:From: MX%"catechis@netcom.com" 8-JUL-1997 :To: MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu" :Subj: Re: The Mass :Dear Ferenc, > 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. :Am I to take this increase in temperature as indicative of a :"quantum leap?" :) Yes. I learnt much from Calvin. Having read more recent RC apologies of the Mass (Jungmann, Sheed, Ott), I had to conclude that you RCs haven't managed to refute him so far. :I guess you want me to answer the messages you have sent me. I :will have to apologize in advance for my inability to give them :adequate attention because I don't have time right now to write :more than the most brief of responses. I will try to respond :to the questions which seem most serious in the messages you have :sent, but I may not get to them all. :Randal :catechis@netcom.com No problem. > : 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 :In my dictionary I note that "attribute" means a number of things: :"A quality or characteristic of a person or thing...In art and :mythology, a distinctive mark or symbol..._Attribute_, _quality_, :and _property_ denote an aspect or feature that distinguishes one :person or thing from another. An _attribute_ is what we conceive :the object to be in some respect." My comment on using the word :"attribute" to pertain to an assumed condition (such as Christ's :body and wounds) is that in a sense Christ's wounds are a :characteristic of His assumed nature, but so is His continuing :sacrifice as seen in His wounds. Christ's wounds definitely :serve to distinguish His Person from the other Persons of the :Trinity, but this distinction is not necessary to the task, in :as much as the Persons were distinguished from one another :from all eternity. Just as the Logos' human nature was assumed :at some point in time and now remains with Him, so too did His :wounds become a part of His physical condition at a point in time. The distinction between Jesus Christ and a phantom was made possible by His wounds to the apostle Thomas - and the text quotes Him exclaiming "My Lord and God!" He needed this help to have faith in the resurrection. :Both continue today, as does the soteriological reality represented :by them: sins cannot be forgiven without the application of the :merits of Calvary to each of us here and now. We believe that this :application of merit _is made possible_ by the sacrifice of the :Mass, but that it takes place in different ways by different :sacraments (for Catholics and Orthodox) or in unknown ways for :the invincibly ignorant. Alas, one tenth of what you say isn't found in the passage. The soteriological reality behind this case is "resurrection". As for John having seen Him in Heaven with His wounds, it means simply that Jesus Christ didn't throw away His human nature, body and wounds even in Heaven. But the wounds didn't bleed either to Thomas or to John - if the sacrifice "continued to the present", as the missal theologians maintain, then at least such a spectacular demonstration thereof to the human eye should have been necessary. Your denomination has very well recognized the truth of this conjecture: the grieved heart of Jesus/Mary makes His/her statues bleed, weep etc. > 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. :We are commanded by Christ to "Do this in remembrance of me." It's a blank-cheque logic to say "He said: >>do this<<" and omit what "this" is. Is your opinion on this that your "priests" are commanded to inflict Him more pain? pierce Him again? kill Him? > 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!" :How do you know that? From the whole course of the narrative. Its emphasis is on the personal identity of the "apparition". If everyone were allowed to argue from silence ("Thomas then realized that His saviour was still bleeding and suffering, that's why he at last didn't touch His wounds") then Christianity would turn into a heap of pagan supertitions. > 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. :I thought I said before that I do not deal in prooftexts. I :use Scripture only to illustrate and substantiate the Apostolic :Tradition and teaching of the magisterium. The text of itself :can prove nothing. It requires a definitive interpretation if :it is to pertain to irreformable doctrine. This interpretation :can only be made by recourse to the Apostolic Tradition and to the :decisions of the magisterium through the centuries. How could both the "magisterium" and the venerable theologians "interpret" something which is nowhere written? The good old heretic Cauvin very shrewdly remarked: these men are wont to stick the label of "interpretation" on whatever they devise. > 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. :Killed once on the Cross and Ascended into heaven with a glorified :body, He can not longer die again. To assert that any Catholic :believes that Christ can die again is to totally misunderstand :the nature of Eucharistic theology. It completely ignores the :_beginning_ of Christ's sacrifice for us, known to Catholics as :His Passion. As I pointed out many times before, Christ's :sacrifice began at the Last Supper, and it is in this manner :that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered. And you forgot that I refuted your allegations on this. Christ's suffering, indeed, began in Gethsemane. But His sacrifice didn't begin until He was nailed to the cross. To assert the contrary is mere eisegesis and aquinoism. > 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. :Whether the Father "needs" it or not is immaterial to the :fact that we are commanded to do it. You sidestep, Randal. We have already discussed that the Father "acts as if He needed a reminder". You asserted, and I denied it in this case. But why would the Father command our "re-presentation of the sacrifice to Him" when the very Victim sits at His right hand, with all the necessary wounds along? It would be a contradiction in God's economy (as we know it from the Bible). > 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 :It is a fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith (cf. Vatican I, :session 3) that God is "really and essentially distinct from the :world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself." This implies :that there is nothing that men can do which will add to or :subtract from God's essence. Thus the Catholic faith professes :and teaches her faithful that God "needs" absolutely nothing :from men. That He commands us to behave this way or that is an :entirely different matter from His "needing" us to do so. Your doctrine inevitably results in such a monstrous heresy. Believe me, I didn't have in mind God's "essence" when typing "He needs" etc, but the economy of salvation. Well, you can argue that "How does Ferenc Nemeth know God's economy so that he can judge whether the Mass fits in it or not?" The answer could be that "Not in vain do we have His commands written." Even you quote Scripture: "Do this." Your implied denotatum ("Offer!") is, however, an agraphon. > It even squeezes Him into the bread and wine to die there again :I am not so certain that His presence in His "physical 'reality'" :(see _Mysterium fidei_) in the bread and wine simultaneously on :thousands of earthly altars is all that great a limitation on :God. A limping solution. To answer with folly: at the beginning of the Church's life there were less altars than now. Seriously, you RCs confine Him into the bread and wine: you hail and adore what you see as bread. You would no way adore the piece of stone on which the "host" is placed. Or the cup in which the wine is poured. (What a pity! Both Christ and Paul call the CUP, and not the wine, His blood.) > 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. :The Catholic faith professes nothing of the sort. The Cross :comes alive in every Catholic parish every day. The purpose :of the Mass is life and renewal, not death and decay. You profess to "re-present" His sacrifice, offer Him, and even "repeat" His sacrifice. Would you call this "life and renewal"? Conversely, you thus admit that His one and only sacrifice on the cross would lose its power if you didn't "renew" it. For this reason is the culmination of the Mass the offering, by which the initial offering is re-enacted, thus betraying your conviction that one offering (a la Hebrews) wouldn't satisfy your theological system. > 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. :You forget the mystery of the Last Supper. Catholic theology :integrates the events of Calvary together with the sacrificial :events both preceding them and immediately following them. How can you "integrate" a bloody sacrifice into an "unbloody" one? No matter what scholastic quibbles your divines resorted to, they haven't thus far untied this knot. :Christ's death _alone_ is not sufficient for our entrance into :eternal beatitude: Before this was possible, He first had to :raise Himself from the dead and ascend into heaven. But the fruits are available to us without repeating the whole course of events - that's why we were commanded to "eat" and "drink", and not to "slay, offer, bury, resurrect, and thrust into Heaven." :Prior to :His death, He for whatever mysterious reason found Himself :bound to offer the first Mass and ordain His first bishops at :the Last Supper. At that event He commanded us to renew His :sacrifice until the end of time. This "reason" had to be very "mysterious", as the evangelists omit both "offer", "Mass", "ordain", "bishop", "renew" and "sacrifice". But as the "priests" of your denomination are indeed the "stewards of the mysteries of God", they are indeed authorized to supplement the gaps in the gospel. What a pity that Paul reproduced the text of the gospel quite literally when writing to the Corinthians! But this strange coincidence can be, even after "Divino afflante spiritu", explained by the auxiliary hypothesis that the gospel is incomplete (and Matthew muttered the correct words of the Saviour to the copyists to pass them on orally), and Paul, too, decided to leave the profane Corinthians in ignorance regarding the mysteries which were entrusted only to the "priests". > :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, :Does this guilt not imply recrucifixion? Apostasy is a figurative re-crucifixion as told us in Hebrews. If you want to infer this kind of sin from 1Cor 11 then give your arguments. > "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. :The judgment referred to here represents mortal sin. It is a :sin which if unforgiven will lead to eternal dying. Even if I accept your term "mortal" sin (whereas 1John uses it in a much narrower sense: you Roman Catholics pray for murderers but John discourages us from praying for someone who has committed a "sin unto death"), what does it prove as to "re-crucifixion"? Your double quotation is still gratuitous, misleading, and biassed. > 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. :The judgment referred to here represents mortal sin. It represents apostasy, as clear from the context. > 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. :Mortal sin is mortal sin is mortal sin. It pounds the nails :into the wounds of Christ just as certainly as the hands of :the soldiers did in time. In your belief system such allegorical "proof" is sufficient. I demand scriptural arguments for your double quotation. You can bridge over the gap between "unworthy partaking" and "falling away" only by your denominational technical term "mortal" sin. But you had made your scriptural references in the style of definitive proof. This falls apart if you manage to bring them together only via additional hypotheses (ie. "mortal" sin). > 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. :As I said, I offer no proof, only illustration. And even this "illustration" of yours is faulty in the absence of your present additions. With them, it's "only" inadequate. > 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. :But no Catholic believes that the sacrifice of the Mass is :a recrucifixion of Christ. It is actually just the opposite. :Instead of pounding nails into the wounds of Christ, the Mass :offers Christ to the Father so that His merits will be :applicable to our sanctification here and now. You likened "unworthy partaking" to re-crucifixion for the very end to prove that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of the Calvary continues in it. Now, when challenged, you would keenly drop this initial purpose, and edge back behind your Tridentine excuses. By the way, you answered nothing about the sacrifice being "finished" but dwelt on the lasting "application". This is undoubtedly true; but why does application require "re-presentation" and "repetition"? > :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." :Suffering on earth is not the sole form of suffering in time. :You will remember that the Church Suffering also suffers in :time. This is why their satisfaction is to be made for _temporal :punishment_, and definitely not for _eternal punishment_. No matter how you try to distract me, I'll stick to the topic: everyone who suffers on earth suffers "in time". You with your purgatorian opinions didn't contradict this assertion. I said A -> B, and you replied B -x-> A, which is a lapse in logic. > :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". :We obviously have different conceptions of "eternal." I believe :that "eternal" means "outside of time." This definition implies :that in eternity, yesterday is now, today is now, and tomorrow :is now. If this is so, then the application of the eternal merits :of Christ's sacrifice continues in eternity and can benefit us :here on earth yesterday, today and tomorrow. It obviously can. But the sacrifice is finished. Or do you deny Christ's incarnation and death as definitely unique historical events? Are you a Docetist? By the way, you didn't answer my argument about "sacrifice" and "suffering". Are these things the same? Why? > 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. :As in their choice to either cooperate with or reject habitual :grace from God, Catholics by means of the priesthood of the :faithful The correct term is "royal" priesthood. :(not the ministerial priesthood) Of course, as this latter kind doesn't exist. :are expected by God :to assist the ordained minister in the offering of sacrifice. The text quoted says nothing to this effect. It speaks about the believers being priesthood and offering acceptable sacrifices to God. You twist the text around, and infer its opposite from it: that all believers cannot offer sacrifices without a privileged group of people whose priestly calling, in turn, is found nowhere in the Bible. Quite a bit of lax exegesis, requiring no comment. :Their assistance is not to be viewed as a function _in persona :Christi_, since they are not commissioned to do so, Neither are the "priests" of your denomination. :but as a spiritual aid in the offering. You may review the :prayers of the Mass to see the exact nature of their aid. 1Pt gives authorization, and you limit it. Sapienti sat. > 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! :And this folly illustrates the limitations of attempting to :interpret the Sacred texts apart from the Church of Christ. Pardon. Your argument is a petitio principii. You assume that I am wrong instead of refuting me. I have no defense against this Big Blank Papal Cheque. So whenever you apply it, I will take this to be a retreat on your part. > 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..." :Guess what. Every daily prayer and suffering I offer up :personally to God is a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God. :Of course the end of these personal offerings differs in nature :from the end of the Mass, but it is spiritual none the less. Of course, had Peter spoken to the presbyters, you would not cling to your present (right) interpretation but would immediately exploit this text in favour of the Mass. Just as you do with Malachi. > 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". :There are quite a few other offerings rendered by the faithful :at Mass than merely their "presence and faith." Is it to be :considered strange that you ignore these? Are we to take your :ignorance as wilfull, or are we to take it as invincible? Wilful. But I didn't intend to offer an exhaustive argument instead of you, who know your denominational usus loquendi better than me. By the way, you didn't answer my argument about explicitness and theological utilization of verses. > 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". :Each offers according to his own office. Believers offer up sacrifices, and "priests" offer up nothing, as their office doesn't exist. You didn't answer my argument about the lack of any other priesthood in 1Pt than royal. > 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. :You are at liberty to hold to this opinion, but please realize :that you have no inherent _right_ to err in this way. To choose :error is not your due, but your free will allows you to override :the goodness of your created nature. Let me paraphrase what you say: "Ferenc, you are wrong but I can't refute you." You didn't answer any of my arguments here. > 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. :It is pretty obvious that verse 4 indicates not only the definition :of habitual grace but also confirms that we are called to participate :in Christ's work on earth (see the following verses). This work on :earth will require sacrifices which include suffering for Christ, :and this suffering is to be offered up not only as a daily personal :offering but especially as a sacrificial offering at Mass. Non sequitur. You gave a reference which proves nothing unless you supply it with your "authoritative" explanation. You would have done better if you had omitted the scriptural verse and typed only your opinions which have, by the way, nothing to do with what is written there. > | Corollary: Heb 10:5-18 > | "Wherefore, coming into the world, he says: | "offering thou willedst not; but thou hast prepared me a body. > | "Thou tookest no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. > | > | :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > | ::::::He took no pleasure in Christ's sacrifice either,::::::: > | :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > | > | And do you still think He will take pleasure in the > | "re-presentation" of the >>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 :No. I said that a Christian does not join his sufferings to :a dead event in the distant past but rather to an event that :continues to live in eternity and which can merit succor for :us in time. Would Christ's sacrificial death on the cross be "a dead event in the distant past" without your daily Missal renewals thereof? If no then why "renew" it? If yes then I have no more doubt as to your heterodoxy. As for your weaseling argument "an event that continues to live in eternity", it is a paltry quibble. The letter to the Hebrews says, nay, cries and protests that it was a "once forever" event, and >>as such<<, able to avail us now. :The Father takes pleasure in our willingness to sacrifice, :but not in the physical evil which His justice demands according :to restitution. I amend my statement above to read: "He took no :pleasure in Christ's sacrificial death, but in His willingness :to lay down His life for all men the Father found merit." Christ's sacrificial death was the culmination of His obedience, even unto death. So you say that the Father took pleasure in Christ's obedience but He abhorred the very thing for which the Son came on earth. Cute. > 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. :Scripture makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in death :and suffering. He views these physical evils as consequences :of justice. God always takes pleasure in obedience to His will, however bloody. Scripture says that "burnt sacrifices you didn't will, but you gave me a body" and "here I am, to do, oh God, your will" and "by this will were we sanctified through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus for ever". You may try to evade this in a Petrine manner ("you mustn't die, my Master!"), but bear in mind what additional name Christ gave to the "Rock" on this occasion. > :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). :It will finish when it is no longer needed for the salvation :of men, i.e., at the end of time. This "termination" pertains :to the application of His merits in time, not to the timeless :nature of His sacrifice. His sacrifice was a "once for ever" event in time. It has timeless fruits. But it didn't last longer than the exclamation "tetellesthai". By the way, you didn't answer my argument about the difference between "sacrifice" and "mediation". Are these the same? Why? Or not? Then how did you dare to use Christ's mediation "today" to prove that the sacrifice is eternal? :It is important to remember that Christ's :sacrifice includes His Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension. :To focus on only one aspect of these is to ignore the other elements :of the theology necessary for a proper understanding of the whole. It's just your denomination to attach eg. resurrection to the sacrifice as a part of it. In fact, this was the result of His kenosis - the opposite event. > 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. :Sure. But we believe that it goes beyond His earthly Body because :we believe that His Body extends beyond the bounds of the earth. With this reasoning you must argue as well that those in Heaven do suffer, too. By the way, our suffering is not propitiatory, no matter what the pope said in Unigenitus about the saints' merits adding something to Christ's merits. > :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? :No. But as you pointed out above, the context of the quotation :is important. Note verses 7-8 and 12-13. But then, your proof falls flat, as you fail to prove that "there is no other clean oblation than Christ". This thing is what counts here. You didn't address my argument about praises also being clean. So it seems you maintain the impious heresy that our praises are sullied. Verses 7-8 and 12-13 say that the Israelites defiled the Lord's altar. It doesn't imply that the sacrifice of the pagans requires a similar altar. The sacrificial terminology applied by Malachi can be easily ascribed to the hearers' level of education, ie. the Law of Moses. By the way, have you ever heard of the "oxen of my lips" by David? Did David require an altar to praise God and give Him thanks? 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. :I don't see any mention of an altar in these verses. Not needed, as David could do without an altar when praising God. > 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. :Note that St. Paul says in verse 16: "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, emphasis mine). The offering up of the Gentiles is praises. Paul performed the priestly duty by preaching. This explanation fits well into the context, whereas yours is a forced one: you assert that Paul proclaims the Gospel, thereby providing the Gentiles with the opportunity of offering Masses. But this is nowhere in the text. Well, you can escape by your usual blank-cheque tactic, ie. "the magisterium says otherwise". But then, stop quoting Scriptures which have nothing to be expounded missally. :This verse speaks very loudly of the distinction between the :priesthood of the faithful and that of the ordained ministers :of the Eucharist. You have just said that you didn't find "altar" anywhere in this text. Yet you keenly infer from it that it refers to the Eucharist. What does, then, this double standard serve? Wilful obfuscation? > 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. :There is no reference to the prophecy of Mal 1:11 in the :Catholic Bible for the verses you cite here. It just betrays the bias of your denomination. On the other hand, you are quick to read the Eucharist into both Malachi and Romans, thus linking them together. Is it only me to whom it is forbidden? What is this tactic, if not a slap in the face of the most basic human reason? > Phil 2:14-17: [...] > It is evident that the Eucharist is not in the text. :I am glad that you agree with me that the sacrifice of the :altar is not mentioned in these verses. Not needed, cf. David's oxen. But you again give away your unbiblical starting point: you are content to say that Phil 2 doesn't speak of the "sacrifice of the altar", by which you mean that the oblation of the Gentiles requires an altar, whereas it is not stated in Malachi. True, incense and (in the Hungarian version) "food-offering" is found in the prophet, but where have your denomination hidden the incense from the Mass? You mustn't resort to the subterfuge "it is used in the Mass" - what is required is that incense be part of the Mass just as bread and wine, as food and incense are mentioned by Malachi parallelly. Ignorance of this is a wilful one on the part of your denomination. > :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. :Agreed. I retract the statement above. > : "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.) :This notion represents a contradiction, and since God cannot :contradict Himself, Mr. Hase has misrepresented the Catholic :faith. Or the said Gregory erred grievously. > : 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. :You will note that the context of the prophecy of Malachi is :the context of the sacrifice of the altar (see verse 1:7). And I read there that the altar was a Mosaic one. This doesn't mean that the purer sacrifice required an altar. For praises, why? See David's oxen of his lips. > 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? :Typical non-Catholic gibberish. Call me "anti-Catholic" if you will. This "gibberish" isn't characteristic of the Orthodox, so "non-Catholic" is misleading. :Just as there are those :non-Catholics who confuse the Law of Moses with the Law of God, Am I to listen to the "Law of God" from your lips, Randal? Generalistic references to your denomination's alleged authority do no good to this present topic: they just confirm my suspicion that this "authority" speech is nothing but a Jolly Joker. :so too are there those who confuse the priests of the :Old Covenant with those of the New. I'd rather say that there are people who blatantly forget about the NT priesthood when denoting their "clergy" (a stolen name, btw. - see 1Pt 5:3 in the Greek - "kleros", heritage) with it, thus burying our High Priest into oblivion. > 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. :Catholic bishops are successors to the Apostles, not to Christ. :Catholic priests are their helpers. Christ lives forever, and has an unchangeable priesthood. The only reason why one ought to have a successor in the priesthood is that he is mortal (Heb 7:23). Indeed, the execrable decree of the Tridentine latrocinium renders Christ mortal (D 938): ' ...nevertheless that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end ' with His death (Heb 7:24,27) at the Last Supper, on the night He was ' betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a ' visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) whereby that bloody ' sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and ' the memory of it remain even to the end of the world (1Cor 11:23ff) ' and its saving grace be applied to the remission of those sins which ' we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted "a priest forever ' according to the order of Melchisedech" (Ps. 109:4) offered to God ' the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine, ' and under the symbols of those same things gave to the apostles (whom ' He then constituted priests of the New Testament), so that they might ' partake, and He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood ' in these words to make offering: >Do this in commemoration of me, etc.< So if no Mass were said by "priests" then Christ's priesthood would come to an end! Anathema, illa nefanda blasphemia! > 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. :The sacrifice of the Cross is necessary for the justification :of men. The renewal of this sacrifice is necessary because :God commands that it be done. Where? In some puerile and fabulous apocryphal "gospel"? :Maybe you can explain to me the meaning of Christ standing :between the Father and the sinner at the particular judgment :as expressed by Martin Luther. What purpose is served by :this action on the part of Christ? I won't defend Luther as you would defend a pope, but I guess the correct phrase here is "mediation". I advise you to re-read our correspondence of old: then I responded with a traditional RC prayer "Jesus, hide me into your wounds from the anger of your Father." Don't judge Luther for the very thing your denomination teaches. > :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. :No, we in our human weakness are dependent on the continued :application of the merits of His sacrifice to our souls. Yes, but why does the application have to be a sacrifice itself? > 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 :This is mere happy speculation. Christ has promised that the :gates of hell will never prevail against His Church. I was hedging my bets against a possible counter-argument. > 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). :Your speculation ignores the promise of Christ. Christ has never promised daily Mass. Thus it can cease with no harm to the Church. Indeed, either Trent erred when forbidding them "in the vernacular", or Vatican 2 when allowing them. By this contradiction, all your Masses are off. > : 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. :Well, _Dei verbum_ puts the roles of Scripture, Tradition and :the magisterium in their proper relationship to one another. :Perhaps you can re-read Trent and the Catechism in light of :what is said there. "Dei verbum" is an unsuccessful attempt to retain Trent and edge closer to Sola Scriptura. I wish the 3rd Vatican Council will complete this job. > 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. :You are not the only one who may have to terminate at any :moment. The completion of my Ph.D. will likely require that :I too terminate at any moment, as I temporarily had to do last :summer when I dropped out of sight for almost a year. > : 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". :You'll note that Pope Paul refers to the "Mystery of the Eucharist," :not to the Last Supper per se. The mystery of the Eucharist :includes the Last Supper but clearly is not limited to it. The :Death, Resurrection and Ascension may not be divorced from the :mystery. The papal intention is to prove that Christ's means of sanctification of the New Testament was particularly the institution of the Eucharist. > Heb 9:11-28 > 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 :The Mass allows for the fruits of the Cross to be applied :to individual souls on earth. This is no more than the Protestant "Lord's Supper." > : 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. :It is the sacrifice of the Last Supper (the unbloody sacrifice) :which is to be repeated, not the bloody sacrifice. See the text :which follows on pp. 12-13 for the explanation. I saw it. But anyway, the "repetition" refers to the sacrifice, and not just to the ritual. The bloody sacrifice which is "integrated" into the Mass, is repeated in every Mass. > 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. :This is covered by the term "mystery." The Catholic faith does :not claim to _fully_ understand the nature of the relationship :between the Last Supper and the Cross. Do you always resort to mysteries when you are hard pressed? I consider another method more fruitful: "Don't add to His words unless He reprove you, and you be found a liar." > 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 Pope did not and could not state that Christ's death on :the Cross must be repeated. What he said is that the sacrifice :of the Eucharist (first begun at the Last Supper and definitively :fulfilled on the Cross) is according to the will of Christ to :be repeated until the end of time. How was the sacrifice "fulfilled on the Cross"? By Christ's death. If your integrated kind of sacrifice has to be repeated then Christ's death on the cross, embedded in the Mass, has to be repeated. > 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. :This confusion on your part should provide you evidence of the :mysterious nature of the sacrifice. We do not claim to fully :understand the mystery ourselves. But there is nothing in the Bible to back up the RC Mass, even not as mystery. It's your denomination's sheer invention. > Second, by calling the Eucharist not only a sacrifice but > even a sanctification of the New Testament... :Please re-read what Pope Paul actually wrote: "Christ our Lord... :with His own Blood sanctified the New Testament." In the disingenuously omitted "...", I read: "through the institution of the Mystery of the Eucharist". Scripta manent. > 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") :One wonders about the context of this quotation and if anything :was left out between the lines quoted. I assure you, nothing is left out. :Unfortunately I do not :have the particular text on hand that you are quoting from, :but I do have other texts written by him, and I have never found :anything that he has written to be contrary to the Catholic :faith or so historically invalid as your quotation above. Randal, thus far I have regarded you as a faithful conservative Roman Catholic catechist. Now I'm surprised to hear you echo my charges against RC theology. Well, as you insist on it, I here translate what Jungmann further says. Of course, you can still take refuge in saying "You mistranslate it". I indeed expect this kind of self-defense of you, judging by your preposterous and frivolous assumption that I omitted something from between the lines. However, this is an inherently papal method of argumentation (see for instance Leo and Chalcedon, or Boniface and the Africans with their unscrupulous forgeries stoutly proclaimed as Nicene), so I'll desist from it, and leave it in your armoury. ------------------- Extract of the previous chapters --------------------- VIII. From Trent to now 1. The work of Trent - It made decrees only on some controverted points: sacrament, real presence, sacrifice, Mass. - There was no exhaustive treatise on the Mass at their disposal to use as basis (except for Cajetan). - A primary desire to prove that the Mass is as expiatory a sacrifice as that of the cross, thus it "contains sacrificial death (immolatio - mactatio)". Then the interest arose at a different emphasis: that the Mass is a real sacrifice. Three things in which the sacrificial character subsists: consecration, offering, and the re-presentation of Christ's suffering. - A larger synthesis in the final decree. 2. Trent and the post-Tridentine theologians - Not a complete system, just an exposition of details, to thus restore order. - Later theologians, instead of composing into a general doctrine what was handled in an ad hoc manner by Trent, rather reaffirmed the division which since then has become common: sacrament, sacrifice, Mass. - In the three subsequent centuries they used the Tridentine theorem that the Mass is a sacrifice, the basic question being "how does it become a sacrifice". To answer Protestants who stumbled across the Scotist notion of the "Church' sacrifice", they relied on Greek Fathers to answer the question: "how does the same sacrifice offered once on the Cross appear in the Mass"? Different explanations were found; in listing them, Jungmann follows A. Michel (word article in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [ed. A. Vacant et al., Paris, 1903-1950] 10, 1143-1316) --------------- Quotation begins --------------------- 3. Theories of the annihilation of the sacrifice The common feature of these theories is that they want to show that the content of the Mass is not mere commemoration (nuda commemoratio) of the sacrifice of the cross, but this sacrifice somehow _appears_ in it. They undoubtedly referred to Zwingli's objection raised after 1523, later repeated by Calvin and the English reformers, viz. 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 they never questioned this interpretation of the idea. Gabriel Vazquez (+1604), in his commentary to St. Thomas' Summa, pars III (Disputatio 220,2.15) rejected the proposition that the simple offering on the part of the priest (as in Leviticus 23-24) would suffice. For although such an offering without destroying could express the recognition of God's general power over things, but not that He is the Lord over life and death (Disp. 220.3,20-24). How then parry the Reformers' reproaches? It is necessary to demonstrate that there happens something in the Mass by which the Lord's death on the cross appears on the altar. Formerly people were content with the answer that the Mass somehow resembles the sacrifice of the cross. This explanation, according to many - pro and contra - commentators of St. Thomas, we can find in the breaking of the bread (Melchior Cano), or in the sacramental eating (Dominicus Soto), or in the separated species, with no further distinction (Alfonso Salmeron, Guilelmus Estius and many others.) a) Mystical killing Vazquez went a step further: the Mass is a sacrifice as a mystical killing (mactatio mystica) takes place in it. In the force of the double transsubstantiation Christ not only becomes present, but His death, suffered on the cross, appears again. True, Vazquez held, following St. Thomas Aquinas, that the changing is a crucial element in how the sacrifice takes place. However, in his explanation he professed that in the case of the Mass the re-presentation is sufficient, exactly because the Mass is not an absolute sacrifice, but a commemorative, relative one (Disp. 220.3; 223,4.37). This standpoint was held by many theologians up to the 20th century. Leonardus Lessius (+1623), improving on this, reasoned thus: Due to the power of the double consecration, not just the image of the sacrifice on the cross does come to being, but "by virtue of the words" (vi verborum) the body and the blood is being separated as well (De perfectionibus moribusque divinis 12.13,95-97). This thought has remained up to the present day in the expression "virtual killing" (mactatio virtualis), first of all in the Thomist school. According to others, (Z. Pasqualigo +1664, the bishop Bossuet +1704) it is enough that Christ becomes present with the external appearance of death (repraesentatio mortis), as we have in this thing the outward sign required with the sacrifice to show the internal devotion, in this case the devotion of the whole Mystical Body. This explanation was revived by Cardinal Billot (+1931). b) Real "killing" Another solution which was thought to meet the Protestant attacks against the sacramental nature of the Mass, comes primarily from Suarez, in his commentary on St. Thomas (De Sacrificio Missae, Disp. 75). It relies on the notion that a sacrifice requires the real destroying of the victim. This didn't question that in the double consecration a mystical killing (mactatio mystica) is enacted. But in this [opinion] this is not enough, as it's not real. Real "annihilation", or at least "mutation" takes place at another point, viz. in the substance of the oblation of the bread and wine, when they turn into Christ's body and blood. As the real oblation isn't the bread and the wine, yet according to Christ's will the sacrifice begins with this. This theory was further improved by Scheeben (+1888). He simply substitutes the idea of destroying with that of "changing", and emphasizes that significance of the sacrifice that expresses the intrinsic devotion of the Mystical Body. Cardinal Bellarmin (+1621) considered "annihilation" a vital element with regard to the species of bread and wine, but saw its realization elsewhere, namely at the communion. In this view, the communion of the priest belongs to the essence of of the sacrifice. In virtue of the consecration the species of the oblation (Christ's body and blood) are designated to real destruction, which takes place at our eating them. These theories found the annihilation required by the sacrifice in the species of the bread and wine. The theology of Juan de Lugo (+1660), on the contrary, views it in the very Victim, Christ. With the trans- substantiation Christ gets, according to the human nature [or: to put it in a human manner], in a lower state (statum decliviorem), viz. He becomes food (De Venerabili Eucharistiae Sacramento 19,65-67). In the 19th century this theory was taken up by Cardinal Franzelin (+1886). Yet from the 16th century on there have been theologians who reasoned that the offering itself is enough to make the Mass a sacrifice. ------------------- Quotation ends ------------------- Comment: It is evident hence that "re-presentation" was not even thought of by Trent and the following centuries. The polemical stress was rigidly placed on the three headings: Eucharist, transsubstantiation, sacrifice. This I was referring to when calling the re-presentation theory a recent invention. -------------- Extract of the next chapters ---------- 4. Other theories - Maldonatus (+1583) said that the gist of the sacrifice is the offering. After him, the French school didn't deny the significance of immolatio mystica, but put a stress on intrinsic devotion, which is demonstrated by Christ in the Mass by virtue of the words of consecration, thereby involving us into it. - Lepin and Maurice de la Taille maintained that Christ's one sacrifice was His death on the cross, and His liturgical offering at the last supper. The sacrificial nature of the Mass lies in the Church's re-offers the same Sacrifice with the ame offering act as there, so Christ Himself does renew the sacrifice with His Church. - At the beginning of the century the resistence against the influence of the annihilation-theories led James Bellord, vicar of Gibraltar to say that the sacrifice didn't take place in the death of the cross, but at the last supper. Likewise F.S. Renz: the appearance of the only real sacrifice on the cross makes the Mass sacrifice, with the subjective aspect that by eating it, we become partakers of it. Since then many proposed that the Mass in reality is eating. 5. A new approach, and its sources - The abbot Ansgar Vonier (+1938): It is not true that Christ first appears and then becomes victim; rather the sacrament is in itself a sacrifice. Sacramental re-presentation of the ody and blood is enough to make the Mass a sacrifice. - Dom Odo Casel (+1948): In some respects the Eucharistic celebration resembles the ancient the ancient mystery cults. Not just Christ appears but under the veil of the rituals, His whole redemptive work, together with the death on the cross. Though much debated, this approach was fruitful in explaining the unity of the sacrifice and the participation of the Church. - This change of explanation was due to the growing knowledge of the ancient liturgies, fathers etc. Objective commemoration, upheld by them, is very close to the notion of re-presentation. - The Protestants criticism grew weaker, so a kind of change found its way into their liturgies too. 6. The tendencies of our age - The Church, when re-presenting the sacrifice on the cross, doesn't rely on her ability but on that of Christ. - There is a tendency: the sacrificial act is emphasized, and real presence viewed in its relation to this. - Liturgical renewal wanted to exploit the riches of the Mass fully, so they laid a stress on the active participation of the people. - The same reason led Vatican 2 to the decree that the Mass has to be renewed according to patristic tradition. It was not like the reform in 1570, where the basis of changes were the isolated rituals performed by the priest, but rather the Mass offered with the people. - New prayers, outlining the initial structure of the Mass. The council urged concelebration, in order to counteract the distracting multitude of private Masses in the same temple, which was a stumbling block for the Reformers. About the Eucharist, the only thing needed was to reiterate Trent. -------------------- Comment: Re-read the sentences at Odo Casel, and find your theory there. It is a recent thing, although he relied on ancient liturgies, because if you still insist on that it is ancient then your Tridentine fathers and their worthy followers are found neglecting an ancient doctrine. ---------------------------------------------------------------- :The Catholic Church has obviously and repeatedly denied the inter- :pretation offered above, e.g., Trent's 13th session. I won't even :take the time to count the number of Church Fathers who have taught :the opposite, but I am certain that Saints Justin and Irenaeus are :two of the earliest to do so. Jungmann and the theologians quoted by him were never excommunicated. The historical development which is evidently an excuse provided by him to defend the age-old Tridentine one-sidedness testifies that your denomination has felt quite comfortable within an incomplete system of theology for centuries. > Those who cling to their "real presence" and "real sacrifice" > opinions must somehow explain the way it takes place. :Why? Why must we explain a mystery? If you call on us to :explain this mystery, we can call upon you to explain the :mystery of the Trinity. How can 3 be 1? Why explain it to you? If you disbelieve in it then you are not Catholic. If you don't know it then you mustn't teach others. It's OK that you treat me as a heretic - but why do you yourself act as a heretic? I accept the Trinity in the absence of any other phrase to explain certain Scriptural verses. Or if you are still discontent, consider the modulo 2 number field as an analogy, where 3 = 1 by definition. But where are the verses about the "Mass" which require such a mysterious explanation? The thing which requires this is not Scripture but the phrases of your speculative theology. And you boldly fly in my face with this evasive "mystery" speech, while whole generations of venerable RC theologians strove painstakingly to do what you refuse to do. Were they sacrilegious hairsplitters who encroached on the mysteries of God with their untrained hands? Then your denomination was overcome by the gates of hell. Or were they right in their attempts? Then why do you call it a mystery, not daring to follow them? > 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 "mystical death?" Don't pretend as if you didn't know what it is. The orthodox and imprimatur'd Jungmann writes whole paragraphs about this. I don't presume to give you a lesson in this issue. Read him. > 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. :St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology and in his Dialogue :to Trypho explains the "re-presentation theory" way back in :the second century. I would not refer to it as anything :recently invented. You may have in mind Apol. i. LXV-LXVI, but it's not cogent. In LXVI.2 it has but an obscure "from which our flesh and blood is nurtured in the sense of transmutation", or rather "unto transmutation", ie. that of our body (kata metabolEn), which has nothing to do with any sacrifice, let alone a re-presented one. The context is very specific about our eating. Tryph. XLI.1-3 treats of thanksgiving sacrifice via the Eucharist, not about any expiation which could "re-present" that on the cross. XLI.1 has "in the remembrance of His passion", which is quite an inadequate phrase to prove your point. The iteration in CXVII gives nothing to the effect of "re-presentation" - it uses "offering" in 1 and "remembrance" in 3. But what else could one expect of an age when Aquinas hadn't baptized Aristotle yet? So even these misinterpretation don't avail your cause. By the way, from the extracts and the quotation from Jungmann it's clear that "re-presentation of Christ's one and only sacrifice on the cross via an expiatory oblation of His transsubstantiated body and blood" is a recent idea. When Justin et al. used word like "remembrance", "sacrifice" and "offering", they never had in mind any expiation but had a very obscure picture about what was going on. This bearing in mind, you seem to me somewhat too confident in finding allies in them to your Tridentine allegations. > 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. :The Latin root of Mass is missae. The traditional Mass ends :with the command: "Ite, Missa est," which means "Go, you are :sent." This is why it is called the Mass. It's not relevant. I am fighting against a man-made doctrine which grasps at any straw to remain untouched - including extra- Scriptural terminology whereas a proper Scriptural name is found. However, you again managed to evade the point. If Christ is dead from the beginning in the Mass then it isn't a sacrifice. > You Catholics don't admit that the Anglicans have "valid > orders", thus their Mass is invalid, in your opinion. But > you acknowledge their baptism, :The baptism given even by atheists is recognized by the :Catholic Church as valid if it is administered according :to the proper matter, form and intent. "Proper intent" with an atheist? You devour the camel while the objections taken to the Anglican "orders" are ridiculously ad hoc: "They gave up for a period the RC view of transsubstantiation." By the way, the Orthodox don't share it either - instead, they let it remain a "mystery" without any Scholastic definitions. > so even it cannot be said that the other sacraments draw > their "efficacy" from the efficacy of the Mass. :Why not? Our dogma of "no salvation outside the Church" depends :on the propagation of the sacrifice of the Mass. If the Mass :were to cease then nobody could be saved, not even Catholics. Proof by assertion? :Of course, the notion of the cessation of the Mass prior to :the Second Coming is speculative nonsense, but it does serve :to illuminate the dogma. All the more that there was a period when no Masses were offered: in the apostolic era the Eucharist wasn't considered a sacrifice but a meal. > To maintain that the Roman Catholic > Mass provides power to all sacraments of the heretics and > schismatics who reject its sacrificial character is vain :It may be helpful to remember that Vatican II re-emphasized :the fact that even pagan religions retain some elements of :the true faith of God. It is these elements which bind them :to the Church of Christ, the Church which represents the :fullness of the means of salvation. I am not certain which :sacraments of heretics, apostates, schismatics and others are :empowered by the Catholic Mass, other than baptism. The :sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction are certainly :not (the Orthodox are not included in this, for their sacraments :are valid, although not licit), and these are the only ones :other than baptism which are able to remit sins. Then are there some other ways in which the non-RC "sacraments" gain power? Isn't then the Mass made redundant, together with your strenuous defense of Unam Sanctam? > 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." :There is this other doctrine that we have which is called :"baptism of desire" and another called "baptism of blood." :Those who are baptised in these ways are not required to :physically participate in the Eucharist for their justification. So the Mass fails to be necessary for salvation. You can't show me the way how it operates on the "invincibly ignorant" - yet you insist that it does. > :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. :Hmm. Doesn't it seem rather obvious to you that St. John :Chrysostom is referring to the Last Supper here? There :is nothing about re-crucifixion implied in his words. The sacrifice on the cross wasn't complete until Christ's death. Christ didn't die without crucifixion. So it is implied. > 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. :The offering is for the application of Christ's merit to individual :souls; it is not a re-crucifixion of Christ on the Cross. In my fallible opinion, the application is eating and drinking. This was commanded "in His remembrance", not any kind of offering. :I challenge you to find a valid Catholic Mass where Christ is :personally nailed to a cross and re-crucified. As I proved the doctrine to imply this monstrous conclusion, I needn't spend time on gathering specific examples. All your Masses do it, in general. > 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. < "ceased to be offered?>> 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. :The Catholic faith professes to put her trust in Christ, :not in a book (such as the Bible), not in a Tradition, not :in men. The Apostolic Tradition, the Bible, and the magisterium :are all helps or tools which bring us to Christ, but they are :not the object of our worship and sacrifice. I didn't want to argue this. Take my words as questioning the effectiveness of your Mass as a "tool". Address this. > : 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. :Well, we would disagree here. We consider it to be His body, :blood, soul and divinity. On what grounds?