English Catholicism and the See of Rome

[phattonez]

Ok ... so empirically, if you took the Liquid and matter out, and tested it, would it still be wine and bread?

So I wanted to expand on this thought for your sake, because I feel like I'm not giving you an adequate response whereby I'm really defining well what substance is. Today I read an excerpt from a book by Cardinal Ratzinger (now known as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the book is called The Celebration of the Eucharist) where he dwells on the issue of how we deal with the concept of substance in modern times.

For classical physics, as everyone knows, substance was the last indivisible unit of corpuscular being; at first atoms were regarded as those units and, later, the elemental particles found in atoms. They appeared to be the things ultimately responsible for material reality, the "building blocks of reality" out of which the world is constructed. Thus they were considered the substances in which the different dynamics processes occurred accidentally. The demonstration that matter in principle can be transformed into energy demolished this notion of substance. Matter is not something that exists as solid clumps of reality. The ultimate particles are not some "mass" in rigid contrast to energy. Consequently, the concept of substance in classical physics and the late Middle Ages is in fact abolished.
The thirteenth-century concept of substance, however, as it was classically formulated by Thomas Aquinas, is completely different. For High Scholasticism, not only the "when" but also the "where" is an accident; that is to say, not only the process unfolding over the course of time but also the structure existing in space is an accident. In still other words: not just the quality but also the quantity is considered an accident. That is an important observation. For with that we have caught sight of the subject matter peculiar to the field of metaphysics, as the High Middle Ages understood it; at the same time, this makes evident the central element in the rearrangement of our understanding of reality that became the presupposition of the classical physics of the modern era. For the High Middle Ages, "matter," as materia prima is a pre-physical, precisely meta-physical entity; it is pure potentiality, and as such it does not become intelligible anywhere; it can only be grasped speculatively , metaphysically as the one root of physically observable material being. The same is true of "substance", which refers to the metaphysical reality of the subsistence of an existing thing, but not to the appearing thing as phenomenon.

 

[RGacky3]

You're still not looking at the issue in the way metaphysics would find satisfying. In the end, even with this approach, you are still looking at the properties of the substance, and you are not able to determine the substance itself. You are only concerning yourself with the accidents, which undoubtedly are still there.

This article should give more detail on the subject:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

In that case what defines substance?

if all we have Access to is the Properties or the accidents ... empirically ... we can't actually determine the "substance" anything?

For classical physics, as everyone knows, substance was the last indivisible unit of corpuscular being; at first atoms were regarded as those units and, later, the elemental particles found in atoms. They appeared to be the things ultimately responsible for material reality, the "building blocks of reality" out of which the world is constructed. Thus they were considered the substances in which the different dynamics processes occurred accidentally. The demonstration that matter in principle can be transformed into energy demolished this notion of substance. Matter is not something that exists as solid clumps of reality. The ultimate particles are not some "mass" in rigid contrast to energy. Consequently, the concept of substance in classical physics and the late Middle Ages is in fact abolished.
The thirteenth-century concept of substance, however, as it was classically formulated by Thomas Aquinas, is completely different. For High Scholasticism, not only the "when" but also the "where" is an accident; that is to say, not only the process unfolding over the course of time but also the structure existing in space is an accident. In still other words: not just the quality but also the quantity is considered an accident. That is an important observation. For with that we have caught sight of the subject matter peculiar to the field of metaphysics, as the High Middle Ages understood it; at the same time, this makes evident the central element in the rearrangement of our understanding of reality that became the presupposition of the classical physics of the modern era. For the High Middle Ages, "matter," as materia prima is a pre-physical, precisely meta-physical entity; it is pure potentiality, and as such it does not become intelligible anywhere; it can only be grasped speculatively , metaphysically as the one root of physically observable material being. The same is true of "substance", which refers to the metaphysical reality of the subsistence of an existing thing, but not to the appearing thing as phenomenon.

Ok, I understand this definition ... but to me it's just a negative ... it's just saying what the substance is not ... not what it is, it's also not giving us any way to determine "substance" ....

I mean if it's something totally Beyond Our senses or ability to understand ... then what's wrong With saying it changes "mystically?" or metaphorically .. or spiritually changes...?

 

[CrabCake]

So I wanted to expand on this thought for your sake, because I feel like I'm not giving you an adequate response whereby I'm really defining well what substance is. Today I read an excerpt from a book by Cardinal Ratzinger (now known as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, the book is called The Celebration of the Eucharist) where he dwells on the issue of how we deal with the concept of substance in modern times.

I read a very good essay (actually, it was originally a lecture) by Ratzinger on the communion. In it, he explores how communion is a symbol for the transformation of death to life, violence to love, and how it serves to unite believers. He also talks about how the act of communion is foreshadowing of the coming eternal wedding feast. Furthermore, he discusses the two dimensions of communion, the vertical (communion with God) and the horizontal (communion with believers), and how in the case of the second, this presents a special call for global social justice. Here is how he summarizes this whole thing:

The purpose of the Eucharist is the transformation of those who receive it in authentic communion. And so the end is unity, that peace which we, as separate individuals who live beside one another or in conflict with one another, become with Christ and in him, as one organism of self-giving, to live in view of the resurrection and the new world.

Eucharist, Communion and Solidarity

It seems clear that the Catholic Church recognizes and greatly values the deep symbolism inherent in communion. It's worth noting that we could read that whole lecture without believing in transubstantiation and still agree with virtually everything it says.

As far substance theory goes, this was a theory developed by Aristotle, Aquinas merely applies it to Christianity. The problem is that virtually no one supports this theory anymore. Aristotle developed that ontology in a pre-darwinian time and almost certainly would not have developed it had he had access to modern science. The substance theory that the Catholic Church relies on for transubstantiation lost credibility centuries ago.

Recognizing that Catholic theology on the Eucharist was now being supported by ontological approaches that were no longer tenable, Catholic theologians Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeeckx proposed a new way of thinking about the eucharist, no longer as transubstantiation but as transfinalization or transignification. Their views were swatted down by Paul VI, who by his own admission, felt it was necessary to do so only because such beliefs were causing confusion.

The question I want to get to is the following. Given that:
1. The symbolism behind communion is recognized, valued, and celebrated in Catholic theology.
2. The intellectual framework once believed to prop up transubstantiation is no longer held to be valid.
3. Noted Catholic theologians have promoted moving away from it.
4. The current pope has declared that God is not afraid of new things.

would it be so damaging if the church moved away from such teachings? It seems to me that transubstantiation is an unnecessary detail of Catholic theology. Read Ratzinger's thoughts on communion and it's difficult to see the value transubstantiation adds to that theology. Why is it so important to you?

A follow up question to that. If the church revisited the issue and accepted a transfinalization view instead, would you be willing to accept this new position?

 

[phattonez]

In that case what defines substance?

if all we have Access to is the Properties or the accidents ... empirically ... we can't actually determine the "substance" anything?



Ok, I understand this definition ... but to me it's just a negative ... it's just saying what the substance is not ... not what it is, it's also not giving us any way to determine "substance" ....

I mean if it's something totally Beyond Our senses or ability to understand ... then what's wrong With saying it changes "mystically?" or metaphorically .. or spiritually changes...?

The problem is about whether or not you can say that it is literally the Body of Christ or it is not. If it is not, then the practice among Catholic of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the elevations during the Mass, and the processions, become idolatry. The issue is also of whether this is viewed as just a symbol. If it indeed is just a symbol, then the whole practice of celebrating just becomes an empty remembrance. Remember that whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover, the lamb that they slaughtered was not just a memorial of the event.

Consequently, when the Jews celebrated the Passover each year as a memorial, they believed that this pivotal moment in their history, the Exodus, was not only brought to their minds, but was actually made present to them. Some ancient Jews even said that when they celebrated the Passover, it was as if they themselves were walking out of Egypt with their ancestors in the Exodus

 

[RGacky3]

The problem is about whether or not you can say that it is literally the Body of Christ or it is not. If it is not, then the practice among Catholic of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the elevations during the Mass, and the processions, become idolatry. The issue is also of whether this is viewed as just a symbol. If it indeed is just a symbol, then the whole practice of celebrating just becomes an empty remembrance. Remember that whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover, the lamb that they slaughtered was not just a memorial of the event.

Ic ... but does that adoration raise to the Level or worship?

Also if it doesn't change in any empirical way, in any of it's physical Properties .... isn't the change hapening in such a way that cannot be sensed physically, and thus in practice IS symbolic?

About the slaughtering of the lamb ... I don't think the Jews really were having their sins washed by that lamb, the lamb was a precursor to Christ, who ACTUALLY washed the world of sin.

 

[phattonez]

Ic ... but does that adoration raise to the Level or worship?

Also if it doesn't change in any empirical way, in any of it's physical Properties .... isn't the change hapening in such a way that cannot be sensed physically, and thus in practice IS symbolic?

Symbolism means what we make to represent isn't actually something. No, what we believe is that the bread and wine actually do become the Body and Blood of Christ. The accidents remain, but it is the substance of Christ.

About the slaughtering of the lamb ... I don't think the Jews really were having their sins washed by that lamb, the lamb was a precursor to Christ, who ACTUALLY washed the world of sin.

The point of Jewish sacrifice was undoubtedly for forgiveness of sin.

 

[RGacky3]

1. Symbolism means what we make to represent isn't actually something. No, what we believe is that the bread and wine actually do become the Body and Blood of Christ. The accidents remain, but it is the substance of Christ.

2. The point of Jewish sacrifice was undoubtedly for forgiveness of sin.

1. But the substance is defined in a way to where there is absolutely difference in any empirical or measurable way, so you might as well just say it's symbolic but I take the symbolic as being real ... Since nothing physical actually changes, and all we can measure is physical, so the "substance" talk is really meaningless.

2. Not really, the Jews still needed the redemtion of Christ.

 

[phattonez]

1. But the substance is defined in a way to where there is absolutely difference in any empirical or measurable way, so you might as well just say it's symbolic but I take the symbolic as being real ... Since nothing physical actually changes, and all we can measure is physical, so the "substance" talk is really meaningless.

You're flirting dangerously close to naturalism with this line of argument, so I'd just be a little careful adopting arguments from a philosophy that totally rejects Christianity.

2. Not really, the Jews still needed the redemtion of Christ.

Sure, but I'm talking about what the point of sacrifice was for the Jews.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ic ... but does that adoration raise to the Level or worship?

Also if it doesn't change in any empirical way, in any of it's physical Properties .... isn't the change hapening in such a way that cannot be sensed physically, and thus in practice IS symbolic?

About the slaughtering of the lamb ... I don't think the Jews really were having their sins washed by that lamb, the lamb was a precursor to Christ, who ACTUALLY washed the world of sin.

the lamb in the passover ceder was symbolizing the mark left on the door so god would nto kill the first born in the plague of that household. It has nothing to do with sin or not sin what so ever. The 'sacrificial lamb' for sin is a ritual that was practiced in the early days was a different ritual that wasn't really biblical. That ritual, which had it's origins in pre-hebrew pagan rituals, of the sacrificial lamb and the scape goat. That wasn't done for passover, but rather yom kippur. The ritual, which I believe the priests in the temple tried to suppress, was a lamb was sacrificed to God to remove a curse, and the 'scape goat' had the sins transferred to it, and allowed to 'escape' to the wilderness, although sometimes the ritual had them be one and the same. I think this ritual no longer was being practiced by the second temple.

 

[it's just me]

the lamb in the passover ceder was....

That would be the Passover Seder, in case anybody wants to look it up....

 

[RGacky3]

1. You're flirting dangerously close to naturalism with this line of argument, so I'd just be a little careful adopting arguments from a philosophy that totally rejects Christianity.

2. Sure, but I'm talking about what the point of sacrifice was for the Jews.

1. No .. I'm not, I have no problem With the super Natural and the idea that God can act in the world, my point is when there is NO empirical manifestation, then there is no way of knowing whether or not a miracle even happened, I mean I might as well say my morning coffee turned into the substance of CHrist ... the acutal empirical change is the same.

My argument doesn't reject Christianity at all ... When Jesus turned water into wine .... it turned from water into an alcoholic drink made from grapes .... not wine substancially but empirically H20.

2. The Jews were waiting for the messiah ... they knew their sacrifices were not really atoning fully.

 

[RGacky3]

the lamb in the passover ceder was symbolizing the mark left on the door so god would nto kill the first born in the plague of that household. It has nothing to do with sin or not sin what so ever. The 'sacrificial lamb' for sin is a ritual that was practiced in the early days was a different ritual that wasn't really biblical. That ritual, which had it's origins in pre-hebrew pagan rituals, of the sacrificial lamb and the scape goat. That wasn't done for passover, but rather yom kippur. The ritual, which I believe the priests in the temple tried to suppress, was a lamb was sacrificed to God to remove a curse, and the 'scape goat' had the sins transferred to it, and allowed to 'escape' to the wilderness, although sometimes the ritual had them be one and the same. I think this ritual no longer was being practiced by the second temple.

There were various rituals for sin, individual and for the nation, as for their origen, I don't know of any pagan cultures that sacrificed to atone for sins (it was usually to appease the Gods or keep some Natural phenomenon going).

But Yeah, passover was not about sin ...

 

[RAMOSS]

There were various rituals for sin, individual and for the nation, as for their origen, I don't know of any pagan cultures that sacrificed to atone for sins (it was usually to appease the Gods or keep some Natural phenomenon going).

But Yeah, passover was not about sin ...

No, it is about Freedom, and is used to help explain social justice. Much of the symbolism in the Eucharist has it's roots in the Passover Seder. .. athough used in a way that is very alien to the Jewish religion.

Yom Kippor is about repentance and forgiveness of sin. However, the Jewish concept of sin is a lot more mellow that the Christian concept.

 

[RGacky3]

No, it is about Freedom, and is used to help explain social justice. Much of the symbolism in the Eucharist has it's roots in the Passover Seder. .. athough used in a way that is very alien to the Jewish religion.

Yom Kippor is about repentance and forgiveness of sin. However, the Jewish concept of sin is a lot more mellow that the Christian concept.

No I understand that, when it comes to the Passover, but you have Yom Kippor, but you also have other rituals, for example in the Torah personal sins, you have to remember that temple Judaism is not the same as Rabbinic Judaism.

And yes, the Jewish concept is different, but when we are talking about 2nd temple Judaism, or even 1rst temple, there isn't just one concept.

 

[RAMOSS]

No I understand that, when it comes to the Passover, but you have Yom Kippor, but you also have other rituals, for example in the Torah personal sins, you have to remember that temple Judaism is not the same as Rabbinic Judaism.

And yes, the Jewish concept is different, but when we are talking about 2nd temple Judaism, or even 1rst temple, there isn't just one concept.

Temple Judaism was controlled by the Sadducee, who did not believe in an after life, because it was not in the Torah. Back then, Judaism appears to have been even more fractured than it is today.

 

[RGacky3]

Temple Judaism was controlled by the Sadducee, who did not believe in an after life, because it was not in the Torah. Back then, Judaism appears to have been even more fractured than it is today.

Exactly, when I say second temple Judaism, or tample Judaism, I'm not talking about the Saducees, I'm talking about the judaism around that time, including pharasaic judaism, and everything inbetween.

 

[phattonez]

1. No .. I'm not, I have no problem With the super Natural and the idea that God can act in the world, my point is when there is NO empirical manifestation, then there is no way of knowing whether or not a miracle even happened, I mean I might as well say my morning coffee turned into the substance of CHrist ... the acutal empirical change is the same.

Is the soul empirical?

My argument doesn't reject Christianity at all ... When Jesus turned water into wine .... it turned from water into an alcoholic drink made from grapes .... not wine substancially but empirically H20.

Is sin empirical?

2. The Jews were waiting for the messiah ... they knew their sacrifices were not really atoning fully.

But they were meant to atone for sin, even if imperfect:

The sacrifices ordained for Passover are as follows: "an offering made by fire, a burnt offering; two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven he-lambs of the first year, without blemish, and their meal-offering, fine flour mingled with oil; . . . and one he-goat for a sin-offering, beside the burnt offering of the morning." These were to be offered daily for seven days (Num. xxviii. 16-25, Hebr.).

Yes, even the Passover (contrary to what you said in the following post, #112), was meant to atone for sin.

 

[RGacky3]

Is the soul empirical?

Is sin empirical?

Yes and yes.

The soul is Our life, Our intelect, everything about us, which we and others experience.

Sin is falling from Grace, which we see and feel in ourselves and others, we also experience Death which is the result of sin.

But they were meant to atone for sin, even if imperfect:

Yes, even the Passover (contrary to what you said in the following post, #112), was meant to atone for sin.

So for the jews no savior was necessary at all?

 

[phattonez]

Yes and yes.

The soul is Our life, Our intelect, everything about us, which we and others experience.

Sin is falling from Grace, which we see and feel in ourselves and others, we also experience Death which is the result of sin.

How do we measure that empirically?

So for the jews no savior was necessary at all?

Of course it was, especially after their covenant was nullified as attested by Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31: 31 [e]“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

 

[RGacky3]

1. How do we measure that empirically?



2. Of course it was, especially after their covenant was nullified as attested by Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31: 31 [e]“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

1. By the existance of Death, and by experience of sin and seeing People sin.

2. Ok so those who died before Jesus and the New covenant did not need the salvation of Jesus?

 

[phattonez]

1. By the existance of Death, and by experience of sin and seeing People sin.

How can we measure sin? Is there some gizmo I can hook up to someone to see if they are in sin or in a state of grace?

2. Ok so those who died before Jesus and the New covenant did not need the salvation of Jesus?

Of course they did, but this did not change the fact that their sacrifices were for the forgiveness of sin, though imperfect.

 

[RGacky3]

1. How can we measure sin? Is there some gizmo I can hook up to someone to see if they are in sin or in a state of grace?



2. Of course they did, but this did not change the fact that their sacrifices were for the forgiveness of sin, though imperfect.

1. Easy, you look and see if they've done a sin or not ... and you check to see if they grow old and die ....

2. Ok ... so did it actually forgive their sins or not?

 

[phattonez]

1. Easy, you look and see if they've done a sin or not ... and you check to see if they grow old and die ....

And how can a sin be determined empirically?

2. Ok ... so did it actually forgive their sins or not?

Okay, time to get technical. Jewish animal sacrifices could only atone for sin, like covering it up. In no way could they totally forgive sin. So yes, the Jews still needed the sacrifice of Jesus, because only through Jesus can we have the complete forgiveness of our sins. Animal sacrifices only looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ, but they could not match the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.

So no, the Passover was much more than a recalling of the events of the flight from Egypt. Leviticus is quite clear about what the sacrifice is for:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

And Hebrews speaks much the same way:

Hebrews 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people.

And it also explains why the blood of Christ is different:

Hebrews 9:13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

And makes it excruciatingly clear:

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

And the point is thus: the Jews had to continually offer sacrifices of atonement because they were flawed. Only the sacrifice of Christ can forgive sins totally, and since the sacrifice was perfect, it was needed to only be completed once. We have total forgiveness of our sins through the one sacrifice of Christ.

So then what are we to do today? The author of Hebrews goes on to say:

Hebrews 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe

And then makes an odd allusion:

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

We need to read this a little more closely.

I believe the most important place to start is taking a look at the Greek. The Greek word ἔχομεν for "we have" (one word) is a verb in the present-tense. This is important because St Paul, writing years after the Crucifixion, speaks of us Christians having an Altar 'here-and-now' (i.e. presently). Next, the Greek term for "altar" is thysiastērion, which comes from the Greek root-word thysia meaning "sacrifice". This term for "altar" is used about 23 times in the New Testament, and in every case it refers to an actual altar, nothing symbolic. (While I have not surveyed all 437 occurrences of in the Greek Old Testament, a cursory look seems to indicate the same thing.) Thus, the plain reading of the text is explicitly saying Christians presently have a (literal) altar.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Habemus altare! - We have an Altar!

Where else is an altar mentioned? In 1 Corinthians 10?

Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[f] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.[g] 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Those who eat the sacrifice are partners in the altar. What do we do at the altar? We drink from the cup of blessing, we participate in the Blood of Christ. We eat the one bread, we participate in the Body of Christ. We have an altar, and from the altar we consume our sacrifice, which is Christ, offered for our behalf. Look at what St. Paul is saying. The Jews and even the pagans consume their sacrifices. Christ, the most perfect sacrifice, is also to be consumed. We have an altar, and upon that altar we recall the sacrifice of Christ offered once for all.

 

[phattonez]

This passage from the Catechism sums up the position quite nicely:

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189
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."190

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

I'm sorry to have given you such a long response to the second point, but I guess that I had a lot to say.

 

[RGacky3]

And how can a sin be determined empirically?

I just said it ... you see peope do sins ... thats a sin measured empirically ... and you can know what sin is from the bible.

Okay, time to get technical. Jewish animal sacrifices could only atone for sin, like covering it up. In no way could they totally forgive sin. So yes, the Jews still needed the sacrifice of Jesus, because only through Jesus can we have the complete forgiveness of our sins. Animal sacrifices only looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ, but they could not match the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.

So no, the Passover was much more than a recalling of the events of the flight from Egypt. Leviticus is quite clear about what the sacrifice is for:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

And Hebrews speaks much the same way:

Hebrews 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people.

And it also explains why the blood of Christ is different:

Hebrews 9:13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

And makes it excruciatingly clear:

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

And the point is thus: the Jews had to continually offer sacrifices of atonement because they were flawed. Only the sacrifice of Christ can forgive sins totally, and since the sacrifice was perfect, it was needed to only be completed once. We have total forgiveness of our sins through the one sacrifice of Christ.

So then what are we to do today? The author of Hebrews goes on to say:

Hebrews 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe

And then makes an odd allusion:

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

We need to read this a little more closely.



NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Habemus altare! - We have an Altar!

Where else is an altar mentioned? In 1 Corinthians 10?

Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[f] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.[g] 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Those who eat the sacrifice are partners in the altar. What do we do at the altar? We drink from the cup of blessing, we participate in the Blood of Christ. We eat the one bread, we participate in the Body of Christ. We have an altar, and from the altar we consume our sacrifice, which is Christ, offered for our behalf. Look at what St. Paul is saying. The Jews and even the pagans consume their sacrifices. Christ, the most perfect sacrifice, is also to be consumed. We have an altar, and upon that altar we recall the sacrifice of Christ offered once for all.

I don't have time right now, but I appreciate the long response, I'll get back to it later.