My dilemma

[annsni]

The operative words in Malachi 1:11 are "pure offering." Can anything but the body of Christ be truly pure? However, since you raised the matter of incense, do you use incense at your church? Why not?

Because the church is not the Israelite temple.

Do you offer animals on the altar? Why not?

 

[Walter]

Because the church is not the Israelite temple.

Do you offer animals on the altar? Why not?

Well. don't we find in scripture many different kinds of sacrifice? When you think of sacrifice you probably immediately think of a bloody one. But of course this isn't the only kind of sacrifice. There are numerous unbloody ones, perhaps best typified in Paul’s command to us to offer ourselves as “living sacrifices” to God Rom. 12:1. Have you looked at Hebrews 9:25-26 closely? When the writer to the Hebrews is discussing the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice, he indicates quite clearly the way in which he is conceiving of sacrifice in these passages. He writes: 'Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' Heb. 9:25-26. Looking closely it says “for then he would have had to suffer” — which indicates what kind of sacrifice is being talked about here.

The writer says that if Christ had come to offer himself over and over He would have had to repeatedly suffer tells us that he is using the word “offer” in its bloody sense–the performance of a bloody sacrifice in which the victim is slain and, consequently (since victims were not anesthetized) suffers.
For me, when I put the word “bloody” as a mental place-holder to keep the kind of sacrifice being talked about in the “once for all” passages straight, the objection to the sacrifice of the Mass evaporates.

 

[OldRegular]

The operative words in Malachi 1:11 are "pure offering." Can anything but the body of Christ be truly pure? However, since you raised the matter of incense, do you use incense at your church? Why not?

It doesn't say PURE incense, it says PURE offering.

However, I believe I have already shown that the Mass is the re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ or perhaps better stated, the Sacrifice CONTINUALLY, of Jesus Christ as the following clearly states:

359. Who is the principal priest in every Mass?

The principal priest in every Mass is Jesus Christ, who offers to His heavenly Father, through the ministry of His ordained priest, His body and blood which were sacrificed on the cross.

(a) The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. It is now in the New Law, the sacrifice that is acceptable to God.


360. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?

The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.

(a) Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass. The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb1a.htm

And that comes straight from the Roman Catholic Magisterium as do the Canons of Trent.

***************************************************************************************************

 

[annsni]

And I believe that we see in Revelation that our incense is our prayers. Those should be going up continually.

 

[Walter]

It doesn't say PURE incense, it says PURE offering.

However, I believe I have already shown that the Mass is the re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ or perhaps better stated, the Sacrifice CONTINUALLY, of Jesus Christ as the following clearly states:



And that comes straight from the Roman Catholic Magisterium as do the Canons of Trent.

***************************************************************************************************

So, if I understand your concern or question, it would be: '. . . the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. CCC 1367

Specifically, if it is "one single sacrifice"--if it is the same sacrifice, made present in space and time on the altar--why is it described as "unbloody?"

And how does this "unbloody" sacrifice tie in with the teaching that the body and blood of Christ are substantially present in the Eucharist? I will give you my best explanation but I think maybe Zenas could explain it clearer than I can.

As I mentioned in my previous post, 'Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' Heb. 9:25-26. Looking closely it says 'for then he would have had to suffer' — which indicates what kind of sacrifice is being talked about here.

I learned from study that the Church teaches that the body and blood are made present in the Mass, and the sources you cited are correct, it is the same body and blood that was sacrificed on Calvary and which was raised and glorified, and the very same body and blood which He presented to His Father in Heaven. However, His blood is made present in the Mass without it being shed again and without the suffering or (for lack of a better word) the gore. And, that is because it has been shed once for all. The past death is not repeated, only made present to us: remember, even in Heaven, Jesus is seen mystically by John the Evangelist as "a lamb standing as though slain. Rev. 5:6

 

[The American Dream]

Christ died once on the cross. His sacrifice was sufficient. For those who believe they can lose their salvation, read Hebrews 6:4-6. If it were possible to lose salvation, which it is not, there would be no going back. You cannot sacrifice Christ over and over again. Christ instituted the Lord's Supper as a symbol of His body and blood. Just like He does not go back to the cross over and over, He does not return to enter the communion elements every time the Lord's Supper is administered.

 

[annsni]

I saw a meme on Facebook that I had to repost - and I don't post many. It said:

If we could lose our salvation, we would. ~ John MacArthur

I fully agree with him on that!

 

[OldRegular]

So, if I understand your concern or question, it would be: '. . . the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. CCC 1367

Specifically, if it is "one single sacrifice"--if it is the same sacrifice, made present in space and time on the altar--why is it described as "unbloody?"

And how does this "unbloody" sacrifice tie in with the teaching that the body and blood of Christ are substantially present in the Eucharist? I will give you my best explanation but I think maybe Zenas could explain it clearer than I can.

As I mentioned in my previous post, 'Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' Heb. 9:25-26. Looking closely it says 'for then he would have had to suffer' — which indicates what kind of sacrifice is being talked about here.

I learned from study that the Church teaches that the body and blood are made present in the Mass, and the sources you cited are correct, it is the same body and blood that was sacrificed on Calvary and which was raised and glorified, and the very same body and blood which He presented to His Father in Heaven. However, His blood is made present in the Mass without it being shed again and without the suffering or (for lack of a better word) the gore. And, that is because it has been shed once for all. The past death is not repeated, only made present to us: remember, even in Heaven, Jesus is seen mystically by John the Evangelist as "a lamb standing as though slain. Rev. 5:6

You and the Magisterium can call it un-bloody all you want. But if the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ then it is a bloody sacrifice.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

Perhaps you can take comfort on the semantics of the people who made up the un-bloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ continually but it is still a blasphemous bloody practice.

Luther understood that the mass was a bloody sacrifice or he would not have changed from transubstantiation to consubstantiation, though it also is incorrect but avoids the bloody sacrifice.

************************************************************************************************

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm a man in his early thirties. I come from a part of the world that has been secularized very aggressively and where traditionally everyone is a Catholic. We have some baptist and pentecoastal churches, but they are marginal and tend to be picked by people who acquire different convictions, not by people who frequent them since their childhood because their parents brought them there. They are seen almost as sects, little different for instance than Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have always believed, though I stopped going to church when my mother stopped bringing me to it more than 20 years ago. I went to a catholic private high school, but once I left high school I stopped having access to a Christian environment.

I didn't go to a catholic church, because I didn't felt at ease there. However I recently realized that the Bible commands us not to forsake the fellowship with others in a church, so I realized I must change that attitude. Also in this very secular society I feel very isolated, I see no one who shares my belief. I am rather dismayed at all this modernism and decadent behavior which is not in tune with me.

I ended up wondering if I would feel more at ease in an evangelical church. I went to see the pastor of a Baptist church who welcomed me in. We had a discussion about the faith, and of course about salvation through faith alone, which is the most important tenet of protestant denominations and which I had slowly started to lean toward in the last few years. So we got along well and I agreed with most of what he said to me.

When it came to the requirement for adult baptism however that is where I started to feel very bad. I shared these feelings with him, and he gave me a book to read explaining why it is justified. I found myself agreeing with much of what was written in the book.

However I still feel really bad and traitorous with establishing links and frequenting a protestant church. I don't know what to do with this, I feel like an outsider and like someone who doesn't belong.

May I make some suggestions. First, you repeatedly say, "I feel" or "feel bad." throughout your post. Don't go by your feelings but by the Word of God IN SPITE OF FEELINGS as feelings could be a result of indigestion, they change from day to day, but the Word of God does not change but reads the same every day.

Neither should you be led by BLIND FAITH, but your faith should be in God's Word as that is the light to lead you. If a person or church speaks contrary to the Word of God "it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20). Follow the Word not your feelings.

Next, there are pro-Roman Catholics on this forum who are blind as a bat and have no clue about Biblical salvation, the ordinances or the church as taught in Scriptures - IGNORE THEM!

Finally, the truth of salvation is very simple. You were born in a spiritual separated state from God. God is light, God is life, God is holy. You were born in a spiritual state of darkness, deadness and uncleanness (Eph. 4:18-19).

Essential salvation is the reversal of your natural born spiritual state where you are brought back into spiritual union with God, and therefore called out of darkness into light, from deadness to life and from uncleaness to righteousness.

That reversal of spiritual condition is what the Bible calls the New birth or regeneration or past tense "saved".

That new birth is a CREATIVE act God (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10) and therefore accomplished by God alone without your help or the help of others (Eph. 2:8-9) but occurs INSIDE you whereby God gives you a NEW HEART.

Finally, Abraham is the pattern given to you by the Bible and to "all who are of faith" in regard to works, ordinances, the law before and after the cross (Rom. 4:11, 16; Gal. 3:6-8).

1. Hence, "works" must be defined in relationship with Abraham BEFORE MOSES, and BEFORE JUDAISM, thus BEFORE THE LAW - Rom. 4:1-6

2. Second, justification by grace through faith is of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) and therefore all schemes of justification that ultimately demand God justifies only the "godly" are false.

3. The act of justification by grace through faith is a completed action not an ongoing action as Paul explicitly states that ABraham was justified "in uncircumcision" NOT IN CIRCUMCISION - Rom. 4:9-11.

4. Justification by "faith" does not mean "faithfulness" but has gospel promise as its object and simply means that one believes God is able to provide what he promised (Rom. 4:21).

5. Justification is WITHOUT DIVINE ORDINANCES as Abraham was justified "in uncircumcision" NOT IN CIRCUMCISION - Rom. 4:9-11.

6. Finally, no human being has ALWAYS been saved because you came into this world in unbelief and thus under condemnation and you remain in condemnation until you IN YOUR OWN PERSON change from unbelief to faith.

 

[Zenas]

Because the church is not the Israelite temple.

Do you offer animals on the altar? Why not?

Annsni and Old Regular, I doubt if you ever paused and considered the significance of Malachi 1:11 so I will do so here. It’s really pretty easy. I am quoting from the NASB which is my default version.

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting,

Meaning: All over the world.

My name will be great among the nations.

Meaning: The name of God will be great among the Gentiles. “Will be” makes it a future event. We know the Gentiles did not worship God anywhere until the advent of Christianity. Therefore, these are non Jewish Christians of which the prophet speaks.

and in every place incense is going to be offered in My name,

Meaning: Well, so much for Ann’s idea of incense being for the Jewish temples. God, speaking through the prophet, is speaking of Christian worship everywhere we find it.

and a grain offering that is pure;

Meaning: The Lord here is contrasting the pure offering of the Eucharist with the flawed and defective offerings being brought in by the people and offered up by their priests. Nothing is more pure than the body of Christ, which is what the Eucharist really is. It is also interesting that the NASB renders this “a grain offering” which of course is the bread which becomes the body of Christ.

for my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts.

Meaning: The prophet makes it clear that these are God’s words, not his own, and again the emphasis is on His worship by the Gentiles. Since the Gentiles don’t practice Judaism, this is obviously Christian worship.

 

[OldRegular]

Malachi 1:11 For 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: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

A pure offering, however it is understood, does not translate to the perpetual bloody re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Scripture tells us as I have noted earlier:

Hebrews 9:23-10:10
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The Mass has Jesus Christ suffering continuously ever since it was dreamed up by the hierarchy! In truth only an corrupt hierarchy of an apostate church? could get a perpetual bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ out of Malachi 1:11. If you want me to tell you how the Roman Catholic Communion is apostate I will be happy to do so.

*******************************************************************************************************************************

 

[Walter]

Malachi 1:11 For 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: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

A pure offering, however it is understood, does not translate to the perpetual bloody re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Scripture tells us as I have noted earlier:

Hebrews 9:23-10:10
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The Mass has Jesus Christ suffering continuously ever since it was dreamed up by the hierarchy! In truth only an corrupt hierarchy of an apostate church? could get a perpetual bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ out of Malachi 1:11. If you want me to tell you how the Roman Catholic Communion is apostate I will be happy to do so.

*******************************************************************************************************************************

So, what you do is IGNORE evidence to the contrary. The Church states that the Mass IS NOT re-sacrificing Christ but re-presenting Christ ONE sacrifice at Calvary, but you insist that we have Jesus suffering on the cross at every Eucharist thousands of times a day for the past 2,000 years. WOW!! You are determined to believe what you want to believe and NO amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. :BangHead:

 

[Yeshua1]

So, what you do is IGNORE evidence to the contrary. The Church states that the Mass IS NOT re-sacrificing Christ but re-presenting Christ ONE sacrifice at Calvary, but you insist that we have Jesus suffering on the cross at every Eucharist thousands of times a day for the past 2,000 years. WOW!! You are determined to believe what you want to believe and NO amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. :BangHead:

WHY even have him every Mass being offerred to us then, for of the Cross of Christ already justified us fully and freely before God, why the need to have Him taken in a Nass at all?

it HAS to be due to the RCC denying that we are right with God until God sees us good enough to merit being right with Him, and IF that was the vase, ALL of us would go to hell here...

thank God we who are Baptists have the real Gospel, and not holding to the false one of Rome!

 

[Zenas]

A pure offering, however it is understood, does not translate to the perpetual bloody re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Scripture tells us as I have noted earlier:

* * * *

The Mass has Jesus Christ suffering continuously ever since it was dreamed up by the hierarchy! In truth only an corrupt hierarchy of an apostate church? could get a perpetual bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ out of Malachi 1:11. If you want me to tell you how the Roman Catholic Communion is apostate I will be happy to do so.

IT IS NOT A BLOODY SACRIFICE. It is a bloodless sacrifice.

Let me ask you this. You don't believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. So how could you say it is a sacrifice of any kind, bloody or otherwise? You disbelieve the sacraments, yet you try superimpose your beliefs on them. If I believe that no man has ever been to the moon, I have no business trying to comment on Alan Shepherd's 6-iron shot from the moon's surface. Neither should you attempt to analyze something you don't believe.

Here is the official church teaching on the subject from the Catechism.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

No, I am not interested in your opinions on why the Catholic Church is apostate. I have had much more persuasive persons than you attempt to do so but I remain unconvinced even though I have been a Southern Baptist all my life, a deacon for 28 years and a Sunday School teacher for more than 30 years. Shall I tell you why Protestants in general and Evangelicals in particular are apostate?

 

[Rebel]

I won't say that the RCC is apostate. It holds to the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the incarnation. It is pro-life and does not affirm homosexuality.

Much of mainline Protestantism, on the other hand, has abandoned these doctrines and principles. The ELCA Lutherans, PCUSA Presbyterians, UCC, DoC, Episcopal Church could all be considered apostate. And the only thing keeping the United Methodist Church from joining this bunch is the southern USA delegates and African delegates to their General Conference. Still, the UMC has entered a full communion agreement with ELCA and desires the same with TEC.

 

[OldRegular]

So, what you do is IGNORE evidence to the contrary. The Church states that the Mass IS NOT re-sacrificing Christ but re-presenting Christ ONE sacrifice at Calvary, but you insist that we have Jesus suffering on the cross at every Eucharist thousands of times a day for the past 2,000 years. WOW!! You are determined to believe what you want to believe and NO amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. :BangHead:

IT IS NOT A BLOODY SACRIFICE. It is a bloodless sacrifice.

Let me ask you this. You don't believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. So how could you say it is a sacrifice of any kind, bloody or otherwise? You disbelieve the sacraments, yet you try superimpose your beliefs on them.

Then the Roman Catholic magisterium should get its act together. I point out to you that I am only quoting what Roman Catholicism teaches. I have posted the following earlier but do so again for your edification.

359. Who is the principal priest in every Mass?

The principal priest in every Mass is Jesus Christ, who offers to His heavenly Father, through the ministry of His ordained priest, His body and blood which were sacrificed on the cross.

(a) The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. It is now in the New Law, the sacrifice that is acceptable to God.


360. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?

The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.

(a) Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass. The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb1a.htm

You can read and the above says the Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the cross is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore, to any rational person the Mass is a bloody sacrifice again of Jesus Christ.

I also posted earlier the following which tell the same story as the above with an accursed thrown in for emphasis:

Canon I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Canon VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

Canon 1 states that not only the human nature of Jesus Christ but the divine nature of Jesus Christ is contained in the bread and wine.

Canon VIII says that Jesus Christ is really eaten. That means body and blood and I suppose the divinity as well.

I point out to you that I am only quoting what Roman Catholicism teaches. If, given the above, they teach that the mass is an un-bloody sacrifice then they are not only liars but blasphemers as well.

**************************************************************

 

[OldRegular]

No, I am not interested in your opinions on why the Catholic Church is apostate. I have had much more persuasive persons than you attempt to do so but I remain unconvinced even though I have been a Southern Baptist all my life, a deacon for 28 years and a Sunday School teacher for more than 30 years. Shall I tell you why Protestants in general and Evangelicals in particular are apostate?

You misspeak when you use the term Catholic Church. First it is not the universal Church which is what catholic means. Second only God knows whether it is truly a Church or not. I have no doubt there are many people in the Roman Communion who are saved since I believe in Sovereign Election and Grace. In fact I know some. However, the Roman Communion has departed so much from the teaching of Scripture it is unrecognizable as a body of believers.


*************************

 

[annsni]

OR - That "victim" terminology makes me nauseous. Bleck!!

I worship the Victor, not a victim.

 

[Yeshua1]

I won't say that the RCC is apostate. It holds to the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the incarnation. It is pro-life and does not affirm homosexuality.

Much of mainline Protestantism, on the other hand, has abandoned these doctrines and principles. The ELCA Lutherans, PCUSA Presbyterians, UCC, DoC, Episcopal Church could all be considered apostate. And the only thing keeping the United Methodist Church from joining this bunch is the southern USA delegates and African delegates to their General Conference. Still, the UMC has entered a full communion agreement with ELCA and desires the same with TEC.

The problem though is that the Church of Rome teaches and holds to another Gospel, the one of good works and grace, and that God works through Sacraments of Grace, but that denies the effiecency of the Cross!

 

[Rebel]

The problem though is that the Church of Rome teaches and holds to another Gospel, the one of good works and grace, and that God works through Sacraments of Grace, but that denies the effiecency of the Cross!

And all those denominations that I listed, you don't think they hold to "another gospel", calling sodomy good and blessed, and favoring the continued slaughter of millions of babies?

I also think that some fundamentalist Protestants teach "another gospel", but that's another discussion.