Edited: Question on Catholic beliefs

[NW82]

I'm legitimately curious, so hopefully we can all keep a calm demeanor on this.

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, through the eucharist according to the council of trent, become reconciled with scripture that clearly states Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once?

Please use scripture for responses. Thank you!

Hebrews 9:25-26
Hebrews 10:10-14

 

[Albion]

That's not Transubstantiation, however.

 

[TuxAme]

I'm legitimately curious, so hopefully we can all keep a calm demeanor on this.

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, through the eucharist according to the council of trent, become reconciled with scripture that clearly states Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once?

Please use scripture for responses. Thank you!

Hebrews 9:25-26
Hebrews 10:10-14

Well, firstly, we don't teach that Jesus is sacrificed over and over. Second, your question isn't specific to transubstantiation but the Real Presence in general.

 

[Valetic]

That's not Transubstantiation, however.

Isn't that where Jesus literally turned the drink into his actual blood and the bread into his actual flesh? Yeah that's crazy and not what the Bible says at all if I'm talking about the same thing.

 

[NW82]

That's not Transubstantiation, however.

What isn't? As I understand the definition of Transubstantiation, it is the belief of bread and wine becoming flesh and blood, thereby being offered as a sacrifice. Is that definition not correct?

 

[NW82]

Well, firstly, we don't teach that Jesus is sacrificed over and over. Second, your question isn't specific to transubstantiation but the Real Presence in general.

According to the second council of trent, Catholics do, based on the words used.

 

[Albion]

Well, firstly, we don't teach that Jesus is sacrificed over and over. Second, your question isn't specific to transubstantiation but the Real Presence in general.

It isn't specific to Real Presence, either. The idea of Christ being re-sacrificed at each Mass is separate from both of those.

 

[Albion]

What isn't? As I understand the definition of Transubstantiation, it is the belief of bread and wine becoming flesh and blood, thereby being offered as a sacrifice. Is that definition not correct?

No "thereby." Those are two separate doctrines/beliefs/teachings.

 

[TuxAme]

According to the second council of trent, Catholics do, based on the words used.

There's only one council of Trent...

 

[NW82]

There's only one council of Trent...

Correct, I stand corrected on how many there were. The question is still valid though.

 

[TuxAme]

Correct, I stand corrected on how many there were. The question is still valid though.

Where do you see this belief in the Council, then?

 

[NW82]

It isn't specific to Real Presence, either. The idea of Christ being re-sacrificed at each Mass is separate from both of those.

No "thereby." Those are two separate doctrines/beliefs/teachings.

Ok this is why I asked the question right? Clearly not well versed in the terminology. My ex-wife was Catholic so I do know the belief of Christ being re-sacrificed at each mass, regardless of the term, exists. So how would that belief be reconciled to the verses provided?

 

[Albion]

Correct, I stand corrected on how many there were. The question is still valid though.

Unfortunately, the title of the thread suggests that the other issue is to be discussed, and I guess it is impossible to edit the title once it is posted.

Maybe if you just lead the discussion into the topic of the so-called sacrifice of the altar (as you are doing now), it will work out anyway.

I mainly wanted you to know that, for your future reference, these are separate doctrines.

 

[NW82]

Where do you see this belief in the Council, then?

"And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory....For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different" (Session 22, chapter 2).

 

[NW82]

Unfortunately, the title of the thread suggests that the other issue is to be discussed, and I guess it is impossible to edit the title once it is posted.

Maybe if you just lead the discussion into the topic of the so-called sacrifice of the altar, it will work out anyway. I mainly wanted you to know that, for your future reference, these are separate doctrines.

Ok, but no one has answered the below.

What isn't? As I understand the definition of Transubstantiation, it is the belief of bread and wine becoming flesh and blood, thereby being offered as a sacrifice. Is that definition not correct?

 

[MariaJLM]

The sacrifice was for all time; God is outside the boundaries of time as we understand it. I'd assume the Catholic church takes a similar stance, but in the Eastern Orthodox church we believe it's the same sacrifice being offered. Christ is not being re-sacrificed as you say. We're merely taking part in the sacrifice that was offered when He died on the cross.

 

[TuxAme]

"And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory....For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different" (Session 22, chapter 2).

You think this is teaching a re-sacrifice? It says the precise opposite.

 

[NW82]

The sacrifice was for all time; God is outside the boundaries of time as we understand it. I'd assume the Catholic church takes a similar stance, but in the Eastern Orthodox church we believe it's the same sacrifice being offered. Christ is not being re-sacrificed as you say. We're merely taking part in the sacrifice that was offered when He died on the cross.

Fair enough, but I suppose what I'm trying to understand is the rationale behind that...from either the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic viewpoint. If the cross was the only sacrifice, and as the Lord said "It is finished", then why "take part in the sacrifice" again? This concept just doesn't make sense to me, which is why I asked. Thanks.

 

[NW82]

You think this is teaching a re-sacrifice? It says the precise opposite.

Must be in how it's perceived then.

 

[MariaJLM]

Fair enough, but I suppose what I'm trying to understand is the rationale behind that...from either the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic viewpoint. If the cross was the only sacrifice, and as the Lord said "It is finished", then why "take part in the sacrifice" again? This concept just doesn't make sense to me, which is why I asked. Thanks.

We partake in it because it is for us. By taking the bread and wine we're being filled with the spirit of Christ, both for the forgiveness of sins and to work on being restored to our original state before the fall.