How to deal with objections to transsubstantiation

[Kristina_P]

I’m a Protestant investigating the claims of the Catholic church (honestly looking for the truth, not a fight), and I’ve run across some Protestant objections (from www.carm.org/catholic) to the doctrine of transsubstantiation that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere. They are these:

1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.
   Now, I know that the Church can claim that the early church fathers believed in transsubstantiation, but why no New Testament mention of worshiping the elements?
2. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.
   How can Christ give his disciples his real body and blood before he has actually sacrificed himself?
3. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
   Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?
4. It is a violation of the Incarnation.
   Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.
5. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
   I’ll just quote the guy here: “In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.”
   How does the Catholic Church counter these arguments? The author of the website writes as though there are no counters, but I just can’t imagine that with a 2,000 year history, the Church has never dealt with this.

 

[SummaTheo]

Kristina P.:

I’m a Protestant investigating the claims of the Catholic church (honestly looking for the truth, not a fight), and I’ve run across some Protestant objections (from www.carm.org/catholic) to the doctrine of transsubstantiation that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere. They are these:

1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.
   Now, I know that the Church can claim that the early church fathers believed in transsubstantiation, but why no New Testament mention of worshiping the elements?
2. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.
   How can Christ give his disciples his real body and blood before he has actually sacrificed himself?
3. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
   Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?
4. It is a violation of the Incarnation.
   Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.
5. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
   I’ll just quote the guy here: “In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.”
   How does the Catholic Church counter these arguments? The author of the website writes as though there are no counters, but I just can’t imagine that with a 2,000 year history, the Church has never dealt with this.

John 6:51 - I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

John 6:53 - So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

John 6:54 - he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55 - For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

 

[Kristina_P]

SummaTheo:

John 6:51 - I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

John 6:53 - So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

John 6:54 - he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55 - For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

The quoting of these scriptures doesn’t address the questions I raised. Surely you’re aware that Protestants interpret these verses as figurative. I was bringing up various arguments defending this interpretation. I would very much like a refutation of those arguments.

 

[Della]

Kristina P.:

I’m a Protestant investigating the claims of the Catholic church (honestly looking for the truth, not a fight), and I’ve run across some Protestant objections (from www.carm.org/catholic) to the doctrine of transsubstantiation that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere. They are these:

1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.
   Now, I know that the Church can claim that the early church fathers believed in transsubstantiation, but why no New Testament mention of worshiping the elements?

While no mention is made of worshipping the consecrated bread, Paul tells in us 1 Cor. 11:27 that those who eat and drink the body and blood of Christ unworthily are “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” If communion isn’t the body and blood of the Lord, why would Paul give us such a warning?
2. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.
How can Christ give his disciples his real body and blood before he has actually sacrificed himself?

You forget that the Bible says that Christ was crucified before the foundations of the world. God is not limited to our understanding of time and space. Jesus’ offering his body and blood before his actual sacrifice should make us believe all the more, knowing that he understood his sacrifice to be an eternal one, not one stuck in time.

1. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
   Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?

Christ present in the Eucharist is the risen Christ. The bread and the wine retain the appearance of bread and wine that remains the same to our 5 senses, but the substance has truly become the body and blood of the risen Christ.

1. It is a violation of the Incarnation.
   Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.

This makes Jesus a prisoner of time, as if God cannot do what he wants when he wants and how he wants. Is God omnipotent or not? We receive the risen Christ in the Eucharist, the same risen Christ that passed through locked doors and ascended into heaven not merely a human body like yours or mine.

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
   I’ll just quote the guy here: “In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.”

This is simply false. The Eucharist is not a “reenactment” nor a “sacrifice of Christ per Mass”, so the rest of the argument is based on nothing. The Eucharist is the re-presenting of the one sacrifice of Christ which is eternal and exists outside of time. If it didn’t no one beyond the day he died on the cross could possibly draw on his sacrifice. Once again this argument tells us that God is limited to time and space and we know that isn’t the case.

How does the Catholic Church counter these arguments? The author of the website writes as though there are no counters, but I just can’t imagine that with a 2,000 year history, the Church has never dealt with this.

You’re right, the Church has countered all these arguments practically from day one. There is nothing new under the sun here, but the same old tired arguments trotted out as new to make yet another generation of Christians doubt that the Eucharist truly is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

 

[Fidelis]

Kristina P.:

1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.

The answer to this is to shed your reliance on the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura–the false teaching that everything we believe as Christians must be explicitly in Scripture. After this you can see that, just because the Bible doesn’t describe the early Christians doing something, doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. Most of the things they wrote down were in response to some crisis or erroneous teaching going around. The fact they didn’t write about eucharistic devotion may only mean it wasn’t an issue at that time. On the other hand, if they wrote that it was prohibited, we could not do it. As it stands, they are silent on the issue.

1. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.
   How can Christ give his disciples his real body and blood before he has actually sacrificed himself?

The same way he, as God. could maintain the universe and walk the earth at the same time. Jesus is God, never stopped being God, and as God, he is outside of time and space and not restricted by either.

1. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
   Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?

See the last question on this page:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505qq.asp

1. It is a violation of the Incarnation.
   Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.

Same answer as to question #2 above.

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
   .

The short answer is that Jesus is, according to Hebrews, High Priest forever. As a priest he has to have something to offer forever, or he is not a priest–he is an ex-priest. So what sacrifice does he offer? He offers perpetually the same one he offered once and for all at Calvary. This is the re-presentation of his sacrifice that we participate in at Mass, as we --every Christian ever–are also a nation of priests (1 Peter 2:9) and we have to offer a sacrifice as well.

The long answer can be found here:
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp

Hope that helps.

 

[Pax]

In Hebrews 5:6 Jesus is referred to as our high priest. The verse says, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
This same statement occurs again in the course of instruction in Hebrews Chapter 7. Then in Hebrews 7:22-26 there is an explanation of the priesthood of Jesus that is pertinent to the questions asked by the members of CARM. The passage says, "This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever.
Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus appears as “a lamb that has been slain” and He stands before the throne in heaven. Jesus is referred to as the lamb over thirty times in the book of Revelation. He is the eternal sacrifice and His glorified body will forever bear the marks of the crucifixion. The entire book of Revelation has a sacrificial and liturgical character.

Finally, tie all of this and everything else you know about the Eucharist and the mass to this verse of scripture. It is a prophecy and the only thing that conceivably fulfills it, is the mass and the Eucharist.

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

Now we know this is a prophecy because before the resurrection the Lord’s name was not great among the nations. Moreover, the only pure or perfect offering made to the Father is Jesus himself. In the Catholic mass we have the pure offering to the Father and the mass is being offered every day from the rising to the setting of the sun throughout the nations.

I hope this helps.

 

[adstrinity]

IF God can become man, God can become bread, while also still man. Do not limit God.

 

[Kristina_P]

Thanks for the help. I knew there had to be answers to those objections, but I just couldn’t find them. You folks here are great. Hope you don’t mind my “trotting out old heresies” in my search for the truth. I’ve got to be ready to answer all the Baptists in my family, including a brother-in-law who’s a pastor, before I try to explain to them why I’m enrolling in RCIA classes.

 

[sweetchuck]

Kristina P.:

Thanks for the help. I knew there had to be answers to those objections, but I just couldn’t find them. You folks here are great. Hope you don’t mind my “trotting out old heresies” in my search for the truth. I’ve got to be ready to answer all the Baptists in my family, including a brother-in-law who’s a pastor, before I try to explain to them why I’m enrolling in RCIA classes.

Good for you! I hope you always find charity and clarity here.

 

[Pax]

The issue of cannabalism is an interesting one. The Romans accused the early Christians of cannablism because of the Eucharist. I believe the historical record refers to Pliny the Younger reporting this to the emperor.

In the discourse on the bread of life in John 6, Jesus is clear in his words and the disciples that left understood him to mean his literal flesh and blood. Now suppose that at the time of the discourse the disciples killed Jesus and consumed his flesh. That would be a clear case of cannablism, and would not have given the disciples eternal life. Scripture makes it clear over time, particularly through the Last Supper, that Jesus is making a covenant oath in which he will sacramentally give himself to us. Cannabalism simply isn’t part of the equation. Moreover, it is Jesus who instituted this great blessing for us.

The Jews were greatly put off when Jesus proclaimed and then demonstrated that He had the power to forgive sins. Jewish condemnations of Jesus were plentiful. Attempting to use a Jewish prohibition concerning cannabalism against Jesus very real institution of the Eucharist falls by the same standard.

 

[Michael_s_Sword]

Kristina P.:

The quoting of these scriptures doesn’t address the questions I raised. Surely you’re aware that Protestants interpret these verses as figurative. I was bringing up various arguments defending this interpretation. I would very much like a refutation of those arguments.

Let me take this use of John 6 a bit further. In John 6:60 we read: "Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Now if Jesus was speaking figuratively why would this teaching be hard? What is hard about a** figurative** eating of flesh and drinking of blood?

Finally, to answer your concern about New Testament evidence for Eucharist. Refer to 1 Corinthians 11 where we read:* “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself”.

*Note especially the part about discerning the body.

I hope this has been helpful.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t worry about it.

The Real Presence is a bit like a “joke” in that I think you either “get it” or you don’t. If it has to be explained it just isn’t the same.

They can say whatever they want, and I simply say, “that’s an interesting point, although we do believe in the Real Presence.”

To cannabalism charge, I understand that Christ kind of freaked out the disciples the first time they heard this, because cannabalism and especially drinking blood (consider “life” and therefore should never be drunk) was absolutely an apalling idea. Instead of explaining this is all symbolic, he went on to say the rest of the stuff we all know.

They can say what they want about cannabalism, and that puts them into communion with the disciples, just before they received the First Holy Communion. If they insist on their point of view, I let them hold it. I know what I believe, and from their point of view (and in their Church) they don’t have to worry about the Real Presence so it’s hard to blame them for being defensive about it.

So since they are in communion with the disciples just before their First Communion by wondering what it all means, then perhaps we can invite them to RCIA where they can advance to the next step and be in communion with Christ and His disciples right after the Last Supper instead of right before.

Alan

 

[mercygate]

Kristina P.:

Thanks for the help. I knew there had to be answers to those objections, but I just couldn’t find them. You folks here are great. Hope you don’t mind my “trotting out old heresies” in my search for the truth. I’ve got to be ready to answer all the Baptists in my family, including a brother-in-law who’s a pastor, before I try to explain to them why I’m enrolling in RCIA classes.

HOly Cow! You’re certainly taking on a giant task! God bless you.

Whenever I encounter objections to John 6, I look at this part:

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Throughout the passage up to this point Jesus has referred to “my flesh” while here he refers to “the flesh” – so he is changing the emphasis here to the Resurrection flesh which is enlivened by “the Spirit.” But the critical point is that when Jesus sees many of his disciples “drawing back,” he asks the twelve if they want to go away. Peter answers “we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” He does not say: “Righty-o! Transubstantiation is cool. What idiot wouldn’t understand that?” He says: "we have believed."

Catholics are often accused of not having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” But to my mind, belief in the Real Presence can come from nothing else but a personal relationship with Christ because it requires total trust in his words. A friend once observed that people who don’t believe in the Real Presence don’t have a problem with Scripture, they have a problem with reason. They hold the observation of their own sense perception and their own rational experience above the words of Jesus.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mercygate:

Catholics are often accused of not having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” But to my mind, belief in the Real Presence can come from nothing else but a personal relationship with Christ because it requires total trust in his words. A friend once observed that people who don’t believe in the Real Presence don’t have a problem with Scripture, they have a problem with reason. They hold the observation of their own sense perception and their own rational experience above the words of Jesus.

Also we hear the saying “we are what we eat.” This is true, though we obviously have different outward form than most of the things we eat.

Guess Who we become transformed into, when we eat His flesh and drink His blood? How much more personal could one ask for, than to be incrementally transformed into Him? That sounds even more intimate than most marriages.

Alan

 

[sandusky]

Della:

While no mention is made of worshipping the consecrated bread, Paul tells in us 1 Cor. 11:27 that those who eat and drink the body and blood of Christ unworthily are “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” If communion isn’t the body and blood of the Lord, why would Paul give us such a warning?

Similar warnings are given in Heb 6:6 and Heb 10:29. It is not necessary for the body and blood of Christ to be physically present in order for one to either crucify it, or trample it under foot. By the same token, it is also murder just by thinking and speaking angrily to someone (Mt 5:21); and it is also adultery to look with lust (Mt 5:28). 1 Cor 11 does not prove transubstantiation.

Della:

You forget that the Bible says that Christ was crucified before the foundations of the world. God is not limited to our understanding of time and space. Jesus’ offering his body and blood before his actual sacrifice should make us believe all the more, knowing that he understood his sacrifice to be an eternal one, not one stuck in time.

Yes, but the essential aspect of the sacrifice is that it must take place and be completed in time for it to be understood, and for it to have its intended effect. If Christ is crucified only in eternity, what value is it? Christ entered time so that His sacrifice could be applied. Scripture is also clear that God determined in eternity those He would save, but what value is that salvation if it is not realized in time?

KristinaP:

The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?

Yes Kristina, Acts 15 and elsewhere, run it down.

KristinaP:

It is a violation of the Incarnation.
Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.

Yes again. Jesus is not a prisoner of anything; He willingly took flesh upon Himself (Jn1), and He went to the Cross joyfully (Heb 12); He gave His life, no one took it from Him (Jn 10:18). He is not a prisoner.

KristinaP:

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
   I’ll just quote the guy here: “In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.”

To the above quote Della says:

Della:

This is simply false. The Eucharist is not a “reenactment” nor a “sacrifice of Christ per Mass”, so the rest of the argument is based on nothing. The Eucharist is the re-presenting of the one sacrifice of Christ which is eternal and exists outside of time. If it didn’t no one beyond the day he died on the cross could possibly draw on his sacrifice. Once again this argument tells us that God is limited to time and space and we know that isn’t the case.

Read your church documents. The mass is indeed a sacrifice. A re-presenting of the one sacrifice, those are your own words, Della. A sacrifice re-presented is still a sacrifice—A rose by any other name, is still a rose.

 

[ElizabethJoy]

Kristina P.:

I’ve run across some Protestant objections (from www.carm.org/catholic) to the doctrine of transsubstantiation that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere.

Just a word of warning - that site is anti-Catholic - they misstate Catholic doctrine in many places.

1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.

There is indication in the New Testament as to the importance of the Eucharist, but it can be more subtle than in the early church fathers’ writings. That list of scriptures contains some of the firmer NT citations as to the meaning of the Eucharist.

“Is this not the body of Christ in which we participate? Is it not the blood?” You have to ponder this type of passage carefully, especially if you are a Christian who desires to understand and believe what Jesus said about the Eucharist.

Any one citation is not “proof,” but taken in their aggregate, they add up to much more than, “Please symbolically break bread and share wine to remember me.”

1. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was to be the new Paschal lamb even before the covenant with Abraham.

How did he do that, before he even died? How does he do that now - becoming physically present all over the earth at the same time? I will have faith that it is exactly as He said it was and would be, “lo, to the end of the age.”

1. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.

The Levitical law was overwritten at the Incarnation of the Word - we are not under Levitical law.

In order for the mass to be a ‘cannabalistic’ ritual, it would require that a victim be murdered and sacrificed at each mass. Christ is not re-crucified and killed again at every mass - He returns to us, risen, under the mundane appearances of bread and wine.

And the Levitical prohibitions regarding blood were directed at the pagan rituals in which people drank the blood of a lion while alive, for instance, so that they would supernaturally take on the characteristics of a lion.

There is a very good explanation by Tim Staples here:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/nutsandbolts.html

Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent.

Man, of course, cannot be omnipresent. But God can do whatever He wishes - and Jesus Christ was and is and always will be fully God.

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.

This is just one example of how “off” that carm site is. The mass is a non-bloody sacrifice, not only a remembrance of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, but also a sacrifice and gift of ourselves to Him. We offer ourselves during mass - we place our whole selves upon the altar and ask to be united to Christ when we receive Him.

The priest asks that our sacrifice be pleasing to God as the bread and wine become the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Savior. We might not see any difference in the hosts - we may not feel any emotional reactions - but we know that the miracle has occurred because Christ promised us that it would.

The author of the website writes as though there are no counters, but I just can’t imagine that with a 2,000 year history, the Church has never dealt with this.

You are quite right.

I rest on the knowledge that the Church has been guided through a terrible maze of accusations, sinful clergy, indifferentism, liberalism and schisms. It’s still teaching the same things that Jesus taught.

Jesus told us that His Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth. Truth does not change with the times or shift with popularity polls. Many left Jesus’ company and followed Him no more when Jesus told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but He didn’t change his teaching. He held fast.

The Church stands fast, today - no matter how many fall away, become lukewarm, turn away from her teachings.

God bless you as you enter RCIA - remember that it’s a time of inquiry and discernment. If you read Rome Sweet Home or Surprised By Truth, you’ll see that you’re in very good company on what can be a difficult struggle.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

Yes, but the essential aspect of the sacrifice is that it must take place and be completed in time for it to be understood, and for it to have its intended effect. If Christ is crucified only in eternity, what value is it? Christ entered time so that His sacrifice could be applied. Scripture is also clear that God determined in eternity those He would save, but what value is that salvation if it is not realized in time?

Catholics do not challenge this statement.

Read your church documents. The mass is indeed a sacrifice. A re-presenting of the one sacrifice, those are your own words, Della. A sacrifice re-presented is still a sacrifice—A rose by any other name, is still a rose.

Yes, kaycee, you are correct: The Mass absolutely is a sacrifice. *The *Sacrifice. The term “re-presentation” might better be expressed in another way. The Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is ONE. Once for all. The Mass, as it were, penetrates the veil of eternity and participates in that very Sacrifice. The Mass does not continually re-sacrifice the Lord, it enters into the One perfect Sacrifice.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

The Mass does not continually re-sacrifice the Lord, it enters into the One perfect Sacrifice.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

mercygate:

Catholics do not challenge this statement.
Yes, kaycee, you are correct: The Mass absolutely is a sacrifice. *The *Sacrifice. The term “re-presentation” might better be expressed in another way. The Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is ONE. Once for all. The Mass, as it were, penetrates the veil of eternity and participates in that very Sacrifice. The Mass does not continually re-sacrifice the Lord, it enters into the One perfect Sacrifice.

As an former calvinist I must say I was always annoyed when they had communiion I particularly enjoyed missionary sunday when you had your choice of bread. (Not to mention wine or grape juice).I am so glad to be cath. in family of calvinist. Is it not so special and fullfiling to think Christ is here and in me. The occasional weekday mass I can catch is great. God exist outside of time and space. It was created by HIM and not HE is subject to it.

 

[Kristina_P]

sandusky:

Similar warnings are given in Heb 6:6 and Heb 10:29. It is not necessary for the body and blood of Christ to be physically present in order for one to either crucify it, or trample it under foot. By the same token, it is also murder just by thinking and speaking angrily to someone (Mt 5:21); and it is also adultery to look with lust (Mt 5:28). 1 Cor 11 does not prove transubstantiation.

Both Heb. 6:6 and Heb. 10:29 easily could be read in light of the Eucharist:
Heb. 6:4-5: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, **who have tasted the heavenly gift **, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age…” Granted, you might say that this "heavenly gift’ is just stating “the goodness of the word of God” in different words, but one isn’t required to read it that way.
Heb. 10:29: “How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” Interestingly enough, this passage also strongly supports the Catholic view of salvation.