:It would seem to me that if your theology were to acknowledge the
:present salvation of pagans such as Abel, Noah, and Abraham,

Pardon, Abraham is the olive tree. How can a "pagan" tree uphold the
Jewish branches?

: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.

This doesn't require that the mode of application be repetition.
(By the way, on your principles, an unceasing series of expiatory
sacrifices would have been necessary before Arbaham, which were
substantially the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, only the
mode of offering being different.) - Eternal fruits of the sacrifice
of the cross don't render the sacrifice itself eternal, ie. lasting
for eternities just in order to make up for your Bellarministic
quibbles.

> :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?

Thanks God, never. But I've heard many on the radio.

: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.

You didn't address my argument. You were caught red-handed when
applying "do this" to your sacrificings. Yet "this" is nothing
but breaking, eating; pouring, drinking.

> > 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?

Obfuscation. The (quite unclear) way of the soul to God is "immaterial"
to the question whether God commanded a "reminder" (in effect, a repeated
sacrifice) or not.

> 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.

Again, you use just a citation, whereas your theology was confuted
when it came to details. You shouldn't complain about "arguing against
Scripture", as Mal 1:11 doesn't refer to any Mass at all.

> 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.

: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?

Bad citation. On your showing, you should adore the piece of stone
and attribute to it the power of sanctifying the Eucharist, which
would be, accroding to this hasty and irreverent "proof", a mere
"sacramental".

> (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.

Jn 6 says nothing about drinking wine. When it comes to drinking some
visible thing as the Lord's blood, the Bible always mentions the CUP.

> Conversely, you thus admit that His one and only sacrifice on
> the cross would lose its power if you didn't "renew" it.

:I admit that the application of His merit to my soul happens
:by way of the means He personally established: 7 sacraments,

Randal, you are married. So you must not use the "sacrament"
of "priesthood." Thus in practice the number is reduced to 6.

: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.

My argument wasn't addressed. You insisted that daily Masses are
absolutely necessary for salvation (not "subjectively"). It was
the very thing I attacked.

> 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.

: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,

Oops.
"Not that He should offer Himself often, for in this case He ought
to have suffered many times since the foundation of the world."
This epistle is not too considerate to your denomination, Randal.

: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).

A delicate symbol of the defilement of the sacrifice on the cross.

:In this way, our personal sacrifices are inextricably linked to
:His and become the oblation referred to in Mal 1:11.

You had asked: "Is there any clean oblation than Christ?" Now you
answer in the affirmative: that our joint spiritual sacrifices are
of this kind. By managing to avoid one trap, you fell headlong in
the other one: you thus cannot deny that Mal 1:11 refers to praises
of the Gentiles. You yourself had to admit them to be of other kinds
than Christ (despite the "inextricably linked" speech, they are still
substantially different). So your vehement insisting that I proved
that Malachi didn't speak of the Mass, is now overthrown by yourself.

> :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.

1. He didn't say "offer" but "take, eat" and "take, drink."
2. You are bound to believe that you do the same thing (slay, offer,
etc.) again and again in your Mass: the "compressed" "Easter Triduum."

> :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".

: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?

Arrant misapplication. We don't consider these things (Biblical books
compiled in one volume, wearing rings, etc.) to be of divine origin,
whereas you do it with your Missal traditions. Disposing of Sunday
services and "altar calls" would in no way impair Protestant theology.
In our congregation, for example, meetings are held on Wednesdays and
Saturdays, and we don't have any "altar." On the other hand, omission
of the word "sacrifice" from the Eucharist would render the whole
sacerdotal system unnecessary, thus undermining the basis of Roman
Catholic religion. This you wouldn't tolerate on any account.

> 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.

: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.

Mere empty masks. Calvin very shrewdly said that your denomination
is used to label everything she devised an "interpretation" or "better
understanding."

> "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.

Popular ways of expression are not definitive in dogmatic matters.

> > 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."

The context of Hebrews doesn't support this interpretation. It has
nothing regarding post-baptismal SINS. It warns us against apostasy.