Following is an exchange on the 'Visits to Candyland' blog which is likely to be deleted because it's on the wrong thread, and Elena doesn't like comments that aren't on subject. It's between myself and Barbara C. The part in italics is her comment.
To Barbara C.,
You said:
Kelly wrote: I assume that as we're now debating whether or not perpetual sacrifice is Biblical, you concede that the Catholic Church does not teach a "re-sacrifice" of Christ.
Jennie responded: I'm not sure that it really matters; either one is unbiblical.
The thing is that it REALLY does matter that you understand the difference. It’s the difference between having a legitimate grievance with someone instead of one based on a lie. As a matter of respect, all we have asked is that you attempt to understand Church teachings correctly even if you disagree with them and that you not attack based on untruths and misunderstandings and continue to pass on such things to others. In fact that is the whole purpose of this blog.
I responded:
You didn't include my entire statement. I also said something like: the Church may teach that the sacrifice is perpetual, but it also teaches that the eucharist really IS Christ's body and blood, so if it really is His body and blood, and it really is a sacrifice, then it IS a re-sacrifice of Christ, whatever you want to call it. So the Church wants to have it both ways: a real sacrifice of Christ but perpetual, not repeated. It isn't possible. So the lie isn't by those outside the Church who call it a repeated sacrifice; the lie is by the Church that calls it both perpetual AND physical, yet tries to say it isn't a repetition. Biblically the sacrifice is NEITHER perpetual NOR repeated, but IS a physical ONE TIME sacrifice ON THE CROSS. It's over; yet it is effective forever.
6 comments:
Yep. My comment has disappeared from the thread as if it never existed.
"There are some present day Roman Catholic writers who deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the mass is the re-sacrifice of Christ, but the words of the Council of Trent are quite clear in their meaning:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . 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. . . If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. . . and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema."
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. II, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (New York: Harper, 1877), pp. 179, 184-85.
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
"Yep. My comment has disappeared from the thread as if it never existed."
Jennie,
I kind of know that feeling.
:o(
So the RCC does teach that it is a re-sacrifice, but some apologists feel the need to deny it when objections are brought up and so they call it a 'perpetual' sacrifice instead; or a participation in the perpetual heavenly sacrifice (which doesn't exist, but sounds good if you don't know any better).
Just to clarify, i didn't remove yours Jennie and keep Barbara's on purpose. I got up and did my usual internet stuff hurridly. (Today is piano lesson day!) and saw yours first. I just got back home and will now go over and police the rest of the thread.
I did expect you to delete both, since I think you're a fair person. Thanks for explaining that.
Post a Comment