The Sacrificing Priesthood Leo XIII Assumed but Scripture Does Not Establish

Denzinger part 63

I have now worked my way through 497 of the 765 pages of Denzinger, testing each decree and doctrinal claim against Scripture. This work matters because, from the period when the Roman Catholic system began to formalise and legally define the spiritual union believers possess with Christ—His spiritual house, true Church, and body—as a visible institution resembling an imperial religious organisation, ecclesiastical authority increasingly became capable of presenting its own developments as the teaching of Christ Himself. To remain faithful to Christ and His apostles, we must therefore “prove all things” and verify whether the claims made by powerful popes, councils, and hierarchies are explicitly taught by Scripture, necessarily implied by it, or were developed later through institutional authority.

Part 1

Rome Declared Anglican Orders Void for Rejecting a Sacrificing Priesthood the New Testament Never Instituted

Denzinger 1963–1966 reproduces the central argument of Pope Leo XIII’s letter Apostolicae curae, issued on September 13, 1896. Leo XIII declared Anglican ordinations “invalid and entirely void,” principally because the Anglican ordinal allegedly lacked the correct sacramental form and intention required to confer the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Denzinger 1963 begins by establishing the sacramental theory upon which the judgment rests:

“In the rite of conferring and administering any sacrament one rightly distinguishes between the ceremonial part and the essential part, which is customarily called the matter and form.”

Leo XIII identifies the imposition of hands as the matter of ordination but adds:

“This, of course, by itself signifies nothing.”

The validity of ordination is therefore made dependent upon the imposition of hands being determined by a verbal form that signifies the particular sacramental priesthood Rome believes Christ "instituted".

The decisive question, however, is not simply whether the Anglican ordinal used particular words. The deeper question is what kind of priesthood Leo XIII believed those words were required to create. His judgment rests upon the assumption that Christ instituted a distinct sacerdotal order whose defining power is to consecrate and offer Christ’s true body and blood as a Eucharistic sacrifice. Unless that underlying priesthood can be demonstrated from the New Testament, the entire judgment becomes circular. Anglican orders are declared invalid because they do not confer the Roman sacrificing priesthood, while the Roman sacrificing priesthood is assumed to be the standard by which all Christian ministry must be judged.

Denzinger 1964 states:

“Now, the words which until recent times were everywhere held by the Anglicans as the proper form of priestly ordination, namely, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ certainly do not in the least signify definitely the order of priesthood, or its grace and power, which is especially the power ‘of consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord,’ in that sacrifice which is no ‘nude commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross.’”

This is the heart of the argument. The Anglican words are declared insufficient, not because they fail to signify Christian ministry, pastoral oversight, the preaching of the gospel, the care of the flock, or the receiving of the Holy Ghost, but because they do not explicitly confer the power to consecrate and offer Christ’s body and blood as a sacrifice.

Leo XIII is therefore not merely testing the Anglican ordinal against the language of the New Testament. He is testing it against the sacerdotal theology defined by the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent Supplies the Standard Used Against Anglican Orders

The theological foundation of Apostolicae curae had already been stated in the Council of Trent, Session XXIII, chapter 1, reproduced in Denzinger 957:

“Since, therefore, in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the institution of the Lord the holy, visible sacrifice of the Eucharist, it must also be confessed that there is in this Church a new visible and external priesthood. Moreover, that this was instituted by that same Lord our Savior, and that to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood was handed down the power of consecrating, of offering and administering His body and blood, and also of forgiving and retaining sins, the Sacred Scriptures show and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught.”

The logical order is clear. Trent first asserts that the Church possesses a visible Eucharistic sacrifice. It then concludes that there must be a visible and external priesthood empowered to offer that sacrifice. Apostolicae curae subsequently declares Anglican ordinations invalid because their form does not adequately signify the power to offer that sacrifice.

The Roman argument may be summarized as follows. Christ instituted a visible Eucharistic sacrifice. A visible sacrifice requires a sacrificing priest. The priest must receive power to consecrate and offer Christ’s body and blood. Any ordination rite that does not intend to confer that power fails to confer the true priesthood. Therefore, Anglican ordinations are void.

Yet the entire structure depends upon the first premise. Does the New Testament actually teach that Christ instituted a continuing visible sacrifice in which ordained men consecrate and offer His body and blood?

Trent says that “the Sacred Scriptures show” this doctrine, but it does not arise naturally from the apostolic writings. The New Testament records the Lord’s Supper as remembrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, communion, and covenant participation. It never describes a Christian minister as offering Christ upon an altar as a propitiatory victim.

If the Eucharist is not a continuing propitiatory sacrifice, then a special sacrificing priesthood is not required to offer it. If no sacrificing priesthood was instituted by Christ, then the Anglican ordinal cannot be invalidated merely because it does not confer powers that the apostles themselves never describe.

The alleged defect in Anglican orders therefore depends upon accepting Trent’s doctrine before the investigation has begun.

“Receive the Holy Ghost” Is Not an Empty or Meaningless Form

Leo XIII argues that the Anglican words “Receive the Holy Spirit” do not sufficiently signify priesthood or its grace and power. Yet these words possess unmistakable biblical significance because they echo the words of Christ Himself.

After His resurrection, Jesus said to His disciples:

“Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” — John 20:21

John continues:

“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” — John 20:22

Christ joined the words “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” directly to apostolic mission. He sent the disciples as the Father had sent Him and breathed upon them. Whatever one concludes about the precise relationship between this event and Pentecost, the words cannot reasonably be dismissed as failing to signify spiritual grace, divine commissioning, or apostolic ministry.

Leo XIII does not merely say that the words are capable of several meanings. He states that they “certainly do not in the least signify definitely the order of priesthood, or its grace and power.” That conclusion is reached only because the required “power” has already been defined as the power to consecrate and offer Christ’s body and blood.

The words are considered defective because they do not signify the specifically Tridentine priesthood. They are not defective as an expression of Spirit-given ministry. Their supposed insufficiency appears only after a later sacrificial definition of priesthood has been imposed upon them.

The New Testament repeatedly connects the Holy Ghost, prayer, laying on of hands, and appointment to ministry. When the seven were selected in Acts 6, the apostles instructed the congregation:

“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” — Acts 6:3

These men were already “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” before hands were laid upon them. The laying on of hands did not mechanically create spiritual life or confer an otherwise nonexistent sacerdotal substance. It publicly recognized and commissioned men whose spiritual qualifications were already evident.

Acts records:

“Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” — Acts 6:6

Likewise, when Barnabas and Saul were set apart, the initiative came from the Holy Ghost:

“As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” — Acts 13:2

The church then acted in response:

“And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” — Acts 13:3

The Holy Ghost called them before the laying on of hands. The act recognized and confirmed the Spirit’s calling. Nothing in the passage suggests that the laying on of hands conferred an indelible sacerdotal power to transform bread into Christ and offer Him upon an altar.

Paul certainly refers to a spiritual gift connected with the laying on of hands:

“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” — 1 Timothy 4:14

He also tells Timothy:

“Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.” — 2 Timothy 1:6

These passages show that laying on of hands was spiritually significant. They do not define the gift as a power to consecrate and sacrificially offer Christ. Paul describes Timothy as a minister, evangelist, teacher, and guardian of apostolic doctrine. He never describes him as a sacerdotal offerer of Christ’s body and blood.

The New Testament Ministers Were Elders and Overseers, Not Sacrificing Priests

The terminology of the New Testament presents a fundamental problem for Trent’s “new visible and external priesthood.”

The ordinary ministers of local congregations are called elders, overseers, shepherds, teachers, and servants. The Greek word translated “elder” is presbyteros. The word translated “bishop” or “overseer” is episkopos. The ordinary Greek word for a sacrificing priest is hiereus.

The New Testament does not call the elders of Christian congregations hiereis. It does not identify them as a class of men whose essential function is to offer Christ sacramentally. When the New Testament speaks of priests under the new covenant, it applies the language supremely to Christ and corporately to the whole people of God.

Peter writes to believers:

“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

He later says:

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” — 1 Peter 2:9

The priesthood described here belongs to the people of God as a whole. Their sacrifices are spiritual sacrifices offered to God through Jesus Christ. Peter does not divide the Church into a sacerdotal class that offers Christ and a lay class dependent upon that offering.

John uses the same corporate language:

“And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.” — Revelation 1:6

The writer of Hebrews identifies the sacrifices Christians now offer:

“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

He continues:

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

The new-covenant sacrifices are praise, thanksgiving, generosity, obedience, and lives consecrated to God. Paul writes:

“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

None of these passages says that Christian elders offer the immortal, glorified Christ as a propitiatory victim. The Church certainly has ministers and ordered leadership, but ordered ministry is not identical to a sacrificial priesthood.

Paul lists the ministries Christ gave to His Church:

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” — Ephesians 4:11

The purpose is:

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” — Ephesians 4:12

The list contains apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. It does not introduce a class of priests whose defining power is to consecrate and offer Christ.

Paul does employ priestly imagery concerning his apostolic ministry in Romans 15:16, where he speaks of “ministering the gospel of God” so that “the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable.” Yet the offering is not the body and blood of Christ. The offering is the converted Gentiles, sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Even this priestly metaphor points toward gospel ministry and transformed lives rather than a Eucharistic sacrifice.

Trent therefore moves beyond the ministry described in the New Testament. It does not merely preserve elders and overseers under another name. It assigns them a sacerdotal power that the apostolic writings never attach to those offices.

The Bishop Is Not the “Highest Priest” of the New Testament Church

Denzinger 1965 extends the argument to Anglican bishops:

“The episcopate without doubt, from institution of Christ, most truly pertains to the sacrament of orders, and is a priesthood of a pre-eminent grade, that which in the words of the Fathers and in the custom of our ritual is, of course, called ‘summum sacerdotium,’ ‘sacri ministerii summa.’”

Leo XIII then makes the Eucharistic basis of this judgment explicit:

“Since the sacrament of orders and the true sacerdotium of Christ have been utterly thrust out of the Anglican rite, and so in the consecration of a bishop of this same rite the sacerdotium is by no means conferred; likewise, by no means can the episcopacy be truly and validly conferred.”

He adds that among the first duties of the episcopacy is:

“Ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and the sacrifice.”

The phrase summum sacerdotium means the highest or supreme priesthood. Yet the New Testament never calls a Christian bishop the highest priest. That title belongs uniquely to Christ.

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

Christ is not merely one high priest standing above lesser Christian sacrificing priests. He is the great High Priest who has entered heaven itself.

Hebrews says:

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

The reason His priesthood is unchangeable is that He lives forever:

“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

To apply the language of “highest priesthood” to a bishop introduces a category absent from the apostolic order. The New Testament calls a bishop an overseer. It never presents him as a Christian equivalent of the Aaronic high priest.

Indeed, the New Testament evidence indicates that “elder” and “overseer” describe the same local office from different perspectives.

Acts 20 states that Paul called “the elders of the church” at Ephesus:

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” — Acts 20:17

Speaking to those same elders, Paul said:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” — Acts 20:28

The elders are the overseers. They are commanded to care for the flock. The passage does not place a bishop possessing a supreme sacrificial priesthood above ordinary elders.

The same connection appears in Titus. Paul tells Titus:

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city.” — Titus 1:5

He then explains the qualifications:

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

The transition from “elders” to “a bishop” shows that Paul is discussing the same local ministry. The bishop is an overseer and steward, not a possessor of summum sacerdotium.

Peter also exhorts the elders:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.” — 1 Peter 5:1

He then tells them:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2

The apostolic pattern is elders shepherding and overseeing the flock. It is not a hierarchy in which bishops receive the highest grade of a sacrificial priesthood.

One may argue historically that episcopal structures developed very early, but historical development must not be confused with explicit institution by Christ. Apostolicae curae says that the episcopate as a pre-eminent priesthood comes “from institution of Christ.” That claim must be demonstrated from Christ and the apostles, not merely asserted through later ritual terminology.

The Eucharistic Sacrifice Must Be Proved Before It Can Define Priesthood

Peace Was Made Through the Blood of His Cross, Not Through a Continuing Earthly Offering

The New Testament does not leave the location or means of reconciliation uncertain. Peace with God was accomplished through the historical shedding of Christ’s blood upon the cross.

Paul writes:

“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself.” — Colossians 1:20

Peace was not made through the subsequent consecration of bread. It was not made through an unbloody offering performed by an earthly priest. It was made “through the blood of his cross.”

The language identifies both the means and the historical event. The means was Christ’s blood. The event was His cross. Reconciliation was accomplished when He genuinely gave His life, bore sin, and shed His blood.

Paul expresses the same truth in Romans:

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” — Romans 5:1

He then explains how that reconciliation was accomplished:

“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” — Romans 5:10

The reconciliation was accomplished “by the death of his Son.” It was not accomplished by an immortal Christ being sacramentally offered without dying. It was accomplished by His real death upon Calvary.

Ephesians makes the same connection:

“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” — Ephesians 2:13

Paul continues:

“For he is our peace.” — Ephesians 2:14

He then identifies the cross as the place where reconciliation occurred:

“And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” — Ephesians 2:16

Christ Himself is our peace. His blood brings us near. His cross reconciles us to God. The apostolic message does not place reconciliation in the hands of a later sacrificing priesthood. It places reconciliation wholly in Christ and in the blood He shed once upon the cross.

This matters directly for the argument of Denzinger 1964. Leo XIII defines priestly power as the power of “consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord.” Yet if peace has already been made through the blood of Christ’s cross, what further propitiatory offering remains for another priest to perform?

Hebrews answers:

“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” — Hebrews 10:18

The Church proclaims the reconciliation Christ accomplished. Ministers preach peace through Jesus Christ. Believers remember His death and participate in communion founded upon that death. None of these actions constitutes another propitiatory offering of Christ.

The Showbread Was Holy Bread, Not Divine Flesh

The account of David and the showbread also provides an important biblical distinction between bread that is holy because of its appointed use and bread that has supposedly ceased to be bread.

First Samuel records that David came to Ahimelech the priest while fleeing from Saul. Because no ordinary bread was available, Ahimelech gave him the consecrated showbread:

“So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD.” — 1 Samuel 21:6

The bread was holy because it had been dedicated to the Lord and placed before Him according to the ceremonial law. Leviticus describes twelve loaves placed continually before the Lord and afterwards eaten by Aaron and his sons:

“And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.”

“And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place.” — Leviticus 24:6, 9

The bread represented Israel before God and belonged to a sacred covenant ordinance. Yet its holiness did not mean that its substance had changed. It remained bread. It did not become the flesh of God because it had been placed before God. It was holy through consecration, purpose, and covenant use, not through a transformation of its material substance into a divine person.

Jesus appealed to this incident when the Pharisees condemned His disciples for plucking grain on the Sabbath:

“Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?”

“How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” — Mark 2:25–26

Christ’s argument shows that the ceremonial restriction was not an end in itself. The showbread was sacred, but its sacred status did not abolish mercy, human need, or the moral purpose of God’s law. Jesus did not suggest that David had consumed divine flesh. He called it bread and treated it as bread dedicated to a holy purpose.

Scripture does not explicitly declare that the showbread was a direct prophetic type of the Lord’s Supper, so such a connection should not be presented as a demonstrated biblical identification. Nevertheless, the comparison is instructive. Both involve bread used within covenant worship. Both concern fellowship with God and His people. Both are treated as holy. Yet holiness of use does not by itself establish a change of substance.

At the Lord’s Supper, Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to His disciples. Paul continues to call the element bread after describing its sacred communion:

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

He again 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

He continues:

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

The element is sacred because it is received in remembrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, and communion. Its holy use does not prove that its substance has ceased to be bread.

The showbread demonstrates that something may be genuinely holy, dedicated to God, and restricted to sacred use while remaining what it materially is. Consequently, the sacred character of the Lord’s Supper cannot by itself prove transubstantiation or the existence of a priestly power that transforms bread into the glorified Christ.

David received holy bread in a moment of need. Christ used that event to expose a legalistic interpretation that had lost sight of mercy and the purpose of God’s ordinance. Neither David nor Christ treated the showbread as divine flesh.

The Lord’s Supper is infinitely greater because it was instituted by Christ to remember and proclaim His death. Nevertheless, its greatness must be defined by Christ and the apostles. The bread signifies and communicates covenant fellowship in Christ’s body, but the New Testament does not say that an ordained priest must transform it into the immortal body of Christ and then offer Him as a propitiatory victim.

The showbread was holy bread, but it was still bread. Paul calls the Eucharistic element holy communion, but he also continues to call it bread. Neither sacredness nor consecrated use establishes the later claim that bread has become God and must be offered and adored as God.

Denzinger 1964 defines priestly power as the power of:

“Consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord.”

That definition cannot be separated from Trent’s doctrine of the Mass. If Christ instituted no continuing propitiatory Eucharistic offering, then the supposed power to offer Him cannot serve as the biblical definition of ministry.

At the Last Supper, Christ said:

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

Paul explains:

“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 actions are eating, drinking, remembering, and proclaiming. Paul continues to call the element bread:

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

Paul also describes the supper as 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

Communion in the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice is not the same thing as offering Christ again. Participation in a sacrificial meal is not identical to performing the sacrifice upon which that meal depends.

The cross involved the real giving of Christ’s life. The supper proclaims that death. The distinction must not be erased.

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

Hebrews says:

“And without shedding of blood is no remission.” — Hebrews 9:22

Christ’s blood was actually shed upon the cross. His life was actually given. A living victim merely standing near an altar was not thereby sacrificed. The presence of a victim is not the sacrifice of the victim. The presence of blood is not the shedding of blood.

The Roman doctrine does not claim that Christ physically dies again at every Mass. It teaches that the sacrifice is unbloody and that the same sacrifice becomes sacramentally present. Nevertheless, the biblical question remains. Where does Scripture teach that an immortal victim who does not die and blood that is not shed constitute a present propitiatory sacrifice offered through another priest?

Paul writes:

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

Christ cannot become a dying victim again. If the atoning death remains the historical death at Calvary, then the propitiatory act remains Calvary. The Eucharistic meal may proclaim, remember, and communicate the benefits of that sacrifice, but Scripture does not therefore call the meal another offering of the victim.

Hebrews is particularly decisive:

“Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” — Hebrews 7:27

Christ did not transfer to a new class of earthly priests the continuing task of offering Him. He offered Himself.

Hebrews continues:

“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” — Hebrews 9:12

The entrance was once. The redemption obtained is eternal.

The writer excludes repeated offering:

“Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others.” — Hebrews 9:25

The alternative would require repeated suffering:

“For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world.” — Hebrews 9:26

Instead:

“But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” — Hebrews 9:26

The text then states:

“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” — Hebrews 9:28

Hebrews 10 is equally explicit:

“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” — Hebrews 10:10

The Levitical priests stood because their work continued:

“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.” — Hebrews 10:11

Christ’s posture is different because His sacrificial work is complete:

“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” — Hebrews 10:12

The conclusion is unmistakable:

“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” — Hebrews 10:14

The passage finally declares:

“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” — Hebrews 10:18

Trent’s sacerdotal priesthood depends upon an offering that Hebrews says is no longer required. Rome answers that the Mass does not add another sacrifice but makes the one sacrifice present. Yet Hebrews does not establish a post-Calvary class of priests commissioned to offer the same victim sacramentally. It directs believers to the heavenly Christ, whose completed offering has already opened the way.

For further explanation see

https://www.rebuildspirit.com/post/no-priest-can-place-the-immortal-christ-on-an-altar