From: catechis@netcom.com (Randal Mandock) Subject: Your Message > 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. May I suggest, "The Breaking of Bread: A Short History of the Mass," by John Coventry, and also, "The Mass in Meditation," originally published as, "Die Messe in der Betrachtung," by Theodor Schnitzler? > > : 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. > > 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. It would seem to me that if your theology were to acknowledge the present salvation of pagans such as Abel, Noah, and Abraham, as certain, then Christ's sacrifice must be eternal, i.e., timeless, its fruits being applicable backwards to past event and forwards to future events according to the plans of the dispensations designed by God from the beginning. > Your denomination has very well recognized the truth of this conjecture: > the grieved heart of Jesus/Mary makes His/her statues bleed, weep etc. Private revelations such as these are not binding on the consciences of the faithful. As such, I hardly ever give them a second thought. > :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? I don't recall ever seeing "my" priests inflicting Him more pain, piercing or killing Him. Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass? On the contrary, I and other Catholics afflict Christ daily by those sins we continue to commit. The Mass is to be seen as a remedy to these afflictions--a remedy for us, not for Christ who bears them. > > 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 We would term it a "theophany." A technical distinction, to be sure, but one which determines a great deal of theology and whether or not a given doctrine is binding on one's conscience. > > 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 What according to your theology happens to a soul at the moment of death? > 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). I find it difficult to argue against Scripture: Mal 1:11 et al. > > 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 No, but we do venerate it as a sacramental, for which is more sacred, the gift upon the altar or the altar which makes it sacred? > poured. (What a pity! Both Christ and Paul call the CUP, and not > the wine, His blood.) Far easily to drink wine than eat the cup. Cf. Jn 6. > > 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"? He offers Himself to the Father at Mass. We join our temporal and spiritual offerings to His offering of Himself. Recall that Christ is both priest and victim at the Last Supper and consequently at every Mass which renews this sacrifice. The sacrificial actions which are repeated are those of His first Mass. > Conversely, you thus admit that His one and only sacrifice on > the cross would lose its power if you didn't "renew" it. For I admit that the application of His merit to my soul happens by way of the means He personally established: 7 sacraments, corporal and spiritual works of mercy, liturgical and private prayer, and so on. Christ loses nothing by anything that I do or fail to do. However, His power to apply His merits to me is weakened _with reference to me, not to Him_ every time I choose to reject the grace He offers me. > 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. The purpose of the Mass is to apply Christ's merits to us today. The offering made at Mass is two-fold: Christ as priest offering Himself as victim, and the human person of the priest offering with the Person of Christ our human temporal and spiritual sacrifices which combine with Christ's physical substance at consecration of the wine (Christ) mixed with water (our sacrifices). In this way, our personal sacrifices are inextricably linked to His and become the oblation referred to in Mal 1:11. > > 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. That's why we call it a mystery. No one but the Holy Spirit is able to probe the mind of God. We recognize this in our theology and respect it. > :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." True. And that is why He commanded us only to offer the Eucharist of the Last Supper, not that of the physical cross. > :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 The evangelists also omit the word "Bible," "wedding ring," "Sunday service," "altar call," and a host of other terms and actions that today's non-Catholic Christians take for granted. Does this mean that we should dump all these? > "priests" of your denomination are indeed the "stewards of the mysteries > of God", they are indeed authorized to supplement the gaps in the gospel. Only the original Apostles were "authorized" to supplement the "gaps" in the Gospel. This is the teaching of the Apostolic Tradition and is also why it is known as "Apostolic." The most the magisterium can do is work to explain the deposit of faith in ways best suited to any given age. With this struggle come increased understanding of the doctrines handed down once and for all from the Apostles. This increase in understanding is properly termed "development of doctrine." It has nothing to do with inventing new doctrine by adding to the "gaps" in the Gospel by way of "new" public revelation. There is no such thing in Catholic theology as "new" public revelation. > 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". The priests understand the mysteries of Christianity not much better than I do, and perhaps less so in some cases, more so in others. They are the dispensers of the mysteries of God. This is the proper understanding to be applied to the term "stewards" in context. > > :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. I don't have time to repeat here what is so well stated in the Navarre commentary for 1 Cor 11:27-32 and Heb 6:6. You may review this or St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on these verses, so that I don't have to type everything in. > > "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 1 Jn likely refers to the sin against the Holy Spirit versus mortal sins, not to the distinction between mortal and venial sins. > "sin unto death"), what does it prove as to "re-crucifixion"? > Your double quotation is still gratuitous, misleading, and biassed. Well, maybe it's just us Catholics who believe this way, but it seems to me that I've heard Protestants also refer to the commission of sins as acts which pound the nails deeper into the wounds of Christ. But my memory could be failing in this regard. > > 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. Partial quotation from Navarre Bible: Commentary for Heb 6:6: ....Without excluding this meaning [apostacy], a more obvious explanation, proposed by other Fathers, is that sinners are despising Penance even more than they are Baptism, for Penance also cleanses us by virtue of the merits of the passion and death of Christ, and, as long as they remain obstinate in their sins, they crucify him on their own account and hold him up to contempt in the sense that they fail to appreciate the fruits of our Lord's passion: that is the reason why they cannot repent or obtain forgiveness.. St. Thomas comments: "Those who sin after Baptism crucify Christ again, insofar as they can, for Christ died for our sins once and for all. You, who are baptized and commit sin, are crucifying Christ again insofar as you can; you are thus holding him up to contempt, for you are soiling yourself again after being cleansed by his blood." > > 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). The scriptural references serve to illustrate the Apostolic teaching about mortal sin. The Catholic commentaries may appear allegorical to you, and if we Catholics were in the business of prooftexting, they would indeed _be_ allegorical "proofs." But our business is not to prove our doctrines from Scripture; our business is to explain the Apostolic Tradition by reference to Scripture and reason. I am sorry to have to do this, Ferenc. My wife is reminding me that I have other more important things to do than devote the additional hours to email entailed in our dialog. At least 1000 lines of text remain untouched, and I cannot devote so much time to our discussion. I wish I could. I'll have to stop here, but I sincerely invite you to join one or two of our Catholic email lists. There we have enough hands to divide our responses around so that all your points get addressed, and yet no one apologist will be overburdened by the load. Let me know if you would be interested in subscribing for a time to any of our email lists. I have 3 in mind. One is primarily devoted to Catholic spiritually, another to Catholic philosophy, and the third to doctrine. A fourth is devoted to apologetics, but I haven't been subscribed to it for a while and wouldn't recommend it as a first choice for this reason alone. However, if you are interested in that list ("Christifideles" is its name), let me know, and I'll find out how to get onto it. Best regards, Randal catechis@netcom.com