Is the veil torn in the catholic church?

[panevino]

just as Aaron was commanded by God to offer a sacrifice for his atonement and for the atonement of the children of Israel in the very presence of God, behind the veil, we as Christians now in the NT participate for our own atonement via the ONE and only sacrifice made through Jesus on the cross via the eucharist.

the veil was torn and this is clearly shown through the eucarist where we are able to approach this sacrifice and participate INDIVIDUALLY as part of the universal priesthood through the ministerial priesthood.
No longer is our atonement dependent on the high priest Aaron to offer the sacrifice for us on his own, no longer is only Aaron able to be in the presence of God, but now given the sacrifice of Jesus and the eucharist that he set up through the apostles are we each able to participate in the one sacrifice on the cross on our own and do it in the presence of God/jesus

is the eucharist evidence of the torn veil in the catholic chuch?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

just as Aaron was commanded by God to offer a sacrifice for his atonement and for the atonement of the children of Israel in the very presence of God, behind the veil, we as Christians now in the NT participate for our own atonement via the ONE and only sacrifice made through Jesus on the cross via the eucharist.

the veil was torn and this is clearly shown through the eucarist where we are able to approach this sacrifice and participate INDIVIDUALLY as part of the universal priesthood through the ministerial priesthood.
No longer is our atonement dependent on the high priest Aaron to offer the sacrifice for us on his own, no longer is only Aaron able to be in the presence of God, but now given the sacrifice of Jesus and the eucharist that he set up through the apostles are we each able to participate in the one sacrifice on the cross on our own and do it in the presence of God/jesus

is the eucharist evidence of the torn veil in the catholic chuch?

Hi, panevino.

I don’t understand your post.

 

[promethius]

just as Aaron was commanded by God to offer a sacrifice for his atonement and for the atonement of the children of Israel in the very presence of God, behind the veil, we as Christians now in the NT participate for our own atonement via the ONE and only sacrifice made through Jesus on the cross via the eucharist.

the veil was torn and this is clearly shown through the eucarist where we are able to approach this sacrifice and participate INDIVIDUALLY as part of the universal priesthood through the ministerial priesthood.
No longer is our atonement dependent on the high priest Aaron to offer the sacrifice for us on his own, no longer is only Aaron able to be in the presence of God, but now given the sacrifice of Jesus and the eucharist that he set up through the apostles are we each able to participate in the one sacrifice on the cross on our own and do it in the presence of God/jesus

is the eucharist evidence of the torn veil in the catholic chuch?

Uh, the torn veil was a symbolic act of a real occurance in the world. The veil was rent between heaven and earth and that is what matters, because before that we were cut off from God. Of course the veil is torn in the catholic church, it is throughout the entire world… but to answer your last question, yes, the Eucharist is a direct sign that the veil is torn because it is through the completed final sacrifice of Christ that we are to find our new access to God.

 

[panevino]

thanks
some protestants dont believe this
and see the priests/confession/sacraments
as a barrier/veil that remains to god

 

[JustaServant]

I hope I’m addressing the right poster. It’s a little confusing, to many posters on this thread whose usernames begin with a ‘P’.
To the last ‘P’ poster, you’re right. When I was an evangelical this fact was often used to ‘prove’ that there be no more need for a priesthood. I thought it was quite a leap then. We now have access to God that the Old Testament saints did not. But it does not mean God did away with the priesthood.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Uh, the torn veil was a symbolic act of a real occurance in the world. The veil was rent between heaven and earth and that is what matters, because before that we were cut off from God. Of course the veil is torn in the catholic church, it is throughout the entire world… but to answer your last question, yes, the Eucharist is a direct sign that the veil is torn because it is through the completed final sacrifice of Christ that we are to find our new access to God.

The veil is cloth. That makes it an analog of the Clothing Type, which symbolizes one’s “Christian religion.”

The sanctuary veil was “torn in two” because “two” is the Two Type, which symbolizes “the Church.” Suddenly, Old Testament religion of Judaism became the New Testament religion of the Christian Church.

 

[promethius]

The veil is cloth. That makes it an analog of the Clothing Type, which symbolizes one’s “Christian religion.”

The sanctuary veil was “torn in two” because “two” is the Two Type, which symbolizes “the Church.” Suddenly, Old Testament religion of Judaism became the New Testament religion of the Christian Church.

Uh, I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that God acts so that His temple matches the future clothing fashions of His church. I think we should look at it exactly the opposite: the rent garment or two piece is symbolic of the rending of the veil, not the other way around.

Ultimately, everything about the jewish passover had analogues to real life. The ark was Mary, the tabernacle, her womb. High priest was a foreshadowing of Christ, as was the sacrificial Lamb. The veil was the seperation between man and God, caused by sin, through which only the high priest (symbolic of Christ) had access. Beyond the veil, the Kingdom of God. The tearing of the veil symolized two things, then:

1. the end of the old covenant requirement for repeated sacrifices. The entrance covering for the temple was rent, allowing all to see for themselves beyond the veil. This was the physical aspect of the splitting.
2. opening the path into heaven via splitting of the REAL veil which had cut man off from God. This is the real aspect of the symbolic veil being physically rent.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Uh, I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that God acts so that His temple matches the future clothing fashions of His church. I think we should look at it exactly the opposite: the rent garment or two piece is symbolic of the rending of the veil, not the other way around.

Ultimately, everything about the jewish passover had analogues to real life. The ark was Mary, the tabernacle, her womb. High priest was a foreshadowing of Christ, as was the sacrificial Lamb. The veil was the seperation between man and God, caused by sin, through which only the high priest (symbolic of Christ) had access. Beyond the veil, the Kingdom of God. The tearing of the veil symolized two things, then:

1. the end of the old covenant requirement for repeated sacrifices. The entrance covering for the temple was rent, allowing all to see for themselves beyond the veil. This was the physical aspect of the splitting.
2. opening the path into heaven via splitting of the REAL veil which had cut man off from God. This is the real aspect of the symbolic veil being physically rent.

Your violent conclusion is wrong. You write what you do because “you are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” You “talk a big game,” in your post, but in fact you don’t know Scripture. I’m not trying to make you feel bad. I am just telling you truth. Your interpretations are just “artsy-craftsy” guesses, instead of being part of a larger system of symbols in the Bible, alone.

 

[promethius]

Your violent conclusion is wrong. You write what you do because “you are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” You “talk a big game,” in your post, but in fact you don’t know Scripture. I’m not trying to make you feel bad. I am just telling you truth. Your interpretations are just “artsy-craftsy” guesses, instead of being part of a larger system of symbols in the Bible, alone.

Wow, good to know that it takes so little to drain you of any christian charity. Says the Catechism:

**

593

Jesus venerated the Temple by going up to it for the Jewish feasts of pilgrimage, and with a jealous love he loved this dwelling of God among men. The Temple prefigures his own mystery. When he announces its destruction, it is as a manifestation of his own execution and of the entry into a new age in the history of salvation, when his Body would be the definitive Temple. (emphasis mine) **

So, you can rail against the “artsy fartsy” interpretation, but the bottom line is that the final Sacrifice HAD to meet God’s strictures for method under the old testament, otherwise such Sacrifice could never have fullfilled the old covenant. In effect, the church agrees, and also agrees that the destruction of the temple, begun with Christ’s death, ushers in a new age of salvation.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Wow, good to know that it takes so little to drain you of any christian charity. Says the Catechism:

**

So, you can rail against the “artsy fartsy” interpretation, but the bottom line is that the final Sacrifice HAD to meet God’s strictures for method under the old testament, otherwise such Sacrifice could never have fullfilled the old covenant. In effect, the church agrees, and also agrees that the destruction of the temple, begun with Christ’s death, ushers in a new age of salvation.**

Hi, friend.

Please avoid bathroom talk. It is not necessary.

I agree that the sacrifice of the cross had to fulfill predicted parameters, first because of “the shape of God,” and second so that we could recognize it when it came.

There are limitations to the implications of the destruction of the temple, however. Few are aware that Judaism remains a valid conduit to salvation – because God never revokes a covenant. Additionally, Judaism is cast, in Scripture, as God’s Old Testament Church. We are merely the New Testament version. Analyses casting Judaism as something “chewed up and spat out” contain within themselves an unnecessary and inaccurate level of disgust. It is true that God “cursed the fig tree.” But I think that that was an implicit statement that without grace purchased by the sacrifice of the cross, foreshadowed by Judaism itself, the Old Testament Church, without Judaism, could not save. In fact, the grace of the cross goes forwards and backwards through time. Despite Christ’s cursing of the fig tree, grace was available in Judaism.

I should add that, for the same reason that Christ’s sacrifice had to conform to certain parameters, so that we would recognize it, so does the Catholic Church.

You ask above, “Is the veil torn in the Catholic Church?” It better be! A temple with a veil cut in “two” is a Bible type referring to “the Church.” Saying, “The veil is NOT torn in the Catholic Church” is the same thing as saying, “We are not the foreshadowed Church.”

“Two-ness” marks the Church throughout the Old and New Testaments. Note that the animals marched into the ark “two by two.” We are being told, “The ark is the Church.” When Jacob blessed Joseph’s children with a “cross” on a “skull place” – his crossed arms on the skulls of Joseph’s children – the children are “two” in number because they symbolize the “Church.” When Christ came upon administrators for His new “Church,” He came upon them in “twos.” See Matthew 4:18, 21. When Christ was crucified, He was crucified between “two” thieves, symbolizing the new Church as to which His new salvation scheme applied.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

But I think that that was an implicit statement that without grace purchased by the sacrifice of the cross, foreshadowed by Judaism itself, the Old Testament Church, without Judaism, could not save. In fact, the grace of the cross goes forwards and backwards through time. Despite Christ’s cursing of the fig tree, grace was available in Judaism.

I meant to say that the Old Testament Church, without the grace of the cross, could not save.

 

[promethius]

There are limitations to the implications of the destruction of the temple, however. Few are aware that Judaism remains a valid conduit to salvation – because God never revokes a covenant. Additionally, Judaism is cast, in Scripture, as God’s Old Testament Church. We are merely the New Testament version. Analyses casting Judaism as something “chewed up and spat out” contain within themselves an unnecessary and inaccurate level of disgust. It is true that God “cursed the fig tree.” But I think that that was an implicit statement that without grace purchased by the sacrifice of the cross, foreshadowed by Judaism itself, the Old Testament Church, without Judaism, could not save. In fact, the grace of the cross goes forwards and backwards through time. Despite Christ’s cursing of the fig tree, grace was available in Judaism.

None of this is contradictory to the fact that the splitting of the veil is symbolic of the opening of the Kingdom of heaven to all believers. I think you’re projecting what you think my understanding is on me, I can assure you that you haven’t said anything here that I don’t already know.

You ask above, “Is the veil torn in the Catholic Church?” It better be! A temple with a veil cut in “two” is a Bible type referring to “the Church.” Saying, “The veil is NOT torn in the Catholic Church” is the same thing as saying, “We are not the foreshadowed Church.”

No, I don’t ask that, nor do I imply what you draw from it. I am not the original poster.

“Two-ness” marks the Church throughout the Old and New Testaments. Note that the animals marched into the ark “two by two.” We are being told, “The ark is the Church.” When Jacob blessed Joseph’s children with a “cross” on a “skull place” – his crossed arms on the skulls of Joseph’s children – the children are “two” in number because they symbolize the “Church.” When Christ came upon administrators for His new “Church,” He came upon them in “twos.” See Matthew 4:18, 21. When Christ was crucified, He was crucified between “two” thieves, symbolizing the new Church as to which His new salvation scheme applied.

Who’s going artsy-craftsy now? There is also symbolism behind three and seven, as well as forty for the church as well. I repeat myself: none of this is contradictory to the church teaching that the splitting of the veil is symbolic of our newfound access to the Kingdom of God through Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[brkn1]

There are limitations to the implications of the destruction of the temple, however. Few are aware that Judaism remains a valid conduit to salvation – because God never revokes a covenant. Additionally, Judaism is cast, in Scripture, as God’s Old Testament Church. We are merely the New Testament version. Analyses casting Judaism as something “chewed up and spat out” contain within themselves an unnecessary and inaccurate level of disgust. It is true that God “cursed the fig tree.” But I think that that was an implicit statement that without grace purchased by the sacrifice of the cross, foreshadowed by Judaism itself, the Old Testament Church, without Judaism, could not save. In fact, the grace of the cross goes forwards and backwards through time. Despite Christ’s cursing of the fig tree, grace was available in Judaism.

.

Judaism is NOT a “valid conduit to salvation” at this time. Read Romans to see how Paul is so upset by how those remaining in Judaism are lost, unless they turn to believing the Gospel. The Gospel is the only route to salvation for both Jew and Gentile. There are promises to the nation Israel that have yet to be fulfilled, but that will not occur until the time of the Gentiles is first fulfilled.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

None of this is contradictory to the fact that the splitting of the veil is symbolic of the opening of the Kingdom of heaven to all believers.

Who’s going artsy-craftsy now? There is also symbolism behind three and seven, as well as forty for the church as well. I repeat myself: none of this is contradictory to the church teaching that the splitting of the veil is symbolic of our newfound access to the Kingdom of God through Christ’s sacrifice.

It’s not “artsy-craftsy,” because I justify it with many examples. The symbolism of “two” in the Bible is always “Church” (except when it is a part of a larger number, then the answer is more complex).

The “two” angels who visited Sodom and then destroyed it were probably a picture of God exercising judgment upon His “Church.”

The “two” daughters impregnated by the wine-filled sleeping Lot are a picture of the “Church” begetting converts (the children) by the wine-blooded dead (sleeping) Christ.

The “two” young men who accompanied Abraham to the sacrifice of Isaac are the “Church” which would also cooperate in the sacrifice of Christ – in the continuing sacrifice of the Mass.

When Jacob, in the story of Jacob’s Deception, brings “sacrificed kid stew” to Isaac, he has “kid skin hands” and “kid skin neck,” because he is a picture of Christ offering His Own sacrificed flesh to His Father inj Heaven – for whom?

Answer: “Two” kids were sacrificed, to generate the result.

The sacrifice was for the Church!

See? It always works!

Here are the other number types:

3 = “Will of God”; “the Commandments”

4 = “everyone”

5 = “Christ”

6 = “evil”

7 = “perfect,” “complete,” “perfected,” or “completed”

8 = “saved”

9 = “unsaved”

10 = “very much”

11 = “overflowing with”

12 = “all of the tribes of God’s people”

40 = “preparation,” “testing”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Judaism is NOT a “valid conduit to salvation” at this time. Read Romans to see how Paul is so upset by how those remaining in Judaism are lost, unless they turn to believing the Gospel. The Gospel is the only route to salvation for both Jew and Gentile. There are promises to the nation Israel that have yet to be fulfilled, but that will not occur until the time of the Gentiles is first fulfilled.

“Pope John Paul II’s statements on Jews and Judaism have been collected into a substantial book, Spiritual Pilgrimage: Texts on Jews and Judaism 1979-95 (Crossroad, 1995). In an introduction, Eugene Fisher, of the National Council of Catholic Bishops, identifies key themes of the pope’s teachings. In John Paul’s view Judaism has a permanently valid covenant with God and, as such, constitutes a living heritage for the Church.” at.bc.edu/inhistime/, about half way down the page.

“John Paul called the Jewish people the church’s elder brothers and declared antisemitism a sin against God and man. He affirmed Judaism as an ongoing, valid covenant with God” forward.com/articles/3247/

**Washington D.C., Aug 28, 2009 / 06:19 am (CNA).- The Vatican has given a “recognitio” to a change in the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults which clarifies Catholic teaching about the Jews’ covenant with God, the U.S. bishops said.

The first version of the catechism, in its discussion of God’s covenant with the Jews, said “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”
The revision reads “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.’”

Romans 9 and paragraph 839 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are cited in the revised passage.

The Vatican’s “recognitio” is a statement that a document is in keeping with Catholic teaching. The change was approved at the U.S. bishops’ 2008 June meeting in Orlando, Florida.

“The clarification is not a change in the Church’s teaching,” a press release from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said.**

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2326908/posts