If someone stole the Eucharist

[InnerPhyre]

Let's say some Satanists break into a church and steal the Eucharist....

[gitlance]

Somebody said that the blessed Host would cease to be the Body of Christ. How is that possible? The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.

[TomUK]

If someone stole the eucharist... then we must earnestly pray for them. Beyond that i couldn't comment on the reality of what would be occuring. Ultimately there would be a desecration of God- does the specific theology really matter?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Somebody said that the blessed Host would cease to be the Body of Christ. How is that possible? The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.

That was a slip of the finger. Sorry. :o

[gitlance]

That was a slip of the finger. Sorry. :o

Completely forgiven, my friend. I knew somebody couldn't honestly select that choice. ;)

[Fish and Bread]

The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.

I agree! :) It's nice to be in agreement with you. :)

John

[gitlance]

I agree! :) It's nice to be in agreement with you. :)

John

John, to be completely honest, I think a lot of our disagreements are ones of misunderstanding. If we could sit down in person, and really work through these issues, I think we would find that there aren't near as many differences as there appears. After all, part of the nature of Episcopalianism is trust in the tradition of ages past. Why would we be Episcopalians if we didn't trust tradition and our bishops?

Perhaps one day we can have that conversation -- but there's gotta be coffee, some organ cantatas, and a good fireplace. :D

[masuwerte]

Somebody said that the blessed Host would cease to be the Body of Christ. How is that possible? The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.

The sacrament must be faithfully received, right? "The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith," as it says in the catechism. So if some witch doctor or something thought he would gain power by stealing the consecrated elements, he would be mistaken. IMHO.

[masuwerte]

Perhaps one day we can have that conversation -- but there's gotta be coffee, some organ cantatas, and a good fireplace. :D
Or you guys can come over for beer and pizza sometime. :)

[Fish and Bread]

John, to be completely honest, I think a lot of our disagreements are ones of misunderstanding. If we could sit down in person, and really work through these issues, I think we would find that there aren't near as many differences as there appears. After all, part of the nature of Episcopalianism is trust in the tradition of ages past. Why would we be Episcopalians if we didn't trust tradition and our bishops?

Perhaps one day we can have that conversation -- but there's gotta be coffee, some organ cantatas, and a good fireplace. :D

Sounds good to me! :)

John

[masuwerte]

Ultimately there would be a desecration of God- does the specific theology really matter?

Good point, Tom.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Somebody said that the blessed Host would cease to be the Body of Christ. How is that possible? The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Peaceful Dove]

Good posts.
I think you understand the question.
It had to do with Satanists who break into Churches to steal CONSECRATED bread to use at a Black Mass.
Do the perpetrators know it is the Body of Jesus and are they committing blasphemy.
That should have neen the question.
Does the Satanists know what the Eucharist is all about?

[Fish and Bread]

It had to do with Satanists who break into Churches to steal CONSECRATED bread to use at a Black Mass.
Do the perpetrators know it is the Body of Jesus and are they committing blasphemy.

I think that's why they do it. If they didn't understand the Eucharist, they'd probably just buy some unleavened bread at the store, or bake some, instead of going to all the trouble of stealing hosts.

John

[karen freeinchristman]

I think that's why they do it. If they didn't understand the Eucharist, they'd probably just buy some unleavened bread at the store, or bake some, instead of going to all the trouble of stealing hosts.

John
So, am I getting this right? Does this kind of thing actually happen in any acknowledged way? What do the Satanists do with the host? It doesn't make sense to me that if they knew what it really was, or understood the Eucharist, and believed what it was, why they would then turn and do something horrible with it. Is this thread question based on stuff that really happens?
I would have thought that they didn't really believe about what happens to the bread and the wine during consecration, and so they only would steal it to bug us Christians who they hate.

[Fish and Bread]

So, am I getting this right? Does this kind of thing actually happen in any acknowledged way? What do the Satanists do with the host? It doesn't make sense to me that if they knew what it really was, or understood the Eucharist, and believed what it was, why they would then turn and do something horrible with it. Is this thread question based on stuff that really happens? I would have thought that they didn't really believe about what happens to the bread and the wine during consecration, and so they only would steal it to bug us Christians who they hate.

My understanding is that there are essentially two categories of Satanists, which for the sake of being clear, I'm going to call the "traditional Satanists" and the "modernist Satanists", though they don't use that terminology themselves:

The traditional Satanists really do believe in God, the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Church (Usually they think the true church is the Roman Catholic Church). They simply have surveyed the situation and decided that they'd rather be on Satan's side. That sounds hard to believe, but it's true. Their black masses mock the mass in order to honor Satan, and use the Eucharist in various less than respectful ways because they hate God. I haven't really researched it, but I've seen at least one quote from a purported Satanist that mentioned some fairly explicit sexual uses which I won't recount here. Their first commandment is "Do what thou willest". Honestly, if you ever meet one of these people, I'd advise running far, far away!

The modernist Satanists don't believe in a literal God or a literal Satan. Instead, they view them as symbolic concepts. Generally, this group views religion as something that has been used to oppress the masses and force them into certain worldviews and/or behaviors in order to benefit the ruling class. They're almost like atheists who also happen to really, really hate religion. Even though this group shares a name with the traditional Satanists, they really seem to be worlds apart in terms of "theology" (If you want to call it that), aside from sharing in common a distain for Christianity and certain "moral principles" emphasizing doing whatever you want..

I say all this with the caveat that I haven't done any close investigation. The whole thing makes me kind of uncomfortable.

John

[karen freeinchristman]

The whole thing makes me kind of uncomfortable.

Kind of?

Thanks for the explanation. I think running far away is good advice! :)

[Iollain]

My understanding is that there are essentially two categories of Satanists, which for the sake of being clear, I'm going to call the "traditional Satanists" and the "modernist Satanists", though they don't use that terminology themselves:

The traditional Satanists really do believe in God, the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Church (Usually they think the true church is the Roman Catholic Church). They simply have surveyed the situation and decided that they'd rather be on Satan's side. That sounds hard to believe, but it's true. Their black masses mock the mass in order to honor Satan, and use the Eucharist in various less than respectful ways because they hate God. I haven't really researched it, but I've seen at least one quote from a purported Satanist that mentioned some fairly explicit sexual uses which I won't recount here. Their first commandment is "Do what thou willest". Honestly, if you ever meet one of these people, I'd advise running far, far away!

The modernist Satanists don't believe in a literal God or a literal Satan. Instead, they view them as symbolic concepts. Generally, this group views religion as something that has been used to oppress the masses and force them into certain worldviews and/or behaviors in order to benefit the ruling class. They're almost like atheists who also happen to really, really hate religion. Even though this group shares a name with the traditional Satanists, they really seem to be worlds apart in terms of "theology" (If you want to call it that), aside from sharing in common a distain for Christianity and certain "moral principles" emphasizing doing whatever you want..

I say all this with the caveat that I haven't done any close investigation. The whole thing makes me kind of uncomfortable.

John

Hi John, i can see your point here entirely that they would be doing something supreme evil. However i dont think they have Jesus there in the middle of their sex act or whatever they are doing, i would see it to be spiritually against Jesus, but i can't for the life of me see Him there. Ya know what i mean?

The weird thing about the satanists that say they don't believe in satan is that they will do rituals in his name and pray to him, all the while saying he does not exist :scratch:

[Fish and Bread]

Hi John, i can see your point here entirely that they would be doing something supreme evil. However i dont think they have Jesus there in the middle of their sex act or whatever they are doing, i would see it to be spiritually against Jesus, but i can't for the life of me see Him there. Ya know what i mean?

That's because Baptists and Anglicans look at what happens during communion differently. As I understand it, for Baptists, the Lord's Supper is just a sacred memorial, like laying wreaths on a tomb for a solider or something. Anglicans believe Jesus actually makes himself present in the Eucharist in a special way, that in some respect it actually becomes his body and blood. Now, on the surface of things, to a scientific mind, that might sound crazy, but God's worked a lot of great miracles -- he's parted the red sea, turned water into wine, created the whole universe, etc. In that context, it seems like being truly present in the sacrament is well within his power! And it's something I think that John chapter six implies and that the tradition of the Christian Church both affirm. All the historical records from as early as the 1st or 2nd century through the 16th century show some sort of belief in a real presence in the Eucharist amongst 99% of Christians.

John

[Simon_Templar]

My understanding is that there are essentially two categories of Satanists, which for the sake of being clear, I'm going to call the "traditional Satanists" and the "modernist Satanists", though they don't use that terminology themselves:

The traditional Satanists really do believe in God, the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Church (Usually they think the true church is the Roman Catholic Church). They simply have surveyed the situation and decided that they'd rather be on Satan's side. That sounds hard to believe, but it's true. Their black masses mock the mass in order to honor Satan, and use the Eucharist in various less than respectful ways because they hate God. I haven't really researched it, but I've seen at least one quote from a purported Satanist that mentioned some fairly explicit sexual uses which I won't recount here. Their first commandment is "Do what thou willest". Honestly, if you ever meet one of these people, I'd advise running far, far away!

The modernist Satanists don't believe in a literal God or a literal Satan. Instead, they view them as symbolic concepts. Generally, this group views religion as something that has been used to oppress the masses and force them into certain worldviews and/or behaviors in order to benefit the ruling class. They're almost like atheists who also happen to really, really hate religion. Even though this group shares a name with the traditional Satanists, they really seem to be worlds apart in terms of "theology" (If you want to call it that), aside from sharing in common a distain for Christianity and certain "moral principles" emphasizing doing whatever you want..

I say all this with the caveat that I haven't done any close investigation. The whole thing makes me kind of uncomfortable.

John

your pretty much spot on there, if I can borrow some anglo-speak ;)

I've spoken with people from both groups and read some of the 'literature' of the second group.

As far as I've been able to tell the first group ( the "real" satanists) don't have much in the way of organization, I've never found any books or other literature produced by them, I've encountered a couple of people who claimed to be this brand of satanist and basicly they were from local groups that didn't have affiliation with other groups. One of them did tell me that they had their own "church" services at which they sang songs and basicly did what christian services do.. except kind of in reverse... honoring satan instead of God. The person who told me this even fully acknoledged that she thought God was all powerful and would win in the end.. which I thought was a bit unexpected.

The second group is the one that most people know of as "satanists" because they are the one with the national organization, the "satanic bible" (Anton Levay being the founder of the "church of Satan") and other books/literature etc.
This group does not, believe that either God or satan or real spiritual entities, infact most of them deny the supernatural all together. Rather, as John said, they believe that "satan" embodies a set of ideas and behaviors that society has been afraid of down through time and thus has personified those ideas and behavior's as "satan". This group believes that it is these very ideas and behaviors shunned by most of society that are the best way to live, the most advantagous to the person. Their creed essentially boils down to a sort of militant humanist pragmatism... you are the center of the universe, do whatever is best for you no matter how it affects other people etc etc. They do make a point of saying that they do not believe you should simply do whatever you want because they argue somethings, even if you want them, are not advantagous.. thus aren't best for you in the long run... thus you shouldn't rape someone, not because its wrong.. but because you will probably get caught and put in prison.. which in the end, lessens your enjoyment and indulgence.

the maxim "do whatever thou wilt" goes back to Alasdair Crowely and thus is used in various forms by several different groups which were born out of his and his friend's victorian age occultism. One of the more popular today is neo-paganism and wiccanism who have rewritten the maxim "and harming none, do what you want". Some of these groups are probably satanists, but the pagans/wiccans don't generally believe in satan. Most of them in fact are quite new age and bear little or no real resemblance to actual historical paganism.. Most tend to not believe in personified spirits, but rather believe that spirits are energy which can be either positive or negative. For most the concept of positive and negative replaces good and evil.

[Simon_Templar]

Somebody said that the blessed Host would cease to be the Body of Christ. How is that possible? The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.

Not to pick on you gitlance, but this strikes me as somewhat funny... How is that possible... ummm how is it possible that bread and wine become flesh and blood? Now.. don't get me wrong.. I believe in the objective reality of the real presence in communion.. the point is, it isn't physically possible, its divine intervention.

Thus the consecrated host ceasing to be the body of Christ is no less possible than the fact that it became the body of christ in the first place.

In other words... the question isn't one of possability because if God can turn it in to flesh, he can probably turn it back into bread just as easily.
The question for me is simply, what does God will in that instance... would he allow it to remain the Body of Christ, and thus allow himself to be desecrated bodily... or would he prevent that desecration of himself by reversing the miracle which takes place in the consecration.

I really don't know for sure what the answer is.. but I lean towards thinking that God would not allow it. Or if he did, I think it would probably ellicit results similar to those produced upon people who desecrated the ark of the covenant. God isn't defenseless.

[Naomi4Christ]

I was wondering what the likelihood of someone breaking into the church, breaking into the vestry, cracking the safe, taking the church wine (I don't think we keep the bread, and we buy it in fresh on the day we need it), and leave behind all the takings?

BTW, I think we drink all the consecrated wine, so what anyone could steal would be plain old church wine. But I agree with what Simon said about it being the real blood of Christ and God's role in that mystery.

[Simon_Templar]

I should point out that I think, even if God were to protect the sanctity of the Body of his Son by some miracle of turning the consercrated host back into mere bread, it would not lessen the sacrelige and blasphemy commited by the person who stole the host

[karen freeinchristman]

The question for me is simply, what does God will in that instance... would he allow it to remain the Body of Christ, and thus allow himself to be desecrated bodily... or would he prevent that desecration of himself by reversing the miracle which takes place in the consecration.

I really don't know for sure what the answer is.. but I lean towards thinking that God would not allow it. Or if he did, I think it would probably ellicit results similar to those produced upon people who desecrated the ark of the covenant. God isn't defenseless.
For some reason, the cross comes to mind when I read this. We wouldn't rationally think that God would have let his Son suffer terribly and be killed on the cross, but he did. In my confirmation class, after a particulary evil case of paedophilia had happened in the news, I asked the priest, "where was God when that was happening to that poor little boy?" and the priest answered that God was there with the little boy, suffering along with him. I think God would still be there in the host even if it were being subject to evil, and that God would be suffering and also grieving in the process. Jesus' words - "Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing".

[kf4bdy]

We believe it would be a desecration of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

[SirTimothy]

My attitude is 'Jesus can take care of himself'. I'd be more concerned for the people stealing it, than for the sacrament. If we truly believe it to be the Body and Blood, then we believe that it is in some way a way for God to make his power known here on earth. In which case, He can take care of Himself, far better than we can.

Our reserve Eucharist is kept in a locked safe though...

Timothy

[Iollain]

I don't think it makes sence that Jesus can be put through something that the satanists will. The Bible says:

Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].

[gitlance]

Not to pick on you gitlance, but this strikes me as somewhat funny... How is that possible... ummm how is it possible that bread and wine become flesh and blood? Now.. don't get me wrong.. I believe in the objective reality of the real presence in communion.. the point is, it isn't physically possible, its divine intervention.

Thus the consecrated host ceasing to be the body of Christ is no less possible than the fact that it became the body of christ in the first place.

In other words... the question isn't one of possability because if God can turn it in to flesh, he can probably turn it back into bread just as easily.
The question for me is simply, what does God will in that instance... would he allow it to remain the Body of Christ, and thus allow himself to be desecrated bodily... or would he prevent that desecration of himself by reversing the miracle which takes place in the consecration.

I really don't know for sure what the answer is.. but I lean towards thinking that God would not allow it. Or if he did, I think it would probably ellicit results similar to those produced upon people who desecrated the ark of the covenant. God isn't defenseless.

He didn't prevent the desecration of Himself on the cross.

He doesn't prevent people from cursing and blaspheming Him every day.

St. Paul (1 Cor. 11) said that some had fallen sick or died because the didn't discern the Lord's Body in Communion. Apparently, even though they didn't recognize Communion as such, it was still the Body of Christ.

[Fish and Bread]

I was wondering what the likelihood of someone breaking into the church, breaking into the vestry, cracking the safe, taking the church wine (I don't think we keep the bread, and we buy it in fresh on the day we need it), and leave behind all the takings?

Most Christian churches hand out communion to the parishioners. Hosts are generally acquired by Satanists in that way. However, I did hear of an instance where a Roman Catholic parish that some folks I know attend was vandalized (probably ten years ago now) by people who stole a tabernacle, destroyed it in a field, and scattered the hosts. Granted, that could just as easily have been the handywork of drunks as Satanists, though.

John

[Fish and Bread]

I don't think it makes sence that Jesus can be put through something that the satanists will. The Bible says:

Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].

I don't think Christ goes through any physical pain as the result of what happens to hosts. Through the Eucharist, we're uniting ourselves in space and time to his sacrifice on the cross and sharing in his passover feast, not crucifying Christ again. So it doesn't hurt Jesus physically when the priest breaks the host or the people eat it. He may go through some mental anquish when he sees people desecrating his body and blood, though, in the way that the Satanists do (Our Father got very angry in the Old Testament about such things).

John

[Thomas2618]

For some reason, the cross comes to mind when I read this. We wouldn't rationally think that God would have let his Son suffer terribly and be killed on the cross, but he did. In my confirmation class, after a particulary evil case of paedophilia had happened in the news, I asked the priest, "where was God when that was happening to that poor little boy?" and the priest answered that God was there with the little boy, suffering along with him. I think God would still be there in the host even if it were being subject to evil, and that God would be suffering and also grieving in the process. Jesus' words - "Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing".

Great post. I agree.


I don't think Christ goes through any physical pain as the result of what happens to hosts. Through the Eucharist, we're uniting ourselves in space and time to his sacrifice on the cross and sharing in his passover feast, not crucifying Christ again. So it doesn't hurt Jesus physically when the priest breaks the host or the people eat it. He may go through some mental anquish when he sees people desecrating his body and blood, though, in the way that the Satanists do (Our Father got very angry in the Old Testament about such things).

John


Hmmm...I was thinking. The sacrifice at the Mass is not several Masses but a re-presenting of Jesus' perfect sacrifice. The bread and wine do become Jesus' body and blood and that sacrifice that is made at Mass transcends time to take those of us that partake in the sacrament back to His one perfect sacrifice on the cross. When we partake of the sacrament, we put Jesus on the cross. It is our fault that He died for us. Therefore, but partaking of the sacrament we in effect do "hurt Jesus physically" by placing Him on the cross. However we are to sacrifice ourselves with Him; that is how we are to become part of the Body of Christ - by giving up ourselves for Him. Therefore we all "desecrate" the Body of Christ by placing Him on the Cross, but we Christians who correctly discern the Body do so with reverence and thanksgiving to the blessing that comes with His sacrifice:crossrc: . Those that steal the Eucharist desecrate the Body of our Lord but they do so with no reverence to Him.

[Simon_Templar]

Great post. I agree.



Hmmm...I was thinking. The sacrifice at the Mass is not several Masses but a re-presenting of Jesus' perfect sacrifice. The bread and wine do become Jesus' body and blood and that sacrifice that is made at Mass transcends time to take those of us that partake in the sacrament back to His one perfect sacrifice on the cross. When we partake of the sacrament, we put Jesus on the cross. It is our fault that He died for us. Therefore, but partaking of the sacrament we in effect do "hurt Jesus physically" by placing Him on the cross. However we are to sacrifice ourselves with Him; that is how we are to become part of the Body of Christ - by giving up ourselves for Him. Therefore we all "desecrate" the Body of Christ by placing Him on the Cross, but we Christians who correctly discern the Body do so with reverence and thanksgiving to the blessing that comes with His sacrifice:crossrc: . Those that steal the Eucharist desecrate the Body of our Lord but they do so with no reverence to Him.


I understand what you guys are saying, but I think its in a different sense. We are the cause of Jesus' pain, suffering, and crucifixion, but those things aren't desecration in the same sense. Even the incarnation could be seen as a kind of desecration.. but with all those things, the cross, the incarnation... its kind of the opposite... God through those things took something that was profane and made it sacred by connecting it with Christ. Which is very much the heart of both the eucharist and baptism.

[Thomas2618]

I understand what you guys are saying, but I think its in a different sense. We are the cause of Jesus' pain, suffering, and crucifixion, but those things aren't desecration in the same sense. Even the incarnation could be seen as a kind of desecration.. but with all those things, the cross, the incarnation... its kind of the opposite... God through those things took something that was profane and made it sacred by connecting it with Christ. Which is very much the heart of both the eucharist and baptism.

I think that is what I was trying to say. But if we are to also accept that which was profane that God made sacred, we must also connect with Christ in His Body and we must give it the reverence that He is due. He humbled himself even unto the cross. We are to humble ourselves likewise.

[Nycky]

The Consecration of the Elements is not subjective. It is an objective reality.
I disagree. The miracle of the Eucharist is not what the priest does at the Consecration but what Jesus does as each communicant accepts the elements.

I will confess to one of my most embarrassing moments. During my first few weeks as an acolyte during a very hectic Mass I placed a flagon of unconsecrated wine on the altar when we were running low. The deacon grabbed it and poured it into a chalice and offered it to communicants before I could stop him. I was scandalized in those moments. As I matured in my faith I realized that Jesus probably didn't care. That wine was offered in celebration of his scarifice and was therefore fully Eucharist, even though the priest had not been able to mumble a few prayers over it.

Nyc

PS - After that time, I held on to the flagon and made the priest come to me ensuring that the wine (or bread) would be consecrated.

N

[Thomas2618]

As I matured in my faith I realized that Jesus probably didn't care. That wine was offered in celebration of his scarifice and was therefore fully Eucharist, even though the priest had not been able to mumble a few prayers over it.



I would think that Jesus does care since He Himself does put a lot of importance on the Eucharist.

[Nycky]

I would think that Jesus does care since He Himself does put a lot of importance on the Eucharist.
You conclude this because...

[Fish and Bread]

The sacrifice at the Mass is not several Masses but a re-presenting of Jesus' perfect sacrifice. The bread and wine do become Jesus' body and blood and that sacrifice that is made at Mass transcends time to take those of us that partake in the sacrament back to His one perfect sacrifice on the cross. When we partake of the sacrament, we put Jesus on the cross. It is our fault that He died for us. Therefore, but partaking of the sacrament we in effect do "hurt Jesus physically" by placing Him on the cross. However we are to sacrifice ourselves with Him; that is how we are to become part of the Body of Christ - by giving up ourselves for Him.

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying, but I disagree that we hurt Jesus by participating in the sacrament. The key to understanding that is your first sentence is that "The sacrifice at the Mass is not several Masses but a re-presenting of Jesus' perfect sacrifice.". In other words, the mass is in some respects a metaphysical or spiritual connection to Jesus' death on the cross, but we're not crucifying Jesus again. As we state in our Eucharistic Prayers, "Christ has died. Christ has risen.". These events have already taken place. Jesus has already suffered and died and will never do so again in the same way he did on the cross (As far as we know).

In other words, we're not crucifying Jesus anew everytime we have a Eucharist and even if Eucharists stopped today forever more, he'd still have suffered and died way back when. Re-presentation does not equal "crucified again". Some priests or pastors may get all worked up and say stuff like "You're crucifying Jesus again everytime you break a commandment" or "Jesus suffers for us during the mass", but none of that is literally true in a literal linear sense, it's only true in a metaphysical timeless spiritual type of sense.

John

[svdbygrace]

As we state in our Eucharistic Prayers, "Christ has died. Christ has risen

Christ has died.
Christ is risen.
Christ will come again.

We remember your death.
We proclaim your resurrection.
We await your coming in glory.

[AngCath]

a local coven was actually caught on tape breaking into our church a half dozen years ago and using the consecrated host in the tabernacle for some ritual. a total desecration.

[Thomas2618]

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying, but I disagree that we hurt Jesus by participating in the sacrament. The key to understanding that is your first sentence is that "The sacrifice at the Mass is not several Masses but a re-presenting of Jesus' perfect sacrifice.". In other words, the mass is in some respects a metaphysical or spiritual connection to Jesus' death on the cross, but we're not crucifying Jesus again. As we state in our Eucharistic Prayers, "Christ has died. Christ has risen.". These events have already taken place. Jesus has already suffered and died and will never do so again in the same way he did on the cross (As far as we know).

In other words, we're not crucifying Jesus anew everytime we have a Eucharist and even if Eucharists stopped today forever more, he'd still have suffered and died way back when. Re-presentation does not equal "crucified again". Some priests or pastors may get all worked up and say stuff like "You're crucifying Jesus again everytime you break a commandment" or "Jesus suffers for us during the mass", but none of that is literally true in a literal linear sense, it's only true in a metaphysical timeless spiritual type of sense.

John

Please don't take what I was saying to be advocating the idea of "several Masses". Christ was sacrificed once and perfectly on the cross for us. However, the Mass does transcend time. That is how it is re-presented to us. Participating in the Mass does take us back to His one Sacrifice. And it is true that it is each and every one of our faults that He suffered and died on the cross. I did not mean that we hurt Jesus by participating in the Sacrament (which is why I said 'in effect' - I did not mean that we hurt him literally), but that we are very intimately connected to the cross through the Sacrament. I meant that we recognize in the Eucharist our part in causing our Savior to suffer on the cross. But my point was more in the fact that we, as Christians are to give reverence to the Eucharist as Jesus' one perfect sacrifice and that that is where the difference is between us and those that "steal the Eucharist".

[Thomas2618]

I would think that Jesus does care since He Himself does put a lot of importance on the Eucharist.



You conclude this because...

Read John 6...especially verses 53-58. (Those verses just happen to be in red in my bible)

[Fish and Bread]

Please don't take what I was saying to be advocating the Romish idea of "several Masses"

I actually don't think even the Roman Catholics believe that. Do they?

John

[Thomas2618]

I'm not certain on what the Roman Catechism says on that or what the Roman Catholic Church holds, but I do know that the idea that each Mass is another separate sacrifice comes out of Rome. Don't quote me though, because I am not sure enough to speak for Roman Catholics there. The point of my sentence there is the same even if I were to take out the adjective "Romish".

[Simon_Templar]

I'm not certain on what the Roman Catechism says on that or what the Roman Catholic Church holds, but I do know that the idea that each Mass is another separate sacrifice comes out of Rome. Don't quote me though, because I am not sure enough to speak for Roman Catholics there. The point of my sentence there is the same even if I were to take out the adjective "Romish".

The "Romish" doctrine actually does not teach that the mass sacrifices Christ again on the cross. This is a bad, but common mis-statement of the actual RCC doctrine, which is admittedly complex, and leads to the misunderstanding by most protestants.

What the RCC actually teaches revolves around the idea that Christ's sacrifice is eternal, it is timeless... Thus in the mass when the Priest consecrates the host he is essentially stepping outside of time and joining the elements of the Eucharist with the eternal moment of Christ's sacrifice.. presumably the priest and the other communicants then are united with that moment of sacrifice in every mass. Thus Christ's sacrifice is not repeated, rather every mass the elements are united with the one eternal timeless sacrifice of Christ when they are transsubstantiated.

[Thomas2618]

The "Romish" doctrine actually does not teach that the mass sacrifices Christ again on the cross. This is a bad, but common mis-statement of the actual RCC doctrine, which is admittedly complex, and leads to the misunderstanding by most protestants.

What the RCC actually teaches revolves around the idea that Christ's sacrifice is eternal, it is timeless... Thus in the mass when the Priest consecrates the host he is essentially stepping outside of time and joining the elements of the Eucharist with the eternal moment of Christ's sacrifice.. presumably the priest and the other communicants then are united with that moment of sacrifice in every mass. Thus Christ's sacrifice is not repeated, rather every mass the elements are united with the one eternal timeless sacrifice of Christ when they are transsubstantiated.

Which is correct. Forgive me if I sounded as if I was speaking of the Church's doctrine, for I meant to be speaking simply of the doctrine as some people misunderstand it to be. I probably should take out the word "Romish" and just speak of the idea of several Masses as incorrect without assuming where that idea comes from.