This morning I attended Mass at Holy Family Catholic Parish in Inverness, considered by some to be the foremost “evangelical Catholic” congregation in the country.[1] Located just minutes from Willow Creek Community Church, the sanctuary of Holy Family is complete with jumbo screens, guitars, a face mic’d pastor preaching, and an amazing piece of contemporary artwork called the Cross of New Life hanging over the altar (pictured to the right).
I returned home from the service with several observations. Here are a few.
1. There was a great deal of biblical content. Readings from Scripture, music, prayers, affirmations of the creed—the overall liturgy had a degree of God-centeredness that you don’t find, quite frankly, in many “evangelical Protestant” churches. Sure there were some points when I was forced to sit in silence on account of doctrinal disagreement, but, at least during the first half of the service, before the Mass, these moments were minimal.
2. Catholic and Protestant cultures can be quite different. Here is one example: The facilities manager of the parish gave a superb testimony of how he observes the face of Jesus in the church’s faithful parishioners. While holding up his large key ring as a sure way for people to identify him, he announced that he possessed every key to the building but two: the safe key and the key to the pastor’s liquor cabinet, to which the priest immediately stood, walked over to the man, took keys from his pocket, put them in the man’s hand, smiled, and returned to his seat. It was really quite funny. The congregation naturally erupted in laughter. After the applause subsided, I tried to picture this scenario happening at College Church. Despite my vivid imagination, I couldn’t see it. My point is simply to suggest that our respective communities, as Catholics and (American) Protestants, operate according to different norms.
3. While there is much about the Catholic tradition that I appreciate (as described above in point one), I can’t muster any appreciation for the Mass. The more I study Catholic theology and observe the Mass celebrated I can do nothing but look on with incredulity. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the logic behind it. It’s just that I see the Mass more as a product of scholastic philosophy than anything derived from Scripture. This statement will undoubtedly illicit a wave of arguments from the Catholic readers of Chris-tocentric, which I probably deserve. I say this not out of disrespect; I’m simply sharing my perspective.
4. The primary take away for me, quite frankly, is confirmation of what I’ve been saying for the last year of book touring with Holy Ground… that you’ll know if a congregation is “evangelical”[2] by its emphasis on Scripture and on personal relationship with Jesus. This was entirely true of Holy Family. Accordingly, this parish and others like it are realizing the Vatican II vision, which is still in the process of being fulfilled. In the words of Cardinal Franz Konig:[3]
The crucial process of reception, that all-important part of any church council… can take several generations. [In the case of Vatican II] It continues today.
It’s remarkable to see the aggiornamento of Pope John XXIII taking root right here in nearby Inverness, IL.
Footnotes:
1. For clarity sake, I didn’t participate in the Mass, as in receiving the host; I simply observed it.
2. The term “Evangelical” is not altogether applicable when used of Catholics since the doctrines of faith alone and Scripture alone are missing from Catholic teaching; nevertheless, in a sociological sense at least, the terminology is common parlance.
3. From The Tablet, Christmas 2002, quoted in Living Vatican II: The 21st Council for the 21st Century by Gerald O’Collins SJ (a terrific book that I purchased in the Holy Family bookstore this morning).
I’d say some pretty strong Scriptural support for the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14-21. The context of 1 Cor 10:14-21 is that of sacrifices and altars – this is undeniable, as the very words are used. And not only the context, but direct parallels are made to Communion.
Here Paul is contrasting the sacrifice of pagans with the sacrifice of Christians at the Communion Table. This is also to be taken in parallel with Malachi 1:11-12, which the Early Church Fathers saw as a prophecy for the Mass and fits this Corinthians passage. The term “Table of the Lord” is used in both passages, which is a synonym for sacrificial altar (e.g. Mal 1:7, “By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table may be despised.”).
When Paul says: “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons,” he just finished saying the “table of demons” is the pagan sacrificial altar; thus, the “table of the Lord” is a sacrificial altar for the Mass.
Anything short of this interpretation of 1 Cor 10:14-21 isn’t going to make much sense.
I was waiting for you Nick… took you two days brother 🙂
It seems to me that the point of comparison between the “cup of blessing” and “the bread”, in which Christians “participate” (koinonia) and the sacrifices of the Jewish altar, is the serious spiritual nature of both.. so that we flee from idolatry (14) and remain steadfast in faith (v. 22). The overall idea of the passage, I think, is fidelity to Christ in the face of temptation (13ff.). No where is the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper described as a sacrifice much less a transubstantiated mystery that imparts sanctifying grace.
Hi, I like your intro!
I’m not sure what you mean by “the point of comparison…is the serious spiritual nature of both”? The Jewish sacrifices and meal were real tangible events, just as the bread and cup are of Christian communion. Even if the “overall idea” is fidelity to Christ – which is the “overall idea” of most of the NT – that doesn’t mean the “details” don’t convey truths of their own.
I would just ask you three ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions:
(1) Does the term “Lord’s Table” refer to a sacrificial altar in Mal 1:7,12?
(2) Does the term “table of demons” in 1 Cor 10:21 refer to the pagan sacrificial altar of verses 19-20?
(3) Is Paul employing a parallel between the false cup and false table to the true cup and true table?
(1.) Perhaps, or maybe the table of show-bread. Usage of the Hebrew and Greek words translated “table” usually don’t refer to the “altar,” although it’s in the realm of possibility that it does in this case (2.) I don’t think so. In context, the “table” seems to be the place where one eats the meat of the sacrifice, not the altar (i.e., 1 Cor 10:27-31, cf. 8:4ff.) (3.) Yes, I think so, but that parallel is concerned with the spiritual reality that is present at those respective meals, not the sacrifice itself. The sacrifice which Christians are called to offer are themselves (Rom 12:1), our resources (Phil 4:18) and sacrifices of praise (Heb 13:15). The sacrifice of Christ happened once and for all, and, according to Paul, don’t continue to the present, since, as he says in Romans 6:9 “We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.” I understand the concept of immolation states that it’s one sacrifice of Christ which is represented in the Mass; however, this is deeply problematic in light of the last phrase of Rom 6:9: “death no longer has dominion over Him [Christ].
(1) If the two options are “altar” or “show-bread table,” I think the “altar” fits better in Mal 1:7-12 considering the term is directly tied to “altar” and there is no mention of “show bread” in the context.
(2) Even if it weren’t the altar itself, verse 18 says: “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar.” So the meal itself is the food of a sacrifice and directly tied to the altar. So the Lord’s Table, whether it is the altar itself or a table where the sacrificed food of the altar is eaten, is strongly tied to sacrifice such that one cannot have Communion without having the connection to sacrifice and altar.
(3) I agree there is a spiritual (not symbolic) reality, but I’d say that spiritual (not symbolic) reality is tied to the very food being eaten. They are eating sacrificial food, offered to God.
While I agree with the other sacrifices Christians are called to offer (Rom 12, Heb 13:5, etc), that doesn’t appear in this (1 Cor 10) context nor invalidate this context.
I agree the sacrifice of Christ happened “once and for all,” and Catholics are not suggesting re-sacrifice, so those passages you offered of Christ not dying again and such don’t really apply. Rather, it is more akin to the Passover Meal, where the Passover happened “once and for all,” yet each year the sacrifice takes place to recall that event. And when Paul says partaking is a “participation” in Christ’s Body and Blood and that by doing so “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes,” just like Passover night, Good Friday is made present in a very real and spiritual (not symbolic) sense.
Thanks Nick. But did the Passover really function as the Mass is understood today? Imparting sactifying grace, infusing righteousness into one’s soul, anything more than symbolic? I realize that “mere symbolism” is unacceptable to Catholics (and many Reformed Protestants), and at the end of the day, I’m comfortable affirming with Calvin that there is some spiritual presence tied to the Lord’s Supper, but, when we read the OT, it seems that there is something profoundly important in the act of “remembering.” “Remembering what the Lord did for your fathers….” That whole ZCR word group (which we translate “remember”) is all over the place. I think the burden of proof is on the Catholic to demonstrate that Passover did indeed resemble the sacramental rite of the Catholic Mass (apart from the obvious parallels of eating bread in commemoration or the Lord’s great event of redemption).
Hi,
You asked: “But did the Passover really function as the Mass is understood today?”
I believe the Passover foreshadowed the Mass:
First, the Passover happened once in history but was re-presented regularly from then on. The Cross/LastSupper happened one specific time in history but is re-presented regularly from then on.
Second, the Passover was both a sacrifice and a meal.
The Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal.
Jesus *is* the Passover Lamb and thus both Sacrifice and Food, and Communion is partaking in His Passover as a meal.
In fact, the Passover is the most explicit and direct sacrifice of all the OT sacrifices that the NT applies to Christ. Christ was sacrificed on Passover and even celebrated the Passover and Introduced Communion in that 24hour period as well.
The parallels are too strong to deny.
The Passover didn’t impart sanctifying grace in so far as it was a foreshadowing/type, just as the OT sacrifices only pointed to Christ but didn’t impart forgiveness.
I’m very glad you brought up the point of “Remembering,” and how profound this was to the ancient Jewish mind. It wasn’t a bare recounting of historical facts, but of placing yourself back in that very moment of time.
There is no Biblical support for the Mass. In 1 Corinthians there is no “alter Christus” who speaks words of sanctification. To suppose that there is, would be to put Paul in conflict with the rest of the Bible.
There are at least 5 areas that make this doctrine an impossibility:
1. Jesus never performed a miracle without a visible sign.
2. Council of Chalcedon and its prohibition against mixing the natures of Christ.
3. Book of Hebrews which clearly shows “one sacrifice for all” not a repeated sacrifice.
4. Drinking Blood is forbidden even by the first Apostolic Council.
5. Biblical Disharmony is created between John 6:53 and the rest of the Bible.
6. Creates a dilemma between John 6:40 and 6:54.
More details are here:http://www.reachingcatholics.org/eatdrink.html
Further, in the OT God forbids Aaronic priests to drink wine while offering a sacrifice – Leviticus 10:9 – and proclaims that “This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.” So how is it biblical for a Catholic priest to drink wine during the “Sacrifice of the Mass”?
And James Swan offers several questions which are unanswerable by Romanists given thei doctrine of transubstantiation:
1. Does Christ offer himself in the Lord’s Supper before he is offered on the cross?
2. In Luke 22 Jesus says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.” At that moment, is the “cup” also the body/blood of Christ, or is it a figure of symbolic language? If no, on what basis does one decide that the word “cup” is a metaphor or a symbol, while the wine literally becomes blood? In other words, what interpretive principle decides which is literal and which figurative?
3. Mark 14:23-24 states that Jesus said the cup was His blood, and they all drank from it. Did Jesus also drink what was actually his own blood? This verse indicates the blood is shed for many- why then would Jesus drink his own blood? Matthew 26:28 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Why would Jesus drink this cup, since he was sinless?
4. After giving the cup, in Matthew 26:29 Jesus calls the contents of the cup “this fruit of the vine”. Calvin notes, this “plainly show[s] that what he delivered to the disciples to drink was wine; so that in every way the ignorance of the Papists is fully exposed. Well- is it?
Lastly, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist puts the teaching of Jesus on its head. In John 3:8, Jesus said the work of the Spirit is like the wind – “You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.” To maintain the efficacious nature of the sacrament of the Eucharist is to put the work of the Spirit in a specific, knowable time and place.
The conclusion is incontrovertible. The Catholic Mass is an unbiblical practice.
Peace.
I apologize for using the wrong term earlier. Instead of “words of sanctification” I should have written “words of consecration”.
My apologies.
Peace.
Constantine:
So you were there to observe the Mass in the first century? If not, then perhaps you would be kind enough to not make speculations as to how the Mass was run back then.
1. The miracle of my salvation was not observable by human eyes. Yet it saved my life and changed me as a person. Miracles at Lourdes are not always visible to the eye, but must be verified by a medical source. And the greatest of all miracles, the new birth, is not seen by human eyes.
2. The Council of Chalcedon was not dealing with the reality of the Eucharist, therefore, you are off limits in trying to apply the answers given to a heretic regarding Christ’s nature to the nature of the Eucharist.
3. Hebrews is not dealing with personal sins. Go back and read it and perhaps you will see that it is dealing with Jesus as our Great High Priest Who is offering YOM KIPPUR for the corporate covenant Body,which is the Church, not for our personal sins. Your ignorance is breath taking.
4. The drinking of blood that was prohibited was that which was offered to idols. That was a common practice in the pagan world that the Christians inhabited.
Look, Sparky, don’t you think that the Early Fathers KNEW this stuff???? Oh, but they weren’t as smart as you are, now were they? They were just a bunch of dumb desert rat Palestinians who happened to believe in Jesus, but they really weren’t as smart as Calvinists, right? You and all the Protestants pick your brains to come up with esoteric reasons that the Eucharist can’t really be Jesus’ Body and Blood and why Catholicism is wrong, and somehow forgot or don’t wish to remember that there was no Protestantism for the first 1500 years of the Church. There was the Church. It was katholicos (universal) in nature. And there were the heretics. The ideas you have today would place you in the second group. Me? I’d rather identify with what the Early Fathers believed than what a bunch of malcontents came up with 1500 years later.
Oh, and you can make the Bible say anything you want to with enough interpretive panache. The 30,000 denominations of non-Catholic Christianity which are out there are proof enough of this. So let’s knock off the hype about the Reformation “bringing back Bible Christianity”. The Reformers came up with some new ideas, broke from the Church in an act of disobedience and rebellion, and drew a bunch of simple minded folk with them. End of story.
Metropolitan Zizoulos, in his great book on the Eucharist describes it as “the ultimate eschaton event”. By this he means that it is the event of the eschaton, i.e., that we will be united intimately with Christ forever, put in chronological time. Our union with Christ has been analogized in scripture as a Jewish wedding. A nuptial union. Intimate love. The apex of the wedding was the nuptial chamber where the two really did become “one flesh”. This is a picture (albeit in the flesh and therefore not the same as the reality of Heaven, which is better) of the eternal union between Christ and His Bride.
You can have your silly little memorial meal of crackers and grape juice. I desire HIM and in the Eucharist, I have precisely that love and union with Him that I shall enjoy uninterrupted for eternity.
Oh, one more thing…….while I’m on a roll……Protestantism is anti-covenantal. We are in a COVENANT. Protestant soteriology violates the principles of a covenant. That’s really all I had to know to convert from my PCA heresy to the Truth. Anything I study I pass through the grid of covenant, and if it ain’t covenantal, it ain’t of God.
And Protestantism ain’t covenantal. That’s all I have to know.
Chris I admire your going to Mass. I think seeing the Mass from an adult perspective can really be important to beginning to understand it.
You still find yourself incredulous at how it resembles anything in the New Testament. That’s honest and fair statement of how you feel.
Let’s not argue over the interpretation of john 6 and 1 Corinthians 11.
Let’s instead look at how the early Christians celebrated the Lord’s day.
It was referred to as The holy sacrifice repeatedly and the early Christians believed in the actual flesh and blood being present when the bread and wine were prayed over.
The writings of the early church fathers, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and later Augustine made clear in their writing that a sacrifice was going on. They believed it. Even Luther initially held to the belief that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Jesus.
So why is it so hard for Christians to accept this when even protestant historians such as JD Kelly agree that the early Church’s view of communion was thoroughly Eucharistic?
Do we just ignore all those writings and base our beliefs on the reformers view of Scripture 1600 years later?
Before the 16th century, there was almost universal agreement in the Mass as sacrifice and re-presentation (not re-crucifixion) of the Lord’s offering to the Father on Calvary. God doesn’t work within our linear time schemes so can he remain slain and yet risen! The Lamb that is slain remains forever in Heaven, in Revelation. Some parts of faith are a mystery, and at some point, you just have to go by faith. Aquinas said that “faith supplies when our feeble senses fail us”, regarding the Eucharist.
Please keep going to Mass . BTW, A morning daily Mass is often a more reverent experience, because it’s just the meat and potatoes without the frills! It’s the highlight of my day.
T.J —
The reason that Protestants won’t dare admit that the Mass is true is that if they do, then they have to admit that the hated Catholic Church got it RIGHT!!
Speaking as a convert myself, once you open that door and start down that road — there ain’t no turning back. So in order to keep their egos intact and their butts out of a Catholic pew, they will fight to the death to prove that the Mass is not our Lord’s Body and Blood.
Edward;
It may be more than just ego. Let’s try to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Many devout protestants who don’t understand the Mass see it as a major affront to the work of Christ on the Cross. They view it as a re-crucifixion (a major mis-understanding) and therefore almost a blasphemy to them. I too would think it blasphemous to recrucify the Lord! Who wouldn’t?
That being said, if the could somehow attempt to understand the Mass as taught by the Church, they would be a lot less disagreeable. At my first mass after most of my life as a devout evangelical, I was amazed at the reverence, the large amount of scripture, the lack of Mariolatry as we called it, and the fact there was no ego injected into it. The priest was not able to change the liturgy to suit him, and the words of consecration were the words of our Lord. What could be more scriptural and beautiful.
So I suggest we cut our protestant brothers a break and keep praying that the same Holy Spirit that opened our eyes will open theirs.
I pray that they would be able to read the history and theology of the early Church and ask themselves which Church of today has the most similar theology. “The water closest to the source is the purest.” I can’t and will not believe that the Spirit was so in-effectual that the early Christians such as John’s disciple Ignatius, would mis-understand the Eucharist when John was the one who himself layed his head on Jesus breast at the Last Supper. If anyone would understand what the Eucharist is, it would be the disciples of the disciples. How could it be that only 1500 years later the true meaning of the Eucharist would be revealed. It just doesn’t seem logical to me.
Brother TJ — Ah, a convert yourself, eh? Yeah, I try to be charitable, but when you explain something to a person using their own format (i.e., the Scriptures) you show them in the Greek how Calvin was apparently hallucinating when he read Romans 4 (from which they get the idea of “imputed righteousness”) and you show them that their own Protestant Bible Dictionaries prove them wrong, and they STILL want to not only pick a fight, but be arrogant and mouthy about it, then it is a little hard to have charity under those circumstances.
And let’s not even begin to talk about the dishonesty from their seminaries and pulpits as they refuse to discuss the Early Fathers of the Church with their sheeple. I remember one convert who told us that in four years of seminary, he got NOT ONE quote from an Early Father. That is not education. That is BRAINWASHING!!
I just get frustrated when Evangelicals are given clear, concise, and SCRIPTURAL presentations of the Truth and still want to argue.
Hi Edward,
You wrote: “So you were there to observe the Mass in the first century? If not, then perhaps you would be kind enough to not make speculations as to how the Mass was run back then.”
Nope. I sure wasn’t. And you weren’t either. And it wouldn’t have made any difference because there was no Mass back then. No celibate priest who was removed from the congregants with mystical powers peculiar to him. (Surely, you realize how Gnostic that is don’t you?)
Edward writes again: “1. The miracle of my salvation was not observable by human eyes. Yet it saved my life and changed me as a person.”
Then why do you insist on the visible and efficacious nature of the Mass? Seems a bit contradictory.
Edward writes again: “Miracles at Lourdes are not always visible to the eye, but must be verified by a medical source. And the greatest of all miracles, the new birth, is not seen by human eyes.”
I can’t remember who said it – Malcolm Muggeridge, perhaps – but it was beautiful. He said something to the effect that he would feel an awful lot better about Lourdes if, on his approaching the grotto, he would see an occasional hair piece or glass eye!!! Isn’t that hysterical! I guess Mary is only concerned with people that have ambulatory ailments. Pity, really.
Edward chastises me forthwith: “2. The Council of Chalcedon was not dealing with the reality of the Eucharist, therefore, you are off limits in trying to apply the answers given to a heretic regarding Christ’s nature to the nature of the Eucharist.”
I’m perfectly in limits, old boy. Chalcedon had to do with the nature of Christ. And it specifically said that “…Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation;…” Now, because we know that Christ is, physically, in His resurrected body in Heaven, he cannot be on your altars without contradicting Chalcedon. So, in that sense, Chalcedon is the authority that disproves the modern contention of Rome vis-à-vis the Mass.
Edward, getting really nasty: “3. Hebrews is not dealing with personal sins. Go back and read it and perhaps you will see that it is dealing with Jesus as our Great High Priest Who is offering YOM KIPPUR for the corporate covenant Body,which is the Church, not for our personal sins. Your ignorance is breath taking.”
It’s always the smaller minds that have the nastier tongues, isn’t it? Edward, where did I say Hebrews was about “personal sins” whatever that is? I said, as Hebrews clearly says, that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for all. He did not institute repeated sacrifices that apparently don’t work.
Edward again: “4. The drinking of blood that was prohibited was that which was offered to idols. That was a common practice in the pagan world that the Christians inhabited.”
Really? Reread Leviticus 3. That was blood that had been offered to God.
Your little tirade and mean-spiritedness speaks volumes far more than I can about the effect of your cult.
I shall pray for you Edward that God will grant you a spirit of peace and charity and open your heart to the lies you so firmly embrace.
Peace.
This is the perfect way to break down this inrofmtaion.
Hi Kiana,
Thanks for the encouragement. Although we are commanded to present the gospel with “gentleness and respect” some people make that a challenge! Pray for Edward and blessings to you!
Constantine —
Read some of the Early Fathers if you want to see a tirade. They had a very much dimmer view of heretics than I have. I am at least striving to accept that there is such a thing as “separated brethren” while trying to understand just how “Catholic” such a statement is. Remember, to be Catholic means that you accept all that the Church taught, or as St. Vincent of Lerins said “The Catholic Faith is that which has been taught EVERYWHERE, in EVERY PLACE, and AT EVERY TIME.” Calling a heretic a “separated brother” seems to stretch St. Vincent’s definition to the snapping point.
Likewise, this ceremony that you observed also seems to stretch the definition of the Mass to the breaking point. By God’s blessing, we are not having this sort of problem in the Eastern Catholic Church. Perhaps you should go there if you are looking for the Eucharist in its pristine setting. Our Liturgy goes back uninterrupted to the 6th century prayers of St. John Chyrsostom.
You know, I’m a pretty decent guy when someone really wants to learn. I can be pretty nice to folks who have serious questions and who are listening, studying, and have good and open hearts.
You, on the other hand, just want to pick a fight. I don’t have much respect for that, and it shows in my lack of charity, which is a sin. I’ll go to Confession for my sin. The prist, who is authorized by the successors of the Apotles, one of our local and ordinary bishops, will forgive me in personal Christi. Christ will forgive me through him.
What about you and you nasty attitude towards us?
Constantine:
Allow me to answer your response piece by piece now that I have purged myself of my distaste for the overall tenor of your posts.
You wrote: “So you were there to observe the Mass in the first century? If not, then perhaps you would be kind enough to not make speculations as to how the Mass was run back then.”
Nope. I sure wasn’t. And you weren’t either. And it wouldn’t have made any difference because there was no Mass back then. No celibate priest who was removed from the congregants with mystical powers peculiar to him. (Surely, you realize how Gnostic that is don’t you?)
Edward writes again: “1. The miracle of my salvation was not observable by human eyes. Yet it saved my life and changed me as a person.”
Then why do you insist on the visible and efficacious nature of the Mass? Seems a bit contradictory.
Edward writes again: “Miracles at Lourdes are not always visible to the eye, but must be verified by a medical source. And the greatest of all miracles, the new birth, is not seen by human eyes.”
I can’t remember who said it – Malcolm Muggeridge, perhaps – but it was beautiful. He said something to the effect that he would feel an awful lot better about Lourdes if, on his approaching the grotto, he would see an occasional hair piece or glass eye!!! Isn’t that hysterical! I guess Mary is only concerned with people that have ambulatory ailments. Pity, really.
Edward chastises me forthwith: “2. The Council of Chalcedon was not dealing with the reality of the Eucharist, therefore, you are off limits in trying to apply the answers given to a heretic regarding Christ’s nature to the nature of the Eucharist.”
I’m perfectly in limits, old boy. Chalcedon had to do with the nature of Christ. And it specifically said that “…Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation;…” Now, because we know that Christ is, physically, in His resurrected body in Heaven, he cannot be on your altars without contradicting Chalcedon. So, in that sense, Chalcedon is the authority that disproves the modern contention of Rome vis-à-vis the Mass.
Edward, getting really nasty: “3. Hebrews is not dealing with personal sins. Go back and read it and perhaps you will see that it is dealing with Jesus as our Great High Priest Who is offering YOM KIPPUR for the corporate covenant Body,which is the Church, not for our personal sins. Your ignorance is breath taking.”
It’s always the smaller minds that have the nastier tongues, isn’t it? Edward, where did I say Hebrews was about “personal sins” whatever that is? I said, as Hebrews clearly says, that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for all. He did not institute repeated sacrifices that apparently don’t work.
Edward again: “4. The drinking of blood that was prohibited was that which was offered to idols. That was a common practice in the pagan world that the Christians inhabited.”
Really? Reread Leviticus 3. That was blood that had been offered to God.
Your little tirade and mean-spiritedness speaks volumes far more than I can about the effect of your cult.
I shall pray for you Edward that God will grant you a spirit of peace and charity and open your heart to the lies you so firmly embrace.
Peace.
Reply
Constantine:
Allow me to respond to you point by point.
1. True that neither you nor I were there are the first Eucarists, but we have the writings of the Early Fathers and also the witness of the Holy Orthodox Church which shows us that there was a belief in the Real Presence at the very beginning. This is why, as I said, that Protestant preachers don’t mention the Early Fathers in their sermons. It would cause far too many questions in the minds of the sheep in the pews.
2. Priests in the Early Church were not celibate. Our priests are not celibate today either. Neither are those of the Holy Orthodox Church. Go back and read your last sentence there and tell me that you also do not have a serious attitude problem. I think the pot is calling the kettle when you accuse me of lacking charity.
3. Malcolm Muggeridge — ah, yes, isn’t it amazing what smart alecks atheists are? Emile Zola said the very same thing about Lourdes, insisting that he would believe if God would only show him a cut finger healed. God did better than that — put him “all in,” to use a Texas Hold ‘Em term – and healed visible tuberculosis on the face and legs of a young woman. Zola saw the woman before she went into the waters, but upon seeing her after being healed, instead of falling on his face in repentance, he cried out “Take her away, she is ugly!” Then proceeded to write a novel filled with lies about Lourdes.
Dude, atheists are NOT HONEST!!!
4. Chalcedon. You are still wrong. You are mixing issues, trying to make one fit the other. Chalcedon was addressing the issues of the various theologies and Christologies involving the nature of Christ and His Body. You try to drag that over to the Eucharist without realizing that the Eucharist is a MYSTERY. It is something beyond understanding. That is the problem with Protestantism — it is based on humanistic rationalism rather than faith.
Furthermore, don’t you think that the Early Fathers would have come up with the same conclusion if what you say is true? No, you don’t. Because people like you think that the Early Fathers, and Catholics in particular, do not have the ability to use reason and are complete idiots. I know. I’ve seen the writings. Not very charitable.
5. You refuse to read or question Hebrews, yet you fancy yourself a great biblical scholar, don’t you? I will tell you again, the entire thrust of the subject in Hebrews 7-10 is about Jesus as High Priest. The offering that was offered as ONE SACRIFICE is YOM KIPPUR. You really need to study this. YOM KIPPUR is not for personal sins. Read Lev. 16. It is for the corporate sins of the congregation, i.e., the Church. You cannot take that which God has established as an offering for corporate sins and make it be for personal sins.
But……..instead of reading Hebrews 7-10, instead of engaging me in a discussion of the verses there, you will, like all Protestants of such attitude that I have dealt with, continue to insist upon your error. And then you wonder why I struggle with my attitude when dealing with folks like you. I’m human. I fail. And your attitude helps me along in that failure. So you have a responsibility for making me sin, don’t you?
Contact me again if you want to actually TALK about Hebrews 7-10. It is one of my favorite passages that I love to discuss.
You wrote: “So you were there to observe the Mass in the first century? If not, then perhaps you would be kind enough to not make speculations as to how the Mass was run back then.”
Nope. I sure wasn’t. And you weren’t either. And it wouldn’t have made any difference because there was no Mass back then. No celibate priest who was removed from the congregants with mystical powers peculiar to him. (Surely, you realize how Gnostic that is don’t you?)
Edward writes again: “1. The miracle of my salvation was not observable by human eyes. Yet it saved my life and changed me as a person.”
Then why do you insist on the visible and efficacious nature of the Mass? Seems a bit contradictory.
Edward writes again: “Miracles at Lourdes are not always visible to the eye, but must be verified by a medical source. And the greatest of all miracles, the new birth, is not seen by human eyes.”
I can’t remember who said it – Malcolm Muggeridge, perhaps – but it was beautiful. He said something to the effect that he would feel an awful lot better about Lourdes if, on his approaching the grotto, he would see an occasional hair piece or glass eye!!! Isn’t that hysterical! I guess Mary is only concerned with people that have ambulatory ailments. Pity, really.
Edward chastises me forthwith: “2. The Council of Chalcedon was not dealing with the reality of the Eucharist, therefore, you are off limits in trying to apply the answers given to a heretic regarding Christ’s nature to the nature of the Eucharist.”
I’m perfectly in limits, old boy. Chalcedon had to do with the nature of Christ. And it specifically said that “…Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation;…” Now, because we know that Christ is, physically, in His resurrected body in Heaven, he cannot be on your altars without contradicting Chalcedon. So, in that sense, Chalcedon is the authority that disproves the modern contention of Rome vis-à-vis the Mass.
Edward, getting really nasty: “3. Hebrews is not dealing with personal sins. Go back and read it and perhaps you will see that it is dealing with Jesus as our Great High Priest Who is offering YOM KIPPUR for the corporate covenant Body,which is the Church, not for our personal sins. Your ignorance is breath taking.”
It’s always the smaller minds that have the nastier tongues, isn’t it? Edward, where did I say Hebrews was about “personal sins” whatever that is? I said, as Hebrews clearly says, that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for all. He did not institute repeated sacrifices that apparently don’t work.
Edward again: “4. The drinking of blood that was prohibited was that which was offered to idols. That was a common practice in the pagan world that the Christians inhabited.”
Really? Reread Leviticus 3. That was blood that had been offered to God.
Your little tirade and mean-spiritedness speaks volumes far more than I can about the effect of your cult.
I shall pray for you Edward that God will grant you a spirit of peace and charity and open your heart to the lies you so firmly embrace.
Peace.
Reply
For the life of me, especially now as I celbtraee both forms of the Mass, I really see no difference between the two Masses in terms of doctrine and dogma. If there is a difference in participation it has to do with the Latin language in the EF and old habits of quietly participating which are simply part of a form of spirituality that may well be different than the OF’s spirituality of easy accessibility in terms of the language that thus makes it easier to verbally participate. In terms of sacrifice and meal the teachings are the same, Vatican II and subsequent reforms of the Mass changed nothing of the core meaning of the Mass only a more verbal, participative spirituality. The most frequent comment I get from those who have never been to an EF Mass and really don’t intend to make this Mass their primary Mass is that it is more reverent. I think this has to do not so much with the language, although that could be part of it, but with the silences, and the more complex rubrics, bows, genuflections, etc. In their mind this tends to emphasize not so much sacrifice over meal, but the awesomeness of the real presence of Christ which seems to be visually not doctrinally diminished in the OF Mass. Again this is perception. If there is any neglect of sacrifice in the OF Mass, it is not from the Mass itself, but theologies that have developed since Vatican II, ways of explaining the Mass and our participation rather than what actually happens doctrinally.