Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Jay53]

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

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.

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?

I’m quoting part of SteveVH’s post because I thought he explained it very well and I think you missed part of it. I’m emphasizing the part I think you missed.

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.

 

[LittleDeb]

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?

You are bound by time, Christ is not. The priest, as a man, has no power to sacrifice anything. In his holy priesthood he stands literally “in the person of Christ.” Father Bob isn’t doing anything as just Father Bob. “In the person of Christ” is the part that seems to be confusing you.

Mormons are watching a “play-acting” of a symbol. Catholics are **present **at the one and only sacrifice of Christ, by Christ Himself. That is why authentic Christianity has placed such emphasis on the Eucharist, and why the apostles wrote that one could “eat to his own condemnation.” How can you be condemned for improperly consuming a symbol? Disrespectful yes, but condemnation? No way. God doesn’t work that way.

Again, it appears you are deliberately misrepresenting Catholic teaching. You are more than welcome to say that you don’t understand, but don’t misrepresent it just because you refuse to grasp the concept. I *understand *your beliefs. I disagree with what your church *actually *teaches. You don’t understand Catholic teaching. It is either a can’t or a won’t, but you clearly do not understand.

 

[Xavierlives]

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.”

Man, I saw this quote coming from a mile away.

 

[zerinus]

I’m quoting part of SteveVH’s post because I thought he explained it very well and I think you missed part of it. I’m emphasizing the part I think you missed.

No, I don’t think that I have misunderstood his post. The question centers on what the priest does, not on what Jesus did. Is the priest literally making a sacrifice or isn’t he? That is the question. Whether the sacrifice of Jesus is eternal or not address that particular question. If the priest is making a sacrifice, then what is he sacrificing, and how?

 

[Xavierlives]

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.

Some scholars point to Genesis 14 and the meeting between Melchizedek and Abraham as the same moment when Jesus talks about seeing Abraham and Abraham rejoiced (I am without my Bible today, but the Jesus reference is John 8 I think). And it would be an interesting discussion to have as to whether Melchizedek was Jesus, but you are stuck on a priesthood concept so I say we flush that out a bit. Can you show me where Melchizedek got his authority? His, oh lets say, his Genesis authority? Because, while we can acknowledge an order, I think you need to understand it from the beginning.

 

[zerinus]

Man, I saw this quote coming from a mile away.

And?

 

[Xavierlives]

And?

Just an observation. Some Christians don’t recognize it in various parts of the Bible, or to what end the Mormons use it.

 

[Jay53]

No, I don’t think that I have misunderstood his post. The question centers on what the priest does, not on what Jesus did. Is the priest literally making a sacrifice or isn’t he? That is the question. Whether the sacrifice of Jesus is eternal or not address that particular question. If the priest is making a sacrifice, then what is he sacrificing, and how?

Yes, it is a sacrifice, but not the “bloody sacrifice” of Calvary. Jesus* is* present, however, as the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus. The fact that the sacrifice of Jesus is eternal does address the question. Perhaps this will help you:

John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary”

Perhaps this will help explain it too. catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[zerinus]

Yes, it is a sacrifice, but not the “bloody sacrifice” of Calvary. Jesus* is* present, however, as the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus. The fact that the sacrifice of Jesus is eternal does address the question. Perhaps this will help you:

Thanks for the quote; but frankly I find it incomprehensible. That is all I can say. If it makes sense to you, then good luck to you.

Perhaps this will help explain it too. catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Unfortunately is didn’t.

 

[soren1]

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?

Those two examples each have their own contexts. It so happens that in Heb 13 Paul is using a lot of liturgical language. I barely started to explain it all in my post. For instance, even the word he uses for “approach” in this chapter has a liturgical connotation. And in the verse you quoted, Paul is using a technical term that denotes a specific rubric of liturgical sacrifice. So I follow that context and interpret it in that light.

As for Ps 51:17, I’m not sure why you would think it is a problem verse unless you are thinking of it as a carte blanche statement that God doesn’t care for sacrifices. It would be hard to apply such a principle throughout scripture consistently, since God commands sacrifices, and Christ himself achieves salvation through a high-priestly sacrifice. Moreover, Hebrews makes its case for the new sacrifice by pointing to the deficiencies of the sacrifices in the Old Law. So a Psalm that points to those deficiencies as well does not at once suggest a problem, but rather a point of basic agreement with the core premise that Hebrews to show the power of the new sacrifice of praise.

Let’s look at the particulars of the psalm. Here David is deeply aware of his sins, and is asking the Lord to deliver him. His sins are grave and include “bloodguiltiness,” presumably for the murder of Uriah. Before God can be appeased by any sacrifice, David’s heart must be contrite and penitent, since God does not accepts sacrifices done without love. In order to be appropriately cleansed, David asks God to “Purge me with hyssop.” (Ps. 51:7) Now hyssop branches are a tool of priestly, sacrificial service, and Hebrews 9:18-22 indicates its use in purging sin through liturgical blood-offering:

Whereupon neither the first testament [actually “covenant”] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament [covenant] which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

By asking to be purged with hyssop by God, David is acknowledging that his sins *can *be atoned by blood sacrifice, just not by any sacrifice that he can offer. Any efficacious sacrifice has power only by virtue of the cleansing that comes from God, so that the sacrifice of a pure heart creates the condition that makes the ritual sacrifices of the Old Law meritorious. David’s sacrifice of a pure heart is nothing other that his reception of the cleansing sacrifice that God provides.

David’s words, therefore, long for Christ who is that very sacrifice. Jesus had a hyssop branch placed to his mouth (John 19:29) and he uses that same words as Moses when instituting the Eucharist: “This cup is the new testament [covenant] in my blood…” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The sacrifice of Jesus provides the cleansing that David seeks. Just as the blood sprinkled by Moses was sacrificial blood, Jesus is indicating that the cup also contains sacrificial blood. The hyssop branch connects all these passages together.

As for the sacrifice of good works, I do not know what particular verse you have in mind, but clearly, Paul does see an upright life lived in charity as a sacrifice to God. Of course it is. That does not negate the validity of liturgical sacrifice. Why would it?

 

[Jay53]

Thanks for the quote; but frankly I find it incomprehensible. That is all I can say. If it makes sense to you, then good luck to you.

It makes perfect sense to me. And luck has nothing to do with it. Reconciliation and the Eucharist are two things about my faith that I have absolutely no doubts about. I may not be able to explain it as well as others here, but I have absolutely no doubts about them.

Perhaps one day it will make sense for you too!

What about it do you find incomprehensible?

Unfortunately is didn’t.

Sorry that didn’t help you.
Maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

[zerinus]

It makes perfect sense to me. And luck has nothing to do with it. Reconciliation and the Eucharist are two things about my faith that I have absolutely no doubts about. . . .

That was not the question being discussed. The question was whether the priest actually performs a sacrifice or not; and if so what is that sacrifice.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, la te da!.

Riko, that sort of thing is rather important. If you corrected someone about Catholics being cannibals and worshiping a statue of Mary, I doubt that you would be real thrilled with “Well, la te da!” as a comeback.

It is rather important to be correct when one attempts to criticise the faith and beliefs of others, because when one is not, one looks like an idiot. Not that this is all that important, but what might be important to your cause is this: if someone finds out that the things said about another faith are incorrect…that the informant was, well, lying about it…they might actually investigate the faith itself to get the correct answers.

Not that the members of that faith would object to this; most faiths don’t. However, if the intent is to steer people AWAY from that faith, you will have, uhmn…failed.

 

[dianaiad]

I have been on call in my work and my family is out of state today…Christmas Day…

The New Testament Letter to the Hebrews 1: In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all the things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God every say : You are my son; this day I have begotten you’? Or again: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me?” Or again: I wil be a father to him and he shall be a son to me’?

I read Anna’s post #89…how she entered Mormonism and then later found out in detail all the beliefs they truly believed in. I did some initial study of Mormonism on my own and got impressions of bait and switch.

I would like to also know from Mr Fades if Mormons believe differently than what they first profess to believe…they lead people in, have them do these oaths, and then be told a number of things so contrary to faith in Christ…

It seems there is so much secrecy to Mormonism that contradicts the open and public and complete revelation of Jesus.

Kathleen…I love this scripture, most especially because some people who aren’t paying attention actually use it to try to prove that there can be no prophets after Christ. Given that we have NOTHING from Jesus Himself, and that everything we have of Him comes through His apostles and prophets, (including the very scripture you are quoting here) interpreting it this way is one of the biggest and most insoluble contradictions around.

As to your question…no. I was a missionary, and I grew up in the church. I didn’t teach anything I don’t believe, and I didn’t keep secrets. There really aren’t any, no matter how much the critics want to claim that there are.

 

[Marie5890]

(Curious observation on my part here)

When someone is out to disprove the belief system of another, they will implore reason (intellect) as to why that system is false or weak…

When someone is out to demonstrate that their belief system is true…they implore and use whatever they deem has been their experience with the Holy Spirit as anecdotal evidence…

And it’s obvious there are definitely different interpretations of scriptures…
And alligences to faith traditions and former ecclesial leaders…

No wonder there are such deep divisions and lack of Christian unity…

I think of Archbishop Fulton Sheen comment…"“It is not a unity of religion we seek but a union of religious people. We may not be able to meet in the same pew, but we can meet together on our knees as Christians.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Secrets…aren’t certain ceremonies closed to non Mormons…or let’s say if a couple marries but the parents are not, then they cannot attend the wedding?

Hebrew…Melchizedek…God speaking to us in partial ways…to be fulfilled in Christ, fullness of revelation.

Melchizedek was a figure in ancient times…very exalted…and then we have the Levites, faithful to the Lord in time of trial…

But Jesus is the High Priest of Melchizedek…above him, no matter how exalted, and Christ is now the source of the new order of priesthood…

The priests of the Levites were not functioning the duties of a priest today…The priest today administrates power from God…to transmit the presence of Jesus to the sacraments, and to preside over the assembly, and to administrate the sacraments…all bearing the presence of Jesus to His people. And this new life is exalted above that of Melchizedek, no longer one sole figure in times that were obscure or partial…but in this open and public revelation of Christ…

Christ is the fulfillment of all things, the Alpha and the Omega.

I was a lay missionary for my archdiocese many years ago, and part of the teaching of it to me was that I worked with foreign priests and religious.

 

[Jay53]

That was not the question being discussed. The question was whether the priest actually performs a sacrifice or not; and if so what is that sacrifice.

The Eucharist is most certainly being discussed.

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist just as He commanded us at the Last Supper.

Was that what you wanted to know? Perhaps I made it more complicated than it needed to be.

 

[zerinus]

The Eucharist is most certainly being discussed.

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist just as He commanded us at the Last Supper.

Was that what you wanted to know? Perhaps I made it more complicated than it needed to be.

You haven’t made it more complicated; you have missed the discussion altogether! This aspect of the discussion began when somebody said that Mormonism does not have the genuine priesthood because it does not offer a sacrifice. Then I explained that Catholics regard the Mass as a sacrifice, which we don’t agree with, and explained why.

 

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus,

You have your priesthood…

I just wish you knew more about the origins of liturgy because as stated earlier, that is how believers have professed our faith…and in so much diversity, and this work to maintain the same message for all people…it is continual and constant work…just as the need to repent, reform and renew…it happens to us individually and as a parish, diocese, and the whole Church.

I am not learned enough. I wish we could get some scholar on who could explain the nature and mission of the Catholic Church…it is a sacrament as well, a mystical body, alive.

The liturgy is my favorite study…finally having the time after 11 years…Dr Hahn said it is so typical of Western Catholics to come into liturgy last when with the ancient Jews, liturgy was the center of their daily life.

The Mass is tremendous…Catholic RCIA already shared some…

Ordinary elements of every day life now becoming the means of new life with Jesus Christ through the power of the Mass with the priest…there is a new world out there that is so fulfilling … may be that is why we are not so concerned beyond what we already have for 2,000 years…and our continue talk with you … it is a desire for you to see that which has already been here.

 

[Jay53]

You haven’t made it more complicated; you have missed the discussion altogether! This aspect of the discussion began when somebody said that Mormonism does not have the genuine priesthood because it does not offer a sacrifice. Then I explained that Catholics regard the Mass as a sacrifice, which we don’t agree with, and explained why.

I haven’t missed the discussion. I just went back and reread the posts regarding this.

You said:

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.

To which SteveVH replied:

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.

And I have added:

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist just as He commanded us at the Last Supper.

The Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was once for all time. The Mass is our participation in that same Sacrifice. It transcends time and space.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous in your questions! I think I have tried to help as much as I can. Perhaps someone else would like to engage in this discussion with you.