There are two or three objections that I commonly hear to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and I wanted to create something short and easy to memorize, so that you’ll know what to say if people ask you (or, if these are questions you have, so you’ll have an easy-to-remember answer). The objections are:
I. The Objections
- Objection 1: Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary is Once-for-All (Hebrews 7:27), so the Sacrifice of the Mass denies the efficacy of Christ’s Sacrifice, and effectively re-Sacrifices Him.
- Objection 2: Catholics and Orthodox sometimes describe the Sacrifice of the Mass as the “Unbloody Sacrifice,” but “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22), so the Sacrifice of the Mass doesn’t do anything (and certainly doesn’t forgive sins).
- Objection 3: How can Catholics and Orthodox call the Sacrifice of the Mass the “Unbloody Sacrifice” and still claim to be consuming His Blood?
What can be said in response to these objections?
II. The Passover Sacrifice
The Passover Sacrifice is the most important sacrifice prefiguring Christ’s. It consisted of two parts:
A. The Killing of the Lamb (Preparation Day) – Exodus 12:5-6 and Leviticus 23:5 specify it’s on the 14th day of the month.
B. Eating the Body of the Lamb (the Passover Meal, a.k.a. Feast of Unleavened Bread) – Exodus 12:8 and Leviticus 23:6 specify that it’s on the 15th day of the month.
These are two distinct actions, on two different days (at least on the Jewish calendar), yet they form one sacrifice. How? Because the lamb didn’t just have to be killed. It’s blood had to be applied to believers, and this was done through eating its flesh.
Notice also that Step A is bloody, and Step B is unbloody (in the sense that the lamb’s blood has already been shed).
III. Christ’s Sacrifice
Christ’s Sacrifice also consists of two parts:
A. The Killing of the Lamb of God (Good Friday) – John 19:14 describes Good Friday as “Preparation Day.”
B. Eating the Body of the Lamb of God (Holy Thursday) – St. Paul calls Christ our “Paschal Lamb” (Passover Lamb) in 1 Corinthians 5:7, and Christ depicts the Last Supper as a Passover (Matthew 26:18; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:8).
These are two distinct actions, on two different days, yet they form one Sacrifice. Because Christ didn’t just have to be killed. His blood had to be applied to believers, and this is done by eating His Flesh. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53-54).
Step A is Once-For-All. Christ dies once for sinners. But Step B is perpetual, because that’s the part Christ says “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Just as the Feast of Unleavened Bread made the Preparation Day sacrifice present, the Mass makes Calvary present.
Notice that this is important, because it’s on Holy Thursday that Christ offers up His Body and Blood to the Father. It’s here that we see that Christ isn’t just the Victim, but is also the Priest of the Sacrifice: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:17-18).
Nearly all Protestants would balk is someone claimed that Good Friday (Step A) was just a symbol, that Christ didn’t literally die on the Cross, but it was just symbolic. So how can they (once they understand the way these Jewish sacrifices work) claim that Holy Thursday (Step B) is just symbolic?
Bonus: Why the “Unbloody” language?
“Bloody” doesn’t just mean “has blood.” You don’t call a person “bloody” just because they have blood in their body, but because they’re covered in blood, or are bleeding, etc. Calvary is bloody, because Christ’s blood is being shed. The Last Supper isn’t bloody, because while His Blood is sacrificially offered, it’s not shed at that moment. By calling the Mass the “Unbloody Sacrifice,” we’re saying that it’s part of the one Sacrifice of Christ, but that we’re not re-killing Him.
One helpful distinction English speakers could make is moving away from the language of bloody vs. unbloody, and instead use the terms violent vs. non-violent. The Latin terms (cruente and incruente) can be translated either way, but violent/unviolent eliminates the confusion about how it is unbloody, yet is the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood.
I think the most significant obstacle for understanding anything pertaining to the sacrifice of Christ, it’s nature and relevance is the inability for modern man to understand time as did the ancients, and that is to be able to distinguish ‘chronos time’ with ‘kairos’ time. Most modern folk have no idea about any of this, but those who lived at the time of Christ certainly did, and this is why the term ‘Kairos’ is mentioned 86 times in the New Testament and ‘chronos’ is mentioned 54 times. These two terms were used extensively by the early Greek philosophers, and Jesus Himself used them also such as in John 7:4 in this phrase”…ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς…”. (καιρὸς is “kairos”)
Without understanding these two different ways of understanding time, I don’t think it is possible to understand well the sacrifice of the Mass and all of it’s significance in time and reality. Here is a short explanation from the ‘Orthodoxy Today’ site:
“…The reason that time in the sense of kairos cannot be measured is because it is always a now. A now is obviously indivisible; an instant is, so to speak, too brief to account for. By the time you stop to measure a now, it is already gone. Now is punctuated by a swift, indecipherable passage from this to that. Furthermore, if now cannot be measured, it can also not be counted. It is futile, for example, and probably a threat to sanity, to ask how many nows there are in an hour.
Unlike the past and the future, nonetheless, the now really exists. Indeed, now is the only time that does exist. In the strictest sense, “there’s no time like now.”
Kairos, because it is present, is an icon of eternal life. To experience the now, after all, one must be alive. The dead know nothing of now. Therefore, the now, the kairos, is an icon of the life of heaven. Indeed, eternal life is an everlasting now, in which there is no sequence, no before and after.
Eternity is not a long time. Strictly speaking, there is simply no length to it. Nothing elapses. The infinite is not measurable. Thus, “when we’ve been there ten thousand years/ bright shining as the sun/ we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise/ than when we’ve first begun.”
Here on earth, kairos is time as significant and decisive. This is the time of which St. Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 6:1–“In a favorable time (kairo dekto) I heard you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you. Behold, now is the most favorable time (nun kairos euprósdektos); behold, now (nun) is the day of salvation.” The only time we can ever really seize is the now. Now is the present instant, the marked pulsing of the heart, the moment to lay hold on eternity.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/ReardonChronos.php
……………………….
Now we just need to go and meditate on the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass with this understanding of ‘Kairos’ in mind. 🙂
Awlms –
I learned something new. Thank you.
Catholicism doesn’t make Christ smaller or limit him to just words, it makes him bigger!
I think people want an easy Christ (I still do deep down). The Mass flies in the face of modern man and his scientism.
“The Mass flies in the face of modern man and his scientism”
It’s pretty simple. Jesus told us to celebrate the Eucharist, and so… as His children….we just obey His loving command and wishes! He’s the one who invented it, not us. So we trust that this is what he wants us to do, even as He said at the ‘Last Supper’. It’s not that complicated. Jesus wants to be very close to us in this world, because He loves us. And if one objects that Jesus doesn’t want to be so close and accessible, then why is He called….’Emmanuel’…God with us??
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Isaiah 7:14)
Best to you.
Do you think that it is good to argue that the blood of Jesus has to be literally present in the Last Supper since if it’s just a mere symbol that the Last Supper is still under the Old Covenant (given that the blood of Jesus is necessary for the New Covenant) and if the Last Supper is under the old covenant, then Jesus ordered the apostles to do a work of the law when He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me”?
Joe,
It seems like the standard Protestant reply here is that your metaphor is mismatched. If we think of Christ’s sacrifice as coming in two parts – the actual sacrifice, and the eating of the sacrifice – then we ate and drank of Christ when we began believing in him. That’s in keeping with the metaphor that runs through the book of John (including chapter 6, as you reference, but the metaphor begins in 4 and continues into 7 – and note wherever the “drink” is explicit, it is of living water, not wine). Thus Augustine, in his commentary on that book:
For He had said to them, Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life. What shall we do? they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.
You cite Hebrews 7 as the objection here, but it seems to me that the much more pressing objection to the Mass comes from Hebrews 10. Speaking of the old sacrifices, it says,
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.”
The old covenant, then, is an endless repetition that can never make perfect those who partake of it. But the author says all of this in contrast with the superiority of the new:
“First [Christ] said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”
Hebrews presents our present holiness as something finished – “we have been made holy”, “he has made perfect forever” – in contrast with annual sacrifices of the old covenant which were necessary to continually repurify. Under your reading, it seems that an opponent of the author could have simply replied, “But we are not perfected forever either; the same sacrifice is still presented endlessly, year after year, and we have not been cleansed once for all any more than were our ancestors. Come, return to the familiar ways.”
In other words, what contrast is there between the way in which the sacrifices cleansed the people in 10:1-3, and your view of the way Christ cleanses us now?
If the sins of the believer in the Old Testament were imputed/transferred to the animal by the laying of hands onto the animal, how is it that we receive forgiveness of sins without laying our hands onto the sacrifice on Calvary? Wouldn’t this be a massive discontinuity?
Hi Craig,
So three replies:
1) To be a little bit silly, we also don’t stick a knife in Christ, literally lay him on an altar, or burn the fat around his kidneys with his tail. Not everything translates over directly, and nothing in the New Testament that I’m aware of appeals to this practice explicitly.
2) As Hebrews points out, all those sins are really ultimately laid on Christ – and if they were laid on him without physically touching him before, then surely that still holds true.
3) I feel a little bit funny answering a question without seeing an answer to my own; how would you address it?
Derp, “lay him on the altar” is the wrong example to use here, obviously, since that’s a point of contention. Can we ignore that one?
Hey Irked, I pray all is well. Long time no talk. 🙂 Let me address your three points:
1. Your reply here amounts to the truisdm that not everything in the OT has a literal, concrete reality in the NT. Fair enough. However, I do think the literal partaking of eating the sacrifice is crucial, which is why Jesus was so explicit about its necessity in John 6.
In response, let me quote something I wrote as a baptist:
In ancient Israel, the Priest would get an animal and instruct the person who brought the sacrifice to lay his hand on it. The Scripture says of the priest, “He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf” (Lev 1:4). In Lev 16:21-22 the same laying of hands on the animal is explicitly for the purpose of transferring the sin of the people onto it.
So, whatever the significance of the laying of hands (whether it be to dedicate the sacrifice or to transfer sins), after killing the animal it is then eaten. This is how one partakes of the sacrifice and attains its benefits.
…
If I did not have faith in Jesus Christ, I would have no desire to lay my hand upon that sacrifice. However, when we place our hands upon the literal sacrifice, this transfers over our sins onto that sacrifice. I don’t know about you, but I want to transfer over my sins to that cross!
…
If we have no participation in Christ’s sacrifice, then our sins are not transferred over to Him, His righteousness is not made ours, and we remain in a damnable position.
The Credo-Baptist has no problem affirming that all the sins they ever committed and will ever commit were anachronistically transferred onto the cross. So, they already concede that they participate in the crucifixion though it happened 2,000 years ago. They are not doing good works (or sacraments) that merit them justification. Rather, a double imputation of our wickedness onto Christ from the present to the past and His righteousness onto us into the present takes place.
If this is so, then the presence of Christ’s literal flesh and blood, outside of time, is also possible. In fact, literally placing our hands upon Christ so that we can participate in that sacrifice from 2,000 years ago is necessary so that we can enjoy its benefits, just like any other sacrifice.
My point in quoting this is to show that the theology of double imputation and the importance of laying on hands in the OT, make the literal and traditional theology of the Eucharist extremely compelling. So compelling, in fact, I think it comes from hubris to reject it. I mean, if even Calvin did not reject the Real Presence, then we have to start asking ourselves, why are we so quick to call the Eucharist mere symbolism with absolutely no Biblical merit (where does the Bible say the Eucharist is a symbol?) nor support even from the Protestant tradition.
What we should be arguing about is not whether Christ is really present in the scarament, but rather, the theology of the Mass/Liturgy…why is He present and what does that mean?
2. I do not follow your reasoning here. You claim our sins are laid on Christ “without touching Him before…” Before when? How do you know your sins are laid upon Him without communing? This is why excommunication is a huge deal, that Christ Himself said in Matt 18 that what is bound on Earth is bound on Heaven. The Bible literally says if you are cast out of Church you are damned. That’s not my opinion. So, why is this so? Because it cuts you off from the Eucharist, you cannot partake in the curcifixion, nor resurrection, without it normatively. The mystical theology of the Eucharist is crucially important, the very focal point of our worship and the Scriptures themselves hinge upon the work of Christ and that becoming manifest in us by the Eucharist.
This is a massive gap between the Protestant and historical Christianity, but this is why when you walk into my Church the altar is front and center and when you walk into yours the podium is. Ironically, the Scriptures mention an altar (i.e. Heb 13), but nothing about podiums. The Scriptures talk about Elders forgiving sins (James 5), sins being bound and loose (Matt 18, John 21), people excommunicated being handed over to satan (1 Cor 6, 2 tim 1)…how does this all happen? Magic? It all revolves around the Eucharist and the Mystery/Sacrament being made available through a Church’s Elder. Defy the Elder, and you are literally cut off from the Body of Christ, and there is (normatively) no salvation for those that are.
Think about it…how can we be saved apart from our sins being on that cross? And how can that occur without our laying of hands onto Him and partaking in the sacrifice?
You must be part of the sacrifice to attain to its benefits. Its not good enough that someone did it on your behalf.
3. I don’t get your point in number 3 my apologies 🙂 I think you’re asking how I would answer my own question. I think I covered that in point 1.
God bless,
Craig
Hi Craig,
Good to talk to you, as well! Hope you’re doing well – things are pretty good around here (although this morning’s snowfall was a little earlier than I was hoping for).
Let me try to reply in kind.
1) What we should be arguing about is not whether Christ is really present in the scarament, but rather, the theology of the Mass/Liturgy…why is He present and what does that mean?
I guess it seems to me that this is what I’ve done. I didn’t argue against the Real Presence; while I’m unconvinced of it, I don’t feel any need to oppose it. I argued against the Mass as a means of removing sins.
2) I do not follow your reasoning here. You claim our sins are laid on Christ “without touching Him before…” Before when? How do you know your sins are laid upon Him without communing?
Hm, no, that’s misunderstanding me. Let me try again.
You’ve argued that, under the old covenant, the people laid their hands on the sheep in order to transfer sins to it. I’m not sure whether that’s the right way to read Leviticus or not – but let’s go with it for the moment.
From Hebrews, we know that those sins weren’t actually laid on the sheep – they were laid on Christ: for “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” I don’t see that there’s any ground for concluding that those sheep were indwelt by Christ, or had the substance of Christ, or whatever the proper way of referring to the matter is: in other words, the laying on of hands was symbolic, because the sin didn’t actually go to the thing that the hands were laid upon. It seems odd to then insist that we must physically lay hands on Christ now, when they never laid hands on Christ before.
I guess I don’t see the necessity of the symbol, given that we have now the reality. I don’t hold Christ in my hands; rather, I am written upon His.
3) Your first comment to me was a reply to my post. In that post, I asked a question:
Under your reading, it seems that an opponent of the author could have simply replied, “But we are not perfected forever either; the same sacrifice is still presented endlessly, year after year, and we have not been cleansed once for all any more than were our ancestors. Come, return to the familiar ways.” In other words, what contrast is there between the way in which the sacrifices cleansed the people in 10:1-3, and your view of the way Christ cleanses us now?
I was a little bit surprised that you replied to me with a new question without offering an answer to that one.
Irked,
I sort of dropped off the map when I took a promotion, but now my wife got a new job in Syracuse NY and my boss is retiring, so my life is returning to normal thank God.
“I guess it seems to me that this is what I’ve done…I argued against the Mass as a means of removing sins.”
My question would be if the Eucharist really is, as Christ literally said, “My blood shed for you,” then wouldn’t the sacrament “remove” sins? Christ’s shed blood forgives all sins, right? I think what you are doing is making a chronological error, please hear me out. Yes, the Eucharist is repeated every Sunday from our perspective of time. Every repetition, in our space time continuum, does not do anything that is new for the believer.
However, we need to have a Theocentric view of the sacrament. If the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the eternal one, of both the sacrifice on calvary and the resurrected Lord (as St Ignatius argues), then the Eucharist is in reality not repeated anymore then Bill Murray’s Groundhog day. Rather, Bill Murray is re-experiencing the same day. The day itself is not repeated. This is a rough analogy, as the Eucharist is not even purely the flesh and blood from Good Friday but is in fact completely outside of time, but I think it helps illustrate the mystical theology of the Eucharist. If the flesh and blood is Christ’s blood from calvary, as Christ’s said, then the Orthodox/RC theology of the Eucharist is an obvious conclusion. In fact, it would be arguing what Calvin did, that the Eucharist is Christ but somehow not a sacrifice, which would be completely irrational.
“You’ve argued that, under the old covenant, the people laid their hands on the sheep in order to transfer sins to it. I’m not sure whether that’s the right way to read Leviticus or not – but let’s go with it for the moment.”
It’s the majority Reformed reading and explicitly stated in Lev 16…
“in other words, the laying on of hands was symbolic, because the sin didn’t actually go to the thing that the hands were laid upon. It seems odd to then insist that we must physically lay hands on Christ now, when they never laid hands on Christ before.”
The sacrificing of the animals never forgave sins. So, even when they laid their hands on the animals, they were not laid onto Christ. This pointed to a real sacrifice on calvary and a real laying on of hands. But, again, we can go in circles saying “no, my way of reading the Bible is better.” However, here is the key problem with your position. If we can agree that the literal animal sacrifices pointed to a literal sacrifice of Christ, then what did the literal laying on hands point to…nothing? This does not work, especially when you have perhaps the most consistent, universal, and exhaustively written about theology of the Eucharist over 15 centuries. To simply say, “Well, uh, that can work but i don’t like it” is simply not going to cut it. That’s not a respectable objection.
“In other words, what contrast is there between the way in which the sacrifices cleansed the people in 10:1-3, and your view of the way Christ cleanses us now?”
The difference is two fold–for one, we have a sacrifice now that actually does something unlike the animals. Second, just like every day we have an opportunity to repent and have faith in Christ, we have repeated opportunities to be part of the sacrifice on calvary. (For what it is worth Heb 9:23 speaks of the Eucharist as “sacrifices“.)
Your presupposition is incorrect. You believe that forgiveness is something you have attained within the space time continuum, on a certain day in your life. This is not how it works. Forgiveness does not exist on a specific day, it exists in Christ, it is outside of time, the life of God, Him abiding in us, is what forgives and saves us. Hence, from our perspective it begins on a day, but in reality it is a reality that we experience daily.
Irked, I know what you are reacting against. The RC formulation. We have all heard it–the Eucharist forgives venial sins, if I sin venially this week, communing on Sunday wipes them out. It is like a bank transaction which we get to reconcile once a week. I am not going to tell you you should agree with this formulation, but rather I would challenge to realize that the RC intellectual tradition is trying to put within certain, categorical terms something that is mystical and outside-of-time. This is why I view the RC and Orthodox views as fundamentally in agreement, even if the RC formulation sounds too transactional.
God bless,
Craig
Hi Craig,
I sort of dropped off the map when I took a promotion, but now my wife got a new job in Syracuse NY and my boss is retiring, so my life is returning to normal thank God.
I’m glad to hear it!
My question would be if the Eucharist really is, as Christ literally said, “My blood shed for you,” then wouldn’t the sacrament “remove” sins?
Say for the sake of argument that the Eucharist literally is the blood of Christ; I don’t believe physical contact with, or even physical ingestion of, the blood of Christ forgives sin. The men who drove the nails were not forgiven by virtue of the blood on their hands – they were condemned by it. I’m not aware of any point in the Old Testament where the ingestion of blood is made a part of forgiveness, if we want to appeal in that direction.
(Indeed, doesn’t the old covenant strictly forbid the ingestion of blood? If all the features of the old must be modeled in the new, what does that become?)
More to the point, the question would seem to be whether I have any sins credited to me to remove when I next take communion. In God’s accounting, I don’t believe that I do – in which case, they can’t very well be removed by it.
If the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the eternal one, of both the sacrifice on calvary and the resurrected Lord (as St Ignatius argues), then the Eucharist is in reality not repeated anymore then Bill Murray’s Groundhog day. Rather, Bill Murray is re-experiencing the same day. The day itself is not repeated.
In this view, isn’t the Eucharist the same sacrifice, repeated endlessly year after year, with those partakers of it never able to say, “Yes, all my sins have now been covered, and I have been perfected forever?”
Because if so, it still seems to me that this describes the old covenant – the very thing that the author of Hebrews contrasts against the new finished work.
Let me try this: the old covenant could never perfect forever. By the new covenant, we have been made perfect forever. Under your argument, how is the status of the sins under the old covenant unlike their status under the new? In both cases, the sins are ultimately laid on Christ. Both covenants, in what I understand you to say, require a regular reapplication. How is what we have now better, except insofar as bread is cheaper than goats?
In what sense do we say, as the author of Hebrews do, that there is no longer any offering for sin? Isn’t our next communion just such an offering, in your view?
However, here is the key problem with your position. If we can agree that the literal animal sacrifices pointed to a literal sacrifice of Christ, then what did the literal laying on hands point to…nothing?
Let me offer two possible resolutions here. I don’t share your sense that this must be paralleled – I think we could find a host of properties that were not – but if you do, I think either of these could resolve the matter.
First, in Leviticus 16, it is Aaron – the high priest – who lays hands on the sacrifice. But the new covenant is remarkable in that Christ is both high priest and sacrifice: that the high priest sacrifices himself. If this is the metaphor to which you’re appealing, it seems to me that it’s satisfied when the Son offers himself: when he, in effect, lays hands on himself, to hand himself over.
Second, the signs of the old covenant bring the people as close as possible to the offering. They touch it, they eat it, they smell it as it burns, they may even have some of the blood placed upon them. But all of these are shadows; they bring you as close as you can get to a material thing. With Christ, we draw closer: we are literally indwelt by him, filled by his Spirit, conformed to his being. If the physical signs must be replaced by anything, their purest replacement is a spiritual closeness that far surpasses mere touch.
Are there also physical reminders? Sure. But the parallel is satisfied by the greater fulfillment, even before we come to the reminder.
Second, just like every day we have an opportunity to repent and have faith in Christ, we have repeated opportunities to be part of the sacrifice on calvary.
Where in Hebrews 10 do you see the idea of “we have repeated opportunities?”
(For what it is worth Heb 9:23 speaks of the Eucharist as “sacrifices“.)
Man, that assumes your conclusion all over the place. You can conclude that “sacrifices” references the Eucharist, but Hebrews 9 doesn’t say it.
***
It seems like your critique of my position – that I speak of our perfection as something done, something that can be described in temporal terms as completed already – is also a critique of the biblical authors. Doesn’t the author of Hebrews speak of it in these terms? Doesn’t Paul, when he links Abraham’s justification to a specific moment in time – when he specifically grounds his argument in Romans 4 on the fact that it Abraham’s justification is accomplished prior to his circumcision?
If I can return your language: your error, it seems to me, is in assuming that something is either temporally accomplished or it exists in the timelessness of God. A thing can be both; indeed, all events in time of necessity are. It can be true both that my sins were laid on Christ in timeless eternity logically prior to creation, and that I was reborn on November 13th of such-and-such a year and do not carry the burden of my sin on any subsequent day.
Irked,
I will give you the last word, because honestly, I find this topic hard to write about in any deeper detail. I would love to talk it over with you whenever you have the opportunity.
“I don’t believe physical contact with, or even physical ingestion of, the blood of Christ forgives sin.”
Isn’t “The life in the blood” (Lev 17:11)?
“The men who drove the nails were not forgiven by virtue of the blood on their hands – they were condemned by it.”
As are those who fell asleep for partaking of the Eucharist unworthily in 1 COr 11, coincidence?
“I’m not aware of any point in the Old Testament where the ingestion of blood is made a part of forgiveness, if we want to appeal in that direction.”
Actually, the blood was poured out and intentionally not consumed because of Lev 17:11. I actually think this points to Christ, as life is in His blood. The ingestion of blood in the sacrificial system was not allowed, as it would create confusion that life is possible apart from abiding in Christ and His blood.
“the question would seem to be whether I have any sins credited to me to remove when I next take communion.”
This is why I can’t keep arguing this out. You;re thinking of this chronologically. So in one sense, yes, you keep sinning in the space time continuum and God keeps forgiving. But in reality, your sins were forgiven before you were born…but this atonement is only effectual when you abide in Christ by faith, repentance, and obedience. This is why there is no sacrifice for sins for those who continue in sin (Heb 10:26). Abiding in Christ by grace, through faith that works through love, conforms us to God. We are saved by righteousness that is not our own, but is from God “that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:10-11). So, that atonement is contingent upon us abiding in Christ. Faithfulness, which the sacramental system is part of, is necessary and must be a continuing reality.
“In this view, isn’t the Eucharist the same sacrifice, repeated endlessly year after year…”
No, you’re repeating your experience, the Eucharist is the same. You repeat your repentance. You have faith every day. Christ does not get repeated.
“By the new covenant, we have been made perfect forever.”
Not if you apostatize. Not if you “back slide.” You are only perfect if you abide in the Perfect One. Your perfection is not your own, it is completely contingent upon Him (i.e. righteousness…that is from God, Phil 3:9). So, you don’t need the Eucharist every Sunday. St Chrysostom wrote about this. Some do it only once a year, or every few years. He warned, even with such infrequency and with serious fasting, with faithlessness it is useless. However, what does not follow is you only “need” the Eucharist once. Rather, we abide in God through faith. If you are faithful and have the capacity to worship frequently, the Eucharist is going to be a way you will commonly abide in Him. We believe men are saved apart from the Eucharist (martyrdom before baptism for example), but we also believe they are saved by frequent communion.
“Under your argument, how is the status of the sins under the old covenant unlike their status under the new?”
OC never forgave sins. Period. Hebrews states this clearly. It only pointed us to what did forgive sins, that is Christ. COnsider the O.C. a hands-on learning experience to get you used to the actual Eucharist.
“Isn’t our next communion just such an offering, in your view?”
No, I quoted the Orthodox prayer, Christ was sacrificed only once. In the Eucharist, we present to God the only worthy sacrifice there is (Himself) and we anachronistically become part of the sacrifice. But, we can repeat this anachronism. The sacrifice does not get repeated.
Your comments of Lev 16 ignore the broader reformed teaching that the laying of hands on all sacrifices was meant to transmit sins, not just Lev 16. Lev 16 was the only passage that spelled it out.
“Where in Hebrews 10 do you see the idea of “we have repeated opportunities?””
Heb 9:23.
“Man, that assumes your conclusion all over the place. You can conclude that “sacrifices” references the Eucharist, but Hebrews 9 doesn’t say it.”
What other “Sacrifices” cleanse the heavenly places that are explicitly blood…
“It seems like your critique of my position – that I speak of our perfection as something done, something that can be described in temporal terms as completed already – is also a critique of the biblical authors.”
Wrong, your critique of mine is a critique of the Scriptures. I accept men are saved in a moment in time, like the thief on the cross. I also accept that men make a shipwreck of their faith, that men go to the elders and confess and their sins are forgiven, that men who sin continually have no sacrifice for sins anymore. I see faith as dynamic, which is the fuller Scriptural teaching. You focus on a couple passages and presume it is static, and essentially ignore that sins are continually forgiven as James 5 says. I am trying to expound a fuller Biblical teaching.
May God bless you this day,
Craig
Craig,
I will give you the last word, because honestly, I find this topic hard to write about in any deeper detail. I would love to talk it over with you whenever you have the opportunity.
Yeah, me too! I enjoyed our talk the other mon…
… year? Good grief.
So fisking this became a nightmare of incomprehensibility, and I’m giving up on the effort. Let me instead reply on a handful of specific points and let those serve for all.
First, it seems like our debate here is trying hard to trail off in the direction of the persistence of salvation, and I was really hoping to avoid that (as it’s an enormous topic in its own right). There is a lot of crossover, so this may be an impossible objective. You and I obviously have wildly different opinions here; I would argue that the full teaching of Scripture is that my salvation does not depend upon me, that my continuing sins are continuously credited to Christ, and that the faith by which I hold on to my salvation is fundamentally a gift that does not depend on me.
Second, this seems to tie directly into our debate on temporality. You concede, it seems to me, that it is reasonable to speak of salvation as an event in time as well as something foreordained from eternity. Thus, for instance, you say
I accept men are saved in a moment in time, like the thief on the cross.
Yet a moment before, your critique of me was
This is why I can’t keep arguing this out. You;re thinking of this chronologically.
Well… yes, I am; I’m thinking of it both chronologically and from the perspective of eternity. It seems to me you’ve granted the former is a valid perspective, and it seems to me to be from that perspective that the author of Hebrews says “We have been made holy.”
I’m going to say here something I’ll repeat in a moment: it seems to me that the Orthodox church uses an appeal to “mystery” to plaster over legitimate critique of inconsistent positions. “Forgiveness happens chronologically as a result of an achronological action” isn’t logically inconsistent. “You are and are not allowed to think about this chronologically” is.
(Or if it is not, is there any bounds to what cannot be defended in this way?)
That actually leads into my third point: I do not understand what rules are guiding the search for parallels in the old and new covenants. This feels, not to put too fine a point on it, like Calvinball: if it fits with Orthodox teaching, it needs to be a parallel, and if it doesn’t, well, maybe the exact reverse is true. Leviticus says lay on hands, so in the new covenant we need to lay on hands; Leviticus says not to ingest blood, so in the new covenant we need to ingest blood?
I don’t understand by what criteria one could decide which is which, other than simply “whatever the Orthodox Church says.” Surely we could reach any conceivable position just by flipping around which things need to be fulfilled by the same kind of action, and which need to be fulfilled by the exact opposite action.
I would say rather that books like Hebrews outline what the parallels are, and that where they do not make such an appeal (i.e., the fat around the kidneys), we should do so with extreme caution and humility in our claim.
Fourth (almost done!), it seems to me that there’s a flat inconsistency in the way you’re willing to discuss the plurality of Christ’s sacrifice. At one point, you reply to me, saying,
“In this view, isn’t the Eucharist the same sacrifice, repeated endlessly year after year…”
No, you’re repeating your experience, the Eucharist is the same.
That seems to be a denial, not only that communion is separate sacrifices, but also that it can be said to be a repetition of the same sacrifice.
A few paragraphs off, you respond to another remark by saying
“Where in Hebrews 10 do you see the idea of “we have repeated opportunities?””
Heb 9:23.
I have issue with that response for a number of reasons. It seems like a confident leap grounded upon almost no evidence. There’s no “we” in 9:23 (or for a fair distance on either side), nor is there any clear reference to communion anywhere nearby. The early commentaries of which I’m aware (Chrysostom, say) don’t read the verse in this way, and it’s relatively easy to think of other readings for “sacrifices” (the body and blood of Christ, Christ’s blood and righteous life, or a simple poetic echoing of the previous phrase: “if the good things were not enough, we need better things, and the better things are Christ’s blood”).
But set all of that aside. In asserting that this passage is (necessarily!) a reference to the Eucharist, you seem to be saying that the author of Hebrews is referring to it as sacrifices, plural – the very thing you said I could not do in considering his argument only a few verses later.
Which is it? It seems remarkable that you would, in one paragraph, studiously assert that Christ’s sacrifice must be thought of as singular, and that the Eucharist not even be considered a repetition of it, and in the next assert that any use of the word “sacrifices” must refer to the multiplicity of Eucharistic sacrifices. That’s not a mystery – it’s just a contradiction; either the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist can fairly be said to be another/a repeated sacrifice (in which case my criticism on 10:1-3 would seem to be valid) or it cannot (in which case it cannot be in mind in 9:23).
It is certainly insufficient to say that it can when useful to your arguments, and cannot when contrary to your arguments, and yet I’m not sure how else to parse this reply.
As a final point, you say
OC never forgave sins. Period. Hebrews states this clearly. It only pointed us to what did forgive sins, that is Christ. COnsider the O.C. a hands-on learning experience to get you used to the actual Eucharist.
And yet the sins committed under the old covenant were forgiven; its practitioners did not all end up in hell. Hebrews just says they weren’t forgiven by sheep and goats: they were merely passed over for a time, until they could be forgiven by Christ.
As indeed our sins are forgiven by Christ! And that’s the thing I was trying to push on here: how are these different? If the Jews of old needed to regularly sacrifice in order to lay fresh sins (unknowingly) on Christ, and we need to do the same thing, how is this new covenant better? What is the argument of Hebrews here?
Anyway, best to you and your wife. We’ve both used strong language in the conversation; I hope it’s clear that we do so in an attempt to push each other towards whatever the truth actually is, and from a place of mutual respect.
(At least, I hope it’s mutual. :))
Take care, and see you next time!
Irked,
I’m looking for the Judaizer comment and found this, but I’m not sure this is what you intended me to find!
Re your Point No. 2 above: Our sins DID touch Jesus physically. They touched him emotionally and mentally, in every regard and in every sensory and spiritual respect. Our sins suffocated him and caused him to sweat blood. Our sins dragged Him down as he hung on the cross, as he was scourged, rejected, betrayed, ignored, plotted against, tortured with thorns, struck with whips containing jagged metal pieces at their ends which tore into his flesh. He was nailed to the cross, given gall to drink when thirsty. He was condemned without cause and held without reason. All this was because of our sins, all because nothing except the immense and infinite perfection of God could ever compensate for all the sins of humanity. All this was necessary to atone. Should we not remember him by offering and partaking of our sacramental sacrifice as he asked us to do?
If nothing else, if NOTHING ELSE, the sacrifice of the Mass should call to mind the sacrifice on Calvary where our sins physically killed our Savior.
Margo,
That seems more an answer to Craig’s question than mine. I agree that communion should call to mind our murder of Christ – it is, indeed, the only explicit purpose Christ gives it.
Yes. There was/is massive discontinuity.
The rulers of the Synagogue belonged to the priesthood of Aaron but the Catholic Church, in its Apostles and successors, had no connection with it.
There are many other examples – the synagogue helped produce sanctification for only Jews whereas Catholic Church provides it for all
Rabbinical Judaism (RJ) formed after 70 A.D. when the City of Deicide was destroyed and there is no connection twixt Jews and Christians because ur putative elder brethren are younger than us. R.J. formed to combat/war against the Catholic Church
Also, how could there be such a thing as Judeo-Christian anything when the Jews reject Jesus?
Craig,
It seems as if we would be laying our hands onto the sacrifice when we take into our hands and place into our mouths his Eucharistic Body. Is that how you see it?
Margo,
That is exactly correct. Both our communions traditionally have stopped taking that literally (we Orthodox have the Eucharist on a common spoon while traditional RCs have the Body placed on their tongue and no Blood.) Nevertheless, the RCs have returned to what was in fact the earlier practice for the Eucharist’s distribution and the Oriental communions, like the Ethiopians, still partake of the Eucharist in this fashion.
The Orthodox only partake of the Eucharist in the hand if the Liturgy of St James is being conducted, which is practically never. It is my opinion that this earlier form of distribution better preserves the intent of the apostles in superceding the OT sacrificial system with its fulfillment, the New Covenant in His Blood available to us in the Eucharist.
God bless,
Craig
The Angelic Doctor taught that only the hands of the consecrated may touch the Sacred Species.
Communion in the hands began in the low countries as a protest (protestant) tactic
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.W-bYjS2ZN7M
Again, the Orthodox do it in the Liturgy of Saint James (and it is explicitly called for in that liturgy). The Ethiopians, who were cut off from the west for 1000 years, do it: https://youtu.be/OReqeJ-q6Kw?t=8430. The Nestorians are the same: https://youtu.be/ux75-idIiLw?t=2581
Just sayin’, the older model is the laity receiving communion in the hand.
Hi Irked,
Jesus said, regarding altars and sacrifice:
“…I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore thou offer THY GIFT at the ALTAR, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; Leave there thy offering before THE ALTAR, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming THOU SHALT OFFER THY GIFT. ” ( Matt. 5:22)
In the first three sentences of this statement above, Jesus is teaching general precepts which should apply to everyone in the world, and not merely the people He addressed before Him ( …and the Didache backs this assumption up). And, then in the following sentence Jesus immediately adds an emphatic example of the importance of what He just proclaimed, and stated that ‘reconciliation’ of brothers is more essential than sacrifice to God, and therefore reconciliation should come FIRST and sacrifice SECOND…after the reconciliation.
But, in using this example, Jesus is also insinuating that there will indeed be ALTARS in the future wherein one might ‘leave the gift and then come back and offer the same gift after necessary reconciliation has been made between ‘brothers’. So, in the Catholic Church today, after 2000 years of Christianity this teaching and warning of Jesus can still be, and should still be, complied with even as Jesus taught to the world back then. But for Protestants, who don’t believe in ‘sacrifice’, this precept is apparently worthless or ‘out dated’…and therefore has no means of be lived out, or practiced as Jesus advised.
Also, if a Protestant says that the ‘Early Church’ did away with such sacrifices…where is the proof in Church history? On the contrary, Catholics have many proofs from Early Christianity, and one of which relates to the very same Matt. 5:22 quote above:
“The Didache
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your SACRIFICE may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
Then:
Pope Clement I
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered ITS SACRIFICES. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).
Then:
Ignatius of Antioch
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single ALTAR of SACRIFICE—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
Then:
Justin Martyr
“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place OFER SACRIFICES to him, that is, THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST and also THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
***********************************
Are these proclamations (above) from early Church History not proofs regarding the nature of ‘the Eucharist as a sacrifice’ practiced in the Early Church? Where are the historical proofs of any kind for the Protestant position?
Best to you.
Al,
But, in using this example, Jesus is also insinuating that there will indeed be ALTARS in the future wherein one might ‘leave the gift and then come back and offer the same gift after necessary reconciliation has been made between ‘brothers’.
Sure. I leave gifts at the altar, too. They just don’t take away my sin.
We’ve done this before, man. You infer that “sacrifice/offering” necessarily implies exclusively sin offerings, and that’s never been true in either covenant. You quote 1 Clement; the authors of that work define both “praise” and “a broken spirit” as sacrifices in the text.
Where are the historical proofs of any kind for the Protestant position?
I’d like to have my original question answered before we go down that road.
Hi Irked, I’m not implying anything except that the Early Church used altars for the purpose conducting their Eucharistic liturgies. And, altars are obviously used for ‘sacrifice’ of one sort or another. An innocent and holy state of soul before offering sacrifice to God (in the The Eucharist)… is what both Jesus and the Didache are pointing to in the above quotes, with the Didache indicating that the sacrifice might indeed be impure. Hence, ‘confession of faults’ before such sacrifice is mandated in this early catechetical work : ” make confession of your faults, so that your SACRIFICE may be a pure one.”
By the way, at every Mass we make such a confession when we pray the ‘Confiteor prayer’:
“I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault,
through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
Al,
Cool. If you’re not talking about sacrifices for sin, and just noting that whatever things we offer to God are tainted if they don’t come from a place of obedience, then I’d like to get back to Joe’s argument, and to my follow-up question. Do you have an answer?
Hi Irked,
I am a believer in what I read. I was reading details about ‘liturgics’ in the Early Church in the quotes above. They all teach about ‘sacrifice’. You can interpret or spin it any way you want. I simply believe the words as are written by these ‘trust worthy’ followers of Christ.
Ignatius says, above:
“you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single ALTAR of SACRIFICE—even as there is also but one bishop,”
What more evidence do we need for understanding that there was an ‘altar’ and a ‘sacrifice’ occurring in the ancient Eucharistic liturgies back in 110 AD??
The Catholics have always had the correct interpretation regarding the Mass and the Eucharist.
Thanks be to God.
Al,
But again, I deny neither the continuing existence of altars nor of sacrifices to God. Protestants offer sacrifices to God today.
No part of this answers my question.
Here, let’s try this a different way: You’re making a defense of transubstantiation. I’m making a critique of efficacy. Those are not intersecting each other.
What do you say to my hypothetical Judaizing critic? Explain how his critique of Hebrews 10 is false, and I’ll be happy to reply to your charges. Until then, I have an unanswered objection.
hypothetical Judaizing critic?
I think you are getting lost in your own hypothetical philosophical speculations. If Christianity was that complicated nobody would have ever followed it. It would necessitate a double doctorate in philosophy just to have a shot at salvation.
Jesus, on the other hand, implies a different type of Christianity, one of simplicity, charity, honesty, love of the God, singleness of heart….summarized when He simply says:
“Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 18:3]
So, when we read Justin Martyr writing, above:
“…us [Christians] who in every place OFFER SACRIFICES to him, that is, THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST and also THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
…We should just believe what He says. In 150 AD Justin teaches, above, that “IN EVERY PLACE”…CHRISTIANS….OFFER SACRIFICES TO HIM… The BREAD of the EUCHARIST and the CUP of the EUCHARIST.
This is what we should believe about the Early Church. St. Justin Martyr is an excellent witness that should be believed whole heartedly…so speculation on ‘hypothetical Judaising critics’ should not be needed to help clarify the nature of what St. Justin teaches about Church History in the quote above.
Best to you.
Okay. So, to be clear, you are not going to answer my objection: that the Catholic understanding of the Mass renders null the argument of the author of Hebrews, in chapter 10?
Because I’m not sure there’s anything else to say at that point.
By the way…
When Justin says: “IN EVERY PLACE”…it indicates that this Eucharistic sacrificial practice was a ‘norm’ throughout the Roman Empire.
Do you think that these Christians that Justin is referring to as being ..”in every place”…were really ancient Protestants?
Irked,
“the Catholic understanding of the Mass renders null the argument of the author of Hebrews, in chapter 10” = sorry, perhaps I missed something, but can you explain how?
Hi LLC
Irked,
“the Catholic understanding of the Mass renders null the argument of the author of Hebrews, in chapter 10” = sorry, perhaps I missed something, but can you explain how?
Yes. The post that starts this comment chain is mine, and I tried to explain there.
… Is that post actually visible? It starts with “Joe” and ends with “cleanses us now” – you and Craig have both professed perplexity as to what question I’m talking about, so I’m getting paranoid.
Irked,
Yes, the post is visible, but there’s nothing in Hebrew chapter 10 that contradicts the RCC understanding of the mass, or vice-versa.
Perhaps I don’t understand your objections (possible), or perhaps you don’t understand the Church’s teachings (also possible).
Hi LLC,
Both definitely possible! So what would you say to the objector at the end of that post?
Irked,
I would answer that I do not understand the objection. I think Dr. Marshall said it best: “The sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied”.
LLC,
Hm. I’m not sure how to go from there; I don’t know how better to lay out that objection than I did on the first pass. If you want to get into what doesn’t make sense about it, I can try to explain, or we can call it there.
Irked,
nah, it’s cool. If your objection didn’t make sense then, I don’t think there’s much more to say.
Thanks anyways!
Irked, I lost your email, do you remember mine?
Craig,
Yes, just sent you a note. (Yours is pretty easy.)
Hi Irked,
The yearly OT sacrifices were sacrifices of different things. The material sacrificed in 600 BC would have differed from the prior year’s material. Every Mass offers the same Christ.
Hebrews 10:14 – “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” How do you account for the present continuous tense of “those who are being made holy”? Present continuous implies an action occurring in the present. How do you see those words referring to one completed and past action?
Margo,
The yearly OT sacrifices were sacrifices of different things. The material sacrificed in 600 BC would have differed from the prior year’s material. Every Mass offers the same Christ.
Yet that’s not the emphasis in Hebrews. The author there refers to the old covenant as “the same sacrifices repeated endlessly” – he stresses that the continuity of the same offerings, not that they’re different sheep. We see that continue down into verse 11: “again and again [the old priest] offers the same sacrifices.”
And again, his point is that these old offerings could not “make perfect those who draw near to worship… Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.” If he holds this up as the old system, replaced by a better one with Christ, is his point not that Christ has done that very thing (i.e., that he has made us perfect forever) – as indeed the author explicitly says? Indeed, his thought here continues all the way through 18: “And where these [sins] have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.”
Is that not an explicit statement that we no longer need sacrifice “year after year” to serve as a “reminder of sins?” Is he only saying that the new covenant saves you a bundle on sheep?
Hebrews 10:14 – “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” How do you account for the present continuous tense of “those who are being made holy”? Present continuous implies an action occurring in the present. How do you see those words referring to one completed and past action?
So two things are said of us there:
1) We have been made perfect forever.
2) We are being made holy.
We have to account for both of those; I don’t see that you have addressed the former yet. I can offer two ways of reading the latter.
First, I don’t know enough Greek to make sense of the tenses there, but my understanding is that there’s some debate as to whether the proper reading is “who are being made holy,” i.e., are becoming progressively holy over time, or “who are holy,” i.e., who are and continue to be holy in the present. Thus the NASB’s reading: “By one sacrifice he has perfected forever those who are sanctified.” That fits better with v. 10, which presents the same verb as a completed thing: “By this will we have been sanctified.”
But even barring that reading, Protestant theology makes a division between what we term justification and sanctification: that is, between the reckoning of us as righteous before God, and the process of conforming our character to Christ. Given that understanding, it’s reasonable to read this passage as, in effect, “He has perfected forever [by removing their sins] those who are being made holy [by growing into sinless character].”
What do you do with the statement that we have been perfected forever?
In God there is no yesterday, today or tomorrow. That is forever. HIS sacrifice of atonement was accomplished once for all. The opening of the gates of heaven was accomplished on the cross. But are we, you and I and the rest, there yet? No. We are in time. We are not in His time yet.
We recreate the sacrifice of the cross in remembering it and performing it sacramentally in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is our small sacrifice to offer him, to plead his mercy for our sins since we DO re-commit sins in spite of his life within us. We are told by Him to be perfect. Question: Do you know ANYONE to whom you could really and truly apply that label? ANYONE? Is it your view that faith perfects? It is my view that perfection must be attained. Perfection is not a given. What is given is His Eucharistic body and blood; given to us, for us and through which we are made like Him so as to ascend as did he. That is why he came to do that will of his Father. Why should we not do as he requested? We listen then so do as he did and as he commanded. We remember him by re-enacting his command to take and eat his body and blood. We reoffer and we represent and we partake of the broken Christ, the sacrificial lamb on Calvary.
Got questions? which I have not answered?
Margo,
But are we, you and I and the rest, there yet? No. We are in time. We are not in His time yet.
Okay. So can we say, as the author of Hebrews does, that we have been perfected forever, or not? Can a Christian fairly say, “In the judgment of God, I have been made perfect?”
What is your reply to the Judaizer in my first post? What improvement have we found, if we still repeat the same sacrifice year after year and are not forever perfected by any of them?
Question: Do you know ANYONE to whom you could really and truly apply that label? ANYONE?
Yes. Jesus Christ meets that label, and it is his imputed righteousness – his having perfected forever – to which I’m appealing.
Is it your view that faith perfects?
No. It’s my view that my faith is credited to me, unearned, as the righteousness of Christ, just as Christ’s sacrifice is credited as the payment for all my sins. Thus Paul: “To the one who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.”
It is my view that perfection must be attained.
Then we are all damned.
Jesus made it possible for us to be perfected. Only when we are truly united with him in his beatitude will be perfected completely as he is completely. We have been perfected when we have been. We are not yet perfected, else the language should have been: “You are perfect.” No. We are not perfect until He as Judge pronounces us so.
We ought not have presumption to judge ourselves. Neither are we yet damned, nor are we yet perfect. If one claims to be one or the other, he assumes a role not his to assume.
I don’t know to what you refer when you talk about the Judaizer in your first post.
The improvement is not ours; the improvement was in the nature of the sacrifice. The OT sacrificed animals which could not atone for sin for all time. The NT sacrifice is our eternal, never changing, always alive yet broken for us, Christ. Our sacrifice is always the same, always Christ eternal.
Margo,
Jesus made it possible for us to be perfected… Neither are we yet damned, nor are we yet perfect. If one claims to be one or the other, he assumes a role not his to assume.
Okay. So when the author of Hebrews says of us “He has made perfect forever,” or that “we have been sanctified,” would your answer would be that these things have not, in fact, been done – that Jesus has only made it possible for them to be done, and not actually done them? Is the author assuming a role not his to pronounce?
We have been perfected when we have been. We are not yet perfected, else the language should have been: “You are perfect.”
It functionally is. “He has made perfect forever.”
I don’t know to what you refer when you talk about the Judaizer in your first post.
I said: Under your reading, it seems that an opponent of the author could have simply replied, “But we are not perfected forever either; the same sacrifice is still presented endlessly, year after year, and we have not been cleansed once for all any more than were our ancestors. Come, return to the familiar ways.” In other words, what contrast is there between the way in which the sacrifices cleansed the people in 10:1-3, and your view of the way Christ cleanses us now?
The improvement is not ours; the improvement was in the nature of the sacrifice.
According to Hebrews 10, what new benefits do we have because the sacrifice for our sins is superior?
Irked,
Your comments are lengthy yet appear to raise the same question ad eternum. You continually ask how the sacrifices of the OT differ from the New. I reiterate. The matter, the substance, the element of the sacrifice differs. The matter in the OT differed year to year because it was burned and consumed. The matter in the NT is always the same yet ever new as it is the Word Himself. It is Jesus Himself. And this is how we become capable of perfection, because it is He, no longer I, who lives in me.
But NO. On earth we are not perfect. We can strive toward and come near to Him, but until we become as Him. Please RE-READ and read very carefully the quote you continue to offer as justification for your Protestant position: Hebrews 10:verse? “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who ARE BEING MADE holy.”
He makes perfect only those who are BEING MADE holy. He opens heaven’s gate for those who are in process who are striving to attain perfection there. He makes perfect forever is those who enter heaven will remain there perfect and forever.
The Eucharist is a sacrament where God changes the substance of bread and wine. He who is Creator can cleanse a soul in baptism, right? He has power over life and death, right? So why can he not be present under the appearance of bread and wine since He Himself told us they were (or “IS”) his body and blood.
The ACT of the sacrifice (the sacrament) is re-enacted, but the SACRIFICE, THE ELEMENTAL SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRIFICE is always Christ. Always with us to make us holy and to overcome our dying so as to lead to life.
Signing off for today.
Best regards and prayers to you and yours.
Margo,
Your comments are lengthy yet appear to raise the same question ad eternum.
They do, yes, because the question is what Hebrews says. You’ve clearly explained the Catholic position on communion; what remains unclear is how you connect this position to the argument of Hebrews. I originally asked for a single reply: “What would you say to someone who raised such-and-such an objection?” Where, in any post so far, is the answer to that objector?
I reiterate. The matter, the substance, the element of the sacrifice differs.
Does Hebrews say only that the substance is different, or does it also indicate that the effect is different?
And this is how we become capable of perfection
But Hebrews does not say we become capable of perfection. It says we have been perfected: the focus is on what Christ has done, not what we can do.
He makes perfect forever is those who enter heaven will remain there perfect and forever.
Shouldn’t the verse then read that he will make perfect forever? Shouldn’t verse 10 say not that we have been sanctified, but rather that we will be sanctified?
So why can he not be present under the appearance of bread and wine since He Himself told us they were (or “IS”) his body and blood.
He certainly could. That isn’t under debate.
Hi Irked,
I’ve not got much time beyondt these few minutes to address one point on sanctification. Catholics don’t believe that, generally, one can know that one has earned a place in heaven until one actually enters. Generally. Even if a person tends to think he has been sanctified because of special revelations, that (Catholic) person will not rest on his laurels but will continue to strive and ask that any of his (God-given) merits be given to others. (This is a topic this forum has raised in the past.) If one is perfect as God is perfect, one must believe that that perfection can help others, just as Jesus’ merits have helped us.
There is a whole body of mystical and ascetic theology, developed through the centuries. which deals with perfection. St. John of the Cross’ “Dark Night of the Soul” is a classic. He’s Catholic (actually, lived during Counter-Reformation), so I don’t know whether you’re open to that…but it’s a classic early treatise on the topic if you’re interested.
Hi Margo,
Right, I’m aware. That’s what leads to Joan of Arc’s brilliant reply when her Catholic interrogators asked whether she was in the state of grace; to answer yes was to commit heresy (and so be burned), and to answer no was to admit the righteousness of judgement (and so be burned).
(For the record, she said, “If I am not, may God place me there; if I am, may God so keep me.”)
But the question of interest to me, not surprisingly, is what Hebrews has to say on the subject.
Hi Irked,
I read your replies to me and to Awlms that we have not sufficiently answered your queries Hebrews 10. It seems to me that we (Craig, LLC, ABS) all HAVE answered in NUMEROUS posts. You appear not to accept our answers.
Since you claim that your question has not been answered, why do you continue to press to answers? You yourself said that you were beginning to be ?paranoid? at our not seeing the question you keep asking.
It seems that we’ve presented (so far as our little brains allow!) what we perceive Hebrews 10 to say. That being said, why don’t you tell us what you think it says?
It is only fair that if you bring Hebrews 10 to the table, we bring other scripture quotes to the table. Joe’s original post didn’t bring Hebrews 10; you did. Al offers other verses which you won’t go near. Why? In the name of justice and fairness, it seems you should.
Margo,
You appear not to accept our answers.
Where they do not derive from the text of Hebrews 10, I do not. Your explanation, for instance, seemed to define “those who are sanctified” in 10:14 as those who have gained heaven – and yet 10:10 applies that verb to the author and his audience. I’ve asked for some clarification as to how you derive this reading from Hebrews; without that… yeah, you’re right, I don’t see any option but to say, “Okay, but that’s not answering my question.”
Since you claim that your question has not been answered, why do you continue to press to answers?
In hope that someone reading will say, “Huh, he’s right, that doesn’t come out of the text,” basically.
It seems that we’ve presented (so far as our little brains allow!) what we perceive Hebrews 10 to say. That being said, why don’t you tell us what you think it says?
Sure. I’ll walk through verse-by-verse; will you follow my post with an exegesis of your own?
Hebrews is written to a Jewish church where people are being tempted to return to the old ways of Judaism: they were comfortable, they were persecuted less, etc. The central thesis of Hebrews is that “there’s no ‘there’ there”: that there is no old covenant to which they can return, and that even if there were, the new covenant is superior in every possible way. Chapter 10 comes at the end of an extend argument to that effect: that the old covenant already recognized the superiority of Christ’s priesthood (ch. 7), that Christ’s ministry is superior (ch. 8), that its tabernacle and the purification thereof are superior (ch. 9).
Now we come to ch. 10. The author has just said that Christ has not needed to suffer often, but only once (9:26) and that he has been offered once to satisfy the sins of many (9:27). Now he says:
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
The old sacrifices, he says, could never make anyone perfect; if people had been made perfect by them, the Israelites would have stopped offering sacrifices. Instead, the ritual continued, year after year, because those sacrifices never forgave anything.
There’s an implicit “but” all through this paragraph: it’s only function is to show how much better things are now. Everything the author highlights – the failure to perfect forever, the failure of any cleansing to stick, the failure to ultimately pay for sins – is there to be contrasted with the work of Christ, as he’ll do in the next few verses.
Thus:
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
“Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”
After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
So the sacrifices through the law – that continuing system we just talked about – have been replaced by something new: the body prepared for Christ, and his doing of the Father’s will (most specifically, by offering that body).
And what is the effect? “We have been sanctified” by that offering “once for all.” Here’s the stark contrast with the old system: we are made holy, which the old system could not do. We were made holy by that offering once for all, rather than as a series of continuing applications. We are made holy now – it’s a thing that’s been done, and not just a thing looked forward to in the future.
And 10:2 has already told us the effect of all that: now that we’ve been cleansed, the sacrifices can stop. Thus 10:18: “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
Continuing:
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Note again the contrast: there’s no chairs in the old Holy Place, because the high priest must constantly stand to offer fresh offering for fresh sins. But Christ sits down, his work of redemption done: He has perfected for all time.
Who has he perfected? Well, those who are sanctified. Who is that? By 10:10, just read, it’s us. Following the implication: “For by one offering he has perfected us.” It is right and proper to speak of ourselves as perfect in God’s sight by the unearned righteousness of Christ; the author does so here.
If we are perfected forever, then, what sin remains to be covered? The author answers:
And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,”
He then says,
“And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”
And the answer is: none. For his chosen people, he does not remember sin, and in this divine, deliberate choice to ignore our wanton insults, he declares us holy. And so…
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
… no sacrifice remains for us; our sins are paid in full. We are the fulfillment of what was promised in 10:2.
Hence my question. If Hebrews 10 permits an endless re-presentation of that same sacrifice – if indeed my sins are uncovered and remembered against me until it is applied – well, then how have matters improved? We still have an annual reminder of sins. Christ still appears on the altar time after time: not waiting at leisure, but recalled from heaven again and again for a fresh application. We are not perfected forever, nor have we been made holy, because each time I sin it is held against me afresh – and indeed it will be until I next participate in a sacrifice for sins.
How, the Jewish objector might say, is this any better than what you had before? What is this new covenant but more of the same: the strictures of the law, the punishments for violating it, the continuous return to avoid fresh wrath.
It is only fair that if you bring Hebrews 10 to the table, we bring other scripture quotes to the table. Joe’s original post didn’t bring Hebrews 10; you did. Al offers other verses which you won’t go near. Why? In the name of justice and fairness, it seems you should.
I concede, at least for the sake of this argument, that Hebrews 7 alone does not preclude Joe’s reading; in combination with Hebrews 10, however, I think it becomes impossible. If Al wants to concede that Hebrews 10 does what I argue it does, I’m happy to move on… but until then, he has no posts that discuss the book, or attempt to answer my opening question, at all.
I’m willing to defend verses that are difficult for Protestants. I’m not willing for that to be a one-way street.
Excuse me!
A 1-way street? We all have responded to you about the verses in particular, and you say we have not???
Get real, Irked. Get real! Look at the lines we’ve all written to YOU. Count them.
Good day! Good grief. If you don’t like us, why are you here? If you don’t like what we say? Try Aquinas. Try Trent. Or keep your head stuck in your Protestant theology. Why are you here??? To jag us? No more for me. Dust has been shook.
Irked,
“…If Hebrews 10 permits an endless re-presentation of that same sacrifice…” = hence the problem. This is not the RCC interpretation of the Mass.
St. Ambrose, the friend and mentor of St. Augustine, gets Hebrews right when he writes regarding the nature of Catholic sacrifice…which pertains to the interpretation necessary for understanding Hebrews 10:
“We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered” (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389])
Margo,
Excuse me!
A 1-way street? We all have responded to you about the verses in particular, and you say we have not???
All I can say is what I have already said: where is there a reply to the question I originally asked? There’s a lot of statements about what the Mass means, and a lot of quoting of various church fathers – but where is there an answer? Craig’s given me one; so has Peter E, below. Al hasn’t, so far as I’ve seen, and I’d like to hear his before changing the subject with him.
If this conversation is a source of more frustration than insight, hey, please believe that I can get that, and it’s a good reason for us to step away.
***
LLC,
“…If Hebrews 10 permits an endless re-presentation of that same sacrifice…” = hence the problem. This is not the RCC interpretation of the Mass.
So I worded the statement in an attempt to mirror Peter E’s quotation of Taylor Marshall, below: “It goes without saying that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a true re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice – not a different sacrifice.” Can you elaborate on what I’m missing?
Irked,
“Can you elaborate on what I’m missing?” = Sure. At the Mass, we are transported back in time at the Last Supper – the Mass is one sacrifice outside of time and space. Makes sense?
Hi LLC,
Would you say it is inaccurate to refer to the Mass as a re-presentation, as Marshall does, then?
I’m familiar with the Catholic argument that Christ’s sacrifice is timeless, but not with the argument that the practitioners are themselves time-travelers. Can you point me to further reading on that part?
Irked,
I’ll ask again: makes sense?
LLC,
I think it does; I’m just trying to figure out whether you see this as a rewording of the same thing Marshall says or not.
Irked,
Thanks. I agree that, to a reader not familiar with the RCC teachings, Dr. Marshall’s wording may be confusing, but his entire blog (especially the phrase, “Our sins might be repeated, but Christ’s death cannot be repeated or supplemented by another”) is quite clear. So, regarding your first question, it depends what does “re-presentation” mean to you. I am pretty sure of its meaning for Dr. Marshall.
As for your second question, I didn’t infer time travel, although this idea could be misread from my post. Since the Mass is outside of time and space, there is nowhere to travel. I actually read it from a couple of bloggers who used the analogy to explain how Jesus’ sacrifice at the Mass is timeless (see https://godinallthings.com/2012/03/14/catholic-mass-time-travel/, for example). Hopefully this won’t open another discussion thread (scientifically, I am troubled by time travel. Too much doesn’t make sense…).
Now, a question for you. If you were to speak at a cooking class for patients with diabetes, and used the expression “even the smallest amount of sugar may and will kill you”, would then a patient with, let’s say, high cholesterol, be justified in reading that same expression literally?
LLC,
I guess I’m a bit confused, then, because I specifically referred to the Mass as a re-presentation in that post so as to avoid the repetition language, and you told me that was wrong. You said:
“…If Hebrews 10 permits an endless re-presentation of that same sacrifice…” = hence the problem. This is not the RCC interpretation of the Mass
So which part of what I said is not the RCC interpretation – or what is it you think I mean by “re-presentation” that’s wrong? At present, I don’t understand what you were originally trying to correct.
I’m also confused by your time-travel link. To clarify: it sounds like you do not believe that partakers “are transported back in time,” as you had said, but only that the Mass today is the same as the Mass a week ago, and the week before that, and so on. Is that accurate? Because again, I’m not sure how that’s different from what I originally said.
Now, a question for you. If you were to speak at a cooking class for patients with diabetes, and used the expression “even the smallest amount of sugar may and will kill you”, would then a patient with, let’s say, high cholesterol, be justified in reading that same expression literally?
I’m not an expert of diabetes, but I don’t think “and will” is medically accurate, there. Someone applying it literally, whoever they are, would be misled because the original statement isn’t true: diabetics have ingested sugar and survived.
Are you saying the high cholesterol patient isn’t diabetic? If he’s not in my intended audience, sure, the words don’t necessarily apply to him; again, whether he reads them literally or not doesn’t matter.
I’m not sure I understand the question; could we skip to the argument?
Irked,
Nah. Again, your points and opinions are quite clear. Also, how you answered the hypothetical question is especially illuminating. Thanks.
Irked,
Augustine did indeed, in Tractate 25, write as you’ve written, but you forgot one sentence:
“Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life.”
Augustine says that the work of God is that you believe, that you eat the meat, the imperishable meat (his flesh, given for the life of the world, which he commanded us to do in remembrance of him). That meat endures unto eternal life.
Of water and wine: The water which Jesus gives turns into wine at the request of his mother, at a marriage feast, when two shall become one (as when God took on human flesh). The water which Jesus gives satisfies thirst forever. It is imperishable drink. He took wine at his last supper and called it his blood. Water flowed from his side as did blood after his death on the cross. Blood = imperishable water = wine.
Dude, get a LIFE.
Margo,
Augustine did indeed, in Tractate 25, write as you’ve written, but you forgot one sentence:
I did not, no; that’s in the middle of my quote. Augustine says that the people ask Jesus how to eat the meat; he then says that Jesus declares “eating” is believing. Lest there be any confusion, he then clarifies that anyone who believes has already eaten, and that it’s silly to think about this as an action involving “teeth and stomach.”
Blood = imperishable water = wine.
When John defines “living water” in chapter 7, is this how he defines it?
Dude, get a LIFE.
Got one! (It’s even eternal!)
Says God or says you? 🙂
Hi Irked,
It’s only common sense that if you eat without believing you are ‘eating unworthily’ even as St. Paul said. So, both eating with the mouth and stomach AND believing are required for the proper reception of the sacrament. They go together. If you just meditate on receiving the Eucharist, you are making what is called a ‘spiritual communion’ which is not the same thing.
Moreover, there are many, many, spiritual implications with the Eucharist, because you can’t receive it alone (unless you are a priest). It is a ‘feast’ to be enjoyed in the company of other fellow believers, and so there is a social element to it also.
Jesus told various parables regarding this aspect such as the Wedding feast that was called by the ‘great king’ but those that were invited started making all kinds of excuses. and it is possible to be kicked out of such a feast entirely…ie. ‘excommunicated’ …which was very popular in both the Early Church as well as our modern Catholic and Orthodox Church’s.
But, I think most Protestant sects probably don’t excommunicate anybody ( from the Eucharist) any more…because most don’t value the Eucharist, or even believe in it, as the Early Church did.
Best to you.
Hi Al,
So, both eating with the mouth and stomach AND believing are required for the proper reception of the sacrament.
That’s a fine opinion, but it directly contradicts what Augustine says regarding John 6.
But, I think most Protestant sects probably don’t excommunicate anybody ( from the Eucharist) any more…
Is “Your denomination is bad at practicing church discipline” really the conversation you want to start?
I just was noting the obvious difference between modern Christian Churches and the ancient Church regarding attention that was given to the Eucharist. Anyone who reads Eusebius’s history can note the difference.
It is particularly the Protestants who have ‘evolved’ in this regard…as excommunication and banishments of clergy were very common in the 1st five centuries. And, famous bishops like St. Athanasius knew all about it.
…and, every new idea we bring up doesn’t necessitate a ‘new conversation’. Sometimes, such ideas are just handy ‘observations’ for ‘consideration’…not like we’re going to write a treatise on it…or anything. 🙂
It is particularly the Protestants who have ‘evolved’ in this regard…as excommunication and banishments of clergy were very common in the 1st five centuries.
The early church is not meaningfully either Protestant or Roman Catholic as those terms are defined today. Both our denominations have failed to excommunicate people whom they should have, but the idea that this is particularly a Protestant failing – in 2018 – would be laughable were the truth not so horrific.
And, famous bishops like St. Athanasius knew all about it.
Given that Athanasius was often unjustly the target of church discipline, I imagine he did.
Hi Irked
Your unanswered question – would this be of assistance?
How Does Hebrews 10 Square With Catholic Teaching? – by Dr Taylor Marshall
(https://taylormarshall.com/2009/12/question-how-does-hebrews-10-square.html)
” This is a topic that no doubt bothers many Protestants. The key here is Heb 10:14:
“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
The phrase “are sanctified” is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.
Hebrews 10:2 in particular seems to be a baptismal reference (“cleansed”), and it’s true that baptism removes original sin and that it cannot be repeated. Regardless of how you interpret Heb 10:2, it should be read in the context of Heb 10:14, which indicates the present aspect.
I read it as saying that we don’t need another sacrifice (e.g. a new bull, a new goat, or even new Savior) every time we sin as in the Old Covenant. We must remember that the author of Hebrews is writing those tempted to return to the Temple sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Christ’s death is sufficient and continues to sanctify us. Our sins might be repeated, but Christ’s death cannot be repeated or supplemented by another.
It goes without saying that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a true re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice – not a different sacrifice. “
Peter,
It helps – thank you!
I’d offer a couple of critiques of Marshall’s interpretation here. First, he points to 10:14 and notes that “hagiazomenous” is a present tense verb, i.e., “those who are sanctified.” But 10:14 is an echoing of 10:10, “hagiasmenoi,” and that use of the verb is not present tense. I want to stress I know beans about Greek, but my understanding is that the perfect tense, there, refers to completed actions with ongoing effects. Let me bring that back down to my level: the vast majority of modern readings, including the RSVCE, interpret 10:10 as some variation on “By this will we have been sanctified. That seems to do damage to his reading of 10:14 – we are already made holy, in addition to the ongoing holiness he notes. (Again, this fits well with the Protestant reading of such statements, which separates our legal justification in the courtroom of God from the process of conforming us to the nature of Christ – the one is finished, the other ongoing.
I’m also a little baffled by the argument that 10:2 is reference to baptismal regeneration. There’s nothing in Hebrews that clearly suggests that doctrine – at any point, so far as I’m aware – and so it seems strange to read that in here. Indeed, there’s a much more natural read of this verse: 10:2 uses the same word for “cleanse” that 9:14 uses to describe the application of Christ’s blood to our consciences, or that 9:23 uses to describe his purifying of the heavenly temple. To introduce baptism into an established reference to Christ’s sacrificial self-offering seems unjustified.
It seems more natural to simply read 10:2 in the context of the surrounding verses: the sacrifice of bulls and goats could not ever truly cleanse the worshipers of old, but salvation through the blood of Christ can, and so (as verse 2 argues, and verse 18 echoes) no further sacrifice for sin is necessary. That seems to most clearly link the “past” of 1-3 with the “present” of later verses, as indeed the verse 2/verse 18 echo suggests. But the consequences of this reading present exactly the problem Marshall points to in his argument for baptism: that the application of this cleansing is a one-time transformation, not something that must be returned to again and again. If that’s not baptism, but is instead a total forgiveness of sins by the application of Christ’s blood (as I think 10:2 suggests)… well, what then?
It still seems to me that the Jewish objector can fairly argue that, under Marshall’s reading, no Christian can say he has been perfected forever or that no sacrifice for sin remains for him – it may be the case that it is the same sacrifice, in his view, but it is nonetheless a sacrifice that must be re-applied again and again just as the sacrifices of old, with no application ever sufficing to finally cleanse from sin – to make its target holy.
Help me see this from a Catholic perspective: would you say, of yourself, that you have been made holy and now continue in that holiness – that you have been, in some sense, already perfected forever? Margo, above, seemed to link all this to a future event: that those who enter heaven will be made perfect, if I understood her correctly. Would you say the same?
Irked
The short answer is that I see it as Margo has said.
Christ’s sacrifice ‘unblocked’ the way to heaven, so I see the meaning of 10:10-14 as having two components: firstly, the door for our sanctification has been opened by Christ’s redemptive action, and secondly the process of sanctification begins in each of us to the extent to which we allow it. So I don’t see it as an ‘either or’ situation, but rather as a ‘both and’ process. The ‘once for all’ contrasts Christ’s sacrifice with the continual animal blood offerings of the Old Testament. Read the Hebrews verses alongside 1Thessalonians 4:1, 3 and 5:23, which seem to indicate a process rather than just an event.
Quoting from Fr William Most’s commentary on Hebrews (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=85) – the portion headed ‘Chapter 10. 1-25: Summary’:
“The law was only a foreshadowing, and not a very good one, for the image it gave was far short of that which was to come. For the old sacrifices could only remove involuntary sins, and not voluntary sins (9. 7). The latter remained even after the Day of Atonement.
Jesus cleansed once for all, and by one offering “He made forever (eis to dienekes) perfect those who are being sanctified.” Does it mean no Christian sins? Of course not. And he said earlier (4. 16) let us go with confidence to the throne of Mercy. If sinless there would be no need of mercy.
What this means is that the old ceremonies were only for sanctifying of the flesh, and were temporary – repeated every year – in the new regime, the sanctification is of consciences as well, and is by nature permanent, is continual, it lasts on and on (eis to dienekes). That is, of course, unless we throw it away by sin. The perfection given is justification, which in itself lasts forever, and constitutes a ticket to enter the Father’s house, if only we do not throw away that ticket. We did not have to earn it, but we could forfeit it. That is justification by faith, taking faith in the Pauline sense.”
The problem that I have with my perception of your understanding of Hebrews (what you want someone to admit, as per your reply to Margo above on 12 Nov) is that it leans towards OSAS (and potentially to predestination) which I cannot reconcile with my Catholic view and belief. The meaning that you appear to have taken literally and narrowly puts it in conflict with too much else in the Bible. I certainly do not believe that ‘the Catholic understanding of the Mass renders null the argument of the author of Hebrews, in chapter 10’. Sacraments are channels of grace and the Eucharist, in the Mass, is a very important continuing channel of grace – the blood of the lamb on the doors of the Jewish families in Egypt, the consumption of the sacrificial victim completely, prior to flight, the passage through the Red Sea (Baptism), the manna in the desert (prefiguring the Eucharist) and the last supper before the final Paschal Sacrifice all point to the Mass, and this was the practice of the Christian world for 1500 years until Luther et al. This is all part of the process of being made holy, to prepare us for Heaven.
See also http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/The%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass.pdf for a quite comprehensive explanation of the Catholic understanding of the Mass.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the solid reply. Let me try to answer on a couple of points.
As I’ve referenced before, I definitely agree that there is an already/not yet component to the Christian life: what Protestants usually term justification (i.e., the divine pronouncement of righteousness) and sanctification (i.e., the process of conforming to the nature of Christ. Those are Pauline words, and they don’t necessarily exactly match their usage in Hebrews, which confuses the issue a bit – but I would certainly affirm, as per 1 Thessalonians 4, that sanctification in that sense is a process and not just an event. Luther called us simul justus et peccator: at once righteous (in our standing before God) and sinners (in our actions).
The question, I think, is: which of these things does the author of Hebrews have in mind here? And to that point, it seems unambiguous that he is speaking of our standing before God: that when he says “we have been sanctified,” he does not mean that we are forever free from sin, only that we have been made right with God despite our sin. I think we see this in the way he parallels the action of the sacrifices of old with the action of Christ: both are applied to pay for sin, not to prevent it. I think we see it in 9:14 (which defines the work of Christ as cleansing our conscience) and 10:17-18 (which note, not that we will no longer sin, but that our sins are no longer remembered, and that no further sacrifice for them is necessary).
So when you quote to say, “Does it mean no Christian sins? Of course not” – well, I agree entirely! That isn’t what’s being discussed.
But where I disagree with your reading and Margo’s is that you seem to invert the author’s argument on two points. First, it seems to me that you’ve taken what is described as the work of Christ and made it into our work. You say that Christ unblocks the door; Margo says Christ made it possible to be perfect – but the author of Hebrews says Christ has perfected. Those are very different actions; how do you justify the move from Christ doing a thing to Christ merely enabling us to do a thing?
Second, it seems to me that you both move the action into the future where Hebrews speaks of it as already done. We can debate the timelessness of Christ’s sacrifice, but 10:10 describes not the sacrifice itself, but the effect of the sacrifice on us: we have been made holy once for all; he has made perfect forever. It seems to me that you’re focusing solely on the sacrifice as a one-time thing, where the author also speaks of the cleansing benefit to us as something already accomplished.
You point to the sacraments as “continuing channel[s] of grace,” and yet I’d suggest the argument here is exactly the opposite: that the recurring channels of grace in the past point to the superiority of the one channel that perfects forever. Isn’t that exactly the original objection I raised: “If I still have fresh sins that need the sacrifice reapplied, isn’t that the exact same annual reminder of sins I have under the old covenant? In what sense is that ‘my sins remembered no more?'”
You’re certainly right that I see this as naturally flowing with a belief in predestination; indeed, I see no way of reading Scripture without being forced to that view. (I was strongly opposed to that position, once, and found myself compelled towards it by the words of Scripture.) I would not characterize my position as “once saved always saved,” which carries with it some extra baggage; I would say rather that true, soul-deep submission to Christ, born of being given a new heart of flesh in place of your heart of stone, will necessarily produce a life conforming to Him. Good trees produce good fruit because they’re good trees.
this was the practice of the Christian world for 1500 years until Luther et al.
One last remark: depending on what you consider to be entailed in “the Mass,” this position is tremendously difficult to defend. Belief in the real presence is very common in the early church; belief in anything like medieval transubstantiation is not.
Hi Irked
Focussing on what I think may be the heart of the issue, I found this, the salient portion of which is pasted in below:
https://thedivinelamp.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/bishop-macevillys-commentary-on-hebrews-1011-18/
Heb 10:14 For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
For by one bloody oblation of himself – an oblation of infinite value, extending to all generations – he perfected those who are sanctified at all times; in other words, by this one bloody oblation of himself, he made atonement for all sin, and purchased the treasures of grace, whereby men are sanctified at all times.
He need not leave heaven to repeat, like the Jewish priest, the bloody oblation of himself; for, by one such oblation, he has compassed all the ends of Redemption, he has made perfect atonement for sin, and merited the graces, whereby men are, at all times, sanctified.
Objection: Against the sacrifice of the Mass. In these two chapters, the Apostle allows only one oblation of Christ, therefore, he excludes the repeated oblation of him in the Mass, as opposed to the unity of his offering.
Answer: The oblation of Christ referred to by the Apostle in these chapters, and the repetition of which he rejects, is the bloody oblation on the cross; for, there is question of the oblation, by which “he perfected” (or sanctified) “all;” i.e., redeemed mankind, and atoned for sin; the oblation wherein, if repeated, he should suffer death (Heb 9:26). But, from the fact that he cannot be offered up again, in a bloody manner, can it be inferred, that he cannot be offered, in an unbloody manner? As well might it be inferred from the fact of God having promised, that the world would not be again destroyed by water, that therefore, it is not to be destroyed in any other way, whether by water or by fire, which would be contrary to faith. Christ is offered up, in an unbloody manner, in the sacrifice of the Mass; and the Apostle, for reasons already assigned, does not refer to that oblation; it does not fall within his scope; nor, perhaps, would it be expedient at the time, to do so.
Objection: But, by saying, he can be offered, only once, does he not exclude a second oblation or more; and hence, the oblation made of him, in the Mass?
Answer: He excludes a second oblation of the same kind, and presented in the same way. The unity of Christ’s oblation is insisted on, in opposition to other reiterated oblations. Now, to any person attentively examining the reasoning of the Apostle, in these two chapters, it must appear quite clear, that the opposition instituted is, between the bloody oblation of Christ on the cross, and the annual and daily sacrifices of the Jews, the efficacious and fruitful unity of the former being contrasted with the useless multiplicity of the latter. The objection, therefore, is quite inconclusive; Christ will not be offered up a second time — which, to be true, must mean — in a bloody manner. Therefore, he will not be offered up, in an unbloody manner. Just as conclusive would it be to say — The world will not be destroyed again by the waters of deluge. Therefore, it will be destroyed in no other way, and it shall be eternal. The Apostle excludes the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, as a redemptory sacrifice, as making atonement and offering satisfaction for sin; in which respect only, the sacrifice of Christ is contrasted with the annual and daily sacrifices among the Jews; he never contemplates rejecting the repetition, or rather the continuation of the same, in an unbloody manner, as applicatory of the merits purchased on the cross. On the cross, an infinite treasure of merit was purchased; a satisfaction offered, adequate to make reparation for the sins of ten thousand worlds. But, no Christian can deny that by the institution of God himself, there are certain channels required for the application to our souls, in a limited degree, of this treasure of grace, in itself infinite. What else is the end of the sacrament of baptism, to which all Christians have recourse for the remission of original sin? — and Catholics regard the sacrifice of the Mass, as a channel through which are applied to us the merits and graces purchased on the cross. Surely, it cannot be alleged that the sins of the elect are directly remitted by the merits of Christ, the instant they are committed. Would this not be plainly opposed to the precept, inculcated in several passages of Sacred Scripture, of recurring to baptism for the remission of sin? Would not be opposed to the words of our redeemer: — ”He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that beheveth not, shall be condemned?” — (Mark 16:16). It is opposed to the manner in which the Jews converted after St. Peter’s first sermon were justified. They were told, “to do penance, and to be baptized, every one of them, for the remission of their sins” (Acts 2:28). Now, on their justification was to be modeled that of all the Gentiles, who at the preaching of the Apostles did penance, believed, were baptized, and their sins thus remitted.
“In other words, what contrast is there between the way in which the sacrifices cleansed the people in 10:1-3, and your view of the way Christ cleanses us now?”
A. Its quite easy . We continue to sin , and continue to need cleansing ..
Amen. Jesus died for sins once for all. and the “Lord’s supper” is a wonderful memorial of that miraculous sacrifice. Jesus clearly said, “do this in remembrance of me.” This mass is a time of reflection, remembering, and rededication (reconsecration) to God given all that He has done for us through the sacrifice of His One and Only Son.
Here’s a prayer from the Orthodox Canon for Preparation for Communion:
“O taste and see that the Lord is goo! For of old He became like us for our sake, and offered Himself once as a sacrifice for us to His Father and is sacrificed forever, sanctifying His communicants.”
If the Chirch got the Mass so wrong with Apostles around then throw all of this away. The words are meaningless and there was no real truth in actual practice and history. The Holy Spirit failed and therefore all of Christendom failed. At least have the guts to admit that Christianity was a lie before such error was corrected 1,400 years later. To reject the Mass is to reject Judaism and known Christian history. Why bother if so many close in time to actual history were wrong about the Mass???
Joe writes:
If Christ’s Sacrifice is “Once-For-All,” Does the Mass Re-Sacrifice Him?
The most concise explanation I found regarding the subject was from Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. He was writing to the Philadelphians who were not members of his own diocese of Antioch, but a neighboring diocese, that he encountered as he was passing through while being transported as prisoner to Rome in 110 AD. Here’s how he describes the nature of the Eucharist in relation to the actual practices at his time, and regarding not only his own ‘diocese’ but also the dioceses of the various other bishops throughout the Early Church (ie.. at Philadelphia, Antioch, etc…). He says (with my emphasis on ‘oneness’…or ‘catholicity’) :
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe ONE common Eucharist; for there is but ONE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but ONE cup of union with his Blood, and ONE single ALTAR of SACRIFICE—even as there is also but ONE bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).”
Ignatius, writing not to his own flock but to another bishops flock had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them. However, he is still preaching, promoting and defining the nature and CATHOLICITY of the sacraments that all of the Church holds in common, and which is why he stresses ” ONE common Eucharist….ONE Body of our Lord…ONE single ALTAR of SACRIFICE….ONE bishop.
Everyone can understand that he is talking about the ‘universality’ of Christian belief during his own time, 110 AD, regarding the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice. And therefore, Ignatius is a witness to the fact that Jesus in NOT sacrificed over and over again, as Joe inquires, above: “Does the Mass Re-Sacrifice Him?” If indeed Jesus WAS re-sacrificed, then Ignatius would not have stressed the ‘Oneness’ or ‘Unity’ of all the ecclesiastical clergy, and the various other elements, that it takes to conduct the holy Catholic Eucharistic Liturgies throughout the ancient world.
Then, about 40 years later, St. Justin Martyr confirms St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Catholic teaching when he also teaches on the universal nature of the Catholic Eucharist and Mass, and using the words of the prophet Malachi as an example of current Christian Eucharistic ‘sacrifices’ as were held ‘in every place’ in the ancient world known to him back then….a mere 120 years after the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Justin writes: “God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place OFFER SACRIFICES to him, that is, THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST and also THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
Notice above, how Justin says…”in every place offer sacrifices” …which sacrifices are indicated in the ‘plural’. But then he uses ‘the singular’ to term “bread of the Eucharist” and “cup of the Eucharist”….which 2 sacramental elements… CUP and BREAD… are indicated as ‘singular’.
So, both Justin and Ignatius are teaching the true Christian understanding of both the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of Jesus on Mount Calvary. There are many sacrifices ….but only ‘One Sacrifice’…. as Just says…”THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST and also THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST”
All Protestants should consider these texts carefully… as Justin claims that this is what Christians in ‘every place’ throughout the ancient world believed and practiced during his time, which was only about a century after the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hi Irked,
You write above: “Hebrews presents our present holiness as something finished – “we have been made holy”, “he has made perfect forever” …” which is basically a ‘once saved always saved” interpretation of that text.
The problem with your interpretation is that it either neglects, or makes useless or superflous, almost all of the precepts and teachings found in the New Testament.
For instance, if our holiness is ‘finished’ with our conversion to Christ, then why would Jesus teach:
1. “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
[John 20:23]
2. “And when you shall stand to pray, forgive, if you have aught against any man; that your Father also, who is in heaven, may forgive you your sins. But if you will not forgive, neither will your Father that is in heaven, forgive you your sins.””
[Mark 11:25]
3. Say…. “Father, hallowed be thy name. ….And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” [Luke 11:4]
4. “Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak.”
[Matthew 26:41]
5. “Two women shall be grinding at the mill: one shall be taken, and one shall be left. Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come. ] But know this ye, that if the goodman of the house knew at what hour the thief would come, he would certainly watch, and would not suffer his house to be broken open. [44] Wherefore be you also ready, because at what hour you know not the Son of man will come.” [Matthew 24:43]
*********
I think your interpretation of ‘Hebrews’ ,in your quote above, needs to account for these and many other teachings of the Holy Gospel.
Best to you.
Al,
I think your interpretation of ‘Hebrews’ ,in your quote above, needs to account for these and many other teachings of the Holy Gospel.
Perhaps it does! But to this point, I don’t see that you’ve offered any alternative reading – have you?
I’m happy to continue on from there to look at a second passage, but I would like to see you step through the passage and explain what’s being said, including answering my original question, before I switch to a different book altogether.
Hi Irked,
Can you copy and paste the exact text from Hebrews that you want me to focus on…and I’ll try my best to explain it?
Best to you.
Al,
Sure. Starting in 10:1-3:
“For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.”
And then continuing 9-18:
“[T]hen He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
“Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,”
He then says,
“And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
Emphasis mine. Once more, my specific question is:
Hebrews presents our present holiness as something finished – “we have been made holy”, “he has made perfect forever” – in contrast with annual sacrifices of the old covenant which were necessary to continually repurify. Under your reading, it seems that an opponent of the author could have simply replied, “But we are not perfected forever either; the same sacrifice is still presented endlessly, year after year, and we have not been cleansed once for all any more than were our ancestors. Come, return to the familiar ways.”
In other words, what contrast is there between the way in which the sacrifices cleansed the people in 10:1-3, and your view of the way Christ cleanses us now?
Hi Irked,
I can’t sum this up any better than your fellow Protestant, Rev. Dark Hans did below in reference to the document called “From Conflict to Communion.”
Convergence in understanding eucharistic sacrifice. Therein you can understand some of the fine nuances regarding this great mystery that are very difficult to express in words. But this document does a pretty good job of it. Then, for more context, take a look at the quote i provided down below in Augustines letter to Januarius, Chp. 3., on the same subject matter. All of this is difficult to theologically describe and define, which is why it should be analyzed through multiple sources both past and present. But the Catholic position… from the Didache, to Ignatius of Antioch, to Justin Martyr, to Ambrose, to Augustine, to this latest Catholic/Lutheran document..is consistent through the centuries.
Best to you.
Al,
Okay. I have to kind of shrug here and say, “Then you have not explained the passage, and I stand by my objection.”
Hi Irked,
St. Ambrose has an excellent quote regarding the nature of sacrifice which relates to Hebrews 10. It shows the consistency of Catholic theology on this point from the very first centuries of Church history. I posted it above on another thread, and thought it might escape your notice, so I’m including it again. Ambrose, the friend, bishop and mentor to St. Augustine, wrote:
“We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered”
(Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389])
Hi Al,
I make no denial that Ambrose believed in some variation of the real presence. I don’t think that entails the full Catholic position described above.
Again, look at Augustine himself: “To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.”
Teeth and stomach are not needed when one receives the Eucharist.
Believe in the meat that endureth. Do not work for that which perisheth. See Augustine in context and text to Awlms, below.
Margo,
I don’t really see what there is to do but point to your own quotations of Augustine here. Right, exactly: eating is a parable for believing, and it is belief that Christ is really commanding in John 6, not ritual physical consumption.
Hello Al,
Here is more on those Augustine, Tractate 25 and Sermon 62. There is more on the The Very Right Reverend White and his very own reformed theology. I’ve copied only Augustine’s quotes and two sentences re Rev. White’s manipulating context/text. See Catholic Forums.
“The fact is, by simply cutting those sentences out and not explaining the context and surrounding material to which they belong to, he is still manipulating the data.
Here is what Augustine said, in context in both articles (only shortened due to post limit, please go read the full version):
‘But whence arose an occasion, so to say, to the Lord, to speak of this supper? One of them that sat at meat with Him (for He was at a feast, whither He had been invited), had said, “Blessed are they who eat bread in the kingdom of God.” He sighed as though after distant things, and the Bread Himself was sitting down before him. Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He who saith, “I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven “? Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense; nor have we said, “Let them believe who have seen with their eyes, and handled with their hands the Lord Himself after His resurrection, if what is said be true; we do not touch Him, why should we believe?”…” – Augustine: Sermon 62, 5
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” For that reason, He willeth not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that worketh by love. Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord… – Augustine: John, Tractate 25:12\\
Best to you in the Lord, always.
Awesome quotes, Margo.
This is why I love this site…. because we are discussing and ‘crowd sourcing’ so many excellent texts from Early Christian history which otherwise we would probably never come across or be exposed to.
And, for this reason also, it’s good to have an antagonist to spur such important research on, because we all benefit by it; we all learn the truth about the Lord’s Holy Church in a deeper and more spiritually profound way.
The only important thing, in the end… is ….”The Way, The Life and The Truth.”
Best to you always, and thanks for your excellent contributions here.
– Al
Hi Al,
You are so very kind. What you say is true–about how this site is a “Crowd-sourcing” event. I learn from you, not only in substance, but in virtue, where I always seem to find myself wanting. So you are a very good example for me. Thank you.
The other thing we need to keep in mind is John 6:53. We should pray not to hope for things which others simply don’t have to give. Instead, we need to rely upon the Lord. Anyway, you are a blessing, and May God bless you for being so.
Thanks, Margo. The way I see it is that Christians should be communicating with each other on spiritual subject matter much more than they do. With all of the great theology and history that we have available, every parish should be like this blog site, with countless interesting conversations and discussions going on.
So, I like to converse with others on spiritual things…. and with almost anybody…even if I’m sloppy at times with my writing skills, editing and arguments.
But, the way I see it, is that in Heaven we will all be communicating with each other for all eternity, and so what’s the problem with getting a ‘head start’ here below? For me, the things of God are always fresh and fascinating, and so I am rarely bored.
Best to you always, and keep up the good and holy… ‘conversation’. And, if we ever make it to Heaven one day….. don’t forget to give me a big ‘high five’!! 🙂
Hi Margo,
When you wrote above: “We should pray not to hope for things which others simply don’t have to give. Instead, we need to rely upon the Lord.” …This advice came in handy with an important project that I am currently working on and wherein I hired a technical expert (short term for only this current project) to help me out. However, I’m finding out that he really needs more specific education in the overall technology being used, because he is mostly working with business processes and computer related technology and not with mechanical engineering stuff that deals with actual mechanical components that function in real life. It’s like… he can draw schematics of a car engine…but can’t really understand the specifics of how the actual parts (ie..under the car hood) function better or worse in the physical reality of driving the car. Because of this I need to do his job,..and still pay him… because it is taking me more time to teach him, than for me to do it all myself.
And, so your saying above was really was very prescient in these regards, and I’m probably going to be saving a lot of time and money by switching this guy to another project to work on, and I’ll finish the current one myself with my own intellectual ‘sweat equity’. And the reason why, is that, after considering your words above…I came to the conclusion that this guy might…NEVER….get the picture/idea enough to help out AT ALL, because the Lord hasn’t given him this exact talent that is needed for him to comprehend. He is better for mathematical equasions and stuff like that, and not real life ‘mechanics’. What is so easy for me, is very difficult for him, because I’m nt starting from scratch with all of the stuff we’re working on.
So, I’m amazed that this came at this exact moment, because I don’t have the time for this guy to catch up in his comprehension of the project that needs to be done ASAP. And after I read your quote above, and meditated on if for a few hours…I made a good decision and now the project is advancing…with me doing the important work myself ( and not being lazy having someone else (…so called expert…that needs 100 hrs training) do it for me. He can correct anything he thinks I’m getting wrong…after I’m finished on my end.
So, thanks. That little quote helped me out a bit in making a very important decision…according to the divine providence of God. 🙂
…and I”ll keep it in mind for the future, also.
…Moreover, after talking with him this morning he completely agreed! He’s a nice guy. 🙂
So it’s true. The Lord Works in mysterious ways, drawing circles with crooked lines. Praise be God.
Amen.
thank you for this Joe. Some years ago the thought came to me, ” I wonder why Our Lord didn’t have a meal after his resurrection and that would have been the ‘safrificial meal’– kinda like the ‘First Supper’. That would have been the order of the Toda meal sequence. They the thought left me. thanks again.
Hi Irked,
Above you wrote “…Again, look at Augustine himself: “To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.”
This one sentence from St. Augustine is far from revealing anything significant as to what he thought on the subject of the Holy Communion, …as is proven in his Letter to Januarius, Chapter 3, which gives his specific insights and thoughts on the subject…in detail:
“Some one may say, “The Eucharist ought not to be taken every day.” You ask, “On what grounds?” He answers, “Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he lives in more special purity and self-restraint; for whosoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself” [cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29]. Another answers, “Certainly; if the wound inflicted by sin and the violence of the soul’s distemper be such that the use of these remedies must be put off for a time, every man in this case should be, by the authority of the bishop, forbidden to approach the altar, and appointed to do penance, and should be afterwards restored to privileges by the same authority; for this would be partaking unworthily, if one should partake of it at a time when he ought to be doing penance, and it is not a matter to be left to one’s own judgment to withdraw himself from the communion of the Church, or restore himself, as he pleases. If, however, his sins are not so great as to bring him justly under sentence of excommunication, he ought not to withdraw himself from the daily use of the Lord’s body for the healing of his soul.”
Perhaps a third party interposes with a more just decision of the question, reminding them that the principal thing is to remain united in the peace of Christ, and that each should be free to do what, according to his belief, he conscientiously regards as his duty. For neither of them lightly esteems the body and blood of the Lord; on the contrary, both are contending who shall most highly honor the sacrament fraught with blessing. There was no controversy between those two mentioned in the Gospel, Zacchaeus and the Centurion; nor did either of them think himself better than the other, though, whereas the former received the Lord joyfully into his house, the latter said, “I am not worthy that You should come under my roof”, both honoring the Savior, though in ways diverse and, as it were, mutually opposed; both miserable through sin, and both obtaining the mercy they required.
We may further borrow an illustration here, from the fact that the manna given to the ancient people of God tasted in each man’s mouth as he desired that it might. It is the same with this world-subduing sacrament in the heart of each Christian. For he that dares not take it every day, and he who dares not omit it any day, are both alike moved by a desire to do it honor. That sacred food will not submit to be despised, as the manna could not be loathed with impunity. Hence the apostle says that it was unworthily partaken of by those who did not distinguish between this and all other meats, by yielding to it the special veneration which was due; for to the words quoted already, eats and drinks judgment to himself, he has added these, not discerning the Lord’s body; and this is apparent from the whole of that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be carefully studied.”
Best to you.
– Al
Hi Al,
I certainly agree that to eat unworthily of the communion meal is sin. I’m not sure what argument you’re making from this quotation, though, or how it changes what Augustine said elsewhere.
The language of “bloody sacrifice” and “unbloody sacrifice” has been rather confusing for an outsider because I have not heard the terms well defined. Thank you, Joe, for your definition at the bottom of your post.
I also would like to document dump here if no one objects. This is from the document called “From Conflict to Communion.”
Convergence in understanding eucharistic sacrifice
157. With regard to the issue that was of the greatest importance for the reformers, the eucharistic sacrifice, the Catholic–Lutheran dialogue stated as a basic principle: “Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ ‘is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world.’ This sacrifice can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented; but rather it can and should become ever effective anew in the midst of the congregation. There are different interpretations among us regarding the nature and extent of this effectiveness” (Eucharist 56).
158. The concept of anamnesis has helped to resolve the controversial question of how one sets the once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ in right relationship to the Lord’s Supper: “Through the remembrance in worship of God’s saving acts, these acts themselves become present in the power of the Spirit, and the celebrating congregation is linked with the men and women who earlier experienced the saving acts themselves. This is the sense in which Christ’s command at the Lord’s Supper is meant: in the proclamation, in his own words, of his saving death, and in the repetition of his own acts at the Supper, the ‘remembrance’ comes into being in which Jesus’ word and saving work themselves become present.”(54)
159. The decisive achievement was to overcome the separation of sacrificium (the sacrifice of Jesus Christ) from sacramentum (the sacrament). If Jesus Christ is really present in the Lord’s Supper, then his life, suffering, death, and resurrection are also truly present together with his body, so that the Lord’s Supper is “the true making present of the event on the cross.”(55) Not only the effect of the event on the cross but also the event itself is present in the Lord’s Supper without the meal being a repetition or completion of the cross event. The one event is present in a sacramental modality. The liturgical form of the holy meal must, however, exclude everything that could give the impression of repetition or completion of the sacrifice on the cross. If the understanding of the Lord’s Supper as a real remembrance is consistently taken seriously, the differences in understanding the eucharistic sacrifice are tolerable for Catholics and Lutherans.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html#Eucharist_
Great Quote, Rev. Dark Hans.
There are many problems with those claims but they can all be dealt with by being honest.
Lutherans are not priests and, thus, they can not confect the Eucharist and so the bread and wine always remains bread and wine despite their claims it is something else.
Many Catholics have been convinced (especially those in ecumenical dialogues) that to speak the truth is mean.
It isn’t mean but the truth divides – just as Jesus divides. Jesus did not come to create unity but to bear witness to the truth.
Good points, ABS.
Rev. Hans,
Thanks for this. The Lutheran understanding of Eucharist is much closer to the RCC than a Reformed understanding. How many sacraments are there in the Lutheran denomination? Are there splits within the Lutherans as well? Thanks.
Question: Do you know why the URL citation says this curial document is from 2013, since it appears it was written or released in 2017?
Hello Margo,
Good questions! We recognize two sacraments in the Lutheran tradition (baptism and eucharist). We have splinters like all Protestants. In the US, there are three major Lutheran denominations. I am part of the largest and most progressive, called Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
I do not know about the URL citation saying 2013. Hmmm…
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm
Modern anthropocentric Ecumenism does not possess the authority to vacate the truth.
This shameful dialogue twixt Lutherans and Catholics is a prime example of the decadence of modern Catholicism.
Jesus Commanded His Church to teach, not dialogue
What does the Papal Bull against the man, Martin Luther, have to do with Christians working to be one in Christ? This document only pertains to Martin Luther; nothing inside of this hinders ecumenical work.
Christ prayed that his church would be one, and that is what we seek. What kind of Kingdom are you seeking for yourself?
That bull left a lot of room for dialogue, which should be the first option for understanding, clarification and resolution of issues. Condemnation/excommunication is a last resort. Before or after, resolution and reconciliation should always be the goal.
Great post Joe
Just sayin’, the older model is the laity receiving communion in the hand.
But that is the principal of Puritanism not Tradition.
Abandoning the ecclesiastical orthopraxis of a multi-centennial existence is always a sign of revolution.
The Catholic Church was not intended to remain a mustard seed, but to grow in spirit and in truth and so when some men, besotted by modernity, chose to abandon a proven praxis and lept backward to revive a long ago discarded praxis, that is a sign of a revolution, not an advancement in spiritual truth.
It truly was a sign or revolutionary arrogance as they thought themselves holier and wiser than the scoreds of thousands of Saints who received Communion on the tongue
But ABS….such revolutionary arrogance went much better with the ‘bell bottoms’ and tank tops of the 60’s. Wasn’t good to be too ‘square’ back when all this started. I think that was the reasoning behind it all….and the electric guitars and drums to boot.
Sadly, it was worse than that. The Fathers of The Council arrived for Vatican Two already alienated from the Roman Rite because modernism had triumphed in the seminaries.
We are in the midst of the great apostasy and us faithful must follow the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins and keep with the Faith once delivered.
Are you, ABS, a member of the SSPX? If not, then you should think of joining. They would love your bizarre revisionist history.
Jesus said:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”
[Luke 9:23]
and
“And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.”
[Matthew 10:38]
and,
“And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
[Luke 14:27]
…He is associating ‘His own’ holy sacrifice on Calvary with ‘our own’ crosses and sacrifices that are needed to be endured in this life in order to… ‘follow Him’.
So, during the liturgy of the Mass the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’ is associated with the ‘sacrifice of Jesus’ because they too, as members of His body….have their own crosses to carry in imitation of Him. And also, Jesus said to Saul…”Why do you persecute ME?”, which clearly associates the crosses of His disciples with His very own Person.
So, Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary is mystically entwined with the sacrifices and crosses of His disciples here on Earth. And, in a mystical way it continues through His Mystical Body…per the saying: “Why do you persecute ME?”
Isn’t it a lot simpler to point out that God does not exist in space or time, so nor does Jesus. If his sacrifice IS (not was) once and for all; as best our human brains can comprehend; it is ongoing in existence as he is existence and we therefore can participate it in it daily as he commanded.
Nice summary, Timothy.
…..at least…. as far as my brain can comprehend!
You’ve got “Bingo” in my book. 🙂
Scripture provides important answers as to whether Christ is re-sacrificed at mass. The answer is no.
In the book of Hebrews it says: [12]“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God”. [14]“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” [17]“And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” [18]“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”
We are now sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. This is because Christ’s body is now at the right hand of the Father.
[19-22]“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”
The purpose of the mass is not to receive the Spirit or to forgiving sins. This is supposed to happen before the mass starts.
The purposes of the mass are found in 1Corinthians. One of its purposes is to preach the message of the Lord’s death until He returns (1Corinthians 11:26). In 1Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul speaks of the communion or fellowship of the Body of Christ. It is a sacrament of our interconnectedness in the mystical Body of Christ.
There is no further mention of the mass in all of the epistles.
Peter,
I found your post confusing. Are you coming from a Catholic or Protestant perspective.
No, Our Lord Jesus is not re-sacrificed at Mass. That is a horrible slander perpetrated by some very ignorant and self-important people. It is both sacrament and sacrifice and makes Calvary present.
Protestants quote Hebrews to disprove the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and yet do not see the proverbial forest for the trees. Do they not see the references to the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech in Genesis 14:18? They would have Melchizedech simply supplying Abraham and his 300 men with the bread and wine because they were famished after their battle. However, that is an absurd interpretation. There was a meal enjoyed no doubt after the vanquishing of the Lord’s enemies but I am confident it involved eating something more substantial than that. Also, the Scriptures say that Melchizedech was a priest of God, not a chef. I would ask Protestants what type of sacrifice Melchizedech offered because his priesthood is contrasted with the animal sacrifices of Aaron.
The Church says that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our Catholic Faith. Also, we Catholics have Tradition along with Scripture. What point are you making by saying, ” there is no further mention of the mass in all the epistles” ? Are you saying the Mass and the Holy Eucharist are unimportant? The Acts of the Apostles states that the early Church celebrated the Mass, “the breaking of the bread,” every Lord’s Day. (Sunday )
Venial sins are most definitely forgiven in the Mass and grace is given to guard against committing mortal sins so you are wrong in stating otherwise. Of course, St. Paul confirms that those with mortal sins on their souls cannot receive communion or else they bring judgement upon themselves.
The Holy Spirit is constantly invoked too, from the opening words of the Trinitarian blessing by the priest and most especially the calling down of the Holy Spirit during the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, without which there is no Mass, no true worship of God, and no mystical body of Christ whatsoever.
H
When I said that there is no further mention of the mass in all of the epistles, I am saying that the mass isn’t emphasized in the epistles as much as it is in today’s Catholicism. This is a question of priorities. Being in the state of grace before communion means that we must have Christ in us by His Spirit before participating in the Eucharist. The sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation are the sacraments pertaining to the receiving the Holy Spirit and of salvation. These come before the Eucharist. The Eucharist does not put us in the state of grace. It is not its purpose. Paul discusses its purpose in 1Corinthians.
Peter,
The purpose of receiving the sacraments of Baptism and Confession is that we may receive the Sacrament of Sacraments, the Holy Eucharist and receive it worthily. In fact, all sacraments are concerned with and point toward the Holy Eucharist. Of course, in Confirmation, we receive the Holy Spirit in a very powerful way.
As I said in my post, attending mass and receiving our Lord worthily forgives venial sins and increases the grace already in our souls.
Again I ask: What are you implying by saying that the Eucharist is not emphasized after the epistles? What about its’ foreshadowing in the Old Testament? What about the accounts of its’ institution in the Synoptics and in John 6? What about how after His resurrection, the disciples recognized Christ ” in the breaking of the bread?” What about the importance of the Eucharist in Tradition and 2,000 years of Church fathers, popes saints, and Church councils and encyclicals?
What should the priorities be for Catholics regarding the Holy Eucharist? Where should the Eucharist rank in Christian doctrine?
The most important thing in Christianity is to be lifted out of the effects of the law of sin (see Romans 7:14 thru 8:2). Our human weakness comes from this law. The fruit of the Spirit is what strengthens us (Galatians 5:22-23). It gives us inner peace and strength. When I surrendered myself to the Lord, all of this became alive for me. It was as easy as casting all of my care on the Lord and being anxious for nothing (see 1Peter 5:5-7 and Philippians 4:5-7). Now, all of the other aspects of Christianity make sense to me. The remainder is academic.
Peter,
It is great that you surrendered yourself to the Lord but that is just the beginning, not an end in itself. We are not reborn or regenerated by surrendering ourselves to the Lord.
Baptism regenerates us and by the water and the Spirit, we are born again. This is true for infants and adult converts alike.
Confession is there when we stumble and sin, whether venial or mortally.
Concerning the Eucharist, it is Our Lord Himself who says in John 6 that if we do not eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life ( grace ) within us. That hardly sounds academic, does it Peter.
God does override sacraments when He wants to in order to impart the Spirit. He obviously did it at Pentecost, but also at the house of Cornelius. They received the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44-48). There were no sacraments of baptism and confirmation at that event.
John 6 is interesting. I would not use it to justify transubstantiation. In verse 63, Jesus says that “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” If I tell someone that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ, they may tell me that the “flesh profiteth nothing”. I wouldn’t know how to answer them. Jesus says that the Spirit gives life. This is in line with what John says in 1John 3:24: “And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.” Christ lives in us when we consume His Spirit.
In verse 62, Jesus asks the disciples that murmured “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before” How it would be possible for them to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood after He ascended? It would not be.
Actually, no one takes John 6 literally because you would have to taste actual flesh and blood at communion in order for it to be literal even for Catholics. I don’t know what the consensus is among Protestants.
I believe that John 6 was fulfilled at Pentecost. That is when Christ’s Spirit was poured out to be consumed by mankind. The Spirit gives life. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit; and it is the guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).
What an edifice of abstractions and traditions of men.
“Do this as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me…” That can only mean, as often as you drink wine, celebrate communion in remembrance of Christ. Nowhere does it say a priest is required, or that the believer requires one.
There were no priests in the early church. Priests were found in the Temple which was destroyed after the veil was torn in twain.
But then along came man, and his love of his own words…and here we are today.
“…By the way, there are at least seven Sacraments in the Catholic Church, mechanical means of imparting mysterious divinity to people. Preacher replaced by the sacrificer. The Bible and its clarity replaced by the mumbo-jumbo. And they believe that the Sacrament of the Mass has the innate power to convey Christ and grace and forgiveness and redemption and provide propitiation to satisfy God. And in that system, the manipulator is essential. In that system the priest is everything and that is why the shortage of priests today is so critical. And none of this has anything to do with the Christian gospel. None of this has anything to do with the Christian life. None of this has anything to do with the Christian church. None of this has anything to do with the true God, nothing whatsoever.
The differences are not cosmetic. The differences are not superficial. They are essential to the salvation of the eternal soul and the truth of the gospel. There is no salvation or sanctification in the blessed Sacrament. There is no salvation in any Sacrament of any kind in any ritual, any routine, or any ceremony. The bread and the wine is not Christ in any sense. It is not a mystical experience in which people take in God. All of this is a lie, a fraud, a damning fabrication to be exposed for what it is, just as in the book of Hebrews the writer exposes the uselessness of the long-departed Old Testament sacrificial system which never needs to be resurrected because the cross has accomplished everything, everything. It is demonic. It is idolatrous, as the Host is worshiped. The Mass cancels the cross. It is the worship of an idol made with hands. Somebody made the wine and somebody made the bread.
A couple of passages come to mind in the midst of this and just a couple to bring to your attention here. Romans chapter 6 verse 9…well, verse 8, “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.” Now listen to this. “Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never -” to what? To what? – “to die again,” never. Never to die again. “Death no longer is master of Him for the death that He died. He died to sin once for all. The life that He lives He lives to God.” He died once. He will never, ever, ever die again. He was a sacrifice once. It is an abomination to turn Him into a perpetual sacrifice.
In 1 Peter 3, verse 18, “For Christ also died for sins once for all; the just for the unjust so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.” He died once for all. Hebrews 7:27…26, “It was fitting for us to have such a High Priest holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens who does not need daily like those high priests who offer up sacrifices first for his own sin and then for the sins of the people because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” The Mass cancels the cross, the Mass is idolatry.
Listen to J.C. Ryle. “Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence if pursued to its legitimate consequences obscures every leading doctrine of the gospel and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ’s truth. Grant for a moment that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice and not a Sacrament, grant that every time the words of consecration are used the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the communion table under the forms of bread and wine, grant that everyone who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ, grant for a moment these things and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises. You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when He died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect or complete thing.
“You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests that can offer an acceptable sacrifice to God besides Him, the great High Priest is robbed of His glory. You spoil the scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man. You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive. You produce an idolatry to be abhorred by faithful Christians. Last but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in one…can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own and Jesus was not the last Adam in the truth of our nature.” Not a minor thing. That is the perverse and idolatrous reality, the implications that come.
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-319/explaining-the-heresy-of-the-catholic-mass-part-2
Thanks for the link; most informative.
I’m struggling with the notion of the ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’. These ‘discussions’ are helpful. While I am currently Catholic, I must admit that all of the grievous and many sins of the clergy have caused me to re-examine many Catholic dogmas, THIS being one of them. I do have this question: IF when Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”(Jn.6.53) He was referring to the Eucharist; if only Catholics (and Orthodox) have a valid Eucharist, does this not necessarily mean that, from God’s viewpoint, every single Protestant has ‘no life in them’ and therefore will die and go to hell? Second, IF only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) have a valid Eucharist, then shouldn’t the level of LIFE amongst Catholic laity be vastly superior to all Protestant Christians? Wouldn’t the depth of holiness amongst the clergy (I’ll try not to laugh at that one) and laity be so powerful that Catholic Apologists would be unnecessary? Honestly, for me, Hebrews 10 is hard to square with the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist sacrifice.
Thank you for commenting. I just noticed your comment, and I felt inspired to help in some ways. Your feelings of sadness and other feelings as well regarding some examples of clergy are valid because we desire for people to follow in the will of God. I hope you’ll find strength and peace through prayers from Christ because He is the truth, and He will strengthen us in our journey. Hopefully you’ll appreciate the answers that I will give regarding your questions, and I hope that it will help in in some way or another. I will be quoting your questions below.
Question 1:
“if only Catholics (and Orthodox) have a valid Eucharist, does this not necessarily mean that, from God’s viewpoint, every single Protestant has ‘no life in them’ and therefore will die and go to hell?”
As Catholics, we also believe that a valid baptism washes away all sins, both personal and original sin. As such, even the Protestants who have valid baptisms are incorporated to the mystical body of Christ, the Church, and they are in the state of grace. One loses the state of grace by committing mortal sins. There are three conditions to be fulfilled to have mortal sin.
1. The sin has to be grave
2. The person has to have knowledge of the gravity of sin.
3. The person willingly chooses to commit the sin which he or she knows to be a grave sin.
A person in the state of mortal sin endangers his salvation, while a person who has many venial sins is still in the state of grace and will be purified in the purgatory (1 Corinthians 3:14-15). To give more biblical explanation on this, you may read this passage from St. Paul,
Romans 2:14-16
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
So, how does this relate to your question? To intentionally not participate in Mass, not receive Jesus in the Eucharist, and reject the teachings on the Real Presence are grave sins. A Protestant may commit grave sin without having a mortal sin if he or she does not know the truth. We cannot have access on the conscience of the individuals, but for a person who knows the truth about the real presence and consciously rejects it is in danger of going to hell. This is not just true about the real presence but also in other doctrines, even those that Protestants affirm, such as the divinity of Christ, Trinity, etc. So, we cannot say for certain that all Protestants will be in hell (not just for Protestants but for all who are not devoted in the Mass, etc), but we believe that near the moment of death, God gives sufficient graces to people to accept the truth. St. Faustina said in her diary which is consistent with the mercy of God,
“God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illuminated by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God absolution of sins and remission of punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! But – horror! There are also souls who voluntarily and consciously reject and scorn this grace! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God. But sometimes, the obduracy in souls is so great that consciously they choose hell; they [thus] make useless all the prayers that other souls offer to God for them and even the efforts of God Himself…” (Diary, 1698).
Question 2:
“Second, IF only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) have a valid Eucharist, then shouldn’t the level of LIFE amongst Catholic laity be vastly superior to all Protestant Christians? Wouldn’t the depth of holiness amongst the clergy (I’ll try not to laugh at that one) and laity be so powerful that Catholic Apologists would be unnecessary? Honestly, for me, Hebrews 10 is hard to square with the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist sacrifice.”
For now, I won’t be commenting about the Hebrews 10 since I am unsure of your questions about it, but I will focus on your questions that are related to holiness. Your hypothesis is actually right that supposedly, in terms of holiness (and perseverance in virtues like humility, charity, patience, etc), Catholics should be able to persevere more by virtue of the graces in the Mass and in the Eucharist. At the same time, though we cannot deny the graces that God gives, it’s not just about God but about the willingness of our hearts to humble ourselves before Him. Sometimes, our hearts are not open enough for the overflowing mercy of God to enter into our own hearts. In the Scriptures, the Jews should be more open to Christ because of the Old Testament, but some of the Pharisees rejected Him and crucified Him. Many of His followers should be on fire especially after seeing His miracles, but they rejected Him. Even Judas betrayed our Lord. So, we recognize both the grace (and grace is a gift) that God gives while acknowledging that people can reject such gift.
At the same time, I will add that one thing that may be helpful to you is to read and reflect on the life of the saints. Blessed Carlo Acutis received the Eucharist daily when he was 7 to 15 years old, the time he died. And he said that the Eucharist is the highway to heaven. You can look at the examples of other saints like St. John Bosco, St. Francis of Sales, St.Therese of the Child Jesus, and many more. You can also read some spiritual reading like the books written by the saints. The saints are models to our spiritual life, and they are truly devoted to Jesus in the Eucharist. They persevered both in the valley of humility and in the peak of holiness, and that may be helpful to your research. It’s true that some clergy are not good examples, but there are also many holy priests out there.
I hope that you’ll continuously seek the truth because Jesus is the Truth. At the same time, we can be really and genuinely affected by the sins we see around us. These are opportunities for us to speak to Christ in our prayers and tell Him what we really feel and why we feel it. Let’s acknowledge to Jesus when we see the sins of others and tell Him what we desire of them because deep within, there is a desire for us to really hope for the conversion of sinners. By God’s grace, may we forgive them in our prayers, and maybe, this is an opportunity for us to pray for them as well. Our prayers may not instantaneously change a person, but maybe, it’s one of the numerous prayers that can lead to the repentance of sinners (including priests), at the moment of death. And, who knows, if you become more at peace with the teachings on the Real Presence, you can try to speak to Christ in the Adoration Chapel. It can change ones life.
Lastly, I will also recommend this article from Catholic Answers, and you can search on their website as well.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth
May God bless you and lead you to His truth. Amen +
Blessed day!
I made a comment in response to your questions. I’ve forgotten to directly reply it to you, so I hope you can check my longer comment below. At the same time, just to add to your second question,
Since we have free will and fallen human nature, even if we see a very heroic witness of a saint, we can still struggle and be tempted to reject the faith. After all, Jesus who is God Himself is rejected by many people in His time.
Thank you and may God bless you always 😇