/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>679405

It can't be

>>679429

I don't get this. At the start of says:

>>Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins.

But then goes on to say:

>So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends:

My issue with mass is the fact that it's repetitive and "'re-presents" that once and for all sacrifice that was supposed to perfect us.

>>679452

You seem to not understand what represents means.

Consider Chrysostom

What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted.

Re-presentation is not repetition. It's application. Mass is representation becuse it presents Calvary (or rather whole of Sacrfice from Last Supper to Ressurection) to us.

As for >>679405

Mass is the same offering of Christ, the singular sacrifice. De facto there are no priests in Catholic Church even, they are all priest only so far as they participate in priesthood of Christ.

There is only one Mass, the sacrifice of Christ. It is sacramentally made present to us so we can partake in it and be resurrected with Christ. It's not a sacrifice that is periodically offered by the congregation or something.

>>679405

In Protestantism, mediation means exclusion. Christ became a priest so that none is. In Catholicism, Christ's ministerial priesthood is shared with many.

He is not a petty Christ, whose role cannot be shared. He channels his ministerial priesthood to a select number of people, just as he chose 12 apostles to send, not to all and not to none.

He is not a petty Christ, whose glory only he must enjoy at the exclusion of everyone else. The Christ that we know is glorified when his servants are glorified. He is not jealous when his mother is loved. He is not angry when his saints are invoked. He is glorified, since their holiness come from him.

In Protestantism, Jesus' sacrifice was in the past, and forever inaccessible. We can only enjoy its fruits, never its direct presence. In Catholicism, Jesus' sacrifice is readily accessible. Anyone can unite themselves with it through communion in the Eucharist.

>>679648

>T. Doesn't actually understand what Protestants believe in the slightest

Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

>>679641

>Consider Chrysostom

Your interpretation of Chrysostom is very poor as he actually contradicts the mass, saying "We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death" "This is a figure of that". Thus Chrysostom teaches that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice of praise, offered in honor of the final propitiation at Calvary. Though it is offered at different times, in different places, in different ways, it is always the same sacrifice, since it is always the same symbol of Christ.

>Re-presentation is not repetition.

You might argue that the mass is not numerous sacrifices, but like it or not, it is, by definition, repetitious, and it is repetition, not number, that the apostle takes issue with. Hebrews 10:1-3

<For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

>It's application

So far is it from teaching that the sacrifice of Christ is applied through the eating of bread and drinking of wine, scripture says it is applied through faith. Romans 3:22-25

<For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

>>679686

This is about re-baptism, apostasy and sin against Holy Spirit. But there is a bit about Eucharist here, namely: ''and have tasted of the heavenly gift'. This is Eucharistic reference.

>>679696

>Your interpretation of Chrysostom is very poor as he actually contradicts the mass

<Priest who offered mass daily

<Contradicts it

> saying "We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death" "This is a figure of that". Thus Chrysostom teaches that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice of praise, offered in honor of the final propitiation at Calvary. Though it is offered at different times, in different places, in different ways, it is always the same sacrifice, since it is always the same symbol of Christ.

Did you not seen or just ignored the part in which he says that sacrifice of the mass is the same sacrifice of Calvary, with the same Body being offered?

>You might argue that the mass is not numerous sacrifices, but like it or not, it is, by definition, repetitious

<Let me tell you about your Faith

[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

-Council of Trent

> and it is repetition, not number, that the apostle takes issue with

Paul doesn't have issue with Sacrifices of Old per se. He is not heretic who says that Old Law was evil. That's the first thing. Second thing, Mass in proper sense was offered once, when Christ died. Mass that were offered since then are THE VERY SAME, SINGULAR EVENT. There is no repetition of mass just as there is no repetition in which even in question happedned exaclly once.

Consider Angelic Doctor:

‘Christ by one oblation perfected forever them that are sanctified’ (Heb. 10:14). But the fact that we offer the sacrifice every day seems to contradict the statement that it is not repeated. I answer that we do not offer something different from what Christ offered for us, namely, His blood; hence, it is not a distinct oblation, but a commemoration of that sacrifice which Christ offered: ‘Do this in commemoration of me’ (Lk. 22:19).

>So far is it from teaching that the sacrifice of Christ is applied through the eating of bread and drinking of wine, scripture says it is applied through faith

So far is it from teaching that the sacrifice of Christ is applied through the eating of BODY OF CHRIST and drinking of BLOOD OF CHRIST, scripture says it is applied through eating of BODY OF CHRIST and drinking of BLOOD OF CHRIST. John 6.

>Romans 3:22-25

Word made flesh, by Word He maketh Very bread his flesh to be; Man in

wine Christ's Blood partaketh, And if his senses fail to see, Faith alone the

true heart waketh, To behold the mystery

>>679700

>Did you not seen or just ignored the part in which he says that sacrifice of the mass is the same sacrifice of Calvary, with the same Body being offered?

I take it from this non-response you concede the point?

><Let me tell you about your Faith

I'm telling you about the English language

rep·e·ti·tion

ˌrepəˈtiSH(ə)n

noun

the action of repeating something that has already been said or written.

"her comments are worthy of repetition"

synonyms: reiteration, repeating, restatement, retelling

the recurrence of an action or event.

"there was to be no repetition of the interwar years"

synonyms: recurrence, reoccurrence, rerun, repeat;

a thing repeated.

"the geometric repetitions of Islamic art"

>Paul doesn't have issue with Sacrifices of Old per se. He is not heretic who says that Old Law was evil.

Agreed.

>Mass that were offered since then are THE VERY SAME, SINGULAR EVENT

No masses have ever been offered, at Calvary, in 33 A.D., at the moment of Christ's death. Therefore, no mass is the same event, since an event is fixed to a time.

>But the fact that we offer the sacrifice every day seems to contradict the statement that it is not repeated

It does, black and white.

>I answer that we do not offer something different from what Christ offered for us, namely, His blood

If it was not many victims, it was still many times. The point is moot.

Sage because though you spoke much, you said little.

>>679641

Hi, OP is back. This was actually the response I was waiting for. Reason being was that infect as though the distinction between repetition and re-presentation seemed like a distinction without difference to me. Like, you are still recycling and repeating the sacrifice. Even if you call it something else I still don't get how it was different. It really does seem like a distinction without difference to me and thought you might help with that.

>>679712

>I take it from this non-response you concede the point?

I am legitimate in my question. Did you ignored or not seen this part: For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing (…) That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted.?

>I'm telling you about the English language

And I am talking about meaning of words. Representation of Sacrifice of Christ, Mass is neither one of those definitions.

>No masses have ever been offered, at Calvary, in 33 A.D., at the moment of Christ's death. Therefore, no mass is the same event,

Christ gave his body to apostles, redeemed world by his death on a cross and resurrected. This is mass.

>since an event is fixed to a time.

For you maybe. For God? Not so much. In Hebrews 9:12, he says that Christ "entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption." Then 9:14 goes on to say that Christ "offered himself without blemish to God." This is no doubt why it is possible for Paul to say in 10:19 that Christians can "have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus." Now, if Christ’s body and blood in heaven can be applied to sinners on earth without repetition of his sacrificial death when they believe on him, why can’t he be present on earth in the Eucharist forgiving sins without any repetition of his death?

>It does, black and white.

It does not, black and white. How can you repeat event if supposed repetition is the same event?

>If it was not many victims, it was still many times. The point is moot.

It is the same sacrifice. One time.

>>679739

Repetition is doing something again. Repetition of sacrifice is killing different victims again and again. No one killed the same bull or cow or ox twice.

Representation is making something present. Not copping something. Not repeting somthing. Makeing something present to the present. Representation of sacrifice is applying the fruits and presenting in diffrent manner the very same sacrfice. God is not temporal - we are.

Heb 10:14: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”

The phrase “are sanctified” is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

>>679756

>I am legitimate in my question

I guess that's a yes

>Did you ignored or not seen this part

No I factored it into my interpretation. I think the problem you have with my exegesis is that it fails to presuppose medieval Romish tradition

>Mass is neither one of those definitions.

<the recurrence of an action or event.

<a thing repeated.

If mass was offered in the past and is going to be offered again, then I'm sorry, but it IS both of those definitions.

>For God? Not so much

It is God who created those laws of time and space, and God who entered into them. It would not even be consistent with His nature to stretch an event across time since God is a God of order.

>This is no doubt why it is possible for Paul to say in 10:19 that Christians can "have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus."

I agree completely, and it's also why you can't have that confidence, since you don't have a sacrifice which is once for all, you don't have an offering that secures eternal redemption, you have a faulty sacrifice of wheat and grapes that brings no forgiveness, that covers no sin, that you must return to over and over and over again. No sir, I don't believe you have any ground for that confidence at all.

>Now, if Christ’s body and blood in heaven can be applied to sinners on earth without repetition of his sacrificial death when they believe on him, why can’t he be present on earth in the Eucharist forgiving sins without any repetition of his death?

1. Because there is no promise of life affixed to the consumption of human flesh, only a promise of death 2. Because Christ's body is now in heaven at His Father's side, not on earth 3. Because the elements are bread and wine, not flesh and blood 4. Because there is so much disparity between the mass and Calvary that they can only be different sacrifices 5. Because it is impossible for any sacrifice which must be offered more than once to take away sins 6. Because the sacrifice of Christ propitiated God through the suffering and death of the God-man, but in the mass He neither suffers nor dies 7. Because the sacrifice can only be offered by Jesus Christ Himself as High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary 8. Because Jesus Christ ordained no priests, being Himself in His office of High Priest a sufficient mediator for all of God's people 9. Because grace must be free, not bound to any deed of man 10. Because Christ died only for the elect, and applies His benefits only to the same 11. Because the benefits of Christ are conferred immediately by the Holy Spirit 12. Because Christ's death is of no value to us without His intercession in the lawcourt of God 13. Because the benefits of His sacrifice are stored up for the elect and merely withdrawn at the moment of their faith 14. Because we participate in His death by faith alone 15. Because there is no mention in scripture of the mass 16. Because the benefits of His sacrifice even extended before His death 17. Because the sacrifices of the new law are according to substance the same as those of the old

>How can you repeat event if supposed repetition is the same event?

It isn't the same event. Last I checked, this previous sunday was not actually a friday in 33 A.D.

>It is the same sacrifice. One time

Maybe I just didn't get the memo and every sunday in history actually is a 33 A.D. friday

>Repetition is doing something again.

You do the mass every sunday

>Repetition of sacrifice is killing different victims again and again

Under natural circumstances, yes. But we are not talking about a natural sacrifice.

>In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

All it means is that the perfect sacrifice (the PERFECT sacrifice) is applied to all of the elect throughout all time. It means the opposite of what you claim, since it means the one offering, the first presentation, is sufficient for all time, not needing another.

>>679773

>No I factored it into my interpretation. I think the problem you have with my exegesis is that it fails to presuppose medieval Romish tradition

<Chrysostom teaches that the Lord's Supper is always the same symbol of Christ.

>Chrysostom himself: That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted?

<Also Chrysostom: What then? do we drink blood, and eat flesh? and then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended),therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood.

>the recurrence of an action or event.

>a thing repeated.

And Mass, being THE SAME action and event cannot be said to be repetition.

>If mass was offered in the past and is going to be offered again, then I'm sorry, but it IS both of those definitions.

Buth both mass of past and future are THE SAME event, Sacrfice of Christ.

>It is God who created those laws of time and space, and God who entered into them.

Did the birth of the Lord Jesus from Mary come about in the course of nature? If we look at nature we regularly find that conception results from the union of man and women. It is clear then that the conception by the Virgin was above and beyond the course of nature. And this body that we make present is the body born of the Virgin. Why do you expect to find in this case that nature takes its ordinary course in regard to the body of Christ when the Lord Jesus himself was born of the Virgin in a manner above and beyond the order of nature? This is indeed the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried. This is then in truth the sacrament of his flesh.

(From the treatise On the Mysteries by Saint Ambrose, bishop)

>It would not even be consistent with His nature to stretch an event across time since God is a God of order.

God is not subject to time, time is subject to God. And God in his mercy and love willed to be with his Bride.

>I agree completely, and it's also why you can't have that confidence, since you don't have a sacrifice which is once for all, you don't have an offering that secures eternal redemption, you have a faulty sacrifice of wheat and grapes that brings no forgiveness, that covers no sin, that you must return to over and over and over again. No sir, I don't believe you have any ground for that confidence at all.

Oh, but I can and do have that confidence, since I do have a sacrifice which is once for all, I do have an offering that secures eternal redemption, for I have a true sacrifice of BODY and BLOOD that brings forgiveness, that covers sin, that by Grace of God I can return to over and over and over again.

And you too would have that confidence if not that your exegesis do not fail to presuppose acient Gnostic tradition:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

(Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyraeans ch 6-8)

>1. Because there is no promise of life affixed to the consumption of human flesh, only a promise of death

On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

>2. Because Christ's body is now in heaven at His Father's side, not on earth

Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine.

>3. Because the elements are bread and wine, not flesh and blood

Define elements. If by elements you mean material things, i.e. Species then there are Species of Bread and Wine. But if you say that all that there is Species then you deny human nature, which substance is Soul, and Species body. And substance of Eucharist is Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

> 4. Because there is so much disparity between the mass and Calvary that they can only be different sacrifices

<Calvary: Christ is offered for redemption of the world

<Mass: Sacrifice of Calvary is made present to us

Where there is disparity in anything but manner?

>5. Because it is impossible for any sacrifice which must be offered more than once to take away sins

And Mass is offered once, at Calvary some 1990 years ago.

>6. Because the sacrifice of Christ propitiated God through the suffering and death of the God-man, but in the mass In Hebrews 9:12, he says that Christ "entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption." Then 9:14 goes on to say that Christ "offered himself without blemish to God." This is no doubt why it is possible for Paul to say in 10:19 that Christians can "have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus." Now, if Christ’s body and blood in heaven can be applied to sinners on earth without repetition of his sacrificial death when they believe on him, why can’t he be present on earth in the Eucharist forgiving sins without any repetition of his death?

> 7. Because the sacrifice can only be offered by Jesus Christ Himself as High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

And all priest participate in this priesthood. Just as Paul says in Romans 15:16 and Hebrews 13:10

>8. Because Jesus Christ ordained no priests, being Himself in His office of High Priest a sufficient mediator for all of God's people

On the contrary, Irenaeus of Lyons Book 4 ch 8.3 (120-180 ad)

And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.

>9. Because grace must be free, not bound to any deed of man

Eucharist is deed of God, Christ.

>10. Because Christ died only for the elect, and applies His benefits only to the same

On the contrary, John says: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

>11. Because the benefits of Christ are conferred immediately by the Holy Spirit

On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

>12. Because Christ's death is of no value to us without His intercession in the lawcourt of God

Ah, Heresy of Luther, and his not-loving Father, who is only just and never merciful. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

>13. Because the benefits of His sacrifice are stored up for the elect and merely withdrawn at the moment of their faith

On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. And: he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

>14. Because we participate in His death by faith alone

On the contrary: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.

>15. Because there is no mention in scripture of the mass

On the contrary: 1 Corinthians 10-11

>16. Because the benefits of His sacrifice even extended before His death

…When He, whole Christ, for his soul was united to his Person, entered into Limbo and took captives. That was their Eucharist and for the same reason Eucharist is called Bread of Angels for angels in heaven enjoy presence of Christ.

>17. Because the sacrifices of the new law are according to substance the same as those of the old

Then they would be equal, but it is false for sacrifice of old are shadows of new. And if there was no real Body and real Blood in sacrifices of New Law, then shadow would be greater than reality.

>It isn't the same event. Last I checked, this previous sunday was not actually a friday in 33 A.D.

Last time I checked, on last Sunday we participated in Sacrifice that happened 33AD

>You do the mass every sunday

And all those Masses are one Mass that happened 33AD

>Under natural circumstances, yes. But we are not talking about a natural sacrifice.

And in those above natural circumstances of Eucharist there is one slaying, but presence of this slaying is with here us always. Thus Christ is with us until end of world.

>All it means is that the perfect sacrifice (the PERFECT sacrifice) is applied to all of the elect throughout all time. It means the opposite of what you claim, since it means the one offering, the first presentation, is sufficient for all time, not needing another.

The phrase “are sanctified” is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

And since you are Calvinist or at least sound like one with reformed background, I leave you with someone who was enlightened from darkness that you are in.

“The six classic signs of demonic possession are the following. An aversion to the sacred is the biggest sign. Now, in the Catholic tradition be we have sacraments, and those can cause intense reactions. There would be an aversion to receiving the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus…"

>>679641

>but making a remembrance of His death

/thread

>>679911

>What then? do we drink blood, and eat flesh? and then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended),therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood.

Christ was sinless. By drinking His own blood, He calmed us to the sacrament by demonstrating it is the sign of His blood, not His own blood, for it would be impossible for Christ to commit the sin of cannibalism.

>Buth both mass of past and future are THE SAME event

Maybe you'll have an easier time understanding this if I make it a little more Aristotelian. Past and future are mutually exclusive substances, given the law of non-contradiction, the same event cannot occur on two different days. Now, you could say the events are the same genus, as both are in the genus of "mass", but different species, as one being past and the other future (not that past masses are the same either, since every mass is a different particular).

>Did the birth of the Lord Jesus from Mary come about in the course of nature?

It was a supernatural invasion of nature, so yes, it occurred within natural law.

>If we look at nature we regularly find that conception results from the union of man and women

Yes, but there is no law dictating it be so.

>And God in his mercy and love willed to be with his Bride

Through His Spirit

>Oh, but I can and do have that confidence, since I do have a sacrifice which is once for all, I do have an offering that secures eternal redemption, for I have a true sacrifice of BODY and BLOOD that brings forgiveness, that covers sin, that by Grace of God I can return to over and over and over again.

See, this is something you clearly do alot, and that's repeat what I said, but turn it on its head. That isn't a good argument, it's just annoying, and it's a waste of space. Be like a spear, and have a point.

>>679912

>On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

The law of God must be kept, (Deuteronomy 27:26), and it represents the character of God (Leviticus 20:26). Cannibalism is a wicked sin, and the Lord Jesus would never lead us to it. Therefore your interpretation is wrong, and Augustine's is correct, "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16)

>Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine.

This presumable citation of Aquinas fails to even address the point.

>Define elements

The element of a sacrament is the sign instituted by God in order to signify and seal grace, and is the material cause of a sacrament.

>Where there is disparity in anything but manner?

Calvary perfectly took away the sins of believers so they never fall under God's wrath and require sacrifice again, the mass does not, Calvary was bloody, the mass is not, Christ was sacrificed at Calvary, not in the mass, Christ suffered at Calvary, not in the mass, Christ died at Calvary, not in the mass, Christ was the priest at Calvary, not in the mass, Calvary was at a date in 33 A.D., which the mass was not, in the mass the sacrificed is eaten and drank, though not at Calvary, there is idolatry in the mass, but not at Calvary.

>And Mass is offered once, at Calvary some 1990 years ago

Let's have a thought experiment. Since this is purely a hypothetical, please do not cowardly dismiss it as impossible, that's just evading the problem and is irrelevant. If the RCC decided to stop offering mass, would you be damned? Can any of us be saved without frequent offerings?

>>6.

It looks like you accidentally deleted part of the quote and all of your answer, you should try again

>And all priest participate in this priesthood

That is blasphemy. Christ alone is High Priest of the order of Melchizedek

<The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

Hebrews 7:23-24. Christ is the only priest of Melchizedek because His sacrifice was so perfect, that there is no more need for any priestly function. He has satisfied all.

>>679913

>And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.

He is correct. All Christians are priests, in the way he means, which is not that we offer any sacrifices, but that we are all become Levites, and are dedicated to the Lord. This is why Irenaeus mentions a non-inheritance of lands, because he wishes only to show a very biblical parity between the Levites and the new covenant saints.

>Eucharist is deed of God, Christ.

It is a deed of your priests, and the prerequisites for participation, including going up, are deeds of the communicant.

>On the contrary, John says: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

John only means that He is a propitiation (which already connotes perfection) for all of the elect across the whole world at every time, not only for the citizens of the Roman Empire.

>On the contrary

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you.

>Ah, Heresy of Luther, and his not-loving Father, who is only just and never merciful

This blasphemy fails to address the point.

>On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. And: he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

The citation fails to address the point.

>On the contrary: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.

The apostle's teaching is not that faith is insufficient without works of love, since this would contradict his whole point in the epistle and side with the judaizers, as it would make our justification dependent on our own good works. What it means is that the kind of faith which saves, is the kind that has a natural disposition to work by love. In fact, in the same epistle, he says "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The just shall live by faith.'"

>On the contrary: 1 Corinthians 10-11

It says nothing of the mass.

>When He, whole Christ, for his soul was united to his Person, entered into Limbo and took captives

Limbo does not exist. When He entered into Abraham's Bosom and rescued the saints, this proved they were already justified by His blood all the way back when they believed on Him, since otherwise they would be in the fire. Hence, the prophet says "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". In fact this proves the gospel of grace, since as the apostle wrote "To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise."

>Then they would be equal, but it is false for sacrifice of old are shadows of new

No, they are shadows of Christ, as are the new sacrifices, so your point proves mine.

>And if there was no real Body and real Blood in sacrifices of New Law, then shadow would be greater than reality.

Though the external ceremonies are different, the sacrament is the same, since they both signify the sacrifice of Christ, and enjoin us to Him. The sacrifices of the new law are superior to the old, because they offer us greater clarity in this exhibition. But scripture also attributes the new sacraments to the old saints, and the old sacraments to the new saints; "For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

>>679648

>In Protestantism, Jesus' sacrifice was in the past, and forever inaccessible.

OP here, I'm a protestant and this isn't at all what we believe.

<He has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

Colossians 1:22

We do access that sacrifice but by faith. Also, see Galatians 2:20

<I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.I

Just wanted to correct your misunderstanding. But can you elaborate on how the Eucharist isn't repetitive? If you call it a representation then isn't Christ's sacrifice repeatedly represented?