Response to Fighting Vatican (part 5) - On the sacrifice of the Mass
And per sacrifice, we as Catholics do not re-sacrifice Jesus, this is a common misconception outside the Church. We are re-presenting the Sacrifice when Jesus says do this in remembrance of me. You look at old Tradition, old Jewish Customs of circumcision and their own sacrifice, and how Catholics do things today, it is all quite similar.read Hebrews 10:1
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves."
What is a shadow? It is a outline that must contain the substance. The old tradtions of the past are shown in new light in the New Conveant. I saw on your website that you had a priest tell you that you had alot of knowlege of the Catholic Church, but the main doctrine of our faith and you do not understand? Please read the Catechism, if you wish to define our beliefs. Jesus is our ultimate high priest, there is no doubt of that, but It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.
Allow me to start off by quoting from the Council of Trent regarding the sacrifice of the Mass:
“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.” (Session 22, chap. 2)
Likewise, Canon I declares:
“If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”
The language of the infallible Council of Trent is such that the Mass is really a “sacrifice” of the “one and the same” Christ. Were it merely a “representation”, I don’t think I would have problem with that in the sense that the supper “signifies” (at the very least) the death of the Christ. However, the meaning of Trent is clearly that the Mass is really and truly a sacrifice of the same Jesus Christ who once died on the “altar of the cross.” The difference between the two is that while the cross was a “bloody sacrifice” the Mass is an “unbloody sacrifice”. Both are claimed to be equally propitiatory and even the “one and the same” victim is offered in this “real and true sacrifice”.
Now, the questions are as follows: How can the sacrifice be one and the same, or a re-presentation, when the significant difference of the manner is different? Also, how does propitiation for sins take place through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass when the New Testament is explicit in saying, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:22)?
As per Hebrews 10, I believe the teaching of Hebrews 10:1-4 is quite clear that the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away the sins of the people. In the covenant, that was not its function. The function of the OT sacrifices were to direct the peoples faith to one who would come and be the sacrifice that God would truly be pleased with (see Isaiah 53). What was the function of those OT sacrifices? Verse 3 reveals it clearly: “But in these sacrifice (the ones that are continually offered) there is a reminder (Gr. Anamnesis) OF SIN every year.” Notice the word “reminder”. It is the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said “Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of Me.”
Here we see the contrast between the sacrifices of the OT and the sacrifice (singular) of the NT. In the OT, sacrifices were repeated year after year to remind the peoples of their sins. Again, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). These sacrifices were not intended to do such. In the Old Covenant, they were signs pointing to the sacrifice to come, to the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the real sacrifice to which all the other sacrifices pointed to. Those sacrifices were but shadows –without substance – of the real propitiation for our sins.
That this is the true understanding is seen from the proceeding verses in which we read, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired…” That is, the sacrifices of animals were not what God really wanted. God really wanted the peoples’ faith to be in the coming sacrifice, the one who would crush the head of the serpent. Hence, the prophets would often ridicule Israel for their zealous sacrifices that had missed the whole point of what they signified. As Augustine said in “On Christian Doctrine” Book 3, chap. 8, they were in bondage to the sign and had missed the thing signified in the sign. God could often tell the people that He didn’t want their sacrifices but a “broken spirit” and a “contrite heart”…the reminders of sin. God ultimately wanted their faith (Hab. 2:4). Hebrews continues, “…but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offering and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure…” Again, God is not propitiated or pleased by the sacrifices of the animals. Rather, He is well pleased in His Son and His work that was truly propitiatory.
In regards to the Priesthood, I would quote I Peter 2:5 and 2:9 to show that we all are priests to God. All believers share in the NT priesthood in that we do not need intermediaries to take our sacrifices to God anymore. Now Jesus is the great High Priest, as you correctly assert. But beyond that, there are no other intermediaries to get to God. Also, the word for elders (GR. Presbuteros) is NOT the same Greek word for priest ( GR. hierus) nor are they used interchangeably. Rather the word that is translated as overseer or bishop is used synonymously with “elder” (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). This evidence in the Scriptures is what has lead me to believe that the office of elder and overseer/bishop are one and the same, which is why I also believe in a Presbyterian form of Church government.
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves."
What is a shadow? It is a outline that must contain the substance. The old tradtions of the past are shown in new light in the New Conveant. I saw on your website that you had a priest tell you that you had alot of knowlege of the Catholic Church, but the main doctrine of our faith and you do not understand? Please read the Catechism, if you wish to define our beliefs. Jesus is our ultimate high priest, there is no doubt of that, but It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.
Allow me to start off by quoting from the Council of Trent regarding the sacrifice of the Mass:
“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.” (Session 22, chap. 2)
Likewise, Canon I declares:
“If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”
The language of the infallible Council of Trent is such that the Mass is really a “sacrifice” of the “one and the same” Christ. Were it merely a “representation”, I don’t think I would have problem with that in the sense that the supper “signifies” (at the very least) the death of the Christ. However, the meaning of Trent is clearly that the Mass is really and truly a sacrifice of the same Jesus Christ who once died on the “altar of the cross.” The difference between the two is that while the cross was a “bloody sacrifice” the Mass is an “unbloody sacrifice”. Both are claimed to be equally propitiatory and even the “one and the same” victim is offered in this “real and true sacrifice”.
Now, the questions are as follows: How can the sacrifice be one and the same, or a re-presentation, when the significant difference of the manner is different? Also, how does propitiation for sins take place through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass when the New Testament is explicit in saying, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:22)?
As per Hebrews 10, I believe the teaching of Hebrews 10:1-4 is quite clear that the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away the sins of the people. In the covenant, that was not its function. The function of the OT sacrifices were to direct the peoples faith to one who would come and be the sacrifice that God would truly be pleased with (see Isaiah 53). What was the function of those OT sacrifices? Verse 3 reveals it clearly: “But in these sacrifice (the ones that are continually offered) there is a reminder (Gr. Anamnesis) OF SIN every year.” Notice the word “reminder”. It is the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said “Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of Me.”
Here we see the contrast between the sacrifices of the OT and the sacrifice (singular) of the NT. In the OT, sacrifices were repeated year after year to remind the peoples of their sins. Again, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). These sacrifices were not intended to do such. In the Old Covenant, they were signs pointing to the sacrifice to come, to the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the real sacrifice to which all the other sacrifices pointed to. Those sacrifices were but shadows –without substance – of the real propitiation for our sins.
That this is the true understanding is seen from the proceeding verses in which we read, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired…” That is, the sacrifices of animals were not what God really wanted. God really wanted the peoples’ faith to be in the coming sacrifice, the one who would crush the head of the serpent. Hence, the prophets would often ridicule Israel for their zealous sacrifices that had missed the whole point of what they signified. As Augustine said in “On Christian Doctrine” Book 3, chap. 8, they were in bondage to the sign and had missed the thing signified in the sign. God could often tell the people that He didn’t want their sacrifices but a “broken spirit” and a “contrite heart”…the reminders of sin. God ultimately wanted their faith (Hab. 2:4). Hebrews continues, “…but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offering and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure…” Again, God is not propitiated or pleased by the sacrifices of the animals. Rather, He is well pleased in His Son and His work that was truly propitiatory.
In regards to the Priesthood, I would quote I Peter 2:5 and 2:9 to show that we all are priests to God. All believers share in the NT priesthood in that we do not need intermediaries to take our sacrifices to God anymore. Now Jesus is the great High Priest, as you correctly assert. But beyond that, there are no other intermediaries to get to God. Also, the word for elders (GR. Presbuteros) is NOT the same Greek word for priest ( GR. hierus) nor are they used interchangeably. Rather the word that is translated as overseer or bishop is used synonymously with “elder” (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). This evidence in the Scriptures is what has lead me to believe that the office of elder and overseer/bishop are one and the same, which is why I also believe in a Presbyterian form of Church government.
posted by prchdaword at 3:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home