Christ's sacrifice "repeated" doctrinal error?

[Mel_Stones]

I’ve been looking for a good children’s missal but every one I can find says the following or something similar:

On Calvary Christ offered his Body and Blood to God the Father for us. In the Mass this great act is repeated.

Christ’s sacrifice is not repeated at each Mass (as we are so often accused), it is continued. So, isn’t saying this in a children’s missal doctrinal error? Why is this granted an imprimatur?

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve been looking for a good children’s missal but every one I can find says the following or something similar:

On Calvary Christ offered his Body and Blood to God the Father for us. In the Mass this great act is repeated.

Christ’s sacrifice is not repeated at each Mass (as we are so often accused), it is continued. So, isn’t saying this in a children’s missal doctrinal error?

At best, it is very clumsy language that could lead to serious misunderstandings.

Why is this granted an imprimatur?

You would probably have to ask the Bishop who gave the Imprimatur.

Imprimaturs are not infallible, and they have been known to be revoked, when this sort of thing comes to light. If you know how to contact the Bishop who gave it, you could write a very polite letter mentioning your concerns.

 

[Chatter163]

I’ve been looking for a good children’s missal but every one I can find says the following or something similar:

On Calvary Christ offered his Body and Blood to God the Father for us. In the Mass this great act is repeated.

Christ’s sacrifice is not repeated at each Mass (as we are so often accused), it is continued. So, isn’t saying this in a children’s missal doctrinal error? Why is this granted an imprimatur?

Since your post concedes that your wording is not precise ("…or something similar"), would it not be good to provide the exact wording? Otherwise we cannot really comment.

 

[PJM]

=Mel Stones;6703660]I’ve been looking for a good children’s missal but every one I can find says the following or something similar:

On Calvary Christ offered his Body and Blood to God the Father for us. In the Mass this great act is repeated.

Christ’s sacrifice is not repeated at each Mass (as we are so often accused), it is continued. So, isn’t saying this in a children’s missal doctrinal error? Why is this granted an imprimatur?

If you were questioning a Theology text book, I’d agree with you. But the Mass is a Memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, now made Present in an unBloody manner.

Your hung up on a technically that is way over the head of kids. “This great act IS REPEATED” only now in an unbloddy manner.

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

1367 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.”

1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.

1566 “It is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred office; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father.” From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength.
hnically your correct. The term ought to be re-presented, time and time again.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Mel_Stones]

Since your post concedes that your wording is not precise ("…or something similar"), would it not be good to provide the exact wording? Otherwise we cannot really comment.

That is the exact wording of the children’s missal I posses.

 

[revert_jen]

If you were questioning a Theology text book, I’d agree with you. But the Mass is a Memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, now made Present in an unBloody manner.

Your hung up on a technically that is way over the head of kids. “This great act IS REPEATED” only now in an unbloddy manner.

…]

hnically your correct. The term ought to be re-presented, time and time again.

I think the OP is right. If the child is old enough to understand the word “repeated” then he or she is old enough to have the absolutely wrong idea of what is happening, and then through bad catechesis to believe it until they reach adulthood, and then to leave the Church for one that does not repeat the Crucifixion in every parish every day and 3 times on Sunday. (I do know of people who have left the Church partly due to their misundertanding of this, being told by Protestants that this goes against Christ dying “once for all” (e.g. 1 Pt 3:18).)

Kids understand a lot more than we give them credit for. If you say to a child, “Christ offered himself on the Cross for our sins, and now he allows us to re-present that same sacrifice to the Father every time we go to Mass,” the child may or may not understand right away. But when he is old enough to understand, at least he will be understanding the correct thing, not the wrong thing.

OTOH, see my next post.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

On Calvary Christ offered his Body and Blood to God the Father for us. In the Mass this great act is repeated.

Christ’s sacrifice is not repeated at each Mass (as we are so often accused), it is continued. So, isn’t saying this in a children’s missal doctrinal error? Why is this granted an imprimatur?

I argued one side of the issue in my last post, and now to some extent I’m going to argue the other.

Actually, I don’t think this is really a doctrinal error at all, just a very badly written sentence. The problem is that there isn’t really much clue what it is that “this great act” refers to. It sounds like it refers to Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary, but I think what they actually meant it to refer to is the presentation of that Sacrifice to the Father. The first is certainly not repeated, but the second is.

I think it should be re-written to make the point clear, so that at least a selection of educated adults would all know what it means, much less a group of children. I still think it was worded badly enough that children will not understand properly and will be more easily swayed by people telling them (albeit unwittingly) lies about what the Church teaches. And personally, I think that any description that leaves out why the Sacrifice was necessary (our sins) is insufficient anyway, but at least not doctrinally in error.

–Jen (“Has this fence got any other sides I can sit on?”)

 

[Chatter163]

That is the exact wording of the children’s missal I posses.

Would you please advise the name of the missal, its publisher, date and bishop who gave the Imprimatur? Thanks.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Here’s something from Fr. Hardon, emminent theologian and author of “The Catholic Catechism” (prior to the release of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”):

The world has been spared the penalty it deserves because God became man, He died on the Cross on Calvary to redeem a sinful mankind. But His death on Calvary has been repeated, and is being repeated every time that Mass is being offered. It is no exaggeration to say that except for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the human race would long ago have been destroyed by an offended God for its countless crimes.

But then we ask the most important question: what makes the Mass possible? The Mass is possible only because Christ’s death on Calvary is literally repeated in every Mass offered on Catholic altars throughout the world. This is not indulging in rhetoric. This is the literal truth! Except for the Mass, the justified anger of God would long ago have wiped out the human race because of its multitude of sins.

Here is Mediator dei by Pope Pius XII:

Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated (iteratur) in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood.

VC

 

[revert_jen]

Here is Mediator dei by Pope Pius XII:

Thus the commemorative representation

Grammatically, the second bolded phrase refers to the first bolded phrase. Christ is not crucified again. The representation is repeated, not the death.

If Fr. Hardon said that actually the Crucifixion was repeated in every Mass, then respectfully I have to say he was wrong. The once for all Crucifixion is made present to us at every Mass. It is not repeated. I’m afraid I don’t have time just now to set out a full refutation of it, but check the Catechism #1353, 1364, 1366.

–Jen

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Grammatically, the second bolded phrase refers to the first bolded phrase. Christ is not crucified again. The representation is repeated, not the death.

That’s right jen. There is no question that the crucifixion can’t be repeated.

Wouldn’t it be possible, then, to understand the quote from the OP

On Calvary Christ offered his Body and Blood to God the Father for us. In the Mass this great act is repeated.

in the same manner? Must “this” in the second sentence refer to Calvary? Perhaps “this” refers to the offering?

As far as the quote from Fr. Hardon is concerned, he seems to be referring to Christ being symbolically shown to be in the state of victimhood. Since Fr. Hardon is so knowledgeable and orthodox, it probably behooves us to assume that what he is saying is orthodox and try to understand how it can be so.

VC

 

[jmcrae]

Must “this” in the second sentence refer to Calvary? Perhaps “this” refers to the offering?

Let us hope so. In any case, the wording is very confusing - not the sort of thing one expects in writing for children.

 

[revert_jen]

Wouldn’t it be possible, then, to understand the quote from the OP

in the same manner? Must “this” in the second sentence refer to Calvary? Perhaps “this” refers to the offering?

Well, yes it would, that’s why I said this:

Actually, I don’t think this is really a doctrinal error at all, just a very badly written sentence. The problem is that there isn’t really much clue what it is that “this great act” refers to. It sounds like it refers to Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary, but I think what they actually meant it to refer to is the presentation of that Sacrifice to the Father. The first is certainly not repeated, but the second is.

But it would be better if they fixed the sentence.

As far as the quote from Fr. Hardon is concerned, he seems to be referring to Christ being symbolically shown to be in the state of victimhood. Since Fr. Hardon is so knowledgeable and orthodox, it probably behooves us to assume that what he is saying is orthodox and try to understand how it can be so.

Theologians, even knowledgeable and orthodox ones, are not infallible. Possibly if I read the whole essay or book or whatever it would be clear. But what he has said, “Christ’s death on Calvary is literally repeated in every Mass” is just not in accord with the teachings of the Church. I can just assume that he put it badly. It may be that he has fallen into an unfortunately common English error of using “literally” when he doesn’t mean it.

–Jen

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi jen,

Well, yes it would, that’s why I said this

I thought you might think the same of the passage I quoted!

Theologians, even knowledgeable and orthodox ones, are not infallible.

Yes, I agree.

But what he has said, “Christ’s death on Calvary is literally repeated in every Mass” is just not in accord with the teachings of the Church.

I am morally certain that Fr. Hardon doesn’t think Christ is crucified again or died again – as Fr. Hardon would hold both those things to be an impossibility.

As an aside, saying the the crucifixion is made present at every Mass is, I think, only one theory of the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass (and in my opinion it isn’t a very convincing one, but that is just me.).

Thanks,
VC

 

[revert_jen]

I am morally certain that Fr. Hardon doesn’t think Christ is crucified again or died again – as Fr. Hardon would hold both those things to be an impossibility.

As an aside, saying the the crucifixion is made present at every Mass is, I think, only one theory of the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass (and in my opinion it isn’t a very convincing one, but that is just me.).

I’m sure you’re right about Fr. Hardon. Everyody has off-days when you write things that don’t sound on paper the way they sounded in your head. For some of us, that is most days. Maybe he just did it the once.

–Jen