st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (07/02/90)
In the discussion on veneration of saints it has come out that in the Catholic religion sacrifice is a central portion of the worship service-- more central than prayer, perhaps. In what way is sacrifice important to the Catholic?
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
> In the discussion on veneration of saints it has come out that in the > Catholic religion sacrifice is a central portion of the worship service-- > more central than prayer, perhaps. In what way is sacrifice important > to the Catholic? Sacrifice is viewed as the principal form that the worship of God should take. I can pray "to" a Saint, but I cannot offer sacrifice to one without committing idolatry. Historically, the early martyrs were often required by the Roman state to offer sacrifice to idols. They were martyred because they refused; they knew that sacrifice is to be offered to the true God alone. What a Catholic priest is for, in fact, is to offer sacrifice. No sacrifice, no priest; no priest, no sacrifice. A Catholic priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass. That is the most important thing he does. Catholics believe that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross, differing principally only in its unbloody manner. What is supposed to be going on in Catholic churches on Sundays is not principally the prayers, etc., offered by Catholics. It is principally the Sacrifice of the Cross, presented again by Jesus Christ to the Father, through the intrumentality of His human priests. Mass on Sundays is not something that Catholics do, it is something that Jesus Christ does, that we're present at. The Protestant Reformers felt unable to reconcile the once-for-all nature of the Sacrifice of Calvary with a Mass repeated again and again through time. The principal liturgical change of the Reformers was thus the removal of the sacrificial language from the Mass. This is one of the primary reasons why Rome does not recognize a priesthood among Protestant denominations; there is no sacrifice, which is the primary reason for the priesthood in the first place. Joe Buehler
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (07/16/90)
Joe Buehler described the importance of the priest's offering of the mass
as a sacrifice, in Roman Catholic worship. He also showed that he
understood that Protestants can not reconcile this with Christ's once-for-
all sacrifice. I would like to know how Joe makes this reconciliation,
and how he views the teachings of Scripture regarding the priesthood
of all believers:
"As you come to him, the living Stone -- rejected by men but chosen
by God and precious to him-- you also, like living stones, are being built
into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:4,5.
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called
you out of darkness into his wonderful light." 1 Peter 2:9
On Jesus' high priesthood:
"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we
are--yet was without sin. LET US THEN APPROACH THE THRONE OF GRACE WITH
CONFIDENCE, SO THAT WE MAY RECEIVE MERCY AND FIND GRACE TO HELP US IN OUR
TIME OF NEED." Hebrews 4:14-16.
See also Hebrews 7, particularly v.26-28:
"Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless,pure,set apart
from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he
does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins,
and then for the sins of the people. HE SACRIFICED FOR THEIR SINS ONCE
FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED HIMSELF. For the law appoints as high priests men
who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who
has been made perfect forever.
['the oath' refers to Psalm 110:4, "You are a priest forever, in the order of
Melchizedek" , see Hebrews 7:17-22]
What is the purpose of making the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice? Why is
a sacrifice needed or useful? Enquiring minds want to know!
David H. Wagner
A confessional Lutheran 'Christ says: "Come, all ye that labor,
And receive my grace and favor'
They who feel no want nor ill
Need no physician's help nor skill.
"Useless were for thee My Passion
If thy works thy weal could fashion.
This feast is not spread for thee
If thine own savior thou wilt be." '
--Iesus Christus, nostra salus
--ascribed to John Huss, 1415.
My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by
The University of Houston.cms@dragon.uucp (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.44.44.1990.14558@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: > Joe Buehler described the importance of the priest's offering of the mass > as a sacrifice, in Roman Catholic worship. He also showed that he > understood that Protestants can not reconcile this with Christ's once-for- > all sacrifice. I would like to know how Joe makes this reconciliation, > and how he views the teachings of Scripture regarding the priesthood > of all believers: { Scripture passages deleted. } > What is the purpose of making the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice? Why is > a sacrifice needed or useful? Enquiring minds want to know! > > David H. Wagner I'm quite sure that some people are tired of me quoting this section from the Book of Common Prayer, but it's the best and simplest explanation from an official source I've ever come across. Although the above refers to the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Catholic beliefs are not different. The following is from the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer according to the use of the Episcopal Church of the United States, pages 859-860: Q. What is the Holy Eucharist? A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again. Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice? A. Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself. Q. By what other names is this service known? A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord's Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering. Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist? A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command. Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist? A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith. Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord's Supper? A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life. Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist? A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people. Augustine defined "sacrament" as "a sign of a sacred thing." Medieval theologians tended to stress that the "sign" not only signified a sacred thing but also conveyed the thing it signified. According to Hatchett's Commentary on the American Prayer Book, the present edition of the Prayer Book emended answers to these questions by "incorporating a number of phrases from the catechism of 1973 which was, in turn, dependent on the English revision of 1962. The question and answer on the eucharistic sacrifice and several phrases in other answers are new to this revision. The 1979 [Prayer] Book substantially enriches the material on the doctrine of the Eucharist, biblically and patristically, in ways which parallel the enriched content of the eucharistic prayers new to the Book. The first answer recalls the historic forms of the anamnesis {remembering and making present -- cms } and of the memorial acclamation, which stress the resurrection and the second coming as well as the death of our Lord. The statement on the benefits of the sacrament restores the patristic emphasis upon forgiveness as a benefit of the sacrament rather than as a condition for receiving it, defines the sacrament as a strengthening of our union not only with Christ but also with one another, and depicts the sacrament as a foretaste of the heavenly banquet." Another section of the book notes "the late medieval text which followed, 'Behold the Lamb of God, behold who takes away the sins of the world,' which was associated with a showing of the consecrated bread to the people, was replaced by a new text [in the 1549 Prayer Book]: 'Christ our paschal Lamb is offered up for us once for all, when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross, for he is the very lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord.'" An interesting note in this section was about the method of reception (this is a tangent): "The Book explains that to protect against persons' carrying away the consecrated bread for superstitious use, as had been done on occasion in the late middle ages, the priest is to continue to place the bread in people's mouths rather than following the ancient practice of placing it in their hands." So that's why! I find it interesting that here the Church is a force against such superstition. I'm personally of the opinion that, while it is indeed and truly the Body of Christ, it is useless unless consumed. The 1552 Prayer Book denied, not "any real and essential presence," but "any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." That makes sense as there are two different Greek words for "Body" (soma: whole person, me) and "Corpse." We consume the Body of Christ, not the Corpse of Christ. Page 316 of today's Prayer Book, an Exhortation, says: "For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord's Body. Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord." The phrase "Lord's Body" above comes from 1 Cor 11:29. An earlier paragraph I won't quote echoes "the eucharistic prayers of this revision, restores and emphasizes the conception of the Eucharist as encompassing not only the death and passion of Christ but thanksgiving to God for His creation, His continual providence, the incarnation, His making us His children and exalting us to everlasting life." There's more to the Eucharist than meets the eye, and, yes, sacrifice is an essential part of it. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Oh, yes, as to the priesthood of all believers: The church ordains people who are specially trained to minister to the people and *accurately* administer the sacraments. Just as you wouldn't want someone who read some medical textbooks to operate on you, but would rather have someone with a degree from an accredited medical college, so I would rather receive communion from an ordained priest from an "accredited" church rather than receive communion from someone who had flipped through the Bible a few times.
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/18/90)
David Wagner asked:
What is the purpose of making the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice?
Why is a sacrifice needed or useful? Enquiring minds want to know!
Well, I suppose the primary reason that the Catholic Church considers
the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is that that's the universal
Christian tradition handed down from the Apostles. I am unaware of any
serious challenge to the doctrine until the Reformation.
If you want arguments, well, the arguments are, as usual, tradition,
reason, scripture.
Probably the strongest of the purely rational considerations is that,
without the Mass, Christianity has no public worship of God. This would
make it inferior to just about any ancient religion you can name.
Scripturally, one of the most cogent arguments is an Old Testament
prophecy, Malachias 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.
(I have highlighted three words that the Catholic Encyclopedia states are
classical sacrificial language in the original Hebrew.)
This is a prophecy of the Christian liturgy. How else is one to explain
it? The Sacrifices of the pagans of the Old Testament were an
abomination, being associated with impurity and suchlike things.
Which leads to the the third and clearest proof of the sacrificial
nature of the Christian liturgy, the witness of tradition. Here are
some of the significant historical references to the Malachias prophecy:
The Didache, 140 AD or so
On the Lord's day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give
thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may
be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until
he is reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For this is that
which was proclaimed by the Lord: "In every place and time let there
be offered to Me a clean sacrifice. For I am a Great King," says the
Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the gentiles." (14:1)
St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, ca. 155 AD
...Morever, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at
that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as
follows: [Malachias 1:11 quoted] It is of the sacrifices offered to Him
in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the
Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at
that time, and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.
(41)
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, ca. 190 AD
He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachias,
one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [Malachias 1:11
quoted] By these words He makes it plain that the former people will
cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will
be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified
among the gentiles. (4, 17, 5)
St. Augustine, Sermon Against the Jews, 425 AD
[Malachias 1:11 quoted] What do you answer to that? Open your eyes at
last, and see, from the rising of the sun to its setting, the Sacrifice
of Christians is offered, not in one place only, as was established
with you Jews, but everywhere; and not to just any god at all, but to
Him who foretold it, the God of Israel... Not in one place, as was
prescribed for you in earthly Jerusalem, but in every place, even in
Jerusalem herself. Not according to the order of Aaron, but according
to the order of Melchisedech. (9:13)
Here are a few more, not dealing with the Malachias quote:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, about 350 AD (describing
the liturgy of Jerusalem at that time)
Then, upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless
worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common
peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for
soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted, and in summary,
we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need. (23:9)
St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Letter to Amphilocius, Bishop of Iconium, ca.
383 AD
Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your
word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the
Lord, using your voice for a sword. (171)
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Resurrection of Christ, 382 AD.
He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well,
and "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." When did He do
this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His
disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot
be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being
slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating
clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been
completed. (Jaeger, vol. 9, p. 287)
St. John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 386 AD or so
When you see the Lord immolated and lying on the altar, and the priest
bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that
precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on
earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (3, 4, 177)
Serapion, Anaphora, ca 350 AD (an early liturgy)
...Accept therewith our hallowing, too, as we say, "Holy, holy, holy
Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory." Heaven is full,
and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues.
Full also is this Sacrifice, with Your strength and Your communion; for
to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation. (3)
St. Ambrose, On Twelve Psalms, ca 390 AD
We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him
offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being
priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. And even
if we are of but litttle merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are
honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers
the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in
sacrifice here on earth when the Body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to
offer Himself He is made visible in us, He whose word makes holy the
sacrifice that is offered. (40:30)
So much for a sampling of early Christian writers. There are many more.
Two of the ancient heresies still survive, the Nestorians and the
Monophysites. Both are 5th century heresies, if I recall correctly.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, they have both preserved the
sacrificial nature of the liturgy.
Here is a snatch of the Syrian Monophysite liturgy. (I have no idea how
old it is.)
The heavenly hosts stand with us in the sanctuary and worship the Body
and Blood of the Son of God Who is being Sacrificed on the altar. Come
ye faithful and partake of the Holy Mysteries for the forgiveness and
remission of sins. Halleluiah, Halleluiah, Halleluiah, O Christ, the
King, Halleluiah.
(The Eastern liturgies have some beautiful prayers in them, don't they?)
Here is a translation of a prayer from the Roman rite canon. It is
almost identical in the oldest extant Roman rite manuscripts, 8th
century or so, whose text I have before me. It is said shortly after
the consecration:
Be pleased to look upon these offerings with a favorable and gracious
countenance; accept them as You were pleased to accept the offerings of
Your servant Abel the righteous, the sacrifice of our father Abraham,
and that of Melchisedech, Your high priest, a holy sacrifice, a
spotless victim.
The Orthodox and Eastern rite Catholic liturgies express the same faith
regarding the nature of the liturgy. The languages of the liturgies
vary: Aramaic, Old Slavonic, Latin, Greek, etc., but the prayers are
very similar. (In fact, all the traditional Christian liturgies derive
from 4 parent types.) Perhaps someone familiar with them could post
some appropriate prayers on this subject from the Eastern liturgies.
To answer the question, the Divine Liturgy/Mass is a Sacrifice because,
well, I guess, it always has been. The historical evidence is abundant
on this point; Protestant liturgy is unlike any of the traditional
liturgies, because it is lacking the sacrificial language.muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) (07/20/90)
cms@dragon.uucp writes: >Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord's Supper? >A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening >of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly >banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life. I can only answer to this that, as far as I know, Christ said at the Supper: ( sorry for the bad translation, only know it in dutch ) "do this to remember Me .. " and not " do this to receive forgivness of sins" So I disagree about the part about forgiveness of sins. Christ said several times that our sins are forgiven if we repent. Personally, at the Lord's Supper, I think of what He has done for us, making me thankful for what He has already done for us, and helping me to repent and stay in Him. If anyone has parts from scripture that indicate that I am wrong, I'd like to hear about it, so I can find out myself! >Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist? >A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be >in love and charity with all people. I agree totally with this, otherwise it is of no value to think of what Christ did for us, because we receive it if we repent, are open to receive His love, which means we want to pass it on. God bless you, -- Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht nmutsaer@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-534504 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (07/20/90)
Hosea 6:6...I delight in loyalty more than sacrifice and in the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Matthew 9:13 (Jesus speaking)..."I desire compassion, and not sacrifice..." Romans 12:1...I urge you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your [not Jesus's] bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. Hebrews 9-10 explains in detail why the sacrifice of Jesus needed to happen ONCE. "He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for his feet." Hebrews 13:16...do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. I Peter 2:5 ...you, also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (It says THROUGH Jesus Christ, not OF Jesus Christ). There have been a lot of traditional reasons cited for repeating "The Sacrifice of the Mass", but not many scriptural ones. I think it is significant that there is a glaring lack of New Testament instruction concerning a weekly (or whatever) re-enactment of the crucifixion. Perhaps all the tradition represents a lot of human misguidance, and not something that God considers very important. God isn't up in Heaven waiting on the edge of His throne until the next Sunday rolls around so He can watch all the little re-enactments taking place all over the world. He's up there waiting for the Gospel to be preached everywhere, for His enemies to be made a footstool. That's what's supposed to be going on here on earth. If the Sacrifice of the Mass is 'the main thing', why doesn't the Bible make a big deal of it? Giving more weight to tradition (which is human) than Scripture (which is divine) is a SERIOUS error. Jesus said to remember Him when celebrating the Last Supper (Which was the Passover meal). Maybe He was saying that the Jews remember when God spared them death, but Christians should think instead on how we have been redeemed from sin. Through His death and resurrection. Basing the whole tradition of the Mass for ~1700 years on ONE scripture (Malachi 1:11) seems a little shaky. If there's supposed to be a perpetual, holy sacrifice going on among the Gentiles, well, doesn't Romans 12:1 fit the bill pretty well? Like, obeying the commandment to be Holy (by obeying the commandment to LOVE EVERYBODY) all the time? This is certainly a bigger challenge than it is to hold Mass around the clock.
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (07/20/90)
In article <Jul.18.05.21.29.1990.16344@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > David Wagner asked: > > What is the purpose of making the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice? > Why is a sacrifice needed or useful? Enquiring minds want to know! > > Well, I suppose the primary reason that the Catholic Church considers > the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is that that's the universal > Christian tradition handed down from the Apostles. I am unaware of any > serious challenge to the doctrine until the Reformation. > If you want arguments, well, the arguments are, as usual, tradition, > reason, scripture. In the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament God lays out the sacrificial system for Israel and the Levitical Priesthood. These Jewish priests performed sacrifices daily as a reminder of their sins and as an atonement for sin. These sacrifices covered sin but could not *take away* sin. Hebrews 10:4 tells us this. As the Priest entered the Holy Place, he performed his sacrifices with great care, always sacrificing an animal for himself (to atone for his sins), and then for the sins of the others. No chairs were found here because the work was never done. This was the system God set up for the nation Israel. It was never meant to be permanent (Hebrews tells us this will soon pass away - and it did a few years later with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) but was only a type, a picture pointing to the Real Thing - Christ's sacrifice. The question it seems to me, being addressed here is, does God want this sacrificial system to continue for his Church, the Body of Christ? Should we take this Old Testament sacrificial system laid out for Israel and continue it in some fashion today, in the name of Jesus Christ? To what do we appeal for the answer? My freshman year in college, we learned a lesson in our Communications class here that I will never forget. About 6 people were chosen from the class and all were sent out of the room. Then one was chosen to come into the room and was read several paragraphs of a fictitious account of some event that happened to an individual. After reading the paragraphs to this individual, a second student was chosen from the hallway to come in and the first student was to repeat what she heard to the second student. This was done for each of the students in the hall passing the story on from student to student. As you can imagine the rest of the students got a kick out of it because the facts became more and more exaggerated and changed as the story was passed on from student to student. After the last student finished the original story was read amidst the backdrop of laughter from the rest of the class. This lesson then teaches that the most authoritave source of information is the original source of information. For us as Christians in the 20th century, we could appeal to comments made from "tradition" or we could refer to canonized scripture which predates "early church" tradition and lacks the historical thelogical contradictions we now see from church fathers declaring "this" and then several years later declaring "that" which contradicts "this". Appealing then to the book of Hebrews (i.e. SCRIPTURE), the earliest commentary on the relevance of God's sacrificial systems for the New Testament Church we find: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL" "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS. "But when this priest [Jesus Christ] had OFFERED FOR ALL TIME ONE sacrifice for sins, HE SAT DOWN at the right hand of God." (The only "chair" was reserved for the Priest who could offer the once-for-all perfect sacrifice. That chair was in heaven. Jesus is there now interceding on the saints behalf) "Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by ONE sacrifice HE HAS MADE PERFECT FOREVER those who are being made holy." I'm trying to think if it can be stated any clearer than here in Hebrews 10:18. "And where these [sins] have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." Now of course the Jew at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews (before 70 AD) was probably wondering "Aren't there *any* sacrifices God wants of me? The writer of Hebrews answers this question in his final exhortations in Chapter 13: "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a SACRIFICE OF PRAISE-the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." Given we have this NT commentary on the sacrificial system we would do well to a pay attention to it as an authoritative source of truth. > Probably the strongest of the purely rational considerations is that, > without the Mass, Christianity has no public worship of God. I am concerned (and surprised) that Joe has made this statement. The writer of Hebrews has exhorted us to offer to God a sacrifice of praise through Jesus, confessing his name. This I think, is what the Church of Jesus Christ is to do as we gather collectively or stand individually. Is this not worship? > Scripturally, one of the most cogent arguments is an Old Testament > prophecy, Malachias 1:11: Malachias of course is not widely recognized in the Christian community to be inspired of God. You won't find this book in every Bible. You won't find any evidence from scripture that we are to continue the OT sacrifical system in any form. Why? The NT writers tell us it is unnecessary because we stand solely on the work of the only High Priest who is worthy to sit down after His sacrifice, the sacrifice of Himself. The OT economy is gone. We have a New Covenant. Any mixture of the two ignores Scripture. Any mixture ignores Jesus last words: "It is finished." -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 [Malachias is simply a variant spelling of Malachi. I don't know of any controversy over its inclusion in the canon. The only way I've been able to make sense out of Catholic assertions about the Mass is to assume that they regard it as being *the same* sacrifice as Christ's original one. I.e. it's not a new and separate sacrifice, or in a strict sense even a reenactment. But rather the Mass brings them into contact with Christ's original sacrifice. Joe: does this seem consistent with what you mean? --clh]
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/24/90)
There are two aspects to the aspect of sacrifice in the Holy Mass:
1 - that the host is truely the body and blood of Jesus
2 - that is body and blood of Jesus Christ is offered to God as a
sacrifice -- THE SAME SACRIFICE, not a new sacrifice, which Jesus
made once for all time
Why did Jesus have to die a torturous death on a cross? If God is
truely inifinite and omnipotent, He could have saved by mere intention!
But instead He chose to have His only Son torturously murded on a cross.
Why? Because He was showing us how much He loves us. The word
"sacrifice" and the word "charity (love of God)" are very closely
related. Whenever we deny ourselves and do something out of loyalty to
and love for God, we are making a sacrifice to God. True sacrifice is a
concentrated expression of love. Of course, there is such a thing as
*false* sacrifice -- of "negative" martyrdom -- where we give up just
about anything out of concentrated *selfishness*. This is expressed in
the hypocritical and legalistic sacrifices refered to in the OT. People
were performing "sacrifices" superficially and in form only to gain
power and influence for themselves in the spiritual/social ladder. This
is something that we all must be on guard against. And this is what God
complined about in the OT.
Jesus sacrificed his body and life out of love and obedience to the Father.
To understand sacrifice in the Roman Catholic Mass, one must first
understand that it is Jesus Christ's same body and blood which are being
sacrificed:
John 6:51-52: I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If
any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I
give, is my flesh for the life of the world.
John 6:54-59: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh, is meat indeed: and
my blood, is drink indeed: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the Father hath sent me, and I
live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same shall also live by
me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers
did eat manna, and died. He that eateth this bread, shall live for
ever.
John 6:68: ...Will you also go away? [with those who do not accept
this teaching]
Matthew 26:26: Take ye, and eat: This is my body.
Matthew 28:27-28: ...Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the
new testament which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins.
I Corinthians 11:26-29: For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink
this chalice, you shall herald the death of the Lord until he come.
Wherefore, whosoever shall shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of
the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the
Lord. But let a man examine himself: and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body of the
Lord.
So let us be clear: when we are talking about the Holy Mass being a
sacrifice, we are talking about the offerning of the self-same body and
blood of Jesus Christ to God the Father. This is the identicle
self-same *sacrifice* (i.e. love offering) that Jesus Christ made on
Calvery. In the Mass, Jesus Christ Himself is making the offering and
scrifice. And each of us mortals is joining are own insignificant
sacrifices to the ONE ETERNAL sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is a
perpetualtion of that one sacrifice through time and history. And we
are not doing this at our own fancy, Jesus Christ told us: "Do this in
commemeration of me." And when Jesus, himself, tells us to do
something, it is best that we do it!
Malachi 1:10: For from the rising of the sun even to the gong down, my
name is great among Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice,
and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.
Malachi was the last prohet before the time of Christ and foretold of
the *one* sacrifice that would be made in *every* place.
gotta go,
chris
--
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / /
\\ / /
Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o
Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (07/25/90)
In article <Jul.13.04.04.07.1990.11604@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > >The Protestant Reformers felt unable to reconcile the once-for-all >nature of the Sacrifice of Calvary with a Mass repeated again and again >through time. The principal liturgical change of the Reformers was thus >the removal of the sacrificial language from the Mass. > > >Joe Buehler This was precisely my reason for leaving the Catholic Church. All the other "Catholic vs. Protestant" issues are peripheral. How do you reconcile the once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary with the Mass repeated again and again? When Paul (or whoever it was who wrote Hebrews) said that one sacrifice was enough, he was not assuming his readers would think along the lines of "with God there is no time; therefore, all the Masses performed in time are a-temporally connected with the One Calvary Sacrifice, and so we do have only one sacrifice after all." Paul was talking about temporal stuff, and was referring to the fact that Christ's sacrifice was the end of all the Jewish sacrifices, which happened in time.
jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (07/26/90)
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: >How do you reconcile the >once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary with the Mass repeated again and again? Well, the Mass is not a new sacrifice. It's the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. You see, nothing new is being sacrificed. No animal's body is being consumed. But the bread and wine is transformed into the same Christ who was sacrificed at Calvary. The same body. The same blood. The same sacrifice. >When Paul (or whoever it was who wrote Hebrews) said that one sacrifice was >enough, he was not assuming his readers would think along the lines of "with >God there is no time; therefore, all the Masses performed in time are >a-temporally connected with the One Calvary Sacrifice, and so we do have >only one sacrifice after all." Paul was talking about temporal stuff, and >was referring to the fact that Christ's sacrifice was the end of all the >Jewish sacrifices, which happened in time. Right. Christ's sacrifice happened at a point in time, ending the need for any new sacrifices thereafter. If the Mass is not a new sacrifice (and it isn't), it does not contradict this in the least. The author of Hebrews isn't talking about the Mass at all, so I don't see how your point about "talking about temporal stuff" has anything to do with the biblical validity of the Mass. The author of Hebrews is making the point that Christ's sacrifice obviated all need for all new sacrifices for sin, a point that no Catholic would contest. I think this problem may be one of language, not content. Catholics call the Mass a "sacrifice" because in it we enter into the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. But in a strict sense, it is not "a sacrifice", because it is not a *new* sacrifice in and of itself. But Catholics like to be able to use sacrificial language when talking about the Mass, because the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist is the same body and blood sacrificed at Calvary for the redemption of sin, and through the eucharist, we enter in a concrete way the same one sacrifice of Christ and the redemption it offers. God bless, John -- John DiMarco jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca University of Toronto, CSRI BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (416) 978-8609 UUCP: {uunet!utai,decvax!utcsri}!db!jdd
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (07/30/90)
[David Wagner asked why Catholics make the Lord's Supper a sacrifice. Joe Buehler answers (1) that it was the universal Christian tradition handed down from the Apostles (2) he cites Malachi 1:11, in a translation that refers to Gentiles offering a clean oblation (a technical Catholic term for the sacrifice of the Mass). (3) cites various ancient writers calling it a sacrifice. >Protestant liturgy is unlike any of the traditional >liturgies, because it is lacking the sacrificial language. --clh] Well I guess Protestant liturgy is unlike any of the traditional liturgies because instead of going back to the early Fathers of the Church, they went back to the Bible. We must weigh scripture against scripture to find the truth. Malachi may have spoken about sacrifices (and it is by no means certain that he was prophesying about the Mass) but Jesus never said, "Do this to perpetuate the sacrifice that I will initiate tomorrow (i.e., Good Friday)." He said, "Do this in memory of me." Paul never said that the eucharist is a sacrifice. Indeed in the same letter (1 Cor.) he talks about the sacrificial giving of money in the same way you and all those guys (Iraneus, Ambrose, Augustine, etc.) talk about the sacrifice of the Mass. The Bible, when specifically referring to the Last Supper, or Communion, never talks about a continuing sacrifice. The Druids had a great saying: "Truth against the World." I respect most of those ancient Fathers of the Church, but several holy people saying something does not make it right, especially when it contradicts the Bible. I don't know how far to take the Tradition-with-a-Capital-T idea of the Catholic Church, but when Tradition makes void the Word of God, I'll go with the Word. [Surely the Lord's Supper has sacrificial implications in the Protestant tradition as well. First, the elements themselves are potent reminder's of Christ's sacrifice. Second, most Protestant liturgy that I know of reminds us of Christ's sacrifice for us. If the Catholic concept is of not so much a new sacrifice, but that we are mystically brought into contact with Christ's original sacrifice, then the difference is not quite as drastic as might be supposed, though there is certainly still a difference. It seems that as elsewhere when dealing with eucharistic theology, the primary difference is in the degree of literalness with which we take Christ's presence. Catholics believe that Christ's body is physically present. It seems somehow consistent with this to see the Mass as involving the worshipper more directly in Christ's sacrifice. --clh]
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/30/90)
In article <Jul.24.15.21.26.1990.27656@athos.rutgers.edu> johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: > >This was precisely my reason for leaving the Catholic Church. All the other >"Catholic vs. Protestant" issues are peripheral. How do you reconcile the >once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary with the Mass repeated again and again? >When Paul (or whoever it was who wrote Hebrews) said that one sacrifice was >enough, he was not assuming his readers would think along the lines of "with >God there is no time; therefore, all the Masses performed in time are >a-temporally connected with the One Calvary Sacrifice, and so we do have >only one sacrifice after all." Paul was talking about temporal stuff, and >was referring to the fact that Christ's sacrifice was the end of all the >Jewish sacrifices, which happened in time. Since your descision hinges so much on the book of Hebrews, I feel compelled to ask you why you think the book of Hebrews is part of the Bible? Yes, I grant that *all* sacred scripture is the inerrant Word of God. But where does is say that the Book of Hebrews is part of Sacred Scritpure?? I'll tell you where it says it: in the Catholic Cannon of the Books of Sacred scripture. So, you see, your logic is faulty: you believe that the book of Hebrews contrdicts the Catholic faith. But it is exactly the Catholic faith which defines that the Book of Hebrews is among the inspired books of Sacred Scripture. How do you know that the Book of Hewbrews might not have been placed into the Bible because of the "traditions of men?" chris --
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (07/30/90)
In article <Jul.26.02.38.34.1990.26953@athos.rutgers.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: >johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: >>How do you reconcile the >>once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary with the Mass repeated again and again? >Well, the Mass is not a new sacrifice. It's the one sacrifice of Christ >on Calvary. You see, nothing new is being sacrificed. ... The same body. >The same blood. The same sacrifice. I was going to write something else, but as I was realizing that that line of thought wouldn't get us anywhere, a thought came to me: Catholics who believe in transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass take one part of scripture literally ("This is my body, etc.") and don't take another part literally ("But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God."); Protestants tend to be the opposite. I wonder how inerrancy fits into all this. Just musing.
tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (08/06/90)
>So, you see, your logic is faulty: you believe that the book of Hebrews >contrdicts the Catholic faith. But it is exactly the Catholic faith >which defines that the Book of Hebrews is among the inspired books of >Sacred Scripture. Such logic is only faulty if one fails to recognize a temporal dimension to the definition of "Catholic Church". Since the Catholic Church can trace its unbroken tradition back to origins which were identical with the first body of believers in Christ, those who repudiate the Catholic Church today would have also to repudiate the first- century Christianity if they failed to recognize this temporal aspect. But they do not. They claim that there came a falling away; that the Catholic Church is the apostacy predicted in 1 Tim 4:3; 2 Tim 4:3,4; the whore seducing the nations, the city on seven hills of Rev 12 (notably vv 9 & 18). If the Catholic Church today is not the same as the Church of the first century, the decisive change to apostacy must have taken place during time. After the completion of the canon of Scripture, probably -- or else God would have left his people without any standard of authority. TP
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (08/06/90)
>Why did Jesus have to die a torturous death on a cross? If God is
truely >infinite and omnipotent, He could have saved by mere intention!
But instead >He chose to have His only son torturously murdered on a
cross. Why? Because >He was showing us how much He loves us.
(somone posted another statement similar to this one...something
like "God could have saved us by any means He wanted..." or something to
that effect.)
No, He couldn't have. He had to do it with Jesus's death. (ignoring
all previous prophecy, He probably could have been killed by another
means, but O.T. and Jesus's prophecy point towards crucifixion,
specifically). Jesus prayed, in the garden, "My Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as
thou wilt." (that's from Matthew; Mark has Jesus indicating that ALL is
possible for God) To the best of my understanding, Jesus didn't pray
ineffectively, and His prayers didn't go unanswered. So there WAS NO
OTHER WAY. No, we couldn't have been saved "by mere intention."
I do not limit God's ability in my assertion...I separate what He is
capable of from what He would do. For example: I would claim that it
is not possible for God to destroy all life on the earth by a flood of
water. It is obviously "within His ability"; He did it, once. But
because of the promise He made to Noah, it is not possible anymore. So
to say that God could have 'willed' us all to be saved is not true.
Second, to say that He chose this way (Jesus's crucifixion) to show
us He loves us is sick. If, for some reason, He was able to accomplish
redemption by another means, but He chose this one anyway, it isn't a
display of love; it's a truly sick mind that would cause Jesus that kind
of suffering if it were not ABSOLUTELY necessary.
I believe the explanation of why Jesus's sacrifice was the only way
lies in the story of Abraham. His sacrifice of Isaac (aborted at the
last minute) was meant to parallel the way Israel was to be redeemed.
(God wasn't just playing cruel mind games with Abraham...there was a
reason for these events). The earthly "father of Israel" couldn't do
this by sacrificing his only son; only the Heavenly Father of Israel
could. Perhaps someone with some theological background can better
explain this...
Vince Mulhern
cms@dragon.uucp (08/06/90)
[This continues the discussion on the sacrificial implications of the Catholic Mass. Joe Buehler, had commented that Protestant liturgy is unlike any traditional liturgy because it doesn't have sacrificial language. John Warren responded that it didn't because it went beyond the Fathers, back to the Bible, which did not say that the eucharist is a sacrifice, although it did talk about Christians giving money and themselves sacrificially. --clh] Romans 12:1, "I urge you, therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourself to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." We offer our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and good works to be mingled with the one holy sacrifice of Christ in the Mass. Ephesians 5:2, "So be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma." Hebrews 7:26, "It is fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens. He has no need, as did the high priest, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself." As OFM notes, our sacrifice is mingled with the holy, perfect sacrifice of Christ. Christ Himself need not ever die again, and certain does not in the Sacrifice of the Mass, rather we are joined in a mystical union to His Sacrifice. We physical touch the Sacrifice of Christ; we actually, tangibly feel the Gift. It is sacred beyond compare. Hebrews 10:26, "If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace?" 1 Peter 2:1-5, "Rid yoursleves of all malice and all deceit, insincerity, envy, and all slander; like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation, for you have tasted that the Lord is good. Come to him, a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Gospel of John 6:51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world....Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." Interpretations of the Bible are often based on interpretations of the Church Fathers, who, being closer to the time when Jesus walked the Earth, are more likely to reflect the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians than later theologians. Martin Luther had this to say: "But there is another misconception to be done away with which is much more serious and more specious, viz., the common belief that the mass is a sacrifice offered to God. This belief seems to be expressed in the words of the canon which speak of 'these gifts, these offerings, these holy sacrifices'; and, later, 'this oblation'. Moreover, the request is very definite that the sacrifice will be accepted as was Abel's sacrifice, etc. Then, too, Christ is said to be the victim on the altar. In support of these false views, there are many sayings of the holy Fathers, and the whol custom of the church as observed throughout the world. "We must resolutely oppose them all with the words and example of Christ, in spite of the fact that they are so strongly entrenched. For if we do not hold firmly that the mass is the promise, or testament, of Christ, as His words plainly show, we shall lose the whole gospel, and all its comfort. We must not allow anything to prevail contrary to these words, not even if an angel from heaven were to teach otherwise. Those words contain nothing about a good work or a sacrifice. Moreover, Christ's example is on our side. At the Last Supper, when Christ initiated this sacrament, and instituted this testament, He did not offer Himself to God, or perform any 'good work' for others. He took His seat at the table, He offered the same testament to each, one by one, and gave the same sign. Now the closer our mass resembles that first mass of all, which Christ celebrated at the Last Supper, the more Christian it will be. But the mass which Christ celebrated was extremely simple, without any display of vestments, genuflections, chants, and other ceremonies. If it was necessary to offer Himself as a sacrifice, then He did not institute it completely." Whew! No wonder Martin Luther was regarded as a heretic....an angel from heaven wouldn't convince him he was wrong. [Martin was alluding to Gal. 1:8, I think. John Warren goes on to quote a Druid saying "Truth against the World", which for him means Scripture over Church tradition, no matter how ancient. At this point cms also includes one of my comments, which points out that Protestant liturgy does indeed have sacrificial implications. The elements point to Christ's sacrifice, as do the words of the liturgy. If the Catholic concept is of not so much a new sacrifice, but that we are mystically brought into contact with Christ's original sacrifice, then the difference is not quite as drastic as might be supposed, though there is certainly still a difference. It seems that as elsewhere when dealing with eucharistic theology, the primary difference is in the degree of literalness with which we take Christ's presence. Catholics believe that Christ's body is physically present. It seems somehow consistent with this to see the Mass as involving the worshipper more directly in Christ's sacrifice. --clh] Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (08/06/90)
[This continues the discussion on the sacrifice of the mass. John had quoted Hebrews as saying that Christ's sacrifice put an end to all sacrifices. Chris at Checkpoint Technologies argued that it was odd to quote Hebrews against Catholic tradition, since it was Catholic tradition that established the canon of Scripture in the first place. --clh] Then the Catholic Church is saying two contradictory things, which cannot be reconciled. On the one hand it holds up the Book of Hebrews, which says 'one sacrifice', and on the other hand it holds up Tradition, which says 'many sacrifices'. (I'm sorry, but I don't buy the stretching of logic which says all the Masses are mystically connected to Christ's One Sacrifice, therefore they are only one event. Yes, there **is** a mystical connection, and I love to go to Mass once in a while, because I do consider it a time to focus on Christ's healing and empowerment, and I do believe it is a time to receive healing and empowerment. And I think that many Protestant churches don't emphasize this enough.) But I don't think it's splitting hairs to say let's get our definitions straight.) If you're upholding Tradition, then your logic is as faulty as mine. This leads us into a different topic: the canonization of scripture. As this was a very messy business, and I know very little about it, I don't want to get into it. [If Catholics solve this problem by saying that they aren't making a new sacrifice, but bringing you into contact with the original one, then it seems to me that you can't criticize them for making many sacrifices. If you don't believe they can make Christ's original sacrifice present for us now, you can criticize them because what they think they are doing is impossible. But it doesn't seem to make sense to criticize them for doing something that they say they aren't doing. --clh]
finnerty@cygnus.la.locus.com (Brian Finnerty) (08/06/90)
These comments on the Mass and Hebrews are taken from an article
by Mark Brumley in "This Rock", the magazine of Catholic apologetics
and evangelization. I received the magazine's permission to post this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter to the Hebrews is often said to disprove the
sacrificial nature of the Mass. For example, Hebrews 7:26-27
says, "For it was fitting that we should have a high priest,
holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted
above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests,
to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins
of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up
himself."
Notice Jesus offered his sacrifice "once for all." It's this
"once for all" aspect of Christ's sacrifice, mentioned repeatedly in
Hebrews, which supposedly refutes the sacrifice of the Mass.
"After all," ask opponents of the Mass, "if Christ has offered
the perfect sacrifice for sins before God, why do we need another
sacrifice in the Mass to receive the forgiveness of sins?"
If Catholics believed the Mass were a sacrifice in the sense
implied by this question, there would be something to the objection.
But this isn't how the Catholic Church sees the sacrifice of the Mass.
The Mass has always been held to be a relative sacrifice - relative
to the sacrifice of the Cross, not independent of it. The Council of Trent
says the Mass is the means "whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be
accomplished on the Cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain
even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the
remission of sins which we daily commit" (Session 22, chapter 1).
Trent continues by saying, "And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice
which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody
manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the
alter of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly
propitiatory....For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering
by the ministry of the priests who then offered himself on the Cross,
the manner of offering alone being different" (Session 22, chapter 2.)
Frank Sheed summarizes Catholic teaching on the point in "Theology
and Sanity":
"There is no new slaying of Christ in the Mass.... Yet that it is
the Christ who was slain upon Calvary is shown sacramentally by the
separate consecration of bread to become His body and wine to become
His blood. THe essence of the Mass is that Christ is making an offering
to the Father of Himself, who was slain for us upon Calvary. THe Mass is
Calvary, as Christ now offers it to His Father."
Hebrews teaches the atoning death of Christ was effective for the
remission of sins and hence needed to be offered only once. But this
speaks of what theologians call the "objective redemption." It doesn't
mean that, since Jesus died for everyone, everyone will get to heaven.
(That's universalism.) The merits of the fruits of Christ's death need to
be applied to the individual.
When Catholic theologians talk about the Mass being a propitiatory
sacrifice for the remission of sins, they mean, among other things, that
the objective redemption which Christ's sacrifice on the Cross merited
is subjectively applied to the individual through the sacrifice of the
Mass.
Christ's sacrifice objectively merited redemption on the Cross.
The same sacrifice of Christ, now offered sacramentally, not physically,
is applied to the individual in the Eucharist.
Far from substituting for the Cross or to make up for something that's
lacking in Christ's sacrifice, the Mass is a means by which we recive the
benefits of the Atonement.
Granted this is what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass, and
granted it doesn't mean Jesus is killed again by the priest, people
still ask, "Doesn't Hebrews 7-11 contradict even a sacramental sacrifice
when it says Christ offered once sacrifice?"
No. Remember, the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross,
only presented in a different manner. The aspect of redemption which involved
death is finished, but Christ lives forever to offer, by his very presence
in the Mass, his work on the Cross for our sins to the Father in heaven. In
no way does this diminish Calvary.
Read Hebrews 9:11-12: "When Christ came as high priest of the good things
that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle
not made by human hands... he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not
with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining
eternal redemption."
What does this mean? In the Old Testament, atonement for the sins of the
people was obtained once a year on the Day of Atonement when the high priest
entered the holy of holies to offer sacrifices. Hebrews contrasts this with
Christ who, as victim and high priest, offered the perfect sacrifice, once
for all, on the Cross and who presented himself, as both victim and priest,
in the true tabernacle, which is heaven itself, the dwelling place of God
(Heb. 8:2-3; 9:11-12,24).
Christ is "always able to save those who approach God through him, since
he lives forever to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). What is the basis
of this intercession? The sacrifice of the Cross (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:14),
which is forever present before God in the heavenly tabernacle because he who
was both offered as victim and who offered the sacrifice as priest "appears
before God on our behalf" (Heb. 9:24).
Christ's perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb 9:11-12)
is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass. As
Frank Sheed puts it, "The Mass is the breaking through to earth of the
offering of Himself that Christ makes continously in heaven simply by His
presence there."
Some people will still object that the Mass is actually the reverse of
On the Cross Christ offered himself for us: we didn't offer anything. In the
Mass, on the other hand, we do the offering.
In a sense, this is true. We weren't physically or personally present
at Calvary. Still, there's a sense in which we were present - present in
our high priest, Jesus, who offered the sacrifice of himself for us.
In the Old Testament the high priest, in offering sacrifice for
Israel, represented the people before GOd. In other words, the people
offered their sacrifice through the high priest. Christ was our high priest,
as well as our sacrifice, on Calvary. We offered the perfect sacrifice
(Christ) for sins to the Father through him.
Similarly, in the Mass Christ offers himself to the Father on our
behalf, and we, his people, join ourselves sacramentally to his offering.
The Mass is a way of approaching God through Christ's sacrifice, which is
present sacramentally because Christ himself is present.
Nothing in this dimishes Calvary or implies that we can approach
God other than through the Cross. Rather than taking away from the Cross,
the Mass emphasizes it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Brian Finnertybarry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (08/06/90)
> presence. Catholics believe that Christ's body is physically present. > It seems somehow consistent with this to see the Mass as involving the > worshipper more directly in Christ's sacrifice. --clh] I know that in many forign countries many catholic bishops are heading a campaign to discredit fundamentalist evangelicals because they are leading many out of the catholic faith with the teaching of the born-again experience. Guess what, the bishops are using the argument of the "only" way to receive christ is through the eucharist, at the hands of a priest. these bishops assert it is false teaching that one can be born-again, by inviting jesus into the heart to live. Take Care Barry
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (08/08/90)
Our moderator comments on John Warren's posting: > If the Catholic concept is of not so much a new sacrifice, but that we > are mystically brought into contact with Christ's original sacrifice, > then the difference is not quite as drastic as might be supposed, > though there is certainly still a difference. It seems that as > elsewhere when dealing with eucharistic theology, the primary > difference is in the degree of literalness with which we take Christ's > presence. Catholics believe that Christ's body is physically present. > It seems somehow consistent with this to see the Mass as involving the > worshipper more directly in Christ's sacrifice. --clh] If the elements of the Lord's supper are literally the body and blood of Jesus, would it follow that Jesus still suffers at every mass or not necessarily? What is the Catholic view of this? If the answer is no, why not if the host is *literally* Christ's body? If the answer is yes, please defend the answer in light of the following passage from the book of Hebrews: "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with the blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once and after that judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of may people..." Specifically, this passage indicates that Christ is not suffering many times and also states that he has appeared once for all. If the bread and wine do not merely symbolize Christ's body and blood but literally are one and the same, wouldn't if follow that the suffering is still continuing (at each Mass) and that he is literally reappearing (more than once vs. once for all) as the elements are brought forth? Thank you for sharing. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (08/08/90)
In article <Jul.29.15.11.25.1990.13217@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: > Catholics who believe in transubstantiation and the sacrifice > of the mass take one part of scripture literally ("This is my > body, etc.") and don't take another part literally ("But when this > priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down > at the right hand of God."); Protestants tend to be the opposite. I > wonder how inerrancy fits into all this. I just wanted to point out that: Inerrancy does not demand that every word in the bible be interpreted literally as you describe "literal" above. For example, when Jesus says: "I am the door" no one interprets this to mean that Jesus is literally a door. Does this mean this statement is in error? Of course not. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (08/08/90)
[This responds to a posting by Thomas Carl Price. He was responding to a posting that talked about the continuity in faith between the apostles and the current Catholic Church. Price believes that there is no such continuity, but that there was a falling away in faith. He claims that >the Catholic Church is the apostacy predicted in 1 Tim 4:3; 2 Tim 4:3,4; >the whore seducing the nations, the city on seven hills of Rev 12 >(notably vv 9 & 18). --clh] Whoa! I think that's going quite a bit too far. No one knows yet what organization will be the Whore of Babylon, and it doesn't help to start naming names.
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.5.21.56.07.1990.18495@athos.rutgers.edu> barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >> presence. Catholics believe that Christ's body is physically present. >> It seems somehow consistent with this to see the Mass as involving the >> worshipper more directly in Christ's sacrifice. --clh] > > >I know that in many forign countries many catholic bishops are >heading a campaign to discredit fundamentalist evangelicals >because they are leading many out of the catholic faith with the >teaching of the born-again experience. Guess what, the bishops >are using the argument of the "only" way to receive christ is >through the eucharist, at the hands of a priest. these bishops >assert it is false teaching that one can be born-again, by inviting >jesus into the heart to live. > >Take Care > >Barry This is exactly why I oppose the idea of The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic doctrine is a very 'luxurious' one, one that sophisticated minds can understand; but simpler minds should not be expected to do so. I know that my own understanding and practice of Communion comes close to Catholicism in that I treat it as a very important time to focus my faith eyes on Christ and what he did for me. And in the physical act of faith (all faith includes physical acts) I instantly get connected with the God's grace (eternal life to come, abundant life now, etc). No, I do not believe that simple 'belief' gets us saved (or even 'safe'); it's faith (which means: action based upon belief, supported by confidence) that gets us saved and puts God's life in us right now. Now, Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me; therefore, I by faith, claiming God's promises of forgiveness and healing (for that is what communion, or the Mass is all about), do it in memory of him. Thus I act, based upon my belief, supported by what confidence I have in God (no matter how small, since God honors even the tiniest amount of faith). Alright, what does this have to do with the controversy at hand? Why complicate the Communion with sophisticated arguments about objective and subjective sacrifices and all Masses really being the One Sacrifice (not merely a reenactment)? These are arguments that Paul could easily have made about the Old Testament sacrifices (bloodiness or unbloodiness is irrelevant here), but he didn't. They were just as much physical acts which God told his people to do, and if they did them in faith (remember my definition), then they pleased God (since without faith it is impossible to please him) and received God's implant of life (i.e., his spirit). The Catholic position, which people on the net have eloquently described, too easily devolves, IMHO, into a doctrine that puts the priest above the laity (since he is the one performing the 'necessary' sacrifice) and into superstition, since simpler, less educated people don't think along the lines of the people on the net. Instead of singling out one particular act of faith (which could lead to idolatry), why don't we stress the importance of all kinds of acts of faith, and their sacramental nature. I mean, the giving of money to God seems to be just as important as Holy Communion, seeing as how God was talking about money and offerings all throughout the Bible. And Paul actually calls it a 'eucharist' in 1 Cor 8 or 9. Or the 'born again' experience where a person uses his mouth as the focus point for faith. There are many foci through which God pours his life into us and becomes Really Present, as long as we maintain the grip of faith; not just the Mass.
tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (08/12/90)
My identification of the Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon was not an irrational act done independently of the verses I mentioned and then brought to those verses. Rather, I make that identification on the basis of those verses. Suggesting that I should not name names misses the point, I think. Has the Catholic Church forbidden to marry, commanded abstentions from meats? Is it not often spoken of metonymically as "Rome", which happens to be a city set on seven hills? Has it not historically been mixed up in the affairs of the "kings of the earth"? What is to be made of Paul's recurrent theme of an apostacy from the original simplicity of Christianity? Reasoned objections to my posts on these substantial bases would be welcomed. A simple complaint that my suggestions are offensive accomplishes nothing but complacency. Tom
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.5.21.12.13.1990.18311@athos.rutgers.edu>, finnerty@cygnus.la.locus.com (Brian Finnerty) writes: This posting from the Catholic apologetic magazine really turned a light bulb on for me. My thanks to Brian for taking the time to post the article. > When Catholic theologians talk about the Mass being a propitiatory > sacrifice for the remission of sins, they mean, among other things, that > the objective redemption which Christ's sacrifice on the Cross merited > is subjectively applied to the individual through the sacrifice of the > Mass. > Christ's sacrifice objectively merited redemption on the Cross. > The same sacrifice of Christ, now offered sacramentally, not physically, > is applied to the individual in the Eucharist. > Far from substituting for the Cross or to make up for something that's > lacking in Christ's sacrifice, the Mass is a means by which we recive the > benefits of the Atonement. This brings me to my light bulb. This article to me seems to clear up the false protestant idea that the Mass is a different sacrifice from that of Calvary, at least in concept. The above sentences bring me to the following question: How is Christ's sacrifice in 33 AD applied to the Christian today? Does it have to happen in Church during a Mass? The book of Acts records the conversion of thousands of believers without a Mass. Somehow the blood of Christ was applied to them by virtue of some other means than the mass. Is then the Mass recognized by the Catholic Church as one of many means of applying the sacrifice to us or has it dispensationally replaced the means of salvation in the early church? Secondly, how long does this application of grace last, according to the Catholic position? One week? I have to ask this nagging question. Please don't take offense. Could the Mass be construed as an attempt by which an insecure church invents a means to "apply salvation-for-a-week" to its members, effectively becoming a "grace distributor"? It seems to me that the idea of handing out temporary grace by means of a church ceremony is foreign to Scripture, which of necessity, causes this new insecure church to adopt Tradition as having equal authority with the Word. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
finnerty@electra.la.locus.com (Brian Finnerty) (08/12/90)
(I don't have my Bible with me today, but I will look up the exact scriptural citations, if requested.) >If the elements of the Lord's supper are literally the body and blood >of Jesus, would it follow that Jesus still suffers at every mass or >not necessarily? What is the Catholic view of this? Absolutely not. Christ died once for all. He is not crucified again at Mass. >If the answer >is no, why not if the host is *literally* Christ's body? I cannot answer this question fully. I accept on faith that Christ has given me His Body and His Blood. In John 6, the Jews ask him a similar question: "How can the man give us his body to eat?" Christ told them "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you...For my body is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed." The Jews could not believe him, so they left him. But like the apostles, I will remain and say,"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life." Part of the answer to the question may be that Christ can only incur pain if He permits it. Also, Christ now has his post- resurrection, glorified body. It is a real body, but some limitiations of pre-resurrection bodies may not apply. So if Christ says he is giving me his body and his blood to eat, I believe Him. >If the answer is yes, please defend the answer in light of the following >passage from the book of Hebrews:... The answer is no. As Hebrews makes clear, Christ suffered and died once for all. The Catholic Church reaffirms this. The book of Hebrews also says, "Christ intercedes for us for our salvation forever before the Father." This intercession is not independent of the redemption which Christ won for us on the Cross. Christ says to the Father, "Here am I; I was crucified once for all so that men may be saved." This is exactly what happens at Mass. Christ, acting through the Priest, offers to the Father the Holy Victim Jesus Christ who was crucified for us once for all on the cross. Brian Finnerty
lae@io.UUCP (Larry Enos) (08/17/90)
In article 2670, Brian Finnerty promotes the erroneous doctrines of the "real presence" of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine by quoting John chapter 6: > > I cannot answer this question fully. I accept on faith that > Christ has given me His Body and His Blood. In John 6, the > Jews ask him a similar question: "How can the man give us his body > to eat?" Christ told them "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood > you have no life in you...For my body is food indeed and my blood is > drink indeed." The Jews could not believe him, so they left him. > But like the apostles, I will remain and say,"Lord, to whom shall > we go? You have the words of everlasting life." > In doing so, he takes these verses out of context, and therefore misses what Jesus said to further explain his word about eating His flesh and drinking His blood: "It is the spirit that gives life: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have given you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63) Like the Jews who were stumbled by the Lord's words at that time, many nominal Christians even today do not understand that the food and drink Jesus provides are spiritual in nature (not physical), and are found in His WORD--both His constant word (logos) written in the bible, and His instant word (rhema) spoken through the Holy Spirit in our regenerated spirits. We receive all the benefits of the Lord's death, resurrection, and ascension by taking in His word and believing it (see John 6:64). Thus, the bread and wine are merely the outward, physical symbols of the spiritual reality of His body and blood found in His word. May God enlighten us all so that we can partake of this true food and drink. Amen.
jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (08/21/90)
lae@io.UUCP (Larry Enos) writes: >Like the Jews who were stumbled by the Lord's words at that time, many >nominal Christians even today do not understand that the food and >drink Jesus provides are spiritual in nature (not physical), and are >found in His WORD--both His constant word (logos) written in the bible, >and His instant word (rhema) spoken through the Holy Spirit in our regenerated >spirits. This isn't what the scripture says. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. John 6:53-56 (KJV) Shocking? Yes. His disciples found it shocking: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. John 6:59-63 Larry interprets this passage as saying that the flesh and blood of Christ which gives life are his words. But the passage doesn't say that at all. On the contrary, it explains that Jesus' disciples were offended by his teaching. In reacting to their taking offence, Jesus explains that the the natural reaction of the disciples to his talk of eating flesh and drinking blood is not the right one, and that the message he had given, difficult as it was, was of the spirit and gives life. This only serves to emphasize the importance of Christ's message: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. So what then is the flesh and blood of Christ? At the last supper (the first eucharist): And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Mark 14:22-24 Paul writes: I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 10:15-16 And again: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 The scriptures are quite clear. The body and blood of Christ that we are called to eat and drink is the transformed bread and wine of the eucharist. Christ did not say that the bread and wine was a sign or symbol of his body and blood. After Christ blessed and broke the bread, and gave thanks and passed the cup, he said, without any hedging, that that bread and wine *was* his body and blood. And Paul recognizes this, when he makes it clear that the one who participates unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. For to eat and drink at the eucharist without discerning the Lord's body - his real presence - is to eat and drink damnation to oneself. I know many of you don't recognize eucharist, and your celebrations of the Lord's supper are simple memorials, not eucharists. But I urge you to study the scriptures carefully, to open yourselves to the prompting of the holy spirit, and to seriously struggle with it. For it is a hard and difficult teaching which Jesus' disciples have stumbled over since he first taught it. But in it, Jesus gives us the Eucharist, in which ordinary people like myself, sinners all, can receive the sacred and life- giving body and blood of Jesus the Christ, who is Lord. John -- John DiMarco jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca University of Toronto, CSRI BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (416) 978-8609 UUCP: uunet!utai!db!jdd
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/24/90)
One of the problems is that those who so object to the concept of the Mass have virtually no knowledge of Christian doctrinal history. When looking at 4th century Christian writers, or all the liturgical manuscripts since the 8th century, the objection is always: "Where does it say that in the Bible?" It's not quite that simple. We're currently looking at the contents of the Bible worked out over 1900 years later. Simply comparing what St. John writes around 100, and what Catholic theologians write in 1990, isn't going to get one very far, unless there is some understanding of what has elapsed in between. I suppose a good example here is the canon of the Bible. How do we know what is part of the Bible, and what is not? The early Christians were by no means as sure on several points as we are today. For a while, the authenticity of the Apocalypse, for example, was argued. The Old Testament canon, for quite a while. One can also add things like the observance of Sunday, infant Baptism, and Baptism via infusion (pouring) vs. immersion. If we really want to go back to 100, then we shall simply have to throw out much of the Bible, because Christians weren't universally sure what was in the Bible back then. Simply asserting that the Fathers of the Church were guided to pick the right books so we could have something to guide us: There are big problems with such, since the canon wasn't ever *definitively* settled until the 16th century. At which point Protestant groups picked a different Old Testament canon than the Catholic Church did! Moving on to another topic. (We wandered somewhat from the Mass.) St. Paul speaks of error spreading worse and worse, of a revolt, an apostasy, before the end, and the coming of the Antichrist. Of men not enduring sound doctrine, having itching ears, heaping to themselves teachers, "Lo, here is Christ." Etc., etc., you know the verses. The time sequence would seem to be reversed, if one counts the Catholic Church as the scarlet beast, etc. The era of the Catholic Church has passed. It no longer has the influence over society that it once enjoyed. You can walk around town if you doubt me. Were this a Catholic society, there would be religious symbolism visible in many places, pictures, statues, etc., to remind the people of their destiny. (Nowadays we can't even put a crib on a courthouse lawn at Christmas!) The Reformation coming so late in human history does not seem to match St. Paul's scenarios. It's backwards; the revolt is supposed to come towards the end of the world, not in the 4th century. Also, if the Catholic Church is indeed the beast, this would seem to indicate that Catholic faith and morals are corrupt. That is, if the Catholic religion were once again spread everywhere, zillions of people would lose their souls. Hmmm. Interesting, but hardly realistic. We have a rather large nation -- Russia -- officially professing Atheism. How come we never saw such a thing in the Middle Ages, when Satan reigned supreme? (I guess Catholicism is worse than Atheism? Or perhaps it is the forerunner of Atheism?) There is also another problem along this line, namely, that adopting such an attitude to our Christian ancestors means that the Jews have been more faithful to their religion than the Christians have been to theirs. This seems to be no little problem, given that the Christian religion is the fulfillment of the Jewish, and was founded immediately by the second Person of the Blessed Trinity made man. How can the Jews have been so fundamentally faithful to their Scripture over so many centuries, yet the Christians so unfaithful to theirs? Especially when God Himself came down here to teach it to us? The points about forbidding meat, forbidding marriage, etc., have little bearing. They address people who forbid these things as being intrinsically evil, as something never permissible. The Albigenses viewed marriage so. Let's see. Forbidding meat? Perhaps Hinduism fits the menu (I don't know). Lastly, some more on the Mass: Christ does not suffer in the Mass. His presence in a consecrated host, though a real one, remains a sacramental one. The Sacraments remain, always and everywhere, SIGNS. Christ's presence is not at all the same as if He were standing on the altar, disguised a little by an optical illusion. Transubstantiation implies that Christ, though present, is completely inaccessible to anything you can do to the Host. Breaking It in half doesn't affect Christ at all. He doesn't even wince. Neither do you have to be within, say, 100 yards of a Mass for it to have any effect! The effects of a Mass remain, except in special circumstances, or in general terms, unknowable. The Mass calls down graces, but who can definitely say which Mass brings which grace? Proximity to a Mass certainly has little to do with it, in any absolute sense. There are some prophecies in Daniel regarding the Mass, and what will happen in the last times. "He [the Antichrist] will be given power against the strength, and the sacrifice" is how one of them goes, if I remember correctly. "Because of sin," it says in another place. In the final analysis, I think the problems about the Mass have much to do with comparisons between 1st century Scripture and much later Catholic theology, and not understanding what happened in between. The doctrines: - Christ dies now no more - There is only one sacrifice for sin - Christ is the only mediator are fundamental to the Catholic as well as the Protestant. Joe Buehler
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.20.22.40.34.1990.6684@athos.rutgers.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: > >The scriptures are quite clear. The body and blood of Christ that we >are called to eat and drink is the transformed bread and wine of the >eucharist. Christ did not say that the bread and wine was a sign or symbol >of his body and blood. After Christ blessed and broke the bread, and >gave thanks and passed the cup, he said, without any hedging, that that >bread and wine *was* his body and blood. > So what you are saying is that at the Last Supper the body of Christ held in his hands (and then broke) the body of Christ. That's too hard to believe. When Jesus said, "This is my body, this is my blood," his flesh was still on his bones and his blood was still in his veins. Anything is possible with God, but not everything is probable with him. The twelve never took it to mean that they were physically eating Jesus's flesh and blood, and Jesus never expected them to do so. He said something so utterly ridiculous that they were shocked into attention. When Jesus was supposed to say, "My Father was a wandering Aramean (according to the Jewish ritual)..." he goes and says "This is my body...", thus pointing to himself as the fulfilment of the Passover. When we eat the bread, we proclaim and hang on to the promise that Jesus was beaten and his body bruised for our healing (yes, physical healing!); when we drink the wine, we proclaim and hang on to the promise that Jesus's blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sin and of our sins (even the ones we commit tomorrow). Yes, the Eucharist is a shocker, but not because of transubstation.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (09/02/90)
Larry Enos claims that the passages in John 6 are being taken out of context: >[...] and therefore [miss] what Jesus said to further explain his word about >eating His flesh and drinking His blood: > "It is the spirit that gives life: the flesh profits nothing. > The words that I have given you are spirit and are life." I just don't see that this passage says what is claimed for it here. In context, the passage is talking about the fact that people find what Jesus says hard to swallow (so to speak). What Jesus is saying is that the Spirit makes it possible for people to accept his word. I don't see how this is telling us to take a less literal interpretation. Going to a symbolic reading is nearly everyone's first attempt at dealing with a difficult saying; Jesus doesn't chastize them for their literal-mindedness, but for shutting out the Spirit. I also cannot see that there is any parallel being drawn between Jesus' flesh and the "flesh" of this verse. Indeed, to assert this sort of parallel raises a major theological problem. It leads to a gnostic view in which the flesh of Jesus, being equated with the flesh which is dead, becomes unnecessary to salvation, and salvation loses any real connection with Jesus' saving acts. The passage makes clear that it is Jesus' claims to divinity here which offend the crowd, not the literalness of his language. If I can swallow the Incarnation, I can swallow (so to speak) God contained in a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. An interesting parallel passage occurs in John 3 in the visit to Nicodemus. Jesus starts off with a metaphor. Nicodemus' question in reply should not be understood as being dumbfounded, but basically as a demand for Jesus to explain himself. But Jesus refuses, and basically says "look, you aren't taking me seriously." Here there is no question that what Jesus says is not supposed to be taken literally. In John 6, it is not so clear. But it appears to me that the reasons for the interpretation are external: real presence is a scandal to the greeks.
jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (09/02/90)
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: >So what you are saying is that at the Last Supper the body of Christ held >in his hands (and then broke) the body of Christ. That's too hard to believe. >When Jesus said, "This is my body, this is my blood," his flesh was still on >his bones and his blood was still in his veins. Anything is possible with >God, but not everything is probable with him. The twelve never took it to >mean that they were physically eating Jesus's flesh and blood, and Jesus >never expected them to do so. I don't mean to say, and the Church doesn't mean to say that the bread and wine of the Eucharist *physically* turns into the body and blood of Christ. No, the host doesn't turn into a quivering piece of flesh when you're not looking. But you're assuming that all reality is *physical* reality. That's not so. When Jesus said "This is my body", he meant that it really *was* his body, even though the bread-become-body in question didn't turn into a piece of flesh. We have to accept a reality beyond the physical in order to understand how the bread and wine of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. I don't want to become enmeshed in philosophical discussions about ontology. Let me just point out that we Christians believe in non-physical realities all the time: the existence of God for one. John -- John DiMarco jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca University of Toronto, CSRI BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (416) 978-8609 UUCP: uunet!utai!db!jdd
barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (09/14/90)
[Charley Wingate commented on the Real Presence: > We name it bread and wine because, as far as we can taste and touch and see, > it is bread and wine. > > We name it the Body and the Blood because scripture and the Spirit name it > so. --clh] I don't see any problems with that. My problem stems from the insistance on the bread and wine as the literal flesh and blood at the point of consecration, implying some power over our God that (imo) is impossible for me to conceive from scripture. The implication of arrogance is undigestible for this guy:-). barry olson