Is the Mass a Holy Sacrifice?

[Hentenza]

Topic: In the Mass a Holy Sacrifice?

Affirmative: Athanasias

Negative:BreadAlone

Rounds: 5 posts each for a total of 10 posts.

Format: Alternating posts beginning with the affirmative and ending with the negative.

Time limit between posts: 7 days.

Maximum length of each post: 5000 words not including quotes.

Sources: All relevant sources are allowed.

This is a formal debate between Athanasias and BreadAlone. No one else is allowed to post in this thread. All rules of CF and Theology apply including the 20% quote rule meaning that no outside quotes over 200 words will be allowed. Please post links to your quotes.

Peanut gallery is here.

Debate proposal is here.

Best of luck to both participants.

 

[Athanasias]

Why is the Mass a Holy Sacrifice?


I appreciate Breadalone, my worthy opponent and brother in Christ Jesus for taking time out to debate this important subject with me. May the Lord bless and keep both of us in this friendly dialog.

I ask the Lord to help me defend his doctrine with charity but boldness and clarity in teaching. This is a deep subject both biblically and historically.

To begin with there is no one explicit phrase that says, “The Eucharist or the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice” in the New Testament. In the same way there is no phrase in the bible that says God is a Trinity or that infants should be baptized. The doctrine that the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice as well as the Trinitarian concept of God and infant baptism are in the bible implicitly. With these doctrines Christians put the pieces of the puzzle together and get the doctrines they do. First I must explain what the Catholic Church means by the sacrifice of the Mass since many Protestants misunderstand. To begin with Catholics view the Mass as one in the same as the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass is not another sacrifice done by Jesus. It is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. Jesus died once and for all(Heb 9:26), and he dies no longer and suffers no longer in the Mass. The mass is not a bloody sacrifice like Hebrews talks about. Christ is not re-sacrificed in the mass. What happens in the Mass is that Christ makes present to us(in this age through time and space) his once and for all sacrifice he did on Calvary but this time he presents it to us in time and space in a unbloody way (through the mere appearances of bread and wine). In this way his faithful followers at every Mass can take part in the new Passover sacrifice as the Israelites did with the old covenant Passover sacrifice. He does this for our benefit. Calvary was redemption accomplished. But the Eucharist is redemption applied personally to us.. Catholics do this in his memory as a memorial sacrifice as he commanded us to do (Luke 22:19). The Sacrifice of the Mass then is the real present day application of the 0nce and for all sacrifice Christ did on the cross to individuals today and throughout the ages. It should be noted that all non-protestant Christians whether they be Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, or Abyssinian all adhere and teach the Eucharist to be a holy sacrifice. The majority of Christians worldwide for the past 2000 years always held the Mass to be a sacrifice. In fact everyone before the reformation universally held this doctrine. Our good hearted protestants brothers and sisters then misinterpret scripture when they deny this biblical and historical teaching of the sacrifice of Holy Mass.


The New Passover Lamb:

Looking at Jesus on a typological level and seeing how Jesus fulfills the type of old covenant Passover Lamb will help one understand why he instituted the Mass as a the New covenant holy Passover Sacrifice.

Christians of all denominations recognize Jesus as the new Lamb of God. St John makes astonishing comments about Jesus in his Gospel to show how Jesus fulfills the role of Lamb . For example when John calls our Lord Jesus the “Lamb of God” who will take away the sins of the world.(John 1:29) he makes direct connection to the Passover covenant,. John also calls Jesus the Lamb over 28 times in the book of Revelation. St Peter calls Jesus “Lamb”(1 Peter 1:19) in his epistles. St Paul also relates to Jesus as the new Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8), which has been sacrificed and then commands us to keep the feast of unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Jesus is the bread of life and truth and he presents himself to us in the Eucharist under the appearance of unleavened bread. St John and the other apostles show us that beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament Passover Lamb. In the Old Testament the Passover sacrificial Lamb saved the Israelites from the Angel of death. The Passover lamb was just a inferior type compared to Christ. The Passover Lamb could only save the Israelites from physical death but it could not save Gods people from eternal death the way Jesus can. Jesus is superior Lamb.

It is important to realize that all New Testament fulfillments are greater and more real and powerful than their Old Testament types. Jesus is superior to the Old Testament Lamb of God.

Now in the Old Testament there were two parts to a sacrifice. 1) the killing 2) The communing or sharing personally in that sacrifice. The Passover Lamb was to be sacrificed. But just because the Lamb was sacrificed did not mean that the Israelites were then automatically saved from the Angel of Death. The sacrifice itself and the flesh and blood of the sacrifice had to be personally applied to the people in order for them to be saved from death. The blood was applied to them personally by putting it on their doorpost and the flesh was applied personally to them by them eating the actual flesh of the Lamb(Ex 12:8). When the Israelites faithfully believed Gods word and sacrificed the Lamb and communed with it by eating its real flesh and applying its real blood to their doors the Angel of the death would Passover their houses and they would be saved. The same is true for the New Passover. Just because Jesus was sacrificed on the Cross-does not mean that we are just automatically saved. We must have a living faith in Christ and his word and we must seal the new covenant pact and commune with the new lamb just as the Israelites did with the old. We must share in his real body and blood by eating it in this New Passover meal. This is why Jesus himself gave his church the Eucharist as a New Passover (Luke 22:15). In this new Passover, as new Lamb of God he gives us his real blood and body to eat miraculously under the form of bread and wine( Luke 22:19-20) . So the Christian now could commune with his sacrifice on Calvary personally. Remember that one could not just eat a symbol of the lamb in the Old Testament, if one did that they would die and the Angel of Death would not pass them over. One had to eat the real flesh of the real Lamb. Jesus knows this and that is why he gave us his real flesh and blood, not a symbol, but the real thing. But God gives it to the Church in a miraculous way so as not to frighten individuals. He gives his real body and blood to eat under the appearances of bread and wine.


This is also why in the context of the Passover (Jn 6:4) Jesus, the new Lamb of God, tells us me must have a living faith in him (Jn 6:35) to be saved but we must also eat his real flesh and drink his real blood to have eternal life(Jn 6:51-59). For the bread Jesus will give would be his real flesh for the life of the world (Jn 6:51). Jesus then shows us that He truly fulfills the Passover sacrifice with his own . The fact that the Passover was the sacrifice and Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist as the new Passover with him as the new Lamb is enough to show that the Eucharist or the Mass is a sacrifice that Christians partake in namely the new covenant Passover sacrifice.

The Pauline evidence:

Secondly. St Paul alludes to the Mass being a Sacrifice in 1 Cor 10: 16-22. Paul says “

“Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread, which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?”

Here St. Paul compares the sacrifices brought to the table or alter of demons to the one the Holy Sacrifice that Christ gave us in the table or alter of the Lord in the Eucharist. One cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. They must put aside false sacrifices and only adhere to the one sacrifice of the Eucharist, which Christ instituted. Paul also admits in this writing that this sacrifice of the Eucharist is a real sharing in Christ real Body and real Blood and not just a symbolic thing as some protestants would believe.

Jesus very own wording proves the mass to be a sacrifice:

When looking at the words that Jesus used to institute the Lords supper one can also tell that Jesus was implying it was a sacrifice. Jesus used sacrificial language to describe the Eucharist. For example, in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says that the Eucharist “is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. Here Jesus again uses sacrificial language to relate the Eucharist to the Old Testament sacrificial covenant. In the old testament Moses sprinkled the blood of the sacrificed oxen on the Israelites saying “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you”( Ex 24:8) . Jesus according to the Prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34) will offer a new covenant, a better covenant than the one given in Egypt, and that this new covenant will forgive their sin and bring reconciliation to God. This new covenant of Christ is the Cross-where Jesus was sacrificed in a bloody manner for the forgiveness of all. But, Jesus also shows us that this new covenant in his blood is applied to us, and given to us in the Eucharist. Hence this is a sacrificial meal were one partakes of the real sacrifice of the new covenant done in his memory.



Jesus also uses more sacrificial language in describing the Eucharist. When Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me”(Lk 22:19) He is using specific sacrificial language the Greek Septuagint version of the old testament uses when describing sacrifices. The phrase “do this in remembrance of me” can also be translated from the Greek in English as “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”.

Scripture scholars both Catholic and Protestant admit that Jesus specifically chose and used sacrificial language when instituting the Lords supper.

The word “do” in Greek can mean to “offer sacrifice” if the immediate context is sacrificial in nature.

In Exodus 29:39-41 they were to offer the lambs as sacrifice. The word used for offer sacrifice is “do” in Greek In the verse. The same can be said for other verses, which translate “do” as “offer”. Such as Ex 29:36 were one shall “do” or “offer” the bulls in sacrifice as a sin offering. In comparison Jesus is new Lamb (Jn 1:29) who is our new Sin offering (Matt 26:28). Other passages, which use the word “do” to mean offer sacrifice, are (Ex 10:25, Lev 14:19. 30; Lev 15:15,30; Lev 16:9,24; Lev 17:8-9; Num 6:11,17; Num 15:3,14; Jud 13:16; 1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 5:17; Jer 33:18; Ezek 43:25; Ezek 45:17; Ezek 46:1-15)

Given that the word “do” in Greek can be translated and mean to offer (sacrifice) as long as the context is sacrificial in nature, the Eucharist must be a sacrifice because the Lords supper is in the context of the Passover, which is sacrificial in nature.

More Sacrificial language:

One more word that the Lord used that is sacrificial is the word “remembrance” which in the Greek is anamnesis. When Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” He again hints to this Eucharist as being a sacrifice. Every time this word Anamnesis/memory occurs in the bible it occurs in a sacrificial context. For example, in the Old Testament this word is used in Numbers 10:10 to refer to a memorial sacrifice. Incidentally Christ gave us the Eucharist Passover as his new memorial sacrifice. This is just one more sign that the Mass is a real sacrifice.

Prophets of old display the Catholic teaching:

The Old Testament Prophet Malachi formally predicted the Mass as a the new covenant sacrifice that would replace the old food offerings in Mal 1:7-11.

“By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, `How have we polluted it?' By thinking that the LORD's table may be despised....For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”



Here a new pure food offering or sacrifice is predicted to be made by the gentiles. The early Christian Fathers such as St Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr(Mid to late 2nd century) always saw this pure food offering or sacrifice as being fulfilled in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the sacrifice that Christians have and present on their alters (Heb 13:10) that those Jews who serve at the tent have no right to eat. Note that Christians have too have an “alter” that eat at. This is a big hint to the Eucharist being a sacrifice and not just a mere meal.

A priest after Melchizedek’s Order:

Christ is seen as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20). Melchizedek was a Priest and King of Salem who offered a thanksgiving sacrifice of bread and wine (Gen 14:18-20). Jesus is a priest after his order. Jesus is our High priest (Heb 3:1) and King(Rev 19:16) of the new Jerusalem , the Church. As a priest after the order of Melchizedek his sacrifice must be one of bread and wine. One knows he sacrifices himself in a bloody way on the cross but how does he then fulfills Melchizedek’s order of sacrifice? He does this by offering himself in the Eucharistic sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Jesus gives thanks at the Lord’s Supper just like Melchizedek, and Christ now offers himself under the simple appearances of bread and wine.


Church History proves the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Every early Christian fathers taught the Eucharist/Mass(Lords supper) to be a sacrifice. This presents a big problem for the protestant side. Why would a protestants then deny a doctrine that has been taught unanimously in Christianity by all Christians in the early Church and from age to age? Would that not be just as bad as certain groups(who call themselves Christians) deny the unanimous historical teaching that Jesus is God?

The earliest document outside of the bible is known as the Didache. It was used as a early catechism and believed to be the teachings of the apostles. It was written in the year 70 A.D. In referring to the Lords supper it calls it a sacrifice using the Greek Term “Thusia” which means sacrifice. St.Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by the apostle John himself also considers the Mass to be a sacrifice. The list can go on and on. You are hard pressed to find any early Christian teaching against this.

 

[Athanasias]

Hentenza, I had more to post in my first post but it would not let me. It said I had to many characters. Umm, My computer said I had under 5000 words though. So I am confused as to how this works. Sorry for the question.

 

[Athanasias]

I apologize for the double posting.

 

[Hentenza]

Hey Athanasias,

Your initial post has only 2635 words. Please continue your post using a new post but make sue the you do not exceed 5000 words combined.

 

[Athanasias]

As I was cut off from finishing my opening statement by the computer, I will continue where I left off in my first post with my reasons for believing in the sacrifice of Mass from a historical perspective. I would simply like to quote a few of the many Fathers of the Church who spoke of this doctrine for edification.

Consider St Ignatius of Antioch. He was a Bishop who was handpicked and taught by the apostle John himself. He wrote in the year 110 A..D.

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).”

Consider also the writings of St. Justin Martyr in the year 155A.D. He was the first Christian apologist (one who defends the faith). He makes the connection between Mal 1:7-11 and the eucharist.

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).”



St Irenaeus another early father also make the same connection to the Mass and to Malachi’s prophecy :

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

St. John Chrysostom in his homilies mentions the exact scripture passage that I gave when Paul describes the Mass as a sacrifice”

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).

St Augustine, a favorite father for Lutherans especially, teaches the mass is a sacrifice by Jesus being a fulfillment of Melchizedek.

“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

Again this is just a very small sample of the fathers writings but if one reads the fathers they will discover that the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that the Eucharistic celebration is a real sacrifice and participation in Calvary, hence a new passover. They even use the same scriptures I quoted earlier.

What I find curious is how the Protestants beleiver can reject this fact given the scriptural and patristic evidence for it. Well that concludes my opening statement. May God bless Breadalone in his opening statement and may almighty God be with this debate in the Spirit of truth and Charity. Thank you.

 

[BreadAlone]

In opening, I would like to also thank Athanasias for his willingness to debate this subject openly and seriously. I also would like to ask for the Lord’s blessings on our discussion, in that he may make certain that our ultimate aim is maintaining His will while we examine His Scripture, so as to uphold them in their truth and purity. If I may, I’d like to do so in the form of a hymn; God’s Word is Our Great Heritage, written by Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig (We sang it in church this past Sunday, and this debate was actually brought to mind during the Service, so I found posting it here especially fitting.):


God’s Word is our great heritage
And shall be ours forever;
To spread its light from age to age
Shall be our chief endeavor.
Through life it guides our way,
In death it is our stay.
Lord, grant while words endure,
We keep its teachings pure
Throughout all generations.

(For Melody and further information: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/g/w/gwiogher.htm)

Psalm 119:111-112: Your statutes are my heritage forever; they are the joy of my heart. My heart is set on keeping your decrees to the very end.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

How the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice

In the course of my research for this debate, I must confess that I have come across some doctrines in both Roman Catholicism and in my own cherished Lutheran confessions that have caused me to revaluate my stance on the subject of the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist. So let me first briefly address a couple of the conclusions that I’ve come to on a personal level. First, the matter of the Catholic doctrine which states Holy Communion directly connects the Church (invisible) to the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary. This I do not raise an immediate objection to, despite my previous impressions and connotations regarding this and other doctrines of Roman Catholicism implemented by my Lutheran schooling (now approaching its 14th year, preschool and kindergarten included! Where does the time go!?) In fact, this doctrine is quite similar to one in the Lutheran church when it comes to our other Sacrament, Holy Baptism. We take the words of St. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 quite seriously: In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. Other places, like Galatians 2:20, indicate that we have been “crucified with Christ.” Also believing in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper (though, admittedly, in a way different than both Catholics and other Protestants alike), I can respect the Catholic belief that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper supersedes both space and time and connects the participant in a real way to the sacrifice of Christ for sin.

That being said, this is where I believe my connection with the Catholic doctrine ends, and a whole skew of objections and differences begins. But let me also say right now, unless you indicate to me that you hold a belief contrary to the doctrines of your church Athanasias, I will be addressing my thoughts in this topic to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism as a whole. If you for some reason do not agree with your church, then that will certainly save us typing in our next posts!

Without getting much farther ahead, and before I address some of the specifics of Athanasias’ points, I think it is of utmost importance to address exactly what a sacrifice is. Oddly enough, the authors of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, a foundational article of the Lutheran church, felt this was a good point to address while beginning this discussion also. So without trying to tamper with an already well-written document, I’ll let the Apology’s words speak for themselves, and I’ll elaborate from there.

Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these be either a ceremony or a sacred work. A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as, Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God, but in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of God; and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work which we render God in order to afford Him honor. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV:17-18)
​

While I can see the connection to the Sacrifice of Calvary, the choice of wording used by Roman Catholicism causes me to be leery of their true sentiments. The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament in that the Lord is the one servicing us; we are not and cannot service God by such a means. God does not benefit or grant the participant reprieve because of their participation in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. Christ himself becomes present at the word of his own promise, and that promise also entails the “forgiveness of sins.” While the Sacrament does not impart forgiveness in and of itself, its connection to Calvary does give the participant the most personal assurance of his forgiveness through Christ’s actual presence. However, and I cannot stress this enough, WE are not presenting Christ’s body to God as an act of propitiation. The Holy Spirit is presenting Christ to us as a part of this “Means of Grace” (as us Lutherans like to call the gospel in Word and Sacrament.) It is the Word of God (both in word, and in this case literally in Christ!) that have the power, not us. This is further demonstrated by Christ’s own words: “This is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins“(Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20). Unless we have bigger doctrinal grievances than I thought, the “new covenant” certainly is not in reference to us offering ourselves to God, but God offering himself to us, thus the definition of a “Sacrament.”

Now, before I get too far, the above is in reference to the nature of the Lord’s Supper. However, the “mass” as a whole (the celebration of the Eucharist) has the potential to be a Sacrifice. ‘But wait,’ you’re thinking, ‘you’re the negative in this debate! You can’t agree with the affirmative!’ Alas, I think you’ll find that I’m not in agreement with the affirmative (but please feel free to call me on it if we are!!) You see, just as I had to make a distinction between Sacrament and Sacrifice, I now feel compelled to draw a separation between two types of sacrifices: propitiatory sacrifice and eucharistic sacrifice (a term used by the Apology’s author, Melanchthon.)

The former type involves a work that one must do for the remission of sin in order to reconcile one’s self to God. The latter type, in direct contrast, consists of the good works of those who have already been reconciled. To detail it further, the propitiatory sacrifice has been and only can be performed once for all time in the sacrifice of God’s Son on Calvary, yet the second style of sacrifice can be and should be performed daily by the priesthood of all believers. Eucharistic sacrifices are the good works of the elect, acts not done to merit the performer credit or higher place with God, but rather performed because they are what God has prepared in advance for us to do, as Ephesians 2:10 surmises. These acts are done out of thanksgiving and in praise of an almighty God who has done all the propitiation necessary for our salvation. To detail it even further, and to give some specific examples, I’ll again quote from the Apology:

Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3, 1f.; 7, 11f.; Ps. 56, 12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those who have been reconciled. And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2, 5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere operato, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which God is known, and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards God. Therefore it is opposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered ex opere operato, The Epistle to the Hebrews 13, 15, teaches the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex opere operato, but on account of faith. This is taught by the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.(Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV:25-26)
​

You see, the Lord’s supper, and the Mass as Catholic’s celebrate it as a whole, potentially can and should be a Eucharistic sacrifice. (Quite a fitting name, really!) Alas, in my experiences with Roman Catholicism (and quite obviously in the experience of Melanchthon) the mass is conducted to reprieve the sins of the attendee, and even in some instances of the dead. This is in clear violation of the mandate of the Word. The mass should be a celebration indeed, a thanksgiving to God for the sacrifice of his Son those many moons ago. In so doing, it could rightfully be called a “eucharistic” sacrifice. It would be equitable in such a way (assuming that it taught scripture in its truth and purity) to a Lutheran, Baptist, etc. worship service. But if used in some half-witted attempt to grant the propitiation of sin, it is sadly going against the clear scriptural concept of justification by faith alone. Alas, this like all other subjects boils down to the age old subject of the Theology of Glory vs. Theology of the Cross. (Or more simply; works V. faith.)

To summarize, the only type of sacrifice WE should ever be doing is that of the eucharistic nature; good works which God has prepared for us in advance to do, which we do out of and for HIS glory. Yet Catholic doctrine takes this too far and attempts to remit sin. In the Lord’s Supper, God is servicing us, and we should indeed respond “sacrificially” with worship and praise. But not because we want to erase sin, because we want to thank God and do what He has prepared in advance for us to do.

I’m sorry if I didn’t answer your points as directly as intended, Athanasias! But this was more of an opening statement on my part. We can get into more specific detail with the next few rounds. I will, however, address a couple of the ECF quotes you brought up, as I believe you did not give them fair consideration:

Consider St Ignatius of Antioch. He was a Bishop who was handpicked and taught by the apostle John himself. He wrote in the year 110 A..D.

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).”

This does not even directly address the Mass! There was “one altar of sacrifice” as you yourself explained with the “Lamb of God” thought. Christ indeed was the one sacrifice to remit sin; but who offered this sacrifice? Us? Certainly not! Christ tells us that no one takes his life, he lays it down of his own accord. God is sacrificing himself for US!!

Consider also the writings of St. Justin Martyr in the year 155A.D. He was the first Christian apologist (one who defends the faith). He makes

the connection between Mal 1:7-11 and the eucharist.

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).”

This actually proves my point! Let me throw another quote from the Apology at you to address this:

And of these sacrifices Malachi 1, 11 speaks: From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name and a pure offering. The adversaries perversely apply this passage to the Mass, and quote the authority of the Fathers. A reply, however, is easy, for even if it spoke most particularly of the Mass, it would not follow that the Mass justifies ex opere operato, or that, when applied to others, it merits the remission of sins, etc. The prophet says nothing of those things which the monks and sophists impudently fabricate. Besides, the very words of the prophet express his meaning. For they first say this, namely, that the name of the Lord will be great. This is accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel. For through this the name of Christ is made known, and the mercy of the Father, promised in Christ, is recognized. The preaching of the Gospel produces faith in those who receive the Gospel. They call upon God, they give thanks to God, they bear afflictions for their confession, they produce good works for the glory of Christ. Thus the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles. Therefore incense and a pure offering signify not a ceremony ex opere operato [not the ceremony of the Mass alone], but all those sacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great, namely, faith, invocation, the preaching of the Gospel, confession, etc. And if any one would have this term embrace the ceremony [of the Mass], we readily concede it, provided he neither understands the ceremony alone, nor teaches that the ceremony profits ex opere operato. For just as among the sacrifices of praise, i.e., among the praises of God, we include the preaching of the Word, so the reception itself of the Lord's Supper can be praise or thanksgiving; but it does not justify ex opere operato; neither is it to be applied to others so as to merit for them the remission of sins. But after a while we shall explain how even a ceremony is a sacrifice. Yet, as Malachi speaks of all the services of the New Testament, and not only of the Lord's Supper; likewise, as he does not favor the pharisaic opinion of the opus operatum, he is not against us, but rather aids us. For he requires services of the heart, through which the name of the Lord becomes truly great. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV:31-33)
​

That’s it for now.

 

[Hentenza]

Round one concluded.

 

[Athanasias]

First of all I want to thank BreadAlone, my worthy opponent for such a beautiful prayer. Secondly I must say I am shocked that you agree that the mass is a sacrifice. The fact that you agree that the mass is at least a kind of sacrifice(one of thanksgiving and praise) makes my heart happy. And since you agree with at least this point my job is easier. I do have to say that it seems that given you believe this then half of the debate is won already for the Catholic side as we Catholics teach that the Mass is truly a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving also. However saying that I must say that the mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice as well. It is not a "either or" situation, either the Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise or its one of propitiation. No, the mass has a fuller understanding biblically and historically. It is a "both and situation". The mass is both a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise and a propitiatory sacrifice.

First it might help to clear up some misconceptions that you had in your initial presentation about the Mass, its propitiatory aspect, and ex opera operato. I feel this will help us understand each others side better. Protestants and Catholics for the past 450 years or so have often times split hairs over terminology and phraseology. Because of ultimately abuses on the Catholic side, and pride and prejudice on both sides, both camps began to use different terms and both camps have prejudiced themselves to listening to what one another means in their use of terminology. I must say that the past 40 years have been a blessing to both our churches as the Lutheran and Catholic scholars have sat down and listened to one another and discovered that they were not as far off as they originally thought once were. The joint declaration on justification shows this.

However lets get to why the Mass is propitiatory. The Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to God no doubt. However, because the Mass is a present application of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary in time and space, the Mass is propitiatory also. If the Eucharistic elements were merely symbolic and the mass was done in mere 20th century understanding of "memory" then it could not be propitiatory. But we both know that Christ real Body and real Blood are made present at the consecration by the power of his word and promise(Matt 26:26-27, Jn 6:54-58). Christ in essence by doing this gives us a real sharing in his real propitiatory passover sacrifice of the Cross(1 Cor 10:16-22) and applies this to us at mass. This is how Christ allows us to take part in the new passover sacrifice. It is more than just mere memory as the word "anamnesis" has a fuller meaning to the Jews. It makes present for us the sacrifice of Calvary as Paul indicates and applies to us the propitiation of his sacrifice but this time in a unbloody way. He dies no longer and suffers no longer in the mass. Rather he offers himself to God as a living sacrifice on our behalf(Rom 12:1).


Here is the Catholic understanding. Christ is our propitiation(1 Jn 2:2) for sins. He does this by the Cross in a bloody suffering way(Jn 19). But because Jesus told us that the Eucharist IS the actual new covenant (of sacrifice) in his blood which will be poured out for the "forgiveness of sins"(Matt 26:28), He also shows us that the Mass is same sacrifice as that of Calvary only under the appearances of bread and wine. It is a present day application of the same sacrifice of Calvary. And because it really Is the blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins as Matthew talks about (relating it to the old covenant sacrifice where the people would take part in the sacrifice of Moses who sprinkled them with blood), this sacrifice then makes propitiation also when Christ priest celebrate it. Again it is truly propitiatory because it is Calvary re-presented in a unbloody, undying way as Christ shows us and because Jesus himself said that the Eucharist is given for the remission of sins which we both believe is biblical. The Augsburg confession confuses this by asserting that we ourselves offer this Eucharistic sacrifice to God as a good work to merit eternal life or at least this is the main thought of what the Lutherans were thinking when this was wrote. This I believe is why the Lutherans divided the meaning of sacrifice and sacrament instead of looking at the bigger picture scripturally and seeing that the Eucharist is both.

Here is where I beleive the Lutherans got it wrong because they misunderstand the term ex opera operato. That term means "By the work having been performed". Now its true the Mass is propitiatory by the work of the mass itself being performed. But, who performs the work of the Mass? Christ Priest do! To a Lutheran this sounds scandalous. One might say "Eph 2:5-10 tell us that we are saved by grace and not because of anything we have done, certainly the Mass then is disqualified as a work done by its priest for the forgiveness of the community". At first this may sound good but looking deeper into the bible shows us the Catholic truth of this subject.

First of all Catholics understand and the early Christians did too, that when Christ commanded the apostles to offer the Mass as his memorial sacrifice, he made them his priest and he gave them authority to do so. How could they offer a sacrifice for sins if he did that himself. The answer is this: It is not the Priest himself that offers the sacrifice of Mass, it is Christ himself that offers himself at every Mass through his priest. It is not the work of the priest himself but the work of Christ himself and his saving sacrifice. Christ offered himself once in a bloody manner on the Cross and now he applies that same sacrifice to us and offers himself ex opera operato in the mass under the appearences of bread and wine through his priest. It is Christ who works this through his ministers. Not the ministers themselves. It is totally Christ and his work not the priest.

Why is this true? It is true because when the Priest of Christ acts or performs sacramental actions he does not do it himself but rather he acts in persona Christi, or in the person and presense of Christ. Christ acts through him. St Paul when offering the sacrament of reconciliation acted in the person and presence of Christ(2 Cor 2:10-11). It was not Paul's actions themselves that forgave the sins of others it was the actions of Christ the priest through Paul that forgave those sins and applied the graces of the Cross to the person in this sacrament. The same can be said for baptism. Just because one "performs" the act of baptism does not mean that that person himself had power to work the baptism. It is Christ who sends the Holy Spirit to the baptized person through the water and word pronounced over the baptized to redeemed them. But it is not the Person or priest himself that redeems them.

The same is true for the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Eucharist, like all sacraments work ex opera operato only because it is rooted in the work of Christ and the cross and not becasue of the work of the priest himself. It is Christ the priest who does the work through his priest in persona Christi as Paul shows. I hope this makes sense. We may eventually need to also debate Justification and salvation at a later date.

Ignatius does address the Eucharist/Mass as a sacrifice directly. If you read right before he mentions the alter of sacrifice Christians have he mentions the Eucharist in context. The Fathers especially Irenaeus have a real handle on this. In the future I may quote a few protestant early church scholars who also show the connection to this with the Fathers.

Well I hope that at least clarified a bit. I am enjoying this debate. You are a great thinker and will make a great theologian some day. We could use your mind in the Catholic church. God bless you always!

 

[BreadAlone]

I must begin this post by apologizing to Athanasias for taking the fullest extent of the time limit to complete my reply! I have been bogged down with many things in the past week, so I appreciate your patience with me!

For this response at least, I am going to attempt to reply to your thoughts paragraph at a time, in order to most fully respond to all of your points. I may or may not continue in this style in the future..I'll see where it goes from this point.

First it might help to clear up some misconceptions that you had in your initial presentation about the Mass, its propitiatory aspect, and ex opera operato. I feel this will help us understand each others side better. Protestants and Catholics for the past 450 years or so have often times split hairs over terminology and phraseology. Because of ultimately abuses on the Catholic side, and pride and prejudice on both sides, both camps began to use different terms and both camps have prejudiced themselves to listening to what one another means in their use of terminology. I must say that the past 40 years have been a blessing to both our churches as the Lutheran and Catholic scholars have sat down and listened to one another and discovered that they were not as far off as they originally thought once were. The joint declaration on justification shows this.

Sadly, I must say that generally confessional Lutheranism had no part in the Joint Declaration on Justification. Yet, this does not mean that our terminology is the root of our doctrinal differences. Quite to the contrary, I would say our doctrinal differences stem from a faulty interpretation of the Scriptures at hand. But we'll get into that in the paragraphs ahead..

However lets get to why the Mass is propitiatory. The Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to God no doubt. However, because the Mass is a present application of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary in time and space, the Mass is propitiatory also.

Here is where I again must stop you. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Christ did not say "Perform the Mass." He said "Take and eat. Take and drink." The Sacrament may indeed have a real connection to the Cross of Calvary, but the celebration of said Sacrament is not connected to Calvary in the least. The ultimate Sacrifice can be recognized and praised in the Mass, but it is not and cannot be literally connected to it.

If the Eucharistic elements were merely symbolic and the mass was done in mere 20th century understanding of "memory" then it could not be propitiatory. But we both know that Christ real Body and real Blood are made present at the consecration by the power of his word and promise(Matt 26:26-27, Jn 6:54-58). Christ in essence by doing this gives us a real sharing in his real propitiatory passover sacrifice of the Cross(1 Cor 10:16-22) and applies this to us at mass. This is how Christ allows us to take part in the new passover sacrifice. It is more than just mere memory as the word "anamnesis" has a fuller meaning to the Jews. It makes present for us the sacrifice of Calvary as Paul indicates and applies to us the propitiation of his sacrifice but this time in a unbloody way.

I've highlighted "this time" for emphasis. Once again, the choice in terminology here brings you, in my perspective at least, on shakey ground. If the Lord's Supper is directly connected to the Cross of Christ, that is one thing. However, there is no "this time." There was one time, 2,000 years ago, which God is connecting us to in a Spiritual way. And this is not done to propitiate sin. All sin has been paid for in full. We don't need to continue to recieve the Sacrifice to cancel out our sin. If such was the case, this would be doing works for salvation. And I'm sure you're quite familiar with the Ephesians verse I could quote to nullify such an attempt.

He dies no longer and suffers no longer in the mass. Rather he offers himself to God as a living sacrifice on our behalf(Rom 12:1).

Christ does this daily anyways, even without the LORD'S SUPPER. (Again, the Mass is the equivalent of a worship service. The Lord's Supper is where the power lies.) There is no "new Sacrifice." Either We are being connected supernaturally (as it were) to the Cross of Christ 2,000 years ago, or we're not. There is no middle ground here.

Here is the Catholic understanding. Christ is our propitiation(1 Jn 2:2) for sins. He does this by the Cross in a bloody suffering way(Jn 19). But because Jesus told us that the Eucharist IS the actual new covenant (of sacrifice) in his blood which will be poured out for the "forgiveness of sins"(Matt 26:28), He also shows us that the Mass is same sacrifice as that of Calvary only under the appearances of bread and wine. It is a present day application of the same sacrifice of Calvary. And because it really Is the blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins as Matthew talks about (relating it to the old covenant sacrifice where the people would take part in the sacrifice of Moses who sprinkled them with blood), this sacrifice then makes propitiation also when Christ priest celebrate it.

Again you say "this Sacrifice." There is no need for further propitiation of sin! All sin has been atoned for through Christ's all sufficient Sacrifice. While Calvary may be presently applied in the Sacrament, such a means is not necessary to grant reprieve from sin. (Now I sound like I'm a broken record!)

Again it is truly propitiatory because it is Calvary re-presented in a unbloody, undying way as Christ shows us and because Jesus himself said that the Eucharist is given for the remission of sins which we both believe is biblical.

See above numerous times.

The Augsburg confession confuses this by asserting that we ourselves offer this Eucharistic sacrifice to God as a good work to merit eternal life or at least this is the main thought of what the Lutherans were thinking when this was wrote. This I believe is why the Lutherans divided the meaning of sacrifice and sacrament instead of looking at the bigger picture scripturally and seeing that the Eucharist is both.

So you claim we asserted this falsely? Would you say that you do not go to Mass to grant yourself reprieve from sin? Do you simply go to Mass to worship and thank God? If not, then the Augsburg confession proves quite right.

Forgive me for not directly responding to the rest of your sentiments, but they were all pretty much the same as the above!

What I want to address is this: If you believe that Christ's body and blood are re-presented (made present) in our day and age, but not as a new Sacrifice, as a connection to the original Sacrifice of Calvary, we can end this debate right now. Because I can respect that opinion, and while I might not state it quite that way, it is very similar to my own beliefs.

What the core of the issue is (and you really didn't address it) is what the purpose of the Mass is. If it is to sincerely worship and praise God, that is spectacular. Go and worship at all the Masses you want with my blessing.

The problem arises when people want to go to Mass in order to somehow make themselves more justified to God. As if somehow their works can save them. And this is where, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, I must "call them on it." In theory/doctrine, a lot of the Catholic sentiments seem appealing. But in reality and in practice, I don't see them occurring in a Biblical fashion.

So, please address this now. If Christ is simply making the original Sacrifice of Calvary connected to our day and age through the Sacrament as a personal assurance of our redemption and forgiveness, then I can agree with you and we can end the debate early.

But if The Mass MUST be performed in order to grant reprieve from sin, then we have bigger fish to fry.

Well I hope that at least clarified a bit. I am enjoying this debate. You are a great thinker and will make a great theologian some day. We could use your mind in the Catholic church. God bless you always!

Well, thanks for the offer, but I like Lutheranism just fine, thank you!!

 

[Athanasias]

I must begin this post by apologizing to Athanasias for taking the fullest extent of the time limit to complete my reply! I have been bogged down with many things in the past week, so I appreciate your patience with me!

Hi BreadAlone, Peace be with you! It’s ok take your time. I know what a busy schedule is like. I am a full time student (even in summer) and hold down a full time job and have to also cater to my wife, LOL!

Sadly, I must say that generally confessional Lutheranism had no part in the Joint Declaration on Justification. Yet, this does not mean that our terminology is the root of our doctrinal differences. Quite to the contrary, I would say our doctrinal differences stem from a faulty interpretation of the Scriptures at hand. But we'll get into that in the paragraphs ahead..

Yes it is sad that some of the confessional Lutheran bodies did not even want to engage in ecumenical dialogue. However I now understand the current Holy Father Benedict XVI has been making ways with some LCMS leaders. Praise God. I must disagree politely with you though. One thing we have been learning through the ecumenical movement in the past 40 years (by sitting down and listening to each other) is that some of our major hang ups revolve around terminology and our different use of it. This would come if we discussed justification for instance. But we also must deal with the correct interpretation of the written word of God too.

Here is where I again must stop you. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Christ did not say "Perform the Mass." He said "Take and eat. Take and drink." The Sacrament may indeed have a real connection to the Cross of Calvary, but the celebration of said Sacrament is not connected to Calvary in the least. The ultimate Sacrifice can be recognized and praised in the Mass, but it is not and cannot be literally connected to it.

Good point Bread Alone! Actually Christ said both. If you re-read my opening statement or if you re-read the Gospels you will find Christ saying “Take and eat” and you will find him commanding his apostles to perform this new Passover sacrifice. He does this by commanding them to “Do this in remembrance of Me”. As I have already shown Jesus used sacrificial language and this phrase has the double meaning of “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”.(this is something not only that Catholic scholars see but also several Protestant scholars like Darwell Stone, and JND Kelly, and the fathers of the Church also see this) Christ commanded his priests to offer him in this sacrifice. The Eucharist certainly is connected to Calvary because it is Calvary under a different form, namely bread and wine. Again I ask you re-read my opening statement where I took pains to shows this biblical connection of the Eucharist to the actual new Passover sacrifice of Calvary. For example:

St John makes astonishing comments about Jesus in his Gospel to show how Jesus fulfills the role of Lamb . For example when John calls our Lord Jesus the “Lamb of God” who will take away the sins of the world.(John 1:29) he makes direct connection to the Passover covenant,. John also calls Jesus the Lamb over 28 times in the book of Revelation. St Peter calls Jesus “Lamb”(1 Peter 1:19) in his epistles. St Paul also relates to Jesus as the new Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8), which has been sacrificed and then commands us to keep the feast of unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Jesus is the bread of life and truth and he presents himself to us in the Eucharist under the appearance of unleavened bread. St John and the other apostles show us that beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament Passover Lamb………. Now in the Old Testament there were two parts to a sacrifice. 1) the killing 2) The communing or sharing personally in that sacrifice. The Passover Lamb was to be sacrificed. But just because the Lamb was sacrificed did not mean that the Israelites were then automatically saved from the Angel of Death. The sacrifice itself and the flesh and blood of the sacrifice had to be personally applied to the people in order for them to be saved from death. The blood was applied to them personally by putting it on their doorpost and the flesh was applied personally to them by them eating the actual flesh of the Lamb(Ex 12:8). When the Israelites faithfully believed Gods word and sacrificed the Lamb and communed with it by eating its real flesh and applying its real blood to their doors the Angel of the death would Passover their houses and they would be saved. The same is true for the New Passover. Just because Jesus was sacrificed on the Cross-does not mean that we are just automatically saved. We must have a living faith in Christ and his word and we must seal the new covenant pact and commune with the new lamb just as the Israelites did with the old. We must share in his real body and blood by eating it in this New Passover meal. This is why Jesus himself gave his church the Eucharist as a New Passover (Luke 22:15). In this new Passover, as new Lamb of God he gives us his real blood and body to eat miraculously under the form of bread and wine( Luke 22:19-20) . So the Christian now could commune with his sacrifice on Calvary personally. Remember that one could not just eat a symbol of the lamb in the Old Testament, if one did that they would die and the Angel of Death would not pass them over. One had to eat the real flesh of the real Lamb. Jesus knows this and that is why he gave us his real flesh and blood, not a symbol, but the real thing. But God gives it to the Church in a miraculous way so as not to frighten individuals. He gives his real body and blood to eat under the appearances of bread and wine.This is also why in the context of the Passover (Jn 6:4) Jesus, the new Lamb of God, tells us me must have a living faith in him (Jn 6:35) to be saved but we must also eat his real flesh and drink his real blood to have eternal life(Jn 6:51-59). For the bread Jesus will give would be his real flesh for the life of the world (Jn 6:51). Jesus then shows us that He truly fulfills the Passover sacrifice with his own . The fact that the Passover was the sacrifice and Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist as the new Passover with him as the new Lamb is enough to show that the Eucharist or the Mass is a sacrifice that Christians partake in namely the new covenant Passover sacrifice.

I've highlighted "this time" for emphasis. Once again, the choice in terminology here brings you, in my perspective at least, on shakey ground. If the Lord's Supper is directly connected to the Cross of Christ, that is one thing. However, there is no "this time." There was one time, 2,000 years ago, which God is connecting us to in a Spiritual way. And this is not done to propitiate sin. All sin has been paid for in full. We don't need to continue to recieve the Sacrifice to cancel out our sin. If such was the case, this would be doing works for salvation. And I'm sure you're quite familiar with the Ephesians verse I could quote to nullify such an attempt.

Perhaps I was unclear and I apologize my brother instead of saying “this time” I should have said “but in this way in a unbloody form”. The Lords supper is directly connected to the Cross as Christ himself tells us In the Gospels when he says “This is my body” and “this is my blood of the covenant which will be given up for you” . St Paul also proclaims this very bluntly in 1 Cor 11:26. Christ does give his church the sacrifice of the Mass to propitiate sins. Why? Because Christ bloody sacrifice propitiates the sins of mankind and his Eucharist is a real participation and application of and in that one sacrifice! The Mass then is the saving power of Christ sacrificial Cross applied in this day. He clearly shows this when he declares that “this cup is the blood of the covenant which will be shed for many unto the remission of sins.” Christ gives us a way to share in the actual sacrifice of Calvary and apply its saving graces in the Eucharist which is far more than a mere memorial. Your right when you say all sin has been paid in full by Jesus and the Cross. Amen! Catholics agree! However that full payment now is applied by offering and receiving the Eucharistic sacrifice as Jesus himself commands. Remember it wasn’t just enough for the Israelite to slaughter the Lamb. The blood and flesh had to be applied personally to them. Israel then shared in a liturgical meal that ate the actual flesh of the actual Lamb (Ex 12:8) the actual sacrifice, to covenant with God and be delivered from the Angel of death. Christ is our new Lamb(JN 1:29). The Eucharist is our new Passover as Jesus calls it (Lk 22:15) We do need to continue to grow in holiness and receive Christ forgiveness when we sin. We must repent and come to him. He gives us the sacraments as channels of his grace and forgiveness. Every sacrament is the application of the merits of Christ cross applied to us today when we celebrate them with a repentant heart. This is not doing works of law as the some may think. Christ fulfilled the law. He is the new Moses and new lawgiver(Gal 6:2) and his law is the law of love(Gal 5:6) not ritual mosaic law that could not save the people. The fulfillment of the law of love is Christ Jesus ultimate sacrifice for us, the cross. Now out of love he gives cross to us and its propitiatory graces under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharistic sacrifice. I am amazed that Lutherans could seriously say that performing a sacrament means salvation by works. I say this because I know some fundamentalist Christians who accuse Lutherans of the same thing when they perform the sacrament of baptism. Lutherans like Catholics believe that God saves the individual by the regenerational free gift of grace given in baptism(Titus 3:5-7, 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Cor 6:11). Baptism is a sacrament that applies the work of Christ saving cross to the individual personally. Baptism is a participation in the graces of the Cross. Baptism is the cross applied. We both can agree on that. We both also understand that Christ commanded his church to go out and “perform” baptisms (Matt 28:19-20) for the forgiveness of sins(Act 22:16). Now you wouldn’t say just because the Lutheran minister obeys Jesus and “performs” a baptism to give the free gift of salvation and wash away sins to a infant means that minister or the Lutheran church is trying to work their way to heaven would you? Some Protestants would say you are! We both know you are not. Then why would you assume that Catholics do the same when the Catholic priest obeys Christ and applies the graces and forgiveness of the Cross to his congregation by offering the Eucharistic sacrifice as Jesus himself commanded? Jesus gave the Eucharist to us just like baptism. Jesus shows us it’s a real present day application of the Cross to us just like baptism and cleanses us of sin. Jesus shows us that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sharing in the Cross(1 Cor 10:16), it makes the once and for all sacrifice of the cross present to us just like Baptism does(Rom 6:3-5). So I do not understand your objections from a biblical point of view.

Christ does this daily anyways, even without the LORD'S SUPPER. (Again, the Mass is the equivalent of a worship service. The Lord's Supper is where the power lies.) There is no "new Sacrifice." Either We are being connected supernaturally (as it were) to the Cross of Christ 2,000 years ago, or we're not. There is no middle ground here.

Again you are right! Catholics teach there is no new Sacrifice for sins! You are right! The mass is not a new or another sacrifice, it is one in the same as the sacrifice of Calvary with one exception, its “form” which is unbloody (bread and wine). Christ choose this “form” to offer himself in because he had to fulfill the priesthood of Melchizdedek(Heb 6:20) who offered the Eucharistic sacrifice of bread and wine(Gen 14:18-20). We are connected supernaturally to the Cross of Calvary by the Eucharist! Amen!

So you claim we asserted this falsely? Would you say that you do not go to Mass to grant yourself reprieve from sin? Do you simply go to Mass to worship and thank God? If not, then the Augsburg confession proves quite right.

I go to Mass to worship God, hear his word, remember, his covenant. Celebrate his sacrifice and allow him to make me more like himself. In going I also receive the blessing in the cross he promises us in the Eucharist and I thank him for it because I need it. I know of no Catholic who goes to Mass to solely grant themselves a reprieve from sins. We go to worship God and pray and offer ourselves to Christ. However Christ Cross does do that(forgive sins) and it is made present in the Mass. I also go to the sacrament of reconciliation when I want reprieve for sins. Why? Because Jesus gave us a sharing in his cross and established that sacrament for that purpose also in dealing with mortal sins.

What I want to address is this: If you believe that Christ's body and blood are re-presented (made present) in our day and age, but not as a new Sacrifice, as a connection to the original Sacrifice of Calvary, we can end this debate right now. Because I can respect that opinion, and while I might not state it quite that way, it is very similar to my own beliefs.

Yes! The Mass is not a new sacrifice! I share that in my opening statement. Please re-read my entire opening statement carefully. It is in connection to the original sacrifice of Calvary. We would use stronger words. We would say it is Calvary being celebrated only under different appearances. Amen!

What the core of the issue is (and you really didn't address it) is what the purpose of the Mass is. If it is to sincerely worship and praise God, that is spectacular. Go and worship at all the Masses you want with my blessing.

It is to praise God, remember and worship him! Amen!

Continued in the next post as this one the computer is cutting off.

 

[Athanasias]

This is the continuation of my 3rd round becasue the computer cut me off. So to pick up where we left off.........

The problem arises when people want to go to Mass in order to somehow make themselves more justified to God. As if somehow their works can save them. And this is where, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, I must "call them on it." In theory/doctrine, a lot of the Catholic sentiments seem appealing. But in reality and in practice, I don't see them occurring in a Biblical fashion...

We also go to Mass and receive the Lord as he commands and to grow in holiness and closer to him as the Eucharist makes us. I am not sure if you would call that more justified? Perhaps! How about more sanctified! Justification biblically is a process as is sanctification.

So, please address this now. If Christ is simply making the original Sacrifice of Calvary connected to our day and age through the Sacrament as a personal assurance of our redemption and forgiveness, then I can agree with you and we can end the debate early.

Yes!

But if The Mass MUST be performed in order to grant reprieve from sin, then we have bigger fish to fry.

The Mass must be performed because Jesus commanded it(1 Cor 11:25) and the Mass/Eucharist does remit sins because Christ showed us it does in the gospels(Matt26:28).

Well, thanks for the offer, but I like Lutheranism just fine, thank you!!

I understand! Sorry if I offended you! I was just trying to complement you. But I never put it past the work of the Holy Spirit to open one up to the fullness of truth.

Breadalone for a 16 year old you are great at religious dialogue! And you sound like a great brother in Christ to talk to. Amen! I have Lutheran Seminarian friends and they are great too. I must say you easily beat them in your understanding of things biblically! It is truly a pleasure to debate someone like you! I await your thoughtful response. God bless you BreadAlone!

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

 

[Hentenza]

Sorry guys. Round 2 was concluded after post 10.

 

[BreadAlone]

Hi BreadAlone, Peace be with you! It’s ok take your time. I know what a busy schedule is like. I am a full time student (even in summer) and hold down a full time job and have to also cater to my wife, LOL!

Why thank you, Athanasias. Peace be with you also.

Yes it is sad that some of the confessional Lutheran bodies did not even want to engage in ecumenical dialogue. However I now understand the current Holy Father Benedict XVI has been making ways with some LCMS leaders. Praise God. I must disagree politely with you though. One thing we have been learning through the ecumenical movement in the past 40 years (by sitting down and listening to each other) is that some of our major hang ups revolve around terminology and our different use of it. This would come if we discussed justification for instance. But we also must deal with the correct interpretation of the written word of God too.

Yes, perhaps I was too direct with my previous statement. There probably is some trouble between both camps with terminology. I still believe however that the most major hang-ups revolve around the *proper* interpretation of the Word of God.

Good point Bread Alone! Actually Christ said both. If you re-read my opening statement or if you re-read the Gospels you will find Christ saying “Take and eat” and you will find him commanding his apostles to perform this new Passover sacrifice. He does this by commanding them to “Do this in remembrance of Me”. As I have already shown Jesus used sacrificial language and this phrase has the double meaning of “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”.(this is something not only that Catholic scholars see but also several Protestant scholars like Darwell Stone, and JND Kelly, and the fathers of the Church also see this) Christ commanded his priests to offer him in this sacrifice. The Eucharist certainly is connected to Calvary because it is Calvary under a different form, namely bread and wine. Again I ask you re-read my opening statement where I took pains to shows this biblical connection of the Eucharist to the actual new Passover sacrifice of Calvary. For example:

St John makes astonishing comments about Jesus in his Gospel to show how Jesus fulfills the role of Lamb . For example when John calls our Lord Jesus the “Lamb of God” who will take away the sins of the world.(John 1:29) he makes direct connection to the Passover covenant,. John also calls Jesus the Lamb over 28 times in the book of Revelation. St Peter calls Jesus “Lamb”(1 Peter 1:19) in his epistles. St Paul also relates to Jesus as the new Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8), which has been sacrificed and then commands us to keep the feast of unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Jesus is the bread of life and truth and he presents himself to us in the Eucharist under the appearance of unleavened bread. St John and the other apostles show us that beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament Passover Lamb………. Now in the Old Testament there were two parts to a sacrifice. 1) the killing 2) The communing or sharing personally in that sacrifice. The Passover Lamb was to be sacrificed. But just because the Lamb was sacrificed did not mean that the Israelites were then automatically saved from the Angel of Death. The sacrifice itself and the flesh and blood of the sacrifice had to be personally applied to the people in order for them to be saved from death. The blood was applied to them personally by putting it on their doorpost and the flesh was applied personally to them by them eating the actual flesh of the Lamb(Ex 12:8). When the Israelites faithfully believed Gods word and sacrificed the Lamb and communed with it by eating its real flesh and applying its real blood to their doors the Angel of the death would Passover their houses and they would be saved. The same is true for the New Passover. Just because Jesus was sacrificed on the Cross-does not mean that we are just automatically saved. We must have a living faith in Christ and his word and we must seal the new covenant pact and commune with the new lamb just as the Israelites did with the old. We must share in his real body and blood by eating it in this New Passover meal. This is why Jesus himself gave his church the Eucharist as a New Passover (Luke 22:15). In this new Passover, as new Lamb of God he gives us his real blood and body to eat miraculously under the form of bread and wine( Luke 22:19-20) . So the Christian now could commune with his sacrifice on Calvary personally. Remember that one could not just eat a symbol of the lamb in the Old Testament, if one did that they would die and the Angel of Death would not pass them over. One had to eat the real flesh of the real Lamb. Jesus knows this and that is why he gave us his real flesh and blood, not a symbol, but the real thing. But God gives it to the Church in a miraculous way so as not to frighten individuals. He gives his real body and blood to eat under the appearances of bread and wine.This is also why in the context of the Passover (Jn 6:4) Jesus, the new Lamb of God, tells us me must have a living faith in him (Jn 6:35) to be saved but we must also eat his real flesh and drink his real blood to have eternal life(Jn 6:51-59). For the bread Jesus will give would be his real flesh for the life of the world (Jn 6:51). Jesus then shows us that He truly fulfills the Passover sacrifice with his own . The fact that the Passover was the sacrifice and Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist as the new Passover with him as the new Lamb is enough to show that the Eucharist or the Mass is a sacrifice that Christians partake in namely the new covenant Passover sacrifice.

What you have established here, as far as I can see, is the mandate from Christ and agreement between scholars and apostles regarding the Sacramental Sacrifice of the Lord's Supper. At least in the way you seem to be explaining it, I do not have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is how you say the "Mass" is commanded. I fail to see how in any of this Christ is commanding the Mass..? Maybe this is another problem in terminology?

Again, I completelly agree with all you said above EXCEPT the part about the Mass being commanded. I agree that the Mass has the potential to be a eucharistic Sacrifice. But I disagree that it was commanded by Christ..

Perhaps I was unclear and I apologize my brother instead of saying “this time” I should have said “but in this way in a unbloody form”.

That's still not quite right. IF one believes it is litterally a connection to Calvary, then in a way it still IS a "bloody" Sacrifice. While we do not see the bloody Sacrifice, one would still be connected to that Sacrifice spiritually. As previously stated, I'm not quite sure of my personal views after this debate on this aspect of the matter, however I can understand this point of view and go along with it.

The Lords supper is directly connected to the Cross as Christ himself tells us In the Gospels when he says “This is my body” and “this is my blood of the covenant which will be given up for you” .
St Paul also proclaims this very bluntly in 1 Cor 11:26. Christ does give his church the sacrifice of the Mass to propitiate sins. Why? Because Christ bloody sacrifice propitiates the sins of mankind and his Eucharist is a real participation and application of and in that one sacrifice! The Mass then is the saving power of Christ sacrificial Cross applied in this day. He clearly shows this when he declares that “this cup is the blood of the covenant which will be shed for many unto the remission of sins.” Christ gives us a way to share in the actual sacrifice of Calvary and apply its saving graces in the Eucharist which is far more than a mere memorial. Your right when you say all sin has been paid in full by Jesus and the Cross. Amen! Catholics agree! However that full payment now is applied by offering and receiving the Eucharistic sacrifice as Jesus himself commands.

Agreed, but to the extent that it is not NECESSARY or REQUIRED to recieve the Lord's Supper. While the Sacrament may be a participation in Christ's body and blood, it does not mean that it is required for Salvation. You must also remember that the body of Christ is also the Church of God. That's another meaning that a "participation" in the body of Christ could take.

Remember it wasn’t just enough for the Israelite to slaughter the Lamb. The blood and flesh had to be applied personally to them. Israel then shared in a liturgical meal that ate the actual flesh of the actual Lamb (Ex 12:8) the actual sacrifice, to covenant with God and be delivered from the Angel of death. Christ is our new Lamb(JN 1:29). The Eucharist is our new Passover as Jesus calls it (Lk 22:15) We do need to continue to grow in holiness and receive Christ forgiveness when we sin. We must repent and come to him. He gives us the sacraments as channels of his grace and forgiveness.

Agreed, but again to the extent that they're physical assurances and presentations. Chirst's sacrifice was a once for all deal. While the Isrealites had to go back time after time to slaughter a Lamb, we do so no more. Christ died once for all. We no longer have to Sacrifice Him. When we participate in the Sacrament, it is as Children already redeemed to further strengthen our faith. For example, if one does not believe in Christ, can they recieve propitiation for sin through the Sacrament? Certainly not! In the same way, the Sacrament does NOT propitiate sin, rather it is a physical assurance and connection to the fact that our sin has already been attoned for. Just as in our baptisms we have been killed, burried, and risen with Christ, so too the Sacrament is a physical rememberance of this fact.

Every sacrament is the application of the merits of Christ cross applied to us today when we celebrate them with a repentant heart. This is not doing works of law as the some may think. Christ fulfilled the law. He is the new Moses and new lawgiver(Gal 6:2) and his law is the law of love(Gal 5:6) not ritual mosaic law that could not save the people. The fulfillment of the law of love is Christ Jesus ultimate sacrifice for us, the cross. Now out of love he gives cross to us and its propitiatory graces under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharistic sacrifice. I am amazed that Lutherans could seriously say that performing a sacrament means salvation by works. I say this because I know some fundamentalist Christians who accuse Lutherans of the same thing when they perform the sacrament of baptism. Lutherans like Catholics believe that God saves the individual by the regenerational free gift of grace given in baptism(Titus 3:5-7, 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Cor 6:11). Baptism is a sacrament that applies the work of Christ saving cross to the individual personally. Baptism is a participation in the graces of the Cross. Baptism is the cross applied. We both can agree on that. We both also understand that Christ commanded his church to go out and “perform” baptisms (Matt 28:19-20) for the forgiveness of sins(Act 22:16). Now you wouldn’t say just because the Lutheran minister obeys Jesus and “performs” a baptism to give the free gift of salvation and wash away sins to a infant means that minister or the Lutheran church is trying to work their way to heaven would you? Some Protestants would say you are!We both know you are not. Then why would you assume that Catholics do the same when the Catholic priest obeys Christ and applies the graces and forgiveness of the Cross to his congregation by offering the Eucharistic sacrifice as Jesus himself commanded? Jesus gave the Eucharist to us just like baptism. Jesus shows us it’s a real present day application of the Cross to us just like baptism and cleanses us of sin. Jesus shows us that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sharing in the Cross(1 Cor 10:16), it makes the once and for all sacrifice of the cross present to us just like Baptism does(Rom 6:3-5). So I do not understand your objections from a biblical point of view.

But the thing here is this: WE DO NOT "PERFORM" ANYTHING! GOD is the one who does ALL of the work in the Sacraments. (And I'll remind you that there are only two. ) We cannot perform anything to merrit ourselves further Salvation. We were justified once and for all 2,000 years ago on Calvary, and this justification was brought to fruition in our lives when the Holy Spirit called us by the Gospel, beginning the work of Sanctification at the time he gave us Faith.

Again you are right! Catholics teach there is no new Sacrifice for sins! You are right! The mass is not a new or another sacrifice, it is one in the same as the sacrifice of Calvary with one exception, its “form” which is unbloody (bread and wine). Christ choose this “form” to offer himself in because he had to fulfill the priesthood of Melchizdedek(Heb 6:20) who offered the Eucharistic sacrifice of bread and wine(Gen 14:18-20). We are connected supernaturally to the Cross of Calvary by the Eucharist! Amen!

Fair enough.

I go to Mass to worship God, hear his word, remember, his covenant. Celebrate his sacrifice and allow him to make me more like himself. In going I also receive the blessing in the cross he promises us in the Eucharist and I thank him for it because I need it. I know of no Catholic who goes to Mass to solely grant themselves a reprieve from sins. We go to worship God and pray and offer ourselves to Christ. However Christ Cross does do that(forgive sins) and it is made present in the Mass. I also go to the sacrament of reconciliation when I want reprieve for sins. Why? Because Jesus gave us a sharing in his cross and established that sacrament for that purpose also in dealing with mortal sins.

But that's just it. You don't in any way need the Sacrament as an assurance of your sins forgiven. When Christ said "It is Finished," it WAS finished. Your sins have been paid in full. You are at peace with God. While the Sacrament gives us the assurance and physical connection to our sins forgiven, we do not NEED these means to BE forgiven.

Yes! The Mass is not a new sacrifice! I share that in my opening statement. Please re-read my entire opening statement carefully. It is in connection to the original sacrifice of Calvary. We would use stronger words. We would say it is Calvary being celebrated only under different appearances. Amen!

Fair enough at face value.

We also go to Mass and receive the Lord as he commands and to grow in holiness and closer to him as the Eucharist makes us. I am not sure if you would call that more justified? Perhaps! How about more sanctified! Justification biblically is a process as is sanctification.

Yes!

The Mass must be performed because Jesus commanded it(1 Cor 11:25) and the Mass/Eucharist does remit sins because Christ showed us it does in the gospels(Matt26:28).

That is an endorsment of the Sacrament, not of the Mass. There is a distinction here, that of which you are blurring.

I understand! Sorry if I offended you! I was just trying to complement you. But I never put it past the work of the Holy Spirit to open one up to the fullness of truth.

LOL None taken! Yes, nor do I. I'll have you know, many Lutherans are converted Catholics. I myself was baptized Roman Catholic..

Breadalone for a 16 year old you are great at religious dialogue! And you sound like a great brother in Christ to talk to. Amen! I have Lutheran Seminarian friends and they are great too. I must say you easily beat them in your understanding of things biblically! It is truly a pleasure to debate someone like you! I await your thoughtful response. God bless you BreadAlone!

Hehe, why thank you. To tell you the truth, when I went to the WELS Seminary, I found a lot of what they were being taught almost dull and simplistic..

So yeah..

In Christ alone,

BreadAlone

 

[Hentenza]

Round 3 has been concluded. Great job guys!!!!!!!

 

[Athanasias]

What you have established here, as far as I can see, is the mandate from Christ and agreement between scholars and apostles regarding the Sacramental Sacrifice of the Lord's Supper. At least in the way you seem to be explaining it, I do not have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is how you say the "Mass" is commanded. I fail to see how in any of this Christ is commanding the Mass..? Maybe this is another problem in terminology?

Hi Bread alone, thanks for your very thoughtful answers. God bless you and me as we near the end of this debate (1 more round to go). Well this debate is going well so far. I am amazed at how much the Catholic and Protestant actually do agree on this subject. Although a debate, this is also very ecumenical and I think the Holy Spirit is already working in this discussion. Like any ecumenical discussion I have discovered that yet a part of our disagreement and understanding with each other does revolve around some terminology on this issue. Let me see If I can explain this in a more proper manner. Catholics use the term “Mass” to primarily refer to the Eucharistic sacrifice. So when we say Mass what we mean is the celebration of the Eucharist. Now the Mass can also be used by Catholics to mean the whole worship service but in this context when I say Christ commanded the offering of the Mass what I am saying is the Christ commanded his priest to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. This is something that I find very biblical considering Christ himself commanded his apostles to “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” or to “Do this” in memory of me(Luke 22:19). So this is how we see the Mass/Eucharistic sacrifice is commanded by our Lord. I hope that helps!

That's still not quite right. IF one believes it is litterally a connection to Calvary, then in a way it still IS a "bloody" Sacrifice. While we do not see the bloody Sacrifice, one would still be connected to that Sacrifice spiritually. As previously stated, I'm not quite sure of my personal views after this debate on this aspect of the matter, however I can understand this point of view and go along with it.

When we say the Mass is the unbloody presentation or Form of Cavalry we mean that Jesus bleeds, suffers, and dies no more. His sacrifice now is presented under the appearances of bread and wine because Christ is a priest after Melchizedeks order. Suffering, dying etc.. Those things were part of his bloody form of Calvary that happened once and for all. Jesus is NOT Re-sacrificed in the Catholic view. Rather because Jesus is God and God is not limited by time or space and because the crucifixion and resurrection are not things of the past to God but are the eternal now, Christ simply gives humans a way to take part in that once and for all Sacrifice(The eternal now) in time and space. Christ gives us his same sacrifice only under a different form. He does this so the graces and propitiation of the Cross-can be applied to us today. He does this so as to perpetuate his Cross and it power throughout the ages. In the Eucharist he is the one pure sacrifice that is offered by the gentiles that prophet Malachi spoke of(Mal 1:7-11) and the fathers of the Church unanimously agreed. I hope that helps.

Agreed, but to the extent that it is not NECESSARY or REQUIRED to recieve the Lord's Supper. While the Sacrament may be a participation in Christ's body and blood, it does not mean that it is required for Salvation. You must also remember that the body of Christ is also the Church of God. That's another meaning that a "participation" in the body of Christ could take.

I would politely disagree with you on this one. Because Jesus truly is the New Lamb of God (Jn 1:29) and because in the old covenant you had to actually eat the flesh of the real sacrifice(Ex 12:8) in order for you to covenant with God and for the angel for death to pass over your house, then I would argue that it is truly necessary to partake of the New Passover Lamb and eat his flesh so the sting of eternal death can pass over our houses too. As a matter of fact Jesus himself tells us that the Eucharist is necessary for Eternal life. In the context of the Passover( Jn 1:4) Jesus(the new Lamb) tells his followers that they Must eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Eucharist to have eternal life( Jn 6:53-58). Also if the Eucharist was not required for salvation then it would have been pointless for Jesus to take time out and give us his real Body and real Blood for no reason. Jesus gives us his real body and real blood under the appearances of bread and wine to give us a real participation in the Cross, death, and resurrection( 1 Cor 10:16) and when we eat it we proclaim his death(1 Cor 11:26) because we have just taken part in it in a real way.

Agreed, but again to the extent that they're physical assurances and presentations. Chirst's sacrifice was a once for all deal. While the Isrealites had to go back time after time to slaughter a Lamb, we do so no more. Christ died once for all. We no longer have to Sacrifice Him. When we participate in the Sacrament, it is as Children already redeemed to further strengthen our faith. For example, if one does not believe in Christ, can they recieve propitiation for sin through the Sacrament? Certainly not! In the same way, the Sacrament does NOT propitiate sin, rather it is a physical assurance and connection to the fact that our sin has already been attoned for. Just as in our baptisms we have been killed, burried, and risen with Christ, so too the Sacrament is a physical rememberance of this fact.

As I have said earlier and I am sorry if I repeat myself but I must keep saying that we Catholics agree that Christ bloody sacrifice was once and for all. We do not go sacrificing him again and again. The mass is not a new bloody sacrifice but rather it is a real participation in that one sacrifice but in a unbloody way. If a Catholic falls in Mortal sin and is not repentant then the graces of Calvary/the mass do him no good. You are correct in saying that one must appropriate the sacrifice of the mass/Calvary to oneself personally for it to propitiate their sins. The writer to the book of Hebrews deals with this question directly (Heb 10:26-31).

But the thing here is this: WE DO NOT "PERFORM" ANYTHING! GOD is the one who does ALL of the work in the Sacraments. (And I'll remind you that there are only two. ) We cannot perform anything to merrit ourselves further Salvation. We were justified once and for all 2,000 years ago on Calvary, and this justification was brought to fruition in our lives when the Holy Spirit called us by the Gospel, beginning the work of Sanctification at the time he gave us Faith.

Again we must biblically disagree strongly here. It is true that God is the one who saves us in the sacraments. It’s by his grace in those sacraments that we are saved and united to his saving Cross. However, we cannot deny that Jesus himself gives us the gifts of the sacraments and then commands us to “Do” them in his name for the salvation of souls. As I mentioned earlier this is not the works of the Mosiac law because Christ fulfilled the law in his Cross. This is simply obedience to the commands of Christ to “do this or offer this in his memory”. It is silly for you to think that We Catholics are trying to work our way to heaven when Lutherans simply do the same thing in regards to baptism. Come on now think about this. Christ gives us both Baptism and the Eucharist as a real participation in the cross (Rom 6:3-5, 1 Cor 10:16 ) and he commands us to perform Baptisms(Matt 28:19-20) and the Eucharist(Luke 22:19) for the forgiveness of sins(Acts 22:16, Matt 26:28) and the salvation of souls(Titus 3:5-7. Jn 6:53-58). Now honestly how can you say that we do not perform anything when Christ himself commands his disciples to go out and perform both of these sacraments biblically? I am afraid your view on this does not make any sense to me. Of coarse it is Christ and his grace in these sacraments that save us and not ourselves. The sacrament is no mere ritual like magic that one performs correctly and then viola. No The sacraments are the Power of Christ saving cross and are rooted in Christ work on the cross that by his will become applied to us today when we obey his command to “offer this as his memorial sacrifice” .

But that's just it. You don't in any way need the Sacrament as an assurance of your sins forgiven. When Christ said "It is Finished," it WAS finished. Your sins have been paid in full. You are at peace with God. While the Sacrament gives us the assurance and physical connection to our sins forgiven, we do not NEED these means to BE forgiven.

What did Christ mean when said it is finished? Did he mean redemption was accomplished? Scholar’s protestant and Catholic alike disagree within themselves about this. How could he mean redemption had just been accomplished in time and space when he hasn’t descended to hell and risen and ascended to the Father yet? Many bible scholars suggest he could have been speaking about the fourth cup of the Passover sacrifice traditional held by the Jews which had just been finished since he was the new lamb, his sacrifice was the new Passover. Hence the passover sacrifice of Calvary actually began in the upper room and finished in the bloody way on the cross. One could also hold that he was merely speaking about the bloody aspect of his sacrifice being finished.

LOL None taken! Yes, nor do I. I'll have you know, many Lutherans are converted Catholics. I myself was baptized Roman Catholic..

I have a Lutheran friend whose Church is made up of 70% ex-Catholics. What I have found that in talking to many of them is that they never were very strong nor had a good understanding of their Catholic faith to begin with. Their families may have never taught them the biblical and historical and even miraculous reasons why Catholics believe what they do. I am kind of coming from the opposite end. I am a revert. I was baptized Catholic then in my teen years(Ages 14-19) fell away and studied protestant theology and went to a several protestant churches. I stopped going to Mass and thought that the catholic church was run by old men who didn’t know anything and made up man mad(traditions of mere men) rules to run peoples lives. It was upon my deeper study of all things Catholic and upon reading many anti-Catholics books and comparing them to the Catholic apologetics books and the writings of the fathers of the church and scripture that after 4 1/2 years I came back to the Catholic faith and now have a strong desire to teach fallen away Catholics and Cradle Catholics alike so they at least know and understand the deepness of the Catholic faith from a biblical, historical, and miraculous angle.
So I am curious when did you convert and why? I would honestly like to sometime here your story and find out how much you understood or knew about the faith you were baptized in. really I would. I would help me to understand better.

He he, why thank you. To tell you the truth, when I went to the WELS Seminary, I found a lot of what they were being taught almost dull and simplistic..

Bread alone as always it been awesome talking to you. You have a thinking mind and a wonderful one at that. I hope my comments have not seemed to harsh. Sometimes it’s hard to debate strong but come of friendly. I hope I was not like that. I think the people reading this debate will be blessed from both sides of the angle. I know I have learned a lot about the Lutheran position. And I have so far enjoyed our dialogue. God bless you always my brother in Christ. I look forward to hearing from you soon.


In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais

 

[BreadAlone]

Hi Bread alone, thanks for your very thoughtful answers. God bless you and me as we near the end of this debate (1 more round to go). Well this debate is going well so far. I am amazed at how much the Catholic and Protestant actually do agree on this subject. Although a debate, this is also very ecumenical and I think the Holy Spirit is already working in this discussion. Like any ecumenical discussion I have discovered that yet a part of our disagreement and understanding with each other does revolve around some terminology on this issue. Let me see If I can explain this in a more proper manner. Catholics use the term “Mass” to primarily refer to the Eucharistic sacrifice. So when we say Mass what we mean is the celebration of the Eucharist. Now the Mass can also be used by Catholics to mean the whole worship service but in this context when I say Christ commanded the offering of the Mass what I am saying is the Christ commanded his priest to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. This is something that I find very biblical considering Christ himself commanded his apostles to “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” or to “Do this” in memory of me(Luke 22:19). So this is how we see the Mass/Eucharistic sacrifice is commanded by our Lord. I hope that helps!

Okay! NOW we're getting somewhere. So for the purposes of this debate, you are using the term "Mass" in reference to the Sacrament, NOT in reference to the whole Service. That is much more understandable, thank you for this clearification.

When we say the Mass is the unbloody presentation or Form of Cavalry we mean that Jesus bleeds, suffers, and dies no more. His sacrifice now is presented under the appearances of bread and wine because Christ is a priest after Melchizedeks order. Suffering, dying etc.. Those things were part of his bloody form of Calvary that happened once and for all. Jesus is NOT Re-sacrificed in the Catholic view. Rather because Jesus is God and God is not limited by time or space and because the crucifixion and resurrection are not things of the past to God but are the eternal now, Christ simply gives humans a way to take part in that once and for all Sacrifice(The eternal now) in time and space. Christ gives us his same sacrifice only under a different form. He does this so the graces and propitiation of the Cross-can be applied to us today. He does this so as to perpetuate his Cross and it power throughout the ages. In the Eucharist he is the one pure sacrifice that is offered by the gentiles that prophet Malachi spoke of(Mal 1:7-11) and the fathers of the Church unanimously agreed. I hope that helps.

This is more clear also. While I may be uncertain as far as my own Biblical understanding of the whole "beyond space and time" thing goes, this is much more understandable, and fits better with what I believe also.

I would politely disagree with you on this one. Because Jesus truly is the New Lamb of God (Jn 1:29) and because in the old covenant you had to actually eat the flesh of the real sacrifice(Ex 12:8) in order for you to covenant with God and for the angel for death to pass over your house, then I would argue that it is truly necessary to partake of the New Passover Lamb and eat his flesh so the sting of eternal death can pass over our houses too.

And of course, here is where the main separation between Catholicism and Protestantism lies. Certainly, our participation in a work cannot save us! Whether or not we choose to perform or have performed on us the Sacrament is not a factor which determines our Sanctification. As Christ told St. Paul, it is our faith which sanctifies us:

'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. (Acts 26:15b-18; Emphasis mine.)

And this fits in so perfectly with what we both believe! God grants all people the forgiveness of sins, and has justified all by the blood of His Lamb, Christ Jesus. What begins the work of Sanctification in our lives is the saving faith given to us by the Holy Spirit, for as the Word of God says, there is nothing we can do to choose Christ:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. (John 15:16)

Of course, because we are redeemed children of God and out of thanksgiving for this fact, we will continue to work out our Sanctification by doing what Christ commands! But not out of fear or necessity, out of love for Christ based on the fact that we have already been sanctified.

As a matter of fact Jesus himself tells us that the Eucharist is necessary for Eternal life. In the context of the Passover( Jn 1:4) Jesus(the new Lamb) tells his followers that they Must eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Eucharist to have eternal life( Jn 6:53-58). Also if the Eucharist was not required for salvation then it would have been pointless for Jesus to take time out and give us his real Body and real Blood for no reason. Jesus gives us his real body and real blood under the appearances of bread and wine to give us a real participation in the Cross, death, and resurrection( 1 Cor 10:16) and when we eat it we proclaim his death(1 Cor 11:26) because we have just taken part in it in a real way.

As I have just shown you, the Scriptures show us that we are not saved by any means but Christ Jesus. If the Sacrament is a physical yet supernatural connection to this life-saving fact, wouldn't you say that it is an awesome faith-strengthening tool given to us by the Lord, utilized by the Holy Spirit? That seems to be plenty of reason enough to me.

As I have said earlier and I am sorry if I repeat myself but I must keep saying that we Catholics agree that Christ bloody sacrifice was once and for all. We do not go sacrificing him again and again. The mass is not a new bloody sacrifice but rather it is a real participation in that one sacrifice but in a unbloody way. If a Catholic falls in Mortal sin and is not repentant then the graces of Calvary/the mass do him no good. You are correct in saying that one must appropriate the sacrifice of the mass/Calvary to oneself personally for it to propitiate their sins. The writer to the book of Hebrews deals with this question directly (Heb 10:26-31).

It would do Roman Catholicism much good, then, to say that Christ does not propitiate sin to the unrepentant. To say the "Eucharist" or "Mass" does or doesn't propitiate sin almost sounds heretical.

Again we must biblically disagree strongly here. It is true that God is the one who saves us in the sacraments. It’s by his grace in those sacraments that we are saved and united to his saving Cross. However, we cannot deny that Jesus himself gives us the gifts of the sacraments and then commands us to “Do” them in his name for the salvation of souls.

Right there I must strongly and BIBLICALLY disagree, yes.

When Christ commands the Sacraments, what does he say? "Take and eat/drink..do this in rememberance of me." "Baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.."

In both Sacraments, nowhere does Christ say "for the salvation of souls." The salvation of souls occurs when the Holy Spirit works saving faith in people's hearts.

As I mentioned earlier this is not the works of the Mosiac law because Christ fulfilled the law in his Cross. This is simply obedience to the commands of Christ to “do this or offer this in his memory”. It is silly for you to think that We Catholics are trying to work our way to heaven when Lutherans simply do the same thing in regards to baptism. Come on now think about this. Christ gives us both Baptism and the Eucharist as a real participation in the cross (Rom 6:3-5, 1 Cor 10:16 ) and he commands us to perform Baptisms(Matt 28:19-20) and the Eucharist(Luke 22:19) for the forgiveness of sins(Acts 22:16, Matt 26:28) and the salvation of souls(Titus 3:5-7. Jn 6:53-58). Now honestly how can you say that we do not perform anything when Christ himself commands his disciples to go out and perform both of these sacraments biblically? I am afraid your view on this does not make any sense to me. Of coarse it is Christ and his grace in these sacraments that save us and not ourselves. The sacrament is no mere ritual like magic that one performs correctly and then viola. No The sacraments are the Power of Christ saving cross and are rooted in Christ work on the cross that by his will become applied to us today when we obey his command to “offer this as his memorial sacrifice” .

I can most certainly say that we perform nothing. It's almost humorous, really, because one of your own Titus verse illustrates this WONDERFULLY:

He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Does Baptism save us? NO! The Holy Spirit working faith in our hearts through Baptism does! What does it say? We have been justified by GRACE.

The point is this: Christ does indeed command us to perform the Sacraments. However, as you yourself say, it is not are performance that saves us, but God and his Grace through Christ and the work of the Spirit that does.

What did Christ mean when said it is finished? Did he mean redemption was accomplished? Scholar’s protestant and Catholic alike disagree within themselves about this. How could he mean redemption had just been accomplished in time and space when he hasn’t descended to hell and risen and ascended to the Father yet? Many bible scholars suggest he could have been speaking about the fourth cup of the Passover sacrifice traditional held by the Jews which had just been finished since he was the new lamb, his sacrifice was the new Passover. Hence the passover sacrifice of Calvary actually began in the upper room and finished in the bloody way on the cross. One could also hold that he was merely speaking about the bloody aspect of his sacrifice being finished.

This is a bit "off-topic," but that's okay!!

Christ did not merely utter the three English words "It is Finished.."

He got a drink from the Roman Soldier (he had previously refused drink, mind you.) to strengthen his voice, and so there would be no mistake he "shouted:" "TETELESTAI"

In Greek, this means: "PAID IN FULL."

No room for interpretation there, as far as I'm concerned.

I have a Lutheran friend whose Church is made up of 70% ex-Catholics. What I have found that in talking to many of them is that they never were very strong nor had a good understanding of their Catholic faith to begin with. Their families may have never taught them the biblical and historical and even miraculous reasons why Catholics believe what they do. I am kind of coming from the opposite end. I am a revert. I was baptized Catholic then in my teen years(Ages 14-19) fell away and studied protestant theology and went to a several protestant churches. I stopped going to Mass and thought that the catholic church was run by old men who didn’t know anything and made up man mad(traditions of mere men) rules to run peoples lives. It was upon my deeper study of all things Catholic and upon reading many anti-Catholics books and comparing them to the Catholic apologetics books and the writings of the fathers of the church and scripture that after 4 1/2 years I came back to the Catholic faith and now have a strong desire to teach fallen away Catholics and Cradle Catholics alike so they at least know and understand the deepness of the Catholic faith from a biblical, historical, and miraculous angle.

I'm of the impression that one of the major turn-offs in Roman Catholicism is the wide and varying interpretations, as well as many of the past offenses of Roman Catholicism, especially in the Middle Ages.

So I am curious when did you convert and why? I would honestly like to sometime here your story and find out how much you understood or knew about the faith you were baptized in. really I would. I would help me to understand better.

Oh, my story wouldn't be very interesting! I was only 5 when I became a Lutheran! It was more of a parental decision. To tell you the truth, most of the Catholics I've ever known have had more of a Protestant view on things to begin with..

Bread alone as always it been awesome talking to you. You have a thinking mind and a wonderful one at that. I hope my comments have not seemed to harsh. Sometimes it’s hard to debate strong but come of friendly. I hope I was not like that. I think the people reading this debate will be blessed from both sides of the angle. I know I have learned a lot about the Lutheran position. And I have so far enjoyed our dialogue. God bless you always my brother in Christ. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

I hope such as well, and I have enjoyed our discussion also. I apologize for the long wait again..I'm not even replying from my own computer, as I'm on vacation staying with some friends right now. I won't be returning to Milwaukee until tomorrow!!

In the Lord,
BA

 

[Hentenza]

Round 4 is concluded. One more post each. Please draft your concluding posts.

 

[Athanasias]

My final statement may have to come in a a few post. It does NOT exceed 5000 words like I promised but it does go to 4,100 words and the computer will not let me post a single post on it.

So here is part one of my final Post on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass :

Well ladies and gentlemen and my worthy opponent Bread alone we have come to the end of this debate. It has been refreshing to get the facts about what both churches officially hold on this doctrine of the sacrifice of Mass. I have really enjoyed meeting bread alone and debating with him. I hope my explanations were clear and helped clear up the many misconceptions that Protestants have in regards to the Catholic view. I think we have both learned a lot from each other and I respect Bread alone for his honest display of Lutheran teaching.

So let me re-cap what we have learned in this debate so far and then I will respond to Breadalone.

To begin with we have learned that the Catholic Church does NOT teach or believe that the Mass is re-sacrificing Christ or Killing Christ again. We teach that Christ bled, suffered, and died once and for all. We also see that the Mass is another term for the Eucharist or the Lords supper used by Catholics. We see that the Mass is a actual participation in Calvary and is really Calvary re-presented itself on the Christian altars only under a different form(Bread and wine) as St Paul and showed us in 1 Cor 10. We saw that the form Christ choose to use to apply the graces and propitiation of his cross was bread an wine because Jesus was a priest after Melchisedeks order as the book of Hebrews shows us. We have clearly seen that the Mass/Lords supper is a real sacrifice and not just a memorial meal. We see this by looking at the very words of Jesus himself when he said “Do this in memory of me” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. Jesus used sacrificial language to describe his Passover. We also saw that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of the new Passover lamb. One had to actually eat or commune with the real flesh of the actual sacrifice (Lamb) to have the angel of death Passover your house. We saw that Jesus himself being the new Lamb(Jn 1:29) told us me must do the same in the Eucharist to have eternal life(JN 6:53-58). Hence the Eucharist part of our salvation and sanctification because the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Calvary, its graces and propitiation made present to us today by Christ himself through his Body the Church.

We saw that the Sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory because it is a participation in the Sacrifice of Calvary and Calvary’s sacrifice was propitiatory. Jesus shows us the propitiatory nature of the Eucharist and its connection to the Calvary when he says “this is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

We saw that the Sacrifice of the Mass was formally predicted by the Prophet Malachi(Mal 1:7-11). And we most strongly saw that All the early Christians held to the mass being a real sacrifice and propitiation and not just a simple meal.

To view all the biblical and historical reasons for this teaching please everyone go back and re-read my opening statement which gives a ton of scripture and quotes from the early Church.

Essentially I feel I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the mass is a real propitiatory sacrifice. Indeed it is Calvary and its graces presented to us today by Christ through his body the Church. For anyone who wished to learn more about the Catholic understanding of this I would suggest a few books.

1) “The Catechism of the Catholic church”. Our official teaching
2) “Not by bread alone” by Catholic scholar Dr. Robert Sungesis.(Sungesis is a former Presbyterian ministers who converted to the Catholic faith).
3) “Catholic for a reason Volume III Scripture and the mystery of the Mass” by Dr. Scott Hahn and his Students.
4) The faith of the early Fathers 3 volume set by William Jurgens.(Writings from the early Church)

Protestant sources showing the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice from scripture and the early church fathers:

1)“The Eucharistic Sacrifice” by protestant scholar Darwell Stone
2)“Early Christian doctrines” by Protestant historian JND Kelly.

I would add that the best book in print from a Catholic scholar on all things Catholic (Purgatory, Mary, Mass, Saints, Sacraments etc) is Called:’
“Catholic and Christian a explanation of commonly misunderstood Catholic beliefs” by Dr. Alan Schreck of Franciscan University.

God bless you all on your study! Please re-read the entire debate if you have any questions and please feel free to write to me. God bless you!

Now to answer my opponents questions.

And of course, here is where the main separation between Catholicism and Protestantism lies. Certainly, our participation in a work cannot save us! Whether or not we choose to perform or have performed on us the Sacrament is not a factor which determines our Sanctification. As Christ told St. Paul, it is our faith which sanctifies us:

'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. (Acts 26:15b-18; Emphasis mine.)

Clearly God chooses to give us salvation by his free gift of grace through faith and the sacraments as scripture shows. Now God establishes the sacraments as the “normative means” of salvation and sanctification for us. This does not mean that God cannot work outside of the sacraments to justify and sanctify a person. He does. Scripture doesn’t deny that. This also does not deny that we must also have a living faith in Christ to be saved. Salvation and sanctification are a process biblically. There are many things that sanctifiy us. For instance scripture shows us our faith sanctifies us. And that’s true but scripture also shows us that the sacrament of baptism sanctifies us too.

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”(1 Cor 6:11)

It isn’t a either or situation. Either faith or baptism. It’s a both and situation . Its both faith and baptism that sanctify and justify one as St. Paul shows. No doubt that it is the Holy Spirit who works through the waters of baptism to save you but the fact is it is through the waters of the sacrament of baptism that the Holy Spirit applies the grace of sanctification and initial justification to individuals. I no of no Lutheran who denies this. That is why they baptize infants as many Lutheran seminary students told me. So again the protestant is in a pickle here. Jesus Commanded us to baptize (Matt 28:19-20). Baptism is one of the normative means Christ gives his church for salvation. Baptism gives initial salvation and sanctification (1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5-7, 1 Peter 3:21). The Lutheran minister obeys Christ’s and administers baptism even to infants for their salvation. Is Baptism a work of the Mosaic Law then as Paul condemns in Romans and Galatians? If so then the Lutheran minister is in trouble as he performs baptisms for the salvation of souls(infants) obeying Christ command.

Baptism is the fulfillment of the mosaic ritual law of Circumsiscion(Col 2:11-13). Baptism is NOT a work of the mosaic law. It is the new covenant that replaces the old under Christ new law(Gal; 6:2) the law of love(Gal 5:6). This law of love includes Christ free gift us grace which is poured out upon us at baptism (Titus 3:5-7 Rom 6:23) not as a work of the law that binds us or by some great things that we do or boast about but rather as a gift that is given to us by Christ and commanded for our salvation. We simply obey Christ and perform the sacraments then out of humble obedience to him and his commands not out of a boasting set of works that we can do. It is Christ and his grace that do all the saving work of the sacrament to save us, we simply perform them out of obedience to Christ word.

Some fundamentalist Christians condemn Lutheran teachings on infant baptism and baptismal regeneration because they say that it is a work! But we know it is not! So why then can you not see that when the Catholic priest obeys Christ command and offers his Body and blood(Luke 22:19) on the altar that this is not a mosaic or boasting work? It is something Christ commanded. It is a free gift from Christ to us for our salvation and sanctification just as baptism is. Just like baptism the Eucharist applies the saving graces of Christ Cross to us.

And this fits in so perfectly with what we both believe! God grants all people the forgiveness of sins, and has justified all by the blood of His Lamb, Christ Jesus. What begins the work of Sanctification in our lives is the saving faith given to us by the Holy Spirit, for as the Word of God says, there is nothing we can do to choose Christ:

Here again is where we disagree. Perhaps we really need to debate justification from a biblical point of view because there is so much scripture illustrating the Catholic point of view on this. This gets into the mystery of predestination. God certainly does choose us but he does not muscle us over and make us obey him. There is also a sense in which we choose God. Our will is free. God calls us and gives us his grace which enables us to choose him or not but we must choose him (by the power of his grace) out of our own will in the end. Scripture is plain on this one:

“And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."(Josh 24:15).

Of course, because we are redeemed children of God and out of thanksgiving for this fact, we will continue to work out our Sanctification by doing what Christ commands! But not out of fear or necessity, out of love for Christ based on the fact that we have already been sanctified.

We do continue to work out our sanctification out of love and obedience to him, but we also continue to work out our salvation too out of fear and trembling.

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”(Phil 2:12-13)

We offer the mass out of love but we must also stay in a right relationship with God if we commit sin or else we too can be cut off (Rom 11:22, Heb 10:26-27). So we must obey as Paul says and work out our salvation with Gods grace, a living faith, and with the sacraments he gives us especially the Mass and confession. It is God that works in us to will and work for his pleasure and in obedience to him we offer his sacraments (the Eucharist) as a way of working out our own salvation by his grace because it is his Cross that propitiates our sins and the Mass is his Cross applied to us today in time and space.

 

[Athanasias]

This is Part II of my final reply to the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass

As I have just shown you, the Scriptures show us that we are not saved by any means but Christ Jesus. If the Sacrament is a physical yet supernatural connection to this life-saving fact, wouldn't you say that it is an awesome faith-strengthening tool given to us by the Lord, utilized by the Holy Spirit? That seems to be plenty of reason enough to me.

Yes I would say that too! But I would say its much more than just that. I would say that you’re wrongly divorcing the idea that the sacraments are Christ Jesus Cross applied to us today. They are the work of Christ they are not separate from it. It is Jesus who saves. And it is Jesus who is saving us through the sacraments. The Sacraments themselves are channels of his Grace that Christ himself uses to save us by applying the graces of his cross to us in them.

It would do Roman Catholicism much good, then, to say that Christ does not propitiate sin to the unrepentant. To say the "Eucharist" or "Mass" does or doesn't propitiate sin almost sounds heretical.

Why? If Christ Jesus propitiates our sins through his sacrifice on Calvary and the Mass is Calvary re-presented to us in a unbloody way then why is it wrong to say that? The Mass and Calvary are not separate. They are one in the same.

Right there I must strongly and BIBLICALLY disagree, yes.

When Christ commands the Sacraments, what does he say? "Take and eat/drink..do this in remembrance of me." "Baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.."

In both Sacraments, nowhere does Christ say "for the salvation of souls." The salvation of souls occurs when the Holy Spirit works saving faith in people's hearts.

Amen! Your right! Salvation does work when the Holy Spirit works faith in people hearts. But How does the Holy Spirit work faith in people’s hearts? By the sacraments! Salvation is a continuing process not just a one time event and the bible teaches so much more about salvation then you seem to see. Yes he says “do this in remembrance of me”! What does that mean? It means “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” as I have shown in Greek in my first post on this debate. What kind of sacrifice is it Jesus commands his middle ministerial priest to offer? A Eucharistic new Passover sacrifice (Lk 22:15). What did the old Passover sacrifice celebrate? The Lord saving Israel from the angel of death. What does the new Passover sacrifice then celebrate? The Lord saving his people from eternal death by this one holy pure offering(Mal 1:7-11). It is Calvary applied to us today as Paul shows(1 Cor 10:16-22). So yes the Mass is for the salvation of souls. Jesus himself teaches that the Eucharist is given for salvation( Jn 6:53-58). The bible also teaches us that Baptism is given for salvation(1 Pet 3:21, Titus 3:5-7 1 Cor 6:11). I cannot see how you can’t plainly see the scriptural evidence for this.

I can most certainly say that we perform nothing. It's almost humorous, really, because one of your own Titus verse illustrates this WONDERFULLY:

He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Actually this verse proves the Catholic point very well. What is Paul describing here? Look at the context. Paul is describing initial salvation through baptism. Coming to Christ is a free gift not a work we do or boast about. Baptism is not a work we can boast in or say look what I did to save myself. Baptism as I have already shown is not a work of the mosaic law. Baptism is the free gift(Rom 6) that Jesus gives us for salvation(1 Peter 3:21, Jn 3:3-5) and commands us to perform(Matt 28:19-20) as a the normative means for salvation(Titus 3:5-7). Baptism give us initial salvation as the scripture plainly shows. If you feel that baptism is work then you are in a pickle here because your own ministers baptize infants for salvation. Now what work could a infant possibly do to save himself? None! Baptism is the free gift and infant baptism shows this plainly. I remember several Lutheran seminary students who would agree with me on this.

Does Baptism save us? NO! The Holy Spirit working faith in our hearts through Baptism does! What does it say? We have been justified by GRACE.

Amen! We would agree 100% but listen to scripture:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,”(1 Peter 3:21)

It’s ok to say baptism saves you. Our first Pope Peter said it. Of course we believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who saves you in baptism but we still must maintain that the sacraments (of baptism in this case) is how the Holy Spirit saves you initially.

The point is this: Christ does indeed command us to perform the Sacraments. However, as you yourself say, it is not are performance that saves us, but God and his Grace through Christ and the work of the Spirit that does.

Yes. We agree with you. It is God that saves us. We just do not divorce Gods work of grace and the work that is preformed in the sacraments. The Eucharist is Calvary(Christ work) presented to us. God clearly biblically saves us by his work and grace on the cross but he does it through the sacraments and through his Church which he commanded to perform them.

This is a bit "off-topic," but that's okay!!

Christ did not merely utter the three English words "It is Finished.."

He got a drink from the Roman Soldier (he had previously refused drink, mind you.) to strengthen his voice, and so there would be no mistake he "shouted:" "TETELESTAI"

In Greek, this means: "PAID IN FULL."

No room for interpretation there, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes. I have no problem with what you said. It can also be literally translated as “it is completed”. What is the it that is completed? Protestant scholars themselves disagree as do Catholic scholars. Some argue the act of redemption itself. Some argue it cannot be redemption because Christ has not resurrected and ascended and to the Father yet. Either way this is not a problem. The bloody work on the cross is completed. There are other bible scholars who have shown that Christ in other areas use the same Greek word (teleioo) in other scriptures such as in JN 17:4 in a past tense and is translated “completed” too. Thus showing that Jesus was using this word in a relative sense because Christ had not gone to the cross yet in JN 17. This is a argument that Scholars have long disagreed on and still debate.

I'm of the impression that one of the major turn-offs in Roman Catholicism is the wide and varying interpretations, as well as many of the past offenses of Roman Catholicism, especially in the Middle Ages.

I am not sure what you mean by wide variety of interpretations. There is only one Catechism. If a Catholic teaches against the teachings in the Catechism or the ecumenical councils he is out of line with his churches teaching. The church allows some freedom of interpretation as long as it does not contradict the official teachings of the Church. So I do not know what you mean. We have liberal scholars who are out of line with the churches teaching but that doesn’t make them good Catholics or even devout Catholics and that doesn’t mean they teach real Catholic theology. All denominations have those. As to the abuses issue. I can understand what you mean. But also remember Judas and Peter(who denied Christ 3 times). If you were a early convert would you want to stay in a church who saw its own leaders deny their God and betray them? All people are sinful and fall. There have been many many wonderful Catholic Popes and saints throughout the 2000 year history of the church too even in the middle ages. We do not say we are impeccable. We do say that Christ teachings through his church are infallible regardless of the personal character of “some” of its leaders. Jesus illustrated this point several times in the New Testament. Even though Peter would deny Jesus the Lord gave him the protection against the Devil (LK 22:31-32) and ability to lead the church. Catholics (and early Christians) see this as a divine office of leadership parrellel to the Davidic prime minister(Isaiah 22:20-24 Matt 16:13-19). Remember Peter the sinner also wrote 2 infallible epistles by Christ power. It is the Power of Christ that protects the teaching of the church (so it would not fail Matt 16:13-19) not the individual. It is Christ who promises his Church would not fail and it is Christ who speaks through his Church(Lk 10:16) It is the power of God through the third person of the Holy Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, that Christ gives us to guide the Church into all doctrinal truth (Jn 16:13-14). This is why we can call the Christ Church the pillar and foundation of all truth(1 Tim 3:15). Christ is the Truth and he sets up sacred offices in the Church and teaches his truth through them even through sinful human beings like Peter. Think of it this way. The Presidency is a good office in the USA. Now just because there have been corrupt presidents that did bad things does not mean that the office is bad. The same can be said for the papacy on a bigger level because the office of papacy is a divine institution that Jesus himself gave the church and speaks through it on matters of faith and moral (But not necessarily practice as we have had sinners in the office). Infallibility not impeccability.

Oh, my story wouldn't be very interesting! I was only 5 when I became a Lutheran! It was more of a parental decision. To tell you the truth, most of the Catholics I've ever known have had more of a Protestant view on things to begin with..

Bread alone there is no way you could possibly begin to even know what you left at the age of five. I understand you had to because of your parents. But you owe it to yourself to at least look into the Catholic claims. I did when I was 14-19 years old and I was surprised by Catholic truth on a biblical, historical,, and even miraculous level. I would again suggest a few good books.

If you read nothing else check out “Catholic and Christian” By Dr,. Alan Schreck. Even if you may not end up agreeing with us you will at least see what the Catholic church teaches.

“Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carrol Cruz

“Not by faith Alone” by Dr, Robert Sungenis
“Not by scripture alone” by Dr. Robert Sungenis
You owe it to yourself to read both sides of the story and the Fathers of the church. That is what I would suggest. I would read both Lutheran apologetics books and the Catholic ones I mentioned to get a deeper understanding.

At least if you read these and the other I mentioned up top you will get a solid understanding about what the Catholic church teaches
and you will at least know what you left even if you don’t agree with the Catholic church.

I hope such as well, and I have enjoyed our discussion also. I apologize for the long wait again..I'm not even replying from my own computer, as I'm on vacation staying with some friends right now. I won't be returning to Milwaukee until tomorrow!!

In the Lord,
BA

I really enjoyed debating this but even more so really enjoyed listening to you and learning more about the Lutheran position on this subject. You are a worthy opponent and a devout Christian brother. I hope we can be good friends for a long time. Maybe we can debate the biblical and historical reasons for the Immaculate conception of Mary sometime or Justification. Any way Bread alone I wish you well and I ask God to now bless you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit Amen! Peace be with you always.

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias