Edited: Question on Catholic beliefs

[TuxAme]

Must be in how it's perceived then.

You can understand it to be saying that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as on Calvary, only in an unbloody manner. It's "re-presented" to us, veiled by the substances of bread and wine.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Some day I want to read all about the Second Council of Trent. But first, they actually have to have a Second Council of Trent.

You would do well to do some research and then re-pose your question. As it is your question is flawed in many ways. You would do well to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It can be found in bookstores and on-line here: http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-I.html#

 

[Albion]

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.

The fact is, though, that a re-sacrifice of Christ was taught by the Roman church for centuries. Only in recent times, and after the idea no longer was convincing to the modern men and women in the pews was it necessary to massage it somewhat.

That's what also happened with Limbo, Purgatory, Remarriage, women servers at Mass, weekly confession, and a number of other teachings that once were very clear-cut and important.

 

[NW82]

You can understand it to be saying that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as on Calvary, only in an unbloody manner. It's "re-presented" to us, veiled by the substances of bread and wine.

Exactly. To me, your words here, show that this is supposed to be an experience of the sacrifice happening again. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[NW82]

The fact is, though, that a re-sacrifice of Christ was taught by the Roman church for centuries. Only in recent times, and after the idea no longer was convincing to the modern men and women in the pews was it necessary to massage it somewhat.

That's what also happened with Limbo, Purgatory, Remarriage, women servers at Mass, weekly confession, an a number of other teachings.

But that's the problem isn't it? Either it's biblically correct or it isn't. If it is then why change it? If it isn't then why teach it?

 

[chevyontheriver]

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?

This 'belief' you have does not reconcile with Hebrews. But then this 'belief' you have is not Catholic teaching either. Your ex-wife being Catholic at some point in her life does not give you clarity about Catholic teaching. You got it wrong. Christ died once for all on Calvary. His sacrifice is re-presented for us exactly as the Passover is a re-presentation of what happened in Egypt.

I hope you can re-formulate your question more accurately and get it answered to your satisfaction.

 

[NW82]

Some day I want to read all about the Second Council of Trent. But first, they actually have to have a Second Council of Trent.

You would do well to do some research and then re-pose your question. As it is your question is flawed in many ways. You would do well to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It can be found in bookstores and on-line here: http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-I.html#

So no need to be rude. If you read the thread I admitted being incorrect on the 2nd council, but thanks for your condescension. As the Catholic Catechism isn't biblical why would I read it?

 

[NW82]

This 'belief' you have does not reconcile with Hebrews. But then this 'belief' you have is not Catholic teaching either. Your ex-wife being Catholic at some point in her life does not give you clarity about Catholic teaching. You got it wrong. Christ died once for all on Calvary. His sacrifice is re-presented for us exactly as the Passover is a re-presentation of what happened in Egypt.

I hope you can re-formulate your question more accurately and get it answered to your satisfaction.

Again with the condescension, grow up. I didn't say I was an expert. I said I know the belief exists, because her family held it.

 

[TuxAme]

Exactly. To me, your words here, show that this is supposed to be an experience of the sacrifice happening again. Am I understanding you correctly?

The sacrifice isn't happening "again". It's the exact same sacrifice as on Calvary, and it's being made present to us in the Mass. Frank Sheed says that:

"There is no new slaying of Christ in the Mass....Yet that it is the Christ who was slain upon Calvary is shown sacramentally by the separate consecration of bread to become His body and wine to become His blood. The essence of the Mass is that Christ is making an offering to the Father of Himself, who was slain for us upon Calvary. The Mass is Calvary, as Christ now offers it to His Father."

 

[NW82]

The sacrifice isn't happening "again". It's the exact same sacrifice as on Calvary, and it's being made present to us in the Mass. Frank Sheed says that:

"There is no new slaying of Christ in the Mass....Yet that it is the Christ who was slain upon Calvary is shown sacramentally by the separate consecration of bread to become His body and wine to become His blood. The essence of the Mass is that Christ is making an offering to the Father of Himself, who was slain for us upon Calvary. The Mass is Calvary, as Christ now offers it to His Father."

Ok so that makes sense, as it relates to my original question, so thank you for that; your engagement is sincerely appreciated. On this I do have an additional question. Is this related to Christ's command to "do this in remembrance of me" or is it separate?

 

[chevyontheriver]

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?

Transubstantiation is a philosophical concept used to explain what Christians have believed from the beginning, that the Eucharist is Jesus really present for us body and blood, soul and divinity. That is called the Real Presence, and is believed by Catholics and the Orthodox and even to a degree Lutherans and Anglicans.

As a philosophical concept it works in an Aristotelian philosophical framework. But not all that many people follow Aristotle any more. Which means that they will not be able to understand a philosophical concept outside of the framework. Fine. If you have a better philosophical framework that explains reality better, go for it. But the Real Presence, which is not a philosophical concept but a truth of the faith, is still real, no matter what philosophy you do or do not use.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So no need to be rude. If you read the thread I admitted being incorrect on the 2nd council, but thanks for your condescension. As the Catholic Catechism isn't biblical why would I read it?

Not being rude. My point being only that there is a lot of inaccuracy in your question. Thus my hope that you could re-formulate it more carefully.

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, ... but you don't want to read the Catechism to find out what the Catholic Church teaches ... you may not actually want to know what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Albion]

Exactly. To me, your words here, show that this is supposed to be an experience of the sacrifice happening again. Am I understanding you correctly?

Regardless of what you have been told, the actual teaching now is this:

THE MASS THE SAME AS THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS

This, then, is the unique excellence of the Mass that, being a true and proper sacrifice, it represents and recalls the Sacrifice of the Cross. In substance the Mass is the same as the Sacrifice 'of the Cross. The same Priest, Jesus Christ, continues to offer Himself to God the Father by the ministry of His lawful priests.

Note that the alleged re-presentation is not to us, as was said in the above post 29, but to God the Father (which makes no sense IMHO).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Again with the condescension, grow up. I didn't say I was an expert. I said I know the belief exists, because her family held it.

Again, not being rude. Just because your ex-wife's family believed something does not make it so. That is why I tried to point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So you could get the straight scoop, unfiltered by whatever your ex-wife may have misunderstood.

 

[TuxAme]

Ok so that makes sense, as it relates to my original question, so thank you for that; your engagement is sincerely appreciated. On this I do have an additional question. Is this related to Christ's command to "do this in remembrance of me" or is it separate?

The sacrifice of the Mass? Yes, this is what Jesus meant. The phrase "do this" is the same phrase used to describe Old Covenant sacrifices. It more accurately translates to "offer this". And if I remember correctly, it's most closely related to the sacrifices performed by Moses for the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests. This makes it easier to understand the sacrificial command He gave to the apostles.

 

[NW82]

Transubstantiation is a philosophical concept used to explain what Christians have believed from the beginning, that the Eucharist is Jesus really present for us body and blood, soul and divinity. That is called the Real Presence, and is believed by Catholics and the Orthodox and even to a degree Lutherans and Anglicans.

As a philosophical concept it works in an Aristotelian philosophical framework. But not all that many people follow Aristotle any more. Which means that they will not be able to understand a philosophical concept outside of the framework. Fine. If you have a better philosophical framework that explains reality better, go for it. But the Real Presence, which is not a philosophical concept but a truth of the faith, is still real, no matter what philosophy you do or do not use.

Not being rude. My point being only that there is a lot of inaccuracy in your question. Thus my hope that you could re-formulate it more carefully.

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, ... but you don't want to read the Catechism to find out what the Catholic Church teaches ... you may not actually want to know what the Catholic Church teaches.

Again, not being rude. Just because your ex-wife's family believed something does not make it so. That is why I tried to point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So you could get the straight scoop, unfiltered by whatever your ex-wife may have misunderstood.

I only use the Bible for reference. I do not use or accept other sources. I asked the question here because I know what I was told and I know others, such as yourself, do accept other teaching outside of the Bible. This is the purpose of the question as I clearly don't know. I refuse to use extra biblical sources as a matter of faith and principle. Others do not, so I ask them, yourself included. I'm trying to understand others beliefs in reference to the Bible alone.

 

[PaulCyp1]

You wouldn't know that Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once, if the Catholic Church had not taught that truth for the past 2,000 years. Christ Himself celebrated the first Eucharist at the Last Supper, and then commanded those present, the first priests of His Church, "DO THIS in remembrance of Me". And His Church has been following that direct command of Jesus Christ ever since. Obviously Jesus Christ is not re-sacrificed at every Mass. The Mass and the Eucharist are the means Jesus Christ provided for all His followers throughout time to physically receive the the full graces of that once and for all time sacrifice.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I only use the Bible for reference. I do not use or accept other sources. I asked the question here because I know what I was told and I know others, such as yourself, do accept other teaching outside of the Bible. This is the purpose of the question as I clearly don't know. I refuse to use extra biblical sources as a matter of faith and principle. Others do not, so I ask them, yourself included. I'm trying to understand others beliefs in reference to the Bible alone.

Using the Bible alone, fine. But using the Bible alone and the random opinions of others, that is a recipe for disaster. Which is how you have missed understanding transubstantiation and of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. You got the opinion of some Catholic, and maybe you understood what they were saying, but they didn't get it.

I am not trying to be rude to you. I am being critical. So there is a pointedness to what I am posting. That is deliberate. But the goal is to clear things up a bit, not to silence you.

Here is what I think you are asking: Hebrews speaks of one sacrifice. Catholics speak of the mass as a sacrifice. Apparently as in a new sacrifice at each mass. How is that so?

To which I would say that it is one sacrifice made present as if we were really there. Just one sacrifice. Re-presented just like the Passover is re-memorialized, one event a long time ago but fresh for each person experiencing it as if for the first time. It is more than simply calling to mind what happened a long time ago. It is an outside of time thing. Jesus was not just Emmanuel a long time ago, but is Emmanuel now as well. But just one sacrifice, available for us in the here and now.

But that actually doesn't have much to do with transubstantiation. A separate issue really.

If you would dare to do opposition research by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church you would have been able to see that. Such an approach would have been better for you than believing what your ex-wife's family opinion was. I get it that you want to follow the Bible alone, but in this case, if you want to figure out what the Catholic Church teaches, your ex-wife's family opinion isn't what matters. They might know the actual teaching here and there, but they might have led you astray a bit too, as in this case.

Here's how archbishop Fulton Sheen put it in 1938:

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates… Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men…

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown.

 

[chilehed]

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, ...

That's not Catholic teaching.

 

[GingerBeer]

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

I am fairly sure that "transubstantiation" does not imply that Christ dies more than once nor that Christ is sacrificed more than once.