1) M-16: Trent [did not have] direct quotations but there are footnotes that tell you what Trent is referring to... I have Tan Publishing, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent... According to Trent's own notation...
RESPONSE: STOP. The footnotes were added by the translator, Rev. Schroeder, and not Trent.
I contacted TAN books and they confirmed the footnotes are "not from the council directly" (e-mail upon request).
2) M-16: Let's unpack [the] most serious charge first. Trent supposedly lies, adds to what Jesus says [claiming he "said" the bread was truly his body].
RESPONSE: Correct. Trent was the ventriloquist who used Jesus as their dummy.
3) M-16: Malakye's mind-reading capability [is] not so good.
RESPONSE: If you allow Rev. Schroeder the capability of mind-reading, then I trust you will allow me the same liberty... (See #17).
4) M-16: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you".
The reason why [according to Trent] it is truly his body, is because Jesus proclaimed this in John 6:53 [where] the word 'truly' [singular] is used.
RESPONSE: Let's assume that the double use of "truly, truly" in 6:53 was the instrumental cause of Trent asserting Jesus used the single use of "truly" a year later at the Last Supper. In fact, I do agree with Schroeder's mind-reading capabilities here.
Anyway, Trent is still wrong because "truly" (double) and "truly" (single) are two different things altogether.
5) M-16: [As the footnotes record] He said 'Truly' twice to [mean he was speaking literally in v. 53].
RESPONSE: Under no circumstances whatsoever does a double "truly" mean that what follows is literally true, but rather, that what follows is indisputably true. "Truly, truly" is a rhetorical attention-getting device (i.e., "Listen up people, this is important!"). For example, "Truly, truly... you are seeking me... because you ate your fill of the loaves", does not rest on the idea that Jesus is about to tell the truth about the state of something (such as the bread having been "truly" changed) but that the statement he is about to reveal is something that cannot be denied.
M-16 agrees in O.S. #8... "truly, truly" [means] making an oath, solemnizing it. However, as usual, M-16 and Trent wish to have it both/and, but they may not. Essentially, Trent stole the word "truly" from its double usage as an attention getting device in 6:53, and transported its single usage over to the Last Supper where they allege Jesus used it as a fact-supporting device to prove the bread had "truly" changed into his body.
This mischievous distortion only gets worse when they tell us, "For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth, that to be his own body which he presented [to them]"... ("Decree on the Eucharist", ch. 3).
Here we go again. The alert reader will notice at once Trent's brazen lie of "affirmation". Jesus most certainly did not--- "affirm with truth"---the elements were actually his body and blood. He merely said, "This is my body". We argue that the bread simply symbolizes his body, being just as metaphorical as, "the bread of tears", "the bread of sorrows" (Psalm 80:5; 127:2), "the bread of deceit" (Prov 20:17), "the bread of idleness" (Prov 31:27), "the bread of affliction" (1 Kings 22:27), "the bread of adversity" (Isa 30:20), "the bread of mourners" (Hosea 9:4; cf. Numbers 14:9; Ecclesiates 11:1), and finally there are those who "eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence" (Prov 4:17). Add to that, my opponent already admits the metaphor of Jesus being the "Bread of Life" (O.S. #6), and the catechism uses the bread metaphor as well by saying we live by the "the bread of the word of God" (CCC 1334). Such resounding evidence paralyzes the Catholic position from the waist down.
Technically, it's not even the bread itself that's the focus of Jesus' attention at Supper, but rather, it's the bread which he's broken; a powerful action-symbol pointing beyond itself to the fracturing of Christ's body; and the wine poured out, another powerful action-symbol, pointing to the shedding of his blood. In fact, everything on the table was an action-symbol for the actions taken in the exodus! This "action-as-symbol" paradigm underscore that the bread was symbolic for digesting the cross-work of Christ represented IN the bread (by the action of eating the bread), as was the scroll symbolic for digesting the message represented IN the scroll, by the action of Ezekiel eating the scroll (O.S. #9).
6) M-16: So, all the huffing and puffing about adding to God's word, is false.
RESPONSE: On the contrary, my objection stands in all its pristine glory. Trent was a lying, stealing, non-prophet organization which did not speak for God, and that being so, we are commanded to reject everything they say (Deuteronomy 18:22, Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21, 23:30-40).
7) M-16: If one reads [John 6:53] on its face, a neutral observer [would conclude] Trent's interpretation in one sentence is far closer to the meaning than the contortions of Baptist interpretation.
RESPONSE: Trent was not giving an interpretation. They gave a direct quote which any casual bystander would conclude was a journalistic faux pas.
8) M-16: The Baptist Confession of Faith and Malakye, basically contend, "don't believe what Jesus and Paul say, let us interpret it for you, let us give long explanations that deprive Jesus and Paul's words of their plain meaning".
RESPONSE: This accusation is quite hypocritical, for when God's word declares such things as, "all have sinned" and there are "none righteous, no not one", the hired hands at the Vatican go on the defensive giving us long-winded explanations that Mary was an exception to this rule, which of course, deprives God's word of its plain meaning (!!!).
TOENAILS
9) The catechism admits that the "Real Presence" is not meant to exclude other claims of presence as if they could not be real too (CCC 1374). The only difference is that Catholics think there's some virtue in eating every part of his physical anatomy right down to the toenails.
M-16: [It is] a false presumption [to say we are] eating toenails. We are eating flesh and blood, in the form of bread and wine.
RESPONSE: You are engaging in semantic gymnastics. By definition, you do indeed imagine eating toenails, and thus, Catholics are swiftly open to the charge of cannibalism.
*** "Here the pastor should explain that in this sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire... the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood, all of which must be believed to be in this sacrament".
(Catechism of the Council of Trent, on-line).
*** "Christ [is] present in the Eucharist...with all his physical properties, hands and feet and head and human heart".
(Fr. J. Hardon, "Question & Answer Catechism", Q. 1223; this publication carries the official endorsement of the Vatican and Mother Teresa).
As to it being in the "form" of bread and wine (supposing this to exonerate Catholics from the charge of cannibalism), who cares what form it's in? Transubstantiation is a fairy tale in the same league as a genie in a bottle. The genie has a physical body while inside the bottle, but when the cork is removed, must turn into smoke to get out of the small opening. Thereafter, the genie materializes in physical form outside the bottle. Thus, the temporary manifestation of smoke does not preclude the physical body parts of the genie within that smoke, just as the temporary manifestation of Christ in the Eucharist does not preclude his physical anatomy therein either, including toenails (CCC 1377). That said, Jesus says to, "Believe not" any future claims of his physical manifestation, and since that logically includes his "hands, feet, head and human heart" hiding in the Eucharist, we believe it not (Matt 24:26; Mk 13:21).
Philippians 2:6 has already told us what form he would take when he came into this world and what form he will take when he comes back (Acts 1:11). That is enough. Moses said, "you saw no form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you...be strictly on your guard therefore, not to degrade yourselves" ... "You shall not carve idols in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters" (Exodus 20; Deut 4:15; 5:8). He says this because no image that man could ever draw, paint, sculpt, or mass-produce (at a facility in Rhode Island where most communion crackers are made) could accurately depict the infinite One, nor was it to be tolerated, so it's impossible to believe Jesus takes on the form of bread and wine (Deut 4:28; 2 Chron 32:19).
Every Mass lays heavy emphasis on the "form" Jesus asked us to "sign", which was to "take AND eat". Yet Catholics have signed this form with disappearing ink. They dish out Communion in only one form, contrary to Christ's command to take it in both forms.
I smell hypocrisy in the air.
10) M-16: Cyprian said, "we ask that our bread--that is, Christ--may be given to us daily, [so that we may] abide [in him]."
RESPONSE: Cyprian's view of "abiding" in Christ is woefully out of sync with modern Catholicism. The word "abide" means to "remain, to endure". Yet the modern Catholic "jesus" does not remain, endure or abide, due to his fast exit shortly after the digestive process begins! (CCC 1377). The real Jesus said he would remain (John 15:4). Rome says he does not. Worse still, the Pope contradicts his own doctrine by stating, "Christ is present substantially and permanently" (Eucharisticum Mysterium, #9). Permanently? In light of CCC 1377? I don't think so!
11) M-16: Sure, the sacramental presence technically is temporary. However...the grace lasts.
RESPONSE: The promise of Christ "to be with us always" and "I will never leave you or forsake you", refutes the convoluted doctrine of a "sacramental temporary presence". Contrary to modern Catholicism, those in antiquity were "taught"... that Jesus bypassed the stomach and was assimilated like regular food: "we have been taught the food which has been made into the Eucharist...and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (Justin Martyr); "the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported " (Irenaeus), and "His body and blood are diffused through our members" (Cyril, quoted in your rebuttal). Someone along the line realized the horrific ramifications of the "Justin Martyr Complex"; namely, that Christ ends up in the city sewer. What to do? Concoct a doctrine out of thin air and issue "jesus" only a temporary visa into the Catholic belly, then have him pack his bags before the stomach acids begin their attack so he can seek asylum elsewhere. But by solving one problem, they created another; namely, the promise of the Savior to be with us always... contradicts it! Your retort that "the grace lasts" after he leaves, is unconvincing.
12) M-16: [But in John 1:29] Jesus was called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist well before he was put to death, [which is evidence that he could give himself in sacrifice before he went to the cross]
RESPONSE: That only proves God's omniscience and nothing more (e.g., calling someone by name before they were even born: Genesis 16:11, 17:19; 1 Chron 22:9; 1 Kings 13:2; Isa 44:28; Luke 1:13; Matt 1:21).
13) M-16: "This is my body which is given for you" [means] he is offering his body, right then and there, explicitly. [This is why we can say] he is offering it [before he went to the cross].
RESPONSE: Apparently you've been asleep in the pews for the last 7 years. In 2011, the new translation of the Mass was changed to, "which WILL BE given", thus finally agreeing with Protestants that this Christological statement does indeed refer to his upcoming sacrifice. Not surprisingly, the ecumenically driven RCC wants to have it "both/and" to please everyone (i.e., Jesus was both giving himself in sacrifice at dinner AND referring to his sacrifice the next day).
NO! See my O.S. #13.
While "which is given for you" (Luke 22:19) may be in the present tense, it's to be understood in the same manner as we saw with "truly, truly"; namely, it being an expression of certitude, and in this case, that something WILL happen. Furthermore, Jesus most definitely did not give himself in sacrifice at that very moment on the clock because...
A) The surrounding verse in Luke 22:22 won't permit it. We read, "And truly, the Son of Man ***GOES*** as it has been determined ". "Goes" is likewise in the present tense, but we all know he did not "go" until later on.
B) When we compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13; Acts 17:11), we notice, "To us a child is born"...
"I lay down my life for the sheep"----"Now I am no more in this world".... are all present tense.
Bulletin alert: since none of these things took place immediately, logic demands Christ did not immediately offer his upcoming sacrifice at dinner!
C) We read in four separate places that no power on Earth interferes with God's timetable (John 2:4, 7:6, 7:30; cf. Ecc 3:1-8). Therefore, the time to offer sacrifice was clearly not on the agenda in the confines of the upper room.
14) M-16: Notice Jesus' words before he says one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Verse 51 says "the bread I shall give is my flesh". He hasn't given it yet before he dies; he shall give it. That is the whole basis on how he says you must eat his flesh and drink his blood, is what he shall do, pointing to the future.
RESPONSE: The exasperated reader will notice the typical Catholic trick to cover all the bases wanting to have it... both ways! Previously, we were told there was no need to wait for Calvary in order that the apostles could eat his flesh at the Last Supper before he died. But now, there is a need to wait for Calvary before anyone in chapter 6 can eat his flesh!
15) M-16: Next, see Malakye's notation on John 6, putting words into Jesus' mouth. [From] "unless you eat", [he says Jesus means] i.e., now, present tense. [But] Jesus did not say 'now' anywhere in John 6. Malakye is indeed guilty of adding to the text.
RESPONSE: The astonished reader will note that unlike Trent, I did not teach that Jesus said something when he didn't, but was simply conveying the implications of his command to make my point. The Savior did likewise by applying the implications of a "living God" to prove the resurrection from the dead (Mark 12:27). The fact that it would have been impossible to comply with any command to eat his flesh at that time since the Eucharist was still a year away, demands some sort of implication of what he did want them to do... NOW. I reported that the Text tells us exactly what that something was in 6:29, so this criticism is unwarranted.
16) M-16: Malakye says Jesus' followers must believe "now". [But I say, first] he had to be put to death... [So his] argument fails.
RESPONSE: And yet, why do I get a dunce cap when I say he didn't offer himself at the Last Supper because...(helloooo!)... he first had to be put to death???
Anyway, my argument does not fail because Jesus gave quite enough circumstantial evidence at this point to make them accountable... "now"...that he was the Messiah. Should anyone choose to comply, the whole "food bank of benefits" would be imputed to them (O.S. #8) regardless of their imperfect theology. Everyone, in fact, is saved with an imperfect theology!. It follows then, his audience was under the same accountability as the apostles; for, even though, "it was apparent that they did not yet understand what Jesus means concerning eating his flesh and drinking his blood...they had reached that level of understanding" which must conclude that Jesus held the words to eternal life ("Not By Bread Alone", by Sungenis, p. 179).
17) M-16: Jesus is recognized by [those on the road to Emmaeus] only when he broke that bread [and] partook of his body and blood.
RESPONSE: To suppose that "recognition" resulted from Transubstantiation, is a futile attempt at mind-reading the gospel writer.
May I not also mind-read? I submit that after breaking bread, they noticed the nail prints in his hands and that's how they recognized him. If not that, then allow me to refer to my always reliable crystal ball. It tells me their eyes were opened by a brief glimpse of his glowing appearance similar to that which transpired on the Mount of Transfiguration!
Well, the fact of the matter is, the Text just doesn't tell us, so Catholic police must be issued a speeding ticket for storming through the gates of other possibilities and arresting Transubstantiation as the only suspect.
18) M-16: As Eternal Priest, Jesus could offer his flesh and blood both before and after his crucifixion. That was shown both in the institution of the sacrament, and on the road to Emmaus, where it was only through the Eucharist that the disciples recognized Jesus.
RESPONSE: Your solution that because Jesus was an "eternal priest", he could therefore offer his sacrifice prior to Calvary, will not work because Scripture makes an exception to his eternal priesthood. Hebrews 8:4 says, "NOW IF HE WERE ON EARTH HE WOULD NOT BE A PRIEST AT ALL SINCE THERE ARE THOSE WHO OFFER THE GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE LAW".
In other words, Jesus took his place as a Jew under the law (Gal 4:4). The O.T. priesthood excluded Christ from an earthly priestly office because of his lineage. Christ was from the Tribe of Judah, not Levi. Hence, he was not eligible under the old covenant to be an earthly priest (Heb 7:11-15). Ergo, no priest means no sacrifice at the Last Supper. No sacrifice at the Last Supper means no Transubstantiation. No Transubstantiation, means the Mass is a sham and a hoax.
19) M-16: He quotes Fathers here without even giving any citation on the source, impossible to check.
RESPONSE: Six out of the seven may be googled. Anyway, what's the point? Are you not prepared to reject anything I submit? (Rebuttal 1, #15). You will tell me that while the Fathers did speak metaphorically, that doesn't mean they didn't believe in the "Real Presence", so as usual it must always and forever be... both/and.
I'll mention the ECF's to a degree, but considering my word limit, I'm choosing to engage primarily with the biblical data that can easily fill that limit. Nevertheless, I've read Darwell Stone's, "A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist" (circa 1900) wherein he quotes what everyone in antiquity said about the Eucharist. Frankly, I was appalled. The majority RARELY, if ever, engage with the Text, but simply assert their unsubstantiated opinion about Transubstantiation! For example, one is quoted in CCC 1106, "You ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ?"
Answer? The Holy Spirit does it (!!!).
Now please.
Additionally, they all too often defer to that old stand-by trick, "God can do anything so it must be true"... perhaps THEE worst apologetic ever, since any heretic can summon it into service to prove whatever bunk they're selling (CCC 1375).
20) M-16: Augustine and Ignatius give absolutely no hint [of a] Protestant pedigree.
RESPONSE: Rather, they generally give no hint of comparing Scripture with Scripture to find their theology! (1 Cor 2:13, Acts 17:11). Even Mr. Stone expresses bewilderment in four separate places regarding the, "constant use of sacrificial language in reference to the Eucharist made by those who do consider it a literal sacrifice. It is unaccompanied by any explicit and detailed explanation of the way in which the Eucharist is a sacrifice" (p. 47, 49, 113, 153). Quite true. And that's because Scripture won't allow it. In spite of ample opportunity to do so in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist; neither does Paul ever equate "sacrifice" with the Lord's Supper in his epistles either (despite M-16 claiming to the contrary in O.S. #16, to be addressed in Rebuttal 3).
21) M-16: Jesus...says not to worry about what one [typically] eats and drinks [thus, "daily bread" cannot refer to typical bread, but to "supersubstantial eucharist bread" per CCC 1335].
RESPONSE: But another catechism disagrees and wants to have it... both ways!
"We ask that God may give us both spiritual bread...the Holy Eucharist...and also the body's [need for] food " (The Catholic Catechism, by Peter Cardinal Gasparri, Part II).
22) M-16: In The Lord's Prayer, 'Give us this day our daily (epiousious) bread', [refers to] the Eucharist.
St. Jerome, the Biblical scholar, translates the daily bread as 'supersubstantial' in Matthew 6:11.
RESPONSE: But you omit to say that Jerome gave no explanation why he did not in like manner translate the corresponding verse in Luke 11:3.
If Jesus were translating, he would obviously be consistent and give the same result in those two verses (!!!). Jerome did not do this, so his translation cannot serve as any proof in this discussion.
Let the reader beware that the problem with "epiousious" is that it's unknown anywhere else in the N.T. and exists nowhere else in Greek literature either. Since, therefore, no one can really be sure of it's meaning, it is irresponsible to use this as an apologetic for Transubstantiation.
23) M-16: We know in the new kingdom, the new manna is superior to the old one. This points to the Eucharist.
RESPONSE: No it does not point to the Eucharist. You forget that the person and presence of Jesus amounted to the very "kingdom of God being in your midst" (Luke 17:21). Now if the kingdom of God---the very person and presence of Jesus--- does not come by "eating and drinking" as Scripture so clearly teaches (Romans 14:17), it is impossible to believe he anywhere meant that eating and drinking the "new manna" Eucharist was the key to his personal presence!
24) M-16: All understood him [to be] speaking literally in John 6:48-58.
RESPONSE: That doesn't mean they understood him correctly! It was a "hard saying" (vs. 60) because they missed his point!
25) M-16: Disciples left over the literalness and Jesus let them go.
RESPONSE: Not surprising at all because, "you believe not, [therefore] you are not of my sheep" (John 10:26). Thus, Jesus was under no moral obligation to clarify his point because it was the intentional will of God that many misunderstand, all for his own good reasons! (Matt 11:25-6; 13:10-16; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; 9:39-41, 12:40, 17:6; John 9:37-39, Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8).
By the way, for all the noise made about taking "This is my body" literally, when we investigate the "forensics" of the word "literal", Catholicism comes up wanting. "Literal" to them, means, "whole and entire, body, blood, soul and divinity, YET in some sort of metaphysical existence which is hidden, veiled to the senses an only appears as bread and wine".
Huh? That's "literal"?
This reinvention of the word "literal" (where the essential substance of something is unrelated to the appearance of its host to which it adheres) is unsupported by any dictionary on Earth, refuted by common sense and is biblically untenable.
Likewise, if I'm so wrong about "This is my body" being a figure of speech, where then is the army of Greek scholars who will put me to shame and say "This is my body" is not a figure of speech based on the textbook definition of "is"? Answer? No such army exists because no such definition exists (i.e., as with "literal", the word "is" never means that while the outward appearance, or "accidents", of an object is one thing, the inward reality, or substance, is unrelated to the appearance of the subject to which it adheres). The Catholic scheme has Jesus saying one thing to the substance and another to the appearance, leading them into the depths of theological depravity.
26) M-16: Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ's sacrifice as compared to the Levitical sacrifices.
RESPONSE: Correct. But Rome claims out of thin air that the Levitical priesthood "prefigured" her Catholic priesthood (CCC 1541). NO! It is illogical to believe that God would ordain a league of Catholic priests to follow the same pattern of the now defunct, "faulty" covenant he has left behind (Heb 8:7-8).
27) M-16: The once for all sacrifice of Christ far surpasses the Levitical sacrifices where animals were sacrificed time after time.
RESPONSE: Correct. Yet I have shown that the RCC keeps the same pattern by offering Jesus "time after time" in the Mass, contrary to Scripture (Rebuttal 1, #5-6). I'm quite aware that the RCC agrees Christ died only once, but Protestants insist this is disingenuous in light of Rome's simultaneous claim that his blood is poured out often (CCC 1393) --which is directly out of touch with Hebrews 7:27, where it says that he will not offer himself often! Too, the idea that "Christ daily offers himself upon our altars for our redemption" is diametrically opposed to Hebrews 9:25 (Mediator Dei, #73; cf. Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, #35; Caritatis Studium, #9; CCC 1364). To counter that it is not a repetition (CCC 1104) but merely a "re-presentation" and "reproduction" is pure doubletalk! (CCC 1366, 1372)
The continual offering of this sacrifice is obviously following the same pattern of Levitical priests, where Catholic priests imitate the Levites in offering repeated sacrifices by... standing. However, that pattern has not only been cancelled due to Jesus sitting down, symbolizing his work was finished (Heb 1:3; 10:12-13) but Scripture retaliates against those who follow the pattern of repeatedly offering the same sacrifice daily! (Heb 10:11).
Hence it is inconceivable that God would ordain a standing Catholic clergy where the priest, "In persona Christi " (CCC 1548) gets UP again to offer Christ's blood, where his redemptive work continues (CCC 1364). Conversely, biblical protocol demands a "change to the priesthood and a change to the law " (Heb 7:13).
The Pope can stand on his head at the top of Mt. Everest trying to convince us that they have the right to offer the "same sacrifice" continuously (CCC 1364-67) but Scripture flatly denies the virtue of any "same sacrifices that are offered continuously" (Heb 7:25, 9:25, 10:1-2; 11), thus branding Catholicism as counterfeit Christianity.
28) M-16: He offers a sacrifice in the form of bread and wine, which happens to be the real body and blood of Christ.
RESPONSE: The repeated offering of the body and blood is off-limits for still yet another irrefutable reason. The priest prays at every Mass that...
"by the hands of your holy angel, this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty" (CCC 1383).
Now the Bible does not say one solitary word about an army of eucharist angels zooming back and forth to heaven, "carrying by the hands" a transubstantiated sacrifice from every Mass on Earth to the throne room of God, 24/7. Rather, eucharist angels fly on the turbulent wings of heresy whose very existence is nothing more than a cunning, theological deception. The Old Testament high priests entered the Holy Place once a year with "blood not their own" (i.e., animal blood; Heb 9:25). This was temporary because it was, "impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4). Today, the pattern and practice of entering with "blood not their own" is null and void because in vivid contrast, Jesus would enter the heavenly sanctuary only once, "with his own blood" (i.e., God has accepted it once and for all time, per Hebrews 9:12). The Heavenly Tribunal would then never re-establish the same pattern by ordaining Catholic priests to call on eucharist angels so that they might offer "blood not their own" till kingdom come. Consequently, when a priest assumes Transubstantiation has occured so that the sacrifice may be carried to God by a eucharist angel, he unknowingly confesses that he has accomplished nothing at all -- because the practice of a mediator coming before God with "blood not their own" has been utterly done away with, period, end of story.
It is even more unheard of that a eucharist angel (even if it did exist) would dare enter the sanctuary with an unbloody sacrifice for the remission of sins when, "without the shedding of [actual] blood, there is no remission of sins" (Heb 9:22). It follows then that just as God rejected the offering of Cain (Genesis 4:4), so too would he reject a never-ending, unbloody sin-offering brought to him by an army of eucharist angels consisting of "blood not their own".
OBJECTION: Because it is Christ who offers his own blood, via the priest acting "in persona Christi", everything is okey-dokey.
RESPONSE: No. Everything is inky-stinky. You forget the priest/Christ passes the baton over to eucharist angels who are NOT acting "in persona Christi", to repeatedly offer "blood not their own". However, Scripture says this scenario is precisely the element that the sacrifice of Christ would not have (Hebrews 8:13, 9:12, 9:25).
Word total: 4,999