Posted on 02/08/2015 12:34:39 PM PST by RnMomof7
Few Catholics think about this question. The reason is that most Catholics are not aware that the Church teaches that the Mass is an actual sacrifice. They know that the rite is called the Sacrifice of the Mass, that it is performed by a priest, that the congregation assembles before an altar, and that the consecrated bread wafers are called hosts. Nevertheless, most Catholics do not seem to realize that the Church teaches that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, that a prime function of the Catholic priesthood is to offer sacrifice, that an altar is a place of sacrifice, and that the word host is from the Latin word hostia, meaning sacrificial victim.
When I told Anthony, a Catholic catechism teacher, that he was going to a sacrifice for sins each week, he denied it. Anthony’s sister, Teresa, had been born again several years earlier and had left the Catholic Church. She had been sharing the gospel with Anthony, and he too now was claiming to be trusting Christ alone for his salvation. He remained, however, loyal to the Catholic Church and its practices.
"Anthony, you can’t say you are trusting in Christ’s finished work on the cross and keep going to a weekly sacrifice for your sins," I told him.
"But it’s not a sacrifice," Anthony insisted.
"Look at the Eucharistic prayer," I said, handing him an open copy of the Vatican II Sunday Missal, the book containing the words recited by the priest during the Mass. "What does the priest pray after consecrating the bread and wine?"
"‘We offer to you, God of glory and majesty,’" Anthony read, "‘this holy and perfect sacrifice the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.’"i He then added, "I don’t remember the priest ever saying that."
"Read on," I asked.
"‘Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our Father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek. Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.’" Anthony studied the prayer for a few moments in silence, and then added, "Well, I never heard this at the Mass."
"I’m not making this up, Anthony," I told him. "Next Sunday sit near the front of the church and listen carefully to the words of the priest. You’ll see for yourself. According to your Church, in some mystical way the cross transcends time and is made present by the liturgy of the Eucharist. I know this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but Catholicism teaches that the Mass is one and the same as the sacrifice of Calvary."
The next time I saw Anthony he admitted that he had been wrong. Despite almost forty years in the Catholic Church and experience as a catechism teacher, he didn’t know that the Mass was supposedly the actual sacrifice of Christ. Neither did he realize that he was not only attending Christ’s sacrifice, but he was participating in it.
It is indeed the priest alone, who, acting in the person of Christ, consecrates the bread and wine, but the role of the faithful in the Eucharist is to recall the passion, resurrection and glorification of the Lord, to give thanks to God, and to offer the immaculate victim not only through the hands of the priest, but also together with him; and finally, by receiving the Body of the Lord, to perfect that communion with God and among themselves which should be the product of participation in the sacrifice of the Mass. —Second Vatican Council (emphasis added)ii
One must ask: What kind of worship is this? The cross was a horrific event. It was the enemies of the Lord Jesus, not His disciples, who crucified Him. Why would anyone calling himself a Christian want to participate in the continuation of the cross?
Furthermore, as the Lord died on the cross, He cried out, "It is finished!" (John 19:30). Why then does the Church want to continue His sacrifice? He died "once for all" (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, 9:28, 10:10). How then can the Church say that each offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass appeases the wrath of God? The Lord "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). Why then does the Church seek to continually re-present Christ in His victimhood to the Father? The Lord is not in a state of victimhood. He is the risen, glorified, crowned King of Glory.
Rome’s theologians, you can be sure, have responses to each of these questions. But don’t expect any simple or straightforward answers. While writing The Gospel According to Rome, I asked Michael, a scholarly colleague with advanced theological degrees, to critique the section of the manuscript that reviewed the Church’s rebuttal to criticism of the Mass. About to complete a doctorate in biblical Hebrew at a leading university, I was confident that, if anyone could make sense of them, it was Michael. I was expecting him to carefully analyze each response, delving into the finer points of theology. To my amazement, he simply wrote in the margin, "WHAT A BUNCH OF HOOEY!"
Michael was right. Rome’s explanation of the glaring contradictions of the Mass amount to nothing more than mystical mumbo-jumbo and high sounding nonsense.
Even more distressing is the way the Church distorts the Scriptures in an attempt to provide a biblical basis for the Mass. Take, for example, the following reference to the Mass in Pope John Paul II’s recent best-seller, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:
. . . the Church is the instrument of man’s salvation. It both contains and continually draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantly "enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption" (cf. Hebrews 9:12). —Pope John Paul IIiii
Here the Pope actually changes the Scriptures. Though he modifies the wording of Hebrews 9:12, he puts his new version in quotation marks and retains the reference, suggesting that it compares well to the original. Three alterations, however, have so distorted the meaning of the verse that the Pope’s new version teaches the very opposite of what the original did. Before examining how the verse has been changed and why the Pope would want to modify it, consider first the original meaning of the verse and its context.
At Mount Sinai God showed Moses a tabernacle in heaven, and instructed him to build a similar tabernacle on earth, carefully following its pattern (Exodus 25:9, 40; Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5). It was to be a rectangular tent with a single entryway and no windows. Inside a curtain was to divide the structure into a large outer room and a smaller inner room.
The earthly tabernacle was to serve as the focal point of Israel’s worship (Exodus 25:8; 29:42). Each day Jewish priests were to enter its outer room and perform various duties (Exodus 30:7-8; Leviticus 4:18, 24:1-9). Once a year on the Day of Atonement the Jewish high priest was to enter the inner room, presenting the blood of sin offerings to make atonement for himself and for the nation (Leviticus 16:1-34). In front of the tabernacle, God told Moses to construct a bronze altar upon which the priests were to continually offer animal sacrifices (Numbers 28-29).
Hebrews 9 reviews many of these details. There the emphasis is placed on the frequency with which the Jewish priests were to enter the tabernacle to perform their duties:
Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. —Hebrews 9:6-7 (emphasis added)
The verses that follow contrast the continual and yearly ministry of the Jewish priests in the earthly tabernacle with the once for all ministry of the Lord Jesus in the heavenly tabernacle.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. —Hebrews 9:11-12 (emphasis added)
These verses speak of an event following the crucifixion when the Lord Jesus entered into the presence of God in the heavenly tabernacle. There He presented His shed blood on our behalf (Hebrews 9:24-25). Unlike the Jewish priests, however, who "are continually entering" (Hebrews 9:6) and the high priest who "enters once a year" (Hebrews 9:7), the Lord Jesus, our High Priest, entered the holy place of the heavenly tabernacle "once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). Only one presentation of His blood was necessary for God accepted it as the perfect and complete satisfaction for our sins.
Now consider how Pope John Paul II has altered the meaning of Hebrews 9:12. He writes that "...Jesus Christ constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption’ (cf. Hebrews 9:12)."iv Three changes are apparent.
The original text of Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ "entered" God’s sanctuary. The Greek verb is in the indicative mood and the aorist tense. This portrays Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary as an event in past time, freezing the action as if taking a snapshot of it. The Pope changes the verb to the present tense, writing that Christ "enters into God’s sanctuary." This makes Christ’s entrance an event that is now occurring, viewing the action as something that is in progress.
Further distorting the meaning of the verse, the Pope introduces it with the word constantly, writing that "…Jesus Christ constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary’ (cf. Hebrews 9:12)."v The verse, however, says that Christ "entered the holy place once for all" (Hebrews 9:11). In Hebrews 9 it is the Jewish priests who are constantly entering into the tabernacle. This is contrasted with the Lord Jesus who entered only once.
Finally, John Paul changes the ending of the verse to teach that by constantly entering the heavenly sanctuary Jesus Christ is "‘thus obtaining eternal redemption’ (cf. Hebrews 9:12)."vi The Bible says that Christ entered the holy place once for all, "having obtained eternal redemption." The work of redemption is finished, not ongoing.
Now why would the Pope want to change the Scriptures? Why would he want his readers to think that the Bible teaches that Christ "constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption’" instead of what it actually teaches, that Christ "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption"? Why? Because Rome holds that Christ must be constantly re-presented in His victimhood to God through the Mass for our salvation. With each offering of the Mass, some 120 million times a year, the Church says that "the work of our redemption is continually carried out."vii The Pope, not finding Hebrews 9:12 to his liking, simply changed it. This was not a slip of the pen, but a calculated alteration of God’s Word to make the Sacrifice of the Mass appear biblical.
Adapted from Conversations with Catholics by James G. McCarthy (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1997)
Notes:
i. Liturgy of the Eucharist, First Eucharistic Prayer, The Memorial Prayer.
ii. Second Vatican Council, "Sacred Liturgy," Second Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 12.
iii. Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Knopf, 1995), p. 139.
iv. Ibid.
v. Ibid.
vi. Ibid.
vii. Second Vatican Council, "Life of Priests," no. 13. See also the Code of Canon Law, canon 904.
First two sentences of the article are absolutely false. No need to wade into this anti-Christian muck.
If you deny it's a sacrifice you had better get lined up with your church and correct them. See HERE before you embarrass yourself.
OK, thank you. I should have thought of that but don’t remember other posts by him.
I am wholly aware of the church’s teaching and need nothing from a jealous bigot and participant in a gutter faith. There is always time for you to turn away from hate and to Christ. Whenever you wish, a Catholic will happily help you.
Turn to a self admitted pagan church? Are you kidding me?
So your statement about he first two sentences was just hyperbole or what.
IBTZ
Falsehood of question 1. Every Catholic thinks about the mystery of the sacrament. Falsehood of Question 2. Every adult Catholic is aware of the mystery of the sacrament.
Don’t bother to post to me further. Bigots who attempt to divide Christians, do not interest me. Particularly those whose hatred is a result of their own poor self-esteem and lack of faith.
How UNChristian of you to speak this way about another person's faith!
Make comments in error here and you are going to be challenged. If the kitchen gets to hot for you perhaps the Religion Forum would be something you might consider avoiding.
Truth hurts, and I will not stand back and be a victim to an anti-Christian bigot!
:-)
Nope. You’re the one who avoids answering direct questions. Done dealing with you. Don’t bother posting to me anymore - I won’t respond. You can’t seem to act like an adult.
No it doesn't,it sets us free.
For the record, you initiated the posts.
No one is obliged to speak well of a false religion. Paul said such people should be accursed.
Welcome to FR.
Is your treatment of those who disagree with you supposed to make them want to swim the Tiber?
You skipped verses, 6, 7, and 8, as well as 10 so explain why not to call anyone teacher, professor, and a good many other titles in common use that are implied in those other verses but conveniently ignored in a lame attempt to change the subject.
Oh, and what about in the same chapter
(2) Saying : The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.(3) All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do : but according to their works do ye not ; for they say, and do not.
which shows that Christ establishes authority and order that He expects His flock to obey because of the authority He granted their position. An anarchy of thousands different doctrines and the bad joke about an invisible church really fits that well, doesn't it?
How about "obey your prelates"?
How about Jude warning about the heresy of Core which is "let it be enough for you that we're all Holy as an argument against having a priesthood over them? Sound like the same broken record the tens of thousands of anti-Catholic comic book fans spout?
Yeah, I know, none of that matters because it doesn't change the subject to anything you want to discuss.
You like the strong delusion of Self and Self Alone?
Fine, enjoy it and the single verse, out of context, games that destroy the Scripture by turning it into little Lego Blocks everyone can build whatever they want to build out of.
have a nice day
In light of the above italicized, as a test exercise, in order to better clarify if there are "two sets of rules", try the following question on for size;
while checking the context in which that question was put, as a response.
Of course it isn't. But that is not the point. This one sola which Romanist keep hating on was never intended to be the "be all end all of revelation" as you put it.
The way in which you wrote out it to be, describing it as you just did, is not the way it is worded by those whom understand that one sola (in how that fits with the other solas) nor is the way sola scriptura is best understood, and then applied.
That some may get it wrong, and misapply it -- does not mean the principle itself is in error.
In the Scriptures themselves there is place for revelation (to be received, from God, by way of the Spirit).
A prime (no pun intended) example;
Even though Peter had been told by his brother Andrew -- "we have found the Christ", some time later when Jesus asked them, "who do you say that I am?" and then when Jesus turned to Peter and asked Peter the same question more directly, Peter answered that Jesus was the Messiah.
Jesus responded to Peter then -- "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you", even though previously, Peter's own flesh and blood brother Andrew, had done very much that exact same thing (reveal that Jesus was the Messiah, using human speech to convey that concept).
Upon that revelation (as Peter received it, by spirit) the Church is built upon, and must be renewed in each and every soul. Only the Father who is in heaven can initiate --- and finish that renewal, thru Christ, as author and finisher of our faith.
Words alone, human speech, reading what others have to say, listening to and even following to the best of one's ability to whatever Church 'authority' has to say, all of that put together is not enough, and will still *always* fall woefully short, leaving behind newly created Pharisees ---->if one is not born (again, from above) by the spirit. (John 3:5).
Yet the Scriptures still are supra over and above revelation, must be returned to, and cannot be overpowered by revelation. They most certainly were not overpowered when Peter was given that particular revelation in Matthew 16, and Christ Himself did return to reliance upon as it is written rather than stand only upon His own authority, although that authority He did establish by time and again, over and over, performing the miraculous. (John 4:39-54, John 6:30)
Rather than 'sola scriptura' if that is what you are attempting to criticize here, it could serve everyone well today to see that principle expressed as 'prima' scriptura -- the Scriptures being unbreakable Word --->according to Jesus anyway.
That said, forgive me if you will, for going over Scripture passages which you are likely well enough acquainted with (or so I would assume), but it did come to mind here as I was forming this comment, that we never know when some lurker may happen upon comments made on this forum --- including possibly some Muslim seeking the truth of Isa, Isa al Masih, the man in white.
What RC's are railing against isn't really sola Scriptura. It's a strawman version of it that they erect and knock down.
When they state what they think it is, you won't find any believers accepting that definition either.
They have been corrected many times and yet, as evidenced by their persistence in repeating the same error, have not accepted the correction.
Indoctrination does not tend to leave a person with a teachable spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.