Him bleed more intensely. When Thomas saw the wounds of the Lord, he didn't make the conclusion: "Oh, my Lord and my God, truly your sacrifice continues to the present!" Neither did the evangelist risk such a scholastic doctrine. But based on your interpretation of the prooftext one can interpret this case the same way. Jesus Christ then also seemed to have been slain. Yet here it's an evidence that despite the wounds, Jesus is alive. He bears all His wounds wherever He goes, so whoever thinks of Him has to remember the cross. When eating the bread and drinking the wine of the Eucharist, we make a profession about what we believe: that He was slain and His blood was shed. We don't need to kill Him again to do this profession of faith. And neither does the Father need any "re-presentation" of the Sacrifice to Him because the Son is always at His right hand. With His wounds. Thus the doctrine of the expiatory Mass bans Christ from the throne at the right hand of God, for if God needs the re-presentation by humans then it's because Christ is not sufficient to turn away God's anger from us. Moreover, the expiatory Mass deprives Him of His wounds, thus depriving us of the consolation of the peace with God, as it's written: "the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed". It even squeezes Him into the bread and wine to die there again, because while the testator lives (in the sense that His death becomes stale, needing daily renewal, as if it had never happened) then the testament is void. But what is the most grievous of all, the admittedly unbloody Mass cannot supplement the sacrifice on the cross for there is no remission without bloodshedding. Yes, I know that it isn't intended to supplement it but to continue it and make it present. But if the bloodshedding is absent then even these functions are unfulfilled, and we are left without a sacrifice. :If [Christ's sacrifice did] not [continue to the present], :then why would St. Paul in his first letter to the Church at :Corinth speak of those who fail to discern the body and in the :process recrucify Christ (cf. 1 Cor 11:29, Heb 6:6)? Actually, he says in 1 Corinthians 11:25-29: "In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This "cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as "ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;' for as often "as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death "of the Lord ye do shew forth -- till he may come; so that "whoever may eat this bread or may drink the cup of the Lord "unworthily, guilty he shall be of the body and blood of the "Lord; and let a man be proving himself, and so of the "bread let him eat, and of the cup let him drink; for he who "is eating and drinking unworthily, judgment to himself he "doth eat and drink -- not discerning the body of the Lord. And in Hebrews 6:4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, "and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made "partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word "of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall "fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to "an open shame. Merging different contexts together is always too conspicuous so it doesn't work here either. It's not honest of you to make two quotations with one breath and suggest that they speak about the same thing. Moreover, you say that Paul writes the whole warning to the Corinthians, which is a misleading introduction of your double quotation. A mere "cf" reference doesn't make this less harmful as it precedes both references, deceiving the reader. In the first excerpt Paul speaks about those who come to partake of the body and blood of the Lord without being aware of the sins they had committed and repenting from them, thus they defile the Lord's body and blood. They are hypocrites; they don't reject the Lord openly, which is mirrorred by the fact that they partake of the Eucharist. In the second text the writer speaks about those who fall away and openly reject the Lord who saved them, thus they recrucify Him. No mention of the Eucharist, the unworthy partaking etc. can be found here. And it is not surprising because those who fall away rarely do approach the Lord's table. So the contexts are entirely different, hence it's evident that your proof of "Christ's sacrifice continuing to the present" is not cogent. And even if the contexts weren't utterly different, you would all the same get into trouble with the above reasoning. Re-crucifixion of Christ for ourselves is obviously a negative thing to do, if we look at the context of Hebrews. And you try to deduce from 1Cor that the "priests" of RCism are not just authorized to re-crucify Christ, but they are commanded to do it! With the only difference that it doesn't happen "for themselves" but for "the whole Church" If you protest against my usage of "re-crucify" then you don't have anything in the hand to prove that Christ's sacrifice continues to the present, and is not yet finished. :Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my :flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ :on behalf of his body, which is the church...29 For this I labor :and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working :within me. :Here is evidence that St. Paul suffers along with the other :Christians _in time_ Of course, everyone who suffers on earth suffers "in time", so I don't wonder that Paul said it, too. It would be the most surprising of him to have said "I will continue to suffer for you in eternity." :to participate in Christ's one but eternal sacrifice of :Himself for the many. No, not in the sacrifice but in the suffering. The text supports me. Christ's sacrifice is complete and forever finished. It is not "eternal", ie. being carried out through ages, but "forever completed". :Note in verse 29 that St. Paul acknowledges his participation :in Christ's work (cf. 1 Pt 2:5, 4:13; 2 Pt 1:4). Your wilfully dim, undefined idea of "Christ's work" allows you to transfer the real participation of the believers in Christ's mission, teaching, taking care of, nourishing, etc. of the Church to the alleged participation of the believers in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, which, in turn, is brought up to support the "re-presentation" theory. First an obscure generalization of the divine power energizing Paul's mission ("Christ's work"), then a wrong specification ("Christ's sacrifice"). A bit of context may be useful here: Col 1:21-29 "And you -- once being alienated, and enemies in the mind, in "the evil works, yet now did he reconcile, in the body of his "flesh through the death, to present you holy, and "unblemished, and unblameable before himself, if also ye "remain in the faith, being founded and settled, and not "moved away from the hope of the good news, which ye heard, "which was preached in all the creation that [is] under the "heaven, of which I became -- I Paul -- a ministrant. "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the "things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh "for his body, which is the assembly, of which I -- I did "become a ministrant according to the dispensation of God, "that was given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God, the "secret that hath been hid from the ages and from the "generations, but now was manifested to his saints, to whom "God did will to make known what [is] the riches of the glory "of this secret among the nations -- which is Christ in you, "the hope of the glory, whom we proclaim, warning every man, "and teaching every man, in all wisdom, that we may present "every man perfect in Christ Jesus, for which also I labour, "striving according to his working that is working in me in "power. Thus, Paul acknowledges his participation in Christ's missionary and teaching work. Atoning isn't tackled here. It's you who brings it in. As to your other quotations: 1Pt 2:1-5 "Having put aside, then, all evil, and all guile, and "hypocrisies, and envyings, and all evil speakings, as "new-born babes the word's pure milk desire ye, that in it ye "may grow, if so be ye did taste that the Lord [is] gracious, "to whom coming -- a living stone -- by men, indeed, having "been disapproved of, but with God choice, precious, and ye "yourselves, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual "house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The nature of these sacrifices is not specified here. But it's very hard to identify them with the Mass. Because if the text refers to the Mass then all believers can "offer", "consecrate" and "transsubstantiate" the species in a true and real sense, despite the age-old Catholic denial of this profound biblical doctrine. Note well, there is a divine promise here, saying "ye yourselves ... are built up... a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices", so one can even call this text an "institution" of the "sacrament" of "holy orders" - for all believers! Moreover, the effectiveness of this sacrament is guaranteed here, too: "to offer up spiritual sacrifices ... through Jesus Christ." Acting "in persona Christi"! Therefore all Masses "consecrated" by the "lay" are valid, effective, and even work "ex opere operato", because it is written: "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God..." If the "institution of the priesthood" prooftext, that is, the narrative of the Last Supper, had the tenth of this explicitness regarding "priesthood", "offering" and "sacrifice" then all Catholic apologists would now have won games. But the axe cuts both ways: if you consider that indeed misused text in Mt 26:26 etc. a support for the divine institution of a group's priestly calling (while they aren't called "priests" at all, neither are the words "offer" and "sacrifice" found there) then please allow poor oppressed laymen to use 1Pt 2:5, containing both of the above words, as their priestly authorization, with at least so wide scope of ministry etc. as Catholics claim to the so-called priests now. I know the standard disclaimer: "the whole Church offers the sacrifice by presence and faith, but the clergy say the words of consecration". But it's ridiculous in the light of the above scripture, for the words "priest" and "offer" are applied to all Christians here, and it's quite contrary to the text to speak about another privileged class who act "in persona Christi", because it's written of all that they offer the sacrifices "through Jesus Christ". A RC apology of the sacerdotal priesthood (Gisbert Greshake: Priestersein - zur Theologie und Spiritualitat des priester- lichen Amtes, Verlag Herder, 1982) tries to diminish the effect of this scriptural testimony. Greshake says that yes, all believers are called priests, yet not one by one, but only as a whole, on account of the individuals' being part of a priestly nation - and that this general priesthood doesn't render the official priesthood unnecessary. We see the motives: the author cannot see any confirmatory scriptures in favour of the present RC clergy, so he decides to exploit the contrary testimonies. But this enterprise is very dangerous. The priestly character of the people of God doesn't "require that they be differentiated sacramentally", as he asserts. For we read that by being built on the Rock of Christ do we become a priesthood - so do the "priests" stand more firmly by definition? To tell the truth, the RC understanding of clerical authority and privileges bears much resemblance to the "144,000" doctrine of Jehovah's false Witnesses. Thus, a terrible dilemma is before Catholicism: (1) to revoke the traditional doctrine on the sacerdotal priesthood, and return to the Bible which calls everyone "priest" on an equal level, offering sacrifices of prayer, praises, worship and good works; or (2) to attribute transsubstantiating power to the "lay", and rewrite their Mass. There is no third way, as the Word of God ruins the man-made dividing wall between "laity" and "clergy". 1Pt 4:12-19 "Beloved, think it not strange at the fiery suffering among "you that is coming to try you, as if a strange thing were "happening to you, but, according as ye have fellowship with "the sufferings of the Christ, rejoice ye, that also in the "revelation of his glory ye may rejoice -- exulting; if ye be "reproached in the name of Christ -- happy [are ye], "because the Spirit of glory and of God upon you doth rest; "in regard, indeed, to them, he is evil-spoken of, and in "regard to you, he is glorified; for let none of you suffer "as a murderer, or thief, or evil-doer, or as an inspector "into other men's matters; and if as a Christian, let him not "be ashamed; and let him glorify God in this respect; because "it is the time of the beginning of the judgment from the "house of God, and if first from us, what the end of those "disobedient to the good news of God? And if the righteous "man is scarcely saved, the ungodly and sinner -- where shall "he appear? so that also those suffering according to the "will of god, as to a stedfast Creator, let them commit their "own souls in good doing. The case here is simpler: we suffer just as Christ suffered, innocently. But it has nothing to do with the atonement. As for the third reference, I can't catch your intention in it. Choose the specific words based on which you try to argue. 2Pt 1:3 As all things to us His divine power (the things pertaining unto life and piety) hath given, through the acknowledgement of him who did call us through glory and worthiness, 1:4 through which to us the most great and precious promises have been given, that through these ye may become partakers of a divine nature, having escaped from the corruption in the world in desires. Perhaps you don't feel like explaining your intention with this quote, as I am so rabid against the doctrine of the Mass, yet I would insist that you please do it. Maybe there's something hidden which I haven't so far noticed, and it will be the final blow that will convince me of your point. (And maybe not...) :The Christian does not join his own sufferings for Christ :to some dead event in the distant past If you want to call the historical event of Christ's only, unrepeatable, unique, universal, God-predestined death "some dead event in the distant past" if the Mass doesn't "renew" it, it's up to you. Perhaps the power of the cross really faded over the centuries so that one has now to make it fresh in a daily offering. And that the elapsed time really overcame and tarnished the very thing beside which Paul didn't want to speak of anything among the Corinthians. And that the Father cannot be influenced by His Son who sits at His right with His wounds, because He says to Him: "Well, my Son, I see that you died 2000 years ago; yet by now this sacri- fice is just a dead event in the distant past, so you need to have your sacrifice renewed by a priest." Indeed, I remember your having uttered the following blasphemy which you have never revoked since then: | Corollary: Heb 10:5-18 | "Wherefore, coming into the world, he says: >same<< sacrifice to Him? | | ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: | ::::but it nonetheless was necessary for our hope of salvation.:::: | ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So you call the bare death on the cross "a dead event in the distant past", and say that the Father took no pleasure in it. As if it were a secondary intention of God. This is the same as the Sun Myung Moon doctrine, according to which God never planned the death of Christ. I guess you badly need arguments in your favour - but why such nefarious ones? Clear your standpoint quickly. :but rather to the eternal sacrifice of Christ who mediates :for us with the Father in heaven _today_. He mediates now, but He was sacrificed once for all. (See Hebrews.) The true proposition that Christ's sacrifice has eternal fruits isn't equal to the false assertion "His sacrifice is eternal and it continues even now". Moreover, there is a huge difference between the sacrifice of the cross being valid forever, after (and because of) having taken place once and only once (this is the theology of Hebrews), and the sacrifice of the cross lasting for ages, and never being finished (this is the logical consequence of the Catholic doctrine). As I remember, Jesus said something like "It is finished" on the cross. Actually, I prefer our good old Hungarian version, saying in one word "Itiscompleted". The atoning sacrifice is the thing what was completed, while the suffering continues in His earthly Body. :Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, : my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is : sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: : for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of : hosts. [Douay OT] :Is there any other clean oblation than Christ? So you call the praises offered in Jesus' name sordid. Why? :Romans 15:15-16 explains the Eucharistic sacrifice further: : But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to : remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister : of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly : service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the : Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. [NAB] :Here St. Paul explains the continuity of Christ's sacrifice :by means of the offering of the ministerial priesthood, which :offers the clean oblation daily to the Lord of hosts. Sorry, the oblation of the Gentiles is the praises given to God, in accordance with the previous verses: Rom 15:8-12 "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the "circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises "made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify "God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will "confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. "And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. "And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. "And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that "shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. And the priestly service is the preaching of the gospel of God, so that the above sacrifice could be possible: Rom 15:13-21 "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in "believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of "the Holy Ghost. And I myself also am persuaded of you, my "brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all "knowledge, able also to admonish one another. "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto "you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the "grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the "minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the "gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be "acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Yes, the Romans weren't exclusively Jews. "I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in "those things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to "speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought "by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, "through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit "of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto "Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, "so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was "named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: "But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they "shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. It is useful to pay attention to the similarity between Malachi and Romans: they both mention the clean offering of the Gentiles. It may as well be considered a loose quotation by Paul. The offering of the Gentiles cannot be the Eucharist because in Romans Paul speaks about himself being "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God", thus making clear that he had in mind his missionary work. Just as in Phil 2:14-17: "All things do without murmurings and reasonings, that ye may "become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished "in the midst of a generation crooked and perverse, among "whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world, the word of "life holding forth, for rejoicing to me in regard to a day "of Christ, that not in vain did I run, nor in vain did I "labour; but if also I am poured forth upon the sacrifice "and service of your faith, I rejoice and joy with you all, "because of this do ye also rejoice and joy with me. It is evident that the Eucharist is not in the text. To assert the contrary testifies about the total ignorance of the emphasis of the NT age on the mission to the Gentiles. Paul was all the time busy doing this work and he defended it from the OT, too. Rom 15:15-16 is an example of this, as shown by the context. It's a very implausible thing to view Paul as someone laying down the principles of the theory of the Mass. And if you say "Romans 15:15-16 explains the Eucharistic sacrifice further" you at least have to add: "The full meaning of this passage can be understood only in the light of the RC eucharistic theology". But it would be a failure of using this passage as a prooftext. Even Jehovah's False Witnesses can prove that Christ and Michael the archangel are the same if you accept that Dan 10:20-21 must be understood in the light of the identity of Christ and Michael. --------------------------------------- >From Pope Paul VI's _Mysterium Fidei_: :p. 12 (St. Paul editions): : We desire to recall at the very outset what may be termed : the very essence of the dogma, namely, that by means of : the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross, : which was once offered on Calvary, is remarkably re-enacted : and constantly recalled, and its saving power exerted for : the forgiveness of those sins which we daily commit. Daily warning has the effect of preventing someone from hardening in the sin: Heb 3:12-13 "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil "heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But "exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest "any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Coming to the throne of grace and finding mercy when we committed a sin is guaranteed by Christ's one and only sacrifice on the cross and by His ascension in Heaven: Heb 4:14-16 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed "into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our "profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all "points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us "therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may "obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord's being our mighty advocate doesn't depend on the amount of the Masses performed on earth but on His one and only sacrifice on the cross: 1Jn 2:1-2 "My little children, these things I write to you, that ye may "not sin: and if any one may sin, an advocate we have with "the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one, and he -- he is a "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also "for the whole world... : Just as Moses with the blood of calves had sanctified the Old : Testament, so also Christ Our Lord, through the institution : of the Mystery of the Eucharist, with His own Blood sanctified : the New Testament, whose Mediator He is. Not at all. He sanctified the NT with His one and only sacrifice on the cross. Even RC scholars shy away from this papal conclusion, eg. Dr. Josef A. Jungmann: "The Mass. An historical, theological and pastoral survey", The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1976. My translation from Hungarian (I.1.3: The words of consecration and the new covenant): 'The Greek present tense has a future meaning. (Actually it 'is the remainder of the Aramaic original, as there is no 'distinct future.) It points to the death on the cross. For 'it is there, and not at the Last Supper, that the new 'covenant was carried out and sealed. (In this issue we 'accept L. Lecuyer's opinion in opposition to that of H. 'Kruse...) And indeed, the Word of God says: Heb 9:11-28 "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, "by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with "hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the "blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered "in <> into the holy place, having obtained <> "redemption for us. "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an "heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying "of the flesh: how 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? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new "testament, that <>, for the redemption of "the transgressions that were under the first testament, "they which are called might receive the promise of eternal "inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of "necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is "of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength "at all while the testator liveth. "Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without "blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the "people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and "of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and "sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is "the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. "Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and "all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are "by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood "is no remission. "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in "the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly "things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For "Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, "which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, "now to appear in the presence of God for us: <>, as the high priest entereth "into the holy place every year with blood of others; <>: but now <> in the end of the world hath he "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the "judgment: so Christ was <> offered to bear the sins "of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the "second time without sin unto salvation. Read this carefully. What can the Mass (not the Eucharist which we eat and drink but the "renewed" "sacrifice") give us in addition to what is given by the one and only sacrifice on the cross? Nothing, according to Roman Catholic theology. Now, after my having proven that the fruits of the cross can and do nourish us without any re-enacted (renewed, re-presented) "sacrifice" in the Mass, what is the Mass good for? There is a famous prooftext traditionally wrested in order to back up the RC doctrine of the Mass. But if thoroughly examined, it reveals the opposite. 1Cor 10:18-22 "See Israel according to the flesh! are not those eating the "sacrifices in the fellowship of the altar? what then do I "say? that an idol is anything? or that a sacrifice offered "to an idol is anything? -- [no,] but that the things that "the nations sacrifice -- they sacrifice to demons and not to "God; and I do not wish you to come into the fellowship of "the demons. "Ye are not able the cup of the Lord to drink, and the cup of "demons; ye are not able of the table of the Lord to partake, "and of the table of demons; do we arouse the Lord to "jealousy? are we stronger than He? Along the whole parallel, Paul remarkably avoids calling the Eucharist a sacrifice offered to God. Instead of this, he refers to Israel when he has to give a positive example of sacrifice. Were the Eucharist a sacrifice, Paul would have mentioned it without hesitation. On the other hand, Paul skilfully utilizes all the existing aspects of the parallel (cup, table, fellowship), so his omission of the sacramental character from the list testifies about the opposite of the Roman Catholic dogma of the "Eucharistic Sacrifice". : For, as the : Evangelists narrate, at the Last Supper "He took bread, and : blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying: "This is : My Body, given for you; do this for a commemoration of Me. : And so with the cup, when supper was ended. This cup, he : said, is the New Testament, in My Blood which is to be shed : for you." And by bidding the Apostles to do this in memory : of Him, He made clear His will that the same sacrifice be : forever repeated. <>, as if the first were powerless just like the OT sacrifices, the powerlessness of which was manifest by the very fact that they needed constant <>! You constantly strive to persuade those who argue that the basic idea of the Mass is the repetition of the sacrifice of the cross, that the word "re-present" is more correct than "repeat". Doing this, you manage to avoid the obligation of defending the "repetition" doctrine, because your misled opponents think that they were misled by their concepts about Catholicism. But in fact they were right in denouncing the "repetition" doctrine because it exists. You gave it away by your extensive quotation from a papal summary on this topic. It cannot be objected that this sentence is taken out of context; on the contrary, it is embedded into the most proper context, that is, the papal one. Moreover, the scope of the word "repeat" cannot be polemically restricted to the mere ritual, by asserting that it didn't refer to the sacrifice of the cross. The stress of the above text is undoubtedly on the oneness of the two manners of sacrifice; and if the pope says "the same sacrifice [should] be forever repeated" then he includes the sacrifice of the cross between the things wanting repetition. How else could I interpret the previous words: :Just as Moses with the blood of calves had sanctified the Old :Testament, so also Christ Our Lord, through the institution :of the Mystery of the Eucharist, with His own Blood sanctified :the New Testament, whose Mediator He is. which draw a parallel between the sanctification of the two testaments, and make the Mass the corresponding pair of the blood of calves? Thus equating it with the sacrifice on the cross! How else as saying that everything which was done on the cross must be repeated daily, in another manner? Repeated, not only "re-presented". The other alternative is even worse. If the word "repeat" refers only to the Eucharist, and not to the cross, then the cross proves a distinct sacrifice from the Eucharist. And the death of our Lord on the cross is buried under the doctrine of the expiatory and testament-confirming Mass, being made void, powerless and redundant altogether. Second, by calling the Eucharist not only a sacrifice but even a sanctification of the New Testament, the pope exposed himself to the fierce charges of the damned heretic Jehan Cauvin of Noyon, who wrote: ! Said I not true, then, at the outset, that the only true ! death of Christ is obliterated by the mass? For what is the ! direct aim of the mass but just to put Christ again to ! death, if that were possible? For, as the apostle says, ! "Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the ! death of the testator." (Heb. 9:16) The novelty of the mass ! bears, on the face of it, to be a testament of Christ, and ! therefore demands his death. (Inst. IV.18/5.) 1Cor 10:16-17 "The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the "fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we "break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ? "because one bread, one body, are we the many -- for we all "of the one bread do partake. Jesus didn't tell them to repeat His sacrifice but to bless and break the bread, eat it, knowing they will be eating the Lord's body which is broken for us, and to bless the cup and drink it, knowing they will be drinking the Lord's blood which is shed for us. They were not commanded to break the body and to shed the blood, but to participate of the broken body and the shed blood. 1Cor 11:25-26 "In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This "cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as "ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;' for as often "as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death "of the Lord ye do shew forth -- till he may come; Again, we were not commanded to kill Jesus Christ but to proclaim His death. Whereas the Mass kills Jesus, as Jungmann admits: '[Zwingli, Calvin and the English reformers made the objection that] 'if we offer Christ in the Mass then we have to kill Him again, 'because sacrifice means sacrificial death. 'The surprising thing in the reaction of Catholic theology is that 'it never questioned this interpretation of the above idea. (The Mass. Chap. VIII/3. "Theories of the annihilation of the sacrifice") Despite these suspicious theories, the Word of God declares: Rom 6:5-9 "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his "death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: "knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that "the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we "should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also "live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the "dead <>; death hath no more dominion over "him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that "he liveth, he liveth unto God. Those who cling to their "real presence" and "real sacrifice" opinions must somehow explain the way it takes place. And not daring to say that the "truly", "substantially" and "corporally" present Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, can die truly, substantially and corporally on a daily basis in the Mass, they make miserable evasions instead, like "mystical death" and so on. What do we profit from a Saviour who is truly present daily in the Mass, but forgets to die truly? He even doesn't give His blood, as the Mass is an "unbloody" sacrifice. Thus the way is open for asserting that the wine, as the blood of the Lord, isn't necessary for anyone, including the "priests". To avoid the above conclusion, recently they invented the re-presentation theory. But if it's true then Christ doesn't die in the Mass but He is dead from the beginning. Thus no "real" etc. sacrifice "takes place" in the Mass, and it's nothing but a God-given means of our receiving the once for all sacrificed body and blood of the Lord. Which is pure biblical doctrine. And to further return to the Bible, cease to call it "Mass". Call it Eucharist. :p. 16 In an unbloody representation of the Sacrifice of the : Cross and in application of its saving power, It is not needed. Christ with His wounds is present at the Father's right, and we aren't dependent on a "re-presented" sacrifice either, knowing that our Passover <> for us (1Cor 5:7) The whole letter to the Hebrews not just affirms, but cries and insists that we don't need further sacrifices to partake of Christ's treasures. Heb 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own "blood he entered in once into the holy place, having "obtained eternal redemption for us. So He has obtained redemption by His sacrifice on the cross... Heb 9:24-26 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with "hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven "itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet "that he should offer himself often, as the high priest "entereth into the holy place every year with blood of "others; For then must he often have suffered since the "foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the "world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of "himself. ... and He put away sin by His sacrifice on the cross... Heb 10:8-10 "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt "offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither "hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then "said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away "the first, that he may establish the second. By the which "will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of "Jesus Christ once for all. ... and we are now sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all on the cross. Not through repeated sacrifices! The Mass is alleged to communicate these merits to us. I agree that the Eucharist does it. But without itself being a sacrifice. If you assert that without a sacrificial character, the communication isn't perfect, you don't just qualify a property of the channel, but also defile the source by saying that its sacrificial character isn't enough to initiate the flow of blessing, but we have to draw the blessing out of it, as if from a muddy pit, where it lies decaying. You Catholics don't admit that the Anglicans have "valid orders", thus their Mass is invalid, in your opinion. But you acknowledge their baptism, so even it cannot be said that the other sacraments draw their "efficacy" from the efficacy of the Mass. To maintain that the Roman Catholic Mass provides power to all sacraments of the heretics and schismatics who reject its sacrificial character is vain because the Eucharist is not given to conspicuous sinners, how much is it forbidden to give it to heretics who deny the RC intent of the Mass! And despite the numerous claims to attribute any effect on the non-eaters, those who don't eat it don't have any profit from it. "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you don't have life in you." :in the Sacrifice of the Mass the Lord is immolated when, through the :words of consecration, He begins to be present in a sacramental form :under the appearances of bread and wine to become the spiritual food :of the faithful. False. We eat His broken flesh and drink His shed blood in the Eucharist. Nothing about Him being present "in a sacramental form". :p. 17 We find deep consolation in recalling the accurate and : eloquent words with which St. John Chrysostom, overcome with : a sense of awe, described the presence of Christ in the : offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass: "I wish to add something : that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or : upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter : or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His : disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today : is no way inferior to that which Christ offered, <>. A cute piece of blasphemy by Chrysostom. If it is "in no way inferior" then Christ is being re-crucified in each and every minute by the priests. Moreover, He groans in pain, "Eli, Eli, lamma shabaktani?" And He cries, "It is <> finished!" Yet it is never finished. And the sacrifice which is offered today makes void the one which was offered yesterday because Heb 10:18 says: "Now where remission of these is, there is no offering for sin. And logically, where there are repeated offerings for sin there the remission of sins isn't working, and the OT is brought back. Heb 10:1-4 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not "the very image of the things, can never with those "sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make "the comers thereunto perfect. <> because that the worshippers once "purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in "those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins "every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls "and of goats should take away sins. Likewise, just as the Mass doesn't cease to be offered, it cannot make perfect those who put their trust in it as an expiatory sacrifice. 10:5-10 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice "and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou "prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou "hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume "of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt "offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither "hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then "said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away "the first, that he may establish the second. By the which "will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of "Jesus Christ once for all. The important thing is that the "second" kind of sacrifice which Christ established is the offering of His body once for all, and that it sanctifies us without any auxiliary means. : because it : is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the : words which God spoke are the very same as those which the : priest now speaks, so to the oblation is the very same." No. The Eucharist isn't Christ but the flesh and blood of Christ. ----------------------------------------- :Brief personal comments of my own: :One method of counting the three days of Christ's descent :into the heart of the earth is given in the STh of St. :Thomas. As I recall, St. Thomas began the count from the :beginning of the Jewish Friday, which is sundown Thursday. Then you must rewrite the Creed like this: "He was born of the Virgin Mary, was buried, suffered under Pontius Pilate..." (Footnote: "under" must be understood literally: in the underworld.) :It was on Thursday evening that Christ effected the :unbloody sacrifice, the same one that our priests offer :today. This sacrifice is somehow seen as being integrated :in continuity with the bloody sacrifice on the tree. This "integration" has always been dangerous to the uniqueness of the cross. It suggests that the cross is too old and dry to reach us, so it has to be amended by multiple Masses. :The bloody sacrifice is what was required by the shadows :described in Leviticus in order that sin may be forgiven. Utterly arrant. Colossians 1:20 says: "[It pleased the Godhead] to reconcile all things by him, "having made peace by the blood of his cross... So it was God's will that required the sacrifice on the cross, and not the Mosaic shadows. They just made manifest what had been predestined long ago. Rom 3:25 "whom [Jesus Christ] God set forth as a propitiation by His "blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, "because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that "were previously committed... So the blood was essential not because of Moses' Law but by God's will. Now no room is left to say "there can be a forgiveness of sins even without bloodshedding because the Law does not bind us". God's will preceded the Law. It is valid even now. Thus all expiatory sacrifices have to be bloody. And whereas the Mass is admittedly unbloody, I repeat that it cannot be an expiatory sacrifice. :But Christ, in instituting the Mass and ordaining His priests :at the Last Supper, He did nothing like these. I don't find the words "priest", "ordain", or "Mass" in the text. Maybe it's because I use a wrong translation. Or because these words are printed in white. :intended that His unbloody sacrifice would be a worthy "reminder" :to His Father of His bloody satisfaction for sins on the Cross. No. He intended that we did the same as He did (breaking and eating the bread, drinking the cup, giving thanks to God) in His memory. It's only you who inserts "reminding the Father" between the lines. This concept isn't found there. :As we know from the OT, God seems to act as if He needs a "reminder" :from time to time (e.g., "When I bring clouds over the earth, and the :bow appears in the clouds, I will recall the covenant..." [Gn 9:14-15]); :so it seems to me that the re-presentation of the unbloody oblation at :each Mass serves as a sort of "reminder" to the Father of why Christ's :sacramental immolation on the earthly altar is taken by an angel to the :"altar in heaven" (Roman Canon). This "reminder" points the Father's :gaze to the eternal sacrifice of the Cross, and because of this, sins :may be forgiven. Only if you render the Victim Himself who is now sitting at the right hand of God dumb and helpless, if you deprive Him of His wounds with which He could remind the Father of the sacrifice. Due to the wounds, according to Rev 5:6, Christ in heaven is "a Lamb, as though it had been slain". :The sacrifice which is being re-presented, therefore, is the :same sacrifice of the Last Supper, which is sacramentally the :same sacrifice of the Cross. It cannot be the same anyhow. The Mass is alleged to be an unbloody sacrifice while that on the cross is a bloody one. So the first one cannot be an expiatory sacrifice while the second one can. :I borrow from Scott McKeller who quoted the following from the CCC. : 1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the *making : present* and the *sacramental offering* of his unique sacrifice, in : the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic : Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the : anamnesis or memorial. : 1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the : recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works : wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these : events, they become in a certain way present and real. We proclaim the death of the Lord by eating and drinking, not offering. Offering happened once, eating and drinking can happen several times. : This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time : Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the : memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. To their memory, yes. But is it a "true, real and substantial presence?" : 1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. : When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates : Christ's Passover, and it is made present No. Eg. the soldiers are not present in a true and real sense. And without them, the Passover isn't complete. There is no one to kill the Lord again, if not the "priests". : the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross : remains ever present. No. Just the sacrificed body and blood are put before us to eat and drink. The death of Christ is always present without "renewing" the sacrifice of the cross. Eg. it is present in our body. 2Cor 4:10-11 "[We are] always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord "Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. "For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus' sake "that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. Moreover, in every Christian's body who suffers Christ suffers: Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my "flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of "Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church. Mt 25:35-36 "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you "gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was "naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I "was in prison and you came to me. 25:40 "And the King will answer and say to them: 'Assuredly, I say "to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these "my brethren, you did it to me. : "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ : our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, : the work of our redemption is carried out." It's a direct defilement of the sacrifice on the cross. The sacrifice is complete, the work is carried out. It is finished. The only thing which has remained to is is to eat the broken flesh and drink the shed blood. We don't need to repeat the sacrifice. In the last century the Protestant divine Karl Hase made bad use of some Gregorian statement to the effect that "Whenever the Mass is offered, Christ bows down to the Father" (Prot. Polemik, 1871.) Do you now want to revive this puerile picture and thereby expose yourself to my quoting the whole vitriolic passage? : 1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist : is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is : manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which : is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the : New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the : very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which : he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Yes, but without the Eucharist being a sacrifice. It is the table where we eat the sacrificed body and drink the shed blood, but the sacrifice doesn't happen on the table. It happened on the cross. : 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents : (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its : memorial and because it applies its fruit: It doesn't re-present the sacrifice of the cross but gives us the body and the blood which was sacrificed once for all. Or if you maintain your reasoning then you also have to accept the sacrificial nature of preaching. It recalls the sacrifice of the cross, makes present Christ's death, and applies its fruit. Gal 3:1-2 "O thoughtless Galatians, who did bewitch you, not to obey "the truth -- before whose eyes Jesus Christ was described "before among you crucified? This only do I wish to learn "from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by "the hearing of faith? 2Cor 2:14-17 "and to God [are] thanks, who at all times is leading us in "triumph in the Christ, and the fragrance of His knowledge He "is manifesting through us in every place, because of Christ "a sweet fragrance we are to God, in those being saved, and "in those being lost; to the one, indeed, a fragrance of "death to death, and to the other, a fragrance of life to "life; and for these things who is sufficient? for we are not "as the many, adulterating the word of God, but as of "sincerity -- but as of God; in the presence of God, in "Christ we do speak. 3:12-18 "Having, then, such hope, we use much freedom of speech, and "[are] not as Moses, who was putting a vail upon his own "face, for the sons of Israel not stedfastly to look to the "end of that which is being made useless, but their minds "were hardened, for unto this day the same vail at the "reading of the Old Covenant doth remain unwithdrawn -- which "in Christ is being made useless -- but till to-day, when "Moses is read, a vail upon their heart doth lie, and "whenever they may turn unto the Lord, the vail is taken "away. And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of "the Lord [is], there [is] liberty; and we all, with unvailed "face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the "same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, "even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 4:5-6 "for not ourselves do we preach, but Christ Jesus -- Lord, "and ourselves your servants because of Jesus; because [it "is] God who said, Out of darkness light [is] to shine, who "did shine in our hearts, for the enlightening of the "knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. : [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself : to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to : accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his : priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper : "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to : his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the : nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which : he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be : *re-presented*, its memory perpetuated until the end of the : world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness : of the sins we daily commit. [Council of Trent 1562] This heretical reasoning perverts the truth of the Bible: Heb 7:20-23 "And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For "those priests were made without an oath; but this with an "oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not "repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of "Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better "testament. If Christ became a priest not without a divine oath, how can certain men claim now that they are priests with no divine oath? Do they consider themselves superior to Christ, so that they don't need divine commission in the priestly service? Trent also contradicts the truth of v. 24: "And they truly were many priests, because they were not "suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, "because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Thus, Christ does not need any successors in the priestly office because He lives forever. It's an awful blasphemy against Christ to say that He can be a faithful high priest only if He has human successors, as if otherwise He weren't worthy. Whoever calls himself a priest and claims to be able to offer expiatory sacrifices actually places himself above Christ, who, in turn, cannot remind the Father of anything without the priests' assistance. It is conclusive from the bold assertion that the Mass reminds the Father of the cross, and the Father acts as if it were necessary. On the other hand, the self-made "priests" of RCism base their priesthood (which necessarily goes along with performing expiatory sacrifices before God) on sand. Really, why do they pray to God in the name of someone, and re-present the sacrifice of someone who Himself is not able to move the Father to compassion? What would happen if accidentally all the priests made such serious mistakes in the Eucharistic Liturgy that all the propitiatory Masses became invalid on that day? Would Christ cease to be the Victim? Your first assertion was the following: :That this one physical sacrifice of two millenia ago must be :renewed daily is evident in Scripture. So Christ, with regard to the continuity of His sacrifice, is wholly dependent on human weakness. It's the worse because this reasoning cannot be applied to other topics, to try to blunt its edge. If all the Christians leave the faith, or they are suddenly massacred, so that for a day the Church on the earth ceases to exist, God still has the power to call others without any harm to the foundation of the Church. But if the sacrifice which, according to RC doctrine, has to be renewed daily, isn't renewed on a certain day then it loses all its power and Christ has to die again. It's a logical consequence of the ill supposition that the Mass makes the sacrifice of Christ on the cross present (even to the Father). And Trent asserts: :But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the :Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to :leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice :(as the nature of man demands) Drawing the contrary conclusion from the premise! While asking something from the Father IN JESUS' NAME means that we are referring to Christ's, that is, the faithful high priest's, merits, virtue, sacrifice when approaching the throne of the Father. So the Trent bishops banned Christ from Heaven or at least they cut out His tongue. Heb 4:14-16 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed "into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our "profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all "points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us "therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we "may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Heb 10:19-22 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering into the "[holy of] holies by the blood of Jesus, the new and living "way which he has dedicated for us through the veil, that is, "his flesh, and [having] a great priest over the house of "God, let us approach with a true heart, in full assurance of "faith, sprinkled as to our hearts from a wicked "conscience, and washed as to our body with pure water. Here is the biblical reference to our human nature! No further blasphemous "re-presentations of the same sacrifice to the Father" are needed, because we have a great High Priest, hallelujah! Whose body we can eat and whose blood we can drink. We don't have to offer His body and blood, or else we should make His sacrifice on the cross weak and needing repetition. : 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist : are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: : the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then : offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is : different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in : the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody : manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered : in an unbloody manner." It's a metaphysical evasion, while those who deny it have firm biblical quotations in the hand. If you want to defend your case successfully, you have to declare that the quotations from Trent and from the catechism are more powerful than the Bible. ---------------------------------------------------- Alas, by the time I noticed you on the internet again, my account at the university was very close to expiring. I am leaving this place and going to primary school to teach Maths and Physics. Or maybe to perform military service, if I am required to do so. It is only this summer that I can use my account. Please consider the possibility of this discussion being terminated at any moment. God bless you.