Skip to main content
Riddle me this one, you Zwinglian Gnostic masquerading as a minister of Christ: If the New Covenant--the full revelation of God's love to all people, including the Gentiles--is in effect, why would it be less sacrificial than the Old? It makes no sense. You're gonna get bent out of shape about some candles and incense? Really? Moses would be furious. You just called him a Gnostic in your rush to give Jesus all the glory. Did Moses sin against God by doing what the LORD himself said? Stop being a moron, and do some covenant theology, for pete's sake. There's plenty new about the New Covenant, but here's a hint: it isn't what you think. Offer your bodies as living sacrifices. Pretty sure I read that...IN THE NEW COVENANT!

So what you're saying is, the glory of the New Covenant--greater than that of Moses--culminates in no actual sacrifice, no priests, and ugly churches with nothing in them? You're so bad off, I almost want to send you to Dr. Luther to get straightened out.

Comments

Glad you've come down to sending Zwinglians to Luther. Good.

As to the other, though, there's no sense making an argument when there is an easy answer: Hebrews deals quiet nicely with who offers sacrifices and who is the sacrifice in the New Covenant. So, you can't really argue that any Protestants reject "sacrifices;" we do reject the Mass as a valid sacrifice.

(My dear friends, the Eastern Orthodox, deal with this nicely by their strong emphasize on the non-temporal nature of the one sacrifice which is manifested in the Divine Liturgy, incidentally.)
Jason said…
Tim,

Mother Church believes and teaches that it is "non-temporal" in that same sense meant by the East. So this isn't a good objection.
In as much as it is a non-temporal, once-for-all sacrifice, the Protestants can (and have) agreed. It is the emphasis on the current sacrifice within the Mass that has caused problems. No doubt this is partly popular misconception, but in as much as there is agreement, you can't fault the Protestants for rejecting sacrifices...

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

My Thoughts On The Harrison Butker Commencement Speech

Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...