How do respond to accusations that we resacrifice Christ?

[Trebor135]

Any person making this accusation is not a Christian. Why do I say that? Because they are either denying Christ’s omnipotence (saying that the priest can drag Christ out of heaven against his will), or denying that scripture is true (saying that Christ volunteers to be sacrificed multiple times).

Just answer that you are shocked, shocked! that this person denies these fundamental Christian truths.

But the Protestant would be tarring the faith of his Catholic interlocutor as teaching against the omnipotence of Jesus or the inspiration of Scripture, rather than advocating such notions from his own side.

 

[snarflemike]

But the Protestant would be tarring the faith of his Catholic interlocutor as teaching against the omnipotence of Jesus or the inspiration of Scripture, rather than advocating such notions from his own side.

No, because we do not claim to be re-sacrificing Christ. We are very clear that this is NOT what is happening, in our belief.

So our belief is in accordance with scripture (one sacrifice) but his accusation is outside of scripture and Christian belief.

This would not be a problem if the Protestant wasn’t so determined to slander the Church, or to misunderstand it. If the matter were simply put as a question (“How is the mass not a re-sacrificing of Christ?”) then the question could be answered. Or even if made as a claim about what we believe (“Catholics claim to re-sacrifice Christ in the mass!”) this could easily be answered. But when it is made as a charge (“Catholics re-sacrifice Christ in the mass!”) then it becomes a statement which denies fundamental Christian beliefs.

I have discovered a similar pattern with many Protestant accusations against the Church. If the accuser actually believes the charge he levels at the Catholic Church, he is denying some fundamental Christian belief, usually in regards to God’s omnipotence, or his omnibenevolence.

 

[Trebor135]

No, because we do not claim to be re-sacrificing Christ. We are very clear that this is NOT what is happening, in our belief.

Right. That’s why I used the word “tarred”–i.e., “misrepresented” or “caricatured”.

So our belief is in accordance with scripture (one sacrifice) but his accusation is outside of scripture and Christian belief.

But the Protestant wouldn’t actually believe that Catholic priests are able to resacrifice Christ, since he would probably deny even the real presence. (Reformed Baptist apologist James White, for instance, makes this charge, and he believes in a purely symbolic Lord’s Supper.)

This would not be a problem if the Protestant wasn’t so determined to slander the Church, or to misunderstand it. If the matter were simply put as a question (“How is the mass not a re-sacrificing of Christ?”) then the question could be answered. Or even if made as a claim about what we believe (“Catholics claim to re-sacrifice Christ in the mass!”) this could easily be answered.

Right.

But when it is made as a charge (“Catholics re-sacrifice Christ in the mass!”) then it becomes a statement which denies fundamental Christian beliefs.

I have discovered a similar pattern with many Protestant accusations against the Church. If the accuser actually believes the charge he levels at the Catholic Church, he is denying some fundamental Christian belief, usually in regards to God’s omnipotence, or his omnibenevolence.

I would still maintain that the Protestant would be using shorthand: if he says “Catholics re-sacrifice Christ in the mass!”, he in fact means “Catholics [believe/claim/teach that they] re-sacrifice Christ in the mass!”

 

[Patavium]

You may want to see this

catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ

 

[smp501]

Thanks everybody! When I asked him where he go this idea, he pulled up a quote by John Piper, a very popular writer/preacher/Reformed theologian.

 

[Patavium]

Thanks everybody! When I asked him where he go this idea, he pulled up a quote by John Piper, a very popular writer/preacher/Reformed theologian.

Yes…

I wouldn’t pay attention to John Piper. He is an educated man, but likes to undermine facts such as the History of the Church, and also likes to offer affirmative statements about distorted Catholic practice without proper proof.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks everybody! When I asked him where he go this idea, he pulled up a quote by John Piper, a very popular writer/preacher/Reformed theologian.

Yes, as Patavium pointed out, our good Mr. Piper has sort of ignored the Church Fathers.

Take St. Ignatius of Antioch. “Iggy” was the bishop of Antioch for some 40 odd years and in circa 107AD he wrote of the Eucharist:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again” - Epistle to Smyrnaeans

Now, let’s examine St. Ignatius a little further. He is said to have known St. Peter and was a disciple of the Apostle John for some time. Well, you’ve got to imagine that at least once during his time with John, Ignatius probably asked, “What exactly did Jesus mean when He gave His Bread of Life Discourse (John 6)?” I would think that Ignatius would know more about what John wrote than just about anybody in ancient times (that we have the writings of).

So, who are you going to trust? Someone who lived during the Apostolic Times, who knew the culture, who knew the language, who knew the very people that wrote many of the Books of the New Testament? Or are you going to trust someone 1900 years later, who doesn’t know any of those things that Ignatius knew?

There is a very good reason that Catholic read the Church Fathers and an extremely good reason why many Protestant DON’T.