The Bottem Line

[MC Just]

43 A.D. First book of the New Testament was written.

100 A.D. Last book of New Testament was written. St. John maintained (Jn 20:25) that Jesus did and taught many other things not recorded in the Bible. St. Paul urged Christians to follow these unwritten teachings (2 Thes. 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2), which were passed on by word of mouth.

393 A.D. at the Catholic council of Hippo the list of scripture was determined. Because of bitter persecutions, etc. the New Testament was not placed under one cover until 397 A.D. by the Catholic Council of Carthage. If the Church was infallible then, why is it not also infallible now?

1440 A.D. Between 397 and 1440 (when printing was invented) individual Bibles written by hand were extremely scarce and costly. How then would an unwritten and unavailable New Testament fit into today's "Bible-only" theory?

1940 A.D. The Bible remains one precious source of religious truth, which, however, requires an authorized interpreter, as today's 25,000 sects conclusively prove.

1955 A.D. If all or most non-Catholics everywhere gave the same interpretation of the Bible, their system might deserve consideration. But, as we know, the interpretations "are tossed about by every wind of doctrine."

The Bible is a book, how then does it have Authority?

The Bible says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Church is Authoritive, The Papacy existed in the Old Law, Jesus just fullfilled it when he Gave Peter all the Authority, that Authority was passed on to Successors, read Isaiah 22:19-25,

[Dave]

[jas], you said we (I guess you mean Christians) agree on all the core doctrines. But which doctrines are important enough to be considered core? I mean, some Christians think you can never lose your salvation, while others believe you can. That's serious! If you can lose your salvation, you gotta try with God's help not to lose it -- the eternal fate of your soul depends on it! Others claim baptism is necessary, while others say it isn't. Once again, there's an issue that can have major ramifications for one's eternal destiny.

How do you know you're following the Holy Spirit? Most Protestants claim they're guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet look at all the conflicting biblical interpretations they have! God is a God of truth, not of lies. How do you know you're following the Holy Spirit and not your feelings, opinions, and/or biases?

Finally, the Bible and Sacred Tradition DO NOT contradict each other. And God didn't say to worship Him in any way you see fit; he wants to be worshiped in a special way. What is that way? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Stay tuned for the next post in this thread . . . .

[Dave]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

By Mario Derksen

Source: New Oxford Review

There is probably no doctrine in the Catholic Faith that has been misunderstood more by Protestants than that of the Holy Mass. The Mass is the central act of Catholic worship: Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is perpetuated because the priest offers it anew to the Father. It is not a new sacrifice, but the same one that Jesus offered on the Cross 2,000 years ago, the difference being that in the Mass it is — in a sense — unbloody. Jesus does not die or suffer again at each Mass, but is simply re-presented, re-offered to the Father.

In short, the only difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Mass is that the mode of offering is different. On the Cross, the mode of offering was bloody; in the Mass, the mode of offering is unbloody. This is the only difference. Since Christ's Sacrifice is present both on Calvary and at every single Mass, it is the same Sacrifice, and what is said of one must be said of the other. Therefore, since Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary was propitiatory — i.e., sin-atoning — so is the Sacrifice of Holy Mass. The Council of Trent teaches very explicitly: "Appeased by this sacrifice [of the Mass], the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons…crimes and sins."

By giving us the Mass, our Lord has ensured a way to apply the graces merited on His Holy Cross to us today, to all of His faithful in any and every age. As James Cardinal Gibbons noted, "In the Sacrifice of the Mass I apply to myself the merits of the sacrifice of the cross, from which the Mass derives all its efficacy." The Mass carries the Cross throughout the centuries until Christ returns. Each and every day (except Good Friday), the Church celebrates Mass to make present what Christ has wrought, to dispense and unlock again the infinite graces which He earned for us so that God's wrath for us on account of our sins might be appeased. Since Christ's Sacrifice is infinite and all-pleasing to God, there is potential forgiveness of any sin, if our souls are properly disposed and we are truly penitent.

Protestants will try to tell you that Christ underwent our punishment — He did not! If that were so, then Christ would have had to be sent to Hell for all eternity, for this is what we truly deserve (see Rev. 20:13-14). Christ suffered for us, no question, but He did so in order to earn for us God's forgiveness, not so that we wouldn't have to suffer or be punished temporarily. In other words, Jesus helped us avoid Hell not by undergoing the punishment Himself, but by offering Himself to God in order to appease God's wrath and prevent His justice from being executed (see Isa. 53:10-12; Heb. 2:17). Just as lambs and goats were slain in the Old Testament in order to appease the wrath of God, so Christ was slain and slaughtered to appease God's wrath, but with Christ it was once and for all.

However, we are talking here about possible, or potential, forgiveness, not necessarily actual forgiveness. The Church does not teach that because of what Christ did for us, all sins will be forgiven in the sense that all people will be saved in the end; rather, the truth is that all sins can be forgiven because of Christ's ultimate act of love. What does the "can" depend on? It depends on us, on our willingness to repent, receive forgiveness, and obey Christ (see Heb. 3:12-15; Rom. 11:21-23). So that the graces of Calvary can be applied to all believers, and not just to those who were around the Cross that first Good Friday, our Lord instituted the Holy Mass. Now all who attend Mass can benefit from Christ's wonderful Sacrifice and receive His Body and Blood.

Protestants don't avail themselves of that privilege. All they do is pray, sing, read the Bible, and hear a sermon. No wonder, then, that the focus during their service is on the preacher, the "pastor," who is expected to give them a moving sermon. Protestants seem to believe that they have to "feel good" at their worship service. (I'm thinking especially of Evangelicals and Pentecostals here.) Since all they can focus on is the Bible, the music, and the pastor's sermon, it follows that if there is no emotional reaction on their part, they figure that something is wrong. This is evidenced by the preacher's tone, which is usually extremely emotional and theatrical. The desired outcome is that there be some sort of deeply felt reaction on the part of the listener — either intense joy or sorrow or shame or just simple but enthusiastic agreement that shouts "Amen!" from the back of the auditorium. The more touched one is, the more one has worshiped God, the Protestant axiom seems to be. After all, how often have we heard that a Catholic became Protestant or that a Protestant has switched to a different church or denomination because he "didn't get fed"! But the true believer goes to church in order to worship God, not to feel moved. Not Me, but Thee.

The standard for worship is certainly set by God Himself. In Hebrews 12:28, St. Paul says: "Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe." Gee, read that again. He doesn't say, "any worship, with shouts of joy and clapping of hands." He says it must be done in reverence and awe. Also, Paul emphasizes that the worship ought to be acceptable. This means that some worship is not acceptable. How to decide? Whom to trust on the matter? You can choose between the Protestant notion of "each believer decides for himself" (whence Paul's admonition in Heb. 12:28 would make no sense at all) and the Catholic notion of "listen to the Apostles and their successors," for they speak for Christ (see Lk. 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).

Here's the Catholic position, then. Since we're all imperfect, sinful, and totally dependent on Christ, we ourselves, no matter how much we might try, could not possibly worship God in a pleasing fashion. Think about it: God is infinite. He deserves infinite honor, glory, and worship. No creature could possibly give Him His due since all creatures are, by definition, finite. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were great, but by no means sufficient. God wanted to be worshiped by man in a particular fashion. Though the lambs and goats could never really take away sins (see Heb. 10:4,11), this is how God wanted man to make atonement for his sins under the Old Covenant. But now we're under a New Covenant, which is everlasting and a perfection of the Old. Through Christ, God is worshiped infinitely and perfectly. The Sacrifice of the Cross gives God His due! Hence, it follows that if we want to worship God in an acceptable fashion, as Paul commands us, we must somehow unite ourselves to that Sacrifice of Christ.

How? Through the Mass, which is the same Sacrifice made available to us here and now! No wonder the Church requires the faithful to go to Mass weekly! It is through Holy Communion (a visible sign conferring grace) that the believer unites himself with the Lord. No relying on fuzzy feelings, mustering a sense of faith, dramatic sermons, or "worship music." No, here we have something much more profound, something absolutely inimitable: a visible union between Christ and the believer. No shouting, dancing, or clapping can possibly trump that.

The Church teaches that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist is an intrinsic union of the recipient with Christ" (Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 394). Jesus affirmed this most eloquently: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (Jn. 6:57). Through Christ's Sacrifice, God is given infinite worship, and hence he who unites himself to that Sacrifice can worship God in an acceptable way, in the way He wants to be worshiped. "The sacrifice of the Mass…is always pleasing to God" (Ott, p. 413). That this is true is obvious since the true priest and victim of the Mass is Christ, who, on the Cross, was both priest and victim (see Heb. 7:26).

Now, all of this will raise some Protestant eyebrows. We often hear the argument that since the Mass is not a bloody but an unbloody Sacrifice, it cannot take away sins and therefore can't be the same as that of the Cross; after all, we read in Hebrews 9:22: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Thus, many Protestants conclude and triumphantly exclaim: "Look, your very own Bible condemns your Mass! It cannot take away sins if it's not bloody!" Gee, what happened here? Have Catholics overlooked this passage for 2,000 years? Are Protestants the first to have discovered Hebrews 9:22?

Actually, the Church wrote the Bible, compiled the Bible, and therefore interprets the Bible. It would be foolish to believe either that the Church was not aware of this passage, or that she teaches something contrary to Holy Scripture. So let's recapitulate: We've already seen that the Church insists that the Sacrifice of our Lord is one. It is unique and was done once and for all: "We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). The Church teaches that the Sacrifice of the Mass is identical to that of the Cross; it is not a different one; in fact, it could not be because this would imply that Christ's Sacrifice is defective, whereas both the Bible and the Church clearly teach the opposite: "Where there is forgiveness of [sins through Christ], there is no longer any offering for sin" (Heb. 10:18); "The satisfaction which Jesus Christ has in an admirable manner made to God the Father for our sins is full and complete" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IV).

Mass and Cross being the one Sacrifice of Christ, then, we must ask ourselves: What is the nature of that Sacrifice? Is it bloody or unbloody? Clearly, Christ's Sacrifice was bloody! After all, He shed His most precious Blood on our behalf (see Rom. 3:25, Eph. 1:7, etc.). In its essence, then, Christ's Sacrifice is bloody. What is different at Mass is the mode or manner of offering. It is to this sense that the Catholic refers when he says that the Mass is un-bloody. But in the Mass, bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body and Blood of Christ. So obviously, in that sense, the Mass is a bloody Sacrifice. It does (and must) contain the true Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise it could hardly be identical to the Sacrifice on Calvary. However, whereas on Calvary, Christ died and shed His Blood in a unique way, in the Mass our Lord mystically renews His death and Body-and-Blood Sacrifice in a sacramental way, not under the appearance of His Body and Blood, as on the Cross, but under the appearance of bread and wine; hence the manner of offering at the Mass is unbloody. It is bloody in the sense that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but unbloody in the sense that it is offered under the appearance of bread and wine in a sacramental fashion.

Christ does not suffer again or die again in the Mass; however, He does renew His already completed suffering and death on the Cross. Protestant Eric Svendsen wonders just what this means: "It is difficult to know just what the real difference is between a re-presenting of Christ's sacrifice and a re-sacrificing of him." Let's help Mr. Svendsen out here: A sacrificial action is clearly characterized by the killing of the victim. For there to be a new or another sacrifice, there would have to be a new killing. At Mass, no killing takes place, so it cannot be a re-sacrificing of Christ. What, then, does it mean to re-present or mystically renew the Sacrifice of Calvary? It means that we once again take the already sacrificed Christ, hold Him up to the Father, and say, "Father, look upon the Lamb that was slain for our sake. Through this holy and perfect Sacrifice, pardon our sins, and turn Your wrath away from us; be appeased by the pleasing odor of this unblemished Lamb." In order to do this, obviously, Christ must be made present again — which is why the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood.

This may all seem rather overwhelming due to the complicated theological matter. But let us remember that, being earthly creatures, we are always confined to a limited view of the truth and to expressing what we know about this truth in human and finite words. We must always keep in mind that we're dealing with mystery — a mystery that cannot be completely understood from this side of Heaven.

The Sacrifice of the Mass was prophesied in the Scriptures, most notably in Malachi 1:11: "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" (italics added). How privileged are we who receive the sacramental Body and Blood of our Savior; it is as though we were at the Cross 2,000 years ago! "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).

[[jas]]

*skim-reads description of mass*

That's great that that's how you worship.

Now show me where scripture says that's the only way to worship.

[ironmonk]

,Aug 31 2003, 02:28 AM] *skim-reads description of mass*

That's great that that's how you worship.

Now show me where scripture says that's the only way to worship.

jas,

Scripture does not have everything we need.

Christians did consider the New Testament as Scripture until 400 AD.

Christ left us with a Church to guide us. A Church to preach and spread the Gospels, and to be like a city on a moutain, which cannot be hidden for all time.

From Scripture, we know that private interpretation of Scripture is wrong. We know that Christ gave the keys of Heaven to Peter. This is a sign of authority, which we see in the OT. Just like if I gave you keys to my house, you would have authority over my house while I was away.

A common thread of the New Testament is having One Faith, and having unity. There was a very clear hierarchy. Head bishop (Peter) other Bishops (Apostles & new disciples), Priests, and Deacons.

What it really comes down to, to be able to know the full truth, we must search out the first Church, because we know that Christ said it would never be overcome; so we are assured that the first Church is Christ's Church....

Jesus does not lie, and cannot be wrong....

Also, we have thousands of writings from the first Christians prior to the New Testament being canonized.

There were over 200 books considered for the New Testament Canon, but only 27 made it.... It was the Councils of Bishops and the Popes from about 363 AD to 400 AD who prayed and discussed which books belong to the NT.

There are some very beautiful writings from back then, it amazes me how deep in faith and smart they were.....

Pope Clement I

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults" (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

Augustine

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary - Ad Majorem Dei Glorium,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

I also forgot to mention... most people could not read, and the majority of the people in the world today still cannot read.

Bibles had to be hand coppied for hundreds of years... Only the rich could afford one....

The common man went to the Church to hear the teachings of Christ. (as did the rich man, but the rich man could read it when he wanted to)

God Bless,

ironmonk

[[jas]]

Scripture does not have everything we need.

I think we should all agree to disagree on this one.

You'll never get me (or anyone else from the YABB crew that's over here) to agree that tradition or the church or anything else has as much authority as the word of God, and apparantly you guys will never let go of it, so can we just drop this argument?

[Jake Huether]

Scripture does not have everything we need.

I dunno... (note: sarcasm)

Scripture is pretty clear about what we NEED. We NEED the Church. Scripture never says we NEED it, it only says we NEED the Church. Christ only said we NEED the Church. And the Church is who gave us Scripture, and compiled for us the Bible.

Jas,

I think it was a pretty clear cut question, and (maybe I missed it) you haven't really directly answered it.

If the Bible is the Authority, then how do you reconcile the differences in interpretation. If the Bible was any kind of Authority, wouldn't you think that ALL who read it would come away with the same content, the same meaning, the same belief. But some believe in Transubstantiation, some co-substantiation, some symbolic. Some believe that infants should be baptized, some believe that only adults should, some even believe that we DONT need to be baptized, and some believe we need to be re-baptized. Some believe that homosexual acts are natural and good, some believe that it's a sin to dance and have fun. Some believe that drinking is a sin.

So, if the Bible is the Authority, yet, we humans have NO way of really knowing what the Bible is saying, then what's up. Who can EVER unleash the Authority that the Bible has?

That's like boxing God's word up, loking it, and handing it to me without the key! Yeah! I have God's word, but it dosn't mean diddly to me without the key! The Bible is Authoritative, therefore, ONLY when there is someone to INTERPRET it correctly. From what you say, there is NO one who can interpret it correctly (becasue we all are sinners and prone to err). So, then how can the Bible be an Authority. If it held any sort of Authority, don't you think that it would keep it's believers in line! But we have 30,000 denoms all claiming the Bible as their sole source of belief!

[cmotherofpirl]

,Aug 31 2003, 01:12 AM]

I think we should all agree to disagree on this one.

You'll never get me (or anyone else from the YABB crew that's over here) to agree that tradition or the church or anything else has as much authority as the word of God, and apparantly you guys will never let go of it, so can we just drop this argument?

Jas where in the bible does it say it is the sole rule of faith?

[MC Just]

How can someone say that the bible is the Final Authority when scripture says the Church is? By saying the bible is all you need , you are saying the church is not important thus contradicting the scriptures. "Ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of Christ" Would it be ignorant of me to say that this is the reason why out of the 33,832 denominations none of them can agree with each other and they keep splitting? The truth is if ya'll knew the scruiptures as much as you say you do, you wouldnt be divided, the scribes and pharisees were the same way they had sects too. Claiming they knew the scriptures, but when Christ came they rejected him although he fit the prophecies perfectly. They rejected him because they were ignorant of the scriptures. Christ created an authoritive church to guide and protect the scriptures and the interpretations. To teach the faithful. The Catholic Church is not divided can you tell me why? I mean it must be doing something right. It is crystal clear in the scriptures that Christ built an authoritive Church that would never be destroyed, only the catholic church fits that description, historically and biblically.

[Jake Huether]

Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church,...

Look it up in the Bible!?????

LOL! NO!

treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

If the Bible was supposed to be the "final authority", then please, please tell us why SCRIPTURE itself tells us to go to the Church!