That is the best and most coherent analogy I've ever seen posted by someone opposing the Church on this board. I completely disagree, but it's a good one!
Read Hebrews and then tell me that there is a need for a propitiatory sacrifice and a priesthood to make the sacrifice. The whole point of the letter was to tell the Hebrew Christians, who were still offering propitiatory sacrifices through priests at the Temple that they didn't need to do that any longer. Christ is the ultimate and final Priest and sacrifice. They were free from further sacrifices because His work is done - so done that "He sat down at the right hand of God". (Heb 10:12)
We completely agree that Christ completed the sacrifice, for time eternal. However, I'm curious how you reconcile the teachings regarding the Eucharist that existed for 1500 years in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches? Were these Churches in error regarding the Eucharist the entire time? If yes, how do you reconcile that with Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church?
We completely agree that Christ completed the sacrifice, for time eternal. However, I'm curious how you reconcile the teachings regarding the Eucharist that existed for 1500 years in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches? Were these Churches in error regarding the Eucharist the entire time? If yes, how do you reconcile that with Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church?
No, they weren't all in error regarding the eucharist the entire time. I have a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea (263 - 340 A.D.) that it's a memorial and commemoration if you'd like to see it.
But if a church (any church) teaches that there still needs to be a propitiatory sacrifice, the letter to the Hebrews says that's not the case.
His church is the body of Christ, not the RCC. Youse guys got it all wrong...