Transubstantion question

[FCEGM]

This is off topic, but how can baptism wash our sins when the Holy Scriptures says there can be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood?

Because baptism is precisely, as St. Paul tells us, a baptism that in incorporates the baptized into the Crucified and Risen Christ: Romans 6:3-4: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

Also, why is Christ sacrificed over and over at Mass when His sacrifice on the cross was a once for all sacrifice and Hebrews ch. 9 and 10 tells us He is no more offered in sacrifice?

Yours is a common misconception, Jacob. The Lord isn’t sacrificed “over and over at Mass”; Mass is a participation in that ONE Sacrifice which is made present on the altar.

The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.

Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary” (306).

catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp

 

[FCEGM]

What has God given us in place of the earthly sanctuary with its Levitical Priesthood and their animal sacrifice?

He has given us the heavenly sanctuary wherein Christ, the High Priest, offers Himself to the Father. His High Priestly offering is made present on our altars through His priests who stand in His place as “alter Christi”.

Did Christ establish His church with a priesthood of mortal men and earthly sanctuaries in which to offer the sacrifice of the Mass?

Yes, He did. At the Last Supper, in which Jesus instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist (see 1 Cor. 10:16-22, which clearly illustrates that the Eucharist - the Lord’s Supper - is a Sacrifice: the one Sacrifice of the Cross made present in our midst). Jesus only command the Apostles to “do this in memory of me”, which is a reference to the offering of a Sacrifice (the Greek “anamnesis” referring to sacrifices, not merely to memorials (see: Heb 13:3, Numbers 10:10, etc.). This is a priestly commission. Likewise, in Romans 15:15-16, Paul describes his ministry with the words …

“But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Clearly, Paul’s ministry was not the same as that of the average Christian (the common priesthood of the laity). As we see, he describes his ministry as a special priestly ministry.

Our English word “priest” comes from the Greek word “presbyter” (see Acts 14:23), frequently translated as “elder” in Protestant Bibles.*The etymology works like this:

“Presbuteros” (Greek) ----> “Presbyter” (Latin) —> “Prete” (Italian) ---->* “Pretre” (French) ----> “Proest” (Old/Middle English) ----->“Priest” (Modern English).*

So, in English, when we speak of a “Catholic priest,” we are referring to the presbyters who were ordained by the Apostles (Acts 14:23, etc.). These presbyters were the elders/seniors/Fathers of the Christian communities (which is why we call priests “father” today); and, as in the Jewish tradition (especially before the imposition of the Levitical priesthood in Exodus), the father of the family or tribe was always the one who offered sacrifices on behalf of the family or tribe (e.g. Noah in Gen 8:20, Abraham in Gen. 15:9-10 & Gen. 22:2, etc., Jacob in Gen 35:1-6, etc.). IOW, he was the family priest!This priestly office was only taken away from the head of each family by Moses after the rebellion of the Golden Calf, when the priesthood was limited to the Levites alone. In Christ, however, this limitation of the Law is removed, and now any Christian man, no matter what his ethnic or tribal background, can serve as the Lord’s priest over the family that is theChurch, the “Household of God” (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:19-20).

What’s more, if you look at Revelation 5, there we are presented with 24 heavenly presbyters, who are the Twelve Apostles and the Twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve patriarchal heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel - all of whom offered sacrifices on behalf of their respective tribes. Also, if you look at Revelation 5:8, there we read how. . .

“…and the twenty-four presbyters fell down before the Lamb. Each of the presbyters held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.”

Now, as anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows, offering a bowl of incense is a priestly function. In fact, in Numbers 16:16-35, Korah and his associates are destroyed by God for doing this very thing, i.e., for pretending to be priests, when they were not. What’s more, here in Revelation 5, it clearly says that the bowls of incense are the prayers of the holy ones (that is, of average Christians), which are being offered to the Lamb by the presbyters, i.e., by priests. Therefore, these presbyters clearly hold an office which is distinct from that of the common priesthood of the laity, given that they serve as intermediaries between God and the laity, offering the prayers of the laity to God in a special, ministrial capacity. Thus, right here in Scripture, we see the ministerial priesthood clearly displayed.

For more on this (thanks to Mark Bonocore) see bringyou.to/apologetics/a31.htm

 

[FCEGM]

And we see the priesthood and its work mentioned by the early Church Fathers:

107 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostles, says:

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyters as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints (i.e, one of the presbyters). . . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ignatius to the Smyrneans).

and also …

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ --they are with the bishop. 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 presbyters, and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

Therefore, the presbyters (priests) served at the altar and celebrated the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Likewise, about 10 years earlier (A.D. 90), we have the witness of Clement of Rome - another disciple of the Apostles (and the man mentioned by St. Paul in Phil 4:3) - writing:

"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

[the Eucharist], 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 [the appointed presbyters] 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 Sacrifices at the appointed times 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 the Levits * their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. …Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices**." (1 Clement to the Corinthians).

 

[JacobG]

Yours is a common misconception, Jacob. The Lord isn’t sacrificed “over and over at Mass”; Mass is a participation in that ONE Sacrifice which is made present on the altar.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei reaffirmed the Council of Trent when he stressed that the sacrifice of the Mass was not a “mere commemoration” of the passion and death of Christ, but “is truly and properly the offering of a sacrifice wherein by an unbloody immolation (an immolation is something offered as a sacrifice), the High Priest does what He (Jesus) had already done on the Cross, offering Himself to the Eternal Father as a most acceptable victim.

Jesus nowhere ever claimed to be a “victim.” He willing gave up His life as a ransom for all. He freely gave of Himself so that we may be reconciled to the Father, find forgiveness of sins and have everlasting life.

 

[jpjd]

Jesus nowhere ever claimed to be a “victim.” He willing gave up His life as a ransom for all. He freely gave of Himself so that we may be reconciled to the Father, find forgiveness of sins and have everlasting life.

Jesus did willingly give His life as a ransom for all. He sacrificed His life for all. Every sacrifice has a priest, a victim, and an altar. So in that sense Jesus is a victim, the victim in a sacrifice on the altar of the cross at Calvary, and that sacrifice is re-presented to us on the altar at Mass when the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. (Jesus is also a priest, the High Priest offering the sacrifice to God perpetually in heaven; and the priest who is offering the Body and Blood at Mass is offering in the person of Christ.)

 

[JacobG]

And we see the priesthood and its work mentioned by the early Church Fathers:

107 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostles, says: "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyters as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints (i.e, one of the presbyters). . . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ignatius to the Smyrneans).

and also …Quote:

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ --they are with the bishop. 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 presbyters, and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

Therefore, the presbyters (priests) served at the altar and celebrated the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Likewise, about 10 years earlier (A.D. 90), we have the witness of Clement of Rome - another disciple of the Apostles (and the man mentioned by St. Paul in Phil 4:3) - writing:*

Your mention of presbyters and deacons is very Protestantism. It says nothing about “priests” or a “priesthood.” whereby Christ’s one time sacrifice is to be re-presented over and over. The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ alone is high priest and all true believers in Him are a royal priesthood. He never established any need for an wooden altar where he is represented as a victim. This is very Old Testament.

Ignatius’ use of the word catholic merely means “universal”. It has nothing to do with the roman catholic church. The RCC adopted the term catholic. Many Protestant churches adhere to a creed which says: We believe in one holy, apostolic, catholic church. They are not referring to roman catholicism at all. But the university of all true believers in Jesus Christ.

Jesus never told his apostles to keep him as a victim on the cross and re-present his sacrificial death. He said: Do this in Remembrance of me. He had not yet gone to the cross. He wasn’t telling them to remember His horrific death, but to remember all that He did and taught.

What the elders are doing in Rev. 5 is worshiping God. These 24 elders represent the totality of the church in the presence of God. Through Jesus we have established the proper relationship that has gained us access to the throne room and more importantly, to the King. Like the 24 elders our response to his presence is uninhibited worship.This is about all Christians worshiping God, not separation of clergy/laity, not an office of hierarchy, nor of a sacrificial priesthood. We need no intermediaries as we have Christ who alone intercedes and is our One Mediator.

The difference between the roman catholic and other faiths is that the catholic puts more emphasis on his church rather than on CHRIST.

 

[JacobG]

The views of the early Church on the meaning of the eucharist and its relationship to the person of Christ are very similar to those one finds today and in the days of the Reformation when one compares the different Protestant and Roman Catholic views. There is the literal view of transubstantiation which could be that expressed by Chrysostom; the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, which could be that taught by Irenaeus or Justin Martyr; the spiritual view of Calvin, which is closely aligned with Augustine; and the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius.

A similar lack of consensus existed on the other major characteristic of the Roman Catholic position on the eucharist, that this sacrament is itself a propitiatory sacrifice. According to this teaching, in the mass Christ is physically present through the priestly consecration and he then becomes the divine victim who is immolated on the altar. The word ‘immolate’ specifically means ‘to slay’ or ‘to kill’ and this sacrifice is efficacious as a sin payment to satisfy God’s justice.

Trent teaches that just as Christ was the divine victim and was offered and immolated on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, so in the mass, which is a distinct sacrifice in its own right, he is referred to as the divine victim who is again offered and immolated as a propitiatory sacrifice, just as he was immolated on the cross. The only difference, according to Trent, between the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross is that one is bloody and the other unbloody.

There are those who object to the charge that what Trent meant by immolation is a renewed slaying of Christ. Historically, the word immolate had been used by Fathers and theologians of the Church to refer to the eucharist as a commemoration of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Augustine used the word in this way and his definition became normative for centuries afterwards. For example, Peter Lombard in the 12 century in his Sentences expressed the Augustinian view in this way:

"We may briefly reply that what is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and an immolation because it is a memorial and a representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation made upon the altar of the cross. Christ died once, upon the cross, and there he was immolated in his own person; and yet every day he is immolated sacramentally, because in the sacrament there is a recalling of what was done once."

The meaning of the term as it is expressed here is strictly that of a sacramental commemoration, it was not literal. However, Trent’s use of the term added a new dimension of meaning to the word which differs from that of Augustine for he did not view Christ as being physically present in the sacrament, nor the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. Augustine certainly did not teach that the sacrifice of the eucharist was the same as the sacrifice of Calvary.

The fact is there was no unanimous consent throughout the history of the Church to the Roman Catholic interpretation of the eucharist. To rely mainly on the early church writers is to rely on a faulty foundation. This is why we need God’s Word, the source of Truth.

 

[jpjd]

Jesus never told his apostles to keep him as a victim on the cross and re-present his sacrificial death. He said: Do this in Remembrance of me. He had not yet gone to the cross. He wasn’t telling them to remember His horrific death, but to remember all that He did and taught.

You are conveniently omitting something else He said. He blessed the bread, broke it, and said, “**This is my body.” **In the same way, He took the cup and said, This is the cup of my blood, which will be shed for you so sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

In other words, at the Last Supper He is offering what He will be sacrificing the next day on Calvary – His body and blood. He told us this in His choice of words, “This is my body…this is my blood, which will be shed for you.” This is what we are doing in memory of Him. This is what the Catholic Church is all about. The sacrifice of Christ, which we remember at Mass.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I have a friend who has been debating religion with me lately. His belief system revolves around the scripture only concept, not sure what religion (if any) he claims.
I was raised as a Roman Catholic and although I’m not particularly active in the church I consider myself a Roman Catholic.
His view on transubstantiation is that Catholics believe we eat a physical piece of Christ and drink his actual blood through the process of transubstantiation.
I told him we believe that in the same way that the apostles thought they were chewing on a piece if Christ’s arm when they accepted a piece of his body.
I realize this may be a pretty oversimplified answer, but is the information I gave him in line with the teachings of the church?

It is more than you say.

What is the advantage on JUST eating what is JUST flesh?

The fuller concept is this: Just as “Mr. Kid-Skin-Hands-and-Neck” in Genesis 27, Jacob, offered kid flesh – symbolically, “Mr. Kid-Skin-Hands-and-Neck’s” OWN sacrificed flesh – to his father to “buy blessing,” Christ offers His Own sacrificed flesh to His Father to “buy blessing,” for us.

When we take that blessing-buying sacrificed flesh, in the form of consummable and assimilatable bread and wine, into our own bodies by eating it, we build that “blessing-buying” quality into our own flesh.

I believe that that is the logic of the sacrament.

 

[grannymh]

I believe that that is the logic of the sacrament.

For the best Catholic teaching about the Catholic Eucharist, please use this link.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Peter_Dawson]

For the best Catholic teaching about the Catholic Eucharist, please use this link.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Hi, Granny.

Whereas it is “safe” and appears “Catholic” to generally cite the Catechism, that’s really a form of non-communication. Note that we could shut down the site with that answer…

“What is the Gospel?” Answer: “For the best Catholic teaching about the Gospel, please use this link…”

“Were the NT churches independent or One ??” Answer: “For the best Catholic teaching about the NT churches, please use this link…”

“God and Free Will” Answer: “For the best Catholic teaching about God and Free Will, please use this link…”

Do you see what I mean?

 

[JacobG]

Jesus did willingly give His life as a ransom for all. He sacrificed His life for all. Every sacrifice has a priest, a victim, and an altar. So in that sense Jesus is a victim, the victim in a sacrifice on the altar of the cross at Calvary, and that sacrifice is re-presented to us on the altar at Mass when the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. (Jesus is also a priest, the High Priest offering the sacrifice to God perpetually in heaven; and the priest who is offering the Body and Blood at Mass is offering in the person of Christ.)

Please explain to me why we need a priest, a victim and sacrifices. This sounds very old testament. Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was a once-for-all. It does not need repeating. The catholic priesthood, like the sons of Levi, die and are replaced, and their priesthood passes to others. God dispensed with this human weakness when He chose His Son to be high priest of the N.T. (Heb 7:23,24). The NT priest never dies again (Ro. 6:9,10) He is always alive and present at the call of sinners and completely purifies those who confess directly to Him. (1 John 1:7 and 2:2) The living resurrected Christ no longer dies or offers Himself in sacrifice. (Heb. 7)

Christ was victorious and defeated death and hades. Why perpetuate His death and portray him as a victim?

 

[Thing]

… Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was a once-for-all. It does not need repeating. … Why perpetuate His death and portray him as a victim?

His sacrifice is a continuous one or else it could not help you in this present modern time.

 

[JacobG]

If the cup at Mass is consecrated and made into the blood of Christ, isn’t this unbiblical since the apostles forbade drinking of blood?

Pope Victor III was poisoned while partaking in the consecration of the chalice at Mass. He died. How is this possible if the cup is really Christ’s blood?

 

[JacobG]

His sacrifice is a continuous one or else it could not help you in this present modern time.

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. Where is it even taught in the Holy Scriptures?

The Bible tells us that His sacrifice was once-for-all. If Romans 6:9,10 and Hebrews 9:25-28 says he is no more offered in sacrifice, then how do you reconcile that with your church’s teaching?

 

[fdesales]

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. Where is it even taught in the Holy Scriptures?

The Bible tells us that His sacrifice was once-for-all. If Romans 6:9,10 and Hebrews 9:25-28 says he is no more offered in sacrifice, then how do you reconcile that with your church’s teaching?

Doesn’t Christ exist in the eternal NOW of time? Is not Jesus Christ, God Himself???

His death is not repeated, of course. But His offering remains in eternity, given as an offering to the Father for our sake TODAY.

Regards

 

[Thing]

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. Where is it even taught in the Holy Scriptures?

The Bible tells us that His sacrifice was once-for-all. If Romans 6:9,10 and Hebrews 9:25-28 says he is no more offered in sacrifice, then how do you reconcile that with your church’s teaching?

Because you told me so yourself.

JacobG:

Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was a once-for-all. It does not need repeating

If His sacrifice is not a continuous one it cannot help you in this present modern time.

If His sacrifice happened only once in a moment of time it could only benefit those immediately present at that moment in time.
But because it is an eternal sacrifice it benefits both those in the past from Adam all the way to those who will live at the end of time. For us it is a continuous sacrifice.

 

[grannymh]

Please explain to me why we need a priest, a victim and sacrifices. This sounds very old testament.

It is exactly Old Testament, in the order of Melchizedik, Genesis.

God’s plan for salvation began with His promise to Adam and Eve and was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Both Melchizedik and Jesus offered bread and wine to God and both have their priesthood directly from God and not through Aaron since neither belongs to the tribe of Levi.

Hebrews 7: 27 needs to be put back into the proper context of Hebrews, chapters 7 and 8.

God’s New Covenant gave us precisely the high priest Whom humanity needed. In contrast to the Levitical priesthood which required repeated sacrifices for sins, the Divine Priest made a single offering of Himself. As the Son of God, Jesus is the perfect priest forever. The perfect sacrifice that reconciled us with God is the offering of Jesus Himself as the Sacrificial Victim. Thus He is considered the perfect priest and the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass re-presents Jesus as the perfect Victim. Through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, today’s priest acts in the Person of Christ as he says the sacred prayers of Consecration. In other words, through the power of God, Jesus becomes truly present during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[jpjd]

Please explain to me why we need a priest, a victim and sacrifices. This sounds very old testament. Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was a once-for-all. It does not need repeating. The catholic priesthood, like the sons of Levi, die and are replaced, and their priesthood passes to others. God dispensed with this human weakness when He chose His Son to be high priest of the N.T. (Heb 7:23,24). The NT priest never dies again (Ro. 6:9,10) He is always alive and present at the call of sinners and completely purifies those who confess directly to Him. (1 John 1:7 and 2:2) The living resurrected Christ no longer dies or offers Himself in sacrifice. (Heb. 7)

Christ was victorious and defeated death and hades. Why perpetuate His death and portray him as a victim?

We are obeying Jesus’ command to do this in memory of Him. Remember, He said, “This is my body…This is my blood which will be shed for you…Do this in memory of me.” And so we do, at Mass. Jesus is a victim because He is a sacrifice. It is the offering of the sacrifice, the sinless Lamb of God, that redeemed us from sin and death. He is the victorious Victim as we know by the resurrection. But we are to remember the sacrifice that gives grace, which we do at Mass. The grace merited by that sacrifice is applied or dispensed to us at Mass.

Yes, Jesus’ sacrifice was once-for-all and does not need repeating. At Mass, we don’t perpetuate His death. His sacrifice is not repeated. He is not being sacrificed all over again at each Mass. At Mass, the sacrifice is re-presented. The one, once-for-all sacrifice is made present before us. (God, remember, is outside of time. He is the eternal “now”.) It is that sacrifice re-presented before us that is offered to God by the priest in the person of Christ who is perpetually offering Himself to God in heaven. The grace Jesus’ sacrifice merited comes to us when we receive His body and blood in the appearance of bread and wine. We are in communion with the Lord.

John 6:51-58
*“51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” *
*52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” *
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. *
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. *
*55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. *
*56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. *
*57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. *
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

 

[JacobG]

Originally Posted by JacobG
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. Where is it even taught in the Holy Scriptures?

The Bible tells us that His sacrifice was once-for-all. If Romans 6:9,10 and Hebrews 9:25-28 says he is no more offered in sacrifice, then how do you reconcile that with your church’s teaching?

Because you told me so yourself.

Where did I tell you so?

If His sacrifice is not a continuous one it cannot help you in this present modern time.
If His sacrifice happened only once in a moment of time it could only benefit those immediately present at that moment in time.
But because it is an eternal sacrifice it benefits both those in the past from Adam all the way to those who will live at the end of time. For us it is a continuous sacrifice.

Where does the Scriptures support this view? The verses I stated above says Christ is** no more offered in sacrifice.**