E
eazyduzit
Guest
Yes right, a d the bitter herbs too, but what I’m saying is that passover not fundamentally about what one eats. It speaks of a sacrifice.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Sure. We agree.
However, the one sacrifice of the Lamb of God is re-presented, that is, presented again, at every Catholic mass.
We do not sacrifice Jesus again; we present again the one sacrifice of Jesus Who gave us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink…just as He said He would in John 6.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Is the “Mass” a sacrifice? Just wanted to know.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes.
Warning: you need to make sure you understand what CATHOLICS mean by that and not what every anti-Catholic website on the Internet claims we mean.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Thanks for that, but now I have to ask who or what is being sacrificed and for what purpose? I would be more interested in what you believe than the official answer. I have asked catholics before and the answers are all over the board.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Departed from topic and closed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Christ’s sacrifice is being re-presented. He was sacrificed once for all, as the inspired writer in Hebrews professes, and we take part in this One Sacrifice at every Mass.
The Mass, this offering of Christ, is a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11:
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
Truly, from the rising of the sun to its setting, in every place on the globe, a Catholic Mass is being offered, as we speak here, re-presenting a “pure” offering.
NO OTHER CHURCH can make this claim.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well said, PR.
Note that the offering is singular. We offer the one sacrifice…not many sacrifices.
P
PRmerger
Guest
:curtsey:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice
By Shane Coombs
soladeiverbum.com/massmain.shtml
One of the greatest difficulties Protestants have with the Catholic Church is the teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Church does teach that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, a sacrifice which propitiates for sins because it is the sacrifice of Christ who alone can make propitiation for sins. The idea that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is offensive to Protestants for three primary reasons. First, it seems to suggest that Christ’s offering on the cross was insufficient to save us from our sins. Second, because Christ is the victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, it seems to require Him to die again and again. Finally, another difficulty Protestants have is that the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ was sacrificed once for all (Heb 7:25-27, 9:24-26, 10:10-14). One thing to consider about this last objection is that the phrase ‘once for all’ is a shortened statement of one of two things. It could either mean once for all time, or it could mean once for all people. The phrase itself doesn’t specify. In fact, the adverb used here does not actually say once for all, but simply ‘once.’ Translators put “for all” in to clarify the statement, but it is really reading into the text. Nevertheless, it is still a troubling point for most Protestants.
Bishop Fulton Sheen, a popular televangelist of the 1960s and 1970s, once said that there were not one hundred people in America who hated the Catholic religion, but there were countless who hated what they mistakenly thought the Catholic religion to be. If Catholicism really were what these people thought it was, he pointed out, Catholics would hate it too. This statement is especially significant here. Each of these objections is founded on a misunderstanding of what the Catholicism teaches about the Mass. This misunderstanding is that the Mass is a different sacrifice from the cross. In fact, it is not. The Mass is understood to be the very same sacrifice of the cross re-presented in a different manner:
“[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once and for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 1)
“And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, the holy Synod teaches… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory…. The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 2)
There are many other important things to consider in these quotations. One is that the sacrifice of the Mass exists because Christ’s priesthood was not to end with his death. This is a point which is explained by Hebrews 7:23-24:
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 forever.
Another point is that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice: Christ does not die again in the sacrifice. Most people tend to think of a sacrifice as a death, as though it is the death of the sacrificial victim which constitutes a sacrifice. Therefore, it is common for the sacrifice of Christ to be reduced to His death alone. However, the death of the victim is only the first part of a sacrifice, with the presentation of the sacrifice being the second, more important, part. If an Old Covenant priest had slain an animal and then failed to present it to God, there would have been no sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice was presented to the Father when His risen body ascended into Heaven, and is continually presented so long as Christ is there in Heaven with the Father. The death of Christ was in our time, but the presentation is not and can not be by definition.
Follow the link above for the rest of this article.
By Shane Coombs
soladeiverbum.com/massmain.shtml
One of the greatest difficulties Protestants have with the Catholic Church is the teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Church does teach that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, a sacrifice which propitiates for sins because it is the sacrifice of Christ who alone can make propitiation for sins. The idea that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is offensive to Protestants for three primary reasons. First, it seems to suggest that Christ’s offering on the cross was insufficient to save us from our sins. Second, because Christ is the victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, it seems to require Him to die again and again. Finally, another difficulty Protestants have is that the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ was sacrificed once for all (Heb 7:25-27, 9:24-26, 10:10-14). One thing to consider about this last objection is that the phrase ‘once for all’ is a shortened statement of one of two things. It could either mean once for all time, or it could mean once for all people. The phrase itself doesn’t specify. In fact, the adverb used here does not actually say once for all, but simply ‘once.’ Translators put “for all” in to clarify the statement, but it is really reading into the text. Nevertheless, it is still a troubling point for most Protestants.
Bishop Fulton Sheen, a popular televangelist of the 1960s and 1970s, once said that there were not one hundred people in America who hated the Catholic religion, but there were countless who hated what they mistakenly thought the Catholic religion to be. If Catholicism really were what these people thought it was, he pointed out, Catholics would hate it too. This statement is especially significant here. Each of these objections is founded on a misunderstanding of what the Catholicism teaches about the Mass. This misunderstanding is that the Mass is a different sacrifice from the cross. In fact, it is not. The Mass is understood to be the very same sacrifice of the cross re-presented in a different manner:
“[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once and for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 1)
“And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, the holy Synod teaches… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory…. The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 2)
There are many other important things to consider in these quotations. One is that the sacrifice of the Mass exists because Christ’s priesthood was not to end with his death. This is a point which is explained by Hebrews 7:23-24:
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 forever.
Another point is that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice: Christ does not die again in the sacrifice. Most people tend to think of a sacrifice as a death, as though it is the death of the sacrificial victim which constitutes a sacrifice. Therefore, it is common for the sacrifice of Christ to be reduced to His death alone. However, the death of the victim is only the first part of a sacrifice, with the presentation of the sacrifice being the second, more important, part. If an Old Covenant priest had slain an animal and then failed to present it to God, there would have been no sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice was presented to the Father when His risen body ascended into Heaven, and is continually presented so long as Christ is there in Heaven with the Father. The death of Christ was in our time, but the presentation is not and can not be by definition.
Follow the link above for the rest of this article.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Simply by being present in Heaven, Christ is presenting Himself to the Father. Hebrews 9:24 makes reference to this, saying, “For Christ has entered… into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” This is why the book of Hebrews says that Christ “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (7:25) This intercession is not a different work from the sacrifice. It can’t be, because that would mean that His sacrifice was not sufficient. Protestant commentators stress this point. The intercessory work of Christ is not a different work from His sacrifice; it is part of the sacrifice. It is the eternal presentation of Christ before the Father. This appearing as a perpetual presentation is so that He can perpetually be propitiation for our sins, as 1 John 2:1-2 says.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
The verb ‘is’ here in “He is propitiation” is in the present tense, meaning that Jesus is currently the propitiation. Protestant Greek commentators are often very perplexed by this because they cannot understand how Christ could currently be propitiation, since Protestant theology understands Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to be the only propitiation for sins. It is correct to understand Christ’s sacrifice as the only propitiation for sins. However, it is incorrect to understand the death on the cross to in and of itself be the sacrifice. It is because Christ’s sacrifice consists of both the death on the cross and His eternal presentation to the Father that John can write that He is currently the propitiation for sins.
The eternality of Christ’s presentation is made clear by other Scriptures as well. As was already cited, Hebrews 9:24 says that Christ “now” appears in the presence of God “on our behalf.” There is the ongoing work of intercession in Hebrews 7:25, intercession which is a part of His sacrificial work. In Revelation 5:6, He is depicted as “a lamb, standing as though slain. He is in Heaven a slain lamb, a sacrificial victim, yet He is standing because He is risen. Heaven is not bound by time, it is in eternity. Hence, elsewhere in Revelation He is called the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). The reason John can say He was slain before the foundation of the world even though He clearly died at a given moment in the first century is because His sacrifice is an eternal one, a sacrifice which is in its Heavenly part (the presentation) present in eternity. For this reason, men like Moses and Elijah, who appeared at the transfiguration, could be saved even though Christ had not yet died. The propitiation of Christ’s sacrifice is eternally present in Heaven and thus was efficacious even for men living before the incarnation. Hebrews 4:3 works along the same theme, stating that God’s works were completed “from the foundation of the world.” The Mass is no more contradicting the once for all nature of Christ’s offering than His earthly death on the cross was contradicting the fact that God’s work was already done before the foundation of the world, and that Christ was already slain before the foundation of the world.
Reading Hebrews 9:24-26 in this context, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice becomes much clearer:
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
It is the suffering which occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ’s once for all offering, however, is perpetual and eternal. In fact, it could even be said that the reason it is once for all is because it is eternal; one cannot repeat something which has no beginning and no end. Given all of the statements the Scriptures make concerning the eternality of Christ’s presentation, it is clear that Hebrews cannot possibly mean that Christ’s offering was a one time, momentary act. Rather, it is the suffering which was a one time and momentary occurrence, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly states that Christ’s suffering would have been required to happen again were He to be sacrificed again.
When the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the offering in this passage, he is referring specifically to the high priest having to go in and out of the Holy of Holies. That is why he writes, “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own.” That is also another reason why he emphasizes the suffering so much. When sacrifices were made in the Old Covenant, the priest would slaughter the animal outside of the Holy of Holies and then enter into it. It was by the blood of this slaughtered animal that the priest could enter the Holy of Holies, so if Christ were to go in and out of the Heavenly Holy of Holies, He would have to suffer each time, but He does not, because “he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood” Once Christ is in the Holy of Holies, His presence before the Father is the presentation of the sacrifice to the Father. The actual killing of the animal in the Old Covenant was only part of the sacrifice - the other part was the presentation, which Jesus accomplished at the Ascension.
(cont.)
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
The verb ‘is’ here in “He is propitiation” is in the present tense, meaning that Jesus is currently the propitiation. Protestant Greek commentators are often very perplexed by this because they cannot understand how Christ could currently be propitiation, since Protestant theology understands Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to be the only propitiation for sins. It is correct to understand Christ’s sacrifice as the only propitiation for sins. However, it is incorrect to understand the death on the cross to in and of itself be the sacrifice. It is because Christ’s sacrifice consists of both the death on the cross and His eternal presentation to the Father that John can write that He is currently the propitiation for sins.
The eternality of Christ’s presentation is made clear by other Scriptures as well. As was already cited, Hebrews 9:24 says that Christ “now” appears in the presence of God “on our behalf.” There is the ongoing work of intercession in Hebrews 7:25, intercession which is a part of His sacrificial work. In Revelation 5:6, He is depicted as “a lamb, standing as though slain. He is in Heaven a slain lamb, a sacrificial victim, yet He is standing because He is risen. Heaven is not bound by time, it is in eternity. Hence, elsewhere in Revelation He is called the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). The reason John can say He was slain before the foundation of the world even though He clearly died at a given moment in the first century is because His sacrifice is an eternal one, a sacrifice which is in its Heavenly part (the presentation) present in eternity. For this reason, men like Moses and Elijah, who appeared at the transfiguration, could be saved even though Christ had not yet died. The propitiation of Christ’s sacrifice is eternally present in Heaven and thus was efficacious even for men living before the incarnation. Hebrews 4:3 works along the same theme, stating that God’s works were completed “from the foundation of the world.” The Mass is no more contradicting the once for all nature of Christ’s offering than His earthly death on the cross was contradicting the fact that God’s work was already done before the foundation of the world, and that Christ was already slain before the foundation of the world.
Reading Hebrews 9:24-26 in this context, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice becomes much clearer:
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
It is the suffering which occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ’s once for all offering, however, is perpetual and eternal. In fact, it could even be said that the reason it is once for all is because it is eternal; one cannot repeat something which has no beginning and no end. Given all of the statements the Scriptures make concerning the eternality of Christ’s presentation, it is clear that Hebrews cannot possibly mean that Christ’s offering was a one time, momentary act. Rather, it is the suffering which was a one time and momentary occurrence, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly states that Christ’s suffering would have been required to happen again were He to be sacrificed again.
When the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the offering in this passage, he is referring specifically to the high priest having to go in and out of the Holy of Holies. That is why he writes, “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own.” That is also another reason why he emphasizes the suffering so much. When sacrifices were made in the Old Covenant, the priest would slaughter the animal outside of the Holy of Holies and then enter into it. It was by the blood of this slaughtered animal that the priest could enter the Holy of Holies, so if Christ were to go in and out of the Heavenly Holy of Holies, He would have to suffer each time, but He does not, because “he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood” Once Christ is in the Holy of Holies, His presence before the Father is the presentation of the sacrifice to the Father. The actual killing of the animal in the Old Covenant was only part of the sacrifice - the other part was the presentation, which Jesus accomplished at the Ascension.
(cont.)
I
Ignatius
Guest
Interesting, can you please point me to someone within living memory of The Apostles who taught that? Or is that just something some men taught 1600 years after Jesus?
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Is that the only way you could see it or believe it? Is the Holy Spirit not able to show you if you meditate on it?
P
PRmerger
Guest
There’s tens of thousands of denominations, eazyduzit, that claim that they have the HS guiding them.
One pastor claims to have mediated on the Scriptures and concluded that Baptism is an ordinance.
Another states that Baptism is a sacrament.
One claims that after great meditation and guidance by the HS that we must be baptized in a pool of water.
Another claims that his HS told him that baptism must be done by sprinkling.
Another claims that the HS told him it must be done in adulthood.
Another states that the HS told him that it must be done at the age of consent.
Another states that the HS told him it must be done in infancy.
How does that work in your paradigm?
Can the HS be telling all of them different things?
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Good point PR! I’m still working on questions from you’re previous post.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Also, please note that you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition that states that the Holy Spirit will guide you into reading the Scriptures and coming to the correct interpretation of those verses.
That’s something not found in a single page of the Bible.
You believe it simply because you heard some (fallible) man say it…who heard another (fallible) man say it…who heard his (fallible) mother say it…who heard…
but no one ever read that the Holy Spirit will guide you into reading the Scriptures and coming to the correct interpretation of those verses
in a single page of the Bible.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
So would that mean that there is no one in the RC Church who can hear from the Spirit either?
Also, please note that you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition that states that the Holy Spirit will guide you into reading the Scriptures and coming to the correct interpretation of those verses.
That’s something not found in a single page of the Bible.
You believe it simply because you heard some (fallible) man say it…who heard another (fallible) man say it…who heard his (fallible) mother say it…who heard…
but no one ever read that the Holy Spirit will guide you into reading the Scriptures and coming to the correct interpretation of those verses
in a single page of the Bible.
Sorry, but I did not get this from other men as you accuse. The word says’ "Now we have received… the Spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given of God…which the Holy Ghost teacheth…"1Cor2:12_13
E
eazyduzit
Guest
That was the quick answer so in case it sounds too simple, let me add that one might also need to put in a great deal of study as in 2Tim.2:15.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
I still would like more clarification on this, Randy.
You say that the Mass seems to suggest that the cross was insufficient. Is that actually what YOU believe, or that it was completely sufficient?
Certainly I agree that the priesthood of Christ is forever. Heb.6:20, and thus the power and effect of the blood is also eternal. But I don’t see where scripture demands that the act of offering must also continue for then the Father must also continue the act of accepting. The Resurrection was the proof that it was accepted. Also, note that the high priest must stand and not sit in the holy place to make his offering, but this man, when He had "purged our sins, sat down…"Heb.1:3. The act of sitting indicates, does it not, that He rested from this work?
I understand how much trouble the RC has with the common understanding of the word “once”. Pope JP2 seems to have disliked it so much that when he quoted Heb. 9:12 in his book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” he changed it to “often”. I assume this fitted his man- made doctrine much better.
For me, my faith stands firmly on the words “It is Finished” That’s all I need to to tell me that all my sins are washed clean and permanently dealt with for all eternity. What about you?
S
slh3016
Guest
When did Jesus say, “It is finished”? While He was still hanging on the cross!!
I would HIGHLY suggest that you listen to Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” on YouTube because he rightly points out, as many have, that if the work of Christ was finished on the cross, then His resurrection gains us nothing.
Please, I beg you, listen to it. It will all make perfect sense. I won’t spoil it by going into great detail here about the most plausible explanation of Jesus’ words
- Status