Follow
Those who have read our recent article, Melito’s Sacrifice, or last year’s Removing Jesus, are by now familiar with the Roman Catholic propensity for moving Jesus’ sacrifice back to Thursday night at the Last Supper. Rome’s sacrifice of the Mass is ostensibly grounded in Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper, and because Roman Catholicism considers the Mass to be a sacrifice, her apologists are ever eager to turn the Last Supper into a sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood. As we have noted, apologist Art Sippo says “The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin” (Catholic Legate, Q&A on the Sacraments), and apologist Scott Hahn says “Jesus’ institution of the Holy Eucharist was nothing less than the sacrifice of the New Covenant Passover” (Scott Hahn, The Bible and the Sacrifice of the Mass, 9:00-9:10).
The Roman Catholic mass sacrifice is essentially meaningless if Rome cannot prove that Jesus actually sacrificed His body and blood on Thursday night. One of the main points in Hahn’s talk on the sacrifice of the Mass was that he did not finally understand this concept until he read the 2nd century work, Peri Pascha, by Melito of Sardis. Yet when one reads Melito’s Peri Pascha, there is simply no reference to a Thursday sacrifice. Every reference to Jesus’ sacrifice in Peri Pascha is a reference to the cross. What we found with Hahn we have found to be typical of Roman apologists—they must first read their beliefs into the Early Church first in order to get the Early Church to reflect their beliefs.
This week, we examine the same propensity, on the same topic, in Maurice de la Taille’s The Mystery of Faith. De la Taille was a late 19th century-early 20th century French Jesuit priest who greatly influenced the Roman Catholic liturgical movement, and taught theology in France and at Gregorian University in Rome. Like Hahn, de la Taille did not find in Calvary the necessary elements of a sacrifice and insisted that we must look “elsewhere” if we are to find the true “offering” of Christ to His Father:
“Since then, neither these particular events, nor the general complexus of the Passion of our Lord from the garden to the cross, give of themselves any indication of the essential form or character of a sacerdotal offering, we must look for this elsewhere.” (Maurice de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith: Regarding The Most August Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Maurice, Chapter 2, §2.B.c The Oblation)
We are particularly interested in de la Taille’s claim that if we look for the sacrifice, we shall find it “where the Fathers and early Theologians constantly recognized it” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 2, §2.B.c). On the matter of “the Fathers,” we are even more interested in de la Taille’s very cautious language as he prepares to launch into the proofs. The Fathers, de la Taille warns, “did not put forward their teaching … so clearly as to allow no way of escape,” and therefore we must rely upon the “trend of the teaching,” as we look for some point of convergence, later in time, where the actual unanimity of the Early Fathers is eventually presumed to be expressed. He cautioned,
“Before entering on a discussion of the teaching of the Fathers we must make one remark by way of preface. Apart from controversies with heretics, the Fathers as a rule did not put forward their teaching in so didactic and peremptory a manner as to leave the intellect no choice, nor did they express their meaning so clearly as to allow no way of escape.” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 2, §2.B.c)
Thus, as de la Taille clearly recognizes, Christ’s sacrifice is “where the Fathers … constantly recognized it,” but as it turns out, it is not actually so clear that they recognized it as taking place on Thursday night. Like Hahn, de la Taille must presume what the early fathers meant, in order to prove that they meant what Rome now teaches. Because of this same constraint, de la Taille’s reliance on the Early Church Fathers requires that he first find some later convergence point, and from that later point of convergence, project the belief backward in time onto the Early Church. By this means he seeks to establish the apostolic continuity of an early belief in a Thursday night sacrifice. To state the obvious, that is not exactly what we were led to believe when he first alleged that the Thursday night sacrifice is right “where the Fathers … constantly recognized it.” It does not sound like they “constantly recognized it” on Thursday night at all.
Lacking that clear apostolic continuity, de la Taille, settles instead for what he calls the “trend of the teaching,” and the “certainty” of “cumulative probability.” Thus it is possible, he says, to extract a “universal and consistent unanimity” from the Early Church even though the Early Church was by no means clear, consistent or unanimous on the topic for which he is attempting to establish a clear, consistent unanimity:
“Hence outside a few passages which of themselves might attest the opinion of an author, a theologian is bound to set down what is more obviously the trend of the teaching, or what the actual words present to us and naturally suggest. Now if all the testimonies, with no clear exception, converge on the same point, a powerful argument is available as to the mind of the Fathers, based on that ‘cumulative probability,’ which Cardinal Newman shows can transcend all mere opinion, and beget certainty; in other words, the only explanation of this universal and consistent unanimity is that the Fathers were convinced of this particular teaching.” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 2, §2.B.c)
We invite our readers to notice de la Taille’s immediate resort to circularity in the face of the fact that the early fathers did not “express their meaning so clearly” as to support his position. Lacking a “universal and consistent unanimity” in the Early Church Fathers, de la Taille simply presumes a “universal and consistent unanimity,” and then concludes that there can be only one explanation for such a “consistent unanimity”: the early writers must have been “convinced of this particular teaching” about which they were neither clear, consistent nor unanimous.
The reason de la Taille must rely upon such vacillation and circularity is that the Early Church simply does not help him as he would require for such a claim. In fact, the Early Church stubbornly refuses to admit a Sacrifice on Thursday night at the Last Supper at all. It is not until the end of the 4th century that de la Taille finally finds his breakthrough, and discovers his “point of convergence.” It is that 4th century discovery that he projects backward on to the Early Church in order to force upon her a Roman Catholicism to which she was apparently oblivious.
Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.)
De la Taille relies on Cyprian (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 2, §2; chapter 3, §3.B.a) to show that he saw a symbolic link in Melchizidek’s use of bread and wine (Genesis 14:18-20) and Jesus’ use of the same at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:19-20). We cover Cyprian in much more detail in part 5 of our series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice, showing that Cyprian used “sacrifice,” “offering” and “memorial” practically interchangeably in a way that is very detrimental to Rome’s arguments. Further, in his references to the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, Cyprian continually and consistently referred to them as figures of what they signify. In Cyprian’s Epistle 62 to Caecilius, upon which de la Taille attempts to build his case, Cyprian was correcting a recent practice of using water instead of wine at the Lord’s Supper in order to avoid martyrdom. Christians were being martyred for their faith, and one easy way to find Christians was to arrest those with wine-stained lips. Some therefore resorted to water instead of wine in order to avoid detection, but Cyprian considered the practice to be a denial of Christ—and being ashamed of His death, some were losing their willingness to die for Him:
“Therefore thus the brotherhood is beginning even to be kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions, by learning in the offerings to be disturbed concerning His blood and His blood-shedding” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 15).
From his arguments in Epistle 62, it is clear that Cyprian understood the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper as figures and symbols intended to “appear” to be, and to “express,” and “to show” and be “redolent” of (strongly reminiscent or suggestive) the Lord’s Passion (paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13 & 15). If Christians were ashamed to partake of the wine, they would not be reminded of His Passion, and forgetting it, might lose their resolve. Therefore, in order to honor the Lord, “we ought to do nothing else than what He did” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 17). Significantly “what He did” was not offer His blood until the Cross. Cyprian explicitly states in this epistle Jesus could not, and did not, offer His blood to His disciples to drink until after the crucifixion:
“… just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7)
And if Cyprian thought Jesus could not offer His blood to drink until after He “had first been trampled upon and pressed,” it is clear that Cyprian did not believe Jesus could have “offered” His blood to His Father on Thursday night, either. Cyprian therefore does not support de la Taille here.
Notable, as well, is the fact that when Cyprian expounded upon the meaning of Malachi 1:11—a prophecy Rome considers to be fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Mass—he simply explained that the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 refers to “the sacrifice of praise,” making no mention of the Lord’s Supper (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII, Testimonies Against the Jews, Book I, chapter 16). Considering that the Douay Catechism claimed that “All the … Fathers … of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice” prophesied by Malachi (Douay Catechism (1649), pg. 90), it is significant that Cyprian, when expounding Malachi 1:11, made no mention of this, one of the most important prophesies to the religion of Roman Catholicism.
Eusebius of Cæsarea (c. 260 — 340 A.D.)
De la Taille also relies upon Eusebius in order to show forth “the glories of the sacrifice of the Mass” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 1, §1). We cover Eusebius in much more detail in part 7 of our series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice, showing that Eusebius understood the sacrifice of the New Covenant to be “unembodied and spiritual sacrifices.” The best de la Taille can get from Eusebius is a sacrifice of thanks, praise, prayer hymns and a contrite heart, for that is precisely what Eusebius thought the New Covenant sacrifice was.
De la Taille attempts to find support from Eusebius’ Proof of the Gospel (Demonstratio Evangelica) by citing him follows:
“We offer therefore a sacrifice of praise to the Most High God; we offer a sacrifice sealed by the divine Spirit, an august and sacrosanct sacrifice, we offer in a new manner a clean victim in sacrifice, following the New Testament. But a sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit. On the one hand, therefore, we make sacrifice and make a burnt-offering, when we celebrate the memorial of that great sacrifice, thanking God for our salvation, and offering to Him religious hymns and holy prayers; and on the other, when we consecrate ourselves wholly to Him and to His Pontiff (Who is the Word) : prostrate in body and soul immolated before Him” (Demonstr. evangel., 1. 1, C. 10. P.G. 22, 92-93).” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 1, §1)
We first must point out that de la Taille, in his original 1921 work correctly included an ellipsis between “contrite spirit” and “On the one hand” in this citation. His original quote read, “At sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus… Sacrificamus igitur et incendimus” (de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei, (Gabriel Beauchesne, 1921) 8). The English translation at the link we provided above did not so render the text. De la Taille’s ellipsis, and the English omission thereof, leaves the impression that Eusebius was describing the Lord’s Supper itself as the sacrifice that we offer. But what de la Taille opted to leave out of Eusebius is the text in which he actually defines what he means by “sacrifice” and “incense.” We provide here Ferrar’s rendering from the Greek, noting in bold what de la Taille left out:
“We sacrifice, therefore, to Almighty God a sacrifice of praise. We sacrifice the divine and holy and sacred offering. We sacrifice anew according to the new covenant the pure sacrifice. But the sacrifice to God is called ‘a contrite heart.’ ‘A humble and a contrite heart thou wilt not despise.’ [Psalms 51:17] Yes, and we offer the incense of the prophet, in every place [Malachi 1:11] bringing to Him the sweet-smelling fruit of the sincere Word of God, offering it in our prayers to Him. This yet another prophet teaches, who says: ‘Let my prayer be as incense in thy sight.’ [Psalms 141:2] So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense: On the one hand when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice according to the Mysteries He delivered to us, and bring to God the thanksgiving (ευχαριστια) for our salvation with holy hymns and prayers; while on the other we consecrate ourselves to Him alone and to the Word His High Priest, devoted to Him in body and soul” (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10)
The omission is of tremendous consequence. Eusebius had paused to define the “sacrifice” as a contrite heart, and the “incense” as prayer, before continuing, “So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense.” He then proceeds to explain how “on the one hand” we offer the “sacrifice” of a contrite heart whenever we celebrate the memory (μνήμην) of His great Sacrifice with thanksgiving, hymns and prayers. And “on the other” hand we offer to Him the “incense” and “the sweet-smelling fruit of the sincere Word of God,” in our prayers to Him, being “devoted to Him in body and soul.”
What is more, Eusebius continues from this point, explaining that the “sacrifice” being offered at the Lord’s supper is not “transubstantiated” bread and wine but “sincere thoughts, real intention, and true beliefs”:
“Therefore we are careful to keep our bodies pure and undefiled from all evil, and we bring our hearts purified from every passion and stain of sin, and worship Him with sincere thoughts, real intention, and true beliefs. For these are more acceptable to Him, so we are taught, than a multitude of sacrifices offered with blood and smoke and fat.” (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10)
The reason this matters is that at this very point, Eusebius had been expounding upon the meaning of the prophecy of Malachi 1:11. He therefore identifies thanksgiving, hymns, prayers, praise, sincere thoughts, real intention, and true beliefs as the fulfillment of the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11, “in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” What he does not do is identify the sacrifice of the “transubstantiated” elements as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. We invite the attention of the reader to the words of Eusebius leading up to the citation from de la Taille:
” ‘Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and give the Highest thy vows: And call upon me in the clay of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me.’ [Psalms 50:14-15
And again:
‘The lifting up of my hands is an evening sacrifice.’ [Psalms 141:2]
And once more:
‘The sacrifice of God is a contrite spirit.’ [Psalms 51:17]
And so all these predictions of immemorial prophecy are being fulfilled at this present time through the teaching of our Saviour among all nations.
Truth bears witness with the prophetic voice with which God, rejecting the Mosaic sacrifices, foretells that the future lies with us:
‘Wherefore from the rising of the sun unto the setting my name shall be glorified among the nations. And in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering.’ [Malachi 1:11]
We sacrifice, therefore, to Almighty God a sacrifice of praise….” (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10)
In the same chapter Eusebius insists that the sacrifice of the New Covenant would be offered not in Jerusalem by a priestly order, but everywhere, by everyone, not by “men only, but women, poor and rich, learned and simple, children even and slaves.” Malachi’s prophecy of a “bloodless sacrifice” was not a reference to the Mass, but a prophecy that the Gentiles would worship the Lord “in spirit and in truth”:
“Malachi as well contends against those of the circumcision, and speaks on behalf of the Gentiles, when he says:
‘I have no pleasure (in you), saith the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering.’ [Malachi 1:10-11]
By ‘the incense and offering to be offered to God in every place,’ what else can he mean, but that no longer in Jerusalem nor exclusively in that (sacred) place, but in every land and among all nations they will offer to the Supreme God the, incense of prayer and the sacrifice called ‘pure,’ because it is not a sacrifice of blood but of good works? …. That not men only, but women, poor and rich, learned and simple, children even and slaves, … should learn the true ideal of worshiping the Supreme God, and serving Him in every place, according to the prophecy, which says: ‘And they shall worship Him each from his own place.’ [Zephaniah 2:11] Every one, then, whether Greek or Barbarian, is worshiping the Supreme God, not running to Jerusalem, nor made holy with bloody sacrifices, but staying at home in his own land, and offering in spirit and in truth his pure and bloodless offering.” (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10)
Unless Eusebius was here advocating for women priests sacrificing the “bloodless offering” of the Roman Eucharist, his testimony can hardly be construed as a celebration of “the glories of the sacrifice of the Mass,” as de la Taille would have us believe. Instead of acknowledging “the glories” of the mass sacrifice, Eusebius was teaching that the incense and the offering of Malachi 1:11 is the praise, prayer, thanks, hymns and the contrite spirit of God’s people, and insists that “these unembodied and spiritual sacrifices” are what we are to offer now (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10).
When Eusebius explicitly states that God “branded on Him all our sins, and fastened on Him as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses’ law … and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross,” and further that He delivered to us a remembrance during which we offer praise, prayer, thanks, hymns and a contrite heart continually “instead of a sacrifice” (Eusebius of Cæsarea, Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10), it is clear that Eusebius was completely unaware of the Thursday night sacrifice de la Taille wanted to impose upon him.
Aphrahat the Persian Sage (c. 270 — c. 345 A.D.)
De la Taille thinks that he “can also claim the support of [Aphrahat,] the most illustrious of the Syrian theologians (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 4, §1). Citing Aphrahat, de la Taille writes,
“‘ He who took His own Body in food, and His own Blood in drink, is reputed with the dead. Before He was crucified, the Lord with His own hands gave His own Body to be eaten and His own Blood to be drunk …. . From the time when He gave His Body in food and His Blood in drink, three days and three nights elapse.’ (Demonstratio, XII, De Paschate, n. 6 and 7. P.S., part 1, tom. I, col. 517 and 520)” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 3, §1 .B.a)
Here, de la Taille is citing Aphrahat’s Demonstration 12, “On the Passover Sacrifice.” This particular citation is significant for Aphrahat’s attempt to calculate the period during which Jesus was to “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). Unable to find three actual calendar days, Aphrahat thought he could find three days by taking Jesus to be already dead on Thursday night, and then by having the three hours of darkness on Friday afternoon would count as another night. Then there is Friday night, then Saturday, making three days and nights:
“Thus, from the time when he gave his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, there were three days and three nights” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 12, paragraph 7).
Thus, de la Taille thinks to press Aphrahat into service to show that the Early Church understood Thursday night as the time of the true Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant. Recall that the central point of de la Taille’s Mystery of Faith is the Thursday night sacrifice, as he makes abundantly clear when he cites the medieval Amalarius:
“ON HOLY THURSDAY Christ brought the Old Law to an end, He TOOK AWAY SIN” (Maurice De La Taille, S. J., The Mystery of Faith, Regarding The Most August Sacrament And Sacrifice Of The Body And Blood Of Christ, chapter 3, §1.B.a, n67, emphasis in original)
But Thursday is not where Aphrahat insists on placing the New Passover sacrifice and the removal of sin. Aphrahat insists repeatedly that the sacrifice to remove sin was on Friday:
“The Passover of the Jews is on the day of the fourteenth [Thursday], its night-time and day-time. Our day of great suffering, however, is Friday, the fifteenth day… They eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs, but Our Saviour rejected that cup of bitterness and removed all the bitterness of the peoples [at the Cross] when he tasted but did not wish to drink. … The Jews bring their sins to mind from season to season, but we remember the crucifixion and disgrace of our Saviour. They departed from the slavery of Pharoah by means of the Passover sacrifice, but we were saved from the slavery of Satan on the day of crucifixion.” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 12, On the Passover, chapters 8)
“the day of the Passover sacrifice, … is the suffering of our Saviour … since our great day is Friday … the day of the crucifixion (upon which our Saviour suffered, and during whose night-time and day-time was among the dead) is the fifteenth [Friday].” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 12, On the Passover, chapter 12)
No, Aphrahat offers no support to de la Taille here. What is worse, Aphrahat believed that the bread and wine Jesus offered to His disciples was a figure, “the sign of the true Passover sacrifice,” which was to happen the next day (Aphrahat, Demonstration 12, On the Passover, chapter 6). We cover Aphrahat in more detail in part 7 of our series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice, but as far as de la Taille is concerned, we can say with confidence that an early church father who insisted that Friday was the day of the “true Passover sacrifice,” that “our great day is Friday“—the day Jesus “removed all the bitterness of the peoples,” the day “we were saved from the slavery of Satan on the day of crucifixion,” clearly did not think Thursday was the day He took away our sin, and clearly did not think that Thursday night was the celebration of the True Passover sacrifice.
We note, as well, that when Aphrahat expounded upon Malachi 1:11, he insisted that it was in prayer, not in the Mass sacrifice, that the prophecy found its fulfillment:
“Hear concerning the strength of pure prayer, and see how our righteous fathers were renowned for their prayer before God, and how prayer was for them a pure offering. [Malachi 1:11] … Observe, my friend, that sacrifices and offerings have been rejected, and that prayer has been chosen instead.” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 4, On Prayer, chapters 1 & 19)
No, Aphrahat provided no help to de la Taille at all. But there is someone who did.
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 A.D. – c. 395 A.D.)
It is Gregory of Nyssa who finally provided the support de la Taille needed for his Thursday night Mass sacrifice. In his novel work in 382 A.D., On the Space of Three Days between the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Nyssa took the calculation further than Aphrahat had. Whereas Aphrahat considered Jesus “among the dead” on Thursday in order to get the full three days, he nevertheless understood that Jesus had not actually sacrificed himself until Friday. But Gregory of Nyssa introduced the “secret power” of the space-time continuum. Perhaps, Gregory thought, Jesus had already been mysteriously and invisibly sacrificed on Thursday night:
“For the body of the victim would not be suitable for eating if it were still alive. So when he made his disciples share in eating his body and drinking his blood, already in secret by the power of the one who ordained the mystery his body had been ineffably and invisibly sacrificed and his soul was in those regions in which the authority of the ordainer had stored it, traversing that place in the ‘Heart’ [of the earth] along with the divine power infusing it. … He offered himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten can be preceded by its being slaughtered.” (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Space of Three Days, Oration I)
That was the source Maurice de la Taille needed to prove the antiquity of the doctrine of the Mass sacrifice, and the earliest evidence he could find was written in latter part of the 4th century. We can sense de la Taille’s relief as he finally has the “point of convergence” for which he was looking, for Gregory, he says, makes use of the three day reckoning “more remarkably than all the other Fathers.” “More remarkably,” indeed! Thus in Gregory, de la Taille finally found in the Early Church a “convincing illustration of our explanation of the Supper.” He had finally found that “point of convergence” that would allow him to project the Thursday mass sacrifice back in time onto an Early Church that knew absolutely nothing of it:
“St. Gregory of Nyssa, discussing the question who commenced the sacrifice of the Redemption … makes use of this reckoning more remarkably than all the other Fathers, to claim the Great Action for Christ. … The Supper was partaken of, therefore, for the reason that Christ had already offered the sacrifice of His death: whence it followed that, so far as His will was concerned, the sacrifice, His actual death, was now irrevocably effected. This is a most appropriate and convincing illustration of our explanation of the Supper. … Next to Gregory of Nyssa comes Jacob Sarugh [451 – 521 A.D.] … . He says: ‘the death of Christ was essentially and to an extent really involved with the mystery of the bread and the chalice.’ … After the time of St. Gregory of Nyssa we come across a very remarkable specimen of this teaching in the ‘Commentaries’ of Procopius [500 – 560 A.D.], both on Genesis and on Exodus. He is asking the question, why it was that the paschal lamb in the Law was to be slain towards evening, not at noon; His answer is: that this was so because Christ would begin that paschal sacrifice of our Redemption in the Supper, and it was to be completed on the Cross.” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 3, §1.B.a, n71).
Yes, in Gregory he had finally found a “convincing illustration of our explanation of the Supper” at which Christ was alleged to have “offered the sacrifice of His death” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 3, §1.B.a). By this confession, de la Taille acknowledges that there is no clear testimony of his Mass sacrifice until the late 4th century, and portrays the Mass as the novelty that it plainly is, a novelty completely unknown to the Early Church.
And this is the problem with de la Taille’s Mystery of Faith. He promised to show us that the Church had always believed that the true Passover sacrifice had been on Thursday night, right “where the Fathers and early Theologians constantly recognized it.” Instead, de la Taille immediately had to back off of his promise, warning that the Early Fathers did not “express their meaning so clearly” as to prove what he was claiming. In fact, they clearly express the opposite—the Last Supper was not when Jesus offered His blood for the taking away of sin. Thus, as with Hahn and Melito’s Peri Pascha, de la Taille is found invoking early church writers who simply do not support his position.
To summarize, De la Taille invoked Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.) to show a Thursday night sacrifice, but upon inspection we found that Cyprian did not believe Jesus could really offer His own blood until He “had first been trampled upon and pressed” at the Cross. De la Taille also invoked Eusebius of Cæsarea (c. 260 — 340 A.D.), but upon inspection we found that de la Taille had to rely rather selectively upon a citation in which Eusebius explicitly identifies the “bloodless offering” of the New Covenant as the “unembodied and spiritual sacrifices” that even women would offer under the new order—which can hardly be construed as the sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper. De la Taille also relied upon Aphrahat the Persian Sage (c. 270 — c. 345 A.D.), but upon inspection we found that Aphrahat explicitly informed us of his unwavering conviction that Friday, not Thursday, was the “true Passover sacrifice.”
It is not until Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 A.D. – c. 395 A.D.) that de la Taille finally finds what he needs, at which point he arrives at the “convergence point,” and the “certainty” of “cumulative probability”:
“These early Fathers have a host of mediaeval followers.” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 3, §3.B.a)
Yes, Gregory of Nyssa certainly had a host of medieval followers. There is no doubt about that.
But what those “mediæval followers” do not have is actual Nicæan and Ante-Nicæan predecessors. The best de la Taille can do is project Gregory of Nyssa backwards onto the Early Church. What he cannot do is find evidence to support the early development of the Thursday night sacrifice. Thus, he is left relying upon the “certainty” of “cumulative probability.” But “cumulative probability, of necessity, must always begin at zero, and at zero cumulative probability, “certainty” is zero as well. To this, Roman Catholic convert, Rev. Morris, abundantly testified, when he discussed a related topic:
“[I]f there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. … What is intended is, not to assert that the present devotion to Mary existed in the early ages; that may be so or not: but that the principle on which it is based naturally led to it, and may be assumed to have been intended by God to lead to it.” (Jesus, the Son of Mary, by the Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., 1851, pp. 25-33.)
What de la Taille did not consider is that explicit rejections of a Thursday night sacrifice, like parallel lines, never at any point converge with a Thursday night sacrifice. There is no point of convergence for parallel lines. Thus, what de la Taille found was not a “point of convergence,” but rather a point of emergence. It is at the end of the fourth century, not the first, that the origins of Roman Catholicism are to be found.
Tim wrote:
“The Roman Catholic mass sacrifice is essentially meaningless if Rome cannot prove that Jesus actually sacrificed His body and blood on Thursday night.”
You know Tim, this is such a simple truth, yet when you read Jim, CK and Bob on this site squirm and scream and complain that this is not what Rome teaches, and all the confusion as they all claim different things about what Rome teaches, is it any wonder the Romish church is so confused.
You highlighted last couple weeks how much controversy exists even within Rome’s own priestly government, and especially outside this confusing government within her church itself, how they don’t even know when the Pope speaks infallibly. They are all so confused on even this basic tenant of the Romish church doctrine that I read through all the quotes you listed, and was literally almost exhausted.
My recent discussion with Jim on brains, and how he visibly got angry challenging his mind to think for a change really impressed upon me how hardened these men are in their sin.
They are so overwhelmed in confusion that even a simple statement like you made above is so confusing to them. Their minds are so confused with mass confusion that simple facts are twisted into controversy and foolishness unto them.
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. ***For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:*** But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.” (1Cor.1:25-29)
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” (Ps.19:7)
The wise simplicity of the truth, facts and evidence is so confusing to these guys. Their flesh has taken over their minds and they cannot even reason through simple things.
The more I have been on this website, and the more I have watched the Roman Catholics come to this site and scream, complain, charge, threaten and curse your works, and then realize they have no leg to stand on…they disappear. They leave soon after knowing they have no chance to argue the truth as the truth is not in them. Their minds are so confused and filled with Romish confusion, that facts, evidence and truth is foreign to them.
Watch Jim, Bob and CK go at it and read their discussion back and forth. It makes the mind hurt as it is so confusing. All with various opinions, views and no unity on even what is infallible teaching of the Pope. They drop in a bunch of wikipedia or Roman Catholic dictionary definitions desperate to try to over turn the facts and truths of source documents and then when you gently rebuke their ignorance they run away to go get more confusion hoping and begging the audience to get so confused they remain in the Roman Catholic church due to the glamour, the pomp, the great buildings, the extensive wealth, the great idols and idolatry, the libraries, the priestly garments and head-dresses, the miters, the great motor carriages, they global TV and radio networks, the politicians who bow and search the alleged vicar of Christ on their knees, the movie stars and wicked who rush to aid Rome, the UN Assembly who seats the Vatican as the #1 seat in the global community, etc. etc. etc. It is a global mess…but many are called, few are chosen.
I look forward to this week as they carry on with one another desperate to do anything to figure out how to overturn simplicity in truth with complication of sin and evil.
Tim wrote:
“What we found with Hahn we have found to be typical of Roman apologists—they must first read their beliefs into the Early Church first in order to get the Early Church to reflect their beliefs.”
This is why I responded to CK and his question who was the church in the first 4 centuries if not the Romish Papacy with what church is he talking about…esse or bene esse.
The visible church was made up of ALL those who professed Christ Jesus, even the sects of Arianism, Pelagianism, etc. Those who were spreading errors and confusion were part of the visible Christian church. This is even clear from John who said:
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” 1Jn.2:19
This is the visible church…and John defines now the true and faithful elect who remained with him. All were proclaiming to be Christians, but only those who “would no doubt have continued with us” were one in unity and in truth with the elect and chosen of God. The rest were fools, confused and sinful men of wickedness claiming to be Christians.
Scripture makes it clear…there MUST BE SEPARATION from these evil, wicked and backslidden churches. Here are just a few passages proving this point Romish do not understand:
“I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail? Therefore thus saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.” (Jer.15:17-19)
“Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear, The Lord liveth. For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the Lord will feed them as a lamb in a large place. Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” (Hos.4:15-17)
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mt.15:9)
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom.16:17)
“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” (2Tim.3:5-8)
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2Thes.3:6)
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1Tim.6:3-5)
“Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.” (Prov.19:2)
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” (Phil.3:2)
The Scripture is so simple, clear and concise. The visible church is filled with error, confusion, heresy and wickedness that one must compare Scripture with Scripture to be certain what is taught in the word of God. We owe it to ourselves and our families as our souls are at risk of damnation upon death.
We must be able to make distinctions and learn the sense and meaning of the Scriptures…we have to AVOID false teachers:
“And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, ***caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.***” (Neh.8:5-8)
“Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom.15:5-6)
Your work Tim is giving us the tools to be able to see this distinction between what ROME REALLY TEACHES (confusion and foolishness) vs. what faithful Protestants saw as they began to read Scriptures on their own.
The differences of light and darkness are so compelling, but so simple to see for those with open hearts, minds and souls to the truth. For those hardened to the truth, you will get to read what we did over the past two weeks from CK, Jim and Bob.
MASS CONFUSION…which is why they call it the mass I guess.
Jim, I read all your rants and foolish ignorance this week against Tim and Calvinism, and the jabs you took at me as well in regard to the Sovereign nature of God in regard to salvation your will being DEAD (yes, a DEAD WILL) after the fall. Your foolishness is going to be countered with Scriptures…an abundance of them that I myself had to research to BELIEVE IT MYSELF as a stupid Roman Catholic boy who grew up in stupidity and blindness.
You old man are so blinded by the Scripture truths you will testify publicly against God openly, aggressively and make fun of the creator of all things for the glory of God alone. You are the types that Paul says to silence them as they take away whole flocks into destruction…so WAKE UP and read Scripture. I know you will not read any of these verses as they are meaningless to you. You are evil and want to confuse many, but I hit you with Scripture praying the Lord will change your heart. Your heart is so evil and wicked it is impossible for me or anyone here to do anything…that is up to our Sovereign God alone! I hope you get it with Scripture. READ PLEASE.
“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” (Eph.1:4).
“He hath called us according to his own purpose and grace, before the world began,” (2Tim.1:9).
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” (Acts15:18).
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isa.46:10).
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” (Rom.9:11).
“The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” (2Tim.2:19).
“The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Ps.33:11).
“My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isa.46:10).
“I am the LORD, I change not,” (Mal.3:6).
“With the Father of lights is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,” (Jam.1:17; Exod.3:13,14; Ps.102:27; 2Tim.2:13; 1Sam.15:29; Isa.14:27; Job23:13; Ps.115:3).
“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,” (Heb.4:13).
“He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps.94:9). “When a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, that he die,” (Deut.19:5). “God delivers him into his hand,” (Exod.21:13).
“Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things,” (Matt.6:31,32).
“In him we live, and move, and have our being,” (Act.17:28).
“He upholdeth all things by the word of his power,” (Heb.1:3)
“The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD,” (Prov.16:1). “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will,” (Prov.21:1).
“Thou hast wrought all our works in us,” (Isa.26:12). “My Father worketh hitherto,” (Jn.5:17).
“Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness,” (Ps.119:36). “Unite my heart to fear thy name,” (Ps.86:11). “The God in whose hand try breath is, and whose are all try ways, thou hast not glorified,” (Dan.5:23).
See (Matt.27:1), compared with (Act.2:23), and (4:27,28); (Lk. 24:27); (Jn.19:31-36). For the necessity of other events, see (Exod.21:17); (Job14:5); (Matt.19:7), etc.
“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” (Ps.115:3).
“I will do all my pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10. “None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan.4:35).
“I have purposed, I will also do it,” (Isa.46:11).
“As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” (Isa.14:24).
“Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” So that “nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom.8:29,30,39).
“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy,” (Eph.1:4).
“Not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” (2Tim.1:9).
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,” etc., (Rom9:11). “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me,” (Jn.6:37)
“Many are called, but few are chosen,” (Matt.22:14). “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom,” (Lk.12:82).
“What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” (1Cor.4:7). “Are we better than they? No, in no wise,” (Rom.3:9). But we are “predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will,” (Eph.1:5; Jn.6:37-39, 10:3, 13:18, 17:6; Act.13:48; Tit.1:1; 2Tim.2:19; Jam.1:17, 18, etc.)
“By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” (Rom.5:18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,” (Rom.5:19).
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Ps.51:5).
“Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy,” (1Cor.7:14). “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one,” (Job14:4). “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” (Jn.3:3). “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” (Jn. 3:6).
“By nature the children of wrath, even as others,” (Eph.2:3). “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” to wit, in him, (Rom.5:12). “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing,” (Rom.7:18).
“In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” (Gen.2:17). “For as in Adam all die, even so,” etc., (1Cor.15:22). “By nature the children of wrath,” (Eph.2:3). “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,” (Rev.21:27).
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” (Gen.1:27). “Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him,” (Col.3:10). “—which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” (Eph.4:24).
“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but he hath sought out many inventions,” (Eccl.7:29). “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” (Rom.5:12).
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God tempteth no man: but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust,” (Jam.1:13,14).
“He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2Cor.5:21). “He loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might present it unto himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,” (Eph.5:25,27).
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” (2Corinthians5:19).
“When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand,” (Isa.53:10).
“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities,” (Isa.53:11).
“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” (Heb.9:28). “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us,” (9:12). “He hath reconciled you in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable,” (Col.1:21,22).
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins,” etc.: “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” (Rom.3:25,26).
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we were healed,” (1Peter2:24).
“Circumcise the of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked,” (Deut.10:16). “And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed,” (30:6).—“Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek.18:31). “A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you,” (Ezek.36:26).
“If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, then shall ye continue following the LORD your God,” (1Sam.12:14). “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me,” (Jer.32:40).
“Thou hast wrought all our works in us,” (Isa.26:12). “God worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (Phil.2:13).
“He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ,” (Eph.1:3).
“Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ to believe on him,” (Phil.1:29). “The blood of Christ purgeth our consciences from dead works to serve the living God,” (Heb.9:14).
“O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things?” (Lk.24:25, 26).
“Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad,” (Jn.8:56). “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities,” (Isa.53:11).
“At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,” (Eph.2:12).
“There is none other name under heaven given unto men, whereby we must be saved,” but only by Christ, (Act.4:12).
“The blessing of Abraham cometh on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ,” (Gal.3:14). “He that believeth not is condemned,” (Mk.16:16). “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” (Heb.11:6). “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1Cor.3:11).
“Of ourselves we can do nothing,” (Jn.15:5). “We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves,” (2Cor.3:5). “We are by nature the children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins,” (Eph.2:1-3).
“Faith is not of ourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph.2:8).
“Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received?” 1Cor.4:7).
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, who are taught to do evil,” (Jer.13:23).
“Believing on him that justifieth the ungodly,” (Rom.4:5). “Being justified freely by his grace,” (Rom.3:24).
“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight,” (Matt.11:25, 26).
“Free will” is represented by “Arminianism teaches” below.
Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)
Arminianism teaches: “For many are called, but few choose.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘FOR MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.’ (Matt. 22:14)
Arminianism teaches: “Make your decision for Christ.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’ (Matt. 11:27)
Arminianism teaches: “I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16). Also: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.’ (Paul’s testimony in Galatians 1:15,16)
Arminianism teaches: “God can’t save you unless you let him, it is your choice.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy…Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ (Romans 9:16, 18).
Arminianism teaches: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth:) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.’ (Rom. 9:11-13).
Arminianism teaches: “God wants everyone to be saved.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand…'(Mark 4:11,12).
Tim wrote:
“The Fathers, de la Taille warns, “did not put forward their teaching … so clearly as to allow no way of escape,” and therefore we must rely upon the “trend of the teaching,” as we look for some point of convergence, later in time, where the actual unanimity of the Early Fathers is eventually presumed to be expressed.”
This makes me sick to my stomach in so many words. This is what we hear on this blog from Jim, Bob and CK as they desperately attempt to “PROVE” Roman Catholic teaching to be the one true religion.
Why did this Jesuit (and the 3 blind men on this blog) not look to the Scriptures to find the “trend of teaching”, but rather desperately look tradition of the fathers? Is it because they cannot read for themselves? Is it because they are too lazy and would rather join the masses skipping and leaping right into hell and everlasting torment?
Who is this Jesuit but another typical Priest who is leading millions and billions astray, and I’m sure is idolized by these 3 blind men on the blog. Wait for the defense of him coming this week. Dozens of posts all over the blog, and you can be assured Jim will say…as usual…”I have not read your post Tim but here is what I think of it.” bla bla bla.
Bob will jump in with a dozen or less posts from wikipedia or some Roman Catholic dictionary.
CK will jump in falling all over himself giving Jim and Bob high fives for their brilliant responses.
Not one of these will read the blog post to dispute anything with facts, evidence and truth. I take that back…Bob will probably read it, but he won’t care about the simple, the facts and the evidence. He is so caught up in John Wesley foolishness and Romish tradition he will just rant on with Jim.
Hard to read sometimes…actually painful.
Tim wrote:
“The reason de la Taille must rely upon such vacillation and circularity is that the Early Church simply does not help him as he would require for such a claim. In fact, the Early Church stubbornly refuses to admit a Sacrifice on Thursday night at the Last Supper at all. It is not until the end of the 4th century that de la Taille finally finds his breakthrough, and discovers his “point of convergence.” It is that 4th century discovery that he projects backward on to the Early Church in order to force upon her a Roman Catholicism to which she was apparently oblivious.”
Well, here we go again. Another example of where all this crazy Roman Catholic foolishness begins. Is it any wonder that every Roman Catholic does not come to this website blog to discover what they will not learn in Catholic Universities, or in Scott Hahn school of Stupidville or the boys Jim, Bob and CK who are idolizers of Rome’s tradition…irregardless of the facts, evidence and truth.
Again…the Romish religion begins in the 4th century…and now look at it. Mary worship has developed, Eucharist worship and visions of the bread bleeding and with a heart beat so people who eat it can be assured it really is the living body of Jesus, the Satanic worship uncovered by even Priests in the Vatican going public, the incredible history of murder, bloodshed and torture, the insane practice of child and teenager rape and molestation, the money bribes, payoffs and transfers to silence victims, politicians and Roman apologists, etc. etc.
All evidence to a truly wicked system, and the response from those on this blog…Ah, who cares. So we have made a few mistakes. We still have more people in our church than you do, and our Pope is the global leader joining hands with foolish Protestants and Evangelicals, signing cooperation with Muslims and radical Islam, promoting secular humanism and idolatry around the world, etc. etc.
We have a billion followers…so we are the true church. Listen to our tradition as the Early Church Fathers prove we are!!!
No, read the facts on this blog. Opps, you are antichrist! Wow, that is what the Reformers said and whole nations were against you. Now, you have won over the world. Great news for you, and terrible news for those who protest against you.
Blood is coming to those who protest against you…this tradition we know for certain will repeat itself.
Tim wrote:
“Thus, de la Taille thinks to press Aphrahat into service to show that the Early Church understood Thursday night as the time of the true Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant. Recall that the central point of de la Taille’s Mystery of Faith is the Thursday night sacrifice, as he makes abundantly clear when he cites the medieval Amalarius:
“ON HOLY THURSDAY Christ brought the Old Law to an end, He TOOK AWAY SIN” (Maurice De La Taille, S. J., The Mystery of Faith, Regarding The Most August Sacrament And Sacrifice Of The Body And Blood Of Christ, chapter 3, §1.B.a, n67, emphasis in original)
But Thursday is not where Aphrahat insists on placing the New Passover sacrifice and the removal of sin.”
and:
“No, Aphrahat offers no support to de la Taille here. What is worse, Aphrahat believed that the bread and wine Jesus offered to His disciples was a figure, “the sign of the true Passover sacrifice,” which was to happen the next day (Aphrahat, Demonstration 12, On the Passover, chapter 6).”
Just incredible…really. It is so amazing to read the actual proof text showing and proving that what this Jesuit claims is pure fabrication and deception.
It is so strange that Bob, Jim and CK don’t see any of this evidence. Their heart is so hardened…they only see Jesuit idols in prayer books to pray to as Saints and saviors. Crazy.
Tim wrote:
“It is not until Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 A.D. – c. 395 A.D.) that de la Taille finally finds what he needs, at which point he arrives at the “convergence point,” and the “certainty” of “cumulative probability”:
“These early Fathers have a host of mediaeval followers.” (de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, chapter 3, §3.B.a)
Yes, Gregory of Nyssa certainly had a host of medieval followers. There is no doubt about that.
But what those “mediæval followers” do not have is actual Nicæan and Ante-Nicæan predecessors. The best de la Taille can do is project Gregory of Nyssa backwards onto the Early Church.”
CK, here you go. You want a distinction between the faithful fathers and faithful tradition in your scheme (of course you want nothing to do with Scripture proofs) to define who were the faithful prior to the 4th century….then see above.
The Romish religion started its heretical doctrine on the Thursday sacrifice with “Saint Gregory”.
Here is a hint…anytime you find the Roman Catholic church declare someone a “Saint” and idol to worship, know that it must be some major change in Rome’s history toward fulfillment of antichrist as defined in Scripture. Study all the Roman Catholic “Saints” and learn the path to evil.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07016a.htm
Do you want to know how evil this guy is…look at his doctrine on hell? Wow, temporary hell? Where is that in Scripture?
“For a discussion of his peculiar doctrine concerning the general restoration (Apocatastasis) to divine favour of all sinful creatures at the end of time, i.e. the temporary nature of the pains of hell, see the articles APOCATASTASIS and MIVART. The theory of interpolation of the writings of Gregory and of Origen, sustained among others by Vincenzi (below), seems, in this respect at least, both useless and gratuitous (Bardenhewer).”
Walt,
“Yes, Gregory of Nyssa certainly had a host of medieval followers. There is no doubt about that.”
How many medieval followers did Luther and Calvin have?
( Hint; zero )
Tim,
Do you know in Rome who was the founder of the doctrine of purgatory?
We probably can say Jesus Christ thought up purgatory but he did it prior to the Incarnation. Does that help?
Tim,
“Yet when one reads Melito’s Peri Pascha, there is simply no reference to a Thursday sacrifice”
No? Is there a reference to Passover? Was Passover simply a meal? Or was there a sacrifice involved.
As for De La Taille appealing to Cyprian and Melchizedek, when are you going to get around to answering the question I put to you three times on the other discussion, the question that asks, if Jesus did not act as a priest according to Melchisedek at the Supper, just when did he do so while on earth?
The Bible says,
” Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine: for he was [is] the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram to the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand”. And he gave him tithe from all.
Why did a priest bring out bread and wine? Is serving a snack of bread and wine proper to a priest? Or offering sacrifice?
Why did the Holy Spirit bother to mention Melchizedek was a priest if he was only serving lunch? What about the tithe and the blessing? Do lunch server give blessings or receive tithes?
Did Melchizedek sacrifice bread and wine?
He did. But he was only a type, a shadow. Christ sacrificed “in” bread and wine,
Now, for about the 5th time, WHEN did Christ act as priest according to the order of Melchizedek IF NOT at the Supper?
Jim,
Walt predicted this. HIGH FIVE!!!!
CK wrote:
“Jim,
Walt predicted this. HIGH FIVE!!!!”
You guys are so predictable.
🙂
Okay Tim, Here we go again,eh?
Your theory goes like this;
The early Church held beliefs similar to modern Protestantism until the latter half of the 4th century when the Devil took over and things morphed into Romanism. yes?
So, for about 1100 years a false gospel was the only gospel known to the sheep. Then, around 1500 the Holy Ghost came back on the scene and inspired Luther and Calvin to shake things up. Finally, around 2015 you, filled in the gaps Luther and the big guys had overlooked.
Is that pretty much it, Tim?
Now, the plot thickens. Catholics like Fr. Most, Scott Hahn, Art Sippo and now, Maurice De La Taille all deny the Calvary as being the sacrifice or having any part in it. They say we were saved at the Last Supper but for some reason Christ went on with the cross the next day.
Am I reading you right, Tim?
Jim, you asked,
“Is that pretty much it, Tim?”
Nope.
Thanks,
Tim
Oh.
Thanks back.
Tim,
“…re by now familiar with the Roman Catholic propensity for moving Jesus’ sacrifice back to Thursday night at the Last Supper. Rome’s sacrifice of the Mass is ostensibly grounded in Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper, and because Roman Catholicism considers the Mass to be a sacrifice, her apologists are ever eager to turn the Last Supper into a sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood.”
Tim, lay your cards on the table. Are you saying Catholic apologists say the cross was not necessary, that the Mass could have been accepted as the price of our redemption INSTEAD OF THE CROSS? Are you claiming Catholics think the Mass could have existed in a vacuum, independent of Calvary?
You went to a lot of work to write a rather lengthy article chock full of quotes from the Fathers but I missed what your purpose is. You almost but didn’t come right out and say it but is this what you are pussy footing around, hinting at, insinuating, implying?
Yes or no? If no, then what is your point?
So far this seems to be a repeat of your last installment. You have just added De La Taille to your list but you are driving at the same thing, yes?
Jim wrote:
“Your theory goes like this;
The early Church held beliefs similar to modern Protestantism until the latter half of the 4th century when the Devil took over and things morphed into Romanism. yes?
So, for about 1100 years a false gospel was the only gospel known to the sheep. Then, around 1500 the Holy Ghost came back on the scene and inspired Luther and Calvin to shake things up. Finally, around 2015 you, filled in the gaps Luther and the big guys had overlooked.”
You really Jim are a waster of time and energy! If you could learn how to read and discern much of what is written might help you, but so are so filled with confusion that even simple principles get you all messed up. You need to come out of the Romish church as she has you so confused there is not much hope I see any more in her or in you.
Walt,
Do you wear a slip under your skir…er…kilt?
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
Do you wear a slip under your skir…er…kilt?”
YOU are a major time waster. All that bla bla bla you and Bob wrote last week was a massive waste of energy.
And for time number 6, when did Jesus act as a priest according to Melchizedek if not when he took bread and wine into his hands and said…?
Modern Church Apostasy on Roman Catholicism and Homosexuality
Darlene Zschech of Hillsong music joined to worship with Pope Francis. What does this say of her stance on Biblical truth? What is the current state of the church today? Kevin DeYoung’s article ’40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags’ is also looked at in this week’s show, along with some professing Christian responses and objections to the article.
http://megiddofilms.podomatic.com/entry/2015-07-11T13_00_53-07_00
Walt,
Why have you never married? Why do you wear a plaid skirt?
Tim,
Let me try again.
For about 350 years the early Christians met weekly to share some bread and wine or crackers and grape juice to remember the Last Supper of lamb, bitter herbs and choroseth.
They heard a sermon on one of the 66 books of the Bible and sang some songs. They considered this a sacrifice of praise and worship , a fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi, Melkizedek and the miraculous manna in the desert. ( Only trouble is, in each of these cases the type was equal to or greater than its fulfillment in the Church ).
Suddenly, out of the blue, the entire body of believers, from the northern provinces of the Roman Empire to Persia and down into Ethiopia started to offer sacrifices of bread and wine for the dead. They started to pray to the dead too. They began to construct idols and look to Rome as the center or orthodoxy.
Card playing, make up, chewing tobacco, radio, rock and roll,and whiskey, things hitherto condemned became popular with the false believing pew warmers. The true Christians either went into exile or went underground, pretending to bow before the bread and idols of Mary.
All records of the resistance to this take over were ordered burnt by Rome in order to fabricate the myth that the Romish cult was organically connected to the Apostles. Bibles were seized by Gestapo like Inquisitors who came to peoples’ homes in the dead of night and kicked in their doors.
Rome decreed that Bibles must be written in Latin code so the masses would be deprived of the truth. Monks went busy cranking out by hand Latin Bibles with intricate art work in the margins.
Church windows were ordered to depict saints. Candles were introduced in lieu of kerosene lamps. The clergy demanded to be called “Father”…
How am I doing, Tim?
Walt,
Help Tim out.
He is too busy to answer my question. Maybe you can. When did Jesus act as a priest according to Melchizedek if not when he took bread and wine into his hands and said…?
Jim,
I wrote a large number of posts today in response to your foolish questions and you ignore everything as usual and just go on these rants on whatever your mind dreams up. You are a massive waste of time.
I hope Tim will stop responding to you so that you go away. It is too time consuming to listen to all your bla bla bla, and respond to anything you say. Your mind is so filled with crazy thoughts it is incredible.
My testimony shows how difficult it was for me as a Catholic to give up Church tradition, but when the Lord demands it in His Word, we must do it. The “form of godliness” that the Roman Catholic Church has makes it most difficult for a Catholic to see where the real problem lies. Everyone must determine by what authority we know truth. Rome claims that it is only by her own authority that truth is known. In her own words, Cannon 212, Section 1, “The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.” (Vatican Council II based, Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John-Paul II, 1983).
Yet according to the Bible, it is God’s Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known. It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand “the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory.”
The Reason Why I Share
I share these truths with you now so that you can know God’s way of salvation. Our basic fault as Catholics is that we believe that somehow we can of ourselves respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, “Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons….”
With that mindset, we were unknowingly holding to a teaching that the Bible continually condemns. Such a definition of grace is man’s careful fabrication, for the Bible consistently declares that the believer’s right standing with God is “without works” (Romans 4:6), “without the deeds of the Law” (Romans 3:28), “not of works” (Ephesians 2:9), “It is the gift of God,” (Ephesians 2:8). To attempt to make the believer’s response part of his salvation and to look upon grace as “a help” is to flatly deny Biblical truth,
“…if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace…” (Romans 11:6). The simple Biblical message is that “the gift of righteousness” in Christ Jesus is a gift, resting on His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross, “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17).
So it is as Christ Jesus Himself said, He died in place of the believer, the one for many (Mark 10:45), His life a ransom for many. As He declared, …this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). This is also what Peter proclaimed, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God…” (I Peter 3:18).
Paul’s preaching is summarized at the end of II Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him..” (II Cor. 5:21).
This fact, dear reader, is presented clearly to you in the Bible. Acceptance of it is now commanded by God, “…Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15).
The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of “meriting,” “earning,” “being good enough,” simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul’s time, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” (Romans 10:3)
Repent and believe the Good News!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EasaVgGr7DI#t=224
Some Catholic apologists claim that the prophecy in Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled in the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. A footnote in the New American Bible says that this verse is a reference to ‘the pure offering to be sacrificed in messianic times, the universal Sacrifice of the Mass, as we are told by the Council of Trent.’
The scripture reads:
My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD Almighty. (NIV)
A Catholic translation of the same verse reads:
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (NAB)
The Jews and their priests despised and profaned God’s name by offering blemished animals while keeping the best animals to themselves. God was dishonoured by their half-hearted service and their hypocrisy. God foretold a time when he would call the Gentiles to worship him. He will be glorified among the nations, ‘from the rising of the sun to its setting’, from the east to the west. His people will not be restricted to a single nation, but he will have worshippers ‘in every place’, implying the catholicity or universality of the church.
The incense offered to God is our prayers, as the Psalmist says, ‘May my prayer be set before you like incense’, and again, the Book of Revelation identifies the incense offered before God as ‘the prayers of all the saints.’ (Psalm 141:2, Rev 8:3).
Moreover, the New Testament explains how the church offers a ‘pure offering’ to God. ‘Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased’ (Hebrews 13:15, 16). Our prayers and good works are an offering to God.
The Eucharist is the prominent prayer of the church because during the Lord’s Supper we praise and thank God for the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Our English term ‘Eucharist’ is derived from the Greek word ‘eucharistia’ which means ‘gratitude, thanksgiving.’ Jesus gave thanks (‘eucharisteo’) when he took the bread and the wine (Matthew 26:27, Luke 22:19). In this sense the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
Thus, Malachi’s prophecy finds its fulfillment in our good works and prayers, especially the Lord’s Supper celebrated by God’s children from the four corners of the earth. The Didache and the early church fathers also rightly identified the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.
What about the sacrifice of the Mass? Surely the Mass is offered in every country of the world, and it has been celebrated since the times of the apostles. Sadly that is not the case because the significance of the Eucharist has changed over the centuries from a sacrifice of praise to a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, a sacrufuce to satisfy the justice of God for the sins committed against him. Malachi is not speaking about that kind of sacrifice.
Much has been written on the translation of the term ‘qatar’, rendered ‘incense’ in all the major Protestant Bibles, and ‘sacrifice’ in the Catholic versions. Both renderings could be correct, though the former is more likely. The basic meaning of the word ‘qatar’ is ‘to smoke, to burn’. A Catholic commentator states that various forms of the word ‘have to do with any kind of offering which gives off smoke, but in postexilic texts precise enough to let us see what is being offered they have to do with incense or other aromatic substances.’ (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary – click on image below).
Whether ‘incense’ or ‘sacrifice’ is preferred, the term does not mean a ‘sin offering’ and there is nothing in the context that compels us to understand it as a propitiatory sacrifice. That is the crux of the matter. In fact the same Catholic commentator concludes that the terms translated ‘incense’ and ‘pure offering’ do not have the to with animal sacrifices.
To prove the claim that Malachi is prophesying the Sacrifice of the Mass, it must be shown that he is speaking of a sin offering. To my knowledge that has never been done. On the contrary the study of the text leads us away from that conclusion.
During the Lord’s Supper, God’s people remember Christ and proclaim his death, giving thanks to God for providing a perfect redemption in the death of his Son. They praise God for Christ who ‘entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.’ (Heb 9:12). But according to Catholic teaching, during the Mass the sacrifice of Christ is carried on, perpetuated, renewed, re-presented and re-enacted. In this shift in the meaning of the Eucharist, God is neither pleased nor honoured. Christ is seated on the right hand of God, having obtained our redemption; he does not ‘constantly enter’ the sanctuary to carry on what he has already done once for all.
http://evangeliku.blogspot.com/2009/07/malachi-and-mass.html
Thanks Walt,
You sure said a lot about Mallachi and I really appreciate it.
But I didn’t ask you about Malachi. I asked about Melkizedek, the priest associated with bread and wine. Neither you nor Tim seem to be able to address my question;
If Jesus did not act a priest according to the order of Melchisedek at the Last Supper, when he took bread and a cup filled with wine into his hands,
JUST WHEN DID HE ACT AS A PRIEST OF MELKISEDEK before entering the heavenly sanctuary?
If you or Tim can’t answer this, could you please direct me to someone who can?
Thanks
Jim,
As I read the narrative of Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18-20, I just can’t find the section where he sacrifices the bread and wine. As I read the passage, it says “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.” (Genesis 4:18). I know the Douay-Rheims version says “for he was the priest of the most high God,” and in your question you have highlighted “for” as if the meaning of the whole verse must turn on “for.” And yet “for” is not even in the text. It is an interpolation. Anyway, almost every other translation simply says “and.”
In any case, Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine. I can’t find where he offered bread and wine to God as a sacrifice. What I can find in the Scripture is Melchizedek blessing Abraham (Genesis 4:19, for surely, “the less is blessed of the better”(Hebrews 7:7)), and blessing God (Genesis 14:20).
So I looked through the Last Supper narratives, and I couldn’t find any reference to Jesus offering the sacrifice of bread and wine like Melchizedek. But I can see that Jesus offered bread and wine to His disciples after the after the similitude of Melchisedec. And I can see in the narratives that Jesus blessed His Father (Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26) the way Melchizedek blessed the God of Abraham. I just can’t find that part where He sacrifices bread and wine to His Father.
The first reference to Melchizedek in the New Testament takes place after the supper, in the Garden:
From the Garden, Jesus proceeds to the Cross. So your question, “WHEN DID HE ACT AS A PRIEST OF MELKISEDEK before entering the heavenly sanctuary?” is answered in the Scripture: from the Garden to the Cross—precisely where de la Taille refused to place it.
I think your question as occasionally stated, “When did Jesus act as a priest according to Melchizedek if not when he took bread and wine into his hands and said…?” presumes that Melchizedek sacrificed bread and wine, and then tries to assign Jesus’ Melchizedekian offering to the bread and wine of the Last Supper. But the Scriptures obstinately refuse to do that. Because Melchizedek did not sacrifice bread and wine. Neither did Jesus. The fact that Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine does not prove that Jesus’ sacrifice was on Thursday night.
Did Jesus bring forth bread and wine “after the similitude of Melchisedec” (Hebrews 7:15)? Yes, He did.
But what I’m not seeing anywhere in Scripture is Jesus or Melchizedek sacrificing bread and wine.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Jesus acted as a priest according to the order of Melchisedek in the Garden?
Did you dream that up yourself or did somebody tell you? Who?
“So I looked through the Last Supper narratives, and I couldn’t find any reference to Jesus offering the sacrifice of bread and wine like Melchizedek. But I can see that Jesus offered bread and wine to His disciples after the after the similitude of Melchisedec. And I can see in the narratives that Jesus blessed His Father (Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26) the way Melchizedek blessed the God of Abraham. I just can’t find that part where He sacrifices bread and wine to His Father.”
Jesus merely “offered” bread and wine to his disciples? Like Melchisedek did? Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the sacred author to mention the fact that M. was a priest if all he was doing was serving a famished Abraham lunch after a battle?
Why did Jesus offer bread to his disciples after they had just polished off a lamb dinner? To cleanse their pallets?
Why the wine? It was a Passover meal , right? Hadn’t they already been drinking wine?
Why didn’t Jesus say, This is some bread given up for you” and “This is the cup of wine poured out for the forgiveness of sin”?
And why separately? Why not ” This is some bread and wine for you”?
Or maybe, This is my Body and Blood given up for you and for the remission of sins’?
How is the fulfillment any better than the type? You say M. brought forth bread and wine and Jesus brought forth bread and wine. What is the difference? How is Jesus’ bringing forth superior to M’s? Bread and wine are only bread and wine regardless of who brings them forth them right? ( This is worse than the way Protestant communion services are vastly inferior to their OT type and shadow, the heavenly manna. )
Next question; why do waiters and lunch servers bring forth bread and wine? To feed people, right?
Why would a priest bring forth bread and wine? To serve lunch?
You reduce the Last Supper scene to banality.
Finally, you say,
“But what I’m not seeing anywhere in Scripture is Jesus or Melchizedek sacrificing bread and wine.”
I agree with half of this statement. I don’t see anywhere in scripture where Jesus offers bread and wine either.
Nor does Jesus ever sacrifice bread and wine. Bread and wine do not save us from sins. Bread and wine are no more capable of saving us than the blood of sheep, goats and heifers.
Jim,
When did you think Jesus “offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears?” (Hebrews 5:5-10).
The first new Testament reference to Jesus as the high priest according to the Order of Melchizedek was in Hebrews 5:5-10 in a reference that appears to refer to His anguish in the garden. I can’t find any that refer to Him functioning as a priest in the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
Thanks,
Tim
This!
I agree with half of this statement. I don’t see anywhere in scripture where Jesus offers bread and wine either.
Tim,
I gotta fess up.
The irritating question I keep sticking to you and Walt about Melchisedek is not my own. I swiped it from Maurice de la Taille.
Speaking of swiping other peoples’s ideas, do you read a lot of Baur, Straus, Renan, Reimarus, etc. you know, the guys from 100 years ago who reinvented the way of doing Church history to show how a simple unwashed Jewish carpenter morphed into the Dread Lord of the Universe over a couple of centuries?
Your theory about how a bunch of little hick store front and house churches spread about the Roman Empire suddenly, overnight became the Great Romish Whore of Babylon with all power centered in Rome reminds me of those guys.
Same with your ravings about how a simple and sinful peasant girl evolved into a the goddess known as the Mother of of God.
Your demythologizing of Catholicism falls just short of Jesus. But you are on a slippery slope with it. Too bad old Walt doesn’t see the danger your theory poses to Protestantism as well as Catholicism. ( If it were true that is. But it is crackpot, it isn’t true at all ).
Timothy and Walter,
Since we are talking about M words ( Malachi, Melchizedek ) what about MANNA?
For the life of me, I cannot see how this OT types is fulfilled in the Protestant Communion service. Isn’t an OT type or figure supposed to be a mere shadow of better things to come ?
Think of manna; It fell from heaven, was miraculous and conformed to every man’s individual taste. It was put in a golden urn and then into the Ark of the Covenant for centuries.
Now think of crackers and grape juice. Or mere bread and cheap wine.
Where is the fulfillment in something better? Protestant Communion is less than its type, isn’t it? The shadow is greater than the reality.
Manna, the Bread from heaven, just like Malachi and Melkisedek are all fulfilled in Christ and the Mass or they are not fulfilled at all!
( I would ask you about the Shew Bread but that doesn’t start with the letter M. )
Tim,
“The Roman Catholic mass sacrifice is essentially meaningless if Rome cannot prove that Jesus actually sacrificed His body and blood on Thursday night.”
Could you flesh this out for us? What exactly do you mean by “sacrificed”.
So Walt doesn’t have to read your long post ( just a repeat of last weeks ), could you please explain how Maurice de la Taille used the word? The whole discussion hinges on that, doesn’t it?
By the way, does a Catholic have to accept the theory of M. de la Taille? Or can he, like I do, accept some aspects of it but not all?
And just like I did last week, I need to ask you and Walt about Penal Substitution if we are going to discuss our different meanings of the term”sacrifice”. So, show me PS in the OT sacrificial system. I asked you this question several times last week but you must have been too bust thinking up new attacks and so didn’t have time to answer it. Do you think you could explain your views just a bit this week? I mean, if our view is erroneous, could you tell us what the correct view is? And could you do it using the Bible?
Thanks for your consideration;
Jim
Tim,
You certainly do have an uncanny ability to see details in Church history that have evaded lesser scholars than yourself for centuries.
Your pin-pointing the shift from orthodox Christianity to heretical Romanism around 350 A.D. is truly masterful.
I do have on thing that bothers me though. While you have deftly shown how a simple meal of bread and unfermented wine morphed into the demonic Romish “sacrifice of propitiation for living and dead”, you have not told us how a simple carpenter with a message of love became Augustine’s three headed monster god. Wouldn’t you say the Constantine was the water shed there too?
I agree with you that certain things, dimly made out prior to Nicaea, suddenly burst out into full blown paganism after the emperors got involved. But you have not developed it for us.
Would you explain how the Trinity came about using your 350 A.D. rule?
Tim,
Who did Jesus offer up prayers and supplications in the Garden for?
Was the offering up prayers and supplications a liturgical or priestly act? An act of mediation? ( Calvin says in the Garden Jesus was in a state of panic for his own salvation ).
So, unlike Hahn and Sippo, you make Jesus priestly act to take place not at the Supper but in the Garden, yes?
So, how do you differ from them? The Garden was not the cross, no more than the Supper was.
The Supper took place before the Garden, did it not? Why did his heart melt like wax and his blood become like great drops of water in the Garden?
I will await you answer before forging ahead.
Tim,
” I can’t find any that refer to Him functioning as a priest in the institution of the Lord’s Supper.”
You mean you didn’t know Jesus’ high priestly prayer took place in the context of the Last Supper?
Jim,
In all the Gospel accounts, they leave from the Supper and head to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30, Mark 14:26, Luke 22:39, John 14:31). Then from the Mount of Olives Jesus goes into the Garden (Matthew 26:36, Mark 14:32, Luke 22:40, John 18:1). So the timeline looks like this:
So Jesus prays his High Priestly Prayer of John 17 at the Mount of Olives after the Supper but prior to entering the Garden of Gethsemane. So, no, I was not under the impression that Jesus’ high priestly prayer took place in the context of the Last Supper. The Scripture does not place it there.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I don’t think Jn 14, “Arise and let us go hence” is the same as the Synoptics saying , “They sung a Psalm and went out to the Mt. of Olives”. Notice there is no mention of a Psalm or song being sung and no mention of the Garden of Olives (yet ).
I would say they arose from the table where they had been sitting for Passover and went to another room or table and there celebrated the first Eucharist standing. The constant Tradition of the Church, both east and west, is to celebrate Mass standing, never sitting.
After that, in Chapter 15 Jesus gives his discourse on the vine/branches and being engrafted into and participating in the very life of Christ.
It isn’t until Chapter 18 of John’s Gospel that they leave for Gethsemane.
There is no way Jesus could give the long discourse covering 3 chapter while walking en route to the Garden.
“de la Taille, settles instead for what he calls the “trend of the teaching,” and the “certainty” of “cumulative probability.” Thus it is possible, he says, to extract a “universal and consistent unanimity” from th…”
Do you deny the development of doctrine? If yes, how did that simple carpenter with a message of peace who got himself crucified evolve into the three Person God known as the Trinity? Was that evolution a positive development or a corruption? What about the teachings of Nestorius and Arius? Were their innovations or discoveries evolutions or corruptions? How do you know? How were disputes of this nature resolved?
Tim,
This guy reminds me of you.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-did-jesus-become-god/
Of course you won’t see it because you think you know why you believe Jesus has always been God. But his method is like yours.
You apply his method to Mary, the Mass, purgatory, etc. etc.
Tim,
In the Genesis account of the encounter between Abraham and Melchisedek I don’t see any mention of offering up prayers and supplications as in Hebrews. I see a priest bringing forth bread and wine. I am not saying he did offer prayers and supplication for Abraham as that is associated with an act of sacrifice. And as I said more than once, Jesus offered himself in the garden, on the cross, in Mary’s womb, and everyday of his life. But he formally, officially, liturgically, ceremoniously offered himself in the species of bread and wine only at the Last Supper.
OOPS.
“I am not saying he did he did NOT offer….”
Tim,
You are out of sync with your Calvinist cohorts.
Christ was not offering up prayers on behalf of others, like a priesthttp://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.pt/2009/03/calvin-on-christs-descent-into-hell.html would do, in the Garden.
For you guys, Christ was suffering terrors of the damned. He was praying not to go to hell himself. Hardly a priestly act on behalf of others.
http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.pt/2009/03/calvin-on-christs-descent-into-hell.html
Christ initiated his sacrifice in the upper room as a priest according to Melchisedek and completed it on the cross. He now continues his office sitting in the heavenly sanctuary as a priest king.
Tim,
Was the “convergence point” of the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth century?
How can we be sure our Oneness friends are heterodox? They say they are orthodox and we Trinitarians are the ones who have gone astray.
Shall we flip a coin to determine who is right? Shall we subject the matter to the clear word of God ( a.k.a. private interpretation )? Or shall we appeal to the authority Christ set up?
Tim,
Just so we are having an honest exchange rather than me just fending off your attacks, let me counter with,
“Lacking that clear apostolic continuity…” for Penal Substitution, Calvin invented it out of thin air.
Tim, which Church father before 350 A.D. said Christ was reckoned to be a loathsome wretch of a sinner on our stead by God the Father?
Can’t think of one?
Okay, which Church Father after 350 A.D. ever taught such a blasphemous heresy?
Can’t think of one?
Okay, let me ask it this way; which sane person in the history of the Christianity ever taught it?
Tim,
I know it’s off topic but I gotta take a time out and ask you something.
You are a Bible only believer. So is Bob. You two agree on very little. Is that because Bob is blinded by Romanism?
You are both former Catholics. Why were you 100% saved and Bob only partially? Sovereign grace was working in both of your lives, right? Does Bob resist irresistible grace more than you? Is there something special about or within you that Bob doesn’t have?