"Our earthly liturgies must be celebrations full of beauty and power: Feasts of the Father who created us—that is why the gifts of the earth play such a great part: the bread, the wine, oil and light, incense, sacred music, and splendid colors. Feasts of the Son who redeemed us—that is why we rejoice in our liberation, breathe deeply in listening to the Word, and are strengthened in eating the Eucharistic Gifts. Feasts of the Holy Spirit who lives in us—that is why there is a wealth of consolation, knowledge, courage, strength, and blessing that flows from these sacred assemblies." unknown source possibly YOUCAT Mal.1.11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith theLord of hosts.

Monday, April 16, 2012

The Sacrament of Penance

http://www.fisheaters.com/penance.html  This is helpful and gives some extended examination of conscience at the bottom  Here is a part



Duties to God and to Church:
 Do I love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength? Have I given God the honor and time that is His due? Do I pray? Do I express my gratitude to God? Does something or someone -- a material thing, a person, a behavior, an attitude -- come between me and God? Have I used God's Name as a curse word or cursed God? Have I broken promises, oaths, or vows to God? Have I failed to treat sacred things and places with respect? Have I received the Eucharist while not in a state of grace? Have I kept Sunday holy by attending Mass and refraining from servile work?  Have I lied to a priest during the Sacrament of Penance or intentionally failed to confess a sin I should have confessed? Have I defended God and His Church when it was necessary? Do I study my faith, according to my abilities, so I can defend the Church when necessary? Do I properly value the Church's disciplines and heritage? Do I pray for the Holy Father and the Church, including those in Purgatory? Have I experimented with magic, the occult, spiritism, willful psychic phenomena, ouija boards, etc.? Do I keep Sundays and Holy Days of obligation? Have I failed to go to Confession, at least once a year during Lent? Have I failed to do my Easter Duty (i.e., receive the Eucharist at least once during the Paschal Season)? Have I failed to follow the laws of fasting and abstinence? Have I failed to support the Church as my means allow? Have I obeyed the Church's marriage laws?  Do I belong to a secret society such as Freemasonry, Skull and Bones, etc.?

Duties to Family:
 Have I failed to perform my duties to my parents, spouse, or children -- as (mother/ father, daughter/son, wife/husband) and as a Christian whose duty it is to lead them to Christ and to pray for them and, if possible, with them?For husbands: Do I treat my wife with the respect and tenderness I would give to Our Lady? Do I treat her as less than my queen, bride, and friend? Do I strive to provide for her, protect her, and help her to feel cherished and needed without condescension or treating her as a child? Do I undermine her in her role as mother? Do I try to make her happy within the boundaries of God's laws? Do I use my headship as an excuse for laziness, cruelty, arrogance, or in any manner inconsistent with the way in which I would treat Our Lady or the manner in which Christ treats His Church?For wives: Do I treat my husband with less than the respect and tenderness I would give to Christ? Do I treat him as less than my king, groom, and friend? Do I strive to obey him, nurture him, and help him feel cherished and needed? Do I undermine him in his role as father? Do I try to make him happy within the boundaries of God's laws? Do I nag or provoke him? Is Christ the King of my household? Do I pray for my dead ancestors, family members, and friends, and for the souls of those in Purgatory who have no one to pray for them? Have I helped cause members of my family to sin? Do I try my best to empathize with the members of my family and to love them with a love grounded in Truth? Do the members of my family know they are loved? If not, is this my fault? Have I caused any member of my family to get unrighteously angry or to be unjustly hurt? Have I failed to apologize to and seek forgiveness from members of my family if there was need? Have I forgiven my parents, spouse or children for past faults? Do I give my family my time and undivided attention when possible? Do any of my habits -- spending habits, gambling, etc. -- deprive my family of support? Have I used contraception and failed to keep my marital acts open to life? Have I used N.F.P. (Natural Family Planning) for frivolous reasons? Am I too lenient with my children? Do I set standards and boundaries? Do I use fair, reasonable, and consistent discipline? Am I too harsh with my children? Do I squelch the joy out of my children's lives with needless rules, "Pharisaic" attitudes, a lack of mercy, and an authoritarian -- as opposed to an authoritative -- approach to discipline? Do I discipline them in a way that humiliates them?  Do my spouse and I sabotage each other with regard to disciplining our children? Do I "force" my spouse to play the role of "mean parent" while I play "nice parent"? Have I been a good example for my children and/or the children of others? Do I have high enough and age-appropriate expectations of my children? Do I over-praise or under-praise my children? Do I prize goodness and grace in my children above anything else I prize in them? Do I teach my children the fullness of the Faith, encourage them to pray to their Guardian Angels, to their patron Saints, and for the dead? Do I protect my children's innocence, inspire their imaginations, and do all I can to encourage healthy curiosity and the ability to marvel by teaching them about God, His Church, His creation, the lives of the Saints, etc., and by exposing them to good books, music, and art? Have I found a good balance between protecting my child's innocence and teaching him about the world, in an age-appropriate way, so that he is not ignorant and naive or made to feel stupid or ridiculous about himself when in the company of those who are "of the world"? Have I given him good weapons with which to fight the evils of the world while understanding and nourishing his social needs? Do I treat male children and female children with equal dignity, with respect for their God-given individual talents and vocations, but also with respect for Natural Law and their God-given differences as male and female? Do I allow my children appropriate expression of their emotions and help them to understand and become masters of their negative emotions? Do I help my children come to a humble, healthy, true sense of themselves as children of God, as individuals with unique vocations, and as possessing both virtues and faults? Do I instill in my children a sense of duty to God, to family, to others, and to themselves? Do I nurture the possibility of religious vocations in any of my children? Have I taught my children good manners and to be aware of the needs of the elderly, the infirm, the pregnant, the otherwise challenged? Are my spouse and I consistent in our discipline of our children?

Duties to Society:
 Do I love others as I love myself, with a love grounded in Truth? Do I evangelize with prudence and intelligence, and without being annoying and judgmental? Do I pray for others, including those in authority and for my enemies? Have I taken anything I had no right to take? Have I failed to return anything I may have stolen in the past or otherwise make restitution? Have I cheated anyone out of anything that is rightfully theirs? Have I been honest in business, including paying my employees a fair wage? Do I treat my employees or those I supervise with dignity, respect, and consideration? ~and/or~ Do I give my employer his due and perform my job satisfactorily? Do I treat service personnel (waitresses, waiters, clerks, busboys, maids, doormen, etc.) with dignity, respect, and consideration, and without condescension? Do I consider their time and feelings? Do I tip well, given my means, in cultures where tipping is considered the norm and, in essence, "wages"? Have I engaged in illicit usury? Have I given to the poor as my means allow? Do I betray others' secrets that I had no right to betray? Have I spoken anything untrue about another (calumny or slander) or, for no good reason, said things that were true butmaliciously or needlessly or unjustly spoken and that were damaging to another's reputation (detraction)? Do I engage in malicious gossip? Do I make promises I do not intend to keep? Have I cheated on tests or homework at school or otherwise plagiarized the work of others? Am I greedy and selfish? Am I envious of what others have? Am I too materialistic?  Have I cursed another (i.e., called down physical or moral evil on a rational creature, not for the sake of a good, such as justice or punishment, but out of malice or for personal gain)? If possible, if candidates are available, do I vote responsibly, with the Kingship of Christ, the dignity of human life, and the principle of subsidiarity in mind? Given my station in life, my gifts, and vocation, do I care enough for the sick, hungry, thirsty, poor, and imprisoned? Do I show good stewardship by treating the earth as God's creation?  Do I treat animals with care and appreciation and refrain from needless cruelty toward them?  Do I show reasonable patriotism for my country (that is "country," not necessarily "government," and doesn't mean "blind patriotism")? Do I use my God-given talents in a wholesome way and for the benefit of others? Am I mindful of how my behavior or passivity influences others and conditions around me? Do I love the sinner while remaining truthful about sin? Am I forgiving to the contrite? Have I nurtured unrighteous anger in my heart? Am I vengeful? Am I a good, reliable friend to others? Do I exhibit any racist behaviors or hold any racist thoughts (i.e., thoughts and behaviors rooted in the idea that God's love and our love for others is or should be conditioned by ideas of race or genetics)? Have I murdered anyone, including having an abortion, helping someone have an abortion, or failing to do my best to encourage someone not to have an abortion (abortion includes in vitro fertlization)? Have I participated in euthanasia? Have I encouraged embryonic stem cell research? Have I encouraged unjust war? Have I intentionally and unjustly physically harmed someone? Have I participated in the sins of others by counseling them to sin, by commandmanding them to sin, by consenting to their sin, by provoking them to sin, by praising or flattering them in their sins, by concealing their sins that others have a right to know about, by partaking in their sins, or by silence even when the cause of charity demands I speak out?  Have I used alcohol or any other drug recreationally to to the point where my judgment and will were affected? Have I been chaste according to my station in life (been faithful to my spouse, honored promises or vows as a religious or priest, not engaged in fornication if unmarried, etc.)? Have I willfully looked at pornography for no legitimate reason (e.g. law-enforcement) or supported it financially? Do I dress and behave immodestly or without concern for how my appearance and behavior may lead others to the sin of lust? Have I engaged in solitary sexual sins? Have I engaged in homosexual/lesbian acts? Have I been kind and charitable to those who are struggling to overcome homosexual/lesbian temptations?
 Have I intentionally lusted after someone? (Note: random thoughts that come to the mind are not sinful. My priest described them once in a sermon as mere flies that should be shooed away. What is sinful is deliberately cultivating these thoughts, deliberately giving them your salacious attention, etc. Know that many great Saints had thoughts like these -- and even worse: it is quite common as one proceeds in holiness for extremely blasphemous thoughts and thoughts ofdespair to flash in the mind. Shoo them away, and know that it is the Evil One trying to make you feel hopeless. It is good at times like these to call on the Name of Jesus and fall back on the short aspirations to replace those thoughts with holy ones.)

Duties to Yourself:
 Do I trust in God's mercy and love for me as a beloved child, or do I wallow in guilt for sins I've been absolved of? Am I too scrupulous and hard on myself, treating myself much more harshly than I would others I love?  Am I too easy on myself? Am I honest with myself about my gifts and limitations? Do I overestimate or underestimate my importance? Do I treat myself as an icon of God, made in His image? Do I trust that God is in control or do I worry needlessly? Am I able to appreciate the fruits of His Goodness? Do I stand up for myself and my wholesome needs?

below are quotes from here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/

 Recall that justice is the virtue of giving to each his due. Penance (or repentance) is a kind of giving to God what is His rightful due. Penance is the disposition of the will or an act of the will that aims at the destruction of one’s past sins which one recognizes to be offenses against God. Penance thus is aimed at giving God what is His rightful due, by grieving (with the will, not necessarily the emotions) for those acts that have offended God, and by seeking to make amends for them, through some kind of compensation.4


Destruction of our offenses against God is not effected merely by ceasing to sin; some kind of compensation is necessary, to make amends for one’s sins against God. That is because sin leaves wounds, marks and debts in our relation to God. For example, if a man has been abusing his wife, the emotional wounds are not removed simply by his ceasing to abuse her, even if she forgives him. He must not only be truly sorry for what he has done, he must do whatever is in his power to make amends, something that may take years. Sin, as St. Augustine defined it, is a “word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law.”5 But the eternal law is not a creature; it is God Himself. For this reason sin always involves a component that is against God Himself. And thus sin always involves our taking some pleasure in a word, deed or desire that deprives God of the charity, honor and obedience that He is justly due. So sin always contracts a debt of justice. By sinning we have taken something from God, by not giving to Him what is rightly due to Him. For this reason, penance involves two things: contrition, that is, grieving for one’s sins, and satisfaction, i.e. depriving oneself of temporal pleasures, or subjecting oneself to hardship in some way, to make amends to God for the pleasure that one took at God’s expense. Of course no one who has turned away from God can make sufficient satisfaction for that offense. St. Thomas says, “wherefore in such cases, he that falls short of the other must do whatever he can. Yet this will not be sufficient simply, but only according to the acceptance of the higher one”.6 In other words, just because we cannot fully make amends for our offenses against God, nevertheless, we must still do what we can to make amends, not because we think our penance is objectively sufficient to rectify our offenses, but in the hope that in His mercy God will find acceptable what penance we offer to Him out of sorrow for having offended Him whom we should love above all things.''
....[concerning mortal sin and repentance].................
  The grace of God, however, causes the goodness in the man who is graced by God. Thus for any man who is graced by God, that man has goodness, and that goodness was caused by God’s grace.8 Therefore, while a man may pardon another man’s offense without a change in the offender’s will, it is impossible for God to pardon a man for an offense, without that man’s will being changed. Since the offense of mortal sin is due to man’s will being turned away from God and inordinately turned to some mutable good, therefore for the pardon of mortal sin, it is necessary that man’s will be turned toward God and away from the inordinate love of the mutable good, with the intention of making amends for the wrongs he did to God. Since this turning toward God and away from the inordinate love of created goods, belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue, it follows that it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without his having penance as a virtue.
.................
 The reason that grace and mortal sin cannot be co-present within the soul is that to be in mortal sin is to at enmity with God, not in friendship with God. But to have sanctifying grace is to be in friendship with God. And since person cannot both be in friendship with God and be at enmity with God, therefore grace and mortal sin cannot be co-present in the soul.
...........
 Notice that mortal sin always has a two-fold component. It necessary involves a turning away from God in some respect, and an inordinate (i.e. disordered) turning to some finite created good. This two-fold aspect of sin means that justice is violated in two ways, in each mortal sin. In turning away from God, the sinner has not given to the eternal God His due, for which action the just punishment is the eternal loss of God, because the nature of the sin determines the punishment of the sin. But the sinner has also turned inordinately to some finite mutable good, for which action the just punishment is the “pain of sense,” which is a finite punishment.
.........
 First he reminds us, as we saw above, that in every mortal sin there are two turnings: a turning away from God who is the immutable Good, and an inordinate turning to some mutable good. This two-fold turning of mortal sin induces two debts of punishment, because these two turnings intrinsic to every mortal sin are not equal in their degree of injustice. The just punishment for turning away from the eternal God is eternal separation from God; this separation is called ‘hell.’12But the sin of turning inordinately to some mutable, finite good also incurs a debt of punishment, “because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to the order of justice, except by punishment.”13 Hence there must be temporal punishment, “since it is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something against his will, for thus will equality be restored.”14 Justice can be violated in the short-term, as when someone commits an unjust act. But ultimately justice cannot be violated, because all violations of justice must eventually be brought back to the order of justice, and this can only be done by just punishment.
The debt of punishment for turning inordinately to some mutable, finite good is not eternal punishment, but temporal punishment, because a finite sin does not justly deserve an eternal punishment. So when a man turns inordinately to a finite good without turning away from God, as happens in venial sin, he does not incur a debt of eternal punishment but he does incur a debt of temporal punishment.15 Thus, when the guilt of sin is pardoned through the grace that comes to us through the sacrament of penance, “the soul ceases to be turned away from God, through being united to God by grace.”16 But, the debt of temporal punishment may yet remain.
.........Here St. Thomas explains that mortal sin produces in the soul a disposition or even a habit, of inordinate love for a mutable good. When the guilt of mortal sin and the eternal debt that it incurs, are removed from the soul by the grace that comes through the sacrament of penance, these inordinate dispositions remain in the soul. These remaining inordinate dispositions are called “remnants of sin.” In a sense, we bear in our bodies the debt of temporal punishment, the sign within us that justice has not been restored. But since our eternal debt has already been paid through the grace Christ merited by His Passion and death, which we receive through the sacrament of penance, therefore the remaining debt is the debt of temporal punishment. This is why, in response to the objection, the pardon of the guilt of mortal sin through the sacrament of penance does not in itself remove the debt of temporal punishment.

..........
 Operating grace is the actual grace whereby God works in us without us. Co-operating grace is the actual grace whereby God works in us with us, by strengthening our will and granting us the capability of performing some act. According to St. Thomas, the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to operating grace. We cannot merit either the forgiveness of sin or the removal of the debt of eternal punishment. But, says, St. Thomas, the remission of the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace. Then, just as the effect of operating grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace, so the remission of guilt and of eternal punishment in the sacrament of penance precedes the completion of our payment of the debt of temporal punishment. This is why when we walk out of the confessional after receiving absolution from our sins, all our sins are forgiven and our debt of eternal punishment is paid, but we must do some penance, as assigned to us by the priest. In doing so we are making satisfaction for the purpose of paying our debt of temporal punishment, which payment is, at the same time, a growth in sanctification, by removing from us the dispositions of inordinate love for created goods.
..................
[CCC1472]  [I]t is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. 21
......
 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64
Once we understand the distinction between the debt of eternal punishment and the debt of temporal punishment, and the basis for that distinction, then we can begin to understand certain other Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and indulgences. Purgatory is that place in which those who died in a state of grace pay any remaining debt of temporal punishment, in order that with a pure heart they may enter into the joy of seeing God in the Beatific Vision, for only those with a pure heart will see God.23 An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment for sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, and thus whose debt of eternal punishment has already been paid. These doctrines only make sense if we first apprehend the two-fold turning intrinsic to every mortal sin, by its very nature. 
 The primary Protestant objection to the notion of penance is that it is incompatible with the finished work of Christ. According to this objection, since on the cross Christ already paid for all our sins, therefore the notion that we must still make satisfaction for our sins is a denial or belittlement of the sufficiency and completion of Christ’s sacrifice. This objection typically presupposes that there is no distinction between eternal and temporal punishment, and in addition presupposes that our satisfactions would in some way diminish the satisfaction made by Christ, rather than be a participation in and acceptable through His satisfaction. Another objection is that the distinction between eternal and temporal punishment is not found in Scripture. But the Council of Trent gives a number of examples from Scripture that presuppose or imply the distinction.24 Another objection is that doing penance would give us ground for boasting. The Council of Trent also addresses that objection, teaching:
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father. … But let [priests] bear in mind that the satisfaction they impose [in the sacrament of Penance] be not only for the protection of a new life and a remedy against infirmity, but also for the atonement and punishment of past sins; for the early Fathers also believed and taught that the keys of the priests were bestowed not to loose only but also to bind. It was not their understanding, moreover, that the sacrament of penance is a tribunal of wrath or of punishments, as no Catholic ever understood that through our satisfactions the efficacy of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any way diminished.25
In this way temporal punishment, penance, and purgatory are all compatible with an affirmation of the forgiveness of all our past sins, and with the perfection and completion of Christ’s Passion. Temporal punishment is compatible with the forgiveness of all our past sins, because of the two-fold injustice in every mortal sin. Temporal punishment is compatible with the perfection and completion of Christ’s Passion because of the distinction between operating grace and co-operating grace. By way of these distinctions, the saint to whom Christ had just spoken days earlier, saying, “Thou hast written well of me, Thomas,” teaches us here why it is wrong to think either that we can make full satisfaction for our sins or that we do not need to make any satisfaction for our sins.
end of quotes

quote from St. Augustine:

“You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism [I believe in the forgiveness of sins]. . . When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. . . For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. . . Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance.”

from the catechism http://www.catholiccrossreference.com/catechism/#!/search/1439-1442


VI. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION ⇡

Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.38
38.

Cf. LG 11.
Only God forgives sin ⇡

Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41

Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

see also  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/confession




"Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession."95 There are profound reasons for this. Christ is at work in each of the sacraments. He personally addresses every sinner: "My son, your sins are forgiven."96 He is the physician tending each one of the sick who need him to cure them.97 He raises them up and reintegrates them into fraternal communion. Personal confession is thus the form most expressive of reconciliation with God and with the Church.
95.

OP 31.
97.

Cf. Mk 2:17.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Offering a sacrifice at the mass--meaning? one sacrifice




also here from comment 5 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/lawrence-feingold-on-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/#comment-39778

"Christ’s priesthood on earth would have ended with his death, resurrection, and ascension if there were no means by which, after Calvary, his self-oblation, once-offered, is made efficaciously present on earth. However, because Christ instituted the Eucharist, which is the representation of his sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine, and is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins, his priesthood on earth did not come to an end with his death, but continues sacramentally until the end of time.

from comment 7:


Even as each believer is a visible priest, ordained by Baptism to offer the spiritual sacrifice of their visible bodies (Romans 12:1), each Bishop and Presbyter is a visible priest, ordained by the laying on of hands to offer the visible, sacramental sacrifice of the Mass. Both kinds of priesthood are based upon an oath, that is, upon a sacrament of the New Covenant. This is not a strange mixture, but a blessed fulfillment of the Old Covenant:
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)
Christ is our high priest (Hebrews 4:14) and the shepherd and bishop of our souls (1 Peter 2:25). His priesthood, pastorate, and episcopacy does not exclude other priests / pastors / bishops. Rather, the Christian ministry, both lay and ordained, is a participation in the ministry of Christ himself, in the Church, for the life of the world."
from comment 8:
" The Catholic Church does not teach that there are two distinct kinds of priesthood, she teaches that there is only one kind of priesthood in the Catholic Church – the priesthood of Christ.
Catechism of the Catholic Church

The one priesthood of Christ

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.” The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”; “holy, blameless, unstained,” “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, “that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.”
1548 … “Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.”
The priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ, and there is, in the Church that Christ personally founded, two participations in the one priesthood of Christ; the participation of the “common priesthood of all the faithful”, and the participation of “the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests” (i.e. the participation of the ordained priesthood).
For more on this, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1544-1547.


"Christ commanded his Apostles to “do this in memory of Me.” Separating the institution from the celebration of the Eucharist, as if Christ were doing one thing (celebrating the Passover) and giving instructions for another (celebrating the Eucharist) would make it impossible for the Apostles to obey the Lord’s command to “do this.” Rather than introducing this false dichotomy, the anamnesis clause (εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν) qualifies the manner in which “this” (τοῦτο) is to be done (ποιεῖτε). But the antecedent of the pronoun is the ritual action of Our Lord described in the previous verses; i.e., what he just did, which is what the Apostles are commanded to do. What he did was to re-present his Body and Blood under the forms of bread and wine. This is the kind of sacrifice that one would expect to be offered by a priest according to the order of Melchiziedek (Genesis 14:18). And it is the same sacrifice that is offered by (ordained) Catholic priests when they celebrate the Eucharist.
There may also be a sense in which the Last Supper itself was celebrated “in memory of me”: According to Numbers 10:10, Israel’s sacrifices were for them a “remembrance” (LXX: anamnesis) of God. But this does not imply that God was not present at the memorial sacrifices, such that those sacrifices only served to call to mind the past, to the exclusion of the present (presence) and future. Rather, theanamnesis seems to bear the sense, along with recollection of past events, of “calling to mind” the God who is present, and who will always be faithful to his people. I agree that the Last Supper was celebrated in “anticipation” of Calvary, in the sense of looking forward to an event yet to take place: “this is my Blood, which will be shed for many….” But this anticipation would seem to fall within the ambit of anamnesis, as just explained."

from comment 25--

 The distinction between the Last Supper and Calvary is a distinction in the time and mode, not the substance, of the sacrifice. The distinction between the Last Supper and the first Eucharist celebrated after Calvary is a distinction in time, not substance or mode. The anamnesis of the Last Supper involved a calling to mind in anticipation of Calvary, while theanamnesis of the first Eucharist celebrated after Calvary, and every subsequent Eucharist, involves a calling to mind in recollection of the Lord’s death.

all the comments here are very helpful in this discussion and as to relates to Hebrews : http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/lawrence-feingold-on-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/#comment-39778http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/lawrence-feingold-on-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/#comment-39778



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.

There is a good article here---http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/holy-orders-and-the-priesthood/#proofofsacrificialpriesthood
good to read all of it.  But part e is this one---and then he goes into objections--I am going to give e in full:

"The vocabulary of the Christian Church has developed over the generations with ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop;’ it was no different with sacrificial language. The universality of terminological agreement was solidified first with the ‘presbyter’/'bishop’ distinction, and next with the sacrificial language. Interestingly, it was only after these two concepts were universally understood that the Church finally solidified her Trinitarian language. That is, the Church spoke consistently of the clergy and of the sacrifice of the mass before she could speak as we do today about the Trinity.160
Over the centuries, the word ‘presbyter’ was invested with sacrificial meaning by virtue of the action that presbyters performed, namely the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Eventually the word itself evolved into the English word ‘priest.’ So whatever investment we have in that English word is actually derived from the meanings invested into the word ‘presbyter’ by the Church. Furthermore, it is true that the original meaning of the word was “elder,” but even in the New Testament period this word was already being invested with priestly significance. For example, we see presbyters acting as priests in the New Testament. Revelation 5:8 has presbyters (elders) offering up the prayers of the saints, and St. Paul describes his duty as “priestly” (hierourgeo) in Romans 15:16.
If the Church fell into error regarding the sacrificial priesthood, as Protestants claim, it would be an enormous error. The immediate and universal acceptance of the sacrificial priesthood without contention or debate is solid evidence that it is not an error but belongs to the Apostolic Tradition. The early Church Fathers consistently bear witness to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.161 The Didache, one of the earliest Christian texts outside of the New Testament, says:
And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord; {In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations.}162
St. Clement of Rome writes in the first century:
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices [προσενεγκόντας].163
St. Justin Martyr writes around the middle of the second century:
God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, [minor prophets] as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’164 It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. 165
St. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writes to St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, in the year A.D. 190, about ninety years after the Apostle John died:
Again there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast, and who became a sacrificing priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus.166
St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, writes toward the end of the second century:
Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.167
So we can see the concept present from the earliest writings of the Church. But as always, the terminology and doctrine (teaching) would take some time to gain universal consistency. St. Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the third century would explicitly speak of the sacrifice. He records the following miraculous occurrence:
And another woman, when she tried with unworthy hands to open her box, in which was the holy (body) of the Lord, was deterred by fire rising from it from daring to touch it. And when one, who himself was defiled, dared with the rest to receive secretly a part of the sacrifice celebrated by the priest; he could not eat nor handle the holy of the Lord, but found in his hands when opened that he had a cinder.168
St. Augustine mentions the Eucharistic sacrifice without argument:
he asked our presbyters, during my absence, that one of them would go with him and banish the spirits by his prayers. One went, offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying with all his might that that vexation might cease.169
And elsewhere he writes:
The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.170
St. John Chrysostom compares the priest’s sacrifice at the altar to the prophetic and priestly prayer of Elijah on Mount Carmel:
The priest stands there to cause not fire, but the Holy Spirit, to descend. He prays at length, not so that fire falling from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace, descending on the Host, may reach men’s souls and make them brighter than silver that is tried by fire.171"



also http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALLYSC.HTM  this deals with the subject of the mass as sacrifice

here is a bit from it:

Please note that in no way do we as Catholics believe that Christ continues to be crucified physically or die a physical death in heaven over and over again. However, we do believe that the Mass does participate in the everlasting sacrifice of Christ.

First, one must not separate the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross from the events which surround it. The sacrifice of our Lord is inseparably linked to the Last Supper. Here Jesus took bread and wine. Looking to St. Matthew's text (26:26ff), He said over the bread, "Take this and eat it. This is My body"; and over the cup of wine, "This is My blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

The next day, on Good Friday, our Lord's body hung on the altar of the cross and His precious blood was spilt to wash away our sins and seal the everlasting, perfect covenant. The divine life our Lord offered and shared for our salvation in the sacrifice of Good Friday is the same offered and shared at the Last Supper. The Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday and the Resurrection on Easter form one saving event.

Second, one must have a nuanced understanding of time. One must distinguish chronological time from kairotic time, as found in sacred Scripture. In the Bible, <chronos> refers to chronological time—past, present and future—specific deeds which have an end point. <Kairos>, or kairotic time, refers to God's eternal time, time of the present moment which recapitulates the entire past as well as contains the entire future. Therefore, while our Lord's saving event occurred chronologically around the year AD 30-33, in the kairotic sense of time it is an ever-present reality which touches our lives here and now. In the same sense, this is why through baptism we share now in the mystery of Christ's passion, death and resurrection, a chronological event that happened almost 1,965 years ago, but is still efficacious for us today.

With this in mind, we also remember that our Lord commanded, as recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke (22:14ff) and St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians (11:23ff), "Do this in remembrance of Me." Clearly our Lord wanted the faithful to repeat, to participate in and to share in this sacramental mystery. The Last Supper, which is inseparably linked to Good Friday (and the Resurrection), is perpetuated in the holy Mass for time eternal.

The Mass therefore is a memorial. In each of the Eucharistic prayers, the <anamnesis>, or memorial, follows the consecration, whereby we call to mind the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord. However, this memorial is not simply a recollection of past history in chronological time, but rather a liturgical proclamation of living history, of an event that continues to live and touch our lives now in that sense of kairotic time.

...................................The sacrifice which Christ made for our salvation remains an ever-present reality: "As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out" ("Lumen Gentium," No. 3). Therefore, the <Catechism asserts>, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is a memorial and because it applies its fruit" (No. 1366).

Therefore, the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass are inseparably united as one single sacrifice. The Council of Trent in response to Protestant objections decreed, "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 "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." For this reason, just as Christ washed away our sins with his blood on the altar of the cross, the sacrifice of the Mass is also truly propitiatory. The Lord grants grace and the gift of repentance. He pardons wrong-doings and sins. (cf. Council of Trent, "Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass")

Moreover, the Mass involves the sacrifice of the whole Church. Together we offer our prayers, praise, thanksgiving, work, sufferings to our Lord and thereby join ourselves to His offering. The whole Church is united with the offering of Christ. This is why in the Eucharistic Prayers we remember the pope, the vicar of Christ; the bishop, shepherd of the local diocese; the clergy who minister <in persona Christi> to the faithful; the faithful living now, the deceased and the saints.

The "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" of the Second Vatican Council summed it up well: "At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. This He did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice on the cross through the ages until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (No. 47).

and https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb1.htm


The Council of Trent taught that the Mass is the same as Calvary, "only the manner of offering being changed" from bloody to unbloody. Similarly Vatican II (On the Liturgy #10) said that the Mass is the renewal of the new covenant.

A sacrifice as Catholics understand it (in contrast to some pagan concepts) has two elements: the outward sign and the interior dispositions. The outward sign is there to express and perhaps promote the interior. Without the interior it would be worthless. Hence God once complained through Isaiah 29:13: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." We need to take care that we too do not descend into mere externalism, thinking it enough to just make the responses and sing etc.

t the Last Supper, the outward sign was the seeming separation of body and blood, with the two species. This was a dramatized way of saying to the Father: "I know the command you have given me, I am to die tomorrow. Very good, I turn myself over to death - expressed by the seeming separation - I accept, I obey." On the next day He did as He pledged, but then the outward sign was the physical separation of body and blood, while the interior remained the same. In the Mass, by the agency of a human priest who acts "in the person of Christ" (Vatican II, LG # 10) Christ continues and repeats His offering. The external sign is multiplied as many times as there are Masses. But the interior disposition of Christ is not multiplied, it is continued from that with which He died. For death makes permanent the attitude of will with which one leaves this world.

Since the Mass has the same external sign, and the same interior dispositions on the part of Christ, we rightly call it a sacrifice, the continuation of Calvary. It does not need to earn redemption all over - that was done once for all (Hebrews 9:28) by His death. But since the Holiness of God loves everything that is good, and in good order, it pleases Him to have titles or reasons in place for what He will give (cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c). So it pleases Him to have the Mass provide the title for the distribution of what was once for all earned on Calvary.

........................................
At the Last Supper He ordered, "Do this in memory of me". Since we were not there, He wants us to join our dispositions to His. The great Liturgy Encyclical of Pius XII, Mediator Dei, explains well that the people can be said to exercise their royal priesthood, to offer the Mass with the priest: first, "from the fact that the priest at the altar in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, does so in the person of Christ," whose members they are. (Since only the ordained priest acts "in the person of Christ" Vatican II says [LG #10] that the ordained priesthood differs from that of the laity in essence, and not only in degree).

Secondly the people can be said to offer since: "The people join their hearts in praise, petition, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, in fact, of the High Priest Himself, so that in the one and same of offering of the Victim... they may be presented to God the Father "(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 39:556). Vatican II explains (LG # 10) that this is what it means for them to "offer spiritual sacrifices".

These spiritual sacrifices consist of their obedience to the will of the Father, already carried out, and planned for the future (Cf. LG #34). This includes their works, their bearing the troubles of life, their prayers, their apostolic efforts, their living out the duties of their state in life, even their relaxation of body and mind if all these things are done as part of the Father's plan, to enable them to serve Him better. Jesus Himself spent about 30 out of 33 years in family life, to show how greatly the Father values this if done precisely because it part of His plan. No wonder Paul VI, on Feb. 12, 1966, told the 13th National Congress of the Italian Feminine Center that "marriage is a long road towards sanctification", that is, if one takes everything in it as part of the Father's plan. (To be explained more fully in our section on the Sacrament of Matrimony).
We can call this a royal priesthood, since to live this way is to reign, instead of being a slave to vices ( 2 Peter 2:19). St. Augustine explains this well in his exegesis of Revelation/Apocalypse 20:5-6 (City of God 20:7-9) which tells how the holy ones rise from sin - which is the first resurrection, and reign, by being their own masters, by not consenting to the works of the Beast, the Antichrist and his minions, "but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for that thousand years", i.e., all the time from His ascension to His return at the end.

It would be good to take a moment before each Mass to see what one has to join with the obedience of Christ, soon to be offered on the altar. Then Mass cannot be without meaning; rather, it dominates all of life, for we should bring our past obediences, and look ahead to the obedience of the near future.

................................
The Mass brings forgiveness for venial sins for which there is sorrow, and for temporal punishment commonly left over after forgiveness of sins.

Mass may be offered for the living or the dead. Its general benefits go to the whole Church, living and dead. Special benefits are for the priest who offers, and those for whom a Mass is specially offered, and for those who actively participate at the Mass....................................

see also http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/dialogue-with-lutheran-pastor-on.html

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Apostles' Creed some object

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/04/john-piper-on-correcting-the-apostles-creed/


see also comment  151 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/

On November 6, 2014, Westminster Seminary professor R. Scott Clark posted the following under a post titled “The Reformed are Catholic:”
THE CREEDS OF FOUR COUNCILS RECEIVED. And, to say many things with a few words, with a sincere heart we believe, and freely confess with open mouth, whatever things are defined from the Holy Scriptures concerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are summed up in the Creeds and decrees of the first four most excellent synods convened at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon — together with the Creed of blessed Athanasius and all similar symbols; and we condemn everything contrary to these.
THE SECTS. And in this way we retain the Christian, orthodox and catholic faith whole and unimpaired; knowing that nothing is contained in the aforesaid symbols which is not agreeable to the Word of God, and does not altogether make for a sincere exposition of the faith. —From Chapter 11 of The Second Helvetic Confession
Twenty days later, on November 26, 2014, Clark posted an article titled “Why Did Jesus Suffer The Torment of Hell?” in which he wrote:
One of the clauses of the [Apostles’] creed that has caused questions is that which reads: “he descended into hell.” It is held in some traditions that by this Christians are confessing that our Lord, after his death, went to the place of the dead. It has been understood figuratively, however, by the Reformed churches to refer to Christ’s suffering. So Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism interpreted this clause.
[…]
There is nothing in this passage [1 Pet. 3:18-20] about Jesus going to the place of the dead or to the dead ones. That notion arose because of the influence of pagan ideas and tragically was adopted by Christians. Some have advocated that, since we do not believe that Christ went to the place of the dead, we should remove that clause from the creed. Others have defended retaining it.6 Calvin and the Reformed have retained the clause but have understood it to refer to Christ’s sufferings. We should explain that the original sense was merely “buried.” We might omit the clause on the ground that we would be reverting to an earlier form. Arguably we would not be substantially altering a catholic creed as much as removing early medieval accretions from it thus making it less Roman and more catholic.
How does Clark justify denying the doctrine of the harrowing of hell specified not only in the Apostles Creed, but also in the Athanasian Creed, less than three weeks after claiming that by affirmation of these creeds, the Reformed are allegedly “catholic”? He does so by writing the following:
As a matter of history, early on it appears that the “descendit” (he descended) clause was used interchangeably with “sepultus” (buried) and was added in place of “was buried” so that they had the same meaning into as the late 4th century. 3 Thus, “he descended” was another way of saying, “he was buried.”
And what is his evidence that the two terms were used interchangeably? At that footnote “3” Clark provides only one statement from Rufinus:
But it should be known that the clause, “He descended into Hell,” is not added in the Creed of the Roman Church, neither is it in that of the Oriental Churches. It seems to be implied, however, when it is said that “He was buried.”
Because Rufinus says that the descent is implied by “He was buried,” Clark takes this not only as evidence for the interchangeability of the two terms, but as sufficient evidence for the interchangeability of the two terms.
However, just because y is implied by x, we are not thereby justified in inferring that x and y are interchangeable. For example, just because smoke implies fire, we are not justified in inferring that smoke and fire are the same thing, or are interchangeable. Therefore, this statement by Rufinus is not evidence that the two terms were interchangeable.
Moreover, Rufinus, who is providing a commentary on the version of the Apostles’ Creed he learned at Aquileia (in northeastern Italy), defers to the authority of the Church at Rome regarding the Creed when, immediately before discussing the first article of the Creed, he writes the following:
But before I begin to discuss the meaning of the words, I think it well to mention that in different Churches some additions are found in this article. This is not the case, however, in the Church of the city of Rome; the reason being, as I suppose, that, on the one hand, no heresy has had its origin there, and, on the other, that the ancient custom is there kept up, that those who are going to be baptized should rehearse the Creed publicly, that is, in the audience of the people; the consequence of which is that the ears of those who are already believers will not admit the addition of a single word. But in other places, as I understand, additions appear to have been made, on account of certain heretics, by means of which it was hoped that novelty in doctrine would be excluded. We, however, follow that order which we received when we were baptized in the Church of Aquileia.
Since therefore the Church at Rome did not at this time (c. AD 400) include “descendit ad inferos” (He descended into hell) in the Apostles Creed, but subsequently (within two hundred years) did incorporate this line (along with the lines “Creator of Heaven and earth,” “the communion of saints,” and “life everlasting”), Rufinus here shows, by his deferral to the Church at Rome, that he would have accepted these additions as authoritative as they would come to be understood by the Church at Rome.
Not only does Clark fail to justify his claim that the terms descendit and sepultus were interchangeable, but in treating them as interchangeable he rejects the entire patristic Tradition concerning the meaning of this line, i.e. that Christ descended into hell after His death, a truth St. Augustine refers to with the following question: “Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?” (Letter 164.2) On what grounds does Clark reject this Tradition? Simply by stipulating, on the assumption of ecclesial deism, that this Tradition was an accretion from paganism. Clark writes: “That notion arose because of the influence of pagan ideas and tragically was adopted by Christians.”
So on the one hand he claims to be “catholic” (and not a sect) on the grounds that he accepts the four creeds and condemns everything contrary to them. But wherever the creeds don’t fit his interpretation of Scripture and his theology (e.g. “He descended into hell” or “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” or the meaning of each of the four marks of the Church, or the meaning of “the communion of saints”), he just ascribes the patristic understanding of these articles to a pagan accretion, and makes these articles mean whatever he wants them to mean in order to fit his interpretation of Scripture. But that’s exactly what the sects do.
Anyone can claim to submit himself to Tradition, but when one starts picking and choosing or altering the Tradition to fit one’s interpretation, then, as I’ve argued at the top of this page, one is in one’s actions denying the authority of Tradition. The creeds cannot be both authoritative and subject to picking and choosing, by rejecting the meaning of the articles as they were understood by those who put them together and developed them. And if in one’s actions one is denying the authority of the creeds (even if with one’s words one is affirming the authority of the creeds), then Clark’s claim as a confessionalist to stand in a position that is principally different from biblicism, is undermined.
Moreover, Clark has argued against ecclesial deism, claiming that only at Trent did the Church finally depart from the Gospel, and had to be continued outside its institutional structure by the Reformers. But the Fourth Lateran Council (Twelfth Ecumenical) taught authoritatively that Christ,
having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell …. But He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time ….
Because this descending is said to take place after His death, it cannot simply be restating His suffering on the Cross. So in teaching that Christ descended into hell (as something distinct from His suffering on the Cross) either the Fourth Lateran departed from the true meaning of the early creeds, and departed from the faith received from the Apostles, or the Fourth Lateran taught the orthodox and universal understanding of “He descended into hell,” and Clark is in [material] heresy for denying this article of the creed. This is one more example, among many, showing that Clark cannot have it both ways. Either the Church preceding the Reformation was the true Church, in which case Clark should submit to her authoritative teachings, and embrace the doctrine of the harrowing of hell, or if the Church in the centuries prior to Trent was not the true Church, then Clark should own up to his ecclesial deism.
Of course I haven’t even begun to address the problem of claiming to be “catholic” on the ad hoc basis of only the first four centuries, as if the Church ceased to develop and define doctrine after the fourth century, and thus as if the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. ecumenical councils are of no matter to the question of catholicity.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

st Thomas Aquinas on sin and restoration

Man cannot rise from sin without the help of grace. When the actual sinning has stopped, certain damage has been sustained, so to rise from sin is not simply to stop sinning, but to have that damage repaired. The damage is threefold: a stain, by which we mean an eclipse of the brightness of grace by the tarnish of sin; a disorder of nature, in which man's will is no longer subject to God; and a liability to punishment, since mortal sin deserves to lose God forever. Only God can repair such damage: he alone can shine his light on the soul again and restore the gift of grace-as-disposition; he alone can draw man's will to submit itself again to him; and he alone as plaintiff and judge can remit the liability to eternal punishment. So to rise from sin man needs the help of grace, both as disposition and as inner activation from God. Men cannot recuperate from sin on their own, because the light of grace has to be instilled in them afresh; just as a body cannot recover from death unless its soul is instilled afresh. Even an integrated nature couldn't have restored itself to a state beyond its natural capacity without external help. Human nature is now dissipated by an act of sin, no longer integrated but in disorder; so it cannot even restore itself to its own natural goodness, never mind to a state of rightness beyond its nature. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II.II.109.7 (ed. McDermott, 310)