Is True Faith Really Alone?

Sola Fide?
Faith Alone – Is It Really “Alone?”
An Article By:
Scott Windsor

One of the mainstays of Protestantism is the concept of “sola fide.” Two very straight-forward words which translated mean “faith alone.” The stand, foundationally started with Martin Luther, is in opposition to the Church's position that true “saving faith” is never alone. True “saving faith” is always accompanied by good works, the first and foremost of these works is believing. Believing in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the foundational work of faith in our lives. That is the Catholic position. Now what Protestant really disagrees with this position? I am not aware of any, yet they have this “doctrine” of “sola fide!”

A reader (who goes by the nickname of "TQuid" on IRC) of this article asked me to change the statement about Luther above. He said:
a correction- “Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith(.")
This quote from Luther only serves to prove my point though. It cannot be denied that Luther espoused and headed up the "fight" for sola fide, yet this quote (which TQuid cited only a secondary source to a secondary source, not giving the primary source of the quote) contradicts the "sola" of "sola fide." In fact, this statement would be acceptable to the Catholic. We agree that works do not save, especially not works alone; likewise, faith, if it be alone, does not save. Faith accompanied by works is a "saving faith." As I stated above, I am not aware of any Protestant who, deep down, disagrees with the Catholic position on this, yet we still see "sola fide" as a "battle cry" of apologetics for Protestants. The problem is, it just doesn't add up.

So as to not misrepresent the Protestant position, let's present some Protestant definitions of “sola fide:”
James White:
Sola Fide – faith alone, that is, saving faith, resting solely in the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ in my stead. That is my hope. That is the Good News. Not justification by baptism, then rejustification after committing a mortal sin by sacramental forgiveness, penances, and satisfactions. No merit from good works done in a state of grace so as to receive eternal life.
No, justification is by faith alone, so that it can be by grace alone. That is the Gospel. (White, 151, The Roman Catholic Controversy).
R.C. Sproul:
“justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” (Sproul, 26, Faith Alone).
J.I. Packer:
It was this conflict with the medieval message that occasioned the fivefold "only" in the slogans quoted above. Salvation, said the Reformers, is by faith (man's total trust) only, without our being obliged to work for it; it is by grace (God's free favor) only, without our having to earn or deserve it first; it is by Christ the God-man only, without there being need or room for any other mediatoral agent, whether priest, saint, or virgin; it is by Scripture only, without regard to such unbiblical and unfounded extras as the doctrines of purgatory and of pilgrimages, the relic-cult and papal indulgences as devices for shortening one's stay there; and praise for salvation is due to God only, without any credit for his acceptance of us being taken to ourselves. (http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html)
And we cannot forget Martin Luther on the subject of justification by faith:
“articulus stands aut cadentis ecclesiae” – the point on whether the Church stands or falls. (qtd on: http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html)
So there we have it in a nutshell, this is the doctrine which makes or breaks the Church, in the eyes of Protestants. One thing that I find a bit interesting with virtually every argument I've seen on the subject of “sola fide” is that it is NEVER alone! We even find apologists arguing for FIVE SOLAS! The term “sola” flies in the face of those boast to have FIVE of them! If it's truly “sola,” then why do they have five?! Sproul sums up most, if not all, Protestant arguments quite succinctly in stating that though “justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” What I find even more ironic is that few, if any, Protestants see the double-speak of that statement! Is it “alone” or not? If it is by faith alone, then nothing – and we must insist that nothing – stands next to it for justification. But what does Sproul say? “It is not by a faith that is alone.” All in one breath Sproul both affirms and denies “sola” in “sola fide.” More importantly that what Sproul says, what does Scripture say? James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James goes on to say “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26).
Now many Protestant apologists with whom I've debated in the past will try to explain that justification truly is by faith alone, and then join Sproul's double-speak stating it is not a faith that is alone. One recent challenger, known only as “Chris,” tried to explain it by analogy stating:
I was walking along the bridge with my wife when suddenly I saw a man lose his footing. I grabbed his arm and stopped him sliding off. Later he circulated the story "I was saved by Chris alone, however he was not a man who was alone, his wife was there too."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/8276)

The obvious flaw to Chris' analogy is that even though his wife is there with him, she does nothing to save the falling man. Now THAT is Chris' point, right? Yet, where the point fails is when we compare that to faith, or more specifically a “saving faith” we see that “works” are what are “next to” the “saving faith.” Chris has equated his wife to “works” in his analogy, yet in “saving faith” the works are what make “saving faith” a “living faith,” for “faith without works is dead!” To make Chris' analogy complete, if his wife is not there with him, then Chris would be DEAD! If Chris were “dead” then he would not have the capacity to “grab” the falling man's arm and “save” him. Chris' analogy is “fatally flawed.”
From the same forum (the Catholic Debate Forum on Yahoogroups) where Chris makes his argument, I also received this challenge from one, for the sake of this article, I will refer to as “Dr. Jim.” The challenge from Dr. Jim is this:
Tell you what -- find one verse from Paul that says we are
justified by faith AND works and we'll have something.
That's your challenge.
Ready? GO
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/8258)
(1Ti 4:16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
Hmmm, the word “justification” is not there, but St. Paul is telling Timothy if he “persevere(s) in these things” that he “will ensure salvation...” Clearly we see that St. Paul is telling Timothy that he must DO something or “work” to ensure his salvation.
To the Thessalonians St. Paul said:
2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;
2Th 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.
St. Paul here (and several other places, see below) includes the act or work of “perseverance” with faith and encouragement to “endure.”


Back to the subject of analogies, Jesus Himself uses a parable of the sower, with the seeds being the Word of God, and the ultimate teaching is that those who honestly, with a good heart, do the “work” of holding it, the Word of God, and bearing fruit with it in perseverance. What is the subject of this parable? The subject is the “kingdom of heaven!” (see Luke 8:1, 11-15).
But “Dr. Jim's” challenge was that I show St. Paul using “justified” in combination with “works,” so let's look at Romans 2:
Rom 2:13 “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
So, you must be a “doer” or one who “works” to be justified!
The case against “sola fide” is so strong, it seems silly that Protestants still attempt to defend the doctrine. Clearly Luther overstated his case in making sola fide the point on which the (Protestant) Church stands or falls, for certainly one who reads the Scriptures objectively can see that saving faith is NEVER alone (James 2) and that throughout the New Testament we're taught perseverance, endurance, and constantly reminded about what we must “do” for our salvation (justification is the process of making one “just” or “right” in the sight of God, which is necessary and a process in which the “end” is either salvation or condemnation).
A point which I have not yet mentioned in this article, but no article in opposition to “sola fide” is complete without is the fact that the ONLY place in ALL of Scripture where “faith” and “alone” are used together is in James 2:24, and that is in NEGATION of the concept of “sola fide.” I will close this article quoting that verse, then follow with many others which mention things we must “DO” in the process of salvation.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


Scriptural references showing that we are expected to DO something:


Verses which mention we must “persevere” or “perseverance:”
Luk 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.


Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;


Rom 5:3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;
Rom 5:4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
Rom 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.


Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.


Rom 15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Rom 15:5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.


2Co 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.


Eph 6:18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,
Eph 6:19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,
Eph 6:20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.


2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;
2Th 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.


1Ti 6:11 But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.


(2Ti 3:10) Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,
(2Ti 3:11) persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!


(1Ti 4:16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.


(Tit 2:2) Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.


(2Pe 1:5) Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
(2Pe 1:6) and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
(2Pe 1:7) and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.


(Rev 1:9) I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.


(Rev 2:2) 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
(Rev 2:3) and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.


(Rev 2:19) 'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.


(Rev 3:10) 'Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.


(Rev 13:10) If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.


(Rev 14:12) Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.


What must we DO to be saved?
Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved


Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


Luk 8:11 "Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
Luk 8:12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.
Luk 8:13 "Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.
Luk 8:14 "The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
Luk 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Friendly Letter On Eucharist

A Friendly Letter on the Eucharist

By Scott Windsor

Why am I doing this? Well, one of my sons asked about how to respond when non-Catholics refer to the Eucharist as a “cracker.” He did not want to offend or fight with the non-Catholic, but wanted to know how to answer this person. Being born and raised in a Protestant home as I was, I told my son that we need to be understanding of the Protestant mindset. Protestants are taught that the Eucharist is bread and wine, and that’s it. The ceremony surrounding “Holy Communion” for Protestants is the memorial which Jesus commanded we participate in, and since it is purely a memorial, no priests are involved and, in fact, Protestants encourage one another to celebrate Holy Communion in their own homes or in groups of family and/or friends. I recall one day preparing to have Holy Communion with Paul and Jan Crouch of TBN, I had it all laid out on my living room coffee table and went through “the narrative” with Paul Crouch (who was “leading” it for all those following along on television). I also remember the “Confirmation Camp” I attended shortly after being confirmed in the Lutheran faith, where our “leaders” passed out bread and wine and we, the youth, repeated “the narrative” ceremony then amongst ourselves we distributed the “Holy Communion.” Both of these events were emotionally stirring and motivational to me, as a Christian. It seems a lot of Protestantism is based in feelings and emotional responses - but this is something I did not see as a Protestant - and can now see, looking back objectively.

Before we get much into who “celebrates” Holy Communion – we need to discuss what exactly the Eucharist is. What are the foundational scriptural teachings for the Eucharist? Let us start with John 6.

John 6

John 6 opens with a very grand and literal miracle – the feeding of the five thousand from five barley loaves and two fishes. The next part takes us to a discussion of the real and literal feeding of the people of Israel in the desert with miraculous water and manna. Then Jesus emphatically and repeatedly states that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us! The preface of this command to eat His flesh and drink His blood are two very real and physical miracles. So, where many of our detractors insist the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood are figurative, the command is prefaced in the same chapter by two very real and literal miracles.

The next consideration is the fact that many of Jesus' disciples who heard Him teach this could not abide by it and rather than accept Him at His word, they "turned and walked with Him no more." They took Him literally and could not handle the teaching, so they walked away. Would Jesus let them walk away with an erroneous understanding? Or, did Jesus know they took Him literally and He let them walk away precisely because they took Him literally and they were walking away because they would not accept Him at His word? I submit, Jesus did not mislead them nor allow them to walk away with the wrong impression - they "got it" - they just were unwilling to accept it. I repeat, they walked away with the proper understanding, just not the faith necessary to accept and believe that Jesus would provide them with the means of fulfilling this command. Jesus commanded, and repeated this command several times in John 6, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have "no life" in us. Ask yourself, do you believe what Jesus said? Do you accept what Jesus said? Or, do you understand the words here - but refuse to accept them as they are written and as He spoke them? Do you add to what is written and say this is figurative? If you walk with Him - then accept what He said.

The Synoptic Accounts of the First Eucharist

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

(Mat 26:26-28 DRB)

And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

(Mar 14:22-24 DRB)

And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

(Luk 22:19-20 DRB)
The point we need to look at here is that Jesus again is not using figurative language. He does not say the bread represents His body or that it is like His body - but that it IS His body. Likewise with the wine, it IS His blood not a figure of it. Our detractors will still insist He is using figurative language and go to other contexts where He clearly is using figurative speech, for example Jesus says, "I am the vine..." (John 15:1) or "I am the door..." (John 10:7), but in these contexts He is clearly using figurative speech. When He says, "I am the vine..." He goes on to make comparisons to us as being the branches and those who do not bare fruit He will cut off; this is figurative speech. When He says "I am the door..." He goes on to speak of us being the sheep and and robbers come to steal the sheep - but the sheep do not hear their voice, for He is the door and all who enter by Him will be saved. In this same context Jesus goes on to speak of being the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep. Again, the figurative nature of this narrative is quite clear. When we compare that to the consecration of the bread and wine, there is no other speech around these statements to indicate a figurative nature. He simply declares the bread to BE His body and the wine to BE His blood - and it IS. For those who have true faith in what Jesus says, no further explanation is necessary; likewise, for those without the true faith - no explanation will suffice. Those who do not have the necessary faith here will continue to insist - even without contextual support - that Jesus is speaking figuratively here. But let's move on to what St. Paul had to say about the Eucharist.

St. Paul's Accounting of the Eucharist

First, let us look at St. Paul's words:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

(1Co 11:23-29 DRB)

In St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians we see that the partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is a sin against the body and blood of the Lord - it is not a sin against bread or wine, for how can one offend bread or wine? What he is asking us to do is examine ourselves prior to approaching the Eucharist. This is why the Sacrament of Confession (aka: Penance or Reconciliation) is necessary prior to receiving the Eucharist if one has the stain of mortal sin on their soul. Our objectors here will state that the context does not mention mortal or venial sins - and we must agree, it does not; however, the context does speak of being "unworthy" to receive the Eucharist. The only thing which would make us unworthy to receive the body and blood of our Lord is mortal sin. So let me discuss that briefly next.

Mortal v. Venial Sin

We discuss this in the middle of a discussion on the Eucharist because of the fact that St. Paul warns us not to approach the Eucharist unworthily. So we must ask ourselves, what would make us unworthy? If one is in venial sin, that is offensive to God still - but does not separate one from the state of grace - or a state of salvation (those who die in the state of grace will be saved). However, mortal sin (a "sin which is unto death") does separate us from the state of grace. To approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist while not in the state of grace would be to do so unworthily. The first objection our detractors will have is that God does not distinguish sin, and that is simply not true.

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (1 John 5:16-17 DRB)

As you can see, St. John the Apostle clearly makes the case for a "sin unto death" in comparison to a "sin which is not to death." That is precisely the distinction Catholics speak of in mortal v. venial sins.

This takes us back to the point St. Paul was making about approaching the Eucharist and especially receiving it unworthily, and one who does so eats and drinks judgment unto their self for not discerning the body of the Lord. We must emphasize the point, the sin is in not realizing the body of the Lord. Consider that carefully. It is not a sin to eat bread and/or wine unworthily - but to partake in Eucharist unworthily brings upon one's self the judgment of the Lord - and why? For not recognizing the Eucharist IS His body and blood. For one to knowingly in a state of mortal sin and approach and receive the Eucharist it would be a denial of the body and blood of Christ - for what true Christian would dare bring the body and blood of the Lord into such an unworthy vessel?

In Conclusion

So as to not get too long and "preachy" in this letter, I will close now with a summary of the points.

Catholics do not view the Eucharist as a "cracker" - and hopefully, those reading this will respect our faith and our own feelings to not make reference to something we hold so reverently as a simple "cracker." Catholics have faith in the words of our Lord that what He said was absolutely true, the bread IS His body and the wine IS His blood which was shed for us. Partaking in the Eucharist fulfills the command He repeated many times in John 6 demanding we eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us. Realizing that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of our Lord, we do not approach the Sacrament unworthily - but examine ourselves first and if necessary seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance/Confession) prior to receiving the Eucharist so that we do not incur the judgment for not discerning the body and blood of our Lord.

AMDG,

Scott<<<

Sunday Obligation

Must Catholics Attend Mass Every Sunday?

An Article by Scott Windsor

A short and simple "yes" is in order for that question, though it's a bit deeper than that. What are the ramifications for a Catholic who does not attend Mass every Sunday? Will a Catholic go to Hell if they miss Mass? Well, let's start with some background here first.

What is Sin?
Sin is anything opposed to God and is offensive to God. Let us look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) says: (hereafter CCC)
CCC 1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

Are there different kinds of sin?
Yes, the Catholic Church uses the terms "venial" and "mortal" to distinguish between the two types of sin which exist. Scripture tells us there are sins which lead to death and there are sins which do not lead to death, let us look at that passage:
1 John 5:16-17 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Thus a sin which is "not unto death" is what we call a "venial" sin. A sin which is unto death is what we call "mortal" sin. Let us look at the CCC on the matter of the gravity of sin:
CCC 1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

CCC 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

CCC 1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

CCC 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

So we can see the different types of sin and their relative gravity, let us move on to the next question:


What Can Send Someone to Hell?
First off, no man, not even the Catholic Church sends anyone to Hell - in fact, not even God "sends" anyone to Hell. If one goes to Hell, they go there of their own accord. Mortal sin is what sends someone to Hell and as stated above, it must be a grave matter, with full knowledge and deliberate consent. If a person is unaware of the gravity of the sin then they may not be culpable (responsible) for the sin. I need to stress "may not be culpable," for final judgment is left to God. Only God knows the heart and the full intent (or lack thereof) of each individual. Each individual will be held accountable on "the Last Day" for all their works, good or bad (Rev. 2:23; 2 Cor. 5:10).

What is the Sunday Obligation?
For Catholics it is obliged that we attend Mass every Sunday and on Holy Days of Obligation. Code of Canon Law (hereafter CIC) says:
CIC Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.
Therefore it is Church Law which prescribes participation in the Mass (we participate by being there celebrating with our fellow Catholics). It must be noted, this is not just for Sundays, but also for the Holy Days of Obligation as set by one's local ecclesiastic authority. This brings us to one of the first questions asked:

Will a Catholic Go To Hell If They Miss Mass?
Being Church Law, this constitutes as a "grave sin" to deliberately avoid attending Mass on any Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation. It is a mortal sin if done with full consent (you know it is Sunday and decide to do something else other than going to Mass). Thus "just missing Mass" CAN be enough to send someone to Hell. Again, we must stress - only God judges whether any given person goes to Heaven or Hell and deep down, every Catholic knows their conscience and knows if they are being honest with themselves when it comes to deciding whether or not to participate in Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation.

Are There Exceptions? What If I Have To Work on Sunday?
Well yes, there are exceptions. If you must work on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation then you can be excused from your obligation - however - all effort should be made to not miss Mass on these days. If you can trade shifts or, better yet, not be in a job which requires regular Sunday scheduling that would be preferable and should be desirable for faithful Catholics. If you had the opportunity to get out of work and chose not to, that could be culpable - talk to your confessor.

Another valid reason can be sickness. If you are too sick to attend Mass then you should not go, especially if your sickness is contagious. Similarly, if you're the parent of a sick child and need to stay home to care for your child, that too can be excusable.

So, If I Miss Mass For A Good Reason, What Should I Do?
Just having a valid excuse for not participating in the Mass does not let you "off the hook" so to say. If you must miss Mass, then you should try to set aside time alone or with your family to devote to God.
CIC 1248 §2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.

One More Thing, What Are The Holy Days of Obligation?
Well, this is set by one's regional authority. In the United States, the following are the regular Holy Days of Obligation which are not already Sundays. Local bishops can also add more to this list - they cannot subtract from it - though some feast days are moved to a Sunday in some diocese.

  • Holy Thursday (Thursday before Easter, varies each year based on Easter)
  • Good Friday (Friday before Easter, varies each year based on Easter)
  • Holy Saturday (Saturday before Easter, varies each year based on Easter)
  • Corpus Christi (Thursday after Trinity Sunday, varies each year based on Easter)
  • Assumption of Mary (August 15)
  • All Saints Day (November 1)
  • Christ the King (Last Sunday of Liturgical Year, Sunday before the First Sunday of Advent [formerly December 11])
  • Immaculate Conception (December 8)
  • Christmas (December 25)


I hope this has helped answer your questions. If you have more, feel free to join me in the ACTS Forum - where we encourage honest questions which are asked with respect. ACTS isn't always real busy (and wasn't at the time of this writing) so if you'd like to participate in a more active forum, ACTS also hosts the Catholic Debate Forum, and you can participate or just read along there as well.

Anathema Defined

> > a·nath·e·ma
> > n. pl. a·nath·e·mas
> > 1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.
> >
> > (MLA citation)
> > "anathema." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
> > English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin
> > Company, 2004. 28 Jul. 2009.
> > .
> >
> > sw: I trust this is enough for you to concede that
> > we are not misrepresenting the term.
> >
> > In JMJ,
> > Scott<<< >
> BJ: I acknowledge your reply.
>
> BJ: English dictionary definitions are not adequate
> documentation for the meaning of the Catholic
> Church, nor are they adequate for the meaning in
> the Holy Bible.

sw: An English dictionary should suffice for you for the English use (the language we speak). There are more definitions unrelated to ecclesial circumstances but to answer your objection, allow me to continue.

sw: Anathema originally meant something or someone given to God. "Thus anathema according to its etymology signifies a thing offered to God. The word anathema is sometimes used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments: In Judith 16:23, it is said that Judith, having taken all the arms of Holofernes which the people had given him and the curtain of his bed which she herself had brought, offered them to theLord as an anathema of oblivion."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

"In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (9:3) he says: "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", i.e. "I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren." And again, using the
word in the same sense, he says (Galatians 1:9): "If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (ibid.)

"Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity." (ibid.)

"The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected." (ibid.)

This from anti-Catholic William Webster:
"We need to say a word here about the meaning of the term anathema. In the formal sense the term means excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church."
http://www.christiantruth.com/savingfaithandrome.html

sw: The bottom line is, in Catholic theology an anathema is separation from communion with the Catholic Church - or excommunication. In Catholic theology if one is separated from the Church upon their death - and the Church is THE path Jesus established for salvation - which IS the position of Catholics (or else we wouldn't BE Catholics!) then an excommunicated person most likely will find their self in Hell if they die without reconciling with the Church. But again, we must emphasize, the GOAL of the Church in excommunicating someone or anathematizing someone is to wake them up and/or bring the BACK into full communion with the Church. The desire of the Church is reconciliation, NOT condemnation. So excommunication is NOT ipso facto damnation, but it COULD end up that way.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

(The above comes from a discussion in CDF)

Leaven or Unleavened?

From a discussion in CDF:
Sandra has challenged Dana to document that the Latin
Church has always used unleavened bread. That too has
been (and remains) my belief as well. Does this mean
the Latin Church ALWAYS used unleavened bread? No!
There may have been times when leavened bread was used,
but the NORM of the Latin Church has ALWAYS been to use
unleavened bread.

The controversy really arose at the time of the Great
Schism between the Oriental and Occidental (Eastern
and Western or Latin) churches. Prior to the schism
though the Latin Church almost, if not exclusively
used unleavened bread - the Greek (Eastern) Church
almost exclusively used leavened bread.

Why the difference? Does the use of one or the other
invalidate the consecration of the Eucharist? Well,
answering the latter question first - it depends on
whom you ask! Eastern Orthodox Christians may say
the use of unleavened bread invalidates the
consecration. Eastern Orthodoxy has long been very
anti-Jewish. Just about anything Jewish or of Jewish
tradition is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. The
"turbulent Michael Cerularius Patriarch of
Constantinople in 1043 in order to make the rupture
between the two churches as great as possible so
far as to assert that consecration in any other
bread leavened was invalid and that hence the whole
Latin Church was heretical because it used unleavened
But the theologians never adopted this teaching nor
is it to day although with the exception of the
Armenians (and) Maronites all the Oriental churches
follow the Greek in the use of leavened bread.
"
http://books.google.com/books
Another text only view of O'Brien's book:
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofmass00obriuoft/historyofmass00obriuoft_djvu.txt
Or in PDF:
http://www.cimmay.us/oncall/pc_obrian.pdf
[A History of the Mass and its Ceremonies in the
Eastern and Western Church, pg 154, By John O'Brien]

So we can see from John O'Brien's research that the
Latin Church used unleavened bread and by the decree
of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1043, he was
declaring the whole of the Latin Church to be in
heresy. In short, it was a political move of the
Eastern Patriarch which was not and is not held by
theologians - even though they do exclusively use
leavened bread - with the exception of the Maronites
and the Armenians.

Why do the Greeks use leavened bread?
It is really a matter of symbolism, with leaven
being, in their view, more symbolic of the body
of Christ. Leaven is life whereas unleavened is
a bread of affliction. The Orthodox see Passover
as a feast of hardship and affliction and since
leaven is life - it is a feast of thanksgiving
and "Eucharist" is defined as "thanksgiving."
http://www.prosphora.org/page27.html

Why do the Latins use unleavened bread?

Latins use unleavened bread because Jesus was
celebrating the Day of Unleavened Bread, or the
Pasch. During this Passover time no leaven is
permitted in the homes of any faithful Jews,
(Exodus 12:15), since Jesus would not have
sinned in breaking that law, He could not have
had leavened bread during the Pasch. Latins
take the command to "Do this in remembrance
of Me" (Luke 22:19) quite literally, they do as
Jesus Christ did.

Does using leavened v. unleavened invalidate?
No. Whether the bread is leavened or unleavened
is a matter of discipline, not dogma. It would be,
however, illicit for a Latin Rite priest to use leavened
bread or an Eastern Rite priest to use unleavened.
Each church has their own set of disciplines but is
is not dogma for either of them, however not just
any flour will do!
Can. 924 §1 The most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist
must be celebrated in bread, and in wine to which a
small quantity of water is to be added.
§2 The bread must be wheaten only, and recently made,
so that there is no danger of corruption.
The above is from Canon Law in the Latin Church, but
for Eastern tradition, though they use leaven (yeast)
the requirements of purity are still there.
Click herefor an Eastern Orthodox presentation of Prosphora.

Conclusion
In short, exactly what the earliest of the Early Church did
is in debate. The fact of the matter is that the use of
leaven or unleavened is a matter of discipline - not dogma.
A Latin priest could use leavened bread, but that would be
illicit but still valid (consecration does take place, it is the
Eucharist). Both sides in this debate have valid points.

Delaney on the Eucharist

I originally encounterd "Delaney" back in March (2009)
on YouTube, but since the format there only allows for
500 words per post, I suggested we debate in blogger,
and she concurred. The following comes from her blog,
http://spreadingthetruthofchrist.blogspot.com/2009/03/duke.html
and this response will be posted there as well.

> Delaney wrote:
> A friend from YouTube will be responding here from
> questions that I asked him and points that I made.
> The example used in this portion of the debate is
> the Eucharist and the Last Supper.
>
> For my references, I will only use Catholic sources
> such as the Catechsim and the New King James Version
> Bible.

sw: This is acceptable to me, though I may use other
versions of the Bible in my response (and will cite
which one with each use).

> I was asked: So MrsM, do you accept that Jesus (God)
> said to men that they could bind things on Earth and
> those things are bound in Heaven? If something is
> bound in Heaven can it be fallible?
> Matt 16:18-19 and Matt 18:18
>
> I responded: If it is something that goes against
> scripture, then it is not valid.

sw: Well, the subject of infallibility is not the
Eucharist/Last Supper - but Delaney (aka MrsM) does
make a tangential link, so I will proceed before
further comment...

> Delaney continues: What happens if the 'whatsoever'
> was against something in scripture? For example, the
> 'continuing' sacrifice of Christ even though when He
> died, He said "It is finished".

sw: The concept of the 'continuing' Sacrifice of
Christ is not quite so simple to spell out. This
involves the theological and philosophical concept
of time and space and how God, being supernatural
(beyond nature) is beyond the limits we, mortal
humans, see as time and space. I'll try to explain
it briefly here, and perhaps you will understand
this better - whether you agree with it at this point
in time (no pun intended) is another thing.

sw: An Act of God is not a temporal act, but an
eternal act for the Catholic. That is to say
that where _WE_ see such an act "in time" from
God's perspective, it is "outside of time" or
"beyond time." God, being omnipotent and omni-
scient, sees all of time all at once. He knows
our past, present and future - all at once. In
similar fashion, when He, Jesus Christ, came to
Earth, we see it as an event in our history; He
sees history, present and future all at one time.
The event of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ in
"history" was a one-time event, but for the
spiritually minded, it is an Act of God which
has no beginning nor end. Therefore, the Act of
the Sacrifice of the Cross, though it only
happened once - we agree here fully - from a
spiritual aspect it never ends.

sw: This brings me to the next point, "It is
finished." Yes, and a better translation there
would be "it is completed." The Sacrifice of
Christ, made once "in time," is completed on
the Cross nearly 2000 years ago. However, from
the supernatural point of view (outside of time)
that "act" has no beginning nor end. In the
Eucharist we "present" the SAME Sacrifice of
Christ. It is not a "new" sacrifice nor even
a "repeated" sacrifice - it is the SAME Sacrifice
made once "in time" but made eternally by God
Himself for all who believe in Him. So, what
you view as "continuing" or perhaps "another"
or "new" or "repeated" sacrifice - we do not,
for it is NOT as if God has continued to suffer
the indignity of the Cross for nearly 2000
years, but that indignity is an eternal reality
for Him and "made real" for us in the Eucharist
so that we, who live "in time," may be
continually reminded of what He went through
for us so that we might be saved.

> Delaney continues: Christ did say it was His
> flesh, I am not disagreeing with you. What
> Christ meant and we see it in further teachings,
> is that Christ is the Bread of life. We have
> to have food and drink to survive, correct? So
> with Christ saying it was real food and real
> drink, He meant that we need Him to live, not
> in this life but the next. Why do you think
> Christ called Himself 'bread'? In John 6 Jesus
> is referred to as " the Bread from Heaven".
> John 6:33 "For the bread of God is He who comes
> down from heaven and gives life to the world.
> John 6:35 "I am the bread of life. He who
> comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who
> believes in Me shall never thirst.
> John 6:50-51 "50 This is the bread which comes
> down from heaven, that one may eat of it and
> not die. 51 I am the living bread which came
> down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread,
> he will live forever; and the bread that I
> shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for
> the life of the world.
>
> Do you see the symbolism that Jesus used in
> this teaching? His flesh was represented by
> the bread, flesh that would be broken. It is
> not a literal flesh, as cannibalism is
> condemned in scripture.

sw: Certainly I can see how this CAN be taken in
a symbolic or figurative way - but you seem to be
overlooking part of this passage. Many of Jesus'
own disciples took Him literally here! "This is
a hard saying, who can hear it?" (John 6:60).
Jesus does not correct what you would say was a
misunderstanding of what Jesus said, no - He just
repeatedly states the same thing over and over
again - and after nearly all his disciples had
left Him, still without explaining anything as
symbolic or figurative, He turns to the Twelve
and asks, "Will you also leave?" (John 6:67).
Jesus didn't go chasing after those disciples
who left Him saying, "Hey wait guys! You were
not supposed to take me literally here, I was
only speaking symbolically!" No, they under-
stood Him literally and correctly - and He let
them walk away! He let them walk away not
because they did not believe Him, but because
they would not _ACCEPT_ what He had to say to
them. If you're not accepting Him, literally,
then you are doing the exact same thing those
disciples did - and you have turned from Him
and do not walk with Him.

> Delaney continues: Christ says to do this
> in remembrance (Luke 22:18-20 and others)
> It was for remembering what Christ did,
> proclaiming His death.

sw: When we read words like "remembrance" we
need to consider the context of how those
words were used by those who used them. For
the Jews a "remembrance" is much more than a
mere remembering. For the Jews it not only
was, but _IS_ a bringing to the present (in
time) an event of the past. Therefore to "do
this in remembrance" of Him is to make it
truly present for us (in time) here and now.
A "remembrance" in Jewish thought is an
actual confrontation of an event, again, not
just a remembering of said event (see the
following link as an example:
http://www.jmw.at/en/education/educational-programmes/remembrance.html

sw: Therefore, the "remembrance" of Jesus'
Sacrifice is to confront that exact same
Sacrifice in the present.

> Delaney continues: Not a renewing sacrifice
> of Christ.

sw: And I agree. The Catholic concept of the
Eucharist is _NOT_ a "renewing" of the Sacrifice
of Christ - it is _the SAME_ Sacrifice of Christ
made present for us to confront in the truest
(and Jewish) sense of "remembrance" of Him and
His Sacrifice.

> Delaney continues: Christ said "It is finished"
> and that there would be no more offerings.
> John 19:30 and Hebrews 10:11 and 18.

sw: As I stated a bit earlier, "It is finished"
is better translated to "it is completed." His
work on Earth to redeem mankind is completed, or
"finished." There are no "more" sacrifices, for
it is His Sacrifice which we bring to the present
in true "remembrance" of Him. That which we eat
and drink in the Eucharist is not mere bread and
wine, but truly _IS_, as He Himself proclaimed,
the Body and Blood of Christ offered for us unto
the remission of sins.

> Delaney continues: From New Advent Catholic
> Encyclopedia, the Eucharist is the on-going
> sacrifice of Christ. That idea is echoed in
> the catechsim.
> (CCC) 1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice
> of the Church. Christ's sacrifice present on
> the altar makes it possible for all generations
> of Christians to be united with his offering.

sw: Note, it is Christ's Sacrifice - not a new one,
not a "renewing" of it - but the exact SAME
Sacrifice made present for all generations of
Christians to be united with His offering.

> (CCC) 1436 It is made present the sacrifice of
> Christ which has reconciled us with God. It is
> a remedy to free us from our daily faults and
> to preserve us from mortal sins."

sw: Again note, it is that same Sacrifice of
Christ. I believe you will agree with me that
it truly is THE Sacrifice of Christ which has
reconciled us with God, would you not? As such,
that Sacrifice is true Grace indeed and is a
remedy to free us from our daily faults and to
preserve (help keep) us from mortal sins.

> (CCC) 1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of
> thanksgiving

sw: THE Sacrifice of Christ truly IS a
sacrifice of thanksgiving - do you not agree
with this?

> CCC) 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice
> because it re-presents (makes present) the
> sacrifice of the cross (This one continues
> to say it is a memorial but that does not
> consist with the rest of the catechsim)

sw: What is said there is completely consistent
with what I have been saying and I defy you to
show where the Catechism is inconsistent on this.

> (CCC) 1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is
> also offered in reparation for the sins of
> the living and the dead and to obtain
> spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

sw: Before we go into spiritual or temporal
benefits of the Eucharist - let us remain
focused on exactly what the Eucharist IS in
Catholic thought and teaching.

> Delaney continues: I will stop here, I feel
> that I have given enough from the catechism.(http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=eucharist+sacrifice&xsubmit=Search&s=SS)

sw: I appreciate your use of the CCC, but I
feel you have misunderstood the spiritual nature
of the words spoken/written therein.

> Delaney continues: Now I will use the other
> source that I spoke of earlier.
> We first must look at what communion/the Last
> Supper is.

sw: And let me take a moment to insert a quick
statement of thanks for keeping your argumentation
focused.

> Luke 22:17-20 "17 Then He took the cup, and
> gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it
> among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I
> will not drink of the fruit of the vine until
> the kingdom of God comes.
> 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it,
> and gave it to them, saying, This is My body
> which is given for you; do this in remembrance
> of Me.
> 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper,
> saying, This cup is the new covenant in My
> blood, which is shed for you. "
>
> I Corinthians 11:23-26 "23 For I received from
> the Lord that which I also delivered to you:
> that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which
> He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had
> given thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat;
> [b] this is My body which is broken[c] for you;
> do this in remembrance of Me. 25 In the same
> manner He also took the cup after supper,
> saying, This cup is the new covenant in My
> blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in
> remembrance of Me. 26 For as often as you eat
> this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim
> the Lords death till He comes."
>
> Christ teaches here that it is a remembrance
> of the blood and body that was to be shed and
> broken.

sw: Let us be clear here, the first reference is
Jesus teaching of what WILL happen, but the
second reference is St. Paul teaching, and using
the EXACT SAME WORDING that which (in time) had
already happened! Therefore we see already in
the days of inscripturation the concept of the
Real Presence in the Jewish/Catholic concept of
"remembrance" as the REAL confronting of the
Body and Blood of Christ. We must note that as
St. Paul continued that same teaching that those
who partake in the Eucharist unworthily eat and
drink damnation unto themselves for what? For
not discerning the Lord's body! Read for
yourself from right where you left off:

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But
let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of
that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that
eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and
drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning
the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 KJV)

sw: I must reiterate the point, if one partakes
in the Eucharist unworthily, they are not guilty
of not discerning bread and wine, but of not
discerning the body of the Lord! It is for this
reason a Catholic cannot approach the Eucharist
in a state of mortal sin - for that would be an
unworthy reception of the Eucharist - but first
must "examine himself" and if necessary, go to
the Sacrament of Reconcilliation (Confession)
so that he (or she) may receive the body and
blood of Christ worthily.

> Delaney continues: Christ does not teach us
> that it is an offering of sin or that by
> partaking in it, we are forgiven of sin. On
> the contrary, we are to examine ourselves
> before we partake in it.

sw: Well no Christian can deny that the Sacrifice
of Christ on the Cross IS unto the remission of
sins - AND - in the very words of institution of
the Eucharist (the consecration) it is echoed
that it truly IS "unto the remission of sins."
So Christ's Sacrifice, which in Catholic teaching
the Eucharist truly is, IS "unto the remission
of sins."

> I Corinthians 11:27-29 (snipped the same quote I
> provided above)

> Delaney continues: Let's take a quick look at
> John 6. Verses 22-40 is Christ speaking about
> the Bread from Heaven and how He is the bread
> from Heaven. Verse 35 "I am the bread of life.
> He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he
> who believes in Me shall never thirst."
>
> John 6: 54-58 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks
> My blood has eternal life, and I will raise
> him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food
> indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He
> who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in
> Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent
> Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who
> feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is
> the bread which came down from heaven—not as
> your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He
> who eats this bread will live forever.
>
> What must we do to have eternal life? Salvation.

sw: We can't "do" salvation. Salvation is the
free gift of God given to those who believe in
Jesus Christ (fully) as their Lord and Savior.

> And where does salvation come from? Jesus Christ.

sw: And I do not disagree with this statement!
Salvation comes from Jesus Christ (God) who
allow Himself to be sacrificed in our behalf to
redeem us of our sins.

> Delaney continues: There is a saying from the
> catechism that I would like to bring up.
>
> (CCC) 1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also
> offered in reparation for the sins of the
> living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or
> temporal benefits from God.

sw: (Noting, you already brought this passage up).

> Delaney continues: First let me note that we
> are told in Psalms 49 that we cannot redeem
> our brother nor pay a ransom for him.

sw: And "we" do not - Jesus Christ does. The
Eucharist is HIS Sacrifice, not ours.

> Delaney continues: Second, this is very
> clearly talking about a sin offering. "Offered
> in reparation of the sins'.

sw: And again I reiterate - this is not OUR
Sacrifice, but THE Sacrifice of Christ on the
Cross made present in the truest sense of the
term "remembrance" so that we might confront
face to face the Body of Christ.

> John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the
> sour wine, He said, It is finished! And
> bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
>
> Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is remission
> of these, there is no longer an offering for
> sin.
>
> Hebrews 10:11 "11 And every priest stands
> ministering daily and offering repeatedly
> the same sacrifices, which can never take
> away sins.

sw: Again I remind the reader - the Eucharist
is NOT "the same sacrifices" of the Jews "which
can never take away sins," rather it is THE
Sacrifice of Christ - which NO Christian would
deny which does indeed take away our sins.

> We are to partake in remembrance, not trying
> to have our sins forgiven, or to try to
> forgive the sins of someone else, or to try
> to receive benefits. It is for the purposes
> of remembrance and to proclaim Jesus' death.

sw: And I assert that you do not have the
appropriate understanding of "remembrance" in
the Jewish/Catholic sense of the word. You
appear to be stuck in a 20th-21st century and
Anglo/European/American view of the word and
not the way a 1st century Jew (like Jesus or
St. Paul) would have used and understood the
word.

> posted by Delaney at 12:13 AM on Mar 27, 2009

Response by Scott at 13:44 on June 13, 2009

Respectfully yours in JMJ,
Scott<<<

Feast of the Assumption

 The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...