Featured per Hebrews/Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?

DaChaser, there is a book called Catholicism for Dummies that is available everywhere. Barnes & Noble, Amazon, local book stores, you name it. It runs about $15.00 and is totally authoritative. It would answer all the questions you are positing here, and more. You ought to get a copy and read it--unless of course you prefer to live in ignorance of this topic about which you show such interest but yet have such contempt.

 

It's not a re-sacrifice - its a re-presentation. Here's what the RCC teaches from their Catechism:

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice [not a re-sacrifice]: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190 [Emphasis mine]

WM

 

I actually went through that book about three years ago. I thought it was very informative. But, then again, I was a dummy at the time so there you go!

WM

 

This is total irrational nonsense! Jesus Christ was literally and physically offered up on the cross and he said "IT IS FINISHED" but Rome denies it was finished when they say he is LITERALLY offered up in the mass so that his literal flesh and literal blood is repeatedly being consumed again and again.

John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper but with the metaphorical nature of saving faith as saving faith is spiritually partaking of Jesus Christ as you would partake of drink and food. The preceding context makes this crystal clear that Jesus is using a series of metahpors to define what it means to come to Christ by faith and that his words are not to be taken literally but metaphorically (Jn. 6:34-36; 47-48 ) and thus his words have a "spiritual" not a literal application (Jn. 6:60-69). Peter got it "the words of life" (vv. 68-69) but Rome is in spiritual blindness just as the Pharisees who heard and reacted to his words as they too took it literally.

The Mass is pure pagamism and the very concept is contrary to the prohibition to Jews to LITERALLY drink blood as it is to Christians (Acts 15).

 

Well, it really wasn't finished until He rose again. Just sayin...

snip...

Well that presents you with something of a problem BECAUSE the Jews did have a prohibition about drinking blood, yet they took Him literally as indicated below.

"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct them. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Now lets look at the historical record...

continued:

 

continued...

St. Ignatius
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 AD
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
St. Justin Martyr
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).


Welll... It looks you're not only out of step with scripture but with at first +400 years of Christian worship as well.

WM

 

Well, what extra merit do you get from prayer? from worship? Is God not present in your worship services? Same thing.

WM

 

WHAT was not finished until he rose from the grave? The sacrifice was finished on the cross when he died. The sacrifice has nothing to do with resurrection but with death!

The resurrection ratified that the sacrifice had been accepted.

Not only do you fail to understand the metaphorical lessons supplied in the "manna" and "eating" his flesh and "drinking" his blood but you equally fail to understand the stated reason by Christ for those disciples departing from him.

The stated reason has to do with the very metaphorical lesson he gave. They never really BELIEVED IN HIM but were FALSE PROFESSORS:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


He flatly told them BEFORE they departed that they were UNBELIEVERS and John adds his own explanatory note for the reader to understand that Jesus knew from the very beginning of their FALSE PROFESSION that they were UNBELIEVERS.

He flatly told them BEFORE they departed that this whole lesson at least from verse 44 had been devoted to what it means to come to Christ in faith and that "NO MAN CAN come to him....except it were given unto him of the Father."

He flatly told them BEFORE they departed that his words were not to be taken literal but that his words not his literal body and blood were the spiritual source of life and Peter confirmed this by saying "unto whom shall we go, thou alone hast the WORDS OF LIFE." It was a matter of believing in him and what He said rather than literally eating him and literally drinking his blood.

Furthermore, if he were actually demanding drinking his blood and eating his flesh then his audiance could not have obtained eternal life until after the cross. Yet he told those who believed on him they already had eternal life (Jn. 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47-48).

Rome takes the interpretation of Christ rejectors and false professors.

 

News flash... The Gospel doesn't save - Jesus does.

But anyway...

Look - I simply showed you that the Church has been doing this from its begining up until the present. You can call it apostate Christianity but by doing so, you must admit to one of two things. Either:

1) The historic Church was Apostate as you claim - thus, the gates of Hell really did prevail against it. (Not possible)

or-

2) You are following a very recent and man-made theology not representative of how early Christians actually worshipped God.

Hmmmm.... Don't you think those closer chronologically to Christ would know, practice, and teach more of the truth than a modern man 2000 years removed - have you never even thought about that? Oh I forgot - its you and your bible to the exclusion of anything else.

WM

 

Catholics don't "re-sacrifice". What we do is hold up the same sacrifice at Golgatha.

You must understand it in the context of the Passover as held by the Jews. When the Jews Celebrate Passover they percieve that they presently are at one with the original passover and that they again commit to the covenant they made with moses. In a sense they go back in time to that point. Therefore its not a new passover but the same one. In the same way Catholics hold up the same sacrifice. Not re-sacrifice it.

 

Oh really? Well I could state that it is you who are a Christ rejector and a false professor. Now... does that really mean anything? Nope.

WM

 

The spiritual benefit is found in John 6. He continues to abide with us in his grace through communion as well as all the other sacramental graces. Note these statements by Jesus Christ

Note what Paul says about the communion in 1 Cor.

very serous stuff indeed not to be takne lightly.

 

From what I have discovered from my reading, Catholics 're-present' the one sacrifice of Calvary. I was taught in my Baptist upbringing, that Catholics attempt to re-sacrifice Christ over and over. I keep reading that on this board as well. Isn't it interesting that Baptists say Catholics do one thing, Catholics try to correct them, but the Baptists know more about what Catholics believe and do than Catholics.

 

It is constantly that way. Baptist often don't look at the whole but at pieces and miss out.

 

The Catholic Church was the Church instituted by Christ. Again, we need but look at Church history through the early writings of the Church.

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

So, there is solid historic evidence close to the time of the death of the last apostle. Additionally, we can see solid documentation for apostolic succession…

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.


Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

So, your statement: "...The fulness of the faith once and foreverdelivered to the saints", and that WAS before there was ANY RCC even in existence!" isn't supportable by the evidence. In fact there's just to much evidence to the contrary disputting it.

WM