because Scripture does. Or to be more precise...."And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22 NASB
But there is real shedding of blood, the blood of Jesus on the Cross. The Last Supper and the Crucifixion were not two distinct events. There were the same event, the new Paschal sacrifice. What the Mass does is make that one sacrifice present though the unbloody offering of the bread in wine. But while the appearance may be that of the offering of ordinary bread and wine, the reality is the one sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross by the shedding of his blood.
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Poured out: In the OT the blood sacrifice was never consumed; it was always poured out. We further have the drink offering which was poured out before God as a sacrifice (Ex 29:40, Numbers 15:4-5).
But this is the sacrifice of the New Covenant and it is our Lord himself that commands us to drink his blood. As the supreme lawgiver, Go is free to change the Law, or do you still keep all of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant?
. . . do this in remembrance of Me . . .
You present this as if this somehow negates the reality of the sacrifice. Did you even read the note that you appended at the end of your chart:
‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3The full quote from Hebrews:
Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them, it can never make perfect those who come to worship by the same sacrifices that they offer continually each year. Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, once cleansed, would no longer have had any consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is only a yearly remembrance of sins, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4)Again in Numbers:
Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest as well as an offering on her behalf, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal. However, he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it, since it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing. (Numbers 5:15)Thus the remembrance is made by means of a sacrifice.
I notice that you passed over completely the reference to I Corinthians 10 where Paul relates the partaking in the body and blood of Christ with the Jewish and pagan sacrifices. The argument of Paul makes sense only if this is the sacrifice of the Christians.
Let's see....which opinion of which ECF have you selectively chosen to quote out of context to try and support your claim?
St. Clement and St. Ireneus were not some obscure theologians, they were well respected and renowned and their writings were well known. If you reject their testimony as representing the common belief of Christians at the time, then please post the response of the proto-Protestants at the time who rejected and opposed what they wrote. History is not on your side.
Christians don't accept their "authority" as they have none. They are writing at best what could be considered commentaries.
If the early Christians did not have any authority in teaching the truths of the Gospel, how could they have any authority to teach us what are the books of the Bible? And if it were not them, who did?
There was a real shedding of blood. It was a one time event never to be repeated again.
The Last Supper and the Crucifixion were not two distinct events. There were the same event, the new Paschal sacrifice.
No, they are separate events.
What the Mass does is make that one sacrifice present though the unbloody offering of the bread in wine.
Again, without the shedding of blood there is no sacrifice nor forgiveness of sins. That's the error of the Mass.
*****
Did you even read the note that you appended at the end of your chart:
‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3
Yes I read it as I typed it.
Now, read it in context of Hebrews. The passage is referencing the OT sacrifices. We're in the NT now.
Rome though, has seemingly re-established the OT system of priests and sacrifices in rejection of the NT.
History is not on your side.
The ECFs, when read in context, are not on the Roman Catholic's side.
How old did Irenaeus says Jesus was?
Care to discuss his recapitulation theory?
Roman Catholics would do well to avoid CatholicAnswers type apologetics.
I point to the only collection of infallible writings we have for my defense....the Scriptures.
Clement and Irenaeus were and still remain fallible men who wrote their opinion of the issues at hand.
That Rome did not include their writings in their canon at Trent is telling.