The Mass as a Sacrifice and the Mass as a Meal
#41
(10-17-2010, 02:24 PM)glgas Wrote: Catholic thinker: please explain why Jesus ordered first to eat his body during his public life, and established the sacrifice only later. We live in time.

I found a refutation to this (the notion that the Calvary Sacrifice was separate from the Last Supper) in Salza's book as well:

"That Melchizedek is called a priest but didn't offer a blood sacrifice (or die on the cross) also demonstrates that his bread and wine offering was a sacrifice.  This further demonstrates that Christ's offering of bread and wine at the Last Supper was a sacrifice, since Jesus' priesthood is patterned in the same manner as Melchizedek's.  Further, because Scripture says Jesus made a 'single Sacrifice' and a 'single offering', this means that the Last Supper sacrifice and the sacrifice of the Cross are the same sacrifice" (emphasis his).

Or were you questioning why Christ commanded His Body to be eaten before the Crucifixion in John 6, as opposed to the Last Supper?  Is that what you meant by "his public life"?  If so I don't understand the point at all.  Why couldn't He talk about it before it was possible?  Most of those who heard Him would have still been alive after Pentacost when the Mass was being said.  They heard His words and could then participate.
Reply
#42
(10-17-2010, 02:24 PM)glgas Wrote: First and foremost  the Mass is the Transsubstantiation

Not true. The Real Presence is important, but foremost is the Sacrifice. We benefit much from Christ's presence, as well as the ability to consume Him in order to be incorporated into Him. However, of infinitely greater value than that is the Holy Sacrifice. It is by the Sacrifice that grace comes into the world. Without the Sacrifice, there would be no grace, and no way for man to approach God.
Reply
#43
(10-19-2010, 06:05 PM)charlesh Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 02:24 PM)glgas Wrote: First and foremost  the Mass is the Transsubstantiation

Not true. The Real Presence is important, but foremost is the Sacrifice. We benefit much from Christ's presence, as well as the ability to consume Him in order to be incorporated into Him. However, of infinitely greater value than that is the Holy Sacrifice. It is by the Sacrifice that grace comes into the world. Without the Sacrifice, there would be no grace, and no way for man to approach God.

You should have made this post #1000 instead of 999.
Reply
#44
(10-17-2010, 06:22 AM)glgas Wrote: You are not competent to cry heresy.

Oh, boo hoo. What you said directly contradicts the Church's teaching. And you stand by it, argue it, and spread it on a Traditional Catholic forum.
Reply
#45
(10-19-2010, 06:20 PM)charlesh Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 06:22 AM)glgas Wrote: You are not competent to cry heresy.

Oh, boo hoo. What you said directly contradicts the Church's teaching. And you stand by it, argue it, and spread it on a Traditional Catholic forum.

I have been planning to challenge glgas after posting yet more material.  There is no doubt that some of what he has posted here contradicts Church teaching.  If there is not a retraction I think he has lost serious credibility.
Reply
#46
(10-19-2010, 06:05 PM)charlesh Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 02:24 PM)glgas Wrote: First and foremost  the Mass is the Transsubstantiation

Not true. The Real Presence is important, but foremost is the Sacrifice. We benefit much from Christ's presence, as well as the ability to consume Him in order to be incorporated into Him. However, of infinitely greater value than that is the Holy Sacrifice. It is by the Sacrifice that grace comes into the world. Without the Sacrifice, there would be no grace, and no way for man to approach God.

Doesn't the Sacrifice entirely depend upon the Real Presence? How can there be a true and proper sacrifice with Our Lord being truly and really there? I would have agreed with you if you had instead said that the Sacrifice is more important than Holy Communion.
Reply
#47
(10-19-2010, 07:48 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-19-2010, 06:05 PM)charlesh Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 02:24 PM)glgas Wrote: First and foremost  the Mass is the Transsubstantiation

Not true. The Real Presence is important, but foremost is the Sacrifice. We benefit much from Christ's presence, as well as the ability to consume Him in order to be incorporated into Him. However, of infinitely greater value than that is the Holy Sacrifice. It is by the Sacrifice that grace comes into the world. Without the Sacrifice, there would be no grace, and no way for man to approach God.

Doesn't the Sacrifice entirely depend upon the Real Presence? How can there be a true and proper sacrifice with Our Lord being truly and really there? I would have agreed with you if you had instead said that the Sacrifice is more important than Holy Communion.

It could be said that it is "theoretically" possible that Christ's Sacrifice be re-presented to the Father in heaven (as He does do continuously in his role as Eternal High Priest, as described in Hebrews and Revelation) without making His Body and Blood available to us.  I would say that although Christ willed from all eternity that we here on earth partake in the heavenly liturgy in reality it is His eternal presentation of His Blood to the Father in the heavenly sanctuary that brings grace.

The Sacrament is also the "Sacrament of Love"; that is what the intimate union that results from us consuming Him gives.  But, as charlesh said, without the Sacrifice, we'd all be damned, to put it simply.

So... I would have to concur that the Sacrifice is most important, but you are quite right that in reality they are entirely bound up with one another and it is really academic to discuss them separately.  Because of that I think it would be pedantic to concentrate on such a tangent.

(Also, I realize I am saying above that it is not absolutely necessary to attend Mass for salvation, which sounds - bad.  However, technically of course it is not - only baptism is necessary.)

Perhaps this question could be broken off into a new thread if it is to continue. 
Reply
#48
It's a lot of things, all equally important to a proper appreciation of it, but the OP's question is simply "is it primarily a sacrifice?" And the simple answer is yes.

Through the ages, different aspects have been emphasized for different reasons.

Way back in the early days, the Incarnational aspect was emphasized most.

In what many Trads consider to be the only age worth knowing about the Sacrificial aspect was rightly emphasized but to the exclusion of all other aspects.

These days all aspects EXCEPT FOR  the Sacrificial tend to be emphasized, partly because the sacrificial aspect held such an exclusive sway theologically for so long, and partly because no-one these days wants to think about Calvary, Redemption, the "vertical dimension"  etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)