Concerning Hebrews 10: 15-18, Haydock writes:
Now where there is remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. That is, there is no need of any other oblation to redeem us from sin, after the price of our redemption from sin is paid. There is no need of any other different oblation; all that is wanting, is the application of the merits and satisfactions of Christ. No need of those sacrifices, which were ordered in the law of Moses. To convince them of this, is the main design of St. Paul in this place. The pretended reformers, from several expressions of St. Paul in this chapter, think they have clear proofs that no sacrifice at all ought to be offered after Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross; and that so many sacrifices and oblations of masses, are both needless and against the doctrine of the apostle, who says, that Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (ver. 14.) And again, that where there is a remission of sins, now there is no more an oblation for sin. This objection, which is obvious enough, was not first invented by the Calvinists against them they nickname Papists: the same is found in the ancient Fathers; and by their answers, and what they have witnessed concerning the daily sacrifice of the mass, they may find their doctrine of a religion without a continued sacrifice evidently against the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church from the first ages[centuries] of the Christian religion, till they came to be reformers, not of manners, but of the Catholic belief.Hear St. Chrysostom (Hom. xvii.) in his commentary on this very chapter: “What then, saith he, do not we offer up (or make an oblation) every day? We offer up indeed, but with a remembrance of his death. And this oblation is one, and not many. How is it one, and not many? …because, as he that is offered many times, and in many places, is the same body, not many and different bodies, so is it one sacrifice. He (Christ) is our high priest, who offered this sacrifice, by which we are cleansed: we now offer up the same….He said: Do this in remembrance of me. We do not offer a different sacrifice, but the very same, as then our high priest.” St. Chrysostom here says, and repeats it over and over again, that we offer up a sacrifice. 2. That we offer it up every day. 3. That the sacrifice which we daily offer isone and the same oblation, one and the same sacrifice, which our high priest, Christ, offered. 4. That in offering this sacrifice, which in all places, and at all times, is the same body of Christ, and the same sacrifice, we do, and offer it, as he commanded us at his last supper, with a remembrance of him. Is this the practice, and is this the doctrine of our dear countrymen, the English Protestants? But at least it is the constant doctrine, as well as practice, of the whole Catholic Church.The council of Trent, as we have already cited the words, (chap. vii.) teacheth the very same as St. Chrysostom who never says, as some one of late hath pretended, that what we offer is a remembrance only. As the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to the words of Christ in the gospel, is to be taken with a remembrance of him, and yet is not a remembrance only, but is his body and blood, so the sacrifice is to be performed with a remembrance of his benefits and sufferings, by his priests and ministers, but at the same time is a true and propitiatory sacrifice, the priests daily sacrifice, and offer up the same sacrifice, the manner only being different. The sacrifice and mass offered by Peter, is not different in the notion of a sacrifice or oblation from that of Paul, though the priests and their particular actions be different: the same sacrifice was offered by the apostles, and in all Christian ages; and the same sacrifice, according to the prophecy of Malachias, (chap. i. ver. 11.) shall be offered in all nations to the end of the world. This doctrine and practice is not only witnessed by St. Chrysostom but generally by the ancient Fathers and interpreters, as we have taken notice in short in the annotations on St. Matthew. See St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the people of Smyrna; St. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Tryphon; St. Irenæus, lib. 4. chap. xxxii. and xxxiv.; Tertullian, lib. de Velandis Virg.; Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Evang. chap. ult.[last]; St. Jerome, ep. ad Evangelu,; St. Ambrose, in Psalm xxxviii. and on 1 chap. of St. Luke; St. Augustine, lib. 16. de civ. Dei. chap. xxii. lib. cont. Advers. legis chap. 22. and lib. ix. Confess. chap. xii.; St. Chrysostom, hom. lx. ad Pop. Antiochenum. et hom. lxxii. in Matt.; The first general council of Nice[Nicaea].But from this one oblation on the cross and remission of sins, obtained by our Saviour Christ, will our adversaries pretend insisting on the bare letter, that Christ has done all for us, and that we need do nothing, unless perhaps endeavour to catch hold of the justifying cloak of Christ’s justice by faith only? At this rate the love of God and of our neighbour, a life of self-denials, such as Christ preached to every one in the gospel, the practices of prayer, fastings, almsdeeds, and all good works, the sacraments instituted by our Saviour Christ may be all safely laid aside; and we may conclude from hence, that all men’s sins are remitted before they are committed. Into what extravagances do men run, when their private spirit pretends to follow the letter of the Holy Scriptures, and when they make their private judgment the supreme guide in matter of divine faith? It is very true, that Christ hath paid the ransom of all our sins, and his satisfactions are infinite; but to partake of the benefit of this general redemption, the merits and satisfaction of Christ are to be applied to our souls, and this by the order of Providence is to be done not only by faith but by other virtues, by good works, by the sacraments, and by repeating the oblation and the same sacrifice, the manner only being different, according to the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church form the apostle’s time.
In short, in the first part of 10:14 the author of Hebrews is talking about redemption, not the application of redemption. The “being sanctified” part of the verse is the application of Christ’s redemptive work.
When you hear “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” you hear it this way: “by one offering, those who are being sanctified were permanently perfected.” But the context shows that this passage is about the objective priestly work of Christ. Every other priest, writes the author, has to repeat what he does, over and over. Christ does not have to repeat His sacrifice. He priestly work is completed in the one sacrifice of Himself. So when you read the “for all time” you should understand it this way: by this one sacrifice Christ has once and for all made complete atonement for those who are being sanctified. That is the sense in which He has perfected us, and that is the sense in which this perfection is “for all time.” The verse is not teaching that everyone for whom Christ died is already perfected with respect to the application of Christ’s work, because it is not referring to the application of redemption but to the procurement of redemption. The ordinary means by which the effect of Christ’s sacrifice comes to us is through the sacraments He has established; this is how His redemptive work is applied to us.
The universal testimony of the Church Fathers is that we are to pray the Lord’s prayer, to ask daily for the forgiveness of our sins. And only the Pelagians thought that the true Christian was sinless. St. Augustine makes this point over and over in his works against the Pelagians. The Church Fathers frequently refer to 1 John 1:8 as applying to all Christians. If you haven’t read the post, I recommend that you do so, because it may answer some of the questions you are raising here. See also my comments #14 and #18.
from comment 83:
I didn’t say that this chapter is only about the procurement of redemption, and not about its application. The focus in this chapter is on the procurement. Step back to the broader context. In chapters three and four the author explains that Jesus is our high priest in the New Covenant. Because He is our high priest in heaven, we may draw near with confidence to receive grace to help in the time of need. (Heb 4:16) The receiving of grace is the application of Christ’s priesthood to us. To all those who obey Him, He becomes the source of eternal salvation. (Heb 5:9) Then, at that point, the author says that he wants to explain more about Christ’s high priesthood, but the persons to whom he is writing are still immature. He shouldn’t need to lay again the foundation about the elementary teaching about Christ, namely, repentance, faith, washings (i.e. Baptism), the laying on of hands (i.e. Confirmation), and tasting the heavenly gift (i.e. Eucharist). Those are the ways in which Christ’s work are applied to the believer.
In continuing to explain Christ’s high priesthood, in Heb 7:23-25 we are told that because Christ holds His priesthood permanently [lit. into the age], He is forever [lit. to the perfection/completion/entirety] able to save those drawing near to God through Him, because He is always living to make intercession for them. Christ, in heaven, now has “obtained a more excellent ministry.” (Heb 8:6) That ministry in the New Covenant is His intercession for us, through His once-and-for-all perfect sacrifice. He entered into the more perfect tabernacle (Heb 9:11), through His own blood. (Heb 9:12) There is a clear relation between Heb 10:14,18 on the one hand, and Heb 6:6 and 7:22-25 on the other hand. In Hebrews 10:14, when the writer refers to the “one offering” he is referring primarily to the procurement of redemption. In the second half of the verse, the “being sanctified” refers to the on-going application of that redemption to the believer. Objectively, Christ takes away sins once and for all by His once-and-for-all sacrifice. But, that objective work has to be applied to the individual person, or it does not benefit them. The one-time nature of Christ’s sacrifice is reflected in the one-time nature of the application of it (to us), in baptism, as I explained in comment #67 of the Baptismal Regeneration thread. Christians are to remain in the grace that they receive in their baptism. This is what is meant by keeping unstained the white robes we receive at our baptism. Baptism in this way is the application Christ’s sacrifice, by which the baptized are “the perfected forever [lit. into the continuity, i.e perpetually].” Through our baptism into Christ’s one sacrifice, we are in this way once-and-for-all perfected with respect to being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light, having put off the old man and putting on the new man, having received the Spirit and walking thereon in the newness of the Spirit. And yet through the means of grace we continue to grow in the life of Christ and partaking of the grace He merited through His sacrifice; hence the continuous, progressive nature of “being sanctified.” (Heb 10:14)
from comment 90:
One problem with claiming that “he has perfected” [τετελείωκεν] in Heb 10:14 means that believers’future sins are all already forgiven is that in Heb 7:25 the author had already written, “He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” If their sins had already been forgiven at the cross, then there would be no more reason to continue to make intercession for them. But the fact that He continues to make intercession for us indicates that at the moment of justification, it is not the case that all our future sins have already been forgiven. And this implies that we should not assume that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that believers’ future sins are all already forgiven.
Another good reason to believe that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 does not mean that believers’ futuresins are all already forgiven is that the author says in 10:29, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Unless you think that a person can be sanctified without being justified, then the persons being referred to here in 10:29 are justified. And yet they are told that if they they “go on sinning willfully” (Heb 10:26), there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Heb 10:26-27) Yet, if all their future sins had already been forgiven, then there could not possibly be any reason to expect judgment and the fury of fire for those sins. In other words, Heb 10:29 makes no sense if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven.
Similarly, the author goes on to say, “But My righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” (Heb 10:38) A righteous person who is living by faith, is, necessarily, someone who has been justified. But if God has already forgiven all this righteous person’s future sins, then God has already forgiven him for shrinking back. But if God has already forgiven him for shrinking back, then God cannot cease to take pleasure in him for shrinking back. So, if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, then Heb 10:38 makes no sense. Likewise in Heb 12:25, the author writes, “For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.” Here too, if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, then there is no possibility of needing to escape from divine wrath and punishment. So here too, treating the τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 as if it means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, turns Heb 12:25 into misleading fear-mongering. “Oh Paul [assuming Pauline authorship], come on, we see through your deceptive warnings; they don’t fool us, because you already told us in Heb 10:14 that our future sins are all already forgiven. So, just lay off all these silly warnings of divine fury and fire and wrath and not escaping. Go take a logic course, and get a coherent theology, for goodness’ sake.”
A much more coherent explanation of all this data, is one that comports with what St. John says in his first epistle: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-9) St. John is writing to and about believers. No Christian avoids all [venial] sin, at least not in this present life. This is why we still need to “confess our sins” so that He will “forgive us our sins.” If all our future sins were already forgiven, then after coming to faith there would be no need to continue to confess our sins and ask Christ to forgive us our sins. But the Church Fathers universally advocated the daily praying of the Lord’s Prayer, and hence that all Christians daily petition Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This explanation also makes sense of all the warning passages in Hebrews, genuine warnings even to those who are presently justified. To assume that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 must include the forgiveness of future sins, and use that assumption not only to assume that 1 John 1:8-9 must be talking about non-Christians, but also to undermine all the warning passages in Hebrews and to conclude that the whole entire early Church must have been misled or deceived in believing that we must daily confess our sins and ask for their forgiveness, would, in my opinion, be presumptuous and unjustified.
It violates Hebrews 10:14 ” For by one sacrifice he perfected for all time those for who he died.”
It violates *your interpretation* of Hebrews 10:14. Catholics fully affirm not only the truth of Heb 10:14, but its divine inspiration. There are not multiple sacrifices. There is *one* sacrifice, and in the Eucharist we participate in that one sacrifice. I have discussed Heb 10:14 in comments #77-90 of “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer.”
Where there is forgiveness of these there is no longer any sacrifice.
Correct; Christ is not and does not have to be re-sacrificed. You’re conflating the distinction between participation in one sacrifice and repeating or re-sacrificing the victim. And that conflation is why your criticism is of a straw man. You’re treating the fact that Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed, as though that rules out present participation in His sacrifice. But that conclusion does not follow from that premise.
The incarnation is finished.
Here we finally get back to the point of Jason’s post, whether Protestant theology implies that Christ no longer needs to be incarnate.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. The catholic mass as imperfect as it is cannot be.
Again, you are presupposing that the Eucharist is not a participation in Christ’s one sacrifice; according to the Catholic Church the Eucharist is an unbloody participation in the one sacrifice that was bloody. So your criticism presupposes precisely what is in question, and thus commits the fallacy of begging the question, i.e. presupposing precisely what is in question between you and your interlocutor.
comment 241 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/ :
, Why would you need to participate in a finished perfect work?
It is not about “need,” but rather about gift; we’re given the gift and dignity of participating in Christ’s sacrifice. Christianity is a revealed religion. We don’t make it according to what *we* want, but instead accept by faith what has been handed down from Christ through the Apostles and their successors.
You do believe in some way you are participating in your own atonement?
Through Christ’s atonement, we are granted the gift of participating in His sacrifice through union with Him. By this grace we participate in our own atonement, as Jesus teaches, “her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much” (Luke 7:47), and St. Peter teaches, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8)
You say that Christ does not need to be re sacrificed but thats what sacrificium is according to your doctrine a real sacrifice.
Christ’s sacrifice is a real sacrifice. But a real sacrifice is not necessarily a re-sacrifice.
You say i conflate this but you know your doctrine says this is a sacrifice that is efficacious for you and your dead friends, am i wrong.
It is efficacious because it is a participation in Christ’s sacrifice, which is efficacious.
Do you agree with O’Brien that the priest pulls Christ down out of heaven and offers him up again?
Christ comes freely, in answer to His promise to do so when the person He has authorized says the words of consecration. So yes, the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood, and in offering them to God we are participating in Christ’s one sacrifice.
Is it true that if the priests intention isn’t right that the mass is invalid?
Now you’re going down another rabbit trail. Yes, of course the priest has to have the right intention.
And Why can you go to 10000 masses and wind up in purgatory without enough sanctifying grace?
Purgatory is not about some deficiency in sanctifying grace (you don’t gain sanctifying grace while in purgatory), but about paying temporal debt.
Is this an imperfect sacrifice?
No.
What doe it mean in Hebrews 9: He put sin away?
By His sacrifice, we receive the sanctifying grace and agape by which we die to sin, and live to righteousness. Our heart is turned away from sin in repentance, and to God in love.
from Comment 254 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/
I answered that question (briefly) in #246. The verse is talking about the inefficacy of the animal sacrifices, which were incapable of forgiving sins. When, however, a sacrifice that actually forgives sins is offered (i.e. Christ’s), there is no need for additional, subsequent sacrifices. But that does not exclude sacramental participation in that one perfect sacrifice. The verse is not about *participation* in that one sacrifice, let alone denying the need for sacramental participation in that one sacrifice, but is instead about the non-necessity of additional blood sacrifices, which were types. And the Catholic Church believes that there is no need for additional animal sacrifices, for the forgiveness of sins. So the verse is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine.
from part of comment 257:
That conclusion would follow only if the mass were a re-sacrifice of Christ. But again, as I’ve explained multiple times above, the notion that the Catholic position is that Christ is re-sacrificed, is a straw man of the Catholic doctrine. If the Catholic mass is a participation in the one sacrifice of Christ, the one that He made of His own accord, then the mass is not a violation of Scripture. So your argument is based on a straw man of the Catholic doctrine, and therefore the conclusion does not follow.
comment 263
Think of it this way: What Catholics believe is happening in the Mass is merely a sacramental and ritualistic portrayal of what you think is happening when you pray, “Forgive us our trespasses.” You are not re-killing Jesus to get the benefit of his once-for-all atonement, you are simply asking that its efficacy be applied to you afresh. Likewise in the Eucharist, Catholics are seeking the benefits of Jesus’ already-accomplished sacrifice to be applied to us.
In short, if we can’t have the benefits of Calvary applied to us today without forfeiting its once-for-all-ness, then neither can you.
and https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/HETHOSAQ.HTM quoting and discussing St Thomas Aquinas:
"Hence, Chrysostom says", commenting on the words of John, "'Immediately there came out blood and water (19:34). Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ's own side"' (Summa, III, 79, 1, c.).
Thomas' words, borrowed from the Greek Father, could not be more perceptive and moving as they are when he repeats: "There is but one victim, namely, that which Christ offered, and which we offer" (Summa, III, 83, 1, 1m); and this explains the reason that "by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion".
Why is the Eucharist not only a meal but also a sacrifice?
- While our sins would have made it impossible for us to share in the life of God, Jesus Christ was sent to remove this obstacle. His death was a sacrifice for our sins. Christ is "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). Through his death and resurrection, he conquered sin and death and reconciled us to God. The Eucharist is the memorial of this sacrifice. The Church gathers to remember and to re-present the sacrifice of Christ in which we share through the action of the priest and the power of the Holy Spirit. Through the celebration of the Eucharist, we are joined to Christ's sacrifice and receive its inexhaustible benefits. As the Letter to the Hebrews explains, Jesus is the one eternal high priest who always lives to make intercession for the people before the Father. In this way, he surpasses the many high priests who over centuries used to offer sacrifices for sin in the Jerusalem temple. The eternal high priest Jesus offers the perfect sacrifice which is his very self, not something else. "He entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). Jesus' act belongs to human history, for he is truly human and has entered into history. At the same time, however, Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; he is the eternal Son, who is not confined within time or history. His actions transcend time, which is part of creation. "Passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation" (Heb 9:11), Jesus the eternal Son of God made his act of sacrifice in the presence of his Father, who lives in eternity. Jesus' one perfect sacrifice is thus eternally present before the Father, who eternally accepts it. This means that in the Eucharist, Jesus does not sacrifice himself again and again. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit his one eternal sacrifice is made present once again, re-presented, so that we may share in it. Christ does not have to leave where he is in heaven to be with us. Rather, we partake of the heavenly liturgy where Christ eternally intercedes for us and presents his sacrifice to the Father and where the angels and saints constantly glorify God and give thanks for all his gifts: "To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, glory and might, forever and ever" (Rev 5:13). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "By the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all" (no. 1326). The Sanctus proclamation, "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord . . . ," is the song of the angels who are in the presence of God (Is 6:3). When in the Eucharist we proclaim the Sanctus we echo on earth the song of angels as they worship God in heaven. In the eucharistic celebration we do not simply remember an event in history. Rather, through the mysterious action of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic celebration the Lord's Paschal Mystery is made present and contemporaneous to his Spouse the Church. Furthermore, in the eucharistic re-presentation of Christ's eternal sacrifice before the Father, we are not simply spectators. The priest and the worshiping community are in different ways active in the eucharistic sacrifice. The ordained priest standing at the altar represents Christ as head of the Church. All the baptized, as members of Christ's Body, share in his priesthood, as both priest and victim. The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church, which is the Body and Bride of Christ, participates in the sacrificial offering of her Head and Spouse. In the Eucharist, the sacrifice of Christ becomes the sacrifice of the members of his Body who united to Christ form one sacrificial offering (cf. Catechism, no. 1368). As Christ's sacrifice is made sacramentally present, united with Christ, we offer ourselves as a sacrifice to the Father. "The whole Church exercises the role of priest and victim along with Christ, offering the Sacrifice of the Mass and itself completely offered in it" ( Mysterium Fidei, no. 31; cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 11).
No comments:
Post a Comment