Is the Mass the Real Sacrifice of Christ?

In Plain Site ^ | Febuary 7 ,2015 | James G. McCarthy

[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.

[verga]

Read this twice and I still can’t see what you are trying to get at, but at least it is shorter, please stop rambling.

[FourtySeven]

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).

That is a very interesting point. Very interesting, worthy of more Scripture study, prayer and meditation.

[BlueDragon]

When they state what they think it is, you won't find any believers accepting that definition either.

Yes, that is mainly true, but there are outliers among those whom profess to be Christians, whom at times do seem to shut out far too much else, including but not limited to -- the testimonies of others, including from persons throughout Church history.

Yet many of the teachers and preachers whom I myself have encountered do not limit themselves to "bible" only, even when or if they call themselves a "bible church", resulting in myself encountering a great amount of agreement among a wide array of other-than-Roman Catholic churches, and pastors.

Of all of those whom could be looked upon, or declare themselves to be "bible believing" churches, and pastors also, there are those whom; eschew much of any sort of ongoing "revelation" (being wary of the many frauds down through the centuries whom have claimed mysticism & Gnosis), and those whom go too much to the other extreme (relying on "inspiration"), while there are also those whom often enough do appear to myself to be in something of a goldilocks zone of 'just right', or close enough for government work, as that saying goes.;^')

The critics we face here, exclude the middle, thinking only those of their own ecclesiastical community stand a snowball's chance of finding that "middle", the not too hot, and not too cold, warm enough to not be lukewarm, though not so hot to scream as if their hair was on fire.

Speaking of which (and Big Hair, you know who I'm talking about) too much all in one place can be hazardous?

Applying s.s, all Tradition, teaching & experience of others --- is not set fully aside, but instead weighed and measured comparatively, by the Scriptures themselves.

The ceaseless efforts by some here against that principle (if I fairly enough described it, myself --- there is better and more complete wording for how the principle should function) are in effort to assert sola ecclesia instead, while claiming "they" are still in the middle of "just right", yet measuring that by nothing other than their own selves. How convenient...

In the early Church, when there were thorny controversies, and none could claim singular 'authority' over another, the way we can examine the records now as for who was wrong, and who was more correct in comparison --- is judged, is determined by --- what else other than the Scriptures themselves? ...for that is how the majority more often than not reached majority consensus in the first place.

Not only is the guiding principle of s.s (among a gathering of principles to be put into application) in the Scripture, but was utilized by the early Church also (!). I mean, how plain does it have to be?

If one needs convoluted, read-between-the-lines edgewise sort of interpretations, layered one upon another, and cannot otherwise find whatever it is which is being doctrinally constructed, or justified after the fact -- and runs into too much Scripture which refutes the doctrinal position (which can flow from mere "custom", not to be confused with more well-founded Tradition), and early church customs & traditions also do not provide enough support for doctrinal positions -- something is wrong with the doctrines, particularly when one is asserting that ALL of the doctrine was as passed down by the Apostles.

One RC trick is to assert that they alone can "discover" or have new revelation, with one of those discoveries having been the accumulated theological baggage associated with the papacy itself.

One of the FRomans here continues to speak of others positions as "wrong from the beginning" thus poisoned fruit --- so nothing which follows can be any good, yet cannot seem to turn their own standards of judgement and measurement towards their own ecclesiastical community. But then you've noticed that sort of restful-heart action, I'm sure. ;^')

The Great Commission empowered the Church to preach the Gospel. Not something else, nor extend that authority yet further, and force persons to kiss other persons feet because of the Gospel. (washing others feet is another story...)

It's how we all judge church assemblies. Are they preaching the Word of God? Are they preaching Him crucified for the sins of many? Is it preached that the sacrifice of Christ enough to restore us to place of relationship with the Almighty God, the Creator? Is it stressed that He will respond to those whom call upon His name? Are the persons there being positively fed, and grow? Do they practice the Gospel, treating friends and strangers both --- peacefully, as much as possible? (there is a time for not sitting around passively taking abuse and injury, just as there is a time to put up with a great deal).

Turn turn turn The Byrds

Thank you for your reply, and your continuing patience with myself and others.

[BlueDragon]

Stop rambling?

Others here understand me perfectly well.

What's the matter, professor?

Subtleties not your bag?

Things blow right past you, if they are not painfully simple?

Other than the last postscript as it were, concerning possible lurkers, I bracketed the entire affair with your own words, your own statements. Do you not understand the implications of your own words?

Packaged all together, rather than what is called a &*^$ sandwich, wherein the opening is all nicey-nicey, the bad news &*^$ is in the middle, ending with more nicey-nicey noise, I put the good stuff in the middle, the meat of the matters there, bracketed by your own words, and how those words of your own can be seen to support my own positions while refuting your own, and at the same time also be used to judge your own way of using this forum to harass those whom are perceived in some way as critics of RCC theology, attitude, or practice.

Each time I do such a thing, all of a sudden you seem to not understand (yet of course always include note of yet further insult of a personal nature towards my own self, as you do in most every comment/reply to those whom are so-called "protestant", of course)

If you are still experiencing difficulties in understanding me, try hitting the links, reading there to see who is saying what. I formatted them to open in new tab.

[verga]

And still rambling

[af_vet_1981]

LOL I saw your lame attempt at twisting the words of that passage. I doubt anyone with reading comprehension bought your tripe.

Setting the record straight, because the truth is important, and your comment is false.

Your post in 161, bold for emphasis on the blatantly false portion: "Paul said anyone who teaches something pertaining to the gospel that they didn’t to consider them accursed. He also said to “search the scriptures daily to see if what they teach is true”. If you can’t prove that some “oral tradition” was taught by the apostles but still teach it I will consider you accursed as Paul said to. What “oral tradition” do you keep that is not found in scripture but that you can prove the apostles taught?"

First, Paul to whom the pronoun in the sentence refers, neither wrote nor said (unless your anonymous faith community has a secret tradition) “search the scriptures daily to see if what they teach is true”. Any student of the scriptures should know there are two passages (which I will cover) that resemble your claim after some fashion, though neither is from Paul, and neither say what you teach they say.

In the first referenced scripture below it should be obvious from the text that Jesus the Messiah is challenging Jews who do not believe he is Messiah to search the scriptures which testify of him, not to prove whether what he says is true or false. He is truth ! No amount of Bible study is required to validate what he said. He said it. It is true.

As to the second passage, Luke, not Paul, is contrasting two Jewish synagogue communities, neither already believers. The one at Thessaloniki stirred up violence against Paul and Silas when he taught that Jesus is Messiah, suffered, and rose from the dead. Some Jews at Thessaloniki believed, and many Greeks, yet a baser sort stirred up the mob out of envy that the Greeks believed when they themselves did not, so that Paul and Silas were taken to relative safety in Berea where the unbelieving Jews received them with more nobility and grace than those at Thessaloniki. Paul preached the same truth in Berea. Unbelieving Jews searching the scriptures did not validate his truth. The Spirit of God validated it. Paul was a chosen vessel and woe to him if he preached not the Gospel.

Yet because the Jews at Berea received the apostolic teaching from Paul with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he said was found there, they were more noble and many believed. They did not validate Paul's Gospel. They helped themselves to believe Jesus is the Messiah who suffered for our sins and rose from the dead. They were not some iconoclastic community with veto power over which doctrines were true or false. The holy catholic apostolic church came to them in the persons of Paul and Silas who taught them the true doctrine. All they, or we, had to do was believe them.

By way of comparison, the Jews of Thessaloniki and Berea might be compared with different factions of Jews in the Sanhedrin. Consider Gamaliel who spoke up on behalf of Peter and John, that the Council leave them alone and not be found to fight against God. He was certainly more noble, and searched the scriptures. We shall see if it availed him.

The first reference is in the Gospel of John, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses thirty nine to forty four, with the second in the book of Acts, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verses one to fourteen, both as authorized by King James
• Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
  
  
• Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.

[CynicalBear]

Acts 17:11 directly from the Greek text.

Acts 17:11 received the word with all readiness on the every day examining the scriptures if were these things so many indeed therefore out from them believed and of the Grecian women prominent and men not a few.

>>As to the second passage, Luke, not Paul<<

Ok, so let's attribute the statement to Luke. No less true.

>>They were not some iconoclastic community with veto power over which doctrines were true or false.<<

Dude!!! They were searching the scripture to see if what Paul preached was true. Not whether the gospel was true.

Take your "did God really say" diatribe somewhere else.

[af_vet_1981]

Acts 17:11 directly from the Greek text. Acts 17:11 received the word with all readiness on the every day examining the scriptures if were these things so many indeed therefore out from them believed and of the Grecian women prominent and men not a few. >>As to the second passage, Luke, not Paul<< Ok, so let's attribute the statement to Luke. No less true. >>They were not some iconoclastic community with veto power over which doctrines were true or false.<< Dude!!! They were searching the scripture to see if what Paul preached was true. Not whether the gospel was true. Take your "did God really say" diatribe somewhere else.

You are not posting Greek. You are posting English. Are you supposed to be some kind of adhoc translator ?
1. In either case, they searched the scriptures daily, either as unbelievers or newborn babes, with no authority to determine which apostolic teaching was true or false. It was all true. Paul preached the Gospel, and if you know the scriptures, you would know the Torah and Nevi'im portions he referred to and which they would search. The Bereans were not the authority. They were babes in Messiah, if even there yet. Their scripture studies were not the authority. The Spirit of God was with Paul because Messiah himself selected him as a chosen vessel and gave him the Gospel to preach. No doubt their study benefited them, if they cooperated and continued in God's grace.
2. Finally an acknowledgement that what you attributed to Paul was false.
3. Once again, you are using false quotations and falsely attributing them to me. Own your words.

[BlueDragon]

Sorry for the delay in replying, I had to go on a small trip.

That is a very interesting point.

So you can relate to that, can you?

I thought so.

You are one of those kind.

A Christian.

Be encouraged?

[GBA]

Your posts on this thread are very enlightening on several fronts.

We dogs need the crumbs and you have my gratitude.

[FourtySeven]

Be encouraged?

Of course. Thank you.

[rwa265]

I’m sorry, that doesn’t make sense to me with what I understand of Catholic belief that the wine and bread actually turning into the blood and body.

---

I have been busy, so am just now catching up with this thread.

If I am not mistaken, LCMS teaching is that the real presence is a sacramental union; that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine, so that the communicant receives the Body and the Blood of Christ as well as the bread and wine. Catholic teaching is that the bread and wine actually become, in a way beyond understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the communicant receives the Body and Blood of Christ in substance under the appearance of bread and wine.

Lutherans and Catholics both believe the what, that in communion we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. But how the Body and Blood of Christ is present in the bread and wine (LCMS) or how the Body and Blood of Christ becomes the bread and wine (Catholic) is beyond our ability to comprehend.

[Roos_Girl]

Yes, what you explained is correct for the LCMS and what I understood for the Catholic faith. Thank you for confirming.

[Bellflower]

Are you saying (like Bill Clinton) that you don’t know what the meaning of ‘IS’ is?

Jesus said, “This IS my Body.” Similarly “This IS my Blood.”

I believe Jesus’ words and don’t question them at all.

Picture a teacher at a black board. He writes the formulas for different elements, teaching his students which elements make up different gems. He says as he points to the symbol for carbon "This primarily that makes up diamonds". Now do you think the students think that the ink and letter forms symbolizing carbon are the things in large quantity that make up diamonds or do you think that the students, being at least normally intelligent, realize that is understood that what the Professor means is that the carbon which that symbol represents makes up diamonds?

Jesus knew that He wasn't talking to morons and that there wasn't any need to spell it out to them that He was speaking symbolically in metaphors, especially since He ended the direction with "As often as you do this, do this in remembrance of Me", which expressly gave the reason being as a memorial.

Only someone with really strange reasoning would twist what He said and declare that He meant that what was intended to be symbolic was actual. Not even really actual because if it was actual, as the water being turned into wine was, the bread would actually become flesh and the wine would actually become blood. Not just in someone's convoluted imagination. If you twist the plain meaning of Scripture you can twist it into meaning just about anything if you want to.

Jesus often spoke metaphorically to express deeper truth. This is a constant in the Gospels and cannot be disputed, but only understood. His parables are a form of metaphor. His being our Good Shepard, the vine, the door etc. are all metaphors. Since Christians are the sheep of His pasture, when was the last time you baaed? When was the last time you had to have your wool shorn? Do you live in pastures?