No Priest Can Place the Immortal Christ on an Altar

Denzinger part 58 (part 2)

Why a Consecrated Wafer Cannot Be a Propitiatory Sacrifice

The central question surrounding the Roman Catholic Eucharist is not whether Christians should remember Christ's death, give thanks for His sacrifice, share bread and wine in communion, or approach the Lord's Table with reverence. Scripture plainly commands remembrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, self-examination, and communion. The deeper question is whether an ordained priest possesses sacramental power to consecrate bread so that the immortal and glorified Christ becomes truly present under its appearances as the same victim offered upon Calvary, and whether that consecrated bread may then be adored as Christ Himself and offered upon an altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.

That claim must be tested against the sacrificial order established by God Himself.

The Roman Catholic Catechism states that the sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharistic sacrifice are “one single sacrifice,” that the victim is one and the same, and that the same Christ who offered Himself upon the cross is now offered through the ministry of priests in an unbloody manner. The Vatican also teaches that only a validly ordained priest can “confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi,” and it directs the faithful to offer adoration to Christ believed to be truly present in the consecrated host.

The argument therefore cannot be evaded by saying that Catholics merely remember Christ differently from other Christians. The official claim is much greater. A priest consecrates bread. The bread is no longer regarded as ordinary bread but as Christ Himself under sacramental appearances. The same victim who died upon Calvary is said to be offered through the ministry of the priest. The offering is described as unbloody, yet it is nevertheless presented as sacrificial and propitiatory.

This immediately raises the question that the biblical sacrificial system will not allow us to avoid.

How can the immortal Christ be present as a propitiatory victim when a propitiatory victim must actually give its life?

How can His blood function as sacrificial blood when it is not being shed?

How can the glorified Christ, who has conquered death and now lives forever as the one High Priest and Mediator, be placed sacramentally upon an earthly altar by the words of another priest?

How can a man whose own spiritual condition may at that very moment be sinful nevertheless effect this sacramental presence merely because he possesses ordination, when the New Testament describes ministers according to spiritual and moral qualifications such as being blameless, holy, faithful, and full of the Holy Ghost?

How can the eating of a consecrated host become associated with the propitiatory sacrifice for sin when the particular sanctuary sin offering that Hebrews explicitly applies to Christ was not permitted to be eaten? (see part 1)

These are not peripheral questions. They go directly to the heart of the doctrine.

The Presence of a Victim Is Not the Sacrifice of a Victim

The first error that must be exposed is the confusion between the presence of a victim and the sacrifice of a victim.

Under the Law, an acceptable animal standing alive beside the altar was not yet an accomplished sacrifice merely because the victim was present. It could be spotless, living, physically present, and designated for sacrifice, but until its life was actually given, the sacrificial act had not occurred.

The victim had to die.

Its blood had to be shed.

Its life had actually to be given.

Leviticus declares:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” — Leviticus 17:11

The blood was not atoning merely because it existed within the animal. The living lamb already possessed blood, but the animal standing alive before the altar had not yet given its life. The sacrificial act required death and the shedding of blood.

Hebrews preserves this essential principle:

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” — Hebrews 9:22

Peter consequently describes Christ's redemption in terms of the actual sacrificial blood of an unblemished victim:

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” — 1 Peter 1:18–19

The question that must therefore be put to the doctrine of the consecrated host is unavoidable.

Even supposing, purely for the sake of argument, that Christ's true body and blood become present under the appearances of bread and wine, where is the sacrificial death?

The presence of flesh is not the death of flesh.

The presence of blood is not the shedding of blood.

The presence of a victim is not the sacrifice of the victim.

A living lamb beside the altar was not an accomplished propitiatory sacrifice merely because the lamb was there. Something decisive had to happen to the victim. Its life had to be given.

This is precisely why calling the Mass an “unbloody” propitiatory sacrifice creates a contradiction within the biblical sacrificial system. If no blood is shed, then the defining action by which the blood makes atonement is absent. If Christ does not die, then the defining action by which the victim gives His life is absent.

One cannot answer that difficulty merely by saying that the same victim is present. Presence is not death, and presence is not the shedding of blood.

Nor can one answer by saying that the historical sacrifice becomes sacramentally present. If it is the historical death at Calvary that accomplished the atonement, then the atoning efficacy belongs to that actual death, where Christ genuinely gave His life and shed His blood. Making a past event sacramentally present does not create a new act in which the immortal Christ dies or sheds His blood.

The distinction is devastatingly simple.

The crucified Christ actually died.

The glorified Christ now lives.

The sacrificial Christ actually shed His blood.

The risen Christ is immortal.

The victim upon Calvary gave His life.

The Christ who rose from the dead has conquered death and dies no more.

Paul states this with extraordinary clarity:

“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” — Romans 6:9–10

The risen Christ does not exist in some ambiguous condition between victimhood and immortality. He has defeated death. Death has no more dominion over Him.

Therefore the fundamental problem remains. How can the immortal Christ be offered as a propitiatory victim upon an earthly altar when a propitiatory sacrifice requires the victim to give His life, yet Christ can never die again?

The answer cannot be that He is offered without dying, because Scripture never defines an unharmed, immortal victim as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.

The answer cannot be that His blood is present without being shed, because Scripture says that the life is in the blood and identifies the shedding of blood with remission.

The answer cannot be that the priest merely makes Calvary present, because then the propitiatory act remains Calvary itself and not the priestly consecration of bread.

The doctrine therefore asks the believer to accept a category that the sacrificial Scriptures themselves never provide: an immortal victim who does not die, blood that is not shed, an unbloody offering that is nevertheless propitiatory, and a glorified High Priest supposedly presented upon an earthly altar through the sacramental power of another priest.

Christ Is the High Priest and the One Mediator

The contradiction becomes still more serious when the present position of Christ is considered.

Christ is not waiting upon earth to be made a priestly victim by human hands. He is Himself the great High Priest.

Hebrews declares:

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.” — Hebrews 4:14

The believer's great High Priest has passed into the heavens.

The passage does not say that believers require another sacrificing priest to bring Christ down and offer Him upon an earthly altar. Instead, because Christ Himself is our High Priest, believers are told:

“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” — Hebrews 4:16

The direction of the New Testament is upward toward the heavenly throne, not downward toward a wafer supposedly transformed by priestly words.

The believer goes through Christ to God.

Christ does not come through another priest to become a victim before the believer.

Paul expresses the same truth without ambiguity:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” — 1 Timothy 2:5

Christ is not merely one mediator among several sacramental mediators. He is the one Mediator between God and men.

Hebrews further declares:

“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” — Hebrews 7:24

The reason is immediately given:

“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” — Hebrews 7:25

Notice the language carefully.

Christ continues forever.

Christ possesses the unchangeable priesthood.

Christ saves those who come to God through Him.

Christ ever lives to make intercession.

His present priesthood is defined by His endless life.

The Roman Catholic Catechism itself acknowledges Christ as the unique High Priest and one Mediator, while simultaneously teaching that His one priesthood is sacramentally made present through a distinct ministerial priesthood. Yet this creates the precise question that must be answered from Scripture: where does the New Testament say that Christ's heavenly High Priesthood requires an earthly sacerdotal class capable of consecrating bread so that the glorified Christ becomes a propitiatory victim upon their altars?

Hebrews never says this.

The writer does not tell Christians that their earthly priests will make Christ present as victim.

He tells believers that Christ has passed into heaven.

He does not tell them that a priest must place the sacrifice upon an altar.

He tells them that Christ ever lives to intercede.

He does not tell them that access to Christ depends upon the sacramental actions of an ordained priest.

He tells them:

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.” — Hebrews 10:22

The basis of that confidence has already been explained:

“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” — Hebrews 10:19

The believer possesses access through Christ's blood.

The believer draws near through Christ.

The believer comes to the throne of grace through Christ.

The believer has one Mediator, Christ.

The believer has one great High Priest, Christ.

Nothing in this order requires another man to pronounce words over bread in order to place the immortal Christ upon an altar as a propitiatory victim.

Indeed, the very thought reverses the order of mediation. Scripture presents Christ as the Priest who brings believers to God. The Eucharistic-sacrificial system presents the ordained priest as the one through whose ministry Christ is sacramentally offered.

The official Roman Catholic formulation says that the same victim is now offered “through the ministry of priests.” Yet Hebrews directs the believer through Christ Himself.

This is not a small difference.

It concerns the direction of mediation.

Christ is not a victim dependent upon an earthly priest.

The earthly believer is dependent upon the heavenly Christ.

Can a Priest Consecrate the Immortal Christ Into Bread?

The New Testament never says that a priest possesses power to summon Christ into bread, command Christ into bread, draw Christ down from heaven, or place Christ upon an altar through the pronunciation of sacramental words.

Roman Catholic theology would object to the word “summon,” because it does not understand the Eucharist as magical coercion. That distinction should be acknowledged fairly. The Catholic claim is that Christ Himself (the great, immortal, glorified, High Priest) acts through the ordained mortal man and that, through the sacramental words and the action of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood.

Yet acknowledging that distinction does not remove the biblical problem.

The question remains whether Scripture teaches that an ordained man possesses a unique sacramental power by which bread becomes the glorified Christ Himself.

The Vatican's own instruction states that only a validly ordained priest can “confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi.” This means that, within the Roman system, an ordinary believer cannot accomplish the sacramental act. The distinction does not depend merely upon faith, prayer, holiness, or the presence of the Holy Spirit. It depends upon sacramental ordination.

Yet where did Christ say this?

At the Last Supper He said:

“This do in remembrance of me.” — Luke 22:19

Paul explains the practice:

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” — 1 Corinthians 11:26

The apostolic description is remembrance and proclamation.

Paul also says:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” — 1 Corinthians 10:16

The apostolic description is communion.

The New Testament nowhere says that the words spoken over bread cause the immortal and glorified body of Christ to become substantially present beneath the appearances of that bread.

Paul continues to call it bread:

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” — 1 Corinthians 11:26

Again:

“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” — 1 Corinthians 11:28

The apostle does not say that a priest has transubstantiated the bread.

He does not explain that its substance has ceased to be bread.

He does not tell believers to adore it as Christ Himself.

He does not institute Eucharistic processions.

He does not instruct churches to reserve the consecrated bread in tabernacles for adoration.

He does not teach that a priest's words place the glorified High Priest sacramentally upon an altar.

These practices require a prior doctrine of substantial transformation. Yet that doctrine itself must first be demonstrated from the apostolic writings before the worship built upon it can be justified.

That is the central point.

One cannot first assume that the bread has become Christ and then use that assumption to justify worshipping the bread as Christ.

The transformation must first be proven.

Otherwise, the argument becomes circular.

The host must be adored because it is Christ.

How do we know it is Christ?

Because the priest has consecrated it.

How do we know the priest can consecrate it?

Because the Church says the priest has received sacramental power.

How do we know the Church possesses authority to establish that sacramental power?

Because the same ecclesiastical system claims that authority for itself.

At no point has the doctrine yet been demonstrated from Christ's words or the apostles' teaching.

The New Testament says to remember Christ.

The New Testament says to proclaim His death.

The New Testament says the bread and cup are communion in His body and blood.

The New Testament does not say to worship the bread.

Christ Said, “Do This in Remembrance of Me,” Not “Adore This as Me”

The question of Eucharistic adoration must therefore be treated seriously.

Roman Catholic practice does not merely show reverence during a communal meal. Official Catholic teaching directs believers to adore Christ as truly present in the consecrated Eucharist, including outside the celebration of Mass. Vatican instructions encourage public and private Eucharistic adoration, visits before the reserved sacrament, and reverence toward the consecrated host precisely because it is believed to be Christ Himself.

The biblical question is not whether Christ deserves worship.

He unquestionably does.

The question is whether Christ commanded His disciples to worship consecrated bread as Himself.

At the Last Supper, Christ did not place the bread before His disciples and instruct them to kneel before it.

He did not reserve it in a tabernacle.

He did not carry it in procession.

He did not command His disciples to gaze upon it in adoration.

He broke it and gave it to them to eat.

He said:

“This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” — Luke 22:19

The command concerns doing something in remembrance of Him.

Paul likewise says:

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” — 1 Corinthians 11:26

The action is eating and drinking.

The purpose is proclamation of His death.

The duration is until He comes.

The object of hope is the returning Christ.

The passage does not say that the Church should turn the bread into an object of adoration because Christ has been substantially localized beneath its appearances.

This matters enormously because worship is not a peripheral matter in Scripture. Worship belongs to God.

When Satan tempted Christ, Jesus replied:

“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” — Matthew 4:10

If the consecrated host truly is Christ, then worship directed toward it would, within that theological premise, be worship directed toward Christ. The entire question therefore turns upon whether Scripture actually establishes that the bread has become the glorified Christ Himself.

If Scripture does not establish that transformation, then the danger is immense, because divine worship has been directed toward something made from grain by human hands.

This is precisely why the doctrine cannot be protected from scrutiny by appealing to sincerity.

Israel's golden calf was not defended by lack of religious feeling. Aaron even proclaimed:

“To morrow is a feast to the LORD.” — Exodus 32:5

Religious intention did not transform a created object into the true God.

The same principle must govern every claim of sacramental presence. The believer cannot safely worship a created object merely because an institution declares that its substance has changed into Christ. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary biblical demonstration.

Christ commanded remembrance.

Paul described proclamation.

Paul described communion.

The New Testament provides no command to adore consecrated bread.

The Immortal Christ Cannot Become a Dying Victim Again

The contradiction becomes unavoidable when the glorification and immortality of Christ are placed beside the doctrine of a propitiatory Eucharistic sacrifice.

Christ has defeated death.

He is not merely alive in the ordinary sense that Lazarus was once restored to earthly life and later died again. Christ has risen into immortal glory.

Paul says:

“Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” — Romans 6:9

Hebrews describes His priesthood as resting upon:

“The power of an endless life.” — Hebrews 7:16

Christ therefore cannot return to the condition of a mortal victim.

He cannot become subject to death again.

He cannot shed His blood again through another act of death.

He cannot be slaughtered again.

Roman Catholic doctrine does not claim that Christ is physically killed again during every Mass, and any serious criticism should acknowledge that. The Church calls the Eucharistic offering unbloody and says the manner of offering differs from the cross.

Yet that clarification creates rather than solves the central difficulty.

A propitiatory sacrifice requires the victim's life to be given.

If Christ does not die, where is the sacrificial death?

If His blood is not shed, where is the shedding of blood?

If nothing happens to the immortal Christ corresponding to the sacrificial death of the victim, in what biblical sense has a propitiatory sacrifice occurred?

The answer cannot merely be that the victim is present.

A victim may be present without being sacrificed.

The answer cannot merely be that the blood is present.

Blood may be present without being shed.

The answer cannot merely be that Calvary becomes present.

If Calvary is the event where the death occurred, then Calvary remains the event where propitiation occurred.

The priest's action cannot simultaneously be necessary to offer the propitiatory sacrifice while adding no death, no suffering, no shedding of blood, and no new giving of the victim's life.

The doctrine therefore depends upon a sacrificial category that Scripture never supplies.

It requires an unbloody propitiatory sacrifice without sacrificial death.

It requires an immortal victim who remains immortal while supposedly being offered as victim.

It requires blood that is sacrificially present without being shed.

It requires an earthly priest to offer the heavenly High Priest.

The contradictions are not resolved by calling the mode sacramental.

A label does not create a biblical category.

The New Testament Requires Holy Ministers, Yet Sacramental Validity Does Not Depend Upon the Priest's Holiness

Another serious contradiction concerns the spiritual condition of the priest who performs the consecration.

The New Testament does not treat ministerial character as irrelevant.

When men were chosen for service in Acts, the apostles required:

“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” — Acts 6:3

Paul says that a bishop must be:

“Blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” — 1 Timothy 3:2

He further says:

“Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without.” — 1 Timothy 3:7

Titus similarly requires:

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” — Titus 1:7

These are not ceremonial qualifications.

They are moral and spiritual qualifications.

The men entrusted with ministry are expected to have honest reputations, holy character, spiritual wisdom, doctrinal faithfulness, and lives worthy of their calling.

Roman Catholicism certainly teaches that priests ought to be holy, and it would be unfair to suggest otherwise. Yet Catholic sacramental theology makes a crucial further distinction: the validity and efficacy of a sacrament do not depend upon the personal holiness of the priest.

The Catechism states that the sacraments act ex opere operato, by virtue of the sacramental action performed and Christ's saving work, rather than by virtue of the righteousness of the minister. It states even more explicitly that the unworthiness of an ordained minister does not prevent Christ from acting through the sacrament.

This creates an extraordinary theological contrast.

The New Testament asks whether a minister is blameless, spiritually mature, faithful, and full of the Holy Ghost. These qualifications are not incidental, because a ministry that takes holiness, accountability, and spiritual character seriously should also provide stronger safeguards against grievous abuses, including the sexual abuse of children.

1 John 3:9 (KJV):

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

The sacramental system asks whether he is validly ordained and performs the sacramental action correctly.

A priest may be guilty of serious sin, yet according to Catholic sacramental theology his unworthiness does not prevent a valid consecration.

Therefore a sinful priest may pronounce the required words, and the bread is still said to become Christ.

A priest lacking holiness may stand at the altar, and the immortal Great High Priest is still said to be offered sacramentally through his ministry.

A priest whose personal life contradicts the moral qualifications laid down for ministers in the New Testament may nevertheless effect a valid Eucharist because the sacramental efficacy is not grounded in his spiritual worthiness.

This distinction is defended by saying that Christ is the true actor and the priest is merely His instrument.

Yet this answer does not remove the deeper biblical question.

Where does the New Testament establish an ordained sacerdotal power which remains sacramentally effective independently of the minister's personal holiness and spiritual condition?

Where do Christ or the apostles teach that a man may possess an indelible sacramental character enabling him to turn bread into Christ's body even while living in grave sin?

Where does Scripture teach that the essential question is valid ordination rather than the spiritual character repeatedly demanded of ministers in Acts, Timothy, and Titus?

The issue is not whether God can use sinful people. He plainly can, and every servant of God remains imperfect.

The issue is whether Scripture institutes a sacramental mechanism whose validity remains intact because of priestly ordination even when the spiritual qualifications of ministry have been violated.

The New Testament does not say that a spiritually unworthy minister can still bring the glorified Christ sacramentally upon an altar because sacramental power adheres to his ordination.

That doctrine must come from somewhere other than the apostolic qualifications for ministry.

The Blood Was Given for Atonement, Not for Ritual Consumption as Another Propitiatory Act

The Old Testament prohibition concerning blood makes the sacrificial distinction even more important.

Leviticus says:

“Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.” — Leviticus 7:26

The reason is explicitly connected with atonement:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” — Leviticus 17:11

The blood belongs to the sacrificial action because life is given through it.

The blood is placed upon the altar for atonement.

Israel is not commanded to eat the blood as the means of receiving that atonement.

This becomes profoundly important when Christ's own sacrifice is considered.

His blood was actually shed.

His life was actually given.

His sacrifice was not accomplished because the disciples drank from a cup at the Last Supper. At that moment His blood had not yet been shed upon the cross.

The cup anticipated the blood that would be shed.

Christ said:

“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” — Luke 22:20

The sacrificial event was still ahead.

The arrest was ahead.

The scourging was ahead.

The crucifixion was ahead.

The shedding of blood was ahead.

The death of the victim was ahead.

The bread and cup therefore cannot be confused with the historical sacrificial event they signify and proclaim.

Paul later writes:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” — 1 Corinthians 10:16

He calls it communion in the blood of Christ.

He does not call it another shedding of Christ's blood.

Communion and bloodshed are not identical acts.

Participation in the benefits of a sacrifice is not the same thing as performing the sacrifice.

The fellowship meal rests upon the sacrifice.

It does not become the sacrifice.

The Sin Offering Applied to Christ Was Not Eaten

The contradiction becomes even stronger when the particular sin offering that Hebrews explicitly applies to Christ is considered.

Leviticus states:

“And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” — Leviticus 6:30

This was not a general prohibition applying to every sin offering, because some sin offerings could indeed be eaten by priests. The crucial distinction concerned the sacrifice whose blood was carried into the sanctuary for reconciliation.

That particular sin offering was not eaten.

Hebrews then deliberately invokes exactly this sacrificial pattern:

“For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” — Hebrews 13:11

The writer immediately applies it to Christ:

“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” — Hebrews 13:12

The parallel is exact.

The blood entered the sanctuary.

The body went outside the camp.

The offering was not eaten.

Christ suffered outside the gate.

His own blood sanctifies His people.

This creates one of the most serious problems for interpreting the Eucharistic meal itself as the continuing propitiatory sacrifice.

The specific sacrificial type which Hebrews explicitly applies to Christ was forbidden as food.

The body was not eaten.

The blood was presented for sin.

The sacrifice occurred outside the camp.

Christ fulfilled this pattern when He suffered outside the gate.

The next verse does not say that Christians must therefore eat the propitiatory victim. It says:

“Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” — Hebrews 13:13

The believer is called to go unto Christ.

The believer is not told that an earthly priest must bring Christ down into bread.

This distinction cannot be ignored.

The sin offering applied to Christ was not eaten.

The peace offering was eaten in fellowship.

Therefore, when Paul describes the Lord's Supper as communion and participation, the peace-offering pattern provides the natural sacrificial category.

The sacrifice opens fellowship.

The meal celebrates fellowship.

The meal does not become the sin offering.

The Peace Offering Explains the Lord's Table Without Creating Another Propitiatory Sacrifice

The peace offering was the sacrificial meal of fellowship, communion, thanksgiving, and shared peace before God.

The worshipper ate because fellowship had been opened.

The meal itself did not remove uncleanness.

Leviticus makes this unmistakably clear:

“But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” — Leviticus 7:20

The unclean person could not eat in order to become clean.

Eating was not absolution.

The meal was not the sacrifice by which the obstacle to fellowship was removed.

Cleansing came first.

Then fellowship followed.

Paul preserves exactly this order when he writes:

“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” — 1 Corinthians 11:28

Paul does not say that the bread removes the sins revealed through self-examination.

He does not say that the cup becomes a new act of propitiation.

The believer examines himself and then participates in the Lord's Table.

Paul describes the table in terms of communion:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” — 1 Corinthians 10:16

He then compares this participation with Israel's sacrificial meals:

“Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” — 1 Corinthians 10:18

The language is unmistakably about fellowship and participation.

Those who eat become partakers.

Those who share a sacred table express covenant allegiance.

This is why Paul warns against participating both in the table of the Lord and the table of devils.

The Lord's Supper therefore does not need to be transformed into another propitiatory sacrifice in order to possess profound theological meaning.

It is remembrance.

It is proclamation.

It is thanksgiving.

It is communion.

It is covenant fellowship.

It is the sacred meal of those who participate in the blessings obtained through Christ's actual sacrifice.

The sacrifice makes the fellowship possible.

The meal celebrates that fellowship.

After Christ's Sacrifice, the New Testament Tells Christians What Sacrifices They Are to Offer

The New Testament does not leave Christians without sacrifices.

It expressly tells believers what sacrifices they are now to bring.

Yet these sacrifices are not new propitiatory offerings of Christ upon earthly altars.

Hebrews says:

“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” — Hebrews 13:15

This is extraordinarily significant.

The writer has already presented Christ as the great High Priest.

He has already shown that Christ's blood opened the way.

He has already identified Christ with the sacrifice that suffered outside the gate.

He then tells believers what sacrifice they themselves are to offer.

The answer is not another propitiatory victim.

It is praise.

It is thanksgiving.

It is the fruit of lips giving thanks to God's name.

The next verse continues:

“But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” — Hebrews 13:16

The Christian sacrifices are praise, thanksgiving, doing good, generosity, and the sharing of what we possess.

Peter says:

“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” — 1 Peter 2:5

Notice the priesthood described here.

The believers themselves are an holy priesthood.

Their sacrifices are spiritual sacrifices.

Those sacrifices are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

The text does not say that a separate sacerdotal caste must offer Christ as a propitiatory victim upon altars.

Paul likewise says:

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” — Romans 12:1

The Christian sacrifice is a living sacrifice of consecrated obedience.

Hebrews gives praise and thanksgiving.

Peter gives spiritual sacrifices.

Paul gives the believer's own life in consecrated service.

None of these texts says that Christians require a sacrificing priest who must present Christ again as victim.

That need exists only if an ongoing propitiatory sacrifice still has to be offered.

Once that premise is removed, the entire necessity for a sacerdotal priesthood whose distinctive function is offering a propitiatory Eucharistic victim becomes unnecessary.

Christ is the High Priest.

Christ is the one Mediator.

Christ's blood opens access.

All believers are called a holy priesthood.

Their sacrifices are praise, thanksgiving, spiritual service, generosity, and lives consecrated to God.

The Lord's Table is the meal of fellowship.

Nothing in this biblical order requires a priest to place the immortal Christ upon an altar.

Why Trent Requires a Sacrificing Priest

The Roman sacrificial priesthood and the Roman doctrine of the Mass stand or fall together.

The reason a sacrificing priest is needed is that a sacrifice is said to require someone to offer it.

The official Roman Catholic doctrine states that in the Eucharist the same victim who offered Himself upon the cross is now offered through the ministry of priests. The Vatican's own liturgical instruction consequently says that only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist in persona Christi.

The logic is internally coherent within the Roman system.

If Christ must continue to be sacramentally offered as a propitiatory victim, then someone requires sacramental authority to offer Him.

If only ordained priests possess that authority, then the ministerial priesthood becomes necessary for the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Yet the entire construction depends upon the first premise being true.

Does the New Testament actually teach that Christ must continue to be offered as a propitiatory victim?

The biblical sacrificial order points elsewhere.

The victim actually dies.

The blood is actually shed.

The particular sin offering applied to Christ is not eaten.

The glorified Christ now possesses an endless life.

He is the great High Priest.

He is the one Mediator.

Believers come to God through Him.

The Lord's Supper is remembrance, proclamation, communion, and fellowship.

The sacrifices Christians now bring are praise, thanksgiving, spiritual offerings, good works, generosity, and consecrated lives.

If no continuing propitiatory sacrifice has to be presented, then no sacrificing priest is required to present it.

The need for the sacerdotal priest depends upon the continued existence of the sacrificial victim.

The continued existence of the sacrificial victim depends upon treating the Eucharistic meal as a propitiatory offering.

Yet Scripture identifies the meal with communion while the sacrifice for sin required death and the actual shedding of blood.

Once the sacrificial categories are restored, the system begins to unravel.

Christ does not need an earthly priest to offer Him.

The believer needs Christ to bring him to God.

The Christian Table Should Be a Place of Praise and Thanksgiving

The Lord's Supper becomes no less sacred when it is freed from the claim that a priest transforms bread into an immortal propitiatory victim.

Its true biblical meaning is immense.

Christ commanded:

“This do in remembrance of me.” — Luke 22:19

Paul says:

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” — 1 Corinthians 11:26

The table looks backward in remembrance.

The table proclaims Christ's death in the present.

The table looks forward until He comes.

The table is communion.

The table expresses participation.

The table identifies believers with Christ and with one another.

This corresponds beautifully with the Christian sacrifices described after Christ's death:

“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” — Hebrews 13:15

The proper Christian response to the finished sacrifice is praise.

The proper response is thanksgiving.

The proper response is communion.

The proper response is remembrance.

The proper response is proclamation.

The proper response is to draw near to God through the one High Priest who ever lives to intercede.

No mortal priest needs to call Christ down.

No priest needs to make the immortal Christ into a victim.

No priest needs to place the glorified Lord upon an earthly altar.

No priest needs to produce flesh from bread in order to create propitiation.

No priest needs to shed blood that cannot be shed because Christ dies no more.

Christ Himself has opened the way.

The believer therefore comes boldly to the throne of grace.

The Immortal High Priest Cannot Be Turned Into an Unbloody Victim by Priestly Words

The deepest contradiction in the Roman doctrine of the consecrated host lies in the attempt to hold together claims that belong to entirely different sacrificial categories.

Christ is immortal, yet He is said to be sacramentally offered as victim.

Christ dies no more, yet the Eucharist is called a propitiatory sacrifice.

His blood is not shed, yet the offering is said to possess sacrificial efficacy for sin.

He is the one High Priest, yet an earthly priest is required to offer Him.

He is the one Mediator, yet access to the Eucharistic victim depends upon a distinct sacramental priesthood.

The particular sanctuary sin offering explicitly applied to Christ was not eaten, yet the Eucharistic meal is associated with His propitiatory sacrifice.

The peace offering was a fellowship meal entered after cleansing, yet the fellowship meal is transformed into the sacrificial offering itself.

Christ told His disciples to remember Him, while later ecclesiastical doctrine tells believers to adore the consecrated host as Christ Himself.

Paul calls the elements bread and cup, while the sacramental doctrine declares that their underlying substance has ceased to be bread and wine.

The New Testament demands that ministers be blameless, spiritually mature, faithful, and full of the Holy Ghost, while the Catholic sacramental principle says that even the minister's unworthiness does not prevent the sacrament from being effected, provided the sacramental conditions for validity are present.

These contradictions cannot be resolved merely by appealing to mystery.

A mystery revealed by God may exceed human understanding, but it cannot be created by ecclesiastical assertion without biblical revelation.

The biblical sacrificial order remains clear.

The victim gave His life.

The blood was shed.

Christ suffered outside the gate.

His blood opened access to God.

The particular sanctuary sin offering corresponding to His sacrifice was not eaten.

Christ rose from the dead.

Death has no more dominion over Him.

He possesses the power of an endless life.

He has passed into the heavens as the great High Priest.

He ever lives to make intercession.

He is the one Mediator between God and men.

Believers therefore come to God through Him.

The Lord's Supper follows the sacrifice as communion and fellowship.

At the table believers remember Christ.

They proclaim His death.

They participate in communion.

They give thanks.

They offer praise.

They await His return.

The New Testament does not tell a priest to bring Christ down from heaven into bread.

It does not tell him to place the immortal High Priest upon an altar.

It does not give him power to make the glorified Christ a propitiatory victim.

It does not command believers to worship consecrated bread.

It does not teach that a victim who cannot die can nevertheless be sacrificially offered for sin without blood being shed.

The very nature of sacrifice exposes the contradiction.

A propitiatory victim gives its life.

Christ cannot die again.

Sacrificial blood is shed.

Christ's blood is not shed again.

The High Priest mediates between God and man.

Christ Himself is that High Priest and Mediator.

The fellowship meal follows atonement.

It does not become the atoning sacrifice.

The sacrifices now commanded of Christians are praise, thanksgiving, spiritual service, generosity, good works, and lives presented to God through Jesus Christ.

The Church therefore needs no priest to summon Christ into bread, no priest to transform the immortal Lord into a sacramental victim, and no priest to offer the glorified High Priest upon an earthly altar.

Christ is not waiting to be placed upon an altar by human hands.

Christ is seated in glory.

Christ lives forever.

Christ intercedes.

Christ saves to the uttermost those who come unto God by Him.

The bread and cup should therefore remain what Christ and Paul present them as: the sacred covenant meal of remembrance, proclamation, communion, thanksgiving, and hope, received by those who have fellowship with God through the sacrifice already accomplished by the true and everlasting High Priest.

The Christian does not need another priest to present Christ to God.

The Christian has Christ Himself.

The Christian does not need another propitiatory victim.

The Lamb has given His life.

The Christian does not need an immortal Saviour placed upon an altar under the appearance of a wafer.

The risen Christ is already at the right hand of God.

The believer's calling is therefore not to worship bread, but to worship the living Christ; not to seek another sacrificial offering, but to draw near through the blood already shed; not to depend upon a priestly act that claims to place Christ upon an altar, but to come boldly through the one Mediator who ever lives to make intercession.

That is the direction of the New Testament.

Christ remains the High Priest.

Christ remains the Mediator.

Christ remains immortal.

Christ remains glorified.

The sacrifice has opened fellowship.

The table follows with remembrance, communion, praise, and thanksgiving.

Nothing more is needed, because the risen Christ Himself is sufficient.

2 Peter 2:3 (KJV):

“And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”