Mathetes
Puritan Board Freshman
warning: this is kinda long
The short story to this is that I've encountered Roman Catholics who argue that the Eucharist is a re-presentment of the original sacrifice of Calvary. That is, they "step into" Christ's one-time sacrifice week after week. I had always understood it to be a new sacrifice week after week that is in conflict with Hebrews 10.
==========================================================
The Long Story:
There is a secular, general topic forum that I usually post at. This week, a thread about the "Anglicans considering Rome" news story was posted. Derails happen fast and furious at this board, and so the topic swerved to how the Anglican church wouldn't accept a communion that still doesn't ordain women. Since both Roman Catholics and Protestants affirm male headship (although for very different reasons), I didn't see much need to comment. But their reasons for this involve the sacraments, I was curious to hear a Catholic say that the priest stands in the place of Christ.
This is where it started:
This is a bizarre thought. The idea that a person standing in the place of Christ sacrifices Christ on the altar. Christ is sacrificing Christ, apparently. This piqued my curiosity, so I asked:
Now this is the part where he took issue with this notion. He denied that the Mass is a re-sacrifice...I've seen this idea posted on the CARM forums too:
Why actually, yes I do!
To whit:
And he clarified his position:
Hmm, interesting!
I still didn't think he was right. My final post provided a few quotes that I think helped to strengthen my position:
==========================================================
So, after ALL THAT READING, what do you suppose? Am I misrepresenting Roman Catholic theology? Or is this an attempt to dress up Catholic theology in a post-Reformation culture?
It's interesting to note that Dr. White commented previously on the link between the Mass and Hebrews 10:
http://aomin.org/Hebrews10.html
Neither Robert Sungenis or Dr. White (who knows RC theology better than many Catholic apologists) thought that the Mass was a "re-presentment" of a single sacrifice.
The short story to this is that I've encountered Roman Catholics who argue that the Eucharist is a re-presentment of the original sacrifice of Calvary. That is, they "step into" Christ's one-time sacrifice week after week. I had always understood it to be a new sacrifice week after week that is in conflict with Hebrews 10.
==========================================================
The Long Story:
There is a secular, general topic forum that I usually post at. This week, a thread about the "Anglicans considering Rome" news story was posted. Derails happen fast and furious at this board, and so the topic swerved to how the Anglican church wouldn't accept a communion that still doesn't ordain women. Since both Roman Catholics and Protestants affirm male headship (although for very different reasons), I didn't see much need to comment. But their reasons for this involve the sacraments, I was curious to hear a Catholic say that the priest stands in the place of Christ.
This is where it started:
me said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1275042&postcount=90
...the priesthood is another good example. Any denomination (and yes, there are protestant ones) that has a priesthood (instead of a paster/deacon/bishop or elder) signals to me that they don't understand the atonement. The whole point, as Hebrews 10 points out, of the Old Testament priesthood was to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. It was a sign of things to come in Christ. But now that Christ has made that sacrifice, He is now our high priest, and every believer now a priest (Revelation 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9) who can access the Most Holy Place directly. Jesus broke down that barrier between the Creator and the creature. But now the Vatican wants to bring people back to a system that the author of Hebrews 10 says is only a shadow of the fulfillment.
Catholic person said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1275077&postcount=92
That's why the priest is acting in the person of Christ, not of themselves.
This is a bizarre thought. The idea that a person standing in the place of Christ sacrifices Christ on the altar. Christ is sacrificing Christ, apparently. This piqued my curiosity, so I asked:
me said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1275095&postcount=94
Which is irrelevant, because the problem with the sacrifices is that they were offered again and again, but did not provide a once-for-all remission of sins. The very fact that people had to make the sacrifices over and over again proved that the sacrifice was a lesser, inferior thing:
"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?"
"Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;"
"For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."
So the atonement of Christ is superior because it was an efficacious, once-for-all-time sacrifice that satisfies the wrath of God. The author of Hebrews is pointing out that any sacrifice that needs to be repeated is incapable of remitting sins.
Also, I'm having trouble understanding how the priest stands in the person of Christ, if the substance of Christ is supposed to be transubstantiated in the Eucharist. Am I to understand that we have a person standing in the place of Christ who also slays Christ on the altar of the Mass? Christ is slaying Christ?
Now this is the part where he took issue with this notion. He denied that the Mass is a re-sacrifice...I've seen this idea posted on the CARM forums too:
Catholic Guy said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1275723&postcount=104
Nayland, you're a pretty knowledgeable person from what I've read. Do you honestly believe that we're killing Jesus at every Mass? If you think we are, I'm surprised because that's something I generally hear from people who have no clue about Catholicism other than what their jackass bigoted preacher's said from the pulpit. A cursory glance into the theology of the Mass says otherwise.
If you do know, and bring it up anyway, then you're going for all emotion and no substance which is below the belt and unworthy of your capabilities.
Why actually, yes I do!
To whit:
me said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1276014&postcount=109
“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, i is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.” (“Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, Council of Trent, 22nd session, Chapter 2)
“1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single 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.' '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.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
The Vatican considers the Mass to be exactly the sacrifice of Calvary, different only in that one is bloody, the other unbloody. Yes, I'm aware that they don't take a guy and kill him on the altar, but as far as the Roman Church is concerned, Jesus is sacrificed over and over again at every Mass.
"“If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema” ( Council of Trent, Canon 3)
I don't bring it up for the sake of shock value. I bring it up because, issues with transubstantiation aside, the idea that the priest stands in the place of Christ while sacrificing Christ on the altar is, to me, an unusual idea indeed.
And he clarified his position:
Catholic Guy said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1276084&postcount=111
No, it's a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary. The sacrifice at Mass is the exact same. It's an eternal sacrifice. If you want to get down to it, all Masses, at the point of Consecration, are joined to Christ in eternity and are all co-present with Him on Calvary.
It's the same sacrifice* that it's a partaking of. Not an additional one. The same one. There is no "sacrificing over and over" because Jesus did it once and the Mass is an eternal participation in that same sacrifice. To say that it happens multiple times is to misinterpret that.
*of Jesus. The bread and wine offered are, of course, initially different.
Hmm, interesting!
I still didn't think he was right. My final post provided a few quotes that I think helped to strengthen my position:
me said:http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1276576&postcount=120
You can hang on to that interpretation if you like, I guess, but a) I don't think the text of Trent points in that direction and b) it's at odds with John O'Brien's book "The Faith of Millions",
“When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times!The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ.”
Now this book bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimataur. And although that doesn't make his interpretation thumbs-up official, it does give it higher priority in my view. And I don't think there's any question that he considers the Mass to be a re-sacrifice rather than the re-presenting of a past event. Also, Pius XII says that, "He daily offers Himself upon our altars for our redemption." (Mediator Dei)
==========================================================
So, after ALL THAT READING, what do you suppose? Am I misrepresenting Roman Catholic theology? Or is this an attempt to dress up Catholic theology in a post-Reformation culture?
It's interesting to note that Dr. White commented previously on the link between the Mass and Hebrews 10:
http://aomin.org/Hebrews10.html
Neither Robert Sungenis or Dr. White (who knows RC theology better than many Catholic apologists) thought that the Mass was a "re-presentment" of a single sacrifice.