How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[Cinette]

*Tom! I was preparing to answer brkn1 when I saw your posting. This is exactly the correct answer. It is so good. Thank you Tom and brkn1 I hope you will take the time to carefully read Tom’s response and contemplate it.

God love you all
Cinette:thumbsup:*

 

[shawn38]

Was the upper room transformed into the heavenly true tabernacle by Jesus’s presence when He appeared to His disciples?

I would say “No” because it was man made. However, to be consistent with Hebrews, those subscibing to “real presence” would have to think yes.

But this introduces yet another problem: Hebrews 7:13

"For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar "

Paul wrote this around 68 AD (35+ years after Christ) and therefore, it would seem to rule out any New Testament priestly caste apart from the priesthood of all believers.

With no priest serving at the alter, no sacrifices were being made. We know that they broke bread together, but breaking bread does not have to involve a sacrifice… How is this reconciled?

 

[Cinette]

I disagree with the immaculate conception, but Mary was not concieved by the Holy Spirit, only protected from the affliction of original sin. She was still concieved naturally. If I’m wrong, correct me.

*Luke 1:35 "The Angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

and you think that Jesus was conceived “naturally” - NOT* supernaturally?

Hmmmm!

 

[shawn38]

No, the priest is not “transubstantiated.” As a passage from the part of the Catechism that you cited states:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents.

We recognize through faith that the Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist because that reality is not visible. So the Eucharist does not “represent” Christ as a priest represents Christ.’

God Bless,
Michael

The effectiveness of the sacrifice is equally dependent on two criteria: 1) the purity of the priest who ministers, and 2) the purity of the blood being offered. Christ was Himself the perfect High Priest and the perfect sacrifice:

“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.” (Hebrews 7:26)
“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God…” (Hebrews 9:14)

Christ offered Himself (Heb 9:14, Heb 7:27, Eph 5:2)

Is the Catholic priest presumed to be sinless? If not, how can a priest offer a Mass sacrifice that is capable of removing sin? I argue that he can’t and Heb 7:13 seems to confirm that:

"For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar " (Hebrews 7:13)

Written by Paul 35+ years after Christ’s ascension.

 

[shawn38]

*Luke 1:35 "The Angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

and you think that Jesus was conceived “naturally” - NOT* supernaturally?

Hmmmm!

Hmmmm! That relates to the birth of Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary! Read the post I responded too and you will see what I’m referencing. This is off topic anyway.

 

[Cinette]

Hmmmm! That relates to the birth of Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary! Read the post I responded too and you will see what I’m referencing. This is off topic anyway.

LOL!

*Oh Man! How embarrassing !!!

We women are so proud of the fact that we multi-task and that men are so ga! ga! (sometimes) because they can only do one thing at a time and now I have really gone overboard!! You won’t believe how many things I am doing at the same time! Dinner - recording something on EWTN, knitting, downloading email, answering the thread and I have just taken my hormone (which I should have taken this morning)

LOL!* Thank goodness you can’t see and don’t know my real name! Sorry girls - I have let you down.

Cinette:extrahappy::extrahappy:

 

[KathleenGee]

Shawn,

You can give us Bible quotes, and we can give you Bible quotes, and things go round and round.

I am sure you do Not believe that the Bible has wings of its own and flies over human creation and where it goes, only the Spirit knows. My personal take is that when you take the Bible out of context of authority of those chosen to properly interpret it, consecrated souls, and have any person make themselves authority over the Word of God, and then use it to defame and abuse its very own words, ‘This is my Body…This is my Blood’…then the Bible is being used to abuse its very self.

Or if it is used to put down or invalidate the faith of people living on the Word of God and the sacraments, then the bible is being used as a tool of ignorance and bias to persecute true believers.

We don’t want to ever use the Bible to malign people or to use it as one upmanship by how many Bible verses you can identify by the author or number of passages literally remembered and able to recite…

The Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. And we have to think how much time we want to spend using Him to make our point.

You can’t separate the Word of God from its believers. So many people and so many different regions…you have to have a common denominator of understanding the Word that will unite us and make us a universal church. So you have to have Church administrators to ensure that the Word of God is interpreted, understood and implemented the way the Apostles intended drawing from living with Jesus for 3.5 years, and drawing from Him the Oral Tradition.

So to get an idea of the Church, and to also see that we are living in the time of the Great Apostasy, I am now referring people on CAF to www.Bibleprobe.com. Here the person who runs the site, an Arab Christian who has attended Catholic school, has actual experience living among Muslims, has been affected by all the different non-denominational Christian communities that are always opposing the Catholic Church, I would recommend you, and others to come here.

I went back to it today, after being away for a few years. I note now that there are reference to the sacraments. You should read the testimony of St. Perpetua and St. Felicity in the ‘Martyrs’ and ‘Catacombs’. Incredible…the testimony is like being there…it was written by St. Perpetua herself. And she believed in the Eucharist.

 

[KathleenGee]

I just read another thread this am that touches on the need for chosen, consecrated souls to propagate the true message of Jesus.

Distracted brought up a thread this am, 'Fr Mass Readings/Commentary (Early Church deals with a problem…)

Same problem as today…

 

[distracted]

sadly i think that ALL of us deny Jesus in the Eucharist… when we are… well, distracted…

When we take Communion sometimes we are thinking of everything but Jesus… or virtually everhting but Him anyhow… what we are going to do after mass, who we are goingto see after Mass… what team is going to win the ball game… is my hair combed properly… am i getting fat…? whats that so and so [world leader] doing today to tick me off… etc…

 

[mikeledes]

I would say “No” because it was man made. However, to be consistent with Hebrews, those subscibing to “real presence” would have to think yes.

But this introduces yet another problem: Hebrews 7:13

"For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar "

Paul wrote this around 68 AD (35+ years after Christ) and therefore, it would seem to rule out any New Testament priestly caste apart from the priesthood of all believers.

With no priest serving at the alter, no sacrifices were being made. We know that they broke bread together, but breaking bread does not have to involve a sacrifice… How is this reconciled?

If what you say is correct, then every place Christ was present became a heavenly tabernacle.

And I don’t see how Hebrews 7:13, which simply states that Christ did not come out of the tribe of Levi, has anything to do with the Mass.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The effectiveness of the sacrifice is equally dependent on two criteria: 1) the purity of the priest who ministers, and 2) the purity of the blood being offered. Christ was Himself the perfect High Priest and the perfect sacrifice:

“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.” (Hebrews 7:26)
“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God…” (Hebrews 9:14)

Christ offered Himself (Heb 9:14, Heb 7:27, Eph 5:2)

Is the Catholic priest presumed to be sinless? If not, how can a priest offer a Mass sacrifice that is capable of removing sin? I argue that he can’t and Heb 7:13 seems to confirm that:

"For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar " (Hebrews 7:13)

Written by Paul 35+ years after Christ’s ascension.

Because the one offering the Eucharist is Christ. Secondly, the effects of the Mass are an application of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

This is technically a distinct from the subject of this thread.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Laura15]

sadly i think that ALL of us deny Jesus in the Eucharist… when we are… well, distracted…

When we take Communion sometimes we are thinking of everything but Jesus… or virtually everhting but Him anyhow… what we are going to do after mass, who we are goingto see after Mass… what team is going to win the ball game… is my hair combed properly… am i getting fat…? whats that so and so [world leader] doing today to tick me off… etc…

Exactly!
I sit in the pew and think “Wow that is a really good looking guy over there” “Is my skirt crooked?” It happens! All those thoughts start crowding your mind and you don’t see the picture. Sometimes I have to imagine a little cartoon figure of me pushing this big pile of junk right out of the door (which would be my brain) and then focus on the Eucharist, the cross, the priest, or whatever is going on because I’m was to *distracted *to notice.
.

 

[mikeledes]

“Bread” is not the metaphor. The “metaphor” is the entire comparison. “Bread” is one of the terms of the metaphor.

But in the sentence “I am the Bread of Life,” which word is the “figure.” The words “I” is not the figure because it is literal (i.e. Jesus). What is figurative is the “bread.”

No. The only literal statement in this regard that could be true is that he is “The Son of Mary” (apologies to Joseph)

And Mary was not human? Son of Man, Larkin, means exactly what it says. He is the son of a human, he possesses a human nature.

I highly doubt that he was advocating cannibalism.

He was advocating the Real Presence.

My point was to demonstrate that your claim that his pattern was non-literal to literal was incorrect even for this one scene

.

In a sentence like “I am the Vine”, you know which word is the figure and which word is not. The pronoun “I” is not the figure because that refers to Christ, who real exists. My point is that Christ reveals the meaning of the figurative language. He reveals that the figure “flesh” symbolizes His flesh. That is pretty clear.

.

Your “hence” here is an unsubstantiated conclusion. I teach English, and there is no *requirement *that the two terms of a metaphorical claim cannot be non-literal. And I have shown how this is true here.

You don’t have to be an English teacher to know what word or phrase in a sentence is figurative and which word is its literal meaning.

Example:

Your skin is ivory.

Of these four words, which one is the figure and which one is its literal meaning? The word “ivory” is the figure and the word skin is its literal meaning.

So, this passage is literally about eating Christ’s flesh and NOT about imbibing divine spirit? I have asked you this twice, and you have not answered. Is this a recommendation for cannibalism?

The text nowhere talks about imbibing the Spirit because the text is about Christ. And this is not recommending cannibalism.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

And this “obvious reason” isn’t “odd”? You are simply trading an outrageously “odd” suggestion of cannibalism for the “odd” possibility that John (or other writer) had a motive in mind that may have stretched the actual words of what Jesus said about the act of Communion. John’s depiction of Jesus is quite different in ways from the rest of the gospels, and this phrasing puts even more pressure on his hearers to decide, Are they in or are they out? Will you eat Jesus, or will you not?

Jesus was not talking about cannibalism. But if Jesus was speaking figuratively and He was mistakenly taken literally, either He or John would have indicated that. Every “figure” in the Gospel of John can be identified as a “figure” because of what Jesus immediately says or John’s commentary. And yet this is the one case that neither Jesus nor John clearly indicate that He is speaking figuratively? The one instance in the gospels when something He said causes many of His disciples to leave? I highly doubt that.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Deacon_JAR]

PART I
Our Christian faith, which is ranked as the largest religion in the world today, was established approximately 2,000 years ago. During the first 1500 years the doctrine of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist was a cornerstone, an integral part of the Christian faith. Virtually all Christians accepted this belief as a deposit of faith. Schisms in the Christian Church took place during this period but the doctrine of the “Real Presence” was not the cause of these tribulations. Beginning Apologetics 3, pg.22, states, “All the Churches that broke away from the Catholic Church before the Reformation still believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Nestorians and Eutychians (who separated from the Catholic Church in the 5th century), as well as the Coptic (5th century), Armenian (5th century), and Orthodox (11th century) Churches-none of which has been in communion with Rome since then-still believe in the Real Presence. This demonstrate that the doctrine was part of the Christian deposit of faith…” This unity, this solidarity among the Christians came to an end with the arrival of the Reformation in 1517. The Reformation, the new schism in the Christian world, gave birth to a new belief, a new belief that rejected that cornerstone of our Christian faith. This new belief states that “the presence is symbolic, not real.”
Today, year 2010 of the Lord, almost 500 years after the arrival of the Reformation, the debate continues among Christian adherents: “Real Presence” V.S. symbolic presence. Those of us who hold this teaching and belief as “true” proclaim that the apostles and early Fathers of the Church guarded and passed this apostolic belief from one generation to the next. Therefore, this belief is a continuation of the apostolic teachings and traditions we received and have preserved from Jesus’ apostles and the early Fathers of the Church. Let’s go in pursuit of any historical evidence that can validate our position. The Christian Church was not even 65 years old when the last book in the Bible was written; Book of Revelation, 81-96A.D. Therefore, what other reliable sources does the Christian world have that will provide evidence of the teachings and traditions held by the early Christians after the 1st century? We must conclude that the writings of our early Church Fathers are the ONLY LINK we have to early Christianity.
The Constitution of the U.S.A., the “supreme law” in our country, provides the framework for the relationship of our federal government to the states, to citizens, and to all people within our country. Among the writers of our Constitution were: James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine. The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is the highest judicial body in the U.S.A. and consists of nine Justices. Its main function is to “interpret” our Constitution to determine the “constitutionality” of federal and state laws, and executive actions.
Imagine a debate concerning the interpretation of a specific “article” in our Constitution. On one side you have the Justices of our Supreme Court and on the other side you have: James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine. WHICH SIDE’S INTERPRETATION WOULD YOU CONSIDER MORE RELIABLE , AUTHORITATIVE?
Imagine a debate concerning the doctrine of the “Real Presence”. On one side you have the Fathers of the Reformation, who appeared on the face of the Earth 1,500 years after the foundation of the Christian Church. On the other side you have the early Fathers of the Church, who were 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generations of the first Christians. One of them heard St. John, the disciple “whom Jesus loved”, preach when he was a boy. They are the closest witnesses we have to the early years of the Church. WHICH SIDE’S INTERPRETATION WOULD YOU CONSIDER MORE RELIABLE , AUTHORITATIVE?

 

[Deacon_JAR]

PART II
LET US READ THE “DEPOSITIONS” WRITTEN BY OUR EARLY CHURCH FATHERS:
THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date. Ch. 9:5 states, ““Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME , 80 A.D.
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope. In his letter to the Corinthians he wrote, “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. Here are a few examples of his letters:

1. “Letter to the Smyrnaeans, paragraph 6.2, circa 80-110 A.D.: “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
2. “Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.: “Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”
3. “Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.: “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
4. “Epistle to the Philadelphians”, 3:2-4:1, circa 110 A.D.: “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walks about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
St. Justin Martyr was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions sometime between 163 and 167 A.D. Here are some of his writings:

1. “First Apology”, Ch. 66,20, inter A.D. 148-155: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

 

[Deacon_JAR]

PART III
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS
St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

1. “Against Heresies”, 5,2,2,180 A.D.: “[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
2. “Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.: “So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”
3. “Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.: “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
Cyril of Jerusalem was a distinguished deacon and theologian of the early Church (ca. 313– 386). He is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. In 1883, Cyril was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo XIII.
In the Catechetical Lectures: Mystagogic, , 350A.D. he wrote:

1. “He [Jesus] himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, ‘This is My Body,’ who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He himself has affirmed and said, ‘This is My Blood,’ who can ever hesitate and say it is not his Blood?” , 4,22,1.
2. “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.”, 4,22,6.

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.

1. “The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.: “The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”
2. “The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.: “The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!"

 

[Deacon_JAR]

PART IV
LETS READ THE DEPOSITION WRITTEN BY MARTIN LUTHER, “THE FATHER OF THE REFORMATION”:

“…of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such expression as, ‘It is simply bread and wine,’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread,’ or ‘Not that that the body of Christ is physically present,’ or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ’s body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side.” This is a quote from Martin Luther included in Luther’s Works, St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing, 1961, page 54.

The Father of the Reformation himself declares that the early Fathers of the Church UNANIMOUSLY taught the “Real Presence.”

CONCLUSION: I will like to conclude with a quote from Beginning Apologetics 3, pg. 22, “These early Fathers prove that early Christians firmly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Notice that St. Ignatius was personally instructed by St. John the Apostle. St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus each had direct contact with St. John’s disciples. These three men are first and second-generation disciples of the author of John 6! Who could be in better position to tell us whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively about the need to eat his body and drink his blood? No one. These witnesses are as close as we can get to the apostolic Church. Their testimony is irrefutable and unmistakable: the Christian Church believed in the Real Presence from the very beginning.”

SANCTUS, SANCTUS, SANCTUS ----HOLY, HOLY, HOLY----SANTO,SANTO,SANTO

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, great resources!

 

[shawn38]

Because the one offering the Eucharist is Christ. Secondly, the effects of the Mass are an application of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

This is technically a distinct from the subject of this thread.

God Bless,
Michael

CC solution to Hebrews 8:2 and Heb 9:24. The Sunday Missal explains a little better than the Catechism.

*“We offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice… Look with favor on these offerings and accept them… Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.”(Sunday Missal Prayerbook and Hymnal for 1994, pg. 27)

Catechism 1383 “We entreat you, almighty God, that by the hands of your holy Angel this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty, so that as we receive in communion at this altar the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.” *

The offering of Christ is now pictured to be presented on an altar in Heaven (as the Scriptures say it was), but now it is an angel who is offering the sacrifice. Thus, the sacrifice of the Mass introduces yet another error in that it is now an angel offering blood that is not his own to God repeatedly as a sacrifice for sins.

Which holy angel comes down from heaven to take the bread and wine to the heavenly true tabernacle to be transformed and brings it back down as the body and blood of Christ for consumption?