Sacrifice?

[Proverb16:7]

Dave,

I heard somewhere that when the Jews celebrate Passover their thinking is that they will be delivered "TONIGHT" as they celebrate.   As though it was that very night it was to happen and they were to leave Egypt, their deliverance from bondage.

It was an interesting thought to ponder the similarities, Passover / Mass (Eucharistic offering).

[David W. Emery]

Yes, David S., that was the point of my earlier post: that redemption is eternal, and therefore not fixed in the past. Therefore, to speak of Christ’s sacrifice as simply “a past event” is erroneous for Christians as well. If the redemption is just an event in history, then it cannot apply to us, living today, and we are therefore not partakers in the grace and salvation of God which it wrought. But as St. Paul said, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8), and so is his redemption. This is why he can affirm a couple of verses later, “We have an altar.” The Jews celebrate their Passover, and we celebrate our Christian Passover, the Mass, bringing that redemption to bear on our own lives, to the end of salvation.

David

[Dave Armstrong]

Hi David S.,

The Jews do indeed believe that there is some sort of transcendence of time. I wrote a paper about that, making the analogy to the Mass (citing several Jewish writers):

Passover in Judaism: "Past Events Become Present Today" (Analogy to the Sacrifice of the Mass) / "Remember" in Scripture

[Proverb16:7]

Indeed,

I believe it was Fr. John Riccardo (of Nineveh Crossing) who impressed that on me in one of his podcasts (Why be catholic - or - Where two or more are gathered in my name)  and that came up in his explanation!   That "they will be delivered "TONIGHT" " strong emphasis on tonight, in the explanation of their passover celebration.

[kingsvine]

I can see the passover revelation about the "present" sacrifice....but why is the priest and the body giving the sacrifice?  It's Christ's sacrifice FOR us...still not seeing that part.

at my daughter's waiting for another grandchild to enter the world....writing on my small laptop...hope it shows up okay

[David W. Emery]

at my daughter's waiting for another grandchild to enter the world....writing on my small laptop...hope it shows up okay.

A very important duty, kingsvine. And communication does not depend on the size of one’s computer, but on the capability and dependability of the network that connects that computer with others. It takes the whole complex unity of many parts and people to make, run and maintain them, to allow your message to “show up” at the other end.

Likewise, when you look at the priest and congregation and wonder what they have to do with Christ… are you not forgetting that “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them”? Are you not forgetting that the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit? Are you not forgetting that the sacrament of ordination makes the priest the very presence of Christ among us when he celebrates the Mass; that it is not just the priest — that man we see at the altar — pronouncing those words, “This is my body… this is my blood,” but Christ himself? This, too, is all part of the mystery of the Passover and the “present” sacrifice. Again, not either/or (Christ and the priest acting separately), but both/and (Christ acting in and through the priest).

David

[kingsvine]

What does the Church do with the priesthood of all believers?  Why is it that only the Priest can perform the Mass and offer the eucharist except I think I read that a deacon can offer communion at a hospital or something like that?  In the early Church, isnt there evidence that Christians all all walks of life practiced partaking of the Lord's supper even when no ordained priest was present?
Dont we all have the Spirit of Christ in us?  Aren't we all representatives of Christ on the earth as believers? 

[David W. Emery]

What does the Church do with the priesthood of all believers? Why is it that only the Priest can perform the Mass and offer the eucharist…?

Let’s look to the Old Testament, Exodus 19:6: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Yes, the priesthood of all believers existed even then. Did that stop God from instituting a ministerial priesthood? No. He had Moses ordain Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:9), and their descendants became priests after them by that same calling (Exodus 29:28; cf. 1 Chronicles 24; 2 Chronicles 31:2 and many other places). In the Christian Church, the people are priests in a fundamental sense, just as were the Israelites of old. This is why the Israelites partook of the Passover lamb, and it is why Christians partake of the host and cup at the sacrifice of the Mass. The ministerial priest offers it, but the priesthood of the faithful allows the congregation to partake of it as well.

…except I think I read that a deacon can offer communion at a hospital or something like that?

Not “offer.” He can distribute communion, but he cannot offer the sacrifice. Only a priest or bishop can do that. It’s like the difference in the Old Covenant between a priest and a Levite. The deacon is the new Levite, ordained to a ministry of service, and the priest is ordained to a ministry of ritual sacrifice.

Don’t we all have the Spirit of Christ in us? Aren't we all representatives of Christ on the earth as believers?

We need to make some distinctions. There are some who are called to special functions; Christ himself demonstrated this clearly when he “called to him those whom he desired, and he appointed twelve, to be with him…” (Mark 3:13–15). The ministerial priesthood is, therefore, a special calling and a special function within the priesthood of believers, just as the Twelve were chosen from among the thousands Christ’s followers. Again, in Acts 1:15–26 we see that another was chosen to take Judas’ place, showing how the calling and the naming is to be perpetual, to serve the Church down through the ages.

Notice, too, what happened in Numbers 16 when some men confronted Moses with the same argument that you are are proposing here. Why did this happen? Because they sought to arrogate to themselves what is given only by a call from the Lord.

David

[serenity]

David---I have been following this thread with great interest.
Kingsvine asked things in a far better fashion than I am capable of doing.
Your answers helped because I also looked up your scriptural support.
Now can you tell us which, if any priesthood is forever? 
Can defrocked priest say Mass in private if they are a priest forever?
Is our own priesthood as Christians forever?

[David W. Emery]

Now can you tell us which, if any priesthood is forever?

Primarily, it is Christ’s priesthood that is eternal (Hebrews 6:20). However, a Christian’s priesthood and a ministerial priest’s priesthood participate, according to their respective natures, in Christ’s eternal priesthood, and the seal of the sacrament (baptism for the one, ordination for the other) is indelible. A person can be unfaithful and thus lose his salvation, but he cannot be un-baptized or un-ordained.

Can defrocked priest say Mass in private if they are a priest forever?

A priest’s ordination never “expires.” Even if he is defrocked — or as we say, “laicized” — a ministerial priest remains a priest in the sense that the effect of the sacrament of ordination cannot be taken away. What such a one does not have is permission to act as a priest. If he should celebrate Mass or a sacrament in violation of the conditions of his dismissal from the clerical state, it could be valid (depending on whether he complies with the liturgical conditions for validity), but it would be illicit (illegal), and Catholics would be prohibited from attending and partaking of such a liturgy. The one exception to this is if a person is in danger of death; if a priest with the proper faculties (permissions) is not available, a priest without faculties will suffice.

Is our own priesthood as Christians forever?

Yes, in the same sense as the ministerial priest’s ordination, and remembering that, for a Catholic, the reception of any sacrament other than the sacrament of penance while in the state of sin is a sacrilege.

We receive this priesthood at baptism. This priesthood is specifically acknowledged in a special annointing ceremony immediately after baptism. It is not the sacrament of Confirmation, but a ritual recognition of the newly baptized person as priest, prophet and king, in a sense analogous to the same titles referring in their fullest sense to Christ.

David

[serenity]

The one exception to this is if a person is in danger of death; if a priest with the proper faculties (permissions) is not available, a priest without faculties will suffice.

Does this exception change the benefits to the recipient in any way?

BTW, thanks for all your concise answers to my questions, David.

[David W. Emery]

The benefits of a sacrament are the same regardless of the condition or disposition of the priest who celebrates it. This is an ancient dogma of the Church (defined in the fourth century against the Donatist heresy, which was revived in later centuries by John Wyclif, Jan Hus and Martin Luther, among others), and it serves to protect the spiritual welfare of the faithful even if the clergy are not faithful to their calling.

David

[serenity]

Thanks---That is good to know David.

[Dave Armstrong]

David has already answered in his usual excellent fashion. I've written about the biblical data concerning priests and the question of priesthood of all believers in my book The One-Minute Apologist:

PRIESTS

We are all priests. There is no special class set apart from others in the Church
The Bible says that we are to "call no man father." So why do Catholics do that?

Initial reply

The Bible teaches that there is such a thing as clergy, who are set apart from lay members of the Church, and also gives indication of priestly function.

Extensive reply

The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: some things were understood only in very basic or skeletal terms in the early days of Christianity. This is even true of doctrines accepted by all, such as the Holy Trinity or original sin. The canon of the biblical books was slow to formulate (four centuries). Also, it has been argued that priesthood was a subdued feature of primitive Christianity because it had not yet finally separated from Judaism; therefore, the authority of Jewish priests was still accepted. Acts 2:46 describes the Jerusalem Christians as "day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes". The Apostle Paul was presenting offerings in the temple around the year 58 (Acts 21:26), acknowledged the authority of the Jewish high priest, described himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:5-6), and observed Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6).

But one can indeed find evidence in the Bible of a Christian priesthood. Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper (Lk. 22:19: "Do this in remembrance of me"; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist – Acts 20:11). These same disciples were (like priests) models of a life wholly devoted to God, as a matter of lifelong calling. Jesus had chosen and "appointed" them, and they had become His "friends" (Jn. 15:15-16). He was their sole master (Mt. 6:24). There was no turning back in their ministry (Lk. 9:62), and they were called to a radical commitment involving even leaving possessions and their entire families (Mt. 4:22, 19:27; Lk. 14:26). The priest-disciple must accept hardships and privations and embrace self-denial (Mt. 8:19-20, 10:38, 16:24, etc.), and (if so called) celibacy, for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord (Mt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:7-9). They served the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:5, 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5), and dispensed sacraments (1 Cor. 4:1; Jas. 5:14), including baptism (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:38,41). A universal priesthood of "offering" (sacrifice) extending to "every place" in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18,21 and Malachi 1:11.

Protestants sometimes cite 1 Peter 2:5,9 (cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6) to the effect that all Christians are priests. But Peter was citing Exodus 19:6: "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The problem with this is that the older passage couldn't possibly have meant that there was no priesthood among the ancient Hebrews, since they clearly had a separate class of priests (Leviticus: chapters 4-7, 13-14). This is even seen in the same chapter, since Ex. 19:21-24 (cf. Josh. 3:6, 4:9) twice contrasts the "priests" with the "people." Thus, it makes much more sense to interpret 1 Pet. 2:5 as meaning a people "specially holy" – like priests; a separate, holy, "chosen" people, as is fairly clear in context, in both parallel passages. The notion of "spiritual sacrifices" (faith, praise, giving to others) applies to all Christians (Phil. 2:17; Heb. 13:15-16).

Objection

How can Catholics explain calling their priests "Father" in light of Matthew 23:9: "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven"?

Reply to Objection

Jesus was simply teaching (using the common Hebrew method of exaggeration or hyperbole: see Mt. 19:24, 23:24; Lk. 6:42, 14:26) that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority. He said this during the course of rebuking the Pharisees for spiritual pride (Mt. 23:2-10). Those who use this argument neglect to see that it would prohibit all uses of the word father whatsoever; even biological fathers. Since that is an absurd outcome, it is clear that the statement cannot be taken in an absolute sense. Beyond that, Jesus Himself uses the term father many times (Mt. 15:4-6; 19:5,19,29; 21:31; Lk. 16:24,27,30; Jn. 8:56, etc.). Several other passages from others utilize the term, too (sometimes twice), so unless it is believed that they were being disobedient to Jesus, the objection to calling Catholic priests father must be discarded:

    Acts 7:2: And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, . . ."

    Romans 4:12: . . . the father of the circumcised . . . our father Abraham . . .

    Romans 4:16-17: . . . Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations . . ." (cf. 9:10; Phil. 2:22; Jas. 2:21)

    1 Corinthians 4:15: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

    St. Augustine (354-430)

    'But they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him for a thousand years' [Rev. 20:6]. This clearly does not mean only the bishops and presbyters, who are now called by the distinctive name of 'priests' in the Church; but just as we call all Christians 'Christs' in virtue of their sacramental anointing (chrisma) so we call them all 'priests' because they are members of the one Priest. And the apostle Peter says of them that they are 'a holy people, a royal priesthood' [1 Pet. 2:9].

    (The City of God, translated by Henry Bettenson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, XX, 10; p. 919)

[kingsvine]

great answers!  definately food for thought.