Christ’s Hypostatic Union and its relationship in time

[LittleFlower2021]

Happy Christmas Season,

In the spirit of recent discussions with my Protestant brethren (denomination Presbyterian/Calvinist) over the nature of the Incarnation during Advent this year, the topic of the Hypostatic Union was discussed—particularly the relationship of Christ’s divinity and his humanity in temporal terms. Moreover, I was wondering if my understanding of said mystery plays into another mystery—namely the Eucharist being a representation of the one sacrifice at Calvary.

A big sticking point my Protestant friends have against the Catholic Church is how the Mass and the Eucharist seem to be yet another sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. I mentioned that the Eucharist is seen as a “re-presentation” (emphasis on the “re-“) of Christ presenting the elements of bread and wine as his true body and blood. It then dawned on my that the Incarnation/Hypostatic Union might help shift this perennial misunderstanding of what goes on during the Mass to my friends.

I attempted to explain that while Christ’s humanity died in temporal space (c. 33AD) and ascended into even 40 days after Easter Sunday, because of the incarnation/Hypostatic Union, his full divinity was not bound to the same temporal constraints the rest of us are bound to. Since the Word Incarnate was existing with the other members of the Trinity outside of time and at “the beginning” (see Genesis and John 1), would it be incorrect to say that if God the Son exists before time and at the end of time simultaneously, that he is also still existing at this moment on the cross at Calvary as an “eternal sacrifice” for us? If so, would that help explain how Christ can continue to be “re-presented” in the Eucharist by the Priest on the altar since that same divinity—existing outside our understanding of linear time—merely has its substance now infused behind on the appearances the bread and wine? Would that explain how the Mass is the “same sacrifice” at Calvary?

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance if my above questions were confusing or poorly worded. I am but a humble (or at least striving to be) Catholic who tries to read as much as I can without any formal theological degrees. I seek the truth at all times. The more wade out into the waters of Catholic theology, the more I realize just how deep the waters really go. In that same vein, please forgive any errs in thought process and pray for me as I continue to learn.

 

[Vico]

…
the Eucharist is seen as a “re-presentation” … Christ presenting the elements of bread and wine as his true body and blood.
…

It is difficult to express correctly. The word “as” may imply look-alike but not really the actual thing but a symbol, but the confected Eucharist is really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, it is not a symbol. Similarly the Holy Sacrifice “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering” (Catechism 1330) and is not a performance.

The divinity and humanity of the person, the Son of God, exist forever within creation as Jesus Christ is resurrected. And also not as bodies are in a place, in the Holy Eucharist.

MYSTERIUM FIDEI - ENCYCLICAL OF ST. POPE PAUL VI​

As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

Mysterium Fidei (September 3, 1965) | Paul VI

 

[bob4]

If so, would that help explain how Christ can continue to be “re-presented” in the Eucharist by the Priest on the altar since that same divinity—existing outside our understanding of linear time—merely has its substance now infused behind on the appearances the bread and wine? Would that explain how the Mass is the “same sacrifice” at Calvary?

I recommend The Catholic Catechism; Rev. John A. Hardon, Doubleday & Company, Inc; 1975; specifically pages 466-467 where Fr. Hardon writes about the three ways the Mass and Calvary are interrelated.

 

[JerryZ]

I have heard this explanation of the crucifixion being extended toward the present when we attend mass and the Eucharistic sacrifice is presented, but what I think is in reality going on is that it is us who get transported back in time not to the crucifixion place but to that place and time that our Lord performed the miracle of turning bread and wine into the constituent parts of HIS body and blood.
For it was there at the last supper that this miracle was first accomplished to be repeated whenever someone delegated by HIM would re-represent it in order to fulfill HIS command. “Do this in memory of me”

Peace!

 

[Benadam]

But,the bread is broken which makes the ritual a prophecy waiting to be completed. No?

 

[po18guy]

“Do this, as often as you do it…” 1 Corinthians 11:25

It is meant; it was intended from all time, to be the one Sacrifice.

Saint Paul also wrote

Hebrews 12:1 "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. "

And Saint Peter:

1 Peter 2:5 “And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God.”

The Christian is to present; to offer their very bodies as as living sacrifice with Christ as Mediator. We “Do this” as often as the Apostles did. Christ is our Mediator, Christ is the High Priest and therefore is the primary Celebrant of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Gorgias]

what I think is in reality going on is that it is us who get transported back in time

The theology, though, is not that we get “transported back” to any point in time. It’s that Christ makes Himself present to us (sacramentally) now.

I get the attempt, though, I think: in order to avoid the accusation that we’re “crucifying Christ all over again”, the temptation is to say “no, we’re just going back to the original crucifixion and participating in it.” Except that… we’re not. What we’re doing is re-presenting Jesus’ sacrifice to God the Father, but in an unbloody manner.

would it be incorrect to say that if God the Son exists before time and at the end of time simultaneously, that he is also still existing at this moment on the cross at Calvary as an “eternal sacrifice” for us

No, I don’t think it’s what the Church teaches, and I definitely don’t think it would be helpful. To Protestants who think we “re-crucify Christ”, all they’d hear is “he’s eternally being crucified!”, and that would only serve to confirm their suspicions about the mistakes in Catholic belief.

“we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all… [Jesus] offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God.” (Hebrews 10:10, 12)

“We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.” (Romans 6:9-10)

Christ was crucified and died once. He is not suffering on the cross eternally. He sits at the right hand of God, triumphant! Alleluia!

would that help explain how Christ can continue to be “re-presented” in the Eucharist by the Priest on the altar since that same divinity—existing outside our understanding of linear time—merely has its substance now infused behind on the appearances the bread and wine?

I don’t think so, since – although His divinity is present in the Eucharist – His “body, blood, and soul” are present, and these did not begin to exist until the Incarnation.

 

[Gorgias]

Would that explain how the Mass is the “same sacrifice” at Calvary?

I think I’d let the Catechism do the explaining for you:

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.”

This is #1367 in the Catechism. The quote is from the Council of Trent.

(The fact that this was part of the Council of Trent might not increase your friends’ confidence in the assertion, but that’s a whole other story. It seems to me that Protestants tend to view Trent as “that council that says that I’m going to hell”, but even that is a misunderstanding: the ‘anathemae’ of Trent were only for those who had left the Church, and not for ‘everyone in all times’. In truth, Trent was called in order to rebut the theological assertions of the Reformation, and to clarify what the Church exactly teaches.)