Where was Peter buried?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zach_dunn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Married and unmarried **lay **men and women are the major abusers of children. An example in one country with over 2000 abuse cases (of all types) only 86 were in religious institutions. That means your unmarried religious are 96% safer than your average married and unmarried man and woman. Of all sectors of the community the Catholic religous is the safest place to be, statistically speaking that is.

In Tim 1 4 its referring to Gnostic sects … oh well read it yourself;

“Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance
This reference to in 1 Tim 4:3, is refering to “latter” times, which is in the last approx. 2000 yrs, so it is still in effect. It is a fact that a person who wants to become a priest or a nun must understand the fact that they are not allowed to marry. This means " forbidden" to marry, no matter which way you look at it, this is not scriptural. When I attended the RCC, I was to abstain from eating meat on fridays. I see these statements as “church” rules and not from scripture. Ralph
 
This reference to in 1 Tim 4:3, is refering to “latter” times, which is in the last approx. 2000 yrs, so it is still in effect. It is a fact that a person who wants to become a priest or a nun must understand the fact that they are not allowed to marry. This means " forbidden" to marry, no matter which way you look at it, this is not scriptural. When I attended the RCC, I was to abstain from eating meat on fridays. I see these statements as “church” rules and not from scripture. Ralph
(Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the **last **times; not *latter *times.)

"The Encratites(“self-controlled”) were an ascetic second century sect of Christians who forbade marriage and counselled abstinence from meat. Eusebius says that Tatian was the author of this heresy[1]. It has been supposed that it was these Gnostic encratites who were chastised by Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-4[2][3]

The first mention of a Christian sect of this name occurs in Irenæus[4]They are mentioned more than once by Clement of Alexandria[5] , who says [6] that they are named from “Temperance”. Hippolytus refers to them as “acknowledging what concerns God and Christ in like manner with the Church; in respect, however, of their mode of life, passing their days inflated with pride”; “abstaining from animal food, being water-drinkers and forbidding to marry”; “estimated Cynics rather than Christians”. On the strength of this passage it is supposed that some Encratites were perfectly orthodox in doctrine, and erred only in practice. Origen says they did not acknowledge St. Paul’s Epistles[7].

Somewhat later this sect received new life and strength by the accession of a certain Severus [8], after whom Encratites were often called Severians. These Severian Encratites accepted the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, but rejected the Book of the Acts and cursed St. Paul and his Epistles. But the account given by Epiphanius of the Severians rather betrays Syrian Gnosticism than Judaistic tendencies. In their hatred of marriage they declared woman the work of Satan, and in their hatred of intoxicants they called wine drops of venom from the great Serpent, etc. [9]. Epiphanius states that in his day Encratites were very numerous throughout Asia Minor, in Psidia, in the Adustan district of Phrygia, in Isauria, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Galatia. In the Roman Province and in Antioch of Syria they were found scattered here and there. They split up into a number of smaller sects of whom the Apostolici were remarkable for their condemnation of private property, the Hydroparastatæ or Aquarians for their use of water instead of wine in the Eucharist.

In the Edict of 382, Theodosius pronounced the sentence of death on all those who took the name of Encratites, Saccophori, or Hydroparastatæ, and commanded Florus, the Magister Officiarum, to make strict search for these heretics, who were Manichæans in disguise."

Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part.
 
This reference to in 1 Tim 4:3, is refering to “latter” times, which is in the last approx. 2000 yrs, so it is still in effect. It is a fact that a person who wants to become a priest or a nun must understand the fact that they are not allowed to marry. This means " forbidden" to marry, no matter which way you look at it, this is not scriptural. When I attended the RCC, I was to abstain from eating meat on fridays. I see these statements as “church” rules and not from scripture. Ralph
Ralph, your hatred of everything Catholic is Palpable. Why is that?

St Paul himself was celebate and wished everyone to be as he is, although he recognized that this wasn’t for everyone. So, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, priests follow his example. Why do you try to use his own words to condemn them?

As for abstaining from meat on Fridays and during lent, these are acts of penance. Do you condemn people or the Church for that?
 
(Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the **last **times; not *latter *times.)

"The Encratites(“self-controlled”) were an ascetic second century sect of Christians who forbade marriage and counselled abstinence from meat. Eusebius says that Tatian was the author of this heresy[1]. It has been supposed that it was these Gnostic encratites who were chastised by Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-4[2][3]

The first mention of a Christian sect of this name occurs in Irenæus[4]They are mentioned more than once by Clement of Alexandria[5] , who says [6] that they are named from “Temperance”. Hippolytus refers to them as “acknowledging what concerns God and Christ in like manner with the Church; in respect, however, of their mode of life, passing their days inflated with pride”; “abstaining from animal food, being water-drinkers and forbidding to marry”; “estimated Cynics rather than Christians”. On the strength of this passage it is supposed that some Encratites were perfectly orthodox in doctrine, and erred only in practice. Origen says they did not acknowledge St. Paul’s Epistles[7].

Somewhat later this sect received new life and strength by the accession of a certain Severus [8], after whom Encratites were often called Severians. These Severian Encratites accepted the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, but rejected the Book of the Acts and cursed St. Paul and his Epistles. But the account given by Epiphanius of the Severians rather betrays Syrian Gnosticism than Judaistic tendencies. In their hatred of marriage they declared woman the work of Satan, and in their hatred of intoxicants they called wine drops of venom from the great Serpent, etc. [9]. Epiphanius states that in his day Encratites were very numerous throughout Asia Minor, in Psidia, in the Adustan district of Phrygia, in Isauria, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Galatia. In the Roman Province and in Antioch of Syria they were found scattered here and there. They split up into a number of smaller sects of whom the Apostolici were remarkable for their condemnation of private property, the Hydroparastatæ or Aquarians for their use of water instead of wine in the Eucharist.

In the Edict of 382, Theodosius pronounced the sentence of death on all those who took the name of Encratites, Saccophori, or Hydroparastatæ, and commanded Florus, the Magister Officiarum, to make strict search for these heretics, who were Manichæans in disguise."

Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part.
The KJV bible says “latter” times in 1 Tim 4:1, other versions say later times and some say last times. Whatever the version of bible, they are all refering to this “era” of time. Paul made no mention of people from a different era, he was talking about people in “his” time. You mentioned that Paul was “supposedly” talking about some other people some time ago. I have been accused of having my own “interpretation” of the bible quite often, I wonder what you call this statement about Paul. I assume you have taken this statement regarding 1Tim 4:1-3 from the RCC as it has been shifted to another group of people and therefore away from the RCC. Paul as I can see it is refering to people in “these” days. Ralph
 
The KJV bible says “latter” times in 1 Tim 4:1, other versions say later times and some say last times. Whatever the version of bible, they are all refering to this “era” of time. Paul made no mention of people from a different era, he was talking about people in “his” time. You mentioned that Paul was “supposedly” talking about some other people some time ago. I have been accused of having my own “interpretation” of the bible quite often, I wonder what you call this statement about Paul. I assume you have taken this statement regarding 1Tim 4:1-3 from the RCC as it has been shifted to another group of people and therefore away from the RCC. Paul as I can see it is refering to people in “these” days. Ralph
Ralph, consider this fact. The Catholic Church sorted through all the writings available to it in 382AD and came up with this canon the two major determining factors were a) Apostolic origin and b) consistency with Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it is impossible for anything in the canon to be inconsistent with what the church teaches.

You see, the Bible is a Catholic book. No educated person will deny this fact. To do so is to show your ignorance of history. And yes, the canon was inspired by the Holy Spirit, working through CATHOLICS., insuring that the Scripture was consistent with the Tradition that the Holy Spirit

It is ludicrous for non-Catholics to try to take the Bible and try to use it against Catholics. This is the case where someone reads a book and then attempts to explain to the author that he understands the book better than the person who wrote the book.
 
The KJV bible says “latter” times in 1 Tim 4:1, other versions say later times and some say last times. Whatever the version of bible, they are all refering to this “era” of time. Paul made no mention of people from a different era, he was talking about people in “his” time. You mentioned that Paul was “supposedly” talking about some other people some time ago. I have been accused of having my own “interpretation” of the bible quite often, I wonder what you call this statement about Paul. I assume you have taken this statement regarding 1Tim 4:1-3 from the RCC as it has been shifted to another group of people and therefore away from the RCC. Paul as I can see it is refering to people in “these” days. Ralph
You said you believe the latter times means the entire last 2000 years; but that St. Paul means only the CC, and that, only after the year *300 AD or so. The Encratites arose between 100 and 200 AD and were so widespread they had an edict placed against them in 382 AD. The Encratites forbade marriage and thought that women were from the devil, and they did not eat animal flesh.
So you see now the CC taking action in 382 AD against those who forbid to marry and who do not eat animal flesh. As St. Paul said.

*300AD is about the time whe celibacy became more or less a solid law in the CC.

Fasting in the CC is not a hatred of meat, nor is is a permanent perpetual state, unlike the Encratites. Fasting in the CC is temporary and periodic and not permanent.

“In the west, Lent is observed from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday, which includes 40 days, excluding Sundays.”

But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.
  • He did not marry and He undertook the most extreme fast possible for the human body - 40 days fasting. - Jesus Christ
  • He did not marry and he fasted Acts 14 22. - St. Paul
*21 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. 22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. *
 
You said you believe the latter times means the entire last 2000 years; but that St. Paul means only the CC, and that, only after the year *300 AD or so. The Encratites arose between 100 and 200 AD and were so widespread they had an edict placed against them in 382 AD. The Encratites forbade marriage and thought that women were from the devil, and they did not eat animal flesh.
So you see now the CC taking action in 382 AD against those who forbid to marry and who do not eat animal flesh. As St. Paul said.

*300AD is about the time whe celibacy became more or less a solid law in the CC.

Fasting in the CC is not a hatred of meat, nor is is a permanent perpetual state, unlike the Encratites. Fasting in the CC is temporary and periodic and not permanent.

“In the west, Lent is observed from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday, which includes 40 days, excluding Sundays.”

But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.
  • He did not marry and He undertook the most extreme fast possible for the human body - 40 days fasting. - Jesus Christ
  • He did not marry and he fasted Acts 14 22. - St. Paul
*21 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. 22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. *
The Bible says in Acts 14:23 "and when they had ordained them “ELDERS”, theses are not priests, there are no “priests” in the new testament. You are trying very hard to get the name “priest” into the NT, to justify the position of “priest” in the RCC. I can see your point in trying to do this, for without “the priest” you have lost the bottom end of the “hierarchy”, and the rest of the hierarchy would tumble. Ralph
 
The Bible says in Acts 14:23 "and when they had ordained them “ELDERS”, theses are not priests, there are no “priests” in the new testament. You are trying very hard to get the name “priest” into the NT, to justify the position of “priest” in the RCC. I can see your point in trying to do this, for without “the priest” you have lost the bottom end of the “hierarchy”, and the rest of the hierarchy would tumble. Ralph
Ralph, its not the name that is important , it is the role. After all, this was written in a different language 2000 years ago. Terminology changes. But what they were doing: preaching, teaching, administering the sacraments has not changed.
 
The Bible says in Acts 14:23 "and when they had ordained them “ELDERS”, theses are not priests, there are no “priests” in the new testament. You are trying very hard to get the name “priest” into the NT, to justify the position of “priest” in the RCC. I can see your point in trying to do this, for without “the priest” you have lost the bottom end of the “hierarchy”, and the rest of the hierarchy would tumble. Ralph
the word translaterd ELDER in Acts 14:23 is presbuteros from which comes the word PRIEST.
 
You did not address the scripture in 1 Tim 4:1-3 regarding “forbidding to marry”, this I believe to be the root cause of pedifile priests. Ralph
I will be happy to address 1 Timothy 4:1-3, and I pity those poor nuns who will have to answer to God for your glaring ignorance of the Catholic faith.

The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. However, many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God in this regard. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage
should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp
 
The Bible says in Acts 14:23 "and when they had ordained them “ELDERS”, theses are not priests, there are no “priests” in the new testament. You are trying very hard to get the name “priest” into the NT, to justify the position of “priest” in the RCC. I can see your point in trying to do this, for without “the priest” you have lost the bottom end of the “hierarchy”, and the rest of the hierarchy would tumble. Ralph
No, Ralphy, the word is already there…you need to under stand the Greek and the etymology of the English word “priest”.

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
 
No, Ralphy, the word is already there…you need to under stand the Greek and the etymology of the English word “priest”.

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
If you call them priests, so be it. In the old testament the “priests” offered sacrifices for sin, and as there is no more offering or sacrifices for sin, so I think they are out of job. Ralph
 
If you call them priests, so be it. In the old testament the “priests” offered sacrifices for sin, and as there is no more offering or sacrifices for sin, so I think they are out of job. Ralph
Ralph, what exactly is your point? Catholic priests do not sacrifice animals, we both agree on that. Their role is to teach, preach, counsel and administer the sacraments. That has been their job since the start of the New Testament, regardless of what they were called.
 
Ralph, what exactly is your point? Catholic priests do not sacrifice animals, we both agree on that. Their role is to teach, preach, counsel and administer the sacraments. That has been their job since the start of the New Testament, regardless of what they were called.
My point is that “priests” are used in the “sacrifice”, (so called), of the mass. Ralph
 
My point is that “priests” are used in the “sacrifice”, (so called), of the mass. Ralph
The sacrifice is Jesus’, which is eternal and timeless. we witness it each mass when the priest consecrates the Bread and Wine.

here is the section of the Catechism that describes the mass. I know you were once Catholic, but you seem to have forgotten (or never learned) what is happening :
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
 
If you call them priests, so be it. In the old testament the “priests” offered sacrifices for sin, and as there is no more offering or sacrifices for sin, so I think they are out of job. Ralph
Does the New Testament use the word presbuteroi? Yes or no.

Is the English word “priest” derived from the word presbuteroi? Yes or no.
 
My point is that “priests” are used in the “sacrifice”, (so called), of the mass. Ralph
And so they are. But your understanding of the sacrifice of the mass may be flawed…

**Is the Mass a Sacrifice? **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

1. Where does the Bible say that the Mass is a sacrifice?

Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” In Greek, this statement reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase *touto poieite *can be translated as *do this *or as *offer this. *In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs” (Ex. 29:38). This use of *poiein *is translated as *offer this *or *sacrifice this *over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word *anamnesin. *If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as *memorial offering *or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.
2. If the Mass is a sacrifice, then doesn’t that imply that Christ needs to die again?

It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14).

Besides offering lambs, the Israelites also made grain offerings, drink offerings, et cetera. One sacrifice was called the wave offering, and this was an unbloody sacrifice where the Jews would wave a gift before God to symbolically give it to him. In Numbers 8:9–15, the whole Hebrew tribe of Levi was presented to God as a wave offering. In a similar way, the Mass is an offering—a sacrifice—where Christ is presented before the Father.
3. Even if you don’t believe Christ dies during the Mass, the Bible still says that he was offered once for all (Heb 9:24–28). Doesn’t re-sacrificing him at Mass mean Calvary wasn’t enough?

Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal.

Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.

The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ—it is the work of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top