- Discussion:
-Roman Catholic apologist De Maria wrote an article in which he tries linking the sacrifice of the mass to the Passover feast. He also responds to certain objections to Roman Catholic eucharist theology based on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Each of the author's claims are cited in bold letters and followed with critical commentary:
"The Mass is our Passover feast. Because Christ is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). Perhaps you refuse to keep the Feast. But we don’t."
1 Corinthians 5:7-8 says that Jesus Christ is our Passover. He died on the cross. That is what the slaughter of the Passover lamb typified, not some miraculous change of the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. The point of this passage is that when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are to do so without malice. It does not specifically address the mode in which we partake of Christ in communion.
"The Mass is our Passover feast. Because Christ is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). Perhaps you refuse to keep the Feast. But we don’t."
1 Corinthians 5:7-8 says that Jesus Christ is our Passover. He died on the cross. That is what the slaughter of the Passover lamb typified, not some miraculous change of the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. The point of this passage is that when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are to do so without malice. It does not specifically address the mode in which we partake of Christ in communion.
The Passover meal is rich with symbolic and covenantal meaning. God commands Israel to slaughter the lamb, apply its blood to the doorposts, roast its flesh, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Each element carries theological significance: the blood marks the people for deliverance, the roasted lamb recalls the haste of their departure, the unleavened bread symbolizes purity and readiness, and the bitter herbs remind them of their suffering in Egypt. Yet despite this layered symbolism, the physical elements remain unchanged in their substance. The lamb is still a lamb; the bread is still bread. The power of the ritual lies in its function as a memorial, a covenantal reenactment of God’s saving work, rather than in any transformation of the elements themselves.
This memorial function is not a mere mental recollection, but a liturgical re‑presentation of God’s saving deeds. In the Old Testament, a memorial is an act that brings past redemption into present experience without altering the physical elements involved. Israel proclaims the Lord’s redemption, renews its covenant identity, and symbolically participates in the exodus event, but it never treats the food as anything other than what it visibly and materially is. This pattern establishes the categories through which Jesus’ disciples would have understood His actions and words at the Last Supper.
"If you choose to deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and disannul the Mass, then Christ died in vain for you. (Hebrews 10:25-31)"
Hebrews chapter ten says nothing regarding the sacrifice of the mass. Rather, it addresses the singular act of Jesus Christ at Calvary. The people who forsake Him have denied the only sacrifice available for sin. Note that this context denies the work of Jesus is ongoing or reenacted (Hebrews 10:18). That point is stated emphatically.
"Did you not understand that the Eucharist is the self same sacrifice that took place on Calvary?"
That begs the question. When Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper, He does so within this deeply familiar Passover context. The disciples are not encountering a new or foreign ritual; they are celebrating the most foundational covenant meal of their people. Jesus takes the bread and wine, ordinary elements of the Passover table, and applies to them covenantal language: “This is my body… this is my blood of the covenant.” For first‑century Jews, these words would naturally be interpreted through the lens of the Passover tradition they had observed annually since childhood. In that tradition, the elements function symbolically and covenantally, not metaphysically. The lamb does not become something else; the bread does not cease to be bread. The meaning of the meal is found in what the elements signify, not in any change of their substance.
This memorial function is not a mere mental recollection, but a liturgical re‑presentation of God’s saving deeds. In the Old Testament, a memorial is an act that brings past redemption into present experience without altering the physical elements involved. Israel proclaims the Lord’s redemption, renews its covenant identity, and symbolically participates in the exodus event, but it never treats the food as anything other than what it visibly and materially is. This pattern establishes the categories through which Jesus’ disciples would have understood His actions and words at the Last Supper.
"If you choose to deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and disannul the Mass, then Christ died in vain for you. (Hebrews 10:25-31)"
Hebrews chapter ten says nothing regarding the sacrifice of the mass. Rather, it addresses the singular act of Jesus Christ at Calvary. The people who forsake Him have denied the only sacrifice available for sin. Note that this context denies the work of Jesus is ongoing or reenacted (Hebrews 10:18). That point is stated emphatically.
"Did you not understand that the Eucharist is the self same sacrifice that took place on Calvary?"
That begs the question. When Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper, He does so within this deeply familiar Passover context. The disciples are not encountering a new or foreign ritual; they are celebrating the most foundational covenant meal of their people. Jesus takes the bread and wine, ordinary elements of the Passover table, and applies to them covenantal language: “This is my body… this is my blood of the covenant.” For first‑century Jews, these words would naturally be interpreted through the lens of the Passover tradition they had observed annually since childhood. In that tradition, the elements function symbolically and covenantally, not metaphysically. The lamb does not become something else; the bread does not cease to be bread. The meaning of the meal is found in what the elements signify, not in any change of their substance.
"Here is what Protestants miss and don’t understand. And the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t understand the Scriptures."
Must a "Protestant" become a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon in order to see those particular systems of doctrine in Scripture? This actually sounds like something that the Gnostics would have said with their emphasis of obtaining "higher knowledge" about God upon joining their sect.
"In the Old Testament, we learn that Sacrifice is not simply the slaughter of the victim. Sacrifice is also the offering of the Victim. And Sacrifice is also the consuming of the Victim. Christ takes care of the first two aspects of His Sacrifice. We participate in the same Sacrifice by consuming the Passover. Have you not read in Scripture (Exodus 12:1-10)?"
It is a non-sequitur to say that we eat the literal body of Christ during the Lord's Supper because the Israelites ate the flesh of the animals that they sacrificed. Nothing in the Passover narrative prepares the disciples for the idea that Jesus’ words should be understood in terms of transubstantiation or substance and accidents, categories that would not emerge until medieval scholastic philosophy. The disciples would have heard Jesus’ words within the symbolic and covenantal framework they already knew. The bread represents His body given for them; the cup represents His blood sealing the new covenant. These are Passover categories, not Aristotelian ones. No transubstantiation takes place in the New Covenant, any more than it did during the Old Covenant.
Since the Passover meal, the clearest Old Testament precursor to the Lord’s Supper, never involves a change of substance, then the burden of proof lies on any interpretation that claims Jesus intended to introduce such a change. The New Testament’s own typological logic suggests that the eucharist, like Passover, conveys spiritual reality through unchanged physical elements that carry covenantal significance. The transformation is theological and redemptive, not ontological. The bread and wine serve as covenantal symbols of Christ’s sacrificial death, just as the lamb and unleavened bread symbolized God’s deliverance in the exodus.
"[Responding to Hebrews 9:22] We believe that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. Therefore, Blood is involved. But it is not visible to the eye of flesh. By faith alone does one discern this Blood of Christ in the Cup of Salvation. (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:27). Therefore, the Blood of our Lord is consumed in the Eucharist and that is why it is propitiatory for our sins."
Nice try with the use of pseudo-philosophical language, but Hebrews 9:22 poses a problem because there is no blood shed during the mass. That is the means by which the forgiveness of sin is enabled, so it does not have propitiatory value as Rome claims.
Observe Paul's analogy of the body of Christ to the Jewish altar. Did the Jews eat pieces of the table? Are we literally one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)? The reference to "partaking of Christ" is obviously not meant to be understood literally. We do so through faith and by observing the memorial.
"Where do you get the Blood of Christ which you claim washes away your sins, since you deny the Eucharist?"
Christ translated His blood to the heavenly sanctuary so that it could be applied to the Mercy Seat and sprinkled on believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:12-28).
"[Responding to Hebrews 7:27] True. But if that means that Christ no longer offers Himself to the Father, why is the Lamb standing in heaven as though slain (Revelation 5:6)?"
Revelation 5:6 is imagery describing eschatology, not the eternal state of Christ. It is using imagery to identify Him as the one who has been slain, not as one who is continually being slain. The context indicates that His work is a completed action:
"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." (Revelation 5:6, emphasis added)
"And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9, emphasis added)
"Saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12, emphasis added)
The Apostle John's message is perfectly consistent with the author of Hebrews. Jesus took care of the issue of sin and its penalty roughly two thousand years ago. His work has already been accomplished in full.
"[Responding to Hebrews 9:12] Well, He did. How does this contradict the Mass. It is because He did that we can celebrate the Mass."
Jesus died once for all. His one sacrifice is complete and perfect, never again being repeated or made ongoing. It is not like the Old Covenant sacrifices, which were repeatedly offered because they could never actually atone for sin.
"[Responding to Hebrews 9:26-28] This also does not speak against the Mass, but confirms it."
The Roman Catholic mass is contradicted because the text tells us that Christ is only going to appear twice with the later time to bring salvation for those who believe. Moreover, Christ's work is contrasted with the work of the Old Testament high priests whose work was ongoing.
"[Responding to Hebrews 9:22] We believe that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. Therefore, Blood is involved. But it is not visible to the eye of flesh. By faith alone does one discern this Blood of Christ in the Cup of Salvation. (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:27). Therefore, the Blood of our Lord is consumed in the Eucharist and that is why it is propitiatory for our sins."
Nice try with the use of pseudo-philosophical language, but Hebrews 9:22 poses a problem because there is no blood shed during the mass. That is the means by which the forgiveness of sin is enabled, so it does not have propitiatory value as Rome claims.
Observe Paul's analogy of the body of Christ to the Jewish altar. Did the Jews eat pieces of the table? Are we literally one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)? The reference to "partaking of Christ" is obviously not meant to be understood literally. We do so through faith and by observing the memorial.
"Where do you get the Blood of Christ which you claim washes away your sins, since you deny the Eucharist?"
Christ translated His blood to the heavenly sanctuary so that it could be applied to the Mercy Seat and sprinkled on believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:12-28).
"[Responding to Hebrews 7:27] True. But if that means that Christ no longer offers Himself to the Father, why is the Lamb standing in heaven as though slain (Revelation 5:6)?"
Revelation 5:6 is imagery describing eschatology, not the eternal state of Christ. It is using imagery to identify Him as the one who has been slain, not as one who is continually being slain. The context indicates that His work is a completed action:
"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." (Revelation 5:6, emphasis added)
"And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9, emphasis added)
"Saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12, emphasis added)
The Apostle John's message is perfectly consistent with the author of Hebrews. Jesus took care of the issue of sin and its penalty roughly two thousand years ago. His work has already been accomplished in full.
"[Responding to Hebrews 9:12] Well, He did. How does this contradict the Mass. It is because He did that we can celebrate the Mass."
Jesus died once for all. His one sacrifice is complete and perfect, never again being repeated or made ongoing. It is not like the Old Covenant sacrifices, which were repeatedly offered because they could never actually atone for sin.
"[Responding to Hebrews 9:26-28] This also does not speak against the Mass, but confirms it."
The Roman Catholic mass is contradicted because the text tells us that Christ is only going to appear twice with the later time to bring salvation for those who believe. Moreover, Christ's work is contrasted with the work of the Old Testament high priests whose work was ongoing.
"[Responding to Hebrews 10:10] Yes. Once for ALLLLLLLLL. That includes us. And the benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ, are applied to us, in the Mass."
Jesus Christ was offered up once for eternity. It is that single act by which our redemption was made possible. Only Christ could offer Himself up (John 10:17-18). He made His sacrifice one time. He died one time. It is not happening today because it was finished at Calvary. His work has already been accomplished. The benefits of the Cross are applied to us by faith (Romans 5:1-2; Romans 8:1).
"[Responding to Romans 6:9-10] Excellent! It is Protestants who accuse us of killing Christ over and over. But we don’t believe that at all. We simply obey His Word and “do this in remembrance” of Him. We “re-present” the once for all sacrifice upon the altar as He commanded. Yes, we have an “altar”. It is the Table of the Lord. But it is an altar of Sacrifice (Hebrews 13:10)."
There cannot be an atonement sacrifice without the death of a victim. This only goes to show that the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation requires us to believe that which is totally unimaginable! In fact, the notion of "re-presenting" a once-for-all sacrifice sounds similar to the time traveling that we read of in science fiction literature.
In Hebrews 13:10, it is not clear at all that the reference is to the eucharist. It seems rather to be talking about the cross, the salvation, and benefits of Christ, which we have in Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment