The Sacrifice of the Mass, Hebrews, and the Problem of the One-and-the-Many

Excellent!! Thank you for posting that.

But how then do we reconcile this event completed before the world was made with the fact that Jesus died at a later point in human history? This can be easily understood as a typical feature of Hebraic thought, where events that were certain to occur because they were in God's plan are spoken of as having been completed even before they occurred in time. A classic example of that is Jude 14:

Again, the sanctification of the believer, their setting apart for the divine purpose, is spoken of here as an accomplished, past tense event. The word translated "once for all" is the adverb "ἐφάπαξ" "ephapax." It is also used here, and also in connection with Christ's death. Note the emphasis on the past tense nature of the event:

Romans 6:9-10 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Note the holy author is not saying He is dying once. He says "died once." It is a concluded event.

Well said, and contrary to,

"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." (CCC 1367)

In the sacrifice of the Mass “Christ the high priest by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross...no less truly today than occurred on the cross.” (Catholic Catechism, 1981, by John Hardon, p. 466)

1) The Mass is Calvary continued. 2) Every Mass is worth as much as the Sacrifice of Our Lord's Life,suffering and death. 3) Holy Mass is the most powerful atonement for your sins. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mgraces.htm)

Are we anyone saying that Jesus died more than once? Of course, he died once, in our past. But to the writer of Hebrews that was an event fresh in the memory of men still living and doctrines new to the men to whom his words were addressed. We, however, who live live almost 2000 years later, a span of time equal to the span from Abraham to Christ, we must be cautious that we do not employ the words as if we have the authority to interpret them but in fact do not. Do we indeed have the equivalent of Joseph Smith’s magic spectacles? Did Dr.Luther and his peers? Do even our greatest scholars understand the words was well as, say Origin, or Jerome, for whom the language was as native as the words, indiums and nuances, are as native to us as those of the American Founding Fathers?

We, however, who live live almost 2000 years later, a span of time equal to the span from Abraham to Christ, we must be cautious that we do not employ the words as if we have the authority to interpret them but in fact do not.

Christians have not only the authority but the duty to try and understand what God is saying to them:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

It is our most important food. We cannot live without it. We cannot "ingest" it without thinking about what it means. That is a psychological impossibility. You cannot have chosen your own faith tradition without first engaging in your own interpretation of their teaching. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no Scripture prohibiting the attempt of the individual to understand God's word. Quite the opposite:

Psalms 119:101-106 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. (102) I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. (103) How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! (104) Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. (105) NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (106) I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.

And earlier in the same Psalm:.

Psalms 119:10-11 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. (11) Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

So we see that the one who claims to have faith in God is duty-bound to keep God's word, to not depart from His judgments. In the keeping of that duty you will find His words sweeter than honey, that they give understanding, that they teach us to hate every false way. God's word lights our way. How can we find our way without it? We can't!

That's why verse 11 above is so important. We meditate, think on, ingest, hide in our heart, the word of God, because that is how we will know to live as God wants us to live, to think and be the godly person God wants us to be. None of that can happen without the mental process of hearing the word and trying to understand what it means. That's interpretation. We are all interpreters because we think. Thinking is continuous interpretation. Information hits our sensors, we sort through it all and come up with meaning. That's how we are designed by God Himself. God made us all interpreters. So I truly do not understand this objection to interpretation. We have to do it. We have no choice.

Now that does not mean we have authority to invent any meaning we like by deliberately twisting a clear textual meaning. Thankfully, we have the inspired apostolic testimony, which is so clear in the principal truths that no one enlightened by the Holy Spirit could possibly miss those essentials. As Paul said:

2 Timothy 3:14-15 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So we see that the Scriptures have the inherent power to make one wise to salvation in Jesus Christ. Of course in a rebellious heart where no such light is admitted, the understanding will be dark, no matter how clear and bright the light. God must open and assist our understanding:

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

And when the Lord so opens our heart, we do give heed to the apostolic testimony, just as Lydia did. In fact, if we are His sheep, strangers may come along and profess to be some mighty authority, claiming they have been granted the sole power of interpretation, like, as you say, Joe Smith and his magic glasses, or Rome, and you know what? God will protect us from that error:

John 10:2-5 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. (3) To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. (4) And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. (5) And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

This of course only applies to those who are actually the sheep. Those among the flock who do not know or care for the voice of the true Shepherd will follow any old pretender into mischief, and so you will have much mischief in the world. So much so that the wheats and the tares (yes, I'm mixing the metaphors) cannot be separated until the end of the age, and then only under divine supervision. Simply inspecting the membership lists of one or another denomination would give a false answer to who the sheep are. They are those who hear the voice of the Shepherd, and will not follow another.

Which is why we should be very intolerant of error (such as transubstantiation), but very gentle toward our fellow travelers in this life. If God won't force a sorting out until the very end, who am I to take that on? Way above my pay grade. But that is no excuse to evade my Christian duty to feed on God's word, to try to understand it, and to share it with others, giving all due respect to the gifted teachers God has given us, but with first authority going to those words of God Himself, which by design are for our nourishment and enlightenment, if we take them in and ponder their meaning, and make them part of how we think and who we are.

Peace,

SR

Indeed, Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit. But which Christians? You say that there is no Scripture prohibiting the attempt of the individual to understand God’s Word. There is also no express grant of that right. Believe it or not, Catholics are also urged to read Scripture in search of the truth, but we seed what you do not, that where that search is not curbed, then there is division. Indeed, even with curbing there is division. The devil has his agents at work inside the Church as well as out. God is righteous: he will keep his covenant. He will also help us to keep our faith as well. The ship will not sink, but someone must read the charts and who that is is the question.

Indeed, Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit. But which Christians? You say that there is no Scripture prohibiting the attempt of the individual to understand God’s Word. There is also no express grant of that right. Believe it or not, Catholics are also urged to read Scripture in search of the truth, but we seed what you do not, that where that search is not curbed, then there is division. Indeed, even with curbing there is division. The devil has his agents at work inside the Church as well as out. God is righteous: he will keep his covenant. He will also help us to keep our faith as well. The ship will not sink, but someone must read the charts and who that is is the question.

1. All Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit: That's part of the package deal. If you belong to Christ, you must have the Spirit :

Ephesians 1:12-14 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. (13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (14) Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

So if you don't have the Spirit, you don't have the down payment on your heavenly inheritance, i.e., you don't belong to Christ.

2. If your question is really, which "denomination" has the assurance of the Holy Spirit's assistance, Scripture doesn't tell us. Instead, it offers various tests by which we can discern the truth. For example:

Matthew 24:23-26 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. (24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (25) Behold, I have told you before. (26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

So under this particular test, while we are waiting for Christ to return, we can know a false Christ by someone representing that He is here, just hidden in some secret chamber. This is obviously false because Christ in His physical being is sitting at the right hand of God, not hiding out in Area 51, or disguised as a wafer in a monstrance.

Who has access to these truth tests? The sheep, as I mentioned in my previous post. His sheep hear His voice, and will not follow another. So it's not about a denomination. It's about whether you are one of the sheep.

3. If you are looking for an express grant to digest food in Scripture, you have set up an impossible test. Some powers are simply implied by others. For example, in constitutional law, the federal government has some implied powers, based on those expressly enumerated. An implied power is one that is necessary and proper to carry out the action of an express power.

Similarly, everyone has an express duty to feed on God's word. Interpretation is digestion, drawing out the sustenance from the food consumed. Therefore, even if we did not have a multitude of Biblical examples of people attempting to understand the word of God, we would still have the implied authority for any act "necessary and proper" to carry out our express duty to "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," including interpretation. Yes, we use God's gifted teachers to help us interpret rightly, but we do not substitute their digestion for ours. It does us no good to sit in the pews afraid to ask with the Bereans whether what we are hearing is true. We have an obligation before God to reject falsehood, no matter from what human authority we may hear it.

4. The Roman ship sank long ago. They have drifted so far from the simplicity of the Gospel as revealed in Scripture that one cannot even tell what Roman doctrine is without reference to the Roman equivalent of Joe Smith's magic glasses. Whereas it is the duty and joy of any ordinary believer to meditate daily on God's word, without fear of offending funny hat wearers anywhere, but as the Scriptures say, to mature past the milk stage, and get on to the solid meat that God has for us in His word:

Hebrews 5:12-14 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (13) For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. (14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Peace,

SR

You say that Jesus is physically sitting at the right hand off the Father. But what do you mean by” physically? The Resurrected Christ is not bounded by the Laws of Physics. Yet he remains a real human being.” Sitting at the right Hand of the Father” is obviously a metaphor, imagining God as like a an earthly ruler with Jesus in the place of power to his “right”.. Calvin spoke of Jesus as “being in heaven,” But he conceded that we could experience his “Power” if we receive in Good Faith. If we receive it unworthily, then perhaps his “wrath.” What limits his power? If his “glory” could “reside”in the ark, and in the tent and in the Tabernacle, the why not in the bread and wine, That box is called the Tabernacle, by the way.

You say that Jesus is physically sitting at the right hand off the Father. But what do you mean by” physically? The Resurrected Christ is not bounded by the Laws of Physics. Yet he remains a real human being.” Sitting at the right Hand of the Father” is obviously a metaphor, imagining God as like a an earthly ruler with Jesus in the place of power to his “right”.. Calvin spoke of Jesus as “being in heaven,” But he conceded that we could experience his “Power” if we receive in Good Faith. If we receive it unworthily, then perhaps his “wrath.” What limits his power? If his “glory” could “reside”in the ark, and in the tent and in the Tabernacle, the why not in the bread and wine, That box is called the Tabernacle, by the way.

What does limit His power is His own decision as to how to use it, especially when that decision is recorded in Scripture. I agree God can do as He wishes. But that is not a blank check for me to imagine false solutions to false problems created by false handling of Scripture, then impose all that nonsense on others as if it were critical dogma.

Having said that, I will agree that defining physicality is certainly an interesting part of the problem. However, as you indicated yourself, there are challenges here that are millenia old, and we should be respectful of what those before us found difficult, lest we fall into the trap of pride. One of those areas is the careful preservation of the doctrines concerning the person of Christ, how best to describe His deity and humanity and their relationship to each other. Per Chalcedon, a key principle of this analysis is that there must not be confusion of the two natures, human and divine. They exist together, in one undivided person, yet it is essential to preserve the distinction of attributes between the two. What is at risk, among other things, is the doctrine of the atonement. If we go assigning to Christ's human nature things that are only ascribable to His divine nature, we void his being like us in every way, as Scripture says, in which case we also void the atonement, because His humanity must be a true humanity, a true likeness to us, for Him to be offered as our substitute.

This is why attributes such as omnipresence cannot be safely assigned to His humanity, his flesh, His physical being. And this reconciles well with Scripture. While His in His resurrection body He did do some things we cannot now do, such as going around walls without passing through ordinary space, there is absolutely no indication He was then or is now physically omnipresent. This notion would be at odds with Chalcedon itself, in that they rejected confusion of the natures, in which they meant ascribing to His deity attributes of His humanity, and vise versa.

This is why the Protestant/evangelical position has typically focused on Christ's omnipresence as a spiritual reality, rather than corporeal. This preserves the distinction of the natures. God is spirit, and as such can be everywhere at once. Christ is divine in nature, and it seems reasonable and safe to see Him as being present everywhere spiritually by means of His nature as God. This is how we can have an uncomplicated understanding of such passages as those below, without resort to misleading speculations such as transubstantiation:

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And ...

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So in the celebration of Lord's Supper, we do not confuse the two natures. He is there with us in spirit, which is no less real than His physical being. His presence is real, but not corporeal. Else His warning about not running off to find Him in "secret chambers" makes no sense. He will be with us again, but not corporeally until He returns for us. Until then, our mission is to wait patiently, and not following cunningly devised fables, such as transubstantiation.

Calvin's solution (though I am more Zwinglian) likewise avoids assigning omnipresence to the human nature of Christ. In his view we come into his total presence, both human and divine natures, in a spiritual pilgrimage, taken by faith when we partake of the elements, which remain in both their appearance and their substance truly bread and wine. So we are coming to Him, as He really is in Heaven, and have no grounds to think He is "in" or "behind" the mere appearance of bread and wine. Thus idolatry is avoided.

And while I respect Calvin's view as a big improvement over transubstantiation, I would contend that both he and Luther were too much still under the influence of Rome, that Scripture still presents the best view, that we do this service, not to "refuel" on grace, but as He said, to remember what He has done for us. I frankly do not understand the impulse to make it more complicated. It is quite beautiful enough for me just as I find it in Scripture.

Peace,

SR

What we know about Jesus is that after his Resurrection he appeared to his disciples in a “glorified” body, which I take to mean a physical body like our own, but not as it is in time-space. He could appear to them, interact with them as he had before, share with them a meal on the shores of the lake, walk and talk with him as he had “before.” We cannot explain this either in concrete terms as known by the apostles, nor theological terms as known to the Council fathers. nor in terms of the science of our own times. It is a mystery. And my problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that some take it to explain what it only describes. It describes truly but explains nothing. Much the same is true of what the Bible says. It compares with the Summa of St. Thomas as a mountain does to a plain, but it is not the last word. THAT will only come later. As Paul says about seeing things darkly as in a polished metal mirror.

What we know about Jesus is that after his Resurrection he appeared to his disciples in a “glorified” body, which I take to mean a physical body like our own, but not as it is in time-space. He could appear to them, interact with them as he had before, share with them a meal on the shores of the lake, walk and talk with him as he had “before.” We cannot explain this either in concrete terms as known by the apostles, nor theological terms as known to the Council fathers. nor in terms of the science of our own times. It is a mystery. And my problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that some take it to explain what it only describes. It describes truly but explains nothing. Much the same is true of what the Bible says. It compares with the Summa of St. Thomas as a mountain does to a plain, but it is not the last word. THAT will only come later. As Paul says about seeing things darkly as in a polished metal mirror.

"but not as it is in time-space?" Based on what? There is simply no evidence His glorified body was any more detachable from time-space than his pre-glorification body. How does a natural body walk on water? How does a natural body evade a crowd pressing in to stone Him to death? The things He did in either state were miracles engineered by the Godhead, but in no fashion require him to violate His human nature, including His human physicality and its limitations in space-time. To do so, as I said before, would violate the well established principles of Chalcedon, and I am in shock that you, as a professed Catholic, have taken no apparent effort to factor that in, especially after preaching to me on the value of listening to those who have gone before us.

In any event, the notion of a Christ "outside of time" is nowhere found in Scripture, and relies heavily on modern, post-Newtonian ideas of the space-time manifold, which notions have in modern, liberal theology merged with the eastern notion of timeless Nirvana, but are completely absent in the actual revelation God gave us concerning these things. To retrofit Scripture with such an anachronism is preposterous, and a grand presumption against the plain facts as they have been revealed by the Holy Spirit. Any retreat to "ineffability," the inability to express an idea, where the facts are plainly recorded, amounts in my view to yet another attempt to discover a blank check with which you can solve any glaring inconsistency by the appeal to uncertainty.

But all this is so unnecessary. John 6 is clearly teaching we consume Christ by coming to Him and believing in His words, as Peter himself demonstrates right at the end of the Bread of Life discourse. He understood what the materialists who abandoned Jesus did not. The earliest records give no evidence of a sacramental re-participation in the supposed perpetual suffering of the Lamb, but instead present a time of offering thanksgiving, in memory of the gift once given. The very name "Eucharist" records this fact, as it simply means "thanksgiving." Not until centuries later did the neoplatonic influence drive many in the churches to a distorted view of the bread and wine, reverting in effect to nearly the same error as those failed materialists who so profoundly misunderstood Jesus that day. The body and blood He gave for us was real enough on the cross. But it is only when we trust in Him, and believe in what He said, and what He did for us on that cross, that we really are consuming Him, drawing our life from Him, eternal life, which Jesus never taught came from eating bread and wine, or even the appearances of bread and wine, but only ever by believing in Him.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Peace,

SR

I meant that in his appearances to the disciples, he does so in the form that the elect —hopefully us—will assume, just as before he had appeared to them as they were. In both cases, he was who they saw and heard

Time-space is our paradigm. how we think of things, today. It is hard to get back to a frame of mind based on Aristotle’s science of Physics, much less into the heads of the Hebrews with a less abstract view of the world. Eternity is, I saw, God’s “point of view.”

I meant that in his appearances to the disciples, he does so in the form that the elect —hopefully us—will assume, just as before he had appeared to them as they were. In both cases, he was who they saw and heard

Time-space is our paradigm. how we think of things, today. It is hard to get back to a frame of mind based on Aristotle’s science of Physics, much less into the heads of the Hebrews with a less abstract view of the world. Eternity is, I saw, God’s “point of view.”

I don't have any real disagreement with these statements, as far as they go. Which is cool. It's nice to be able to agree on some things. :)

But the Hebrews were indeed more concrete. Hebrew as a language reflects that. But we have discrepancies with even more recent slices of history, as you say, paradigms of thought that would lead to some considerable difficulty in understanding one another. I am attempting to write a novel (to be completed sometime this century) that explores this problem in some detail, a "plausible" time travel story that sets two such paradigms against each other in the search for understanding. Hard work getting back to a mindset operating so differently. But hopefully beneficial. I know I'm getting some good out of it. Don't know if I'll ever finish the book. Sigh ...

Anyway, good conversation. I wish you well.

Peace,

SR