In this second post, I'll be covering two accusations made by R.C. Sproul that many Protestants make. Mr. Sproul states that there are many Christian faiths that have error in their theology but, it is okay to have such error as long as you stick to the Gospel of Christ as it is found in the Bible. He also states that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the main reason as to why the Catholic Church is an apostate body which cannot be viewed as a true Christian communion. I will therefore prove Sproul wrong on both of these counts by clearly demonstrating that the Catholic Church CANNOT have error in it's theology and I will also show what the Church teaches in regards to the sacrifice that occurs in the Mass as not only being biblical but, it confirms who Christ really is.
@2:15-2:47 - "I think you can be a Christian and have all kinds of error in your theology...all of us have error mixed in with truth in our faith. Some of this error is extremely dangerous..."
This is where Protestantism and Catholicism divide. For what a Protestant can accept in regards to their man-made theology cannot compare to what God has revealed through Christ's one true Church; in other words, while Protestantism is racked with contradictory statements, the Catholic Church can never teach in error for she is preserved from it by God Himself. Sounds like a bold statement, doesn't it? Well, sometimes the truth is a powerful thing indeed!
How is it that the Catholic Church can claim such a thing, that it is saved from error? Well, the simple fact of the matter is that once we analyze the historical and theological data, one has to rationally arrive to this position. To begin with, Mr. Sproul mentioned that in his church members don't have to affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith in order to be part of that church unless you become an officer there. This Protestant document was put forward in 1646 by the Church of England in order to lay out what they officially believed. Anyone who is familiar with the Church of England knows that it was INVENTED by King Henry the VIII due to the fact that he wanted an annulment from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and, since the Catholic Church would not allow for the annulment without proper cause, the King of England decided that it was much easier to simply start his own personal church in order to have his lawful marriage illicitly dissolved.
So, right of the bat, Mr. Sproul is stating that a man-made doctrine that he is using in his man-made religious denomination need not be accepted by the people attending his church lest they decided to become officials, at which point, they must acknowledge the man-made doctrine of the Westminster Confession in order to hold an office in that man-made Christian congregation. Gee, with all of these man-made inventions, is it any wonder why Sproul HAS TO CONCEDE to the fact that there are "all kinds of error" in Christian theology? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a Christian denomination that was saved from humanly failures in order to establish the truth of Christ here on Earth? Only in a religious system invented by men can there be such multitudinous errors; the Catholic Church, however, was founded by Christ upon St. Peter and, therefore, no error can exist. But, how can this be? How is it that Catholics can make such a claim and Protestants cannot?
This is primarily due to the fact that, unlike Protestants, we don't take the Bible as our lone source of authority; we also have Sacred Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Why is it important that there are 3 bona fide sources of authority? For the exact same reason that there are 3 different branches of government in the U.S., they provide checks and balances. You see, the only way that the Catholic Church can arrive at theological proofs is that it can check to see if all 3 God-inspired sources reconcile with one another and, if they don't, then the Catholic Church cannot proclaim it to be a Christian truth. So, I will, endeavor to demonstrate just how the Catholic Church arrives at these 3 sources of authority so as to prove Mr. Sproul incorrect in stating that "all of us have error in our faith."
Let's start off with the Magisterium. The term Magisterium simply means "office of the teacher" and, the Catholic Church claims that this office was officially put in place by Christ before His Ascension. In Matthew 28:16-20 we read the following:
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
So, let's ask ourselves: if we were alive in the year 32 A.D. and had a question about Jesus' teaching, it would've been possible for us to go directly to Jesus and ask Him to answer our query. However, after Jesus Ascended into heaven, if we had a question pertaining to a teaching that Jesus' taught, who then could we go to and ask? Who had the authority to answer such questions in light of the fact that Christ was no longer here on earth? Well, according to Matthew 28, Jesus tells his Apostles that He has all authority on heaven and earth which He bequeaths to them in the same manner as Matthew 18:18. He also tells them that they are to go and convert the whole world by baptizing them and "teaching them to observe" all of the things that He commanded them to do. But, the most important is the very last verse in Matthew 28 because it explicitly states that, since the Apostles now have the authority to teach others, in order for them to teach all of Christ's truths, Jesus - the second Person of the Godhead - promises to be with them forever. In other words, God Himself will be with these new teachers so that they cannot proclaim anything in error! Hence, these first 11 men whom Jesus conferred the authority to teach, make up the very first Magisterium or, the very first office of the teachers.
And, as the Bible plainly states and history demonstrably proves, the early Church believed in succession and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands as it is depicted throughout the Old and New Testament. Therefore, it only makes sense that the Magisterium, which Jesus Himself instituted, has also been handed down via succession to the modern day. After all, if the eternal Lord affirmed that he would be with these teachers until the end, then there is NO WAY that an authoritative office of teachers instituted by Christ has ever been disbanded or done away with. Quite the contrary, it continues to this very day in the only Church that has been around since 33 A.D. It therefore follows that, if Christ gave this office His authority and Christ is constantly with this office so that it can teach all that He has commanded, anything that flows from the Magisterium HAS TO BE unerring, infallible and impeccable because Jesus Christ Himself is assuring that any teaching that this office proclaims is, in fact, the Word of God. It therefore follows that the Magisterium is an authoritative source of God's word for Christ Himself protects it from error.
Secondly, we have Sacred Tradition which are the oral teachings of Jesus Christ that were handed down to the Apostles and to their successors. Protestants like to claim that oral Tradition is unreliable due to the fact that these Traditions were the actions and words of men and not of God inspiring them to do such things; how truly ironic since ALL Protestants denominations are, by definition, man-made! When it comes to Sacred Tradition, we know for a fact that all of the things that Jesus taught were unerringly communicated by the Apostles and to their disciples due to the fact that Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to them. In John 14:26 Jesus states:
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Here we see that Christ has given the Apostles reassurance that the Holy Spirit will open their minds to His teachings and remind them of everything that He taught, therefore, ANYTHING that an Apostle said or taught in regards to the Christian faith could not of been false, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't of allowed for it. Additionally, we also know that there were other things that Christ taught which aren't written about, as John 21:25 mentions:
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Wouldn't it be nice to know of all of these other things that Jesus taught and did? In order to understand Christ and Christianity better, wouldn't if be a huge benefit if someone would've preached of all of these extra things that Jesus did? Well, if you are a member of the Catholic Church, then congratulations! For you have that oral Tradition still intact that was communicated by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and later to their disciples. In other words, Sacred Tradition was the early preaching done by the Church Fathers that was preserved from error and therefore, it is God-inspired and hence, the Word of God. But, most importantly, Sacred Tradition predates the actual written Scriptures; In a nutshell, if the Bible is the written Word of God, Sacred Tradition is the unwritten Word of God. As such, Sacred Tradition cannot ever contradict what the Magisterium has put forward nor what the Bible teaches, for Tradition is the Word of God and therefore, a source of unerring authority.
At this point, the diligent Bible-Only Protestant will inevitably ask: "Where's that in Scripture? We never see any type of 'Sacred oral Tradition' in Scripture!" The issue here isn't whether or not we have proof of Sacred Oral Tradition in the Bible - because we do - but, whether or not Protestants can view this as a bona fide source of authority. In the Bible itself we have several instances in which St. Paul appeals to Sacred Tradition (not to be confused with Jewish "traditions of men") as a source of knowledge and ascendancy:
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
In light of these biblical quotes, every Protestant must ask themselves the following question: Was Paul preaching orally inspired teachings at any point during his ministry, that is, was he teaching anything orally that was inspired by the Holy Spirit? If the answer is "yes," then the Catholic case for Sacred Tradition is vindicated, if the answer is "no," then clearly, it goes against what the Bible states in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 in which St. Paul says (my emphasis added):
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God...
This verse proves that St. Paul was in fact teaching orally inspired teachings and, once you couple this with the 3 passages from above, it is plain to see that there was indeed an oral Tradition within the Early Church that was not only being promulgated but, per the promise of Christ, was saved from fallacy. Indeed, there are several instances of Sacred Tradition within the pages of Scripture itself! The following Scripture passages reveal to us that there was some kind of extra-biblical teaching/knowledge that the authors of the New Testament adhered to since, they clearly quote teachings that are NEVER found in the Bible itself. Hence, we have to accept the fact that there is truly more Christian teachings that are not found in the Bible alone that were being transmitted orally by the Apostles and their disciples. In Acts 20:35, we hear St. Paul say the following:
"I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
Never once in the Bible nor in any of the 4 Gospels, does Jesus ever say these words as they are quoted. The only way to reconcile this is to accept the Catholic position and realize that this was one example of an oral teaching of Jesus that was handed down to St. Paul and then down to us. In the first half of the Epistle of Jude, the author is explaining certain happenings that occurred in the the Old Testament and in verse 9, the author states:
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee!"
Here we read that St. Michael the Archangel and Satan were arguing over the body of Moses but, NO WHERE in the Old Testament do we ever read of such an exchange! Did the author of the Book of Jude make this up or, is it more plausible that this was part of the oral Tradition which he was taught and was relaying that information to his Christian audience? Additionally, anyone who has read Jude undoubtedly knows that Jude is warning Christians against false teachers, if - Protestants are right and the Bible Alone is the measure by which we are to test a false prophet - then isn't it rather odd that the author of Jude references something that is not found in the Sacred Scriptures in order to test the validity of what is a Christian teacher? Think about that, why would Jude quotes something not found in our Scriptures and use it in order to build up a case against false teachers? It would've made more sense to quote something much more mundane and part of the established Scriptures in order to prove what a true teacher should know but, instead, the author of Jude points us to something that is never found in the Bible and uses that as an example of what a true Christian should regard as the truth!
It behooves us to therefore acknowledge that the person who wrote Jude knew about a confrontation between St. Michael and Lucifer and, it was so much a part of the author's teaching, that he references it. Simply put, this too must've been a teaching which was transmitted to him via an Apostle, or one of their disciples verbally because, clearly, it is never found in any of the New Testament books. But, even more astonishing is that the author mentions it because as far as he is concerned, IT IS part of the truth of the Christian faith! Out of all of the knowledge that the author of Jude had, doesn't it pique the curiosity of any Christian believer that the Holy Spirit inspired the author of Jude to use an extra-biblical reference? Again, the only way to reconcile this is to accept the Catholic position on Sacred Tradition because in affirming the Catholic position of God-inspired Tradition, we can safely arrive at the fact that God's Word in the Bible is backed up by God's Word in Sacred Tradition.
There are several more passages that demonstrate some extra-biblical teachings that were so important that they too are quoted by the New Testament authors:
Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene." (This direct quote, "He shall be called a Nazarene," is NEVER stated from any prophets in the Bible!)
2 Timothy 3:8
Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds disapprove concerning the faith; (NO WHERE in the Old Testament do we read about these 2 individuals opposing Moses! How did St. Paul know about these two people? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire St. Paul to write about them if they are never mentioned elsewhere in the canon of Scripture? How do we know that St. Paul didn't make this up?)
Hebrews 11:35
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection. (Here we see a direct reference from 2 Maccabees chapter 7, clearly the author of Hebrews was well aware of the apocryphal work, too bad most Protestants aren't!)
James 4:5
Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealousy?" (NO WHERE in Scripture, do we ever see this quote appear! Is it possible that James, who was a relative of Jesus, had read this quote in an extra-biblical writing that he incorrectly thought was part of Sacred Scripture? If so, doesn't this call into question the legitimacy of James' Epistle and, indeed, the work of the Holy Spirit if in fact James was mistaken? Or, does it make much more sense that James knew of this teaching because it had been orally communicated to him through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?)
These are but a few examples that we can take from Scripture to show that there was indeed more being taught then simply what the Bible alone states. The best way to describe what Sacred Tradition is to think of it as the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it in paragraph # 81 states:
"...[Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
Lastly we come to the Bible. Of all of the 3 sources of authority, the Bible is chronologically the final one and, in order to prove that this is the case, I will - for the sake of our Protestant brothers and sisters - use the Bible to demonstrate that this is indeed a fact. In Acts chapter 2 we see St. Peter giving his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, after he has addressed the crowd about the things that have transpired, we read in verse 41 the following:
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
The question here is, WHAT were they added to? Well, in context, we have to conclude that they were added to the Body of Christ and according to St. Paul, the Body of Christ is in fact the Church. Colossians 1:18 states in part:
And He is the head of the body, the church...
St. Paul also states this again in Ephesians 1:22-23 when he mentions the following:
And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
So what we have here is that, after St. Peter's first sermon, 3,000 new people became part of the early church, in fact within the context of Acts 2, we see that in verse 47 the church continued to grow with more people being added to it daily. What is even more remarkable is that Acts 2 tells us exactly what these early Christians were in the habit of doing: in verses 42-46 we see that these early believers adhered to the Apostle's teachings and fellow-shipped with them, they also partook in prayers with them as well as breaking bread with one another. Also, their beliefs were all the same (no different denominations) and they sold their possessions in order to help those in need.
Now, I must ask all the Bible-Only Christians something, notice anything missing in the list of things the early Christians did? That's right, the early members of the Church didn't sit around reading the Bible as so many Protestants would have us believe, the reason for that is because the Bible wasn't compiled yet. However, it is easily seen that there most certainly was a church. Hence, the Church came before the Bible and not vice versa - I'll even go so far as to say that there can be a Church without the Bible due to the fact that it is explicitly demonstrated as such in Scripture itself!
Just look at Acts 8:1, in which we read that Saul - who would later become St. Paul - was persecuting the church, now, ask yourself: how is it possible that the man who would eventually write close to half of the New Testament be persecuting a church that didn't yet have his Scriptures to lead them to the fullness of God's Word? How is it possible that this early church knew the Word of God if they had no Scriptures??? Well, if you're a Bible-Only Protestant, you have to assume that this early church didn't know what they were doing because, after all, they didn't have the Bible! But, even then, how was the early church able to discern what was and what wasn't inspired Holy Writ if they didn't know what they were doing?
Therefore we can legitimately ask: how was it possible for this early church to remain faithful to God without having the Bible? How did it happen that the early Christians were able to remain dutiful to Christ without the Bible and, how was it even possible for them to know who Christ was without the written Word? The only way that these questions can be settled is to accept the Catholic position that the early church had a teaching authority (that was preserved from error) as well as Apostolic Traditions (that were also preserved from error) by the Apostles and their disciples. And, it was these two unerring sources that the early [Catholic] Church used as the main criteria when it sat down and complied the Bible! Think about that, how do we know that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? Because it came from infallible sources that were free from all error due to the presence of God Himself! As Catholics this is how we know with 100% certainty that the 73 books in the Bible are the unerring Word of God; because they came directly from 2 sources that God Himself kept from ever being false. And make no mistake about it, ALL 73 books are listed by Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. and again they are reiterated in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage and, by 415 A.D., St. Augustine comments in chapter 8 of the 22nd book of his City of God, the following:
For these most trustworthy books of ours contain in one narrative both the miracles that were wrought and the creed which they were wrought to confirm. The miracles were published that they might produce faith, and the faith which they produce brought them into greater prominence. For they are read in congregations that they may be believed, and yet they would not be so read unless they were believed. For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments or by the prayers or relics of His saints...For the canon of sacred writings, which behoved to be closed, causes those to be everywhere recited, and to sink into the memory of all the congregations...
Several things should jump out at the reader: 1) Augustine states that the Scriptures demonstrate Jesus' miracles, 2) miracles are currently being made in His name via the sacraments, prayers, relics of the saints and 3) the canon of Scripture is - according to St. Augustine - closed. This should come as no surprise since Augustine became the bishop of Hippo in 396 A.D. and, just 6 years prior in 393 A.D., the Synod of Hippo convened and agreed with the previous canon of Scripture as put forward by Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome. Therefore, St. Augustine bears witness to the fact that the early [Catholic] Church had already settled on the canon of Scripture by the early 400's - that's right, the Bible as we know it today was put together by the Catholic Church by the early 5th century. It would take another 1,200 years before Martin Luther would begin the ruination of 7 apocryphal books out of Holy Writ that would eventually, by the late 19th century, be omitted from every Protestant version of the Bible.
Additionally, we know for a fact that St. Augustine spoke of the apocryphal books as being part of settled Scripture due to the fact that he wrote two letters to St. Jerome, who was the original author of the Latin Vulgate. In one letter (Letter 71 2:4) Augustine asks for a Greek translation of the Septuagint, which contained not only the 39 Old Testament books but the apocryphal works as well. He wrote this letter to Jerome in order to hammer out any differences between the Greek and Latin translation of the Scriptures so that no disagreement between the Greek and Latin churches would arise. In another letter to St. Jerome (Letter 82 5:35), he specifically asks for a translation of the Septuagint in order to combat those who would seek to ruin the integrity of the Scriptures through unfaithful translations. Book 18, chapter 43 of St. Augustine's City of God is entitled: "On the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations," and, in Book 2 chapter 8 of On Christian Doctrine (written in the late 4th century), he names several of the apocryphal books as being not only accepted but canonical. In other words, much to Protestant chagrin, St. Augustine himself declares by the early 5th century A.D. that the Septuagint - complete with its collection of the apocryphal works - is included in the canon of Scripture that all churches are to use.
Furthermore, to state that the Catholic Church officially made the canon of Scripture 73 at the Council of Trent is somewhat misleading. Due to the fact that all 73 books were, up to that time, rarely questioned or disputed and, when they were, the final authority of the Catholic Church ALWAYS trumped personal opinion. The reason why the Catholic Church had to make an official declaration at Trent was because the Church was trying to preserve God's Word and Christ's teachings against the various heresies of the Protestant "Reformation." So, were the 73 books that the Catholic Church used for over 1,000 years "official" before Trent? Technically no but, the simple fact of the matter that they were used and accepted for over a millennia is empirical evidence enough to demonstrably show that the Deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books were in fact part of accept Holy Writ, the copious amounts of citations from the Deuterocanonicals by the Early Church Fathers substantiate this claim. Additionally, isn't it rather contradictory that the original King James Version of the Bible published in 1611 had the apocryphal books in it? Doesn't this also prove that the Deuterocanonical books had reason to be juxtaposed next to the rest of Scripture until later Protestants deemed them unnecessary - at which point -doesn't that go against Revelation 22:19?
Therefore, for Mr. Sproul to state that there is error "in every Christian communion" is not only a falsity but a very incriminating admission as to the soundness of his Protestant beliefs. Indeed, only a Protestant can conscientiously laud the fact that ALL denominations have to have some error because, in this manner, any issues that they may find or come across can be accepted as superfluousness and easily placated as long as you accept the "true" (or whatever you deem to be the "true") Gospel of Christ - so long as your personal interpretation of the Gospel of Christ conforms with his personal interpretation of the Gospel of Christ. How vainglorious is that?
@3:11-4:30 - "I for example, being a student of Roman Catholic theology, could not possibly participate in a Mass. Because I know what the doctrine of the Mass is, that the church teaches that you have a real sacrifice of Christ in the Mass; unbloody to be sure but, it is still a sacrifice and, again at Trent, it is defined in terms of sacrifice...how can you believe in the once for all atonement of Christ and participate in a celebration of Him being sacrificed again as unbloodied as it may be? That's ghastly."
Ah, yes. The "Jesus-died-once-for-all-so-there's-no-reason-to-resacrifice-Him-at-the-Mass" Protestant gambit. The issue here is that most, if not all, Protestants don't have a clue as to what the Sacrifice of the Mass really means and what it really is about. There is virtually no other bigger issue of misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholic then this; the Mass is not only our litugical service but it is also an offering that is made to God. And, in order to fully understand this view, let us first look at the reality that Christ is in fact our Eternal High Priest; whether you're a Protestant or a Catholic, this fact is unmistakable.
In the Bible, the author of Hebrews, goes through the first 7 chapters setting up the reader for the ultimate goal of depicting Jesus as Eternal High Priest, indeed, by the time we get to Hebrews 8:1, we read the following:
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens...
We know that the author of the Book of Hebrews is directing our attention to Jesus as our new High Priest due to the fact that the word kefavlaion (kephalaion) is used here in order to tell the reader that all of the previous 7 chapters worth of information can be summed up by realizing that Christ is our High Priest. There are only three places that the term "once-for-all" is used in the Book of Hebrews, we find it in chapter 7 verse 27, chapter 9 verse 26 and, in chapter 10 verse 10, let's look at two of these instances. In Hebrews 7:27, we read:
[Jesus] who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
In analyzing this passage, we see that the author of Hebrews is making a distinct parallel between the Old Testament Levitical priesthood, as seen in Leviticus 16, and Christ as being the new High Priest of the new covenant. This passage by itself seems to dictate that Christ, upon offering himself on the cross, ended all future needs for offering up anymore sacrifices. When one looks at the fact that the Catholic Mass is a sacrificial offering in and of itself, a Protestant can easily conclude that the [daily] Mass is not only a theological error but, a sacrilege that fundamentally goes against and misrepresents Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. Hebrews 9:25-26 states the following regarding Jesus once-for-all sacrifice:
...Nor did He enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
It would therefore appear, superficially, that there is indeed no use in "re-sacrificing" or "re-offering" Jesus since Christ had already done this once on the cross in 33 A.D. for all time. However, the issue here is in how we translate the phrase, "once-for-all" and, as far as Protestants are concerned, Jesus' sacrifice was done in the past, it was completed, not to be repeated in any sense and, it most certainly is not something at is ongoing and continues to this day. But, is that a correct interpretation? That is, are Protestants correct in saying that Jesus' sacrifice is over and done with? Let's view these verses in the Book of Hebrews more closely.
In order to see whether or not this is a proper way to view the phrase "once-for-all," let's look at what the first couple of verses in Hebrews chapter 8 tell us; remember, in chapter 7 verse 27, we were told that Christ has no need to offer up sins for Himself nor for the people and then, two verses later, we read the following at the beginning of chapter 8: in Hebrews 8:1-3 we are told the following:
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.
Several things should stand out in these passages: 1) The Book of Hebrews tells us that "we have such a High Priest" in Christ. Why is this significant? Well, because the author makes it abundantly clear that we CURRENTLY have Christ as our High Priest; notice that we are told, "we have such a High Priest" AND NOT, "we had such a High Priest." This is very important because it tells us that the Ascended Christ is now and forever our High Priest. 2) Christ is a Minister in Heaven. This is important because it marries Christ to a ministry, after all, it would be totally bizarre for a minister NOT to have a ministry, right? 3) Christ offers up something as the High Priest. That a high priest should offer gifts and sacrifices is cannot be refuted since the Old Testament clearly tells us of the numerous offerings that are given up to God by the Levitical priesthood (see Numbers 18). So, let us summarize who Christ is: He is concurrently our heavenly High Priest and, as such, he now has a heavenly Ministry which He fulfills in the heavenly Sanctuary and, just like all of the high priests, He HAS TO offer up something on behalf of the people.
The question is, what does He offer? What does Jesus Christ offer in order to fulfill the role of the High Priest? The answer to that is simple: as our heavenly High Priest, there is only one thing that He can offer...Himself. Not in the bloodied manner in which He did on the cross but, as our High Priest, He now offers continually and forever the infinite merit and satisfactions of His death and passion for us and for our salvation. This is why the Catholic Church can claim that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an "unbloody" sacrifice due to the fact that Christ IS NOT being sacrificed again nor is He dying, bruised, bloodied or beaten upon a stretch of wood. As Session 22 chapter 2 of the Council of Trent says:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross...The fruits of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are recieved most plentifully through this unbloody one...
In other words, the Sacrifice of Christ that is re-presented (NOT represented) at the Mass, is an unbloody version of what happened on the cross in 33 A.D. and, in light of this view, the phrase "once-for-all" cannot denote a one-time, singular, over-and-done-with event. On the contrary, it signifies a "once-for-all" sacrifice that is done in perpetuity, that is, once but for all time. This is the only way in which Christ's role as a High Priest can by reconciled with what the author of Hebrews is trying to communicate to us because, lest we forget, that the duty of ALL of God's ordained priests was to give thanks and sacrificial offerings to God. Therefore, it only makes sense that Jesus, as the heavenly and eternal High Priest, would also have something to give and offer and - as already stated - Jesus Christ gives us Himself forever, infinitely, and for all time, until He returns. This is why, unlike some Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church has always held that, when Christ ascended, He ascended into heaven with His body, for if He did not, then it would be impossible for Christ to offer Himself up while administering in the heavenly sanctuary!*
And this is exactly what is going on at all Catholic Masses. The priest, being the only one who can Sacramentally communicate Christ's sacrifice to the faithful (Session 22 canon 8), is therefore the agent of which Christ's ongoing sacrifice can truly be made manifest for the whole congregation. In partaking of Christ's eternal offering, the priest himself has been made a partaker in the divine goodness of Christ as Session 22 chapter 1 notes:
...because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should arise, according to the order of Malchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified...on the night in which He was betrayed, that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires...He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church as always understood and taught.
In other words, Christ established a priesthood so that His own sacrifice may be eternally given and offered properly to His faithful via the Catholic Church - which He also established. When one looks at the "once-for-all" sacrifice of Christ through the lens of Christian history and not Mr. Sproul's Calvinist/Reformationist view, it becomes very apparent as to why the early Christian converts and most (if not all) of the Saints came to have so much appreciation for the Eucharist. For it is truly in the Eucharist that Christ makes Himself physically present under the appearance of bread and wine through His priesthood. To call the Mass "ghastly," as Mr. Sproul put it, is not only a demonstration of ignorance but, a deliberate attack upon a matter that he really knows nothing about. Indeed, many Protestants are quick to state that there is no need for the Catholic Mass but, most Protestants have absolutely NO clue as to why we celebrate the Mass. Now that I've shown that the need for the Mass is there due to Christ's role as our new High Priest, I hope that many of you will look at the Mass a bit more differently.
END OF PART 2
*If Christ didn't need to offer up His body for our sake in the heaven, then there would've been no need for His body to be glorified in the first place. As such, the simple fact that Christ, after His resurrection, publicly displayed a physical body (see here as well as CCC #643 & #645) and said physical body was seen being carried off on a cloud at His ascension. Plainly stated is the fact the Christ went to heaven WITH a body. The reason being is that His body would be forever His offering in heaven that He gives to us through the Eucharist. The simple fact that Christ has a physical body and biblical proof supports this, gives weight to the Catholic argument for the Sacrifice of the Mass.
No comments:
Post a Comment