The Mass (White vs Pacwa)

The debate this evening is the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and the real presence of Christ in the

Eucharist. Affirming will be Father Pacwa, denying will be Reverend White. As I was preparing and praying before we began,

I felt very strongly that I want to submit my own mind, my own will, my heart to God's Word, to what

God has written. I don't want to come up with some clever system, but rather make sure that what

I say is conformed to what God reveals. That's the teaching of the

Church, and that's the way I'd like to live. And when

I look at this doctrine of the Eucharist, I have to begin with the letter to the

Hebrews. The message of this letter is so clear that Jesus Christ is understood, as we see in chapter 4, verse 14.

That we have a great High Priest that has passed into the heavens. Jesus, the

Son of God, let us hold fast to our profession. That this is

Christ who has gone into the heavens as our one true

High Priest. That as we see in chapter 9, Christ having come as a

High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and far more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is not of this building.

And neither has He come with the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood

He entered into it once, into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

And that the blood of bulls and goats is of some use, as it says also in chapter 9, verse 14, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal

Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, how much more shall He purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living

God. And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant.

That it is this blood of Christ offered once and for all, where in which

Jesus is not only the High Priest who does the offering, but He is the one true victim that is offered.

That His blood is the sacrifice for our sins. That also it is

His blood that makes Him the mediator of the new covenant. And that He doesn't have to enter into that heavenly sanctuary often, as the

Old Testament High Priests had to go into the Old Testament tabernacle many times. But rather He goes into it once and for all.

And this sacrifice is the basis for understanding the

Eucharist. The Eucharist that I celebrate and that every priest has celebrated since our

Lord offered the Last Supper. Now tonight we want to deal with two issues.

That the Mass is truly a sacrifice. Representing the sacrifice of Christ.

And secondly, that it really is Christ. He is truly present here. Both of these things are necessary for understanding each other.

To see this let's take a look at what our Lord taught at the Last Supper. There are four times in which the

Last Supper is described. Three times in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

And once in St. Paul, 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And in the descriptions of the institution of the

Eucharist, we see a number of key words chosen by our

Lord, who is the Word of God, and who uses the Old Testament Word to show that this is a sacrifice.

His one true sacrifice. First of all, He calls this the

New Covenant in My Blood. He says it in Luke 22 verse 20, 1

Corinthians 11 verse 25. This cup is the New Covenant in My Blood.

And slightly differently phrased in Mark 14, 24 and Matthew 26, 28. This is

My Blood of the New Covenant. Now, this should immediately remind us of what

Jeremiah 31, verses 31 to 34 says, in which we are promised to have a New Covenant.

The Old Covenant was not satisfactory. It could not save. And the

Israelites did not keep it. A new and eternal covenant in our hearts is what the

Prophet promises. But it's not just this prophecy from Jeremiah that we look at.

We also see that by mentioning this Blood of the New Covenant, or that this cup is the

New Covenant in My Blood, it immediately reminds us of Exodus chapter 24, verses 1 through 11, in which the

Old Covenant was ratified by the shedding of the blood of bulls by representatives of the tribes of Israel.

We see especially in chapter 24 of Exodus, verse 8, where it says,

Behold the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words, or commandments.

So here the blood of the covenant in the Old Testament refers to some bulls who had their blood poured out at the altar and also sprinkled on the people.

And that this is the blood of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9, which I also just quoted, refers to this, saying that this was the

First Covenant. The covenant that took place in Exodus 24 is the First Covenant.

It says that in Hebrews 9, verse 15. And that Moses sprinkled all the people with the blood, saying that this is the blood of the covenant which

God has enjoined on you. So there's a sharing in the blood as well. And also in the same passage, which

I read already, it says that in 9 .15 of Hebrews, that Jesus is called the

Mediator of the New Covenant, because death has occurred for the redemption of the transgressions committed under the

First Covenant. So those who have been called may receive the eternal inheritance.

So Christ mediates this New Covenant in blood. And in Hebrews 9 .16,

it says also that this has to be because for wherever there is a covenant, there is necessity of a death to be offered for the making of the covenant.

You don't make covenants without death. That's necessary.

Sacrifice is essential. And Christ defines the Eucharist by saying that this is the cup, excuse me, this cup is the

New Covenant in my blood. And we also see something similar to the

Last Supper and to the Eucharist in Exodus 24, verses 9 -11. Where we see that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel went up to the mountain, and they saw

God. Just like the apostles at the Last Supper saw God incarnate, but they were with Him, representing the new

Israel. And not only did they see a vision of God in the book of Exodus, but God did not destroy them, and they ate and they drank with Him.

So that we see that this covenant is ratified by the shedding of blood in the Old Testament, and then by sharing the meal together.

So also in the New Covenant. The shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, the

New Passover, also is celebrated with a meal, of eating and drinking with His disciples.

And we'll see more of what Jesus has to say about what this food is. Certainly, any

Jew who heard Jesus speaking these words about this covenant and His blood, would immediately have been reminded, not only the

Jeremiah passage, but also the Exodus 24 passage. A second term that is very important in the institution of the

Eucharist is the word, do, poieta. Appears in all of the institutions of the

Eucharist. And the obvious thing is, this means to perform, do this, and repeat it.

The Eucharist is not something to be done once and for all, and just do it one time at the Last Supper.

But the apostles are told to repeat this, perform this, do it. And that's the way certainly the early church understood it, and anybody who would read it would have understood the word to be repeat, or do and perform.

But also we have to remember that Jesus Christ is a Jew, and that He's quoted in the

Old Testament again, and we see in the Old Testament that the word do has a very specific meaning.

Asah, in Hebrew, is translated by the Greek word poiein, both meaning to do.

And in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the

Hebrew Old Testament, the word do means to offer sacrifice, when the context has enough indication that a sacrifice is present.

Let me give you some examples. In Exodus 29, verse 39, it says,

The first lamb you will do in the morning, and the second you will do in the evening.

Now what do you mean, do? Clearly it means you will sacrifice it.

So the word do, twice in that passage, means to sacrifice. The same thing is true in chapter 9, verse 7 of Leviticus, where it says,

Approach the altar and do your sin offering and your holocaust, and it will atone for you.

But again, the word do, your sin offering and your holocaust, means obviously to sacrifice it.

And also in Psalm 66, verse 15, it says, I will do the cattle with goats.

Clearly though, in that context, it means I will sacrifice. The word do, frequently in the

Old Testament, not only in these passages but others as well, means to offer sacrifice when sacrificial terminology or situation is present.

And if there are enough sacrificial elements present in the institution of the

Eucharist, in the Last Supper, then the word do also means specifically to sacrifice.

The third key word is memorial, because Jesus says, Do this in a memorial or as a memorial of me.

Now what does that mean? First of all, let's take a look at how the word anamnesis, the word remembrance, is used in the

Old Testament. It's Old Testament background. We see that it appears five times in the

Old Testament. First, Leviticus chapter 24, verse 7, in which it translates a memorial sacrifice.

You will put pure frankincense upon each roll of bread, that it may be for the bread as a memorial, an asherah.

In Numbers chapter 10, verse 10, On your day of rejoicing on your appointed feast, and at the beginning of your month, you will sound the trumpets on your holocausts, o 'er and over your sacrifices of peace offerings, and they shall become for you as a memorial, an anamnesis, in the

Greek translation, the same word used by the Lord in the Last Supper. Psalm 38 and Psalm 70 both have at the beginning of the psalm that these are psalms of David to cause an anamnesis, that is, to cause a remembrance.

And commentators, modern and ancient Jewish commentators both, understand Psalm 38 and Psalm 70 to be psalms sung during the offering of the sacrifices mentioned in Numbers 10 and in Leviticus 24.

Also in those psalm headings, it refers to singing these psalms during a sacrificial offering, the azkarah.

And there's only one other use, and that's in the Book of Wisdom. Chapter 16, verse 6.

Here it simply means to remember something for human beings, as a memento for humans. It has no context in sacrifice.

But that's the only place in the Old Testament that an anamnesis does not have a context of sacrifice.

There is one other use of this word, only one other use of this word in the

New Testament, besides when Jesus uses it at the Last Supper. And where is that?

In Hebrews chapter 10, verse 3. It says, But in them, that is, sacrifices, mentioned in verse 1 of Hebrews 10, there is a remembrance, an anamnesis, of sins yearly.

Once again, it's used in the context of a sacrifice. It's a technical term in the

Old Testament and in the New Testament, in Hebrews 10, for sacrifice.

Five out of six uses of this term in the Bible, in Greek, are for sacrificial terms.

And in the context of the word do, clearly it has that sense of sacrifice.

The fourth key term is the word poured out, sometimes translated as shed, in phenomenon.

And we also see that in the Greek Old Testament it appears 12 times in the context of sacrifice.

In a few of these, for instance, 1 Samuel chapter 7, verse 6, Sirach 50, verse 15,

Isaiah 57, verse 6, we see that it's pouring out a libation of water or of wine.

But in the other nine uses, it's referred to shedding blood or pouring out.

It's better translated, as most commentators agree, it's better as pouring out blood as part of the sacrificial ceremony.

When they weren't just getting rid of the blood in some practical way, but they're pouring out the blood at the base of the altar as part of the ritual of the sacrifice.

So in summary, what we see is that the words covenant in the blood of Christ, the word do, the word as a memorial, and the word poured out, all chosen very carefully by our blessed

Lord Jesus, have in their context the meaning of sacrifice and that they all are leading us to the sacrificial situation.

Is that all that we see in regard to sacrifice? Of course not. First of all, bread and wine are elements chosen by Jesus Christ and that these are associated with sacrifice.

The Jews offered up sacrifices of fine flour and drink offerings of wine in the temple.

That was still going on at the time of Christ. And we cannot forget that there was bread and wine offered as a sacrifice to God Most High by Melchizedek.

And remember that Melchizedek is the model for the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Jesus does not have the priesthood of the

Levites, but the priesthood of Melchizedek, where he offered as a sacrifice bread and wine.

So that the terminology at the institution of the Eucharist is sacrificial terminology and we also see that the elements are elements of sacrifice.

And though Jesus did not explicitly use the word, that is the word sacrifice, he certainly used the terms and a method of administration that indicates sacrifice.

And I must confess that I'm grateful to the Protestant theologian,

Darwell Stone, for the insights into those observations. Now there are two texts in St.

Paul that speak of the Eucharist. That is 1 Corinthians 10, verses 16 -21 and 1

Corinthians 11, verses 23 and following. Let's take a look at 1

Corinthians 10, verses 16 -21. Here St.

Paul is dealing with a problem in the Corinthian community. And what is the duty of the Christian in regards to eating food that was offered to idols?

First of all, what does he say here? In this text, Paul treats the Eucharist as having a position in the

Christian religion that in some respects is clearly parallel to sacrifices offered to demons.

We see that in chapter 10, verses 19 -21. He compares them to. Also, we see in verse 18, where he says,

Do you see the Israel according to the flesh? That is, the Jews of his day. The ones who eat the sacrifices are sharers of the altar.

The sacrifices of the Jews are also in some respects compared to the

Eucharist in the Christian community. So Paul is comparing and having some parallel place in life the sacrifices of pagans and the sacrifices of Jews.

And therefore, by deduction, one should imply that these are also understood by Paul as sacrifices.

Besides the fact that he also will have used the institution narrative using the sacrificial terms

Jesus used. Third, we also see in 1

Corinthians 10 that St. Paul regards the Eucharist as a means of fellowship in the body and the blood of Christ.

That the cup of blessing, he says in chapter 10, verse 16, the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion, a koinonia, a sharing of the blood of Christ?

And the bread which we break, is it not a koinonia, a communion of the blood of Christ?

Paul sees the Eucharist as a way for us to have this sharing, this koinonia, this communion with Jesus Christ, because it is

Him. Fourthly, St. Paul sees that partaking in the

Eucharist is the basis for Christian unity, a theme that the fathers of the church will also pick up.

In chapter 10, verse 17, he says, Because we the many are one bread, one body, because we all partake of the one bread.

So we form one bread because we partake of the one bread. And this fits St. Paul's understanding of baptism as it does of the

Eucharist. Because we share in one baptism, we become members of the one body of Christ. And as members of the one body of Christ, we belong to Him, in chapter 12 of 1

Corinthians. Here, also the Eucharist, because it's a sharing in the one Christ. It's a sharing in His body, a sharing in His blood.

It gives us the basis for our unity. And fifthly, St. Paul also sees that there are two crucial moments in this rite of the

Eucharist, namely, breaking the bread and blessing the cup, and secondly, receiving this bread and this cup by the community and by the communicant.

The second text in St. Paul is 1 Corinthians 11, 23 -30.

I already mentioned the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, of the Eucharist, in that section.

But the other problem he's dealing with, the reason he addresses the Eucharist, is because there's factionalism.

The community has divided itself up, and that there are disorders at the

Eucharist. Now, what are some of the other things

Paul says besides the institution narrative? First, in chapter 11, verse 23, St.

Paul says, He received from the Lord what I delivered to the Corinthians. This is a tradition that he has.

Apparently, we have no evidence he received this tradition, when he saw Christ in his vision on the way to Damascus.

But he received this, apparently, from other Christians, from other members of the community, from the apostles and the others who converted him and Ananias.

But he says, I received it from the Lord. He accounts what he received from the community as that which he received from the

Lord. And he passed on that tradition about the Eucharist. Secondly, how does

St. Paul interpret the Eucharist? We see this in chapter 11, verse 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the

Lord until he comes. That the Eucharist has its meaning, its interpretation by Paul, as being a proclamation of the death of the

Lord. And as we saw in Hebrews, that death of Christ is a sacrifice.

Therefore, if this is a proclamation of the death of Christ, then it also must be a sacrifice.

And share in that. Thirdly, just as in chapter 10, verse 16 to 21,

Paul again teaches that the Eucharist is a means of fellowship in Christ's body and blood.

We have fellowship with Christ in the Eucharist. He says in verse 27 of chapter 11,

So whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the

Lord. But let a person test himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

For the one who eats and drinks judgment to himself eats and drinks without discerning the body.

St. Paul requires us to understand and discern the presence of the body of Christ and of his blood.

Because we are drinking his blood here and eating his body. Now, the last major text on the

Eucharist is John chapter 6. In John chapter 6 we see two major issues going on.

First of all, this section clearly addresses the issue of belief.

Jesus our Lord, in John chapter 6, is addressing a call to us to believe in him.

Believe in him who gives life. And we must have that faith. If we do not have that faith, we do not have life.

We cannot have eternal life without that faith. But along with the four summonses to belief in him, we also are summoned to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

And not only does he tell us that he will give his body and his blood, his flesh and his blood, to us to drink and to eat, but he also teaches that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we cannot have life everlasting.

So we are called both to believe and to receive. And to believe what it is that we receive from Christ.

Now I'll stop here. There are more passages in the New Testament that deal with the Eucharist. But we'll come back to those in the next section.

Again, it's good to be with you again this evening to address these very important issues this evening.

The work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I would like to begin with a statement from John O 'Brien in his popular work,

The Faith of Millions. He wrote the following. When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings

Christ down from his throne, and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the

Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate, a single time the priest brings

Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once, but a thousand times.

The priest speaks and lo, Christ, the eternal omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth?

He continues the essential ministry of Christ, he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which

Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of Alter Christus.

The priest is and should be another Christ." Now, O 'Brien's comments are highly offensive to the

Protestants for many reasons, some of which we certainly will not be able to deal with this evening. But what of his allegation that Christ is offered as a sacrifice upon the

Roman altar? What of his statement that Christ, the omnipotent God, bows his head in, quote, humble obedience to the priest's command, end quote, and comes down from heaven to be offered again and again in sacrifice?

Is O 'Brien simply going beyond what is really taught by Roman Catholicism? I do not believe that he is.

The Council of Trent meant it met in its 13th session in October of 1551 and promulgated a decree concerning, quote, the most holy sacrament of the

Eucharist, end quote. At the end of the decree was a list of canons providing anathemas for those who would reject the council's teaching.

As these canons often provide a short, succinct definition of Roman teaching, we shall list some of these canons so that the position taken by Trent on the issue of the

Eucharist, specifically in this section, the concept of transubstantiation, can be clearly understood. I quote, canon one.

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our

Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that he is in it only as an assign, or figure, or force, let him be anathema.

Canon two. If anyone says in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our

Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the

Catholic Church, most aptly called transubstantiation, let him be anathema. And canon number eight.

If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only, and not also sacramentally, and really, let him be anathema.

Close quote. Now 11 years later, in 1562, the 22nd session of the

Council of Trent was held. This time the decree promulgated was entitled Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the

Mass. The second chapter of this decree is highly important to our subject this evening, therefore I will quote it in full.

And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, the same

Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the Holy Council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence draw an eye to God, we obtain mercy and find grace and seasonable aid.

For, appeased by the sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins.

For the victim is one the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.

The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one.

So far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departing

Christ but not yet fully purified." Again, a list of canons are to be found at the end of the decree, and some of them read as follows,

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

Canon 2, if anyone says by those words, do this for your reminiscence of me, Christ did not institute the apostles' priests or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood, let him be anathema.

Canon 3, if anyone says the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory one, or that it profits him only who receives not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities, let him be anathema.

Canon 4, if anyone says that by the sacrifice of the mass a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross, or that the former derogates from the latter, let him be anathema.

Two more, Canon 5, if anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God as the

Church intends, let him be anathema. And Canon 6, if anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.

Now, the full scope of Rowan's position, I believe, must be understood.

In my book, The Fatal Flaw, on page 58, I summarize Trent's teachings on the Eucharist as follows.

Number one, Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the sacrament of the

Eucharist following the words of consecration. Number two, transubstantiation involves the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, and the change of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ.

Number three, since Christ is said to be really present in the Eucharist, the elements themselves, following consecration, are worthy of worship, or latria.

Number four, the sacrifice of the mass is properly called propitiatory, and it brings about pardon of sins.

Number five, in the institution of the mass, the Lord's Supper, Christ offered his own body and blood to the

Father in the signs of the bread and wine, and in so doing, ordained the apostles as priests of the New Testament.

Number six, the sacrifice of the mass is properly offered for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, not only for the living, but for the dead as well.

And number seven, finally, anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God.

Now, given the time constraints this evening, if anyone believes that Vatican II changed any of this theology,

I'd refer you to the Fatal Flaw, pages 59 -68, where it is demonstrated that this is not the case at all.

Now, I wish to direct our thinking this evening to the two major aspects of the

Roman doctrine that are rejected by Protestants. First, the concept that the Eucharist involves the entire teaching of transubstantiation.

Now, no one denies the ability of God to do such a thing if he revealed that he desired to do so.

No one denies that Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper just as he is truly present with us this evening.

He promised to be with his church until the end of the age, and we believe that he is with us.

We accept that Christ truly encounters us in the Lord's Supper, and that this is a special time of communion with the

Lord. But Christ can be with us truly and really without the entire concept of transubstantiation.

The belief has no solid foundation in the word of God, and therefore cannot be said to hold the conscience of the

Christian captive. The second major aspect of the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist is that of the

Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a sacrifice relevant to sin.

Roman Catholicism teaches that when Christ is offered upon the Roman altar by the priest, this is a truly propitiatory sacrifice, for it is the same sacrifice as that of the cross.

However, at the same time, it must be pointed out that Rome admits that the effects of this supposedly propitiatory sacrifice are limited.

Masses can be said for the same intention with no full guarantee that that intention will be fully accomplished.

Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote, quote, The sacrifice of the Mass affects the remission of the temporal punishments for sin, which still remain after the forgiveness of the guilt of sins and of the eternal punishment, not merely immediately by the conferring of the grace of penance, but also immediately because the atonement of Jesus Christ is offered as a substitute for our works of atonement and for the sufferings of the poor souls.

The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional in the case of the living to the degree of perfection of their disposition.

In the case of the suffering souls, the satisfactory operation of the sacrifice of the Mass is applied by way of intercession.

As they are in the state of grace and thus oppose no obstacle, theologians generally teach that at least part of their punishments for sins is infallibly remitted, end quote.

On the same page, the same doctor added, As a propitiatory and impetatory sacrifice, the sacrifice of the

Mass possesses a finite external value, since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only.

This explains the practice of the Church of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass frequently for the same intention, end quote.

Now, recall that this concept of a humanly limited effectiveness of the sacrifice of the Mass was mentioned by Trent above when it made reference to those saints who lead this life, quote, not yet fully purified, end quote.

In Roman Catholic theology, a person could attend a thousand Masses and yet lead this life not yet fully purified.

Now, most Protestant rebuttals of the Roman doctrine of the Mass center on transubstantiation, and certainly this is understandable.

However, this evening, I shall approach the Roman doctrine from a different perspective. While I shall briefly, as time permits, make some comments regarding the principal passages used to defend transubstantiation,

I will spend the majority of my time dealing with the Biblical doctrine of the Atonement of our

Lord Jesus Christ. I shall seek to compare and most importantly for you this evening, contrast the

Biblical understanding of the work of Christ with what I assert to be the terribly flawed understanding presented by Roman Catholicism in its doctrine of the

Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. As transubstantiation is hardly necessary if the

Mass is not a sacrifice, I shall be making what might be called an end run in addressing the issue in this way.

But by so doing, I hope to make the point that the Roman doctrine of the Mass strikes at the very heart of the

Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that is the work of Jesus Christ. And because of this, it is truly the fatal flaw of Roman Catholic theology.

The Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary. Romanism clearly denies that the

Mass is another sacrifice, or that their belief in the truly propitiatory nature of the

Eucharistic sacrifice takes away from the finished work of Christ on Calvary. We admit the assertion.

However, I wish to assert and prove from God -inspired Scripture that the Roman position cannot be maintained, that the work of Christ is badly misrepresented in the

Mass in Roman understanding, and that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross differs substantially from that of the supposed sacrifice of the

Mass. It differs so greatly, in fact, that no one can possibly claim that the sacrifice of the

Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are in fact one in the same. Now, before returning to the

Word of God, I wish to reiterate once again the key elements of the Roman teaching. In the Mass, Christ is physically present after the words of consecration.

This is absolutely necessary for the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice that brings about forgiveness of sins.

The effectiveness of the Mass, however, is dependent upon the disposition of the individual receiving it. Therefore, the effectiveness of this propitiatory sacrifice is dependent upon human action, human will, human disposition.

Christ's death, then, it seems, purchased redemption, but did not actually accomplish it. It is applied, according to Catholicism, in the

Mass. Vatican II said, "...as often as the sacrifice of the Cross in which Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed, is celebrated on an altar, the work of our redemption is carried on."

And the General Introduction on the Roman Missal states, "...whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is accomplished."

Now, is this the case? Does the Bible teach this? I would like to invite you in the brief time that I have left to turn with me to the

Word of God and look at this very issue. What I'm going to do initially is take us back to the passage that Dr.

Paco began with, and that is to the book of Hebrews. I would like to spend most of our time here and then, as the

Lord gives us time this evening, spend more time on other passages in the

Scripture that define for us Christ's death as being our soul and only propitiation, that Christ's death, in and of itself, brings about reconciliation to God, that it is substitutionary, it's made in behalf of all those the elect, and that it brings about full and complete redemption.

But, first of all, in the brief time we have, I would like to start off with Hebrews chapter 7, verses 24 through 26.

Hebrews chapter 7, verses 24 through 26. Here the writer of Hebrews referring to these former priests in verse 23, the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing on in their office.

But he, that is Christ Jesus, verse 24, on the other hand, because he abides forever, holds his priesthood permanently.

Hence also he is able to save forever, or to the uttermost, those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens, who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.

Now hear what the Scripture teaches. The Scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ, in verse 25, is able to save to the uttermost, those who draw near to God through him.

Why? Since he always lives to make intercession for them. Not because he is offered over and over again on the altar, and that this is a propitiatory sacrifice that brings about remission of sins.

No. Christ's sacrifice, all through the New Testament, is viewed as a one -time offering that accomplishes that which it was intended to accomplish.

It is a finished work, and Jesus Christ, after he offered himself in the sacrifice, sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

There he remains until the end of time. He is not, as O 'Brien said, brought down thousands of times upon an altar for this work to be continued.

What is Christ doing? He intercedes for us. He who intercedes for another has to have some basis upon which to intercede.

On what basis does the Lord Jesus Christ intercede for us? According to the book of Hebrews, according to Paul, according to all the

New Testament, the Lord Jesus intercedes on our behalf because of his death.

He has died in the place of God's people, and since he has died in their place, then what he does before the

Father is not another work. It is the presentation of his finished, completed work on the cross of Calvary.

This is one of the reasons the Protestants have so much difficulty with the Roman Catholic teaching and so much objection to the

Roman Catholic teaching regarding Mary as a mediatrix, as a co -redemptrix with Christ.

For one who would intercede before God must have a basis upon which to intercede. Jesus Christ intercedes for us because of his death.

He is presenting that death before the Father as the completed and finished basis upon which we have a proper relationship with God the

Father. Therefore he does not have to offer up sacrifices for himself or for the people.

Why? Because he did so once for all, verse 27, when he offered up himself.

Once. Not many times. The one time accomplished what God intended it to accomplish.

And we will see as we look at Scripture that that is the complete work of Jesus Christ that does not need to be re -presented or in any other way continued on as Vatican II had said as we looked earlier.

Now, the intercessory work of Christ, therefore, refutes the concept of the Mass. Christ Jesus intercedes on the basis of his completed work, not on the basis of the work that is applied little by little.

His sacrifice is a one -time thing, not something to be repeated over and over again. Now, turn with me to Hebrews chapter 9, a passage that Dr.

Pacwa cited to us. Hebrews chapter 9, verses 11 and 12. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, and not through the blood of goats and cows, but through his own blood he entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

The work of Jesus Christ accomplishes that which God intended it to accomplish.

And what did he do? He obtained eternal redemption. It is a completed and finished act.

He, as the substitute for God's people, obtained redemption in their place, and there is nothing in Scripture that tells us that that redemption is then channeled through a representation of the death of Christ over and over again upon an altar.

It is not said Christ does this. Instead it is said that he obtained eternal redemption.

Now, the differences between the work of Christ and the Mass prove that the

Mass is not the same sacrifice as the cross. Roman Catholicism claims that it is the same sacrifice, but there are glaring differences between the two.

The Roman Church admits that the work of Christ at Calvary was a bloody sacrifice, while the

Mass is an unbloody sacrifice. But a sacrifice involves the giving of life, dying, and in the

Mass Christ does not die again, nor is his blood shed. Therefore, there can be no efficacy in the

Roman Catholic Mass. If you keep your finger in Romans chapter 9 and quickly look at the book of Romans, Hebrews chapter 9, and look at the book of Romans chapter 5.

Romans 5 9. Paul writes much more than having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the shedding of his blood, the blood of his cross which makes peace, as Paul says in Colossians chapter 1, is how we are justified.

It is how that we have been forgiven. Therefore, if the Roman Catholic Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, and we are justified in the blood of Christ, then the

Roman Catholic Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice cannot justify. And therefore, it is not the same as the death of Jesus Christ upon the altar.

Secondly, the atonement of Christ on the cross accomplishes full and complete remission of sin, while the

Roman Mass does not. The Roman Mass is dependent upon the disposition of the individual for its effectiveness, and even then it is terribly limited.

Hence, it cannot be the same sacrifice because of the fact that the death of Christ accomplished the full and complete redemption, justification, and sanctification of those for whom it is made.

Thirdly, the atonement of Christ perfects forever those who are sanctified by it.

And I hope that if you have a Bible, you'll turn with me to Hebrews chapter 10, verses 1 through 3.

I'll start with verse 2. Otherwise, in speaking of those same sacrifices made year by year, which were offered continually, and that these sacrifices were not able to perfect forever those who draw near, the writer says, otherwise they would not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had conscience of sins.

But in those sacrifices, there is a reminder, Dr. Pacwa brought out that term in his presentation, a reminder of sins year by year.

Here, in speaking of repetitive sacrifices, the repetitive sacrifices of the Old Covenant, the writer tells us that if there is a repetitive sacrifice, this is a reminder of sin.

If you have to repeat a sacrifice, that means the sacrifice in and of itself is not perfect and complete.

It is a reminder of sin, and he is contrasting this repetitive sacrifice with the one and completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross, beginning in verse 10 of chapter 10.

By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet.

For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

And I read in your hearing verse 18 as well. Now where there is forgiveness of these things there is no longer any offering for sin.

Do you hear what the writer is saying? Do you hear what he's saying about the death of Jesus Christ? It was once for all, and it accomplished that which he intended to accomplish.

And what did it accomplish? Hebrews 9 .12 obtained eternal redemption. Hebrews 10 .10,

it perfected or sanctified completely through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all those for whom it is made.

Verse 14, it perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Now can that be said about the Roman mass? Can it be said that one offering of the mass results in the perfection for all time of those for whom it is made?

If it cannot be said, then it cannot be asserted that the mass, the

Eucharistic sacrifice explained by the Council of Trent is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Now time is very fleeting and very short, but let me just point out one other thing in passing.

Since the work of Jesus Christ is a completed and finished thing, as witnessed by Jesus Christ himself as we shall see, by Paul, by the writer of Hebrews, whoever you decide wrote

Hebrews, however you understand that, since the New Testament teaches this understanding of the

Atonement, that it's made once and accomplishes its intention, it cannot possibly be said that the writers of the

New Testament in the passages that Dr. Pacwa have cited, could for in an instant believe that they were actually talking about the sacrifice of Christ in the

Lord's Supper. Since this is their understanding, then they could have never had the understanding presented by the

Council of Trent. Therefore, sent in the passages that directly address the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross, we find a very different doctrine than that is presented to us in the

Council of Trent and in Roman Catholic theology. It obviously follows as an absolute necessity that the

Roman Catholic teaching in regards to transubstantiation and the entire concept of the Mass is in contradiction to the infallible

Word of God. Thank you. Now we will have two twelve minute periods in which the debaters will be able to either continue their opening statement or rebut their opponent.

Father Pacwa. Thank you. Thank you.

One of the things that I disagree with in this last presentation is the last statement.

If Hebrews is the basic understanding of the New Testament writers and the

New Testament authors could never have held the view that we see in the Council of Trent about transubstantiation and the

Mass as a sacrifice. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's a great summary of exactly what

I think is not correct. I think that I firmly believe, of course, that the

New Testament writers are one in faith with what we see here in Hebrews and I as a member of the

Catholic Church am also in full union with this and full belief of this passage here in Hebrews.

I love it. It's great. And it's something that we firmly believe and I guess one of the things that I'm trying to present with the

Catholic perspective here as I did with the issue of justification is that we're able to include all of these texts and fit them into our faith far more successfully than the

Protestant positions have been able to. But they have to reject some of the passages.

How will I do that? First by including even more Scripture. One of the passages or a set of passages

I want to deal with at the outset deals with our understanding of who God is because that's what's at stake here.

Our understanding of what God can do and then what He's saying that He's doing. We see in Hebrews chapter 13 verse 8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.

And there's something that's related to that is a phrase from Psalm 90 verse 4 which is quoted by 2

Peter chapter 3 verse 8. In 2 Peter 3 8 it says, but beloved be not ignorant of this one thing.

And here's the quote from Psalm 90 verse 4. That one day is what the Lord has a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

Now why is this so important for understanding the Eucharist? Because we firmly believe as I know

Mr. White does. And we have no disagreement on this point. Jesus Christ is not only man.

He is also fully God. He is truly divine. We're firmly in agreement on that.

The thing that I want to take as a ramification of that divinity is that because He is divine

He is beyond time. He's not limited to our sense of time.

For us the cross is past. Because we are simply fallible human beings.

As fellow humans we know that we lose the past and we gain the future.

Christ is truly divine. He cannot gain the future or lose the past at all.

Rather everything is eternally present to Jesus Christ. It is all eternally now.

Because He is truly divine. A thousand years are as one day with Him. One day is as a thousand years.

He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore all that Mr.

White is quoting from Hebrews we firmly affirm in our faith and say that this is the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that is present at the

Eucharist. First of all we say that not because we simply have the text of Hebrews to work with that will give us the way to understand the

Eucharist. But rather because we see that Christ uses the sacrificial terminology so clearly so strongly and that the understanding of His Last Supper of His Eucharist according to St.

Paul is that it is a proclamation of His death which is, as we see in Hebrews essentially a sacrificial death for the sake of our sins.

But because He has no time in His divinity

He makes present what is for us past He makes it present now.

And of course every Protestant believes that. It is for that reason that Protestants believe clearly and strongly that right now in this life you are washed in the blood of the

Lamb Jesus Christ and by being washed in His blood you have your sins forgiven. And you should believe that.

And it is because His death is made available to you now because He is not mere man,

He is divine. And so the washing of your sins away in His blood is something that you can grasp, apprehend by faith right now because it's always present always available to any person at all times.

But this is true not merely in the spiritual communion that you receive when you make that act of faith because that's what that is a spiritual act of communion with Christ.

But it is also true in the sacramental communion in which Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood.

And because He says that and He tells His apostles to do the same and that they pass it on to us priests and worthy as we are that this atonement of Christ is made available to us.

And that His death, His propitiatory death is made available to us. Because the only death that can be made available to us is a propitiatory one.

The only sacrifice of Christ that can be made available to us by the one true high priest

Jesus Christ is His propitiatory death. A death sacrifice where He sacrifices

Himself for our sake. And as a matter of fact, it's in fact in my notes it's for this reason we also see in Hebrews chapter 13 that we are able then to make sacrifice but let's just, there are a number of verses verses about us making sacrifice because we belong to Christ but especially chapter 13 verse 10 which says we

Christians, we have an altar of which the ones serving at the tabernacle, that is the

Jewish temple do not have the authority to eat. They don't speak simply of a table, a fellowship, but an altar at which they eat.

And what is it they eat? The only possible thing would be the Eucharist. That sacrifice that is offered on the altar.

Now what I still have not heard clearly is a reputation of the sacrificial nature of the

Last Supper, the Lord's Supper, and the terms that Christ uses. I'm sure that Mr. White will approach that. But that's one of the things that we still have to deal with.

Christ, Jesus uses this sacrificial terminology to describe what he's doing and to command us to repeat it and to do it, and to offer it.

And that he can do that he can make that because he is God, and that that sacrifice is available to us.

Now the problem that Mr. White has, I think stems as he's making clear, from his perspective on justification and on salvation.

How is it that Christ's work operates for us? That's the basis of his principle for not accepting the

Eucharist. So he's starting with this Protestant approach towards understanding Christ's work that limits itself too much to too few passages of Scripture.

Not that I deny what he says about Christ's work. I affirm it because it's in Scripture, it's what the

Word of God reveals to us. So I don't have any problem affirming that at all, and neither does the church. I want to really emphasize that.

But because of his theories of justification and sanctification and other things, the work of Christ, I want to really keep that in mind.

He's speaking of the work of Christ here. I don't think that he's able to incorporate all of that into the fullness of Revelation that has been passed on over the centuries by the church.

So that the church has consistently understood that the

Eucharist is the sacrifice in which Christ is truly present to us, coming into our lives once and for all.

But this problem that he has is the issue of the repetition of the Mass. Why does it have to be repeated so many times?

And the problem that really gets at is that human beings only accept it partially.

Again, the issue is this notion of justification that we talked about the other day. For him, it's something that's apprehended or grasped by faith alone, and what's grasped is

Christ. And his saving work is grasped in the act of faith that God gives us in the act of faith.

And we talked about this the other day. And that's how he understands the Scripture. It's not his idea, it's his interpretation of what he thinks the

Scripture says. But what we also see is that the

Catholic understanding, as I still hold today, better fits the whole of Scripture about justification, that it's this process that continues to develop and grow, and that we must do righteousness or justification, as we talked about very strongly the other day.

But the Mass also is part of that process in which I have to receive and appropriate what

Christ does for me. I really do need him to change me and transform me.

So how is the Mass limited in its effects for me? Not in its own reality. In its reality I've been taught since I was a small child and it only makes sense of what the

Scripture says, that the Mass is the infinite sacrifice of Christ. And that Christ is fully present.

That I have no problem with. It's my appropriation of it. My faith.

My prayer so often at the Eucharist, and in the rest of my life, is, Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.

Like the man in the Gospel that Christ met. And so I need to grow in my faith.

Jesus Christ commanded us to have faith, abundant faith. And he told us to believe strongly in the section on the

Eucharist. Why did he emphasize that? Because we need to grow in our faith so that we can fully appropriate what he is doing.

I don't do it all at once in my life. I continue to grow and be sanctified and made just in this process.

But that, I believe, is what gets at the key problem. It's the sense of this continuous growth that we're to receive in the

Eucharist and in the whole of Christian life that we disagree on. Thank you. Thank you

Father Pacwa. And now we will have a 12 minute rebuttal from Reverend White. I certainly do not believe, of course, that it is the

Protestant position that lacks biblical support. And I certainly would assert, in contrast to what

Dr. Pacwa has said, that it is the Protestant position, especially given our doctrine of sola scriptura, that we cannot derive our doctrine from other sources other than solely the

God -inspired scriptures, that the whole of Scripture very clearly militates against the

Roman Catholic understanding of the Mass. Remembering again the Roman Catholic claim that the

Mass itself is the same sacrifice of Christ. I want to provide to you, from the

Word of God, further contrast, further passages that point out this is what the work of Christ did on Calvary.

And then ask you, if you are a Roman Catholic, or if you know the Roman Catholic position, can this be said concerning the

Mass itself? For example, Christ's death from the cross is fully and completely propitiatory.

Romans chapter 3, verse 25. And I hope that you will at least make an attempt to look at these passages.

Romans 3 .25. Speaking of Christ Jesus, that we are justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom

God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood.

A propitiation in His blood through faith. Jesus Christ is our one propitiation.

He has propitiated, satisfied for all of our sin. Now, why then does the

Roman Catholic Church say that the Mass is offered for satisfaction? It is a propitiatory sacrifice, but it is not one that perfects completely and totally those for whom it is made.

Obviously, it shows that it is another kind of sacrifice. Yes, Dr. Pacwa said,

Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, and of course He is. And therefore He transcends time. But does the

Scripture teach that in God's sovereignty, in God's providence, in God's plan of salvation,

He has seen fit to have the sacrifice of Christ be something that transcends time and that is repeated over and over again?

Or do the Scriptures teach us that in the fullness of time God sent His Son, in time

Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary and by that one sacrifice accomplished the full redemption of all those who do unite with Him by the

Father's sovereign choice? I assert that that is what the Scripture teaches, not the Roman Catholic perspective.

Those for whom Christ died are reconciled to God. Romans 5 verses 8 -11. I read you some of those passages.

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us in our place, much more than having now been justified by His blood.

We shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, to the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

The Apostle is not afraid to use time language, past tense language, to assert that this is a completed action, that we have been reconciled to Him.

This is brought out in other passages as well, all through Scripture. Now, if punishments remain that must be remitted, either through works of satisfaction, or attending the

Eucharistic sacrifice, or in purgatory someday, where our own sufferings, our satisfatio, are considered to be sufferings of atonement, whereby we atone for these things, if punishments remain, then reconciliation has not taken place.

Either reconciliation has taken place, the death of Christ, or it has not. If there are still punishments to be undergone, then reconciliation has not taken place.

Christ's death, most important, and I think you need to understand this, I think Dr. Pacwa needs to understand where I'm coming from here,

Christ's death is completely substitutionary. 2 Corinthians 5 .21 He made

Him who knew no sin to be sin in our place, in our behalf, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

We have been united with the Lord Jesus Christ by the sovereign decree of God.

Ephesians 1 .4 Before eternity itself began, we were chosen in Christ Jesus. Now, since Christ, therefore, is our substitute, and we, as God's people, are united with Him, all that was due to us, as sinners, is taken by Him.

All, everything, all punishments, all guilt, eternal guilt, temporal punishments, everything is laid the perk substitute for the people of God.

He became sin so that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. All who are in Him have the righteousness of God.

Isaiah 53 makes this very clear. Galatians 2 .20 Paul says, I have been crucified with Christ.

Past tense. It wasn't something that was going on over and over again. It had to be repeated. It was something that was completed, and we must understand our union with Jesus Christ as the people of God by the sovereign decree of God.

That is why the death of Jesus Christ as our substitute accomplishes in our place that which

God intended to accomplish, and there is no necessity of the repetition of that or the representation.

Now, the death of Christ, can that be said of the sacrifice of Christ, of the sacrifice of the mass?

I do not believe it can. The death of Christ results in the redemption, the complete redemption of all those who are united with Him.

This can be seen in many places. Colossians 1 .14, Ephesians 1 .7. How are we redeemed? Redeemed by the blood of His cross.

Redeemed by that blood, not blood that is then transubstantiated in another perpetuatory sacrifice later on.

In Galatians 3 .3, Paul says, Christ redeemed us, past tense, from the curse of the law being made a curse in our place.

Jesus Christ's death accomplishes the redemption, the reconciliation, the complete propitiation of the sins of God's people.

If that is the case, can that be said of the Roman Catholic concept of the

Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ? Does it bring about complete reconciliation?

Roman Catholicism says there are still temporal punishments. Roman Catholicism says that the intention of the mass, the mass can be offered over and over again for the same intention.

There is no guarantee that it will accomplish that intention. Obviously, therefore, they are not the same sacrifice.

All those for whom Christ died are, by virtue of the complete remission of sins accomplished in Christ Jesus, made righteous or justified in Him.

We saw this in Romans 5 .9. Now, therefore, the point that I wish to continue to emphasize this evening is that we must compare and contrast the

Roman Catholic concept of the death of Christ with the teaching of the Word of God.

Now, in the brief minutes I have, I would like to address the concept of transubstantiation very quickly, specifically some of the main passages that Dr.

Pacwa has utilized to present this concept and to say, well, this was clearly understood in sacrificial language.

There is no question of that. There is no question that in the Lord's Supper, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the complete background.

Jesus, on the night He institutes the Lord's Supper, is about to make the sacrifice. But that does not mean, given what we have seen in the rest of Scripture, that what

Jesus was saying is that that Lord's Supper, that memorial supper, is to be a sacrifice itself.

Its whole purpose and meaning and understanding must be derived from what the Scriptures clearly teach is the once -for -all, completed, never -be -repeated, no -need -for -repetition, no -need -for -representation, sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Now, John chapter 6 is referred to, and of course, this is one of the favorite passages referred to by apologists of Roman Catholicism in regards to the concept of transubstantiation.

Specifically, and in a major way, John 6, 53 -54, truly, truly,

I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

But I ask you to simply allow the text to speak for itself, to define its own parameters, to define its own meaning.

In John chapter 6, verse 35, listen to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ before He ever talks about eating

His flesh and drinking His blood. He says this, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

Hear what the Lord Jesus says. He speaks of hungering and thirsting, and how does one receive relief from this hungering and thirsting?

How is it that one will never hunger, and one will never thirst? Is it by eating a literal flesh and blood?

Is it by going through the sacraments of the Eucharist? What does Jesus say? Here is the first place where Jesus introduces this, so this must be the first place we come to define our terms.

What does Jesus say? He who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

Coming to Him and believing in Him are what? Are they physical things?

Is it walking up to Jesus? Is that what He is talking about? Or is He talking about spiritual things here?

Believing in Jesus Christ, coming unto Him as the bread of life, coming unto Him as the source of eternal life.

That is what He is speaking of. So when He speaks of hungering and thirsting, He is not talking about physical hungering and thirsting.

That is what the crowds had missed. The day before, Jesus had given to them bread. He had fed the 5 ,000, and that is what they are seeking after.

They are seeking after the physical again. And Jesus says, No, you don't understand. You have missed what

I am actually attempting to communicate to you. I want you to come to Me. I want you to believe in Me.

And when you come to Christ, then that is when you do not hunger and you do not thirst.

Coming and believing in Him cannot be said to be accomplished through the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Jesus said, for example, in John chapter 6, verse 44, No one can come to Me unless the

Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. There is nothing physical there. The drawing is done by the

Father. No one is able to come unto Christ unless the Father draws him. And what does Christ give unto the one who comes to Him?

He gives unto them eternal life. He raises them up at the last day because of their faith, because of their coming unto

Him, and that is the symbol that He uses in John chapter 6. And all through the

Roman Catholic interpretation of these passages, when Jesus says, Do this in remembrance of Me.

This is My body. This is My blood. The incredibly literal interpretation is very rarely the actual literal interpretation of the passage.

If a passage provides you with symbols and clearly defines those symbols for you, then you are not interpreting the passage literally to not utilize the symbols.

And if we take the hermeneutic, the methodology of interpretation that is used by the

Roman Catholic Church here and in Matthew and in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, and apply it many other places in the

New Testament, the result is complete absurdity. Jesus makes many statements that would clearly be totally non -understandable if we assert that the statement of Jesus Christ, when

He is holding the cup and says, This is the cup of the New Testament and My blood, that what He means is that inside this cup is

My blood, even before the sacrifice of the cross. To take that perspective is to end up with incredible misinterpretations all through Scripture.

Christ was the rock. Was Christ literally a rock? It's the exact same Greek term. It's Aimee. It's Eston as used by Jesus and Matthew.

Aimee is used there in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. Christ was the rock. Does that mean He was literally a rock? I would submit to you that no, it does not mean that at all.

Thank you. Now, we are now entering into the third rebuttal phase.

Father Pacwa will have 7 minutes in which to speak, and then Mr. White will have 7 minutes in which to speak.

Then we will have a short break. Alright, we had a number of texts brought up here.

For Christ, for instance, in Romans 3, 25, it's mentioned that Christ gives us a propitiation in His blood.

And that's right. We believe that. And that's why we say that the Mass is a propitiation.

Because Jesus says, this is my blood. Because He says that, and this is the blood of the new covenant, then it's right.

It is a propitiation in His blood, and that's what's present there. That's no problem. That's great.

You love that text. Also Romans 5, verses 8 -11. As on last

Friday, in our last debate, Mr. White has emphasized that we have been justified.

Past action. Right? That's great. It's true. But also we see in Romans 3, 24 that we are being justified.

Present tense. Present participle. So that both of those are true. So there's that sense in which, yes,

Christ has gotten us a once -for -all action. And that that once -for -all action is present there, yeah.

And also, there's this ongoing action of Christ that's continuing to justify us.

And that that's this process that He commands us to do when He tells us to do righteousness and so on. And also, one of the things that Mr.

White mentions a number of times in this last section, is that we are in union with Christ.

Well, that's exactly what we see as the purpose of the Eucharist. And not because we've got this system that we've made in the medieval period or something.

It's because St. Paul describes the Eucharist as our way to have union with Jesus Christ.

Because Paul speaks of the Eucharist as a way to have union with His blood. Koinonia. Communion with Christ.

And we therefore want to see that. We want that communion. We hunger for it. We thirst for it.

Because we need that communion with Jesus Christ. So we have no problem with that at all either.

And then this interpretation of John 6 is reductionism.

The kind of reductionism that is typical of Protestantism. Saying that everything is sort of telescoped or reduced down to belief.

Because we see belief comes first. Jesus said, if you come to me and believe in me, you won't have any thirst.

You won't hunger anymore. That's right. We have to come to Christ. And we have to believe in Him. That's essential.

And as a matter of fact, not only we, but we see this as part of the New Testament faith. And what we see going on throughout all the teaching of the church on the

Eucharist. We have to come to Him. And we have to believe in Him. And that the Eucharist is only for those who have faith.

It's not something that we pass out to those who don't have faith. But, it's not just having faith.

That's the first step. That's why it's first. It's that you have this faith so that you won't hunger and you won't thirst.

Because Christ, if you have this faith, this faith in what Christ says and faith in His word, that unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you cannot have eternal life.

But my flesh is true food. My flesh is true bread. And my blood is true drink.

And if this is my body and this is my blood, here is the Eucharist. If you have that faith and come to Christ, He will satisfy that thirsting.

Now, as far as this last point too, this is a standard criticism.

Well, if you take John literally, take Jesus literally in this passage in St. John's Gospel, then you say,

Jesus is a rock. Or Jesus is a door. You don't go biting on doors, do you, when He says, I'm the door?

You don't go pulling on sheep because you say, I'm the good shepherd. Of course not.

What makes the difference? Why does the Catholic Church take these passages about the body and the blood of Christ so literally?

Because Jesus said to. He said that you do repeat this. The word do, as I mentioned, is a sacrificial term.

And we're in agreement on this. That there's a sacrificial terminology in the Last Supper, to be sure. But it's not merely symbolism.

But Christ commands us to perform this and to repeat it. And that St.

Paul says that this is a proclamation of the death of Jesus until He comes again.

And therefore, we repeat this until Jesus comes again. And we will continue to repeat that on the basis of that commandment.

That's what makes the difference. There. And some symbol vague, you know, we don't, you know, go around and hug doors or shepherds or lights or anything else.

We say that that's the way to have communion with Christ, but Jesus didn't tell us to do that. But He did tell us, take this and eat.

This is my body. Take this and drink. This is the cup of my blood of the new covenant.

And for that reason, we obey. That's all that we want to do, is obey. Now, one of the things that he mentions is transubstantiation.

Let me just give a brief understanding of what we're talking about with that word, this big fancy word. What we mean by it is that everything has a substance.

For instance, if I take bread, you have all kinds of bread. You have corn bread, right? You have whole wheat, pumpernickel, one of my favorites.

You have all kinds of bread. And whether it's wheat, rye, corn, it's all bread.

If it's rice, it's still bread. There's a substantial breadness to it. You can have elderberry wine.

You can have grape wine. You can have rosé. You can have white, burgundy, and so on. It's still all wine.

That's its substance. It's not something you can see. It's not something you can touch. You can touch the color and the flavor with what we call accident.

But it's substance you can't touch. And its substance is its wineness and its breadness. And what we say is that because Christ's Word is effective,

Christ's Word changes the substance, the breadness, into Christ. That's what's changed.

We know that the outside appearance doesn't change at all. And that it's only the bread that's changed, not only the wine.

But that Christ is truly present, substantially present in there because He does it.

He gives us the Word to transform substances. Just like His Word created the universe.

And if it can create the universe, it can transform the substance of bread into the substance of Christ. And it can transform the substance of wine into the substance of His blood.

So His blood is truly present there. And that we drink that so that we can have it as a propitiation.

Mr. White, now you have seven minutes. There are a number of things

Dr. Pacwa has said that I need to, in the brief time that I have, address. First of all, all the truly meaningful terms used in the

Institution of the Supper were indeed pointing to the cross as the one sacrifice of Christ, since the Scriptures have made that very clear.

Then to assert that there is something else they're referring to, as in some Eucharistic sacrifice that simply does not hold any water.

Now, I would also point out that Dr. Pacwa emphasized that there was a meal in the establishment of the covenant in the

Old Testament. But I would point out in establishing the covenant with Abraham in chapter 15, there was no meal. In regards to the language used in the

Institution of the Supper and the concept of doing this, I would also point out that there are other Hebrew terms and Greek terms, such as prospero or zabach in the

Old Testament, that refer to the specific technical offering of sacrifices. And those terms are not entering into our discussion here this evening.

Now I would like to ask Dr. Pacwa, where does the term sacrifice, you referred to Melchizedek making a sacrifice in Genesis chapter 14 verses 17 -20, where does the term sacrifice occur in that passage?

I cannot seem to locate it. Now, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 17 where Paul says that there is one bread, or we take the

Roman Catholic concept of interpretation here and say that there is only one bread? I mean, there can't be bread here at this

Catholic church tonight and another Catholic church. I mean, you say, well, that's a little ridiculous, isn't it? Yes, and I feel that the entire interpretive method that presses the language of the

New Testament results in these types of absurdities when it is utilized for example when it says we are all baptized into one body in 1

Corinthians chapter 12 verse 11. Obviously that body is the body of Christ. It is a spiritual body, but if we take it literally, we are all baptized into one body.

Now, Dr. Pacwa also asserted that the proclamation of the sacrifice means it is the sacrifice.

Now, how is that so? How, for example, when we proclaim the gospel does that become the gospel? Why is proclaiming something the same as the reality?

I don't believe that that follows in any way, shape, or form. Now, the main emphasis that I am making this evening over and over again is either the work of Christ is complete and finished in and of itself or it is not.

If it is possible for us to make propitiations, if it is possible for us to make satisfactions, then the death of Christ is not sufficient in and of itself to do that.

It did not accomplish all of that. I am asserting to you that is not what the scriptures teach and the scriptures we have examined, for example,

Hebrews 10 .10 and 10 .14 make it very, very clear that that simply is not the case.

Now, I would like to assert that in the New Testament, you have a sacrifice performed by the one high priest,

Jesus Christ, that accomplishes its intention completely without question, without human addition.

You have no sacramental priests in the New Testament anywhere The office does not exist.

All are priests. We all offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving unto God, but we are all priests.

Every single person who holds the faith of Jesus Christ is a priest. And to say, therefore, there are specific priests who have this specific power is not found in scripture anywhere at all.

Now, in regards to Romans 3 .25, Dr. Pacwa mentioned this and said, yes, we believe it. It is wonderful.

Isn't it great? But I want to ask again, is Christ's death truly propitiatory alone, or is it not?

Can we make propitiation by our sufferings? Is that propitiation something that has to be made over and over again?

There is a clear distinction. When Dr. Pacwa says, oh yes, we affirm that. Well, what you're affirming, Dr. Pacwa, is not what

I'm talking about, not what I'm asserting. I am asserting that the death of Jesus Christ, singularly, alone, as a complete and finished act, is the one and only propitiation for all sin that we cannot make any propitiation whatsoever in and of ourselves.

Now, in regards to Romans 3 .24, Dr. Pacwa has again brought up the subject of justification, and he has said, yes, but it's an ongoing action in Romans 3 .24

because the present participle is used there. Well, another present tense verb is used in Galatians 3 .8, where God is the one who is justifying the

Gentiles. But what does that mean? Does that mean that the justification is a process? No, it doesn't.

What it means is since justification is the legal declaration of the person's right standing before God, as God brings men into relationship with Him, as He regenerates them by His Spirit, as He gives them faith and repentance as they exercise those gifts, then

God is making the declaration of their justification. And this is going on all the time, praise be to God, that in His mercy

He is doing that. And therefore, I identify that doctrine as possibly an iterative present. It is something that is going on when

God makes that declaration of justification of the individual believer. That does not mean that Paul was attempting to put together a process and a one -time declaration that he clearly, clearly asserts for us in Romans 5 .1,

where we have been justified by faith. In Romans 5 .9, where we have been justified in His blood.

These are completed, finished actions that we look back to. Now, Dr. Pacwa says that my interpretation of John 6, and the

Protestant concept there is reductionism, leading only to faith as the sole thing. No, sir.

If you're going to charge me with reductionism, then let me make it very, very clear right here before you all, that it does not go back to human faith.

It goes back to the sovereign grace of God. I could not have faith, no man could have faith, if it were not for the grace of God, whereby

He grants to us the gift of faith, and whereby He draws men unto Himself. So, if I'm going to be accused of reductionism, then

I will point you to John 6, verse 44, where Jesus Himself said, No one is able to come to Me, unless the

Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. That certainly is reductionistic, but I join with my

Savior in proclaiming it. Now, in regards to taking Jesus literally in John chapter 6,

I do not believe that the Roman Catholic position is taking Jesus literally in John chapter 6. To take

Jesus literally is to start in John 6, verse 35, and to follow the argument He presents.

How, then, can we take John 6, verse 35, in what I would assert, and not in any offensive way, as an absurdly literal way?

Are we to understand it to mean that we physically have to come to Jesus? We have to walk to Him to receive life.

Is that what it means? Is this the interpretation we're going to have to follow through? No. The literal interpretation of what

Jesus Christ is saying here takes all of what Jesus Christ said, and interprets those symbols that He uses in the way that He used it.

I do not believe that the imperative form of poieto that is used in Matthew means that we should ignore the symbolism that is clearly used by Jesus because the apostles did not do that.

Thank you very much. Mr. White, the first question I want to ask is, besides the

Gnostics and other obviously heretical groups, can you name any opponents to the

Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist in the first 10 centuries of the Church? And if not, can you explain why there are not these opponents to it?

Yes, Dr. Pacwa. First of all, in answering this question, I want to point out that, again,

I am offering the same presupposition that I've been offering on all evening. If it can be demonstrated that the

Bible teaches and that early fathers believed in the specific redemption of Jesus Christ, the limited atonement of Christ, that it specifically accomplishes for the redeemed, what

God intended it to accomplish, then I would assume that that points out clearly that they did not believe in a continued offering of that sacrifice.

For example, in the Confession of the Holy Church of Smyrna, a little after the commendation given to it by the

Holy Ghost, Revelation 2 .9, we read, Neither can we ever forsake

Christ, him who suffers the salvation of the world of them that are saved, nor worship any other.

This is from Eusebius. Clearly, the answer that is provided here is that Christ provided the salvation of the world that are saved, not for all mankind, and therefore they believed as I did.

But I want to skip to the words of Augustine himself in regards to this issue. God was in Christ, and Christ reconciled the world unto himself, and that the

Son of Man came not to condemn the world, but the world to him might be saved. And John in his epistle says,

We have an advocate, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The whole world, therefore, is the church, and the world hiddeth the church, the world then hiddeth the world, and that which is zemnity is reconciled to condemn the saved, and polluted the cleansed world.

And that world which God in Christ reconciled to himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen out of the opposite condemned, defiled world.

Now in brief, and I could go on to Prosper, I could go on to the Council of Valens, a few other places like this, but the point

I'm making is this. At this time, especially around the time of Augustine, as John Cassian's words make very clear to us, if you're familiar with Cassian, the concept of the atonement being made solely for the elect of God, and therefore bringing about the redemption only of the elect of God, was an issue that was being discussed, and Augustine was presenting that perspective.

Therefore, he was presenting the same perspective that I have presented this evening, that the death of Christ is made for the people of God, that it brings about the full and complete redemption of the people of God, and on the basis of that understanding, even though Augustine may have had a very high view of the

Lord's Supper and everything else, the concepts of the Council of Trent that the

Lord's Supper, that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a propitiatory sacrifice, would be totally and completely out of harmony with what these men were teaching.

Prosper, Augustine, and others of that time were teaching in regards to the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The atonement of Christ cannot be separated from the concept of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and therefore that constitutes my answer.

The problem that I have is that you assume that if they hold your view of redemption and Christ's work, that they therefore cannot hold the

Catholic view of the Eucharist, and in fact what we see is that the

Fathers do hold a belief in the Eucharist as a sacrifice, without which one cannot have eternal life, including

St. Augustine. For instance, in his commentary, in the text of Jesus, or the text in John chapter 6, he talks about how no one can have life who does not eat this bread and does not drink this blood of Christ.

And that the Eucharist is, he calls it a sacrifice, and that it's the real presence of God, the real presence of Christ here, and not only is it

Augustine, but it's something that appears throughout all the Fathers of the

Church, and that this is held universally, to be the real presence of Christ, and the real sacrifice for our sins, which is necessary for our salvation.

And so, I don't think that you've really dealt with this situation, and answered the fact that the

Fathers are unanimous in this position about the real presence of Christ, and this true sacrifice that is there, that is necessary for our salvation.

They did hold this view of justification that the Catholic Church continues to hold, because it's in Scripture, and because the

Fathers continue to pass on that same gospel. Well, I obviously do not accept your statement that they held to that concept of justification, that concept of the

Atonement. Looking at what Prosper said, looking at what Augustine said, we could look at Clement, we could look at Cyprian, Ambrose, Athanasius, Cyril, we can see these concepts of the clear and only substitutionary

Atonement of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I would assert to you, Doctor, that you are reading into their comments a theology that is based upon Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance, which certainly the

Apostles in the upper rooms certainly would not have been thinking in Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance, and so on and so forth.

I believe that the Catholic Church is guilty of reading into these Fathers concepts and categories that are not a part of what these men would have understood, or what they are presenting, and I believe their doctrine of the

Atonement makes that very clear. Dr. Pacwa, Ludwig Ott, wrote quote, as a perpetuatory and inhibitory sacrifice.

The sacrifice of the Mass possesses a finite external value since the operation of propitiation and infiltration refer to human beings who as creatures can receive a finite act only.

This explains the practice of the Church of offering the Holy Sacrifice to the Mass frequently to the same intention.

End quote. From Catholicism teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is limited in its effect and therefore can be offered many times to the same intention, and even then no guarantee is given of the attainment of the intention since the effectiveness of the sacrifice is limited by the moral disposition of the recipient.

In light of Hebrews 10, verses 10 -14 which we have read a number of times, and the continued assertion made therein regarding the once for all, ephah pox, offering of Christ, or the one offering forever, verse 14, how can you maintain, as Trent says, that the sacrifice of the

Mass is one in the same with the sacrifice of Calvary? Well, quite simply, the problem,

I have no problem maintaining both of those statements as I said before, the difficulty is, you know, a number of things are going on.

Yes, what Christ did is once and for all. And that's what our faith is. That Christ's crucifixion,

His death on the cross, shedding of His blood, is a once and for all event.

And that is the event which gives the Eucharist its meaning and its power and its grace.

And it's that one propitiation that is made available to us in the Eucharist.

Now, even though that happens once and for all, the faith of the individual believer and the moral state of the individual believer is what makes it possible or not possible for a person to accept and appropriate what's going on in the

Eucharist and in the propitiation of Christ. A person who will bring some of their sins but not all of their sins to Christ will need to have those also forgiven in the reconciliation for the whole of their life.

Because it's a reconciliation with God that Christ brings about that needs to be thorough and thorough going into every part of the human action.

And so we humans don't bring our whole self. Now, does that limit

Christ's power? It's not a limitation of His infinity. It's just a limitation of what

I appropriate of His infinity. Of what I can accept and what I can take. And so that I grow from glory to glory and I go from faith to faith in Christ.

And that it's that continuous growth of my faith and of my relationship with Him that's taking place as I experience the

Eucharist. Well, I feel, Dr. Parker, that you fail to distinguish between the event and the effect.

You say the event was once for all but the effect clearly is something that has been parceled out over many thousands of perpetuatory sacrifices that are represented in the mass.

The scripture that I cited Hebrews chapter 10 does not say by this will He has made available our sanctification.

It says by this will we have been sanctified. It is not just the event. It is the effect of the once for all event of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.

This is once for all. Verse 14. For by one offering He has perfected for all time. It is not simply that the event of Calvary is one time, but the effect of the atonement of Christ is completed, finished, and is one time.

It is not a matter of our then appropriating something that was just made available out there.

It is actually something that happened. That is we are sanctified, we are perfected, and you brought up the other issue of reconciliation that we have to bring all of our sins to receive reconciliation.

This reconciliation is something that goes on and on through the offering of the perpetuatory sacrifice.

But Colossians 1 .20, as I recall as the passage, tells us very clearly in scripture that reconciliation and peace takes place through the blood of His cross.

Not through the blood of a Eucharistic sacrifice, not through the cup that is somehow transubstantiated, substance changed, but accidents not changed, etc.,

etc. Reconciliation and peace comes through the blood of His cross. So I feel that you are missing, yes, once for all event.

We both agree with that. But once for all effect as well. We have been perfected by the offering of Jesus Christ once for all.

First of all, in that verse 14 that you're quoting again and again, that we have been perfected forever, it says by one offering

He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Now, it's the ones who are not sanctified, those who are not yet made holy, that have trouble appropriating it.

And that's the distinction that we have from the text itself. Secondly, it is the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ that is present at the

Eucharist. And that's exactly what we're holding. As a matter of fact, that makes the most sense out of the whole of the

Scriptures. And so that we don't see that the Mass is separate. We reject that. And so the Church has continually rejected that this is a separate sacrifice from the cross, but it is the one sacrifice of the cross made available to us.

And those who are sanctified are able to appropriate it fully. Those who are not yet sanctified can only appropriate it partially.

The question I would ask is this. In John chapter 6, you mentioned that it's faith that's the key issue, and believing.

That the people, if we have, if we believe, that we will have eternal life.

Correct? And that, as I understand what you're saying, and the problem I have with the text, is that the

Jews left Jesus at a moment where, because of his statement about the Eucharist, that is about his flesh and his blood, and his disciples found this thing a hard saying, an impossible saying, that is the statement about the

Eucharist. Why is it that they leave over that, rather than over the issue of faith?

This is the problem that we've had. As a matter of fact, this is what separates disciples from Christ, apparently.

And why is it that they leave over this hard saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood?

Well, first of all, answering that, I would point you to the text and say, I think you have misread it. Verse 65, and he was saying, for this reason

I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father. As a result of this, many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with him anymore.

So in verse 65, he repeats what he says in verse 44, and that is the assertion of the absolute and total sovereignty of God and the total inability of man, and it is this statement that the result of this, many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with him anymore.

So I think there's a misreading of the text. Secondly, you asserted in one of your statements earlier, I attempted to correct it, you just asserted it again.

You said the key issue here is faith, and what you mean by that is, well, in reference to John 6 .35,

that is the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man, the drinking of his blood, that this in verse 35 is coming to Christ and believing in him.

That is true. However, I pointed out in my response before the break that the reductionism of which

I have been accused in John chapter 6 is not a reference to human faith and the concept that, well, it's up to us to believe, and that's all

Jesus is talking about. No. Jesus said, all of the Father's, in verse 37, all the

Father gives me shall come to me. The one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my

Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, believes in him, may have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day.

The issue in John chapter 6 is the person of Jesus Christ, and how is it that a person comes to Jesus Christ?

He must be drawn by the Father. The Father gives men unto the Son. This is how they come unto him.

They are enabled by the Father in John chapter 6, verse 44. As I said in my response to your statement, if I'm going to be charged with reductionism, let's make sure that it's an accurate charge, and that is that what

I am reducing it to, and what I believe the text clearly tells us, that our Lord Jesus Christ reduces this issue to, is not a sacramental concept that is established years later, as historically would tell us that the whole concept of the

Lord's Supper was down the line. No. The central issue is verses 35 through 40.

Everything else refers back to that, and that is, it is the Lord Jesus who receives the elect from the

Father. It is the Father's will, the Lord Jesus, that he raise him up on the last day. This is the central issue of the passage, to obscure that with a concept of transubstantiation, and a concept of the atonement of Christ that is nowhere presented in scripture, and is totally contradictory to what is proclaimed by the

Lord Jesus Christ in verses 37 through 40, is certainly not the issue. And so that is what

I believe is happening in John chapter 6. The reason they turn away from him is because of his assertion in verse 65.

The problem with that, first of all let me say this at the outset, I have no problem with verse 65 of course, that no one can come to Jesus except through the

Father, and that this is the Father's grace and the Father's drawing. We're totally in agreement on that.

But the problem that I have with your interpretation of the text is still this. Namely that Jesus says in 54 and following, that whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

I raise him up, and my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And after he continues to expound on that, then it says in verse 60, many therefore of his disciples when they heard this, said this is a hard saying, who can hear it?

Not in verse 65, but back in verse 60, they decided to leave because of what he says about his flesh being food and his blood being drink.

And they rejected him on that point. So that's where I still disagree with you on that text.

Sure, they also don't have faith. And if they had real faith in him, they would ask, how is this possible?

And the apostles who do say, and the disciples who do say, are mentioned to have faith in Christ. And that they will appropriate, of course, by their faith.

But they'll do so in the Eucharist. And so I still see that as a Eucharistic issue here.

And not only that, but we see that in this rejection of the Eucharist is the first mention of Christ's betrayal.

Which will take place at the Last Supper. That this becomes a key issue, a decisive issue, for one to be a disciple of Christ, to remain a disciple of Christ, even one of the chosen 12 as in the case of Judas.

Well, I'm sorry, Doctor, but you assert that in verse 60 is where they decide to leave.

Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they heard this, said, this is a difficult statement, who can listen to it? They had been grumbling all through this, from verses 30, 41, 42, 52, they're grumbling all through it.

And it's not obviously anything about a Eucharistic sacrifice they're grumbling at earlier on in the chapter. So there's nothing in verse 60 that says that they have decided to leave at this point where they leave is verse 66.

As a result of this, many of his disciples withdrew. And that is as a result of verse 65, where Jesus says, for the reason

I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it is a gift granted to him from the Father. So right before that, in verse 63,

Jesus said, it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Jesus himself makes it clear. The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit who gives life. And these words

I have spoken to you, they are spirit, they are life. According to Council of Trent, 22nd

Session, Chapter 2, the Sacrifice to the Mass is offered, quote, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other festivities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who depart in Christ, but not yet fully purified, end quote.

This means that a person can die in a state of grace, having attended many a Mass, and yet die impure.

The Holy Word of God, however, states that we are justified in his blood, Romans 5, 9, that we are redeemed by his death alone,

Galatians 3, 3, and that we have redemption of forgiveness of sins by his death, Ephesians 1, 7. The Bible specifically states that it is the death of Christ, his one offering of himself, that perfects forever for those for whom it is made.

And I sound like a broken record going back to Hebrews 10, but I must, because I feel it's continually misunderstood. How can you hold both to the teaching of the

Bible, specifically Hebrews 10, where we are sanctified by the work of Christ, and the teaching of Trent, specifically again, 22nd

Session, Chapter 2, at the end of the chapter, when the two are so obviously in contradiction with one another?

First of all, we know of people who die in the state of grace, in the sense of that they've accepted

Christ as their Savior, and yet they also, you know, we can see from their lives, have dealt or not dealt with sin in their lives, of, you know, obnoxious behavior, rejection of Christ, and though they've asked him for forgiveness, they haven't experienced the fullness of justification, that justification that they do, the justification that Christ requires of them, as we see in Matthew, Chapter 5, their righteousness, that is to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, and that at the end of the chapter, verse 48, is to be perfectionalized to heavenly fathers perfect, and that because nothing unclean can come into heaven, and because nothing unclean at all within our soul can come into heaven,

Christ needs to remove that, and you're right, we totally agree with you, that it is through his death that we're perfected, his death perfects us, and how do we receive the power of that death, and the grace of that?

Through the Eucharist. The Eucharist celebrates his death, and it makes it present to us, and its merits are given to us to the extent that we can appropriate it, to the extent that we can accept it, and to the extent, and I need to have that offered for me, and I need to receive the power of that Eucharist to perfect me, because it is only

Christ's death, and only his grace that does perfect me, but I'm not yet perfected, and I may not, maybe

I will, but given past behavior, I won't be perfected by the time I'm dead, and so Christ will continue that power of perfection by his grace, and the power of his death, even after my death.

Dr. Pacwa, I think we have right here one of the clearest examples, and I hope everyone understands this, of how far apart we actually are, sir, because according to the scriptures,

Colossians chapter 2 verse 13, when you were dead in your transgressions, in the circumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

All of our sins, we died with Christ, all of our sins, not just our past sins, all of our sins, are nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ, and that is why

I keep saying it over and over again. Trent says we can die impure. You say you hope to be perfected, but Hebrews chapter 10 verse 14, for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, and you said in an earlier question, but not all people are sanctified.

But Hebrews 10 .10 says, by this will we have been sanctified through the one offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It's simply clear to me that the Roman Catholic position cannot take both of those passages and the teaching concerning the completed work of Jesus Christ and put them together with the teachings of the

Council of Trent, because you have to say, well, it's possible to die impure. If a person has received

Jesus Christ that is in him and has died with him, it is impossible to be impure, because the righteousness that is mine is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and that is mine because Jesus Christ bore all of my sins in his body on the tree, not just some of them, not just enough of them that I can appropriate them or anything like that.

It is a completed and finished work by union, by virtue of the union that is mine with Jesus Christ.

God and his sovereignty has placed me in Jesus Christ. Christ's death is my death. His resurrection is my resurrection.

We've been seated in heavenly places. Ephesians chapter 2. And I'm out of time. We're back to where we were on Friday.

Because this is, as I said earlier, the key issue. That what

Christ has justified us of in the past is the sins that we've committed in the past, not the things I'm going to do in the future.

Not the sins I commit in the present, but what I've done in the past. And those are completely washed away.

And every time I come to Christ, my sins are completely forgiven. The effects of my sin are not always removed from me.

That's something that's different. The effects of my sin are not the same as my sin, and that I need to have those effects also healed, and it's by Christ.

And that's exactly why we offer the sacrifice of the mass, that one sacrifice of Christ made present to us in the

Eucharist for the effects of my sin in my soul, in my whole life.

And I need to have those removed from me as well. But they are not all removed from me in the past.

Mr. White, you say the mass can't be a sacrifice because our justification is a past completed act which can't be added to.

Yet last week you admitted sanctification is a past completed act and a process.

Why can't justification be both? And if so, why can't the mass be part of this process?

The reason that I say the mass cannot possibly be a perpetuatory sacrifice and be the same sacrifice as the work of Jesus Christ is not because our justification is a past tense action.

Our justification is a complete and past tense action because of the sacrifice of Christ. That's reversed in the person's understanding.

We have been justified in the blood of Jesus Christ, Romans chapter 5, verse 9.

Now the person asserts a similar question. In fact, it was a question that Dr. Pacwa asked me on Friday evening.

The Protestants understand and assert that sanctification is both a state and a process.

Therefore, why cannot justification be that? Well, A, the state and the process is presented to us in Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10 and 14, those same two passages we keep coming back to, and B, because of the nature of justification.

Dr. Pacwa says justification is a process. We do righteousness. I say justification is a declaration by God because the substitutionary atonement of Christ, of the righteousness of all those who are united with Christ, they can be declared righteous and just because all of their sins have been nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ.

There is no condemnation for them because Jesus Christ has died as their substitute and therefore justification is the forensic legal declaration of their standing before God.

It cannot be a process because of the fact that it is based solely and completely on the work of Jesus Christ and because it is a declaratory action of the

Father in reference to those who are united with Jesus Christ. So justification, the question

I think misunderstands justification and sanctification in saying that I say the

Mass cannot be the work of Christ because justification is a past tense action. No, justification is a past tense action and it is true but the reason the

Mass is different than the sacrifice of Christ is because the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes its intention while the

Mass does not. It's the same issue that we mentioned before.

As Mr. White said, I brought it up in the past, I brought it up even tonight, that the issue that he keeps on repeating about how this is something past, something past and that we also see, as I mentioned and I'm still not satisfied with his interpretation of Romans 3 .24

because it is something that's still ongoing that justification is an ongoing process and a past process.

Yes Christ has forgiven all of our past trespasses but he's also continuing to justify me and have a justification that goes into the depths of who

I am and transforming me in that process and that it's the same as the sanctification process.

The sanctification and justification should not be made so separate and therefore the

Mass can be part of the process and needs to be part of the process because Jesus commanded us to celebrate the

Eucharist and he said that it's necessary for us to have eternal life. So if we are to receive eternal life from Jesus Christ then we must come to him and come to him physically in the presence of him in the

Eucharist and receive what he has to offer so that he can continue this process and make us whole and complete in our salvation.

If John 654 or excuse me in John 654 it says quote

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life end quote.

If a person takes part in the Mass one time in the faith that it is truly the body and blood of Christ why does he have no guarantee of eternal life?

Good question. The reason is not because of what any weakness in what

Christ has done. The reason that he needs to come back to the Eucharist over and over again is to continually appropriate that to himself to make the

Eucharist part of himself and that it's not just oh I believe once and that's it. That idea of just getting it once and that's all over with or I got it down pat is just not a human experience.

It's never been the experience of the church and for that reason the church constantly calls us to have this to repeat the

Eucharist and as a matter of fact we have a sense that we see that the apostles went to the

Eucharist many times certainly they believed and yet they dedicated themselves Christians dedicated themselves to the breaking of the bread that is to the

Eucharist and actually the apostles. So this seems to be necessary for us according to scripture and to the experience of the church that we come to receive this not just believing once but continually growing in this and growing in union with Christ.

It's not just that I believe and I got it but I want union with Christ as well. We can't isolate this from the other parts of scripture where we have this fellowship this communion with Christ in the body and in the blood and that communion in Christ is something that's going to grow in us as we mature in our

Christian faith so for that reason also we need to keep on coming back to it. First of all according to scripture one time of the sacrifice of Christ is enough so this therefore shows another of the many differences between the

Roman Catholic concept of the mass, the Eucharistic sacrifice and the work of Jesus Christ therefore they're obviously not the same thing.

Second of all if you're going to take a literal interpretation of this passage if you'll note doctor in John 6 .54

the one eating is a present participle that is paramount to the description of God as the one who is justifying us in Romans chapter 8.

Does that mean we have to continually and presently all the time day and night be eating and drinking the blood eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ?

If you're going to be consistent in your literal interpretation emphasizing the present ongoing action in Romans 3 .24

in justification of Romans chapter 8 where God describes the one who is justifying us then you're going to have to take that position

Thirdly we must recognize that in Roman Catholic theology as you presented on Friday evening we by doing good works in a state of grace those good works are what?

They are considered meritorious and it's on the basis of those meritorious works that we then receive eternal life but Jesus Christ in John chapter 6 nowhere mentions the meritorious works that are in the state of grace.

He says it's the father's will that those that are given to him by the father he will raise them up in the last day.

Now are we to believe that Christ could fail in raising up those given to him by the father because people didn't do enough good works in the state of grace to merit eternal life?

No, not at all. In Roman Catholicism eternal life is something that is merited because of our works done in the state of grace and that's completely contradictory to what

Jesus Christ is saying here. The clear interpretation of verse 54 is the same one given to us in verses 36 and following.

Question for Mr. White. If we use

Dr. Pacwa's way of interpreting the passages of the Last Supper, specifically

Luke 22 .19 Matthew 26 26 -30

Mark 14 22 -26 does not

Christ himself partake of his own sacrifice and promise to do so again in his kingdom?

If so how can this be? Well I don't know how it can be and I think that's one of the strongest objections to Dr.

Pacwa's interpretation. I'm sure he's glad he has two mysteries to respond to the question as well. In Matthew chapter 26 verse 29

Jesus says that I say to you I will not drink of this fruit of thine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's kingdom.

Notice this is after the supposed transubstantiation has taken place. Christ still refers to it as the fruit of the vine not as blood.

And he says that he will drink it again in his kingdom. Are we to believe that Christ will be transubstantiating himself in the kingdom of God in the eternal state?

Certainly not. And when we parallel this with what is told us in Hebrews chapter 10 where it talks about the fact that the priest does not offer a sacrifice for himself in Hebrews chapter 9,

Hebrews chapter 7 again where the priest has to go in and he offers a sacrifice for himself in chapter 7 verse 27.

Who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins? Now obviously Christ is not to be participating in the

Eucharistic sacrifice relevant to his own sins for he has none. So obviously this is another passage that shows the wide divergence between the and then this concept that is clearly imposed upon Scripture from an outside source where you supposedly have

Christ changing the bread and the wine before his sacrifice. I mean here you have the sacrifice of the mass taking place before the sacrifice of the cross.

That's what Roman Catholicism tells us happens at the Last Supper. How can this be? How can the sacrifice of the mass take its efficacy from the sacrifice of the cross if the sacrifice of the cross hasn't even taken place yet?

So obviously I think this passage in Matthew 26 and in parallel with Hebrews chapter 7 verse 27 clearly shows that since Christ says he will participate with his people in the drinking of that wine again it is not a

Eucharistic sacrifice. It is not a perpetuatory sacrifice at all. The question does not have a close contact with the text.

First of all it doesn't say that Jesus ate it. Does it? Instead it says simply take and eat it and tells them to eat and it tells the disciples to drink.

It doesn't say that he took any of it. So it doesn't say that he participated in that Eucharist. He gave it to them to eat and to drink.

So that's the first thing. He did not receive this Eucharist, did not receive his own communion, but gave it to his disciples.

Secondly in terms of this question it's an important issue and a hard one about the question of how can this be the

Eucharist and the sacrifice of Christ before his cross? Well it's the same way that we have to understand it in terms of why it's still the

Eucharist. It's that Christ in his own divinity is timeless. And because of his timelessness, because of his divinity beyond time is same yesterday, today and forever, he's able to speak his word and his word is effective.

And what he says in his word that this is my body and that this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant that what he says happens.

Christ's word is not something that goes out empty but it always comes back to him accomplishing what it says it will accomplish and nothing less than that.

So the Roman Catholic position doesn't have any problem with that. Instead we see that this is truly the presence of Christ and that his disciples receive it and that afterwards they are able to go out and themselves, being themselves priests, confect the

Eucharist as well. Since at the first taking of the Eucharist Christ had not yet poured out his blood, was his blood present in the wine at the last supper?

Okay, that's basically the same thing. That's the same question. And I would say the same point again.

Yes, it is his blood not because I just have some philosophy that I want to impose on the text, but rather Jesus is the one who says that this is his blood which has been shed.

And therefore by the power of his word and a word that has its guarantee because of his divinity and its authority because of his divinity that Christ really does have his blood shed there.

And I think I can stop there. Well, I would like to respond to that. First of all Dr. Paco continually asserts that the word of Christ accomplishes that which it is sent forth to do.

Well, of course we know the word of God does. But the question is, was Christ intending to change bread and wine into his body and blood by saying this is my body and this is my blood?

When Jesus turned to Peter and said, get behind me Satan, did his word go forth in power and turn

Peter into Satan? Obviously not. So therefore we must also establish, and I do not believe it is in any way possible to do that Jesus was intending to turn the bread and the wine into his body and blood before the sacrifice of the cross.

We are reconciled by the blood of his cross. Paul tells us in Colossians 1 not the blood of a

Eucharistic sacrifice. Secondly, I almost had the question if I heard what you were actually saying, it seems that you are asserting that Jesus Christ did not partake of the supper with his disciples.

And I cannot possibly believe that Jesus has said, I have longed, I have desired to eat this Passover with you.

And I don't think there is any way on the basis of any of the texts that can possibly be asserted that Jesus Christ did not participate in the

Lord's Supper. He himself said in John 26, I will not drink the fruit of the vine from now on until the day that when

I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. From now on. Clearly, it is obvious to me, it is obvious on the face of the text,

Jesus Christ partook. And therefore, the objection stands and remains why in the world, if this was a

Eucharistic sacrifice, would he himself participate in it? I think the text is very, very clear in showing that to be an improper statement.

Didn't Christ use wine and bread at the Last Supper and say, this is my body, this is my blood, do this in memory of me.

He did not say, this is a symbol of my blood, etc. And the reason it's different than the other questions that have been asked is because it is saying and assuming that Jesus Christ must say, this is a symbol, this is a sign, don't take me literally to be understood in that way.

However, we must remember what is going on. It is Passover time. Jesus Christ stands before his disciples.

These men are men who knew the Old Testament. When he talks about the blood of the covenant, they would have hearkened back to the

Old Testament concepts that were there. I do not believe that you can establish on the basis of the Old Testament that they would have for a second believed that he was at this time through the

Aristotelian understanding of accidents and substances, changing the substance of the bread and the wine, but the accidents were remaining, and therefore was offering a sacrifice before the coming sacrifice he is actually referring to in the cross.

Jesus clearly used signs and symbols on the night of his betrayal. In fact, it has been asserted by many

Roman Catholic apologists that Jesus would not leave an opportunity of his being misunderstood on such an important evening.

On the same evening, John tells us in John chapter 15, he used many signs and symbols. You are the branches.

I am the vine. Jesus was not by saying that on the very same evening as the Lord's Supper, claiming that he himself was a vine or that we are branches or anything of that type.

Therefore, it is very clear that he was willing to use signs and symbols that would clearly be understood.

The fact remains that it must be reiterated that given the fact that Peter and Paul and John all of them present the work of Jesus Christ as a finished and completed thing that is not repeated, that accomplishes its intention shows that they could not have understood what

Jesus was doing as the establishment of a reenactment of a representation of a

Eucharistic sacrifice that is in itself propitiatory and that is absolutely necessary to undergo to receive eternal life.

First of all, it is a different question and I'm glad that it was brought up. Christ does not say that this is a symbol.

He says that this is my body and this is my blood. Isn't that is? It means is. When we look at the early church, the

Greek speaking church, when they received the Eucharist and passed it on, I'm not talking 1st and 2nd century, they always understood the word is to be is.

Nobody interprets it to be a mere symbol. And so they take this as a literal understanding.

That's what they received from the apostles. That's what the apostles received from Christ. Whereas the vine and the branches are a symbol and a wonderful symbol for the body of Christ, we have to go back to what

I said before. Christ did not tell us to do something about vines and branches, but he did tell us to repeat this

Eucharist. That's the difference and it's a difference that's essential. And this goes back to something you brought up again that refers to something you said earlier, that scripture says that one time sacrifice is enough.

Scripture doesn't say that exactly. It says that it happened one time and that it is enough, of course, in the sense that this is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that that is what redeems the world, but what the scripture doesn't address is how

I need to appropriate that, how I need to make that part of me, how I need to have my life changed by it.

That's what scripture does not deny and in Colossians that you quoted before, it's not like the scripture says that you're saved by the death of Jesus, not by the

Eucharist. It doesn't mention the Eucharist there and it's the interpretation to add the Eucharist that it's not there, that it's not by the

Eucharist. That is merely interpretation. Rather, it's Christ who gives us this sacrifice at the

Eucharist using sacrificial terminology for it and it says that this is something necessary for us in, again, the

John 6 passage. Do you have assurance of salvation through the Eucharist or any other sacrament?

And if not, why did John write I write these things to you who believe in the name of the

Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life? This is the same question that was brought up in another forum on Friday.

The Protestant position wants to have this security and sureness of salvation.

And as a matter of fact, so often one of the things that divides the Protestant churches, one from another, is that they find assurance in this passage rather than this passage.

And they can't agree among themselves about which passage gives them the assurance and which part of the faith gives them the assurance.

My own as I said on Friday, I have moral assurance of my salvation. Not because of my own worth, not because of who

I am or what I can do, or even the actions I do just in the state of grace, but because of what Christ does in me.

He gives me the assurance that I'm saved. That Christ gives me that grace of being saved. But I also have to realize that I don't have this absolute assurance of salvation, because I still need to wait until the judgment seat of Christ.

And it will be not just one passage that's one of the whole way of thinking that we have.

If I just believed that then I'd have eternal life. It's all that Christ said. It's all of what

Jesus says about what's necessary for eternal life. Having righteousness greater than that of the Pharisees in order to get into the kingdom of heaven.

If I don't have that righteousness, I can't get there. And so I have to wait until the end of my life to see if I have that.

Also receiving the body and the blood of the Christ. Having faith in Jesus Christ. All of this is part of this process of justification.

And I have to take the whole of the Scripture, not one part, out of context and cling to that as if that will be the splinter upon which

I can float in the flood of sin and death in the world. No. I have to have a whole faith in the whole of Scripture and let

Scripture nourish me and transform me so that as Christ commands

I become perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect, free of all spots and all blemishes, by God's grace.

We do have assurance because of the fact that the righteousness that I have does exceed the scribes and the

Pharisees, Dr. Popper, because it's not my righteousness, it's the righteousness of Jesus Christ who is repeated to me by faith. I hate to sound like a broken record but in reference to this question,

Dr. Ott had said, the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation nobody can know a certainty of faith.

Whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification, end quote.

According to Roman Catholicism, there are conditions that you must fulfill to achieve justification.

According to the Bible, we have been justified in his blood.

All the conditions, my friends, for justification were fulfilled in my substitute,

Jesus Christ. That truly is the difference between us. Friday night I asserted that the difference between us can be based on a number of things but primarily in regards to the absolute sovereignty of God and salvation and the fact that in Roman Catholicism there is no completed work of Christ upon which justification can be based.

And we see it here again. Dr. Popper has to say, I don't have assurance. I have to prove that I have a righteousness that exceeds the scribes and Pharisees.

Dr. Popper, you're a wonderful man. But some of those Pharisees were pretty good guys. And as far as the righteousness that touches the law is concerned,

Paul was doing real well. And he says, I do not want to be found with a righteousness of my own but the righteousness that comes by faith in Philippians chapter 3.

This truly is the difference between us. And I believe that it is the entire testimony of all of Scripture, not just a few passages thrown out of their context, but the entire testimony of Scripture that the work of Jesus Christ justifies those for whom it was made without the actions of man to complete it.

Salvation is of God and of him alone. In the

Old Testament, believers had to not only believe the Passover lamb took away their sins, but they had to eat its flesh.

In 1 Corinthians 5, verses 7 and 8, it says, For our

Paschal Lamb, Christ has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the feast.

Don't we have to do more than believe Christ's death takes away sin?

Don't we also have to partake of his flesh as the Old Testament believers did with the

Passover lamb? Well, of course, I think there's a very grave misunderstanding of the differences that are clearly presented by the

Apostle Paul in the book of Hebrews between the sacrifice of the Old Testament and the completed and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Yes, the Passover pointed to Jesus Christ. The shed blood of the Passover is what caused the destroying angel to pass over the house, not the consummation of the food.

It was the shed blood that caused the death angel to pass over, not the eating of the food.

Secondly, very clearly presented to us in the book of Hebrews are the contrasts between Old Testament and New Testament.

Again, we emphasize that the emphasis that is made in the book of Hebrews is that it is the completed and finished work of Christ, not just as the event, but the finished and completed effect of the death of Christ that brings about salvation.

The question as I recall is something along the lines of do we not need to do more than believe? My belief is not what brings about my salvation.

It is the sovereign grace of God in his election that by his Holy Spirit he regenerates me, he gives me the gift of faith and repentance.

It is not my belief that saves me, my friend, whoever wrote that question. My faith does not add to the work of Christ.

My faith is not, the work of Christ is not incomplete outside of my faith. The work of Christ is complete in and of itself, and I keep going to this passage because I feel that its teaching has been denied more than once.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ sanctifies and perfects those for whom it is made.

Hebrews 10, 10 and 14. There is an effect. Nothing is said there about, well, it provides the possibility of sanctification, it provides the possibility of perfection, but I have to do

X, Y, and Z to add to that. No, the sacrifice actually accomplishes it. We do believe that Christ is our

Passover who is sacrificed. We agree on that. Scripture says so.

As a matter of fact, in Revelation 13, verse 8, Christ is called the Lamb who is slain from the foundation of the world.

In other passages in Revelation, he is still called the Lamb that is slain.

He is seen as the Lamb who is slain. As a matter of fact, because he is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that's why he could celebrate the

Eucharist even before the actual cross. His divinity is beyond time. We do have to keep the

Feast. I want to make sure we stay with the context of what

St. Paul is saying there in 1 Corinthians 5 .8, that we keep it with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and that this is how we are to keep that Feast, and that it's a celebration of sincerity by our living of sincerity and our truth.

I think that this refers not quite so clearly to the Eucharist as such, but especially to the way that we live our lives.

In effect, it still gets at the question of our view of justification we've been talking about, mainly the issue that we have to continue to grow in this and keep this

Feast of sincerity and truth. I know Mr. White would keep that, and as a matter of fact, he, like most believing

Protestants, do live this out as their sanctification. We see this as part of the sacrifice, and that we're called to participate in this sacrifice.

The Eucharist itself, perhaps can be seen as a model of this, that Christ, who is sacrificed once and for all, that is the once and for all event, is something that we continue to celebrate ourselves and continue to keep this

Feast as we celebrate the Eucharist each day and each week. In John chapter 4,

Jesus says, He is the living water. He who drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.

Why is bread bread, but water is not water? Again, why isn't water transubstantiated?

As you said before, with doors, shepherds, and everything else that Jesus uses as an image of himself, he doesn't command it.

It's just simply that. Had he commanded it, we would do it. He didn't command it, so we don't do it.

Therefore, that's why. That plain and simple. We've gone over that a number of times, but I'll leave it at that.

Again, we are brought to this issue that the Roman Catholic methodology of interpretation, Dr. Parker earlier said, is, means, is.

This is how the church has always understood this. In John 15, when Jesus said, I am the vine, he used the exact same term.

There he used, I mean. In the other passages, it's asked in third person singular. Is means is.

So Jesus is the vine, and Dr. Parker says, ah, but you don't have this imperative command.

You don't have poieo, the imperative that you have in the other passages where Jesus says, do this in remembrance of me.

Well, I certainly do not believe that simply placing imperative in the passage means transubstantiation or changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but in John 15, 4, in the same passage where Jesus is using the symbol of his being the vine, we are the branches, he uses the imperative.

Abide in me. And that is the imperative of Menno to abide in Christ, and therefore are we to say, well,

Dr. Parker, you said there's no imperative there. Well, here we've got an imperative in John 15, 4.

It's used in a symbolic way. I think all of this is pointing out the fact that it is a very selective methodology.

It is very selective in saying, well, we're going to accept it as literal here. We're going to push for a literal understanding of what is clearly, in my opinion, symbolic language here, but not over here.

And the full reason is, well, there's an imperative here. Jesus tells us to do this. But all

Jesus is telling us to do is to participate in the Lord's Supper as a memorial to him, not to change bread and wine into his body and blood to bring about a perpetuatory sacrifice because the scriptures over and over again say the only perpetuatory sacrifice is the death of Jesus Christ.

We have seen over and over again that the work of Christ differs from that of the sacrifice of the mass, therefore they cannot possibly do the same thing.

First of all, I would like to mention one thing that Dr. Pacwa has said. He has said over and over again, we are justified, we are sanctified by the merits of Christ.

But I want to point out to you and I would like to know Dr. Pacwa's comments on this, that Roman Catholicism teaches, for example, that those who are in purgatory are purged and receive satisfaction through satisfacio, that is, suffering of atonement.

Their own sufferings are seen as having merit and providing atonement in the sight of God.

And given the fact that in Roman Catholicism it is our good works performed in the state of grace through the meritorious in God's sight that form the foundation of our receiving eternal life,

I think it must be emphasized that salvation in Roman Catholicism is not solely based upon the merits of Jesus Christ and I continue to assert that Christian salvation can only be based solely upon the work of Jesus Christ, no synergism, either

Christ or nothing. Hebrews chapter 10 again, For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.

Otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had a consciousness of sins, but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins, year by year.

My friends, I must assert to you with all the love and integrity in my heart, that that passage clearly describes for me the

Roman Catholic concept of the mass. Why? Listen to the parallels. It is offered over and over again.

The worshipers are not fully cleansed. They continue to have a consciousness of sins which brings them back again.

There is a reminder of sins year by year, day by day, week by week, when an offering for sin is offered over and over again.

The contrast that is made by the God inspired word is that the sacrifice of Christ is not like the old sacrifices.

It is not like the old sacrifices. It is non -repetitive. Why? Because if a sacrifice is repeated, then it shows by its repetition its imperfection, and the sacrifice of Christ is perfect in and of itself.

That is why in verse 10 the writer can say that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

One event, yes. One effect. Not a pool that is created, a potential atonement, a real atonement, an atonement in reality.

It brings about the perfection of all those who in God's sovereignty have been united with Jesus Christ, who die with Him on the cross of Calvary, who are raised up with Him in Resurrection, Ephesians chapter 2.

It sanctifies them. He, offering that sacrifice, sits down.

Not sitting down, standing up, sitting down, standing up. The old priest, he was always standing, because his work was never finished.

But Jesus Christ sits down, because His work is finished. It is complete.

It is done. From henceforth, waiting until His enemies have made a footstool, but He having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.

One sacrifice. He sits down, in verse 14, for by one offering He has perfected,

He has completed all those for whom it is made, my friend. Perfected! If you cannot assert that the

Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass perfects completely for all time those for whom it is made, you cannot call it the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It is an impossibility. We can speak about whether to take this passage literally or that as a symbol, all we want, but this is clear, plain, non -symbolic, direct teaching of the

Word of God, and if we neglect to understand it, we neglect it at the risk of our souls. Where there is forgiveness of these things, verse 18, there is no longer any offering for sin, and a

Christian, if he is anything, is a forgiven person. All of our sins have been nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ.

And therefore, in the Christian Church, there can be no more offering for sin. And we have heard that the

Council of Trent has clearly asserted that the Mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice, therefore, my friends, it is not the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Over and over again, over the past evenings when Dr. Pacwa and I have debated, the issue has frequently come back to the same area, and I feel that it is absolutely necessary that we all understand tonight where I'm coming from in regards to this thing.

We have talked about justification. Dr. Pacwa talks about how we need he who does righteousness, he is the one who is righteous.

I agree. I agree. I agree. He who has been made righteous in the blood of Jesus Christ will do righteousness, but the righteousness by which

I stand before God is not my own. That passage in 1 John is descriptive, not prescriptive.

It describes the person who has been changed by God. Very clearly. Very clearly.

But the righteousness I have, the righteousness that I have, that exceeds, describes, and says, is not my own.

It is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ which is given to me by faith. But the real underlying basis, the real underlying conflict between us,

Dr. Pacwa, is that I believe that God in his infinite and eternal mercy, grace, and sovereignty, before I had ever taken a breath or done anything, united me with Jesus Christ, Ephesians 1, verse 4, he united me with him as my head.

He didn't have to. He did so solely on the basis of his own will.

Ephesians 1, Romans 9 makes this very clear. Therefore, Jesus Christ is my head.

He is my substitute. He substituted for me. My sin is placed upon my substitute, all of it.

His righteousness is placed upon me. I stand before God clothed in his righteousness.

He bears my sins on the tree in my place. It is the work of God, solely the work of God.

It is based solely upon the grace of God. Salvation is solely of God. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

That is exactly what I'm asserting. And that's exactly what our Lord Jesus Christ asserted in John chapter 6.

John chapter 6, right before the passage where the Roman Catholic goes and says, well, as Dr.

Pacwa said this evening, you must you must participate in this

Eucharistic sacrifice to have eternal life. And I say, wait a minute.

Eternal life? Eternal life? Yes. I will raise him up on the last day. John 5, 54.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. Interesting that Jesus had said in the previous chapter,

John 5, 24, truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.

What happened to the Eucharist? Are we just starting to line up of all these things we need to do to have eternal life?

Well, we need to believe, we need to hear the Father, we need to be eating, present tense, ongoing action, eating his flesh, drinking his blood on a continuous action every single day.

Maybe, I don't know. Do we have to be doing this and that's how we receive eternal life? No! That's not what Jesus is saying. That's not what

Jesus is saying. Before he makes this statement in John 6, 53 and 54, he makes the statements he does in John 6, 37 through 40.

Listen to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. All that the Father gives me shall come to me. Do you believe it?

That's where we differ. That's where we differ on justification, that's where we differ on the work of Christ. From the

Roman Catholic perspective, I hear Dr. Pacwa saying, well God has made salvation available.

He has laid out the plans by his grace, but without my doing this and this and this and this and going through this sacrament and this sacrament and doing these good works and these meritorious good things, all that work of God is of not.

Oh, it's there and he's done everything he wanted to do, but without my works, without my activities, well,

God may have from all eternity desired my salvation, but he's left impotent.

He's left helpless. He can only give me predisposing grace, but he can't accomplish the salvation of his people.

But Jesus said, Jesus told us he laid down his life for the sheep.

Can you imagine one of the sheep being lost? Can you imagine one of the sheep? Well, there's one of my sheep, but he didn't go through, he didn't bring all his sins to me, he didn't get purified totally, he didn't die in a state of grace, and even though I laid down my life for the sheep, there's one of my sheep that doesn't end up in eternal salvation.

Now, the foundational difference between us is that I believe that God saves sinners.

Not just makes it available, not just helps them out, but may be frustrated by the works of man, God is the sovereign.

He accomplishes his will. He saves sinners. So all the Father gives to the

Son shall come to the Son, and the one who comes to the Son will certainly not be cast out. And then Jesus says, this is the reason

I've come down from heaven. Not to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me.

And what is the Father's will? That he establish a Eucharistic sacrifice. Now, this is the will of him who sent me, verse 39, that of all that he has given me

I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. That is the

Son's will. The will of the Father for the Son. That is what the Son is to do. All that the

Father gives to the Son, the Son will raise up on the last day. Are we to really believe that the

Son may fail in his task? Because we do not avail ourselves of various sacraments?

We do not do enough meritorious works in the state of grace to merit eternal life? No. No.

Jesus Christ will raise us up and give us eternal life. Why?

Why can Jesus make this direct statement that I will do it? Because we are raised up and given eternal life solely because of him and his work.

He does not have to worry about us. He does not have to worry about us completing his work. His work is sufficient.

It is complete. That is the true difference between us. The death of Jesus Christ.

We have discussed it this evening. I hope we have discussed it with reverence that is due to such a subject.

I appreciate Dr. Pacwa's attitude in regard to this issue. I think we both recognize this is not a subject that should be debated with anger and with insults and ad hominems and everything else.

That is not what has happened. I thank you for that. My prayer for every one of us this evening, my sincere prayer, is that God, by his

Holy Spirit, after all the debating is over, after all the questions are asked, will imprint upon our hearts the all -sufficiency of the work of Jesus Christ without the addition of human merits, without the addition of human satisfaction, the all -sufficiency of Jesus Christ and him alone.

That is my prayer. My prayer is that every single one of us today will look to the

Word of God. You will read Hebrews and you will ask yourself the question,

Can I possibly reconcile what the

Roman Catholic Church teaches in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent? It is possible to be justified but die impure.

How are we justified, Romans 5 -9? Can a person be justified in the blood of Christ? Can a person be in the blood of Christ and die impure?

No, my friends. Can a person die impure and then by his own suffering be released from that impurity?

Or does the Scripture state there is one offering of Jesus Christ, not just simply in time as an event, but there is one offering of Jesus Christ that affects, it brings about infallibly, without question that which

God intended it to bring about. And what did God intend the death of Christ to bring about? What did the angel say in regards to the birth of Jesus?

He shall save his people from their sins. He shall not make a way available for them. He shall save them.

And that is what the writer of Hebrews says. He has sanctified us by one offering. He has perfected us by the offering of his body, his blood.

That is the biblical doctrine of the atonement. And since it is not the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass, therefore we cannot accept it.

We must reject it because it is not scriptural. Thank you. As we discuss this issue,

I also want to express my gratitude for the attitude that Mr.

White has taken in it, the seriousness of which he approached it, and the sincerity, and that we could also deal with each other with mutual respect.

That is to me very important. I see this as a very important issue as I mentioned at the beginning.

It is crucial. However, I still have to maintain my disagreement with Mr.

White because I still do not see that his approach, his system of theology is able to fully incorporate all of the scriptures.

As I have said many times, in no way do I want to deny that the effectiveness of Christ and that his death on the cross is truly the sacrifice that is the offering for my sins, for your sins, for the sins of the world.

I believe that because Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, said that he gave up his life, he gives up his life for the sins of the world.

However, I don't see at all, and I don't think that Mr. White has yet proven, that the mass is not a sacrifice, truly, established by Jesus Christ.

That Jesus Christ has not given us merely a symbol, but rather that the sacrificial terms that Jesus chooses so carefully with his infinite mind, knowing fully the scriptures, that he himself has spoken to the prophets, that his own

Holy Spirit has inspired centuries before, that these terms show that he means this to be a sacrifice.

And that the only sacrifice that is possible for the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world is the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, and that is the sacrifice that he makes available to us in the

Eucharist. And not only is this a sacrifice that Jesus, our

Lord, and Redeemer makes available to us, but it is truly a sharing in his body, and a sharing in his blood, the one blood shed on Calvary, the only blood that is possible for us to receive.

And therefore, I come to the Eucharist to receive that precious blood. I call it the precious blood.

And I teach that it's the precious blood, the precious blood of Jesus Christ. However, I also know, as we've said many times in these two debates, that I appropriate it to the best

I can, but not fully. And so, Christ is justifying me. Christ is sanctifying me.

And he does this through the Eucharist. Now, what is it that I look to in the

Scriptures for further support of this? In Colossians chapter 1, verse 24,

Saint Paul says, Now I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf, and fill up the things lacking in the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Now here, Saint Paul speaks of how his own sufferings, and the power of his sufferings, have benefit, not only for himself, but for the sake of the whole church, the body of Christ.

And they make up for what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. Now, this is a mystery.

A mystery of how is it possible for Christ's afflictions not to be enough?

How is that possible? And yet, Saint Paul is the one that says, Saint Paul is the one that says that there are things lacking in the afflictions of Christ, and that he fills them up in his own flesh.

And that's the sacrifice that we bring. That's the sacrifice that we bring, according to the word of Scripture, for those souls in purgatory, for other people who are suffering.

And we bring that, our own afflictions, to Jesus Christ. Why would it be possible for that to have any effect?

Not because of my own human ability. Not because of my own human strength. That's impossible.

I have nothing to give God. But it's because I believe, and because I know that Scripture teaches this, that I belong to the body of Christ by my baptism.

I belong to Jesus Christ so much so that he radically identifies with us. How can

Saint Paul teach the teaching about the body of Christ? That the church is the body of Christ?

The one church established by Jesus Christ on the foundation of his apostles? Because at his conversion,

Jesus says, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting the church? No. Why are you persecuting me?

What you do to those Christians you do to me. That's how radically Jesus identifies with the one church he established out of the apostles.

And therefore, what happens to me, Christ accounts what happens to him.

He incorporates me into himself. He incorporates all of us into himself. And it's done not by my merit, impossible.

Not by the merit of any human being, not the best, impossible. But by his great one at the cross.

And it's this Jesus Christ who so radically identifies himself with us. Who makes us members of his body.

Branches on the vine. Is the same one who makes us priests. 1

Peter 2 verse 5 says, You also as living stones are built up as a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood.

To offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Where do we do that?

At the Eucharist. At the Eucharist we offer up these spiritual sacrifices of ourselves because Paul also says in Romans chapter 1,

Offer your own bodies as a sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice. And it's to offer up myself and give myself to Christ.

Everything that I have. Does it have value in and of itself? No. It's because of the value that Christ gives it by the grace that he offers me.

And it's for this reason that 2 Peter 1 verse 4 says that through these, that is

God's promises, it is said that you may become partakers of the divine nature.

We partake of that. We share in it. We share in it and that's what gives us the priesthood that we have.

That's what gives us the possibility of receiving the Eucharist and entering into that offering of the sacrifice.

Hebrews chapter 13, verse 15 through 16, says Let us offer up a sacrifice of praise continually to God.

This is the fruit of lips confessing his name. But do not be forgetful of the one who does good and shares, for with such sacrifices

God is well pleased. The action, the good and well -pleasing deeds that we do, the sharing that we do, as well as the confession of faith on our lips of the name of Jesus, all of this is considered a sacrifice and this is what we offer.

Where is this offering therefore to take place? Is it something that will be simply in my heart?

No, Jesus Christ has provided for us a place for that sacrifice to be offered and a way for it to be offered and that is the

Eucharist. What a wonderful gift. What a wonderful grace, undeserved and undeservable.

In the Eucharist we see a beautiful experience of how we bring this offering to God.

I as a priest take bread and wine, simple, natural gifts, gifts of the earth and I begin the main action of the

Eucharist by offering them up to God as simple gifts of nature. And this is so wonderful because what

I'm doing with that is symbolizing the giving of all these other natural gifts that are part of human experience.

The gifts of my abilities, especially the gifts of my suffering, the ways in which

I experience pain, the way in which I obey the command of Christ to pick up my cross and follow

Him and share in His cross, not once, but daily

He tells me to pick up my cross and follow Him. Every single day. That's the command of Jesus Christ and that I cannot have my salvation unless I pick up my cross daily and follow

Him. And I offer that to Him so that it's not merely my human suffering.

It's not merely something that goes on in me as a mere natural event. But I bring it to God.

I offer it up to Him, exercising the spiritual priesthood. And in my case, by God's grace and mercy, the sacramental priesthood.

But Christ then takes that natural gift and by the imposition of His Holy Spirit and by His Word, for His Word is spirit and life.

It's that Holy Spirit of God and the Word of Jesus Christ over those natural gifts of bread and wine that transforms them into the body and the blood of Jesus Christ by His command to do this in memory of Him.

To do this as a memorial sacrifice. To do this, that is to sacrifice this. Because that's the word

Jesus says. Sacrifices. Do this as a memorial sacrifice of me.

And as I do that, I'm just His instrument. It's not something that I have myself to do, but it is

Christ working through me and His Holy Spirit and His Word that transforms bread and wine into His body and blood.

But everything else that I've brought there, the praise of my lips, the abilities He's given me, the sufferings

I go through, all of that, He also transforms into Himself.

That's what the Eucharist is about. To take the things that go on inside that I offer up to God, for Him to transform into Himself.

So that it does become one with Christ. It becomes a spiritual sacrifice and that that's what

I give to God. The image though that I like to use for that, I have to admit though because I know that this is great.

It's like exactly what my father had done when I was a little boy. At Christmas time, my father gave me a dollar so I could go and buy my mother a

Christmas present. Now, he gave me the gift. And this is a great image of what's going on.

God gives me the gift that I have to give back to Him. God gives me the various things that go on in my life and I give it back to Him that my father gave me a dollar so I could buy my mother a gift.

I really couldn't buy a gift and that's the way I still am in this life. I am incapable of really giving a gift to God but God gives me the things that I give back to Him.

And he just asks for them back. He just asks, I am pleased with that. My mother was pleased with the small gift

I could give her. But that's not all that goes on in the Eucharist. There's the communion. The communion with Jesus Christ symbolizes

His resurrection. Just as Jesus words in John 6 symbolizes death where He says that it's

His body given up for the world but also resurrection because it is to give life and it's necessary for receiving life.

And Jesus has us experience resurrection when we receive communion. We symbolize it in a small way, an ancient way when we break a particle of the host and put it in the cup to symbolize that His body and blood are joined again together.

See we consecrate and say this is my body, this is my blood, that's why Jesus did it.

And that separation of body and blood, body and blood is separate at death. That's why it symbolizes

Christ's death. It's a sacrament, a representing of Christ's death right there. It's separate.

But when they're joined together, symbolically by the breaking of the fragments, but most importantly when

I receive communion it symbolizes resurrection. And I have faith that Christ will bring resurrection out of my sufferings as He brought it out of His own.

Out of my cross He'll bring resurrection. Out of what He does for me He'll bring His good. And that's what

I look forward to. And that's what I try to live. And I do so by the gift that He gives me, the gift of grace.

And I invite you to the same. His gifts are available to all of us. And all who would come to Him may receive them.

May all of you come to that with a heart, because as we've said so many times tonight, it's not

I who will call you. I can't call you to the Eucharist. It's God, the

Father, who will lead you to Christ. May He do so and may you respond and give your hearts openly and willingly to this