Even passages RC’s reference in support of their view of the Eucharist proclaim this in unmistakable terms. In John 6 Jesus declares that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will infallibly be raised to enjoy everlasting life (6:50-54 etc.). The entire passage is shot through with the language of necessity.

Nevertheless, the RC Mass is does not relieve those who come of the full penalty of sin. It does not guarantee them eternal life. It must be repeated endlessly and to only limited effect.

The reseason for this discrepancy is that John 6 is not speaking primarily of the Eucharist. (Though as a secondary, derivative referent it is possible and even likely insofar as the Supper pictures the gospel).

Rather a careful reading shows that Jesus is speaking of coming in true faith to the supreme sacrifice that is his death. Eating and drinking are manifestly metaphors for belief. He mixes the literal (belief) and figurative (eating/drinking) throughout so that we may discern the meaning of the vivid language – “He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never go thirsty” and so forth.

As Jesus said at the end of the discourse, “the words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” His listeners made the fatal error of reducing what he said to something carnal and finite. We must not do the same. IYet, I submit for your consideration that this is precisely what the Roman doctrine does.

I hate to break this to you, but you are NOT Torah observant, because you do not have access to the sacerdotal and sacrificial system instituted by Moses. Most of the Torah cannot be fulfilled by you because the Temple was destroyed in accordance with God’s will and in fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s prophecy (Mt 24:34).

If the Torah is the most important set of religious instructions, why has God seen fit to abolish the Temple which is required for its obedience? If God wanted the Temple to stand, then it would stand i in Jerusalem. Instead, he has given us the Third Temple – the Holy Catholic Church – and the priesthood of Melchizedek – who was a priest greater than Aaron (who molded the golden calf and taught Israel to commit idolatry).

Thus, it is 100% impossible to be “Torah-observant” according to your interpretation. The Prophet Daniel prophesied this, as well.

Remember also that Moses, in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, said that another Prophet would come and that we should listen to Him. This is the true meaning of being “Torah observant.” We listen to the Messiah who is the Torah made flesh – the Wisdom of God in our midst.

Catholic Christians still claim to have the daily sacrifices and tabernacle of Moses. Moreover, in Isaiah 6619-22, it is prophesied that God will take Gentiles to be His priests and Levites. We have that, too!!!!

We actually do fulfill the Mosaic precepts as Catholic Christians – unlike “Rabbinical” Judaism and Protestantism.

Sincerely in JESUS Christ the Proverbial Wisdom of God and the High King and Priest of the Everlasting Covenant,

Taylor Marshall

PS: You’re purposefully misspelling of the Messiah’s name to evoke the name of a pagan god is highly offensive. I hope that you will avoid this grave sin in the future. Moreover, if you really want to avoid Anglicization – write in Hebrew characters…not ad hoc English.

I would dispute that the Roman Catholic does not depend upon the Law for justification. Indeed, I contend that this is precisely what is going on, at least in part and considered from a certain perspective. Incidentally, I would love to get your feedback on some of the other recent comments I have submitted. I really want to understand what you guys believe and where we agree and differ. Blessings.

I also hope not to sound offensive. However, let me suggest that you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject. First, the language of nullify isn’t quite right. Also, the Church doesn’t believe that only the ceremonial are fulfilled/nullified or whichever you are asserting.

I would challenge you to realize that your position approximates a more subtle version Marcionism.

Please read quickly what Saint Thomas Aquinas taught about the New fulfilling the Old Law as regards the moral, ceremonial, and judicial precepts. I think that you will be pleasantly surprised:

Summa theologiae I-II q. 107 a. 2
http://newadvent.org/summa/2107.htm#article2

I’m organizing a doctoral dissertation on the subject so I’m pretty excited about it. Pardon my overzealous approach. I hope that I haven’t spoken too strongly.

In Christ,
Taylor

You, I think, see in this validation and continuity with the Hebraic system. I see in it a failure to get the big point of the New Testament. One of us is mistaken. Just consider the possibility.

Good comment and solid objection.

However, I have a couple of questions. Help me understand what you’re saying here:

“if the Mass is truly a sacrifice and indeed a presentation of Christ’s once for all sacrifice, why does it not have the properties and effects of that sacrifice as set forth in scripture?”

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass does have the properties and effects of the sacrifice of Christ, because it is that same sacrifice. It offers blood. It remits sin. It communicates grace. It accomplishes communion between God and man and men with one another – all because it *is* Christ’s sacrifice – one and the same. However, the mode of offering is different.

It fulfills the todah (“thanksgiving”) sacrifice of the Old Covenant, which was brought to the forefront of God’s economy by King David. The Jewish rabbis even believed that only the today/thanksgiving sacrifice would endure into the Messianic age (which is exactly what Catholics believe!!!). This is why the Apostles called it “eucharistia” which is the Greek for “thanksgiving.”

Also, it is not the historic (or biblical) teaching that Christ “abrogates the Law” or any part of it. Christ “fulfills the Law”. He fulfills the moral, ceremonial, and judicial precepts and transforms them.

We still uphold the Law through faith – we just don’t depend on it for justification! Law cannot justify. I think that we Catholics are in full agreement with you on that.

Your brother in Christ,
Taylor

I also dispute that the New Covenant only abrogates the specific ceremonial dimension of the Law. When Paul says we are dead to the law and saved by faith apart from the works of the Law, he is talking about something much bigger than mere ritual (which, in any case, is closely paralleled in the RC system, I might add). Consider how Paul says that the Law is written on the hearts of the gentiles (Rom. 2), that it arouses sin in the natural man (does mere ceremony do this?), and his specific mention of the command against coveting in Rom. 7. It is manifestly the case that he was speaking of the Law in its entirety, ethical and ceremonial.

What Paul is saying is that the believer in Christ is no longer under the Law as a covenant of works that can alternately bless or curse, give or take life. Through the body of Christ, who was made a curse for us, we died to the Law in all its fullness so that we might live to God and truly fulfill the law. The Law has a continuing function in the life of the faithful, but not as a basis for our standing with God. Such a status can kill, but it can never give life and is the antithesis of the gospel. Understanding this is utterly essential. If you get this wrong your understanding of what the New Covenant brings will be truncated at best, if not utterly undone.

100% agree. I would only add that the original Mosaic economy had an eye to what would eventually become the international Davidic manifestation of “being a light to all nations” – it was just put on probation because of the golden calf incident and through the subsequent probational Levitical priesthood. This turned Israel inward instead of outward.

Of course, Jeff, I’m preaching to the choir – you’ve read Kinship so you already know all about this.

Thanks again for the rocking review!

in Christ,
Taylor