Just one question

This is about re-baptism, apostasy and sin against Holy Spirit. But there is a bit about Eucharist here, namely: ''and have tasted of the heavenly gift'. This is Eucharistic reference.

I take it from this non-response you concede the point?
>

Hi, OP is back. This was actually the response I was waiting for. Reason being was that infect as though the distinction between repetition and re-presentation seemed like a distinction without difference to me. Like, you are still recycling and repeating the sacrifice. Even if you call it something else I still don't get how it was different. It really does seem like a distinction without difference to me and thought you might help with that.

I am legitimate in my question. Did you ignored or not seen this part: For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing (…) That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted.?
And I am talking about meaning of words. Representation of Sacrifice of Christ, Mass is neither one of those definitions.
Christ gave his body to apostles, redeemed world by his death on a cross and resurrected. This is mass.
For you maybe. For God? Not so much. In Hebrews 9:12, he says that Christ "entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption." Then 9:14 goes on to say that Christ "offered himself without blemish to God." This is no doubt why it is possible for Paul to say in 10:19 that Christians can "have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus." Now, if Christ’s body and blood in heaven can be applied to sinners on earth without repetition of his sacrificial death when they believe on him, why can’t he be present on earth in the Eucharist forgiving sins without any repetition of his death?
It does not, black and white. How can you repeat event if supposed repetition is the same event?
It is the same sacrifice. One time.

Repetition is doing something again. Repetition of sacrifice is killing different victims again and again. No one killed the same bull or cow or ox twice.
Representation is making something present. Not copping something. Not repeting somthing. Makeing something present to the present. Representation of sacrifice is applying the fruits and presenting in diffrent manner the very same sacrfice. God is not temporal - we are.

Heb 10:14: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
The phrase “are sanctified” is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

I guess that's a yes
No I factored it into my interpretation. I think the problem you have with my exegesis is that it fails to presuppose medieval Romish tradition

...

On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine.
Define elements. If by elements you mean material things, i.e. Species then there are Species of Bread and Wine. But if you say that all that there is Species then you deny human nature, which substance is Soul, and Species body. And substance of Eucharist is Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

On the contrary, Irenaeus of Lyons Book 4 ch 8.3 (120-180 ad)
And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.
Eucharist is deed of God, Christ.
On the contrary, John says: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Ah, Heresy of Luther, and his not-loving Father, who is only just and never merciful. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
On the contrary: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. And: he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
On the contrary: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.
On the contrary: 1 Corinthians 10-11
…When He, whole Christ, for his soul was united to his Person, entered into Limbo and took captives. That was their Eucharist and for the same reason Eucharist is called Bread of Angels for angels in heaven enjoy presence of Christ.
Then they would be equal, but it is false for sacrifice of old are shadows of new. And if there was no real Body and real Blood in sacrifices of New Law, then shadow would be greater than reality.

Last time I checked, on last Sunday we participated in Sacrifice that happened 33AD
And all those Masses are one Mass that happened 33AD
And in those above natural circumstances of Eucharist there is one slaying, but presence of this slaying is with here us always. Thus Christ is with us until end of world.
The phrase “are sanctified” is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

And since you are Calvinist or at least sound like one with reformed background, I leave you with someone who was enlightened from darkness that you are in.

“The six classic signs of demonic possession are the following. An aversion to the sacred is the biggest sign. Now, in the Catholic tradition be we have sacraments, and those can cause intense reactions. There would be an aversion to receiving the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus…"

/thread

Christ was sinless. By drinking His own blood, He calmed us to the sacrament by demonstrating it is the sign of His blood, not His own blood, for it would be impossible for Christ to commit the sin of cannibalism.
Maybe you'll have an easier time understanding this if I make it a little more Aristotelian. Past and future are mutually exclusive substances, given the law of non-contradiction, the same event cannot occur on two different days. Now, you could say the events are the same genus, as both are in the genus of "mass", but different species, as one being past and the other future (not that past masses are the same either, since every mass is a different particular).
It was a supernatural invasion of nature, so yes, it occurred within natural law.
Yes, but there is no law dictating it be so.
Through His Spirit
See, this is something you clearly do alot, and that's repeat what I said, but turn it on its head. That isn't a good argument, it's just annoying, and it's a waste of space. Be like a spear, and have a point.

The law of God must be kept, (Deuteronomy 27:26), and it represents the character of God (Leviticus 20:26). Cannibalism is a wicked sin, and the Lord Jesus would never lead us to it. Therefore your interpretation is wrong, and Augustine's is correct, "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16)
This presumable citation of Aquinas fails to even address the point.
The element of a sacrament is the sign instituted by God in order to signify and seal grace, and is the material cause of a sacrament.
Calvary perfectly took away the sins of believers so they never fall under God's wrath and require sacrifice again, the mass does not, Calvary was bloody, the mass is not, Christ was sacrificed at Calvary, not in the mass, Christ suffered at Calvary, not in the mass, Christ died at Calvary, not in the mass, Christ was the priest at Calvary, not in the mass, Calvary was at a date in 33 A.D., which the mass was not, in the mass the sacrificed is eaten and drank, though not at Calvary, there is idolatry in the mass, but not at Calvary.
Let's have a thought experiment. Since this is purely a hypothetical, please do not cowardly dismiss it as impossible, that's just evading the problem and is irrelevant. If the RCC decided to stop offering mass, would you be damned? Can any of us be saved without frequent offerings?
It looks like you accidentally deleted part of the quote and all of your answer, you should try again
That is blasphemy. Christ alone is High Priest of the order of Melchizedek

He is correct. All Christians are priests, in the way he means, which is not that we offer any sacrifices, but that we are all become Levites, and are dedicated to the Lord. This is why Irenaeus mentions a non-inheritance of lands, because he wishes only to show a very biblical parity between the Levites and the new covenant saints.
It is a deed of your priests, and the prerequisites for participation, including going up, are deeds of the communicant.
John only means that He is a propitiation (which already connotes perfection) for all of the elect across the whole world at every time, not only for the citizens of the Roman Empire.
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you.
This blasphemy fails to address the point.
The citation fails to address the point.
The apostle's teaching is not that faith is insufficient without works of love, since this would contradict his whole point in the epistle and side with the judaizers, as it would make our justification dependent on our own good works. What it means is that the kind of faith which saves, is the kind that has a natural disposition to work by love. In fact, in the same epistle, he says "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The just shall live by faith.'"
It says nothing of the mass.
Limbo does not exist. When He entered into Abraham's Bosom and rescued the saints, this proved they were already justified by His blood all the way back when they believed on Him, since otherwise they would be in the fire. Hence, the prophet says "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". In fact this proves the gospel of grace, since as the apostle wrote "To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise."
No, they are shadows of Christ, as are the new sacrifices, so your point proves mine.
Though the external ceremonies are different, the sacrament is the same, since they both signify the sacrifice of Christ, and enjoin us to Him. The sacrifices of the new law are superior to the old, because they offer us greater clarity in this exhibition. But scripture also attributes the new sacraments to the old saints, and the old sacraments to the new saints; "For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

OP here, I'm a protestant and this isn't at all what we believe.