The Mass as a Sacrifice

One of the greatest difficulties Protestants have with the Catholic Church is the teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.  The Church does teach that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, a sacrifice which propitiates for sins because it is the sacrifice of Christ who alone can make propitiation for sins.  The idea that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is offensive to Protestants for three primary reasons.  First, it seems to suggest that Christ’s offering on the cross was insufficient to save us from our sins.  Second, because Christ is the victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, it seems to require Him to die again and again.  Finally, another difficulty Protestants have is that the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ was sacrificed once for all (Heb 7:25-27, 9:24-26, 10:10-14). One thing to consider about this last objection is that the phrase ‘once for all’ is a shortened statement of one of two things. It could either mean once for all time, or it could mean once for all people. The phrase itself doesn't specify.  In fact, the adverb used here does not actually say once for all, but simply 'once.' Translators put "for all" in  to clarify the statement, but it is really reading into the text.  Nevertheless, it is still a troubling point for most Protestants. 

Bishop Fulton Sheen, a popular televangelist of the 1960s and 1970s, once said that there were not one hundred people in America who hated the Catholic religion, but there were countless who hated what they mistakenly thought the Catholic religion to be.  If Catholicism really were what these people thought it was, he pointed out, Catholics would hate it too.  This statement is especially significant here.  Each of these objections is founded on a misunderstanding of what the Catholicism teaches about the Mass.  This misunderstanding is that the Mass is a different sacrifice from the cross.  In fact, it is not.  The Mass is understood to be the very same sacrifice of the cross re-presented in a different manner:

“[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption.  But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once and for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 1)

“And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, the holy Synod teaches… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory….  The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 2)

There are many other important things to consider in these quotations.  One is that the sacrifice of the Mass exists because Christ’s priesthood was not to end with his death.  This is a point which is explained by Hebrews 7:23-24:

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 

Another point is that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice: Christ does not die again in the sacrifice. Most people tend to think of a sacrifice as a death, as though it is the death of the sacrificial victim which constitutes a sacrifice.  Therefore, it is common for the sacrifice of Christ to be reduced to His death alone.  However, the death of the victim is only the first part of a sacrifice, with the presentation of the sacrifice being the second, more important, part. If an Old Covenant priest had slain an animal and then failed to present it to God, there would have been no sacrifice.  Christ's sacrifice was presented to the Father when His risen body ascended into Heaven, and is continually presented so long as Christ is there in Heaven with the Father. The death of Christ was in our time, but the presentation is not and can not be by definition. 

Simply by being present in Heaven, Christ is presenting Himself to the Father. Hebrews 9:24 makes reference to this, saying, “For Christ has entered… into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”  This is why the book of Hebrews says that Christ “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (7:25)  This intercession is not a different work from the sacrifice. It can't be, because that would mean that His sacrifice was not sufficient. Protestant commentators stress this point.  The intercessory work of Christ is not a different work from His sacrifice; it is part of the sacrifice.  It is the eternal presentation of Christ before the Father. This appearing as a perpetual presentation is so that He can perpetually be propitiation for our sins, as 1 John 2:1-2 says.

 

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

The verb 'is' here in “He is propitiation” is in the present tense, meaning that Jesus is currently the propitiation. Protestant Greek commentators are often very perplexed by this because they cannot understand how Christ could currently be propitiation, since Protestant theology understands Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to be the only propitiation for sins.  It is correct to understand Christ’s sacrifice as the only propitiation for sins.  However, it is incorrect to understand the death on the cross to in and of itself be the sacrifice.  It is because Christ’s sacrifice consists of both the death on the cross and His eternal presentation to the Father that John can write that He is currently the propitiation for sins. 

The eternality of Christ’s presentation is made clear by other Scriptures as well.  As was already cited, Hebrews 9:24 says that Christ “now” appears in the presence of God “on our behalf.”  There is the ongoing work of intercession in Hebrews 7:25, intercession which is a part of His sacrificial work.  In Revelation 5:6, He is depicted as “a lamb, standing as though slain.  He is in Heaven a slain lamb, a sacrificial victim, yet He is standing because He is risen.  Heaven is not bound by time, it is in eternity. Hence, elsewhere in Revelation He is called the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).  The reason John can say He was slain before the foundation of the world even though He clearly died at a given moment in the first century is because His sacrifice is an eternal one, a sacrifice which is in its Heavenly part (the presentation) present in eternity.  For this reason, men like Moses and Elijah, who appeared at the transfiguration, could be saved even though Christ had not yet died.  The propitiation of Christ’s sacrifice is eternally present in Heaven and thus was efficacious even for men living before the incarnation.  Hebrews 4:3 works along the same theme, stating that God's works were completed "from the foundation of the world." The Mass is no more contradicting the once for all nature of Christ's offering than His earthly death on the cross was contradicting the fact that God's work was already done before the foundation of the world, and that Christ was already slain before the foundation of the world.

Reading Hebrews 9:24-26 in this context, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice becomes much clearer:

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It is the suffering which occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ's once for all offering, however, is perpetual and eternal. In fact, it could even be said that the reason it is once for all is because it is eternal; one cannot repeat something which has no beginning and no end.  Given all of the statements the Scriptures make concerning the eternality of Christ’s presentation, it is clear that Hebrews cannot possibly mean that Christ's offering was a one time, momentary act.  Rather, it is the suffering which was a one time and momentary occurrence, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly states that Christ’s suffering would have been required to happen again were He to be sacrificed again.

When the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the offering in this passage, he is referring specifically to the high priest having to go in and out of the Holy of Holies. That is why he writes, "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own." That is also another reason why he emphasizes the suffering so much. When sacrifices were made in the Old Covenant, the priest would slaughter the animal outside of the Holy of Holies and then enter into it. It was by the blood of this slaughtered animal that the priest could enter the Holy of Holies, so if Christ were to go in and out of the Heavenly Holy of Holies, He would have to suffer each time, but He does not, because "he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood" Once Christ is in the Holy of Holies, His presence before the Father is the presentation of the sacrifice to the Father.   The actual killing of the animal in the Old Covenant was only part of the sacrifice - the other part was the presentation, which Jesus accomplished at the Ascension.

The Mass is a Sacrifice because it re-presents that eternal sacrifice by making it present on the altar of the Church.  The Sacrifice of the Mass is simply the ongoing, eternal offering of Christ in Heaven.  Hebrews is such an important book in terms of the Mass because it was written to explain the superiority of the New Testament sacrifice to the old sacrifices, and in chapter 8 it provides further insight into the nature of the Mass:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. (1-3)

Even though He is sitting down, Christ is still a minister. He is still offering that one sacrifice which is made once for all; otherwise He would no longer be a minister. In fact, the passage makes this clear by stating that it is necessary for Him to have something to offer.  Just like ‘is’ in 1 John 2:2, the verb ‘have’ is present tense, meaning it is currently occurring: Christ currently must have something to offer. (If He had only had something to offer at one time, an aorist or more likely a perfect tense would have been used.) This passage teaches that Christ's offering is going on even now, and that He is still ministering at the Heavenly altar.  It is this present offering which is made at the altar at the Mass. This is the altar Hebrews refers to in saying, “we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.” (13:10)  This reference to the priests of the Old Covenant having no right to eat at this altar shows that the writer had in mind an earthly altar on which this sacrifice was presented.  He could not have meant, by referring to eating from this altar, to be speaking symbolically of spiritually receiving Christ or the salvation His sacrifice earned, because these priests had as much a right to receive these things as those who were receiving them.  All persons have as the same right to salvation through Christ.  (In fact as Christians we understand that nobody has a right to salvation, but nonetheless all who come to Christ in faith may receive it).  There truly is an altar which Christians alone may eat from, and this is the altar of the Mass.  

The only text that still may seem problematic for the doctrine of the Mass is Hebrews 10:10-14:

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Some believe that because this passage teaches that Christ is sitting and waiting, He cannot be offering an eternal sacrifice as the doctrine of the Mass teaches.  However, as has been pointed out, Christ presents Himself to the Father simply by being present in Heaven.  In fact, He could not be in Heaven and without presenting Himself to the Father, because He is there in eternity as a slain lamb (Rev 13:8). 

The problem with verse 14 is that it doesn't translate into English well at all. The Greek text says, literally, “For by a single offering He has perfected into continuity the being sanctified.” The Greek word that is translated in most Bibles as "those who are being sanctified" is αγιαζομενους (agiazomenous), a present passive participle. It is a verb form being used as a noun substantive. The actual word doesn't actually include ‘those’ or ‘the ones’ or anything of that sort. It is translated into English with those words added so that it makes sense in English. The Greek language uses participles like this quite often, but they do not translate well.  In the original language, the verse says only that the process of being sanctified is perfect. Αγιαζομενους, the being sanctified, is in the accusative case, which means that it is the object of the verb ‘perfected.’ However, the verb 'perfected' does not apply to the "those who are" or "the ones who are"; it only applies to "the being sanctified," the process of sanctification which is applied to the ‘those.’  This is taught by Hebrews because in the Old Covenant, a person could offer all the proper sacrifices for sins, they could do everything they were required to and the process could fail because it was imperfect. This verse teaches that the process now is perfect thanks to the sacrifice of Christ and will not fail as long as a person remains in the process. This is perfect given that overall theme of Hebrews of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

That the Mass is a re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Christ is also evident from the Last Supper accounts.  The last supper was the Passover meal. Passover meals, then as now, had a very specific "program." This would involve the reading of particular Scriptures, singing of particular hymns, and the consecration and drinking of four cups of wine. The Gospels record this meal progressing as normal. The third cup was the one Christ raised and said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood."(Luk 22:20) This can be seen by studying the gospel accounts and because Paul refers to the cup of the Lord's Supper as "the cup of blessing" in the first letter to the Corinthians (10:16), which was the name given to the third cup of the Passover meal. After this, the Passover called for the singing of a hymn (called the Great Hallel, which consists of Psalms 114-118) before drinking from the fourth cup, which was called the "cup of consummation."

However, Jesus didn't drink from the fourth cup. Instead, the gospels say that after blessing the third cup, Jesus specifically said He was not going to drink wine again until He did so “anew in the Kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:25)  Immediately after this it says that "when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." (25) This would have been a major defect in the Passover meal, not a minor omission.  The fourth cup was so important that the Passover meal was not complete until it was drunk.  After this, in Gethsemane, Jesus asks the Father to let the cup pass from Him (Matthew 26:39). When a no doubt very thirsty Jesus was offered wine while carrying the cross up to the mountain, He refused (Mark 15:23).  Jesus finally drank vinegar (a type of wine) from the hyssop branch and said "it is consummated" at the moment of His death. The ‘it’ meant the Passover meal. That Passover meal which He had began the previous night and never finished He was now complete.  It could not have ended until then, because the fourth cup of wine had yet to be drunk. 

The sacrifice was not begun on Calvary. Calvary began with the Passover and the Passover ended with Calvary (see A Father who Keeps His Promises, Scott Hahn, Servant Books 1998, p. 234; a more thorough analysis of the above facts is also available therein) This ties together a number of items which pertain to the Last Supper and its having been a Mass. 

First is the sacrificial language Jesus used during the Last Supper.  The Greek word translated ‘remembrance’ in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 is anamnesis, which has great sacrificial overtones. There are at least 9 other Greek words for ‘remembrance’ which could have been used, however this sacrificial word was chosen instead.  In fact, anamnesis can literally mean ‘memorial sacrifice’; it is used this way in the Greek Old Testament and is often translated this way in English Bibles.  Hebrews 10:3, where it is also used in a sacrificial context, is the only place in which the word is used in the New Testament: "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year." The passage would actually make much more sense if anamnesis were  translated as it is in the Old Testament here, so that it would read: "But in these is a memorial sacrifice for sin every year." In fact, in the original Greek it does not say "but in those sacrifices," because the word ‘sacrifices’ is not in the text.  It is added because without it the passage makes no sense in English.  Rendering the word consistently here cleans up the passage immediately, cutting the need for translators to add words to Scripture.  The Greek word for "do" used in these passages, ‘poiein,’ is also a word with sacrificial overtones, used over 75 times in the Old Testament to mean ‘offer.’ It would be a completely accurate translation of 1 Corinthians 11:23 (and Luke 22:19) to render Jesus' words as "offer this as a memorial sacrifice of me," and in fact, Jewish readers who were very familiar with the Septuagint would very likely have understood it this way.

Second is the Jewish understanding of the Passover meal. Many Jewish traditions believed that those who were eating the Passover were not simply remembering the first Passover, but were literally taking part in the literal, one time event of the first Passover. They were understood to be literally taking part in the Exodus as if they were there themselves in Egypt following Moses to the promised land.  This is extremely interesting because the redemption is extremely parallel to the Exodus. There are countless parallels. This is because the Exodus from physical bondage was a foreshadowing of the true Exodus from spiritual bondage that is found in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is called the Lamb of God because He is the Passover lamb that was sacrificed to save the firstborn from death.  When a person enters into Christ through baptism, he or she becomes a child of God (Mat. 5:9, 5:45, Luk 6:35, 20:36, John 12:36, Rom. 8:14-15, 8:23, 9:26, 2 Cor 6:18, Gal. 3:26, 4:5-6, Heb. 12:7-8)  The paschal sacrifice of the lamb saved the lives of the firstborn of the people of God during the first Passover, and now the sacrifice of the Lamb of God saves the lives of all children of God.

There are many other parallels as well.  Like the Passover lamb, Christ was to be without blemish (Ex 12:5 / Heb 9:14).  The Passover lamb was examined on the 14th day of Nisan to ensure that it was unblemished, and Christ was examined on the 14th day of Nisan with no fault being found in Him (Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6)  The Passover lambs’ bones were not to be broken, just as Christ’s bones were not broken (Ex 12:46, Num. 9:12 / John 19:36)  The blood of the Passover lamb was put on the posts of the Israelite’s doors, and the blood of Christ was put on the post of the cross. (Ex 12:7)  There are other parallels beyond this, and many other connections that are not strictly parallel.  For instance, it was a hyssop branch that was to be used to spread the blood of the Passover lamb, and it was a hyssop branch that was used to give Jesus a drink of wine on the cross (Ex 12:22 / John 19:29).

  

Other traditional Jewish aspects of the Passover were also incorporated into the sacrifice of Christ and the Last Supper.  One example is the breaking of the Afikoman, which is the second of three cakes of unleavened bread which were eaten during the Passover meal.  In many Jewish traditions, the bottom cake was understood to represent Abraham, the top cake to represent Jacob, and the middle cake, the Afikoman, to represent Isaac.  While God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac, (Gen 22:10-12) the Father Himself did allow His son to be sacrificed.  It was the Afikoman that would have been broken during the Passover celebration when Christ broke bread, saying, “This is my body which is given for you.” (Luke 22:19)  The Mass extends this parallel, because just as the Afikoman was broken and all would eat a piece of the one bread during the Passover, so too is the Eucharist, the body of Christ, broken and given to all to eat during the Mass.  In fact, the parallel between the sacrifice of Christ and the Passover makes it necessary that Christians eat of Christ’s body, because the Passover lamb was required to be eaten by all after its sacrifice and no part left over. (Ex 12:8-10, 34:25, Num. 9:12)  Therefore Paul writes, “Christ our Passover lamb is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast...” (1 Cor 5:7-8)

 

Jesus' sacrifice began at the Last Supper, and was the eternal Passover sacrifice that can be experienced today through a literal participation at the sacrifice of the Mass, just as the ancient Jews literally participated in the Exodus by their Passover meal. The Last Supper was the first Mass in which Christ first made present on Earth His eternal sacrifice.  (More information on the Last Supper being the beginning of Christ’s sacrifice can be found here.)

God Bless,

Shane Coombs 2006

Pharisaism and the New Pro-Lifers

It’s become quite common over the past year or two to see articles, social media posts and comments, and other forms of expression declaring that “You can’t be pro-life and…” Exclusions include everything from “pro-death penalty,” “pro-torture,” “anti-immigration,” or “anti-welfare” to “pro-gun,” “pro-war,” and “alt-right.” When it’s not phrased according to the “you can’t be…” formula, the sentiment comes as an admonition or call out of those who claim to be pro-life but scandalously advocate some farther right view of one of these issues. There’s no question that opposing torture, taking care of the poor, etc. are important to the support of life, especially for someone coming from a Christian background.

It’s also common see the terms “pharisee” or “pharisaism” come up in commentary or discussions of this topic. Make no mistake: this is always a serious charge to throw around. After all, the Pharisees were on the receiving end of Jesus’ strongest criticism and serve as some of the chief antagonists of Christ in the Gospels. Their crime? “Hypocrites!” Jesus declared, for the Pharisees did not always practice what they preached. They were also known for getting into people’s business, harshly demanding the strictest adherence to the rules and to the law. “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Mat. 23:4). The Pharisees’ merciless approach was particularly hard on the poor, who often lacked the resources to fulfill the last letter of the law, the vulnerable, and those whose past mistakes had put them in difficult positions.

It makes perfect sense, then, to see accusations of pharisaism in this debate. So many of the items at hand here involve the same kinds of people that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Torture and the death penalty have as their focus the vulnerable (and indeed, law enforcement and peace keeping too often perpetrate injustices against vulnerable populations). Immigration and welfare policies impact the poor and the vulnerable. Those who rightly stand up for the lives of the unborn, one vulnerable group, but callously discount concern for the lives of other vulnerable groups are certainly being inconsistent. These new pro-lifers, as we might call them, have a point in admonishing and calling out inconsistencies and hypocrisy on these points.  

But there’s something important that these new pro-lifers (and many others) miss about the Pharisees. Most people know that the Pharisees were merciless taskmasters who enforced a very strict adherence to the rules and the law, but far fewer know why they did this. The Pharisees emerged in a time when Judea was only a tiny province within the Roman Empire, making both imperial law and pagan culture obstacles to the practice of the Jewish faith. Their raison d'être was to find a way for the Jews to remain faithful to God under these living conditions and ultimately to be free of the Romans and have their independence once again. Unlike the Sadducees, who favored compromise with the Romans, the Essenes, who practiced total withdrawal from worldly affairs, and the zealots, who saw violent rebellion as the only answer, the Pharisees believed that God Himself would deliver them to freedom once more as He had done in the past – but with one critical caveat: the Jewish people needed to be pure – all of them (or at least almost all).

This belief is the reason that the Pharisees were so strict and so unwilling to show mercy or compassion. In their understanding, the Jewish people were suffering under the Romans as a punishment for their unfaithfulness and only when they had returned to faithfulness would God relent. This did make sense, after all: it was a pattern and theme which repeated over and over throughout the entire history of the Hebrew people, notably in the books of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. The Pharisees were so demanding and unyielding not because they were just callous or for whatever reason instinctively authoritarian, but because they saw every failure to keep even the smallest point of the Mosaic law as one more weight on the scale of judgment angering God and keeping him from freeing them of oppression. They insisted on separating themselves from the rest of the culture (indeed, this is precisely where we get the word “Pharisee” from) and rejected any imperfection or compromise not just as a personal sin, but as something which would be imputed to their entire people. This isn’t to attempt to rehabilitate the Pharisees or to defend their failure to grasp the spirit of the law, something for which Jesus strongly rebuked them. The point is that the Pharisees were severe in demanding total purity of their fellow Jews because they viewed anything less as contributing to keeping the intolerable status quo in place – which brings us back to the new pro-lifers.

While any pro-lifer is to be lauded for standing up for the rights of the poor or the displaced or for rejecting torture, it is a trend of late to see the new pro-lifers go further than this. To many, not only are those who have imperfect views on the broader spectrum of issues to be corrected, but they are to be denied the pro-life name, to be excluded, and to have even their positive contributions be disavowed. Like the Pharisees, the new pro-lifers demand purity from anyone who would bear the name with any shortcomings viewed as mortally harmful to the movement. Those who oppose abortion and may even hold consistent views on most other issues are often demonized as the reason that the pro-life movement has not been more successful. Lest we dismiss the comparison to the Pharisees is too tenuous, bear in mind that it is common to hear or to read these new pro-lifers warn that God will not grant success to the movement so long as such persons are welcome in their ranks.

One need look no further for an example of this than Donald Trump and his supporters. While Trump is far from the perfect example of a consistent pro-life ethic, he nevertheless received strong support from large percentages of the pro-life electorate for whatever he would be able to offer. He may not have been perfect, but to many he was better than the alternative. To some pro-lifers, this was viewed as very questionable. It was unclear just how trustworthy he’d be, for one thing, and even if he followed through his inconsistencies may harm the public image of the pro-life movement. These were reasonable concerns.  Far less reasonable and more in line with the thinking of the Pharisees were those new pro-lifers who went further, condemning any who would vote for Trump as “not pro-life,” as putting party over principle, and as drawing the ire of the Almighty onto the country by electing such a man. 

Trump is one example, but the stakes need not be so grand: this kind of truly pharisaical thinking has become common to see in all sorts of contexts. Worst of all is when this kind of exclusion and condemnation concerns not black and white matters of objective morality but prudential judgments about methods. A person might believe in the need to provide for the poor but reject a particular legislative proposal as a good or effective way to do it. Like the Pharisees who were so focused on the letter of the law that they could not see the spirit, too many new pro-lifers cannot see the good faith of such a person or try to understand their view, but see them only through the jots and tittles of the policy that they have questioned.

In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI made clear that Catholics should work together with people of other faiths where improving the temporal world is concerned. A Catholic and a Protestant can work together to feed the hungry, while a Jewish person is a good an ally in fighting a worldly injustice despite theological differences. That doesn’t mean these differences don’t matter or even that they may not in some ways impact mutual work in the temporal sphere. Such differences need to be acknowledged and taken into consideration, but the ultimate goal is still to be pursued. In a similar way, pro-lifers who recognize weaknesses and imperfections in the views of others should acknowledge them and try to address them, but they must also recognize these persons as the allies that they can be in the ways that they can be.

Too many Christian pro-lifers today have come to regard imperfect allies as bitter enemies. Like the Pharisees, they view them as traitors, as repellants to Divine aid, and even as greater obstacles than the worldly powers which have us under their power. This is a tragic trend which must stop.

About the Gravity of Lenten Fasting and Abstinence

I recently saw a reply to question about the gravity of fasting and abstinence during Lent in which a priest said that it is not a sin to violate Lenten abstinence and fasting requirements, but this is not correct. Moreover, the reasoning that he gave for this answer is demonstrably incorrect. He wrote: "In order for a merely disciplinary norm to be binding on pain of sin, the legislator has to make it so. The legislator (i.e., John Paul II, who issued the 1983 Code of Canon Law) has made the Sunday obligation gravely binding (hence a grave sin if deliberately disobeyed). He decided *not* to do so for the fasting and abstinence laws. Therefore, it does not bind on pain of sin. It is similar in status to the rule that religious congregations have."

 The controlling document in this case is Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which says of the days of penance, "Their substantial observance binds gravely." You point to the 1983 Code of Canon Law as essentially abrogating this prior law, but the Code of Canon Law is very specific about what prior laws are abrogated in Canon 6:

 "1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;" - Paenitemini was not part of this code

 "2. other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;" - The law as given in Paenitemini is not contrary to anything in the 1983 code. If there are any doubts about this, see the final few paragraphs about the US Bishops’ judgment on the question.

 "3. any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;" - Paenitimini did not address penal law

 "4. other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders" - The 1983 Code does not completely reorder the laws of fasting and abstinence (indeed, even debates about the controversial question of whether fasting is obliged on Fridays throughout the year always center of Paul VI's Paenitimini and documents which appeal to it's authority. Whether a person argues that Friday abstinence is required year- round or not, that person is always pointing to Paenitimini because it is still the document of legal force on these matters.) Again, see below on the US Bishops, who even note that parts of Paenitimini are "almost identical" to the Code.

 As Jimmy Akin notes, "In fact, the Code has so little to say about penance that one cannot determine what the Church’s law is without consulting Paenitemini. For example, the Code does not provide any explanation of what the law of fast entails. It states who is subject to it (Can. 1251), but it does not explain what the law itself is. To find that out, you have to consult Paenitemini." (Canon 1251 does give some more detail about the law of abstinence, but Jimmy is correct: if we want to know anything about what the Church means when legislating that we must fast, we need to look at the Apostolic Constitution. If we don’t consider Paenitimini, then we don’t know whether fasting means no food at all, eating only once, eating as usual but lighter, etc. The “one full meal and two snacks” thing comes – albeit in corrupted form – from Paenitimini.

In it's information on fasting and abstinence, the USCCB itself still points to it's own 1966 Pastoral Statement on the topic because although coming before the 1983 code, everything in it is, having been based on Paenitimini and not on Canon law (either 1917 or the then-not-yet written 1983 code), still relevant.

 Even the 1983 code of canon law uses the language of binding, such as in canon 1252 which reads, "The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year."

 All of this should be sufficient evidence, but the US Bishop's 1983 Complementary Norms to Canon 1253 provide perhaps the clearest. The complementary norm 1) Refers to Paenitemini as authoritative, 2) Appeal to Paeitimini's authority to support the changes that the US Bishop's wanted to make to age requirements for fasting, and 3) Explicitly declares that the US Bishop's 1966 norms, which are based on Paenitimini and which say that Lenten fast/abstinence binds under pain of sin, are not contrary to the 1983 code and so do not fall under Canon 6 as provided above.

The US Bishops' 1966 document, which recall is unquestionably still legally binding and confirmed by their 1983 complementary norms, also says: " In keeping with the letter and spirit of Pope Paul's Constitution Poenitemini, we preserved for our dioceses the tradition of abstinence from meat on each of the Fridays of Lent, confident that no Catholic Christian will lightly hold himself excused from this penitential practice." [Emphasis added]

Thus, AT A MINIMUM, Lenten penance binds under pain of sin in the United States. This is explicit according to the Bishops' 1966 norms which are confirmed in the 1983 complementary norms to remain in force. However, based on all of the reasons given above it should be quite clear that Paenitimini remains in force for the entire Latin Church - a belief certainly held by the US Bishops' Conference - and the Bishops' norms really just confirm this for us more than anything.

 God bless