What you said about the teaching (on the Eucharist) is a thoughtless lie.

On your view of Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist:

"Notice 1366 says that Christ's once for all sacrifice is re-presented (made present) each time the Eucharist is observed. This is just wording, it is the same as re-sacrificing Him each time and as I have already shown the Bible says this is not to be done."

I don't know you, I stumbled across this site looking up something different. But I need to let you know a few things. I want to say that although I'm Catholic, I don't care if someone criticizes the church, I just want them to know what they are talking about.

First and foremost, re-presenting (representing) is in no way the same as re-sacrificing. The bible does say that re-sacrificing is not to be done, and is in fact impossible; Catholics agree with you. (as an aside, I am dumbfounded that Prots believe Catholics don't know their bible. On the contrary, in order to understand Catholic teaching, we have to understand it better than most.). "Just wording" is a pretty weak defense of how you think the Church is wrong regarding the Eucharist.

Christ himself represented the sacrifice he made by his own words. I am surprised that Prots are aghast at a literal interpretation of Jesus's own words, yet at the same time have constructed the entire rapture dogma out of someone else's words. But moving on, the words are totally different, and in acknowledging that the one sacrifice is present (represented) in the Eucharist, we are following the teachings of Christ. Christ cannot be sacrificed again, but in taking in his body and blood we share with him the agony of the cross, and then, at the end of mass, hope for his return. Absolutely nothing unbiblical about that.

While you can defend your views on the Eucharst by some sort of biblical study, or even to go as far as say it is inspired from the Holy Spirit, you must realize that Catholic teaching is derived from interpretation of the scriptures through the same Holy Spirit. Are you telling me that you are right? Are you telling me that your singular view is better than not only the Catholic church, but some 23,000 other protestant denominations?

It sure sounds like it. Here's the real story; your entire argument rests on your own willful ignorance of the meaning of words. Catholics are very serious about what they believe, and what they believe is in the Catechism. To call the church, and what Catholics believe, as liars, is arrogant and ultimately unchristian. Especially considering what you said about the teaching (just "wording") is a thoughtless lie. I'm sorry, but it is.

If you cannot accept Catholic teaching when it is presented to you, if you are so mired down in suspicion and skepticism, then basically you didn't approach the subject with an open mind to begin with.

The Catholic Church acts through the Holy Spirit. To call Catholic teaching a lie is to call Christ a liar. I think you made the mistake because you really think Catholics are wrong, and obviously when you see that Catholics aren't wrong you have to find some sort of evil intent behind what is written. I mean, your entire argument assumes Catholics have lied.

Finally, I have a Master's Degree in English, and I think it's safe to assume I know the meaning of words. Nowhere do Catholics believe that we re-sacrifice Jesus. Indeed, it is impossible to do so. Ironically, you can't see that we are literally following Jesus's own instruction. "re-present" or "represent" is an entirely different word than "resacrifice". Why didn't the church say "resacrifice"? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT BELIEVES.

Finally, I want to say that most of what you know about Christ, including the bible in your hands, exists because at first Christ's church passed it down orally, and then assembled the teachings into book form, the bible. This is true, accept it or don't.

Have valid criticism about the church; your own barefaced attempts to somehow tell the world what the Catechims really means shows how you aren't interested in knowing Truth but reinforcing stereotypes, namely that Catholicism is unbiblical and evil.

Ps. It doesn't take a master's degree to know the difference between those two words, but I thought I'd throw it out just in case you wanted to discredit me too.

My response is in Green:

I have no desire to discredit you. Please remember who wrote whom. You came to me, I did not go to you about this matter. I will defend my position since you wrote me and if that sounds like I am trying to discredit you, then I am sorry. You came from my page: You are wrong about Catholicism and you claimed that I am saying that the Catholic Church is lying. I went and reread that message just to make sure I had not lost my mind, since I did not remember ever saying that the Catholic Church was lying. I was right it was not there. I have said that I think the Catholic Church is wrong, however. And if you can find those 23,000 other denominations that say the same thing as the Catholic Church, I will say they are wrong too. I would love to see a list of those 23,000 denominations whether they believe as the Catholic Church or not. I was not aware there were so many different denominations, so you have taught me something already in this discussion. Unless of course you pulled that number out of thin air?

I understand that the Catholic Church says that they don't re-sacrifice Christ, that what they do is re-present Him but I still say that is word games. Let me explain. The Catholic Church believes in Transubstantiation, meaning that the wine and bread actually, physically become the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. Now you are the one with the masters degree but as far as I know if something becomes what it represents it no longer represents it, it is it! Am I confused or is the Eucharist just a representation of the sacrifice of Christ done in remembrance as we Protestants think it is? Or is it truly the body and blood of Christ re-presented to the Father?

This is a water shed issue, because if it is just a remembrance then we have no argument at all. We agree. However, if it is the actual blood and body of Christ re-presented to the Father, then we still disagree and I still say you are re-sacrificing Christ.

My house payment is due on the first of the month. If I pay it and then on the 15th I go back to the bank and I re-present them with the payment, have I not just paid the house payment again? Wasn't Christ's sacrifice payment for our sins? Doesn't the Bible say that it was paid once and for all on the cross? So if you re-present that payment again to the Father over and over again are you not re-sacrificing (or repaying that debt) over and over again?

The Bible tells us that the blood of animals cannot cleanse us from sins. They were just a representation of what was to come. In fact the whole tabernacle was just a representation of the Heavenly tabernacle. So instead of sprinkling His blood on the mercy seat in the earthly tabernacle, Christ sprinkled His blood on the mercy seat in the Heavenly tabernacle and paid the price for our redemption once and for all. So why would a priest have to re-sprinkle Christ's blood? Or re-present it for sprinkling? Would that not be paying the debt again?

Let me quote those verses for you, even though I know you said you have to know the Scriptures better then I do: (Hebrews 9:11-14 NIV) {11} When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. {12} He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. {13} The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. {14} How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

(Hebrews 9:23-28 NIV) {23} It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. {24} For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. {25} Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. {26} Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. {27} Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, {28} so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Now let me quote again from Church documents (the Counsel of Trent):

Twenty Third Session 17 September 1562

Chapter IX Canons on the Sacrament of the Mass

Can. 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else then that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

"If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God..." Wow, I guess you are right I just don't understand the meaning of these words. To me it says that there IS a sacrifice taking place and since the Church claims that what Jesus gave you to eat and drink was physically His body and blood, it sure sounds to me like they are re-sacrificing Him over and over again. Where am I misunderstanding?

I am sure you have noticed in Acts that the Church in Jerusalem met and decided to accept the Gentile believers. They also decided what regulations they had to observe: (Acts 15:19-20 NIV) {19} It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. {20} Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Now my question is this. If the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Christ, then wouldn't these Gentile believers be getting mixed messages? On the one hand they are told to abstain from the pagan practice of eating and drinking blood and on the other hand they are commanded to drink Jesus' blood. Some how that just does not line up with logic. Now if the bread and blood only represent Jesus' body and blood and are done in remembrance of His sacrifice, there are no mixed messages. Just a thought.

You made this statement: To call the church, and what Catholics believe, as liars, is arrogant and ultimately unchristian. For one, I have already stated that I did not call Catholics liars, but just for a moment say that I did. My problem with what you wrote is this. Your Church (the Catholic Church) in its doctrine denies that I can be a Christian unless I am taking the sacraments of the Church, which would mean that I am part of your Church. So knowing that you believe that (as part of the Catholic Church) to tell me that I am being unchristian is absurd. If the Church is correct then I am indeed not a Christian or at least I am not going to heaven! Yet I do understand what you mean and like I said I did not say the Catholic Church is lying, just off track.

I want to quote one more thing you said: Finally, I want to say that most of what you know about Christ, including the bible in your hands, exists because at first Christ's church passed it down orally, and then assembled the teachings into book form, the bible. This is true, accept it or don't.

Okay, here we go, I don't accept it. I am sure you realize that the Old Testament was in existence when Christ walked this earth. Not just orally either, since Jesus 'read' from the scroll of Isaiah in the Temple. Since the Catholic Church did not start until after Christ's death, that would put an end to the idea that the Catholic Church gave us the Old Testament through oral tradition.

So that brings us to the New Testament. Are you trying to tell me that Paul did not write all those letters? Or that James did not write the book which is named for him or Jude the same? What about John, did he have to hear oral tradition to write his book? Matthew and John both wrote gospels and both of them walked with Jesus for three years so they did not have to listen to oral tradition to write their books. Now John Mark who wrote the book of Mark would have heard the stories directly from Peter. Not to mention the fact that the Holy Spirit told them what to write. No I disagree that the Bible came to being through the oral tradition of the Catholic Church.

I will agree that many of the things that the Catholic Church believes and practices comes from their own oral tradition but that is different than the Bible.

You also seemed to be accusing me of trying to 'reinforce stereotypes, namely that Catholicism is unbiblical and evil' yet you must have noticed that all of the material on the Catholic Church on my site is in response to letters from people like you. I disagree with what you believe, but I did not set out to confront it. I merely answered letters such as yours with my honest opinion. If you did not want to hear what my opinion was then you should not have written to me.


Your page is publicly posted, and you said something that wasn't true. You posted a public link to your email. So you need to remember that what you say affects others, and when you try and discredit another group, i.e. lie about the other group, you will be called on it.

Indeed, I know you will not refrain from your opinion. But since you posted it publicly, I replied to it. It is wrong. I can't make you take it down, I just hope that someday you'll realize what Truth really is.

You did discredit the church, and while you can say that you literally didn't say that the church was lying, saying "that's just wording" and then saying that "re-present" is "resacrificing" is indeed saying that the church does not mean what it says. And that is calling them liars.

The onus is on you and your public comments, not me. Like I said I stumbled across your site, I was looking for information on the Eucharist. I don't have public comments that mislead others about Christian groups, and nor should you.

My arguments in the private email I sent you are true, and they are supported by scripture. Now, if you cannot deal with that, if you choose to decontextualize and be selective in pulling out scripture for your argument, fine. You will lead a lot of the more ignorant astray. But smart people know what you're doing, and most importanly, God does.

Being anti-Catholic is being anti-Christian. Did you know this?

Criticize the church with Truth, or don't criticize it at all. And don't quote me scripture: I know scripture as well as you do. What I've argued rests in scripture.


So you are not going to even address anything I said in my reply? That is saddening, since you claimed to have all the Scriptural proof. Yes my e-mail address is publically posted. I don't have a problem with you writing me or any of the other people who have, my point was that you claim I am going out of my way to bash the Catholic Church and my response was that all I am doing is answering e-mails such as yours.

If I discredited the church it is because I used their own documents (Counsel of Trent) to show that they do claim that the mass is a sacrifice and that what is offered each time is nothing other than Christ's blood and body. If that is the same as calling them liars, then I stand corrected, that is indeed what I am doing.

For us who don't have a masters degree in English, I take it you mean to take something out of context when you say decontextualize. Which of the three passages of Scripture that I quoted did I take out of context? The ones about Jesus going through the Heavenly tabernacle? Or the one about the church at Jerusalem telling the Gentiles to not eat or drink blood? Surly if one or all of those is out of context you should be able to show me. Believe it or not I have an open mind and if you can show me I am wrong, I will not only take those pages down, but put up a public apology.

You even go so far as to tell me not to quote Scripture to you because you know it as well as I do. What does that mean? Just because you know Scripture doesn't mean that I should not be able to point to what I am talking about, but that is up to you. I guess it is easier to say that then to refute what I wrote.

You can call me anti-Catholic and anti-Christian if you like, but all I am trying to do is respond to your questions and accusations. I hear from Catholics all the time that the Eucharist is not a re-sacrificing of Christ, yet your own church documents say it is and even goes so far as to curse anyone who dares to say it isn't. Maybe you problem is with your own church instead of with me.

Or did I take the quote from the Counsel of Trent out of context? I will tell you it is pretty hard to take a quote like that out of context because it says what it says.

Finally, you said that your arguments in your message to me are supported by Scripture. I guess I missed that because I did not see you quote even one passage of Scripture. Now you did say that the Bible says it is impossible to re-sacrifice Christ. I will agree with you, and that is my point. That is exactly what the Catholic Church claims to be doing (again according to the Counsel of Trent) and that is exactly why I say they are wrong!!!

Here are some quotes from the Catholic Catechism: (I have added emphases in some areas)

Catechism of the Catholic Church











1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

1370 To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.

1371 The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified," so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ:

Notice 1371, "this sacrifice is made for those who are not yet wholly purified, so they may enter..." Doesn't that sound as if this is a sacrifice for their sins? The church can say that this is the "same" sacrifice that Christ originally made, but yet they go on to say many times that this is a sacrifice. They say it is different than the first, the first being bloody and this one being non-bloody. So there they say it is not the 'same.' This sacrifice is made for the sins of those who have departed but have not been wholly purified, so it is a sin offering.

You can say that all they are doing is re-presenting it, but even if that is what you believe, then they are re-presenting it for the forgiveness of sin at least for those who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified" which makes it a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Yet as the passages I quoted in my first reply to you state, Christ has already paid the full price: (Hebrews 9:12 NIV) {12} He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. (Emphases added)

Even though you say that I am saying the Catholic Church is lying, I will repeat that is not what I am trying to say, I am saying that they are wrong. I am sure they think they are trying to re-present the first sacrifice, but in truth they are trying to re-sacrifice Christ again for the forgiveness of sins. As you pointed out that it unbiblical.



E-Mail Ralph (whose comments are in green)

911 - God's Help Line Articles Apologetics Book Reviews
Contemplating Suicide? Discipleship Eternal Security How to know Jesus
Help for the Cutter In Memory Marine Bloodstripes Police Humor
Police Memorial SiteMap Statement of Faith Testimonies
Thoughts to Ponder True Life Stories Vet's Memorial Why I Have a Page
eXTReMe Tracker