In your last
e-mail you wrote that the Father does not desire the blood per
se, but that he desired the humility and love that accompanied
the sacrifices. I am totally in agreement with you. There's
nothing about blood in and of itself that God likes, but rather
the selflessness that accompanies the blood.
Yes, indeed.
You also said that
we don't need to make other self-donations to God, that Jesus'
self-donation was sufficient for obtaining forgiveness. I am in
agreement with you again. I know that in the Old Testament,
animal sacrifices were offered to God in order to procure
forgiveness. But those days are gone. Forgiveness has been won. I
never wanted to suggest that animal sacrifices could ever procure
forgiveness.
Yes, I understood
that. But, it is important to point out that this is what animal
sacrifice (in all its various forms) was essentially based on.
In the Old
Testament however, the Levites were not expecting a Spotless
Lamb. Rather, they really believed that their animal sacrifices
would do the job.
Yes. When I wrote
that such animal sacrifices (or the humility associated with such
animal sacrifices) was only of value when connected to the
perfect Sacrifice that was to come, I did not mean to imply that
the ancient Jews understood all this. Rather, the connection was
a mysterious and implicit one. The Jews did know that their
sacrifices lacked perfection (e.g. Jeremiah); and they knew that
no one kept the Law perfectly, despite the unquestionable demands
of the Law. Thus, rolling around in the Jewish mentality was
always the idea of a perfect Servant Who could please God ...and
this person was usually equated with the Messiah. Little did they
realize the full, Incarnational extent by which this would be
made a reality ...in which God Himself would become man so as to
perfectly keep His own Law. :-) But, again, I didn't mean to
suggest that the Jews had an integrated understanding of this.
Most of them just assumed that the animals would appease God as
much as possible, etc. :-) For the most part, the Jews were not
theologians (or prophets like Jeremiah), but just victims of
their own culture, going through the motions of that culture.
But if they were
offered simply to place God in a position of debt, they had no
spiritual value in the eyes of God. If they were offered with
contrition and true sorrow, then they DID have the ability to
stay God's anger.
Well, ... Two
things: 1) God doesn't really get "angry." :-) And, 2)
Yes, true contrition did supply value to their animal sacrifices,
EXCEPT (as we know from the Christian perspective) this was only
the case because such contrition was mystically associated with
the Sacrifice of Jesus --the Sacrifice that all the animal
sacrifices prefigured. In other words, all forgiveness (whether
before or after the time of Christ) flows from the Cross and its
Divine merits, and there is no forgiveness outside of it.
So if the Old
Testament sacrifices were offered in faith, they COULD actually
please God. That's the bottom line.
Yes. But, again,
not apart from the Cross that they prefigured.
They could please
God. And I am sure that God was pleased with many animal
sacrifices in the Old Testament.
Only because He
saw them as antetypes of the Cross / earthly life of Jesus that
was to come.
But not to the
blood per se, but rather to the selflessness that accompanied the
sacrifice.
Yes, but again ...
The selflessness (and contrition) was something that existed
***outside of the law***. Under the law, the guilt (with its
corresponding punishments) REMAINED!. Rather, it was only the
coming Redemption of Christ (applied to the OT sinner **outside
of time**) that affected his or her forgiveness. The contrition
itself was worthless apart from Christ, as is still the case with
both Christians as well as non-Christian believers in God today.
Now I am sure that
when the newly converted Levitical priest offered his daily
animal sacrifice, he did not do so to obtain forgiveness.
Not if he was
properly catechized, no. However, there is evidence to suggest
that many Jewish Christians **still** failed to "get
it" or to understand all the nuances of their new Christian
faith (e.g. Acts 18:24-26, Acts 19:1-7, Titus 1:10-16, etc.). I'm
sure this must have included a few Levites. ;-)
Rather, I am sure
that he did so to please God (again) not that God would be
pleased by the blood per se, but by the contrition and selfness
that accompanied the sacrifice.
Well, ... As I
said before (assuming that he was properly catechized), the
Levite would not have actively offered animal sacrifices on
behalf of himself or his fellow Christians, but (because of his
duty as a Jewish priest), he would continue to offer sacrifices
for his non-Christian brethren who, as yet, could only
"connect" to God through him (their priest) and through
the Old Covenant. But, the overriding assumption of these
Christian Levites was that all Israel would soon convert to
Christ and that the total passing away of the Old Covenant (with
its animal sacrifices) would accompany the eminent Second Coming
of Christ. Yet, this isn't what happened. Rather, the Temple was
destroyed and the New Covenant continued apart from an immediate
Second Coming. One could strongly argue that Jewish Christianity
was not prepared for this, or at least that it assumed otherwise.
You wrote that
"we do not need to make **other** self-donations of God,
that is, self-donations that are **apart from** the self-donation
of Christ". You then said that, "rather our
self-donation must be IN Christ". I am not sure if I know
what you mean. You seem to be saying that since the animal is not
"in Christ", that is, since the animal's blood is not
ontologically and mystically the same thing as Christ's blood,
then to offer it would constitute an offering **apart from**
Christ. You seem to be saying that an animal sacrifice would not
constitute an offering "in Christ", because the blood
is not the same.
Well, ... That's
part of it, yes. Essentially, the animal sacrifices of old were
offered as symbolic "proxies" for the blood / self /
life of the sinner. It was the Jew himself who sinned, and the
Jew who deserved death or suffering because of this sin. Yet,
instead of experiencing death or suffering himself, his sin was
placed upon the animal, who was offered up instead of him. In
Christ, however, we do not offer up vicarious animals, but rather
our very selves. Our blood is one with His Blood (via the
Eucharist), and it is our blood / self / life that we offer
...Whether in little ways (e.g. daily mortifications) or in the
most extreme way (martyrdom for the Name of Christ). Thus, the
sacrifices of the New Covenant (which are merely personal,
Eucharistic-like re-presentations of the one Sacrifice) are more
intimate and superior than the (animal) sacrifices of the Old
Covenant. So, given what animal sacrifice really implied, it is
perfectly clear that they are no longer necessary because the
Incarnation and one-Blood Covenant of Christ makes them both
outdated and pointless.
However I would
have to ask, 'were not the Old Testament sacrifices - the ones
that pleased God - (in actuality) "in Christ"?
Hummmm. Well, I'd
say that they were "connected to" Christ, but not
"in" Him. That is to say, given that there was, as yet,
no Incarnation, there could be no one-Flesh / one-Blood Covenant
between the OT sinner and the eternal Son of God. For example,
... A modern Jew who loves God and does his best to serve Him and
keep the Commandments will be saved on the Last Day. Why? Because
this Jew lives in, and is connected to, the grace of Christ (just
like the sincere OT penitent who offered animal sacrifice). Yet,
we would not say that such modern Jews are "in Christ."
...Because they, unfortunately, are not. Rather, their salvation
would be an example of incidental grace ("the Spirit blows
where He will"), and not the Sacramental grace of the
Church, which alone is "in Christ."
Although the Old
Testament priests did not mystically unite their sacrifices to
Christ (since they were unaware that Christ would be a Spotless
Lamb), God somehow accounted for this and counted their
sacrifices (the ones offered in faith) as belonging "in
Christ".
No, Damien, not
"in Christ." Rather, "connected to" Christ
...meaning that the incidental grace flowed from Him. For
example, ... Just because a sincere 1st Century Jew offered
sacrifice for his sins (being truly sorry for those sins and
expressing true love for God), this did not mean that he was
excused from Christian Baptism. ...Baptism being the Sacrament
that would place him "in Christ." Take Acts 2:37-38,
for example. Here, Peter tells the Jewish pilgrims at Pentecost
(all of whom came to Jerusalem to **offer sacrifices** at the
Temple) that they must not only repent, but **be Baptized for the
forgiveness of their sins**. In the Jewish understanding, an
animal sacrifice did not absolve the person completely from sin,
but merely "covered" the sin ("kippur" in
Hebrew), so as to make a "legal deferment" and excuse
the sinner from the punishments directly prescribed for said sin
in the Law of Moses. Baptism, however, produced the Sacramental
"death" and "rebirth" for the sinner, making
him a new creation who was not the same person who committed the
sin. This is what it meant to be "in Christ." The value
of the animal sacrifice was only a "temporary fix" at
best, and a prelude for one's eventual entering "into
Christ." So, big difference.
So to the extent
that the Old Testament sacrifices were offered;in Faith, God
counted them as being offered "in Christ".
Uh, ... No.
Because, if this were the case, then OT Jews could go to Heaven
immediately upon death. This was not the case, however. Even the
OT saints like Abraham and the other patriarchs did not ascend to
Heaven until Christ Himself took them there via His Ascension.
Before that time, both OT saints and sinners were subject to
Death / Hell (Hades) / Sheol; and Jesus had to preach to them
during His time among the dead. See: 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6. See
also Luke 16:22ff (the "Bosom of Abraham" and/or the
"Paradise of the Fathers" was not Heaven, but part of
Sheol, the realm of the dead), and Matt 27:51-53.
All the OT
sacrifices did (assuming they were offered with sincere
contrition) was preserve righteous Jews from fiery Gehenna, set
them apart from the wicked, and provide the opportunity for them
to eventually accept the saving Covenant of Christ, whether in
this life or in the next (1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6).
Now I would
likewise have to say that when the newly converted Levitical
priest offered his daily animal sacrifice to God, he did so in
union with the sacrifice of Christ.
Not possible,
Damien. The Sacrfice of Christ was a Covenant that **replaced**
the Old Covenant because it was superior to it. If a Levitical
priest did such a thing, he would be guilty of the kind of poor
catechesis I referenced among some Jewish Christians above.
Again, ... The Levites offered up sacrifices that were donated by
non-Christian Jews ...the anti-Christian Pharisees and Sadducees
among them. How could a Christian Levite offer up the sacrifice
of an anti-Christian in union with the Cross of Christ? Not
possible. And, even for Jews who were pro-Christian, or Christian
themselves, to offer the Old Covenant in union with the New (as
opposed to **ancillary** to the New) would be directly claiming
that Christ was still bound by the Old Covenant! :-) ...OR, in
other words, that the priesthood of Melchizedek (that of Christ)
was compatible with that of Levi. That would be a major no-no for
a 1st Century Christian. Rather, the Christian Levites, and all
Christians who were practicing Jews, served an Old Covenant that
ran alongside and **parallel to** the New Covenant, and was soon
to be replaced by the New Covenant. And while it was surely
recognized that the rites of the Old Covenant had connections to
the New, they did not "mix" the two for fear of
blaspheming the New Covenant. Indeed, what you're suggesting
above is akin to a Jewish Christian circumcizing his son **in
union with** his Christian Baptism. However, what this would
imply is that Baptism isn't enough to make one a full member of
the Chosen People of God. ...That more is required to be a full
disciple of Christ (the error of the Jewish Christians in Acts
15). In the same way, if the Christian Levites offered up animal
sin offerings "in union with" the Cross of Christ and
the Eucharist, they would be saying that the Cross / Eucharist is
not enough to atone for sins. It would not be an additional
indulgence or penance, but an **additional sacrifice**! This must
be kept in mind.
I would have to
say that the Christian Levite offered the animal sacrifice IN
Christ
Again, this is not
possible. This would imply that the Old Covenant was/is a
Covenant "in Christ," which would mean that all Jews
were/are Christians automatically. Not possible. Rather, the
Christian Levites continued to serve an Old Covenant that was
outside of Christ with the intention of "phasing it
out" in favor of the New Covenant in Christ. Remember, to be
a Christian, these Levites had to take Christ's words seriously;
and Christ directly prophecized that the Temple was soon to be
destroyed. This meant that the Christian Levites knew that the
animal sacrifices would soon come to an end (although, as I said
above, they probably associted this with the Second Coming). So,
while they continued to serve the Old Covenant, and those who
only knew the Old Covenant, they were expecting to be "out
of a job" pretty soon and looking forward to it. :-) They
did not think that their service to the Old Covenant was doing
anything more than preserving the Old Covenant until all who
practiced it could be converted to Christ (the very mission of
the Twelve Apostles, who, unlike Paul, focused their
evangelization efforts almost exclusively on the Jews). There was
no "mixing" or "assimilation" attempted
between the two Covenants. Why should there be if the Old was
about to pass away?
For, as you say,
it is not the blood per se that God is interested in, but rather
the self-donation that accompanies the sacrifice.
True. But, Damien
.... With the New Covenant established, there was a much better
form of self-donation available. Levites who were truly Christian
would have known this quite well.
So, if God is not
really interested in the animal's blood, but the state of being
that accompanies the sacrifice, then the animal sacrifice could
be counted as being offered in Christ.
Sorry, it cannot.
And, I'll explain why immediately below ...
If I give up
alcohol (as a way of pleasing God) one could easily say that my
giving up alcohol does not constitute a sacrifice "in
Christ", since the alcohol is not in Christ. But we both
know that such a thing can be done(and is done, every day by
some) in Christ. I am not suggesting that animal sacrifices can
obtain forgiveness, but rather that they can please God. I cannot
see how animal sacrifices can't be offered "in Christ"
- the Christian Levites managed to do it!
:-) Well, again,
the Christian Levites **didn't** "manage to do it" at
all, because their animal sacrifices were not "in
Christ," but according to the **OLD** Covenant.
What's more, as I
also touched on above, what you're clearly doing is confusing OT
animal sacrifice with Christian penance or indulgences. They are
NOT the same thing. If a **Christian**, who happens to have a
problem with alcohol, abstains from it for love of God, this is
not an additional sacrifice that is outside of the Cross of
Christ, but rather a personal mortification through which he is
offering up his very self, which is one Body / one Blood with
Christ. However, if a Christian, who happens to be a 1st Century
Levitical priest, offers up an animal sacrifice according to the
prescriptions of the Old Covenant, then this is NOT a penance or
indulgence for himself (and certainly not for the non-Christian
Jew he is serving!) because it is an **additional** sacrifice
that is outside of His one-Body / one-Blood Covenantial
commitment in Christ (and outside of his Jewish client's
experience, since this Jew doesn't even know Christ). So, for a
number of reasons, there would be no way for the Christian Levite
to offer up an animal "in union with Christ," even if
he wanted to.
A good example of
what I'm talking about, Damien, would be the Jansenist heresy,
which still effects the English-speaking (and especially the
Irish) Catholic Church to this day. More of a cultural
sensibility than an actual doctrine, Jansenism moves the Catholic
to behave as if God thinks he or she is the scum of the earth,
and as if God wants to see them suffer before He will pay any
attention to them. Thus, the Catholic Jansenist practices all
sorts of "mortifications," NOT to grow in holiness or
build up spiritual resistance to sin, but to "please
God." In this, a Jansenist "Catholic" might do
something like beat himself with a stap until he bleeds. Yet,
given his intention (to "please God" who would
otherwise think him "unworthy"), the Jansenist is not
offering up the sacrifice of himself in union with the Cross of
Christ, but is rather offering up an **additional sacrifice**
(his own pain and suffering) in order to "satisfy God"
and "make God like him." Now, at first glance, one
might have great difficulty distinguishing this sort of behavior
from something like giving up alcohol or performing some other
penance or mortification in order to grow in holiness. Yet, the
difference is quite apparant in that the latter (e.g. giving up
alcohol) would be done with the realization that such a
"sacrifice" has no value in and of itself, but one is
already in God's favor by freely accepting His Son --abstinance
from alcohol being just an "indulgent" manifestation of
that acceptance. However, the Jansenist who beats himself, or who
even abstains from alcohol, does this **apart from** His
acceptance of Christ. In other words, in his mind, his free
acceptance of Christ was not enough to please God, and he must
beat himself or abstain from alcohol before God will love him or
accept him seriously as a son. Well, when it comes to OT animal
sacrifices, which can only be appreciated and practiced WITHIN
their intented Old Covenant context as sacrifices meant to atone
for, or "cover," sins, a Christian Levite could only
mimic the behavior of a Jansenist (and offer an **additional**
sacrifice aside from the Cross of Christ). He could not offer his
OT animal sacrifice as a penance or "indulgent"
manifestation of the Christian Covenant. This would not be
possible given the context, which is that of a sin offering
intended to heal the relationship between a penitent and God --to
win God's favor through something offered **in addition to** the
Cross of Christ.
As for modern
animal sacrifice, ... This too would be an example of Jansenism.
If God can accept the sorrw of a person apart from their
penitental sacrifice, but based solely on their sincere
acceptance of Christ, how could animal sacrifice be anything
other than an additional, and competing, sacrifice for a
Christian? For example, a Christian who gives up alcohol or some
other harmful thing does so for the good of his body and to
conform to the perfection of Christ Jesus. Yet, animal sacrifice
does not accomplish this. Thus, how would you suggest that animal
sacrifice can be "plugged into" the Christian Covenant?
...without it becoming an occassion of Jansenism, that it? :-)
Since, the
Christian Levites, up till 70 A.D., offered animal sacrifices to
God, (and did so"in Christ" in order to please Him,
(not to gain forgiveness) then I do not see how the practice
cannot "in principle" be revived.
Again, because ...
a) It was not "in Christ"; b) It was not for Christians
but an element of the Old Covenant; and c) Animal sacrifice
intended to please God **in addition to** the Cross of Christ,
not in accord with it. Again, I ask you ... How can killing an
animal (as opposed to giving up alcohol, for example) make you
grow in holiness? Is it (like giving up alcohol or another
personal penance) a indulgent manifestation of your acceptance of
Christ's free offer of salvation? Or is it not an additional
sacrifice, like when a Jansenist beats himself or practices some
other mortification with the intention of "pleasing
God"? :-) Damien, Catholics do not practice mortification,
penance, or indulgences in order to "please God" or
"get on His good side" (e.g. animal sacrifices under
the Old Covenant). Rather, we please God by willingly accepting
the freely-offered salvation of His Son; and we only practice
mortification, penance, and indulgences to remove personal
obstabcles to accepting that free offer, so as to accept it more
fully. Big difference.
Anyway ... I look
forward to your thoughts. :-)
You then went on
to say that the God only accepts human (i.e., Christian) blood,
and NOT animal blood. I see a problem here. You say that God only
accepts human blood under the New Covenant but I cannot see how
it is that you arrived at that conclusion. I do not see HOW it
necessarily follows that animal blood is not acceptable to God.
Just because there is one blood sacrifice (Jesus') doesn't
necessarily mean that another type of blood sacrifice (animal) is
excluded. I cannot seem to be able to connect the dots. Can you
help me with this one?
Okay. I think I
see the nature of your difficulty with what I said. First of all,
there's the matter of context, which requires a realization of
what animal sacrifice was really used for. What I said was
**not** that God 'only accepts human blood rather than animal
blood.' Rather, what I said (and perhaps I could have been
clearer) is that only one Blood Sacrifice is acceptable for THE
FORGIVENESS OF SINS under the New Covenant ...or any Covenant,
for that matter. :-) ...And that Blood Sacrifice is the Cross of
Christ. Conversely, all animal sacrifices, whether performed
before or after the institution of the New Covenant, were merely
a prefigurement of Christ's Blood Sacrifice.
Now, ... The
ancient Jews used to use animal sacrifces as ***sin offerings**.
However, as Scripture tells us quite clearly, God never cared
about the sacrifices themselves. He didn't want to see people
kill animals or desire their blood. Rather, what He wanted was
the humility and contrition that accompanied these sacrifices. In
this, a Jew who was sorry for his sins **showed this** by giving
up a valuable piece of property (e.g. a sheep), and so took his
repentance seriously.
Now, ... What you
are apparently suggesting is that we Christians could do the same
today. What you're apparently saying is, just as we Catholics
might perform a penance or go on a pilgrimage (so as to obtain an
plenary indulgence via total contrition and sorrow for our sins),
we might also sacrifice a ram or a goat (assuming that this ram
or goat is of value to us), and obtain our indulgence this way.
However, such a perspective has the whole principal of sacrifice
backwards! :-) ...Especially as it relates to ancient animal
sacrifice being a mere **prefigurement** of the Cross of Christ.
Yet, let me illustrate what I mean ...
Once again, the
ancient Jew who sacrificed an animal in repentance for his sins
was giving up something of personal value --a metaphor for giving
himself back to God. Yet, as Scripture clearly tells us, the old
Jewish prescriptions (the legalistic system) could not produce
true righteousness ...UNLESS these imperfect sacrifices were
mystically united to the future Cross of Christ (e.g. Elizabeth
and Zechariah). In this, the imperfect sacrifices relied upon the
eventual appearance of the One Who could perform a truly perfect
Sacrifice --a human being Who could **truly** give Himself
completely to God. And this Person of course was Jesus Christ.
Now, ... Just as
with the animal sacrifices, God the Father (despite what some
crypto-Arian Protestants seems to believe) DID NOT desire the
cruel torture and murder of His only begotten Son! :-) He did NOT
desire Jesus' Blood per se. Rather, the Father merely desired
that Jesus go to the utmost extreme of human love, even if that
meant laying down His life to save us. In doing this, Jesus gave
to God the most valuable personal sacrifice imaginable --a total
donation of His perfect humanity; and, in establishing a Covenant
in which we can be one-Body and one-Blood with Him (in which we
can enter into the very same Sonship which Jesus Himself enjoys
with the Father), we DO NOT need to make **other** self-donations
of God. ...that is, self-donations that are **apart from** the
self-donation of Christ. Rather, our self-donation must be IN
Christ; for it is the grace of Christ that allows us to give of
ourselves to God. We do not do this under our own authority or
power.
Thus, all
Christian Sacrifice flows from that one Self-donation of Christ
(made in the context of the Blood Sacrifice of His Cross); and we
do not, like the ancient Jews, need to offer up other things of
personal value (e.g. animal sacrifices) so as to make peace with
God and atonement for our sins. Rather, penance done in the
Catholic Christian context takes place **after** forgiveness and
atonement are already **freely** given (thanks to the Cross of
Christ); and such penance is merely an act of reparation for
spiritual damage that has been done to ourselves (or sometimes to
others). This is extremely different from the Jewish practice
under the Law, where animal sacrifice was offered to affect the
**actual atonement**. In the corrupted, Phariseeic understanding,
for example, these sacrifices were offered in actual **payment**
to God! :-) And, even in the authentic Old Covenant intention,
the sacrifices themselves possessed no reconciling power apart
from the perfect Sacrifice that was yet to come. ...the Sacrifice
that united a righteous Old Testament Jew (e.g. David) with the
truly righteous New Adam, Who alone could perfectly heal the
division between the all-holy God and fallen man.
So, bottom line:
It is not the blood, but the self-donation. And, since our
self-donations to God can only be made in and through the
Self-donation of Jesus Christ, there is no place for animal
sacrifices, or the (inferior) self-donations they represent, in
Christianity. In other words, we do not give ourselves to God by
offering Him a valuable animal, thus winning His favor. Rather,
we give ourselves to God by claimng, and participating in, the
Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Who perfectly won God's favor and in
Whom we can please God perfectly.
You also write ...
The second query
that I have it this: You say that "there are no additional
blood sacrifices under the New Covenant". Agreed. However on
the net, you wrote that "the first Christians (all of whom
were Jewish) possessed **two** priesthoods (the Levitical and the
Messianic), and this was because (until 70 A.D.) they were living
under **two** Covenants (the Old and the New)
**simultaneously**." This is what confuses me. I see a
contradiction here. HOW could the two covenants exist
simultaneously? Given the above, HOW could the Levitical priests
(who had just become Christians) offer to the Lord God two
"dramatically different" sacrifices as you call them,
one of animal blood, the other of Jesus' blood? Sunday would seem
pretty confusing for the newly converted Levitical priest, don't
you think?
I'm very sure it
was, yes. :-) But, here, we must try to understand what it was
like to be a 1st Century Jewish Christian and to live out our
ever-developing awareness of the Christian Covenant within the
context of our pre-existing Jewish culture.
First of all, my
statement stands: "There are no additional blood sacrifices
under the New Covenant." Yet, the Jewish Christians (such as
the Levite converts in Acts 6) were not merely living under the
New Covenant. They were also, at least nominally, living under
the Old Covenant ...as were the Apostles and all other Jewish
Christians until A.D. 70, when the split with Judaism became
permanent and apparent to all. In other words, while they were
free of the requirements of the Old Covenant (St. Peter and St.
Paul clearly knew this), they still remained faithful to them for
the sake of holding communion with, and evangelizing, their
brother Jews. And, again, this state of affairs continued until
at least A.D. 70. In this, one must keep in mind that
Christianity never parted ways with Judaism. Rather, it was
Judaism that parted ways with Christianity. It was the Jews who
walked away from us, and from the Messianic Covenant.
Now, ... You ask
how two Covenants can exist simultaneously. Ah! But, isn't that
the case today? :-) Granted, the Book of Hebrews speaks of the
Old Covenant as "disappearing." Yet, this doesn't mean
that it is gone. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches that the Old
Covenant is still in effect today for our Jewish brethren. Now,
this does not mean that it is the **reigning** Covenant. Rather,
the New Covenant exists as the only reigning Covenant; yet, just
as was the case with the Jews and the Samaritans in Jesus' day
(the Samaritans retaining the old, Mosaic Covenant but lacking
the later, more developed Jewish Covenant through David), it is
perfectly possible for a reigning Covenant to exist side-by-side
with an out-dated, yet still perfectly valid, Covenant. Thus,
when the Apostles and other early Jewish Christians observed both
the prescriptions of the Temple and the Eucharistic celebrations
in their own house-churches, they were indeed participating in
two Covenants: the reigning Covenant and the out-dated one. Yet,
the only reason that they participated in the out-dated one at
all was to draw their Jewish brethren into the fullness of the
New Covenant (the very reason why the Jewish Jesus bothered to
speak to the Samaritan woman in John 4:22). What's more, in
taking part in the rites of the Old Covenant, the Jewish
Christians both realized their imperfect and fleeting nature AND
saw new (Christian) meaning in these old rites and customs ...all
of which were eventually translated into the fully-developed
Christian Liturgy. So, you have to imagine a situation something
like a modern Protestant minister who has come to believe that
Catholicism is true but has not yet given up on his congregation.
Rather, he continues to worship God within his Protestant
tradition, imposing more and more Catholicism on his (imperfect)
Sunday service, until his own flock asks him to leave. This is
**exactly** what happened with the early Jewish Christians who
were literally cast out of the Temple and synagogues. :-)
The Levitical
priests who became Christians knew that their animal sacrifices
were out-dated and had no value in and of themselves. Yet, as
Jewish priests, they still had the duty to offer these sacrifices
for their devout Jewish brethren who had not yet accepted Christ,
and who knew only the Old Covenant. In this, as with the
righteous Jews of the Old Testament (e.g. Elizabeth and
Zechariah), it was possible for such non-Christian Jews to
validly repent for sins by offering an animal sacrifice
...assuming that, as with the righteous Jews of old, this was
done with a sincere heart and in expectation of the perfect
Sacrifice that "was to come." Jesus Himself admits that
this is possible in giving instruction to His own Jewish
disciples: Matthew 5:23-24.
However, the mere
fact that this was the state-of-affairs for our Jewish-Christian
ancestors does not mean that it is proper, or should be revived,
today. This is because: a) The Catholic Church no longer operates
within the context of Mosaic Judaism, nor is it concerned within
evangelizing Mosaic Jews ...because Mosaic Judaism no longer
exists (modern Judaism is Rabbinical Judaism). And b) There is no
Temple in which such sacrifices can be offered, nor is there a
Levitical caste to offer them (again, Mosaic Judaism no longer
exists --modern Judaism is Rabbinical Judaism. It has no
sacrificing priesthood, and is unable to observe a whole myriad
of prescriptions demanded by the Torah). So, while modern Jews
are faithful to the basic tenets of the Old Covenant, they are
not the same formal religion that we both (modern Jews and
Catholics) stem from; and so the one and only reason that our
Jewish Christian forefathers continued to practice animal
sacrifice (i.e., to maintain communion with their Jewish
brethren) is no longer pertinent today. There is thus no reason,
whether culturally, formally, or theologically, for Catholics to
participate in animal sacrifice.
For the Old
Testament Jew, the way to please God was by offering animal
sacrifices and obeying the Mosaic Laws. God accepted these
sacrifices (when offered in faith) in view of the coming PERFECT
SACRIFICE of Jesus. By the same token, for the New Testament
Catholic, the way to please God is also by offering sacrifices to
God, such as fasting, and works of mercy. God accepts the New
Testament Catholic's sacrifices (when offered in faith) in view
of the accomplished PERFECT SACRIFICE of Jesus. Hence, there is
nothing inherently WRONG with these individual sacrifices in and
of themselves, so long as the individual's personal sacrifices do
not cloud THE one and PERFECT SACRIFICE of Jesus. So, if the Pope
really wanted to, couldn't he revive the practice of animal
sacrifice and observance to all the regulations stipulated by the
Law, by simply adding them to the Catholic's list of optional
devotions? For in effect, there is nothing different between
Jewish animal sacrifice and Catholic Friday fasting: both are
sacrificial in nature and both are designed to please the Lord.
Well, Damien ...
First of all, it
is true that a reigning Pope can revive anything he wants
(provided that the Spirit moves him to do this). After all, Jesus
did give the Chair of Peter the final authority to "bind and
loosen" on earth. So, your question doesn't really address
authority but rather appropriateness. In this, funny enough, it
is intrinsically connected to the Friday fast from eating meat
(if one indeed understands the historical framework behind
meatless Fridays).
Simply put, the
Catholic Church will never revive animal sacrifice because,
unlike other sacrifices that are offered up **in union with** the
Sacrifice of Christ (e.g. fasting and good works), animal
sacrifices would be an **additional** blood sacrifice ...that is,
the sacrifice of blood that is **different from** the Blood of
Christ. I'll explain what I mean by this in a moment. Yet, for
starters, one must keep in mind that the blood sacrifices of the
Old Covenant had no power or value in and of themselves, but were
merely **prefigurements** of Christ's own Bloodshed, which does
have infinite value (being the full donation of the God-man to
humankind --all that the Incarnate Person of Christ had to give:
His very, hypostatic Self). And, indeed, ... When a Christian
martyr lays down his life for Christ, he or she is doing
**exactly** the same thing. However, there is also a mystical and
ontological **difference** between a Christian martyr's death and
the death of Christ, in that the Christian martyr does not offer
his own blood to God. Rather, the martyr had already given
himself (or herself) over to God in Baptism and in the reception
of the Eucharist (in which Christ's Body and Blood becomes one
with that of the communicant). Rather, as **part of** the Body of
Christ (the Church), the Christian martyr offers his (or her)
blood **in full union with** the Blood of Christ; and so there is
no additional sacrifice ...because only **one Blood** (Christ's
blood) is shed: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting
ME." (Acts 9:4) In sheding the blood of martyrs, Saul was
attacking the Body of Christ, and so sheding **Christ's** Blood
--an intrinsic and ontological continuation of the Sacrifice of
Calvary!
And so, ... Given
that the "blood sacrifice" of a Christian martyr is not
an additional blood sacrifice, but rather one in essence (one
Body) with the ultimate Blood Sacrifice of Christ, we see that
there are no additional blood sacrifices under the New Covenant.
What's more, if we consider the fact that laying down one's life
for Christ is merely the **most extreme** example of Christian
good works (i.e., "Greater love has no man than to lay down
his life for his friends"), then it suddenly becomes clear
that ALL Christian sacrifices (e.g. fasting, charity, etc.) are
merely spiritual participations in the one Blood Sacrifice of
Christ --"mortifications" (from the Latin root
"mort" --"death") that connect us to Christ's
own ultimate Sacrifice, by which He layed down His life for us
(out of love).
Thus, if you
really think about it, the regular sacrifices performed under the
Christian Covenant (e.g. fasting, good works, etc.) are
dramatically different from the animal sacrifices under the Old
Covenant because they are all rooted in that one act of Bloodshed
which is the Cross of Christ. No other Bloodshed can be offered
in substitution for it; rather, all bloodshed for Christ must be
human bloodshed offered by and in the Body of Christ, the Church.
For only the Church is "one Body / one Blood" with Him.
What's more, ...
The reason the Catholic Church instituted meatless Fridays back
in antiquity was because, unlike today, if you wanted to have
steak for dinner on Friday night, it meant that you had to
**slaughter** the cow that morning! :-) They had no refrigeration
back then. Yet, since the Lord's own Blood was shed on a Friday,
the Church wanted to make it perfectly clear that **His** Blood
was sufficient for all, and so no domestic animals were to be
killed for eating on that day. This was especially important in
the ancient world, where most commercial "butchers"
were also pagan priests (e.g. 1 Corinth 10:25-30). So, that is
the origin of the custom and the devotion, anyway. Yet,
unfortunately, the meaning of the devotion does not translate
very well into our modern experience ...which is why Vatican II
relaxed it.
Lastly ... The
Church would be unable to revive OT animals sacrifices for the
simple reason that animal sacrifice under the Old Law requires a
Levitical priesthood to perform these sacrifices, and no such
Levitical prieshood exists. The Catholic ministerial priesthood
is the priesthood of Christ Himself, which is not after the order
of the Levites, but the order of Melchizedek. What's more, even
if we were to allow the priestly order of Melchizedek (the
Catholic ministerial priesthood) to sacrifice animals, then they
would be making blood sacrifices that are **distinct** and
**separate from** the one Blood Sacrifice that they presently
(although mystically) offer, which is the Holy Eucharist, the
Sacrifice of Christ. Needless to say, no animal is "one
blood" with Jesus Christ; and so such animal blood
sacrifices could not be unified with the Sacrifice in His own
Blood. Our priesthood, therefore, has no authority to sacrifice
animals.
And, on that very
point, you also write ....
But even after the
destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., who SAID that animal
sacrifices and observance of the Laws of Moses had to stop? Why
not revive them? After all, Jesus said that He did not come to
abolish the Law. There is nothing wrong with these Old Testament
practices, so long as they are kept in their proper place (i.e.)
subordinate to the one PERFECT sacrifice of Jesus, the spotless
Lamb.
Well, you are
correct that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. Yet, this
does not prevent Him (or His Church) from abolishing the
**forms** employed by the Law (e.g. Acts 15). In the Synoptic
Gospels, Jesus Himself says that love of God and love of neighbor
embodies and fulfills both the Law and the Prophets. Yet, how one
exercises love for God and for neighbor (i.e., the forms) was
certainly subject to change under the New Covenant; and the
changing of proscriptive forms was certainly necessary if the
early Church was to include Gentiles as well as Jews, for example
(e.g. the **formal** Law prohibited association with Gentiles,
whereas the spirit of the Law called all men to know the God of
Israel and have fellowship in Him). And, it was in adapting these
forms that things like animal sacrifice, Temple worship, and
other Mosaic prescriptions were set aside and replaced with
higher, Divinely-instituted Christian forms (e.g. the Eucharist).
In both Temple sacrifices and the Eucharist, man was able to
properly show love for God. Yet, the Eucharist is, without
question, the more perfect and more **intimate** way. ...the way
that God desires.
You also write ...
Many Protestant
preachers (and some Catholic theologians) make the point that the
Law of Moses was designed by God to show the Jews that they were
not perfect. They say that God purposely designed a Law that
would be impossible to keep in the hopes that the Jews, on
recognition of their inability to keep the Law, would truly
repent of their sins and turn to God who alone could save them.
Instead however, we are told that the Jews became proud of the
Law and of their obedience toward it. It is told us by Protestant
preachers that what was once impossible for the Old Testament
Jews (obedience to the entire Law) is now possible for us New
Testament Christians since we (unlike the Old Testament Jews)
have hearts made of flesh, not stone. Obedience to the Law should
therefore be second nature to the New Testament Christian. And if
Zechariah and Elizabeth observed 'all the Lords commandments and
regulations blamelessly' (Luke 1:6) while living under the Old
Covenant, how much more can we New Testament Christians do the
same. So the question is, how, or why it is that Christians are
not still living according to the Mosaic Law?
Well, ... Quite
simply, we are not living according to the **Mosaic** Law (i.e.,
the prescriptions) yet we **are** living according to the Divine
Law that the Mosaic Law points to. Here, one must really get away
from the very flawed understanding of Protestantism and
understand what the Old Law really was. For example, ... The Old
Law commanded "Thou shalt not kill." Now, are
Christian's bound by this law? Surprisingly enough, the answer to
that is "no." ...That is to say, we are not bound by
the **legal commandment** not to kill (the Jewish legal
prescription). Rather, we are bound by the natural law behind the
legal commandment; for the natural law is rooted in objective
truth; and that Truth is Christ. In other words, our covenant
(relationship) with God is not legal-based, but family-based
--i.e., our adoption into the Family of God through Christ Jesus.
Simply put, the sons and daughters of God do not kill because, as
His sons and daughters, we reflect the righteousness of our
Father, Who has no such darkness in Him. A Jew, on the other
hand, does not kill because he is **bound** by a law that forbids
him to kill; and if he violates that law, then the Old Covenant
lists a whole set of punishments that he is automatically subject
to ...punishments that we Christians are not legally bound by.
Thus, the Old Covenant was a simple legal arrangement --a
restrictive "truce" between an all-holy God and
naturally-sinful and lawless man. And the error of the Pharisees
and other Jews of Jesus' day was that they though that, if they
could just get everyone in Israel to keep the mandated
prescriptions of the Law, then God would be **compelled** (forced
**by contract**!) to bring about blessings upon them and the
"golden age" of the Messiah. In other words, the
religion of the Pharisees was nothing but a "deal" with
God, and it completely ignored the Father-child principals
implicit in the Old Covenant. THIS is why the Old Covenant was
"impossible to keep" ...because it was **never meant**
to be kept that way. It was never supposed to be a
purely-legalistic arrangement (a something-for-something
"contract"), but rather (as Elizabeth, Zechariah, and
many other OT saints observed it) a personal and familiar
Covenant of love. The New Covenant in Jesus Christ makes this
readily apparent; and to drive this point home, it sets aside all
the old prescriptions that prevented people from seeing that
their relationship with God is not merely a matter of legal
observation.
Anyway, Damien ...
I hope that helps. If I failed to address anything, please let me
know.
God bless you
Mark Bonocore
