No. There is no "symbolic re-sacrificing". It is a re-presentation, (a making present), of the one time, once and for all eternity, sacrifice of our Lord on Cavalry's cross. The word "sacrifice" is used to denote the making present of the one sacrifice of Christ the Saviour, not any re-sacrificing of Him, over and over. What is actually being repeated, is the Lord's Supper which He commanded, "Do this in memory of me."

CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) 1337 "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."



a. Yes, the priest acts In persona Christi. St. John Chrysostom declares:

"It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered."

Just as in the confessional, the priest (Presbyterate-bishop & priest) as a person can forgive, (as you and I can and should), but sacramental forgiveness and absolution is done in his capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head.

Jesus showed himself to his apostles. "He breathed on them, and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"' (Jn 20:19, 22-23).

b. As to the latter, because it makes present in a real way, (not just symbolically), Christ's once and for all, sacrifice on the cross. Christ is truly present in Holy Eucharist. It is the one time 'sacrifice' of Calvary, made present and real, but not repeated.


Well, I can't know for certain what was taught or not taught in that diocese during that time. It is possible that catechises was not being properly handled, instruction may have been lacking, or perhaps misunderstanding or missing of important tenets of the faith were possible on the part of those receiving instruction, but the Church including the Diocese of Memphis, uses the same tools of instruction, the Catechism for example, in every diocese around the world.

Thanks for your response. I think I know where the church stands. I still so not grasp it, and maybe I shouldn't. It would only add to the other confusions I have about the church. I a not confused about Jesus or my being forgiven of my sins by his sacrifice, but this re-presenting of it. For example, at the last supper, after supper he took the bread and said "this is my body", and the cup"this is my blood", but it was before he was sacrificed. Before. It was given to the diciples, and it was him. It didn't need a sacrifice on the cross, Just a blessing and a command. I do not see where all those complicated reasons and rational come into play.


Since you are so gracious to converse with me on church teaching, and I see where you are a K of C, if you would be so kind as to explain this also-either in this thread or another- If Masons are excommunicated out of our church, and the reason given is that secrets and rituals and oaths are not in line with Catholic teaching, Why do Knights have secrets and rituals and oaths, even with good intentions? Thanks

I am going to do an experiment Sunday. I am going to ask differant people I know to be cradle Catholics what "the sacrifice of the mass" is, and I will let you know what I am told.

The promise of secrecy of the Knights is not absolute; it is worded so as not to interfere with obligations either to Church or state.

It was before, but it was also in anticipation of it.

I think you may be overcomplicating it. Much of our faith has been "anticipatory", which is what the Last Supper was of Christ's sacrifice, indeed, what the sacraments are of heavenly paradise; a foretaste. Think of His actions at the wedding at Cana. Think also that His own disciples had difficulty in accepting the truth of what Holy Eucharist was and the necessity of properly reviving it in order to have eternal life.

John 6:54 "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day:"


Well, there is nothing wrong with rituals and oaths as such and as Father "Obi" inferred, there is a difference between an organisation that may have closed meetings and oaths but which is dedicated to the beliefs of and defence of the Church and one that was founded in opposition to Christian truth, which is masonry.

This is something I wanted to do actually. People say that the belief in the Real Presence is low, I would argue that the belief that the Mass is a Sacrifice described here is even lower.

So you all are saying that this is wrong. When it states "He will be sacrificed before you", should say to be correct, "his sacrifice on Calvary will be re-presented to you". So the question I asked in the very beginning about the article is "no this isn't right" Right?

mikeangel wrote:
And 2. While this is going on the priest is spiritualy Christ. Also in the confessional, he is also spiritually Christ. Is that it broken down before the explinations? About the sacrifice of the mass, if it is not another sacrifice, why is it called a sacrifice? Why isn't it called "a representation of the sacrifice of Jesus" instead of "the sacrifice".


a. Yes, the priest acts In persona Christi. St. John Chrysostom declares:

"It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered."

Just as in the confessional, the priest (Presbyterate-bishop & priest) as a person can forgive, (as you and I can and should), but sacramental forgiveness and absolution is done in his capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head.

Jesus showed himself to his apostles. "He breathed on them, and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"' (Jn 20:19, 22-23).

b. As to the latter, because it makes present in a real way, (not just symbolically), Christ's once and for all, sacrifice on the cross. Christ is truly present in Holy Eucharist. It is the one time 'sacrifice' of Calvary, made present and real, but not repeated.


Could you provide me with places in the cannon or official documents to show this ? the priest is "in persona " of christ, and not just acting under the authority of him, but him? I really need to know more about this. Thanks

Btw, I asked the first person, the social minister of my church. When I asked her about "the sacrifice of the mass", she said she would have to get back to me. When I told her that the church believes that at the moment of consecration the priest was "in persona" of christ, or spiritually christ essentially, she said "Bulls--t".

Both statements are correct. The latter is more precise.

When the sacrifice of Calvary is brought to the present at Mass Jesus is sacrificed before you; the same sacrifice 2,000 years ago. Hence saying “He will be sacrificed before you” is correct but it lacks explaining how that happens.



So a minister at the church doesn’t know basic doctrine?

2 Cor 2:10


L.

Well, I am not sure where or what you are referring to as saying, "He will be sacrificed before you", but yes, that would be absolutely 100% wrong. The Mass does not in any way, shape or form, re-sacrifice our Lord, over and over.

Sure. Here is a couple of good basic sources...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 6.htm#1548

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3M.HTM

Linsou provided an excellent Biblical source with 2 Cor 2:10.



It may have been in the way you put it. The priest does not miraculously transform into Christ, he acts, 'in the person of Christ', Christ's sacramental representative. Think of it as acting as an image or icon of Christ. Btw, I have no idea who a "social minister" is or what they are responsible for. Secondly, there are as many ignorant Catholics unfortunately, as ignorant Baptists or Methodists or Evangelicals, etc. It is unfortunate people don't alwys know what they should know, but people are fallible and it happens.

nt

Edited by Administrator

I can't reconcile that with this scripture, I'll capilalize for emphasis-
Hebrews 9
25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself AGAIN and AGAIN, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer MANY times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared ONCE FOR ALL at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die ONCE, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was SACRIFICED ONCE to take away the sins of many;

the Catholic bible v 28 says "so also Christ, OFFERED ONCE to take away the sins of many". That statement is false in light of this scripture. Peace

There is one and only one sacrifice; all Catholics agree (or should agree) on that point. That one eternal sacrifice is made present at the Mass; it is not a re-sacrifice, but a re-making present of the one sacrifice.

Is there anything in the excerpt I posted that is incorrect?
If there is I will gladly the delete the text and hope that any quotes from it would also be deleted.

L.

I know what Dr. Hahn meant in saying that Christ's sacrifice did not end all sacrifices, but it's certainly open to misconstruction even by the well-meaning.

mikeangel, I have deleted the text.
In view of Fr. Horton's advice I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to also delete my quote and the link..
Thanks in advance.

L.

This person is the Director Of Social ministry at our church. Social ministry is outreach to the poor, outreach to people in crisis, our helping the Episcopals feed the homeless downtown on Sunday mornings etc. I view her as the person who I feel is the closest to God at our church. She was asked to do this by the priest after the Bishop asked each church to implement this, because he felt like every church should be active in social ministry. She was eager to do it because her and I already were going downtown on Sunday morning, and we both have the shared belief that these things (feeding and clothing the homeless, visiting the sick etc.)are not only the most important things you can do to please God, they are also required. she surprised me though, when they gave her a small salary to do it, and she told them to create a bank account and deposit all of the money to be used at need. We vote on how in our committee. We currently are sponsoring a homeless man who has asbergers, and is waiting on disability. We pay for his rent at the shelter. She truely is a model christian to me, and I value her opinion. I put it in the way we discussed. I said, "did you know, that at the moment of absolution, and the moment of consecration, that the priest is "in persona" christ? Spiritually essentialy Christ? Not acting under the authority of Christ as his minister, but Christ spiritually?" Thats how I put it, and Sunday, I am going to ask the people my age that I know went to PRE with me. This is not widely known. Peace-Mark