|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Eucharist is Foreign to Scripture
Lou writes: The mass and the eucharist is foreign to Scripture. I tried to see the connection in my desire to remain in catholicism many years ago. But that connection just isn't there. At the end of your statement, you say that Christ is priest and victim of every mass. That is just not Biblically true. The Bible is emphatic that Christ was offered once. Hebrews 7:27 - "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Hebrews 9:28 - "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Hebrews 10:12 - "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." So, Andrew the catholic church's teachings regarding the mass and Christ being the priest and victim of every mass is erroneous. Christ was sacrificed one time. Andrew responds: I beg to differ with your statement that the Mass and the Eucharist are foreign to Scripture. The institution narrative is found in the Gospels and in St. Paul. Our Lord makes many stark references to the necessity of eating his REAL flesh and blood (meaning sacramental presence, not cannibalism of course!). My last post made a quick citation that revealed as much. You also disagree about the saving operation of the Mass when I write that Christ is the priest and victim of every Mass. Three verses from Hebrews are cited as supposed proof that this assumption of Catholicism is false. But, the verses make no assault on Catholic teaching and practice whatsoever. Hebrews 7:27 must be read with 26 that declares Jesus to be our holy and sinless HIGH PRIEST. Jesus never stops being the HIGH PRIEST-- this includes at Mass. Verse 27 is not in regard to Christian (Catholic) practice but to the oblations of the Jews. While daily sacrifice was not mentioned by Mosaic law, it was mentioned that on the Day of Atonement the high priest "must offer sacrifice . . . for his own sins and then for those of the people (Leviticus 16:11-19). The Jewish sacrifices were in preparation for the conclusive self-offering of Christ on Calvary. They attempted to do what could not truly be done, bring reconciliation between God and man. Jesus as the blameless one, alone has the capacity to offer an oblation totally pleasing to God the Father. Just as inaugurated at the Last Supper, Jesus is the LAMB OF GOD (victim) who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus is eternal priest. Further, while he can never suffer and die again (this is Catholic doctrine), a priest is only a priest if he offers sacrifice. Jesus is still our priest because his saving act on Calvary is not imprisoned in human history. While many men may function as priests in Christianity, it is all by way of participation in the ONE PRIESTHOOD of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 9:28 and Hebrews 10:12 say essentially the same thing-- that Jesus died "once and for all". This phrase is a translation of the Greek EPHAPAX/HAPAX. It appears eleven times in Hebrews. Christ is eternal priest and victim. The Mass makes this reality present in a sacramental way. Just as Jesus linked his Last Supper with Calvary by using cultic language, the celebration of this same saving meal by the Church again connects us to the saving Cross of Christ. Lou writes: Your desire to enjoy the intimacy with God that they possessed is a good desire - BUT, it's not dependent on them. You can enjoy an even closer relationship with Jesus. It's up to you. The ball is in your court. Mary and the saints cannot help any one of us. We all stand or fall alone in our relationship with the Lord. Andrew responds: You still do not understand the Catholic position. Certainly one can have intimacy with God without any explicit invocation of the saints; however, such unity does not preclude such collaboration either. The Lord wants us to be joined together in him. This unity is not fractured by death. That is a hallmark of the resurrection. Further, if God makes himself present and known in his community, then there is no contradiction-- as we see in the two-fold commandment of Christ, to love God and neighbor. Your adoption of the Protestant maxim of Christ as "personal" Savior to the exclusion of "corporate" Lord is no surprise given your utter disavowal of the Church. There is no competition between my love for Mary and the saints with my devotion to Almighty God in Jesus Christ. The very fact that a man can preach or become a missionary is evidence that we do not stand or fall utterly alone as we face God. The decision is very much a personal one. However, God has used our friends and family to lead us to him. God can use us in a similar fashion. Except for the fact that they have "run the race", the saints are little different. Lou writes: Ezekiel 14:14 - "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD." You see, Andrew, we are all accountable to God on a one on one basis. Neither Mary, nor the saints, nor Daniel, Noah, and Job can be of any help to us. But what is written in the Inspired Record about them is for our example. Their example was to trust God and follow and obey His Word. Andrew responds: As I have tried to explain, the Church does not reject the idea of personal responsibility before God. Indeed, salvation is dependent upon our acceptance in faith of Jesus and his sacrifice on our behalf. Your citation from Ezekiel teaches, as it should, a doctrine of personal responsibility. However, this does not utterly eradicate the testimony of the Pre-exilic prophets who foretold of national retribution, calling for corporate (national) repentance. Since you quote the Old Testament, I would suggest you read Leviticus 16: Verse 11 - Aaron shall present the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself AND FOR HIS HOUSE. Verse 17 - There shall be no man in the tent of meeting when he enters to make atonement in the holy place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself AND FOR HIS HOUSE AND FOR ALL THE ASSEMBLY OF ISRAEL. Verse 21 - And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him ALL THE INIQUITIES OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Verse 34 - And this shall be AN EVERLASTING STATUTE for you, that atonement may be made for the PEOPLE OF ISRAEL once in the year BECAUSE OF ALL THEIR SINS. Is it this "everlasting statute" that finds full meaning in the one sacrifice of Christ as re-presented by the sharers in his one priesthood within the new People of God, the Catholic Church? Peace,
Lou writes: Hi Andrew: The facts are that the Bible does not support the mass, does not support the literal eating of Christ's flesh and drinking His blood. The Bible never talks about the actual presence of Christ sacramentally in the eucharist. The Bible never even mentions the word eucharist. Andrew responds: Dear Lou, I will not waste time repeating myself, particularly when you will not even concede basic facts. Jesus speaks in graphic terms about the necessity of eating his body and drinking his blood; he allows the murmuring Jews who know full well what he means to walk away; he follows his statement with a Hebraic idiom about the veracity of his teaching (which you wrongly interpret as a reversal or spiritualization); and you ignorantly assert that "the Bible never even mentions the word eucharist." If you picked up a Greek version of the Scriptures, you would find many instances of the word's use. More often than not, even regarding the Mass, the word "Eucharist" is rendered as "thanksgiving" to give us greater accessibility to its meaning. It is a Greek word that rendered the Hebrew "baruka". It is the form of liturgical blessing that Jesus utilized at the Last Supper to institute the EUCHARIST proper. Its roots are from the Old Testament, referring to immediate praise of the Lord for some great work. An example is Genesis 24:27: "Blessed be the Lord" or "Eucharistos Kurios". It was also understood as a succinct public proclamation of God's name and a confession of his power (Exodus 18:9-11). Jesus uses the word in Matthew 11:25. It is also used in Mark 8:6-7 (the multiplication of the loaves) and in Mark 14:22-23 (the Last Supper). The classical understanding of EUCHARISTOI came to include both thanksgiving and living remembrance (anamnesis). This is central to the Catholic view of the Mass. This word for blessing and thanksgiving has been used from the earliest days to designate the sacrament. Since the majority of the early Church was Greek speaking, the terminology was passed on to later generations. How can I, or any other person well versed in the mechanics of biblical hermeneutics, take you seriously when you interpret Scripture as a rudimentary and literal proof text for your anti-Catholic apologetics? We speak an utterly different religious language with only the briefest of intersections. While my love of the Church and my reasoned faith can admit to failings on her part and some theological speculation; your hatred of Catholicism will allow no door to open to the legitimacy of her claims or the holiness of her members in the Mystical Body. Few debates are won here by anyone, including Nicholas. People leave this message board because they get tired of banging their heads against an inflexible wall of calumny against classical Christianity. Peace,
Lou writes: The only possible error that I will admit in my last post is my assertion that the word "eucharist" isn't mentioned in the Bible. The translation into English certainly did not happen. But as for literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ, the doctrine is not only false, but impossible. Jesus bodily ascended into heaven. His flesh and blood are seated at the right hand of God the Father. He does not make His presence sacramentally in the wafer whether once or simultaneously as masses are said throughout the world. Prove from the Scriptures the DOCTRINE of transubstantiantion. Where does Jesus commission His apostles to pray a prayer of consecration by which miraculously, His body and blood become actually present in the wafer??? Find me that Scripture and I'll believe it. Twisting the words of Jesus does not make the case for such a teaching. If it can't be found in the Word of God, then it is not from God. You are a good student of history I presume.
Then you would know that the doctrine of
Andrew responds: This is where the debate ends. Where there is no reason, there can be no truth. Look at what you do here. Anyone who dismisses sound biblical hermeneutics will become a pawn of his own cultural and literary biases. This is precisely what you have done. You force the bible to fit your narrow focus instead of breaking the Word of God open in a fashion that may both console and challenge preconceived notions. Instead of asking, what does the bible actually say? You are saying, the Scriptures mean such and such because you say so. At your own testimony, you somehow take upon yourself the role of authentic biblical interpreter because of a voluntary intention to conform to divine providence. I want to do God's will, too, and yet we disagree about certain fundamentals. The quality of discipleship, even holiness itself, is no guarantee of right doctrine or biblical astuteness. Logic is thrown out the window. While you are somehow protected in the truth, Catholicism's claims are ridiculed as fabrications from the mind of the Church, with no correspondence to the Word of God. Attempts to show that her teachings are reconcilable with Scripture are dismissed as distortion, at every turn. Because the manner in which she understands the Scriptures is not the same as yours, the Church stands convicted (in your mind) as the Anti-Christ. Of course, this same Church has as it life's blood many martyrs and saints who love their faith and surrender their lives to Jesus and his work. Despite how you try, you cannot separate the institution from her members. If the Church is the anti-Christ, then I AM THE ANTI-CHRIST, Mother Teresa, the Pope, the many saints, and the apostles as well. Look at me, I am still trying to make a case when the evidence is clear that nothing will convince you to reconsider your dogmatism against Catholicism. Lou, you may live a very moral life and be in every way a good neighbor and citizen, but I must contend that you are still mistaken about the Catholic Church. I would re-post my topical Scripture texts, but given that they have been deleted from this site in the past, I think I will just allow these few comments to suffice. ANDREW Lou writes: As far as whether her members are holy or not, I'm sure that there are many that are, among their clergy as well as their laity. However, that does not negate her position organizationally as a false church. As far as your claim regarding people leaving this message board because of the inflexibility in the stance of catholicism, I say, OK, so what? They leave because they cannot gainsay on the truths of God's Word. If one is going to go by the principles of sola scriptura, catholicism loses miserably. And, by the way, classical christianity is not roman catholicism. Who said that anyone should be flexible in their convictions. Either you have them or you do not. Are you flexible in your convictions regarding catholicism? I think not. You've already stated to me a couple of times that for you to leave catholicism would be equivalent to forsaking Christ. The fact is that there is no way for a catholic to win a debate while it's forum lies within the boundaries of Scripture. And that is because catholicism can only be defended by the principles of catholicism, not the Word of God. Andrew, the day that you place the Word of God above the teachings and traditions of man is the day that you will see the error of both your ways and the ways of the RCC. May that day surely come. Out of all of the roman catholics that I have discussed with, I must admit that you and Joe made, for me, the most interesting discussions. And you, even more than Joe. Joe got tired quickly. God Bless. Peace! Lou Andrew responds: Dear Lou, Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. This is an element of Christian revelation. Our Lord is humanity's eternal advocate to God. He is the Mediator between men and the throne of heaven. However, this element of Christian faith does not nullify Christ's Eucharistic presence. God has not left us orphans. Spatial categories do not limit the resurrected and glorified Christ. Jesus purposely uses language at his Last Supper that places the ritual in parallel with his saving death on Calvary. "This . . . my body. This . . . my blood." A covenant cannot be established or renewed with a figurative sacrifice or presence. The identification is made complete. He is the Lamb of God and the Bread from Heaven. Commissioning his apostles as priests of the new dispensation, he commands, "Do THIS in remembrance of me." The remembrance or ANAMNESIS of the ancient world was a richer concept than our poor nostalgic memory of things past. This remembrance makes the victim and saving action present. If Christ were not present in such a ritual, then the words of institution would make even less sense when repeated, indeed, they would be a lie. Some would call Jesus himself a liar when he speaks of himself as the consecrated elements. Others seem to believe that Jesus is an amnesiac or worse, a wimp, who speaks one moment uncategorically about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood and then quickly rescinds his words when people walk away. As somewhat a student of history, I can say that the term "transubstantiation" was later introduced to sum up the mystery of the REAL PRESENCE that the Church had believed from the earliest days. The term "Eucharist" was used to note this sacrament by St. Ignatius of Antioch (died in 107 AD), Justin Martyr (died around 165 AD), and Irenaeus (died around 208 AD). Both sacrifice and sacrament were professed. The testimony and belief of the first Christians is still maintained by the Catholic faith. Their voices represent the consensus of the Church established by Christ. Ignatius is a contemporary of some of the apostles. Jesus did not institute a faith that would almost immediately go into error and lead men astray. You write the following: "Andrew, with all due respect, your being well-versed in the mechanism of Biblical hermaneutics is not an immediate qualification for Biblical discernment or understanding. Desiring to do His will, on the other hand is. The claims of the catholic church are legitimate in her own mind only. The Scripture (which she rejects) condemns her as AntiChrist. It's the truths written in Scripture, Andrew, that forbid me from acknowledging her claims as legitimate." This is where the debate ends. Where there is no reason, there can be no truth. Look at what you do here. 1. Anyone who dismisses sound biblical hermeneutics will become a pawn of his own cultural and literary biases. This is precisely what you have done. You force the bible to fit your narrow focus instead of breaking the Word of God open in a fashion that may both console and challenge preconceived notions. Instead of asking, what does the bible actually say? You are saying, the Scriptures mean such and such because you say so. 2. At your own testimony, you somehow take upon yourself the role of authentic biblical interpreter because of a voluntary intention to conform to divine providence. I want to do God's will, too, and yet we disagree about certain fundamentals. The quality of discipleship, even holiness itself, is no guarantee of right doctrine or biblical astuteness. 3. Logic is thrown out the window. While you are somehow protected in the truth, Catholicism's claims are ridiculed as fabrications from the mind of the Church, with no correspondence to the Word of God. Attempts to show that her teachings are reconcilable with Scripture are dismissed as distortion, at every turn. 4. Because the manner in which she understands the Scriptures is not the same as yours, the Church stands convicted (in your mind) as the Anti-Christ. Of course, this same Church has as it life's blood many martyrs and saints who love their faith and surrender their lives to Jesus and his work. Despite how you try, you cannot separate the institution from her members. If the Church is the anti-Christ, then I AM THE ANTI-CHRIST, Mother Teresa, the Pope, the many saints, and the apostles as well. Look at me, I am still trying to make a case when the evidence is clear that nothing will convince you to reconsider your dogmatism against Catholicism. Lou, you may live a very moral life and be in every way a good neighbor and citizen, but I must contend that you are still mistaken about the Catholic Church. I would re-post my topical Scripture texts, but given that they have been deleted from this site in the past, I think I will just allow these few comments to suffice. ANDREW
|