Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Answersplease]

Wonderful! Unfortunately it has not been very successful since the lds church is still standing and there has not been a news release exposing the fraud. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding seems okay.

…there has not been a news release exposing the fraud.

Do church leaders think they have a duty to tell the truth, or to protect church authority at all costs?

Apostle Dallin Oaks:

“My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.”

• Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon329.htm

 

[zerinus]

As a Catholic, I’m getting a little embarassed here with Catholic ignorance on the “priesthood of Melchizedek”. He was a very curious figure in the Bible, however, as Catholics we consider “Melchizedek ‘priest of God Most High’ as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek’, by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,’ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross”. (CCC par. 1544)

We believe that Melchizedek was a real person with a real priesthood, but also a prefigure or type of Christ. In modern scripture the Lord has provided us with more information about the identity and character of Melchizedek. From the Book of Mormon we have the following information:

Alma 13:

13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.
14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.
16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.
17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;
18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.
19 Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention.

In the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is another book of Mormon scripture, the following additional information is provided about Melchizedek:

D&C 107:

1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

In addition to these, Joseph Smith also made an inspired translation or revision of the Bible, in which further information was given about Melchizedek. Here is the passage from the Old Testament:

JST, Genesis14:

1. And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.
2. Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.
3. And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
4. It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;
5. And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto us many as believed on his name.
6. For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;
7. To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.
8. And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.
9. And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.
10. And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;
11. And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.
12. And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.
13. And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God;
14. Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.
15. Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.
16. And it came to pass, that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant which he had made, and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him.

And here is a passage from the New Testament (the words in italic were added by Joseph Smith):

JST, Hebrews 7:

1. For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

Our Catholic priests, by reason of their participation in the one priesthood of Christ, are also priests in the order of Melchizedek. Unlike other priests of that era, Melchizedek uniquely offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, a prefiguration of the flesh and blood of Christ, now offered to us under the appearance of bread and wine.

My problem with the Mormon view is that they claim that the preisthood was lost and then restored by Joseph Smith. Yet, I know of no Morman priest who performs the one, distinct function of a priest - that is to offer sacrifice. So how is the priesthood “restored” when not a single member actually functions as a priest and offers sacrifice?

I am not sure what you mean by a “sacrifice”. In ancient times animal sacrifices were offered in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Son of God. After the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, animal sacrifices were abolished, and its place was taken by the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. That is the Mormon theological position. This, however, does not mean that the Sacrament is a physical or literal sacrifice. It is not. It is a way of remembering the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Catholics view the Mass as a physical or literal sacrifice. The priest literally sacrifices Jesus Christ on the altar every time he celebrates Mass. We don’t agree. We think that is all wrong. Jesus suffered once, and sacrificed Himself once on the cross for all time. There was no need for Him to suffer again or be sacrificed again. The priest has no power at all to sacrifice Jesus anew every time he celebrates Mass, neither does he need to. There is a fundamental theological disagreement between Mormonism and Catholicism in that regard. But the scriptures talk about other ways of offering sacrifices that does not involve killing anything. That includes the sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving, and the sacrifice of doing good to all men, as shown in these verses:

Psalms 27:

6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Lord.

Jeremiah 33:

11 The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice … of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord.…

Hebrews 13:

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

 

[Answersplease]

He could have been both! We know for example that Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac was a figure or type of the Father sacrificing His Son. But they were still real people. In the same way Melchizedek could have been a real person, but at the same time in some way prefiguring Jesus Christ. That in essence is what Mormon theology teaches.

…Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac was a figure or type of the Father sacrificing His Son.

Strange, Abraham never actually sacrificed his son.

God The Father actually did let His Son Jesus die on the cross.

Hmmmm.

Genesis 22:11-13
But the LORD’S messenger called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered.
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the messenger. “Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.”
As Abraham looked about, he spied a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. So he went and took the ram and offered it up as a holocaust in place of his son.

So if according to you: Abraham was a figure of God The Father, and Isaac was a figure of Jesus The Christ…

then when Jesus The Christ was about to be sacrificed on the cross, some kind of “messenger” should have called down to stop it.

Maybe one of the other mormon gods was asleep?

But I’m not a mormon so I don’t believe any of that.

You appear determined to make yourself as ridiculous as you possibly can be. Be my guest! Who am I to try and stop you!

 

[cthulhubryan]

I like to hear what the early Christians believed from their own words and their own mouths rather than from the Catholic Catechism.

Then do so! Read the letters of Polycarp, of John Crysotom, read Against Heresies by Iranaeus.

That is a daft comment. The first quote (commentary) I gave came from a Reformed website; and the second one came from a Pentecostal one. And so what? They are all still Christians, and they still believe in the Bible, and they have as much right to read it, and try to understand and interpret it as the Catholics do. To my knowledge the Catholic Church has not made an infallible declaration as to who Melchizedek was. There is as much diversity of opinion among Catholic theologians as to who he was as there is among Christians of other denominations.

So, I dig up your sources (which you did not cite) and now you get mad and throw insults?

I was not referring to their belief in Christ, but rather to the fact of the author’s anti-Catholic bigotry. As for the second quote you used, it was from a “discussion” as to whether Melchizedek was a man or a god. The idea of apotheosis is a heretical one. One that comes from Pagan sources both old and new.

 

[cthulhubryan]

/… Continued

In addition to these, Joseph Smith also made an inspired translation or revision of the Bible, in which further information was given about Melchizedek. Here is the passage from the Old Testament:

JST, Genesis14:

1. And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.
2. Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.
3. And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
4. It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;
5. And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto us many as believed on his name.
6. For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;
7. To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.
8. And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.
9. And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.
10. And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;
11. And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.
12. And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.
13. And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God;
14. Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.
15. Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.
16. And it came to pass, that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant which he had made, and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him.

And here is a passage from the New Testament (the words in italic were added by Joseph Smith):

JST, Hebrews 7:

1. For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.

Continued … /

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” Rev 22:18

Joseph Smith added to the Bible. Big Bad No no.

Have you ever had a discussion with a 5 or 6 year old when they ask you about the world (why is the sky blue? for example) Once you explain it to them they will often make up something to change the dynamics of your answer

Parent: The sky is blue because as light passes through the atmosphere light blue is the only color not absorbed.
Child: Well, what do the Dragon farts do to the sky?
Parent: ???

It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion this way. The same is true of someone who adds words and verses to the Bible in order to affect changes to what it means.

Reasonable discussion is impossible when one side changes the rules to an alternate reality.

Another example: These are “Bible” quotes from the New Testament of the Holy Bible CBT (Cthulhubryan Translation)

2 Peter 2:1 (CBT)
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Even from lands not yet discovered shall come one who shall claim that God had sex with Mary and lives near an imaginary star called Kolob

1 John 4:1 (CBT)
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.You can tell false prophets by many signs, including being names Joseph if they are named the same as their father while their father still lives.1

1. Translators Note: According to Jewish tradition it is exceedingly improper to name someone after a living person

 

[Stephen168]

/… The point I am trying to make is that in a discussion of this kind it is best to leave “commentaries” alone, and deal directly with the scriptures—otherwise our discussion would be reduced to just “trading commentaries,” which is not a very enlightening way of conducting such a discussion.

My priest was named Thomas but he was not part of a Thomas priesthood; he was a priest named Thomas. I knew a Mormon named Ron who said he held the priesthood, but it wasn’t the Ron Priesthood. Melchizedek was a priest that is all we know from scripture.

Where in the Bible does it prophesize that the future Messiah should be ordained to a Melchizedek priesthood?

 

[SteveVH]

Zerinus:

First of all lets get something straight about what happens at the Mass. The priest does not “sacrifice Jesus on the altar every time he celebrates Mass”. He offers the one sacrifice of Jesus, who died once, for all, and makes it present to us today. We enter into (remember) that one sacrifice, which is an eternal sacrifice and not subject to space and time. He died, not ony for the sins which had occurred up to the moment of His death, but for all sins committed by all men unitl the end of the world. Your “fundemental theological disagreement” is a disagreement with a straw man. The Catholic Church would also disagree with sacrificing Jesus anew each day.

Why don’t you actually find out what the official Catholic position is before making statements like that? This is the same argument thrown at us by Fundamentalists and it just doesn’t hold water.

 

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus,

To get onto the topic of Melchizedek…be careful not to make him a god…or lead you into thinking he is in a place where you will be someday in the cosmos…I look at the symbols regarding your posts and it does look to me you are very drawn to being like gods…

Jesus Christ is the means through which God brought forth the universe. Let God be God…He is already sharing His life with us in the sacraments.

 

[TheosisM]

/… Continued

. The Catholics view the Mass as a physical or literal sacrifice. The priest literally sacrifices Jesus Christ on the altar every time he celebrates Mass. We don’t agree. We think that is all wrong. Jesus suffered once, and sacrificed Himself once on the cross for all time. There was no need for Him to suffer again or be sacrificed again. The priest has no power at all to sacrifice Jesus anew every time he celebrates Mass, neither does he need to. There is a fundamental theological disagreement between Mormonism and Catholicism in that regard.

This is highly incorrect. Catholics do not believe that Jesus is sacrificed again/anew each time Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated. We do not believe that priests have any power at all to sacrifice Jesus again. Catholics believe that the Mass/Divine Liturgy is a participation in the same, once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is a “re-presentation” of that same, one and only, sacrifice. Jesus does not die again on the altar, nor does He need to. Jesus died once, and was resurrected.

 

[LittleDeb]

Zerinus:

First of all lets get something straight about what happens at the Mass. The priest does not “sacrifice Jesus on the altar every time he celebrates Mass”. He offers the one sacrifice of Jesus, who died once, for all, and makes it present to us today. We enter into (remember) that one sacrifice, which is an eternal sacrifice and not subject to space and time. He died, not ony for the sins which had occurred up to the moment of His death, but for all sins committed by all men unitl the end of the world. Your “fundemental theological disagreement” is a disagreement with a straw man. The Catholic Church would also disagree with sacrificing Jesus anew each day.

Why don’t you actually find out what the official Catholic position is before making statements like that? This is the same argument thrown at us by Fundamentalists and it just doesn’t hold water.

:yup:

This is highly incorrect. Catholics do not believe that Jesus is sacrificed again/anew each time Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated. We do not believe that priests have any power at all to sacrifice Jesus again. Catholics believe that the Mass/Divine Liturgy is a participation in the same, once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is a “re-presentation” of that same, one and only, sacrifice. Jesus does not die again on the altar, nor does He need to. Jesus died once, and was resurrected.

:yup:
And Zerinus has been informed of this on many occasions yet persists in misrepresenting the Catholic Church.

These “deliberate attempts” to misrepresent authentic Catholic teaching are duly noted, yet again, Zerinus. Christ said, “This IS my body.” He did not say it was a symbol of His body. And he used *wine *to say “this IS my blood.” He didn’t use water. So the LDS “sacrament” isn’t even an authentic *symbol *of it.

 

[zerinus]

Where in the Bible does it prophesize that the future Messiah should be ordained to a Melchizedek priesthood?

Psalms 110:4 “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

That is a prophecy about Christ, as Paul acknowledges in this verse:

Hebrews 5:6 “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

First of all lets get something straight about what happens at the Mass. The priest does not “sacrifice Jesus on the altar every time he celebrates Mass”. He offers the one sacrifice of Jesus, who died once, for all, and makes it present to us today.

That doesn’t make sense. It honestly doesn’t. How can you “offer” anew a sacrifice that has already been offered once for all before? Sorry, I can’t make sense out of that at all.

We enter into (remember) that one sacrifice, which is an eternal sacrifice and not subject to space and time.

Now that is something that I do understand. A memorial, a remembrance, is something I can understand. If you say that the Mass is a way of remembering, celebrating, internalizing the onetime sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that is understandable and acceptable. It does make sense. That is the purpose of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Mormonism. We do it in remembrance of His sacrifice. But in that case then you have no grounds for criticizing the Mormon priests for not “sacrificing” anything.

He died, not ony for the sins which had occurred up to the moment of His death, but for all sins committed by all men unitl the end of the world.

I entirely agree. I have no problem with that doctrine at all. It agrees with Mormon teachings completely.

Your “fundemental theological disagreement” is a disagreement with a straw man. The Catholic Church would also disagree with sacrificing Jesus anew each day.

In that case then your criticism of the Mormon priesthood that they don’t offer any “sacrifices” is groundless, and is the real “straw man”. I didn’t set up the straw man, you did!

Why don’t you actually find out what the official Catholic position is before making statements like that? This is the same argument thrown at us by Fundamentalists and it just doesn’t hold water.

I went by what you said! If that is true, then quit criticizing the Mormon priests for not “sacrificing” anything!

 

[soren1]

/… Continued

Hebrews 13:

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.[/INDENT]

This is actually a pro-eucharistic verse. “Sacrifice of praise” does not indicate the matter that is sacrifice, but rather the purpose of the sacrifice, to give praise, hence, “fruit of the the lips.”

The term “sacrifice of praise” in Greek is thusia aineseos. The word for praise, ainesis is an invented word fabricated by the Septuagint translators to render the Hebrew phrase zebach toda “sacrifice of praise” in terms that would not confuse it with similarly-named pagan rituals. It is to that Hebrew tradition of zebach toda, which is a thanksgiving offering with specific ritual elements including the cunsumption of bread and wine, that Paul is here referring. There are many references to this sacrifice in Hebrews, particularly in its frequent use of Ps. 22, which is a liturgical psalm used for *toda *sacrifices. That is why just before the verses you quote, it reads, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” (Heb 13:10) It is saying that Christ is the New *toda *offering, consumed as bread and wine in a sacrifice of praise on the Christian altar.

 

[Stephen168]

Psalms 110:4 “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

That is a prophecy about Christ, as Paul acknowledges in this verse:

Hebrews 5:6 “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”

But it does not say there is or ever will be a Melchizedek Priesthood. It says there will be a priest after the order/style/manner/kind of Melchizedek. Hebrews tells us Christ is the high Priest like Melchizedek.(Heb 7:15)
Genesis 14:18-20 - A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram.
Psalm 110:4 - King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest: 1) A King-Priest bringing bread and wine and 2) A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.
Hebrews 4:14-16 thru Hebrews 5:1-10 - Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:1-3 – Reminds us Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Melchizedek is compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without earthly parents, or children, and was a priest always.

Nowhere does it say there is a Melchizedek Priesthood. Christ is the one unique high priest.

Hebrews 7:20-25 - Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

 

[zerinus]

This is highly incorrect. Catholics do not believe that Jesus is sacrificed again/anew each time Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated. We do not believe that priests have any power at all to sacrifice Jesus again.

Well I am glad you don’t, because it don’t make sense. But tell that to your Catholic friends!

Catholics believe that the Mass/Divine Liturgy is a participation in the same, once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Now that don’t make a lot of sense. How do you “participate” in a sacrifice, especially one that has already taken place? If you said that we celebrate Mass to remember His sacrifice, that is understandable; but the only way to “participate” in a sacrifice is to actually perform it! So you have to make up your mind whether you are actually performing a sacrifice, or doing something else.

It is a "re-presentation" of that same, one and only, sacrifice. Jesus does not die again on the altar, nor does He need to. Jesus died once, and was resurrected.

Sorry, “re-presentation” doesn’t make much sense either. So is the Catholic priest actually performing a sacrifice or not? That is what you need to make up our mind about. If he does, then you need to explain how?

 

[zerinus]

But it does not say there is or ever will be a Melchizedek Priesthood.

That was not your original question. Your question was where does it prophecy in the Bible that Jesus will have the Melchizedek priesthood. Psalms 110:4 is a prophecy about Jesus Christ. It says that the the future Messiah will be a priest of the order of Melchizedek. That is another way of saying that He will have the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

[zerinus]

This is actually a pro-eucharistic verse. “Sacrifice of praise” does not indicate the matter that is sacrifice, but rather the purpose of the sacrifice, to give praise, hence, “fruit of the the lips.” . . .

So how do you explain the sacrifice of “good works” that Paul talked about; or the sacrifice of a “broken and contrite heart” that Psalms 51:17 talks about?

 

[KathleenGee]

There is the spiritual communion with Jesus that bears good works.