Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Importance of sacrifice Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 08:18:48 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 115 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu One of the problems is that those who so object to the concept of the Mass have virtually no knowledge of Christian doctrinal history. When looking at 4th century Christian writers, or all the liturgical manuscripts since the 8th century, the objection is always: "Where does it say that in the Bible?" It's not quite that simple. We're currently looking at the contents of the Bible worked out over 1900 years later. Simply comparing what St. John writes around 100, and what Catholic theologians write in 1990, isn't going to get one very far, unless there is some understanding of what has elapsed in between. I suppose a good example here is the canon of the Bible. How do we know what is part of the Bible, and what is not? The early Christians were by no means as sure on several points as we are today. For a while, the authenticity of the Apocalypse, for example, was argued. The Old Testament canon, for quite a while. One can also add things like the observance of Sunday, infant Baptism, and Baptism via infusion (pouring) vs. immersion. If we really want to go back to 100, then we shall simply have to throw out much of the Bible, because Christians weren't universally sure what was in the Bible back then. Simply asserting that the Fathers of the Church were guided to pick the right books so we could have something to guide us: There are big problems with such, since the canon wasn't ever *definitively* settled until the 16th century. At which point Protestant groups picked a different Old Testament canon than the Catholic Church did! Moving on to another topic. (We wandered somewhat from the Mass.) St. Paul speaks of error spreading worse and worse, of a revolt, an apostasy, before the end, and the coming of the Antichrist. Of men not enduring sound doctrine, having itching ears, heaping to themselves teachers, "Lo, here is Christ." Etc., etc., you know the verses. The time sequence would seem to be reversed, if one counts the Catholic Church as the scarlet beast, etc. The era of the Catholic Church has passed. It no longer has the influence over society that it once enjoyed. You can walk around town if you doubt me. Were this a Catholic society, there would be religious symbolism visible in many places, pictures, statues, etc., to remind the people of their destiny. (Nowadays we can't even put a crib on a courthouse lawn at Christmas!) The Reformation coming so late in human history does not seem to match St. Paul's scenarios. It's backwards; the revolt is supposed to come towards the end of the world, not in the 4th century. Also, if the Catholic Church is indeed the beast, this would seem to indicate that Catholic faith and morals are corrupt. That is, if the Catholic religion were once again spread everywhere, zillions of people would lose their souls. Hmmm. Interesting, but hardly realistic. We have a rather large nation -- Russia -- officially professing Atheism. How come we never saw such a thing in the Middle Ages, when Satan reigned supreme? (I guess Catholicism is worse than Atheism? Or perhaps it is the forerunner of Atheism?) There is also another problem along this line, namely, that adopting such an attitude to our Christian ancestors means that the Jews have been more faithful to their religion than the Christians have been to theirs. This seems to be no little problem, given that the Christian religion is the fulfillment of the Jewish, and was founded immediately by the second Person of the Blessed Trinity made man. How can the Jews have been so fundamentally faithful to their Scripture over so many centuries, yet the Christians so unfaithful to theirs? Especially when God Himself came down here to teach it to us? The points about forbidding meat, forbidding marriage, etc., have little bearing. They address people who forbid these things as being intrinsically evil, as something never permissible. The Albigenses viewed marriage so. Let's see. Forbidding meat? Perhaps Hinduism fits the menu (I don't know). Lastly, some more on the Mass: Christ does not suffer in the Mass. His presence in a consecrated host, though a real one, remains a sacramental one. The Sacraments remain, always and everywhere, SIGNS. Christ's presence is not at all the same as if He were standing on the altar, disguised a little by an optical illusion. Transubstantiation implies that Christ, though present, is completely inaccessible to anything you can do to the Host. Breaking It in half doesn't affect Christ at all. He doesn't even wince. Neither do you have to be within, say, 100 yards of a Mass for it to have any effect! The effects of a Mass remain, except in special circumstances, or in general terms, unknowable. The Mass calls down graces, but who can definitely say which Mass brings which grace? Proximity to a Mass certainly has little to do with it, in any absolute sense. There are some prophecies in Daniel regarding the Mass, and what will happen in the last times. "He [the Antichrist] will be given power against the strength, and the sacrifice" is how one of them goes, if I remember correctly. "Because of sin," it says in another place. In the final analysis, I think the problems about the Mass have much to do with comparisons between 1st century Scripture and much later Catholic theology, and not understanding what happened in between. The doctrines: - Christ dies now no more - There is only one sacrifice for sin - Christ is the only mediator are fundamental to the Catholic as well as the Protestant. Joe Buehler