Does Jesus die in the Mass?

[fineca]

Yea, is it correct or incorrect to say Jesus dies in the Mass?

I know Jesus does not die AGAIN in the Mass, but does he die in the Mass?

I feel inclined to say it’s incorrect, because we believe the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus offered in an unbloody manner in memory of his death which happened once and once and for all, and because in the Eucharist it is the glorified and risen Christ we receive, the one that already triumphed over death…

However, I find this problematic since if it’s okay to say Christ is sacrificed in the Mass, even though his sacrifice was a once-for-all sacrifice, then why wouldn’t it be okay to say he dies in the Mass, since his sacrifice consisted of giving his life, and we do believe that the Mass is the SAME sacrifice as the one on Calvary… how can Christ be immolated in the Mass if he doesn’t die? How is it the same sacrifice then if he doesn’t die? If it’s the re-presentation of Calvary, ever present in heaven before the Father, then it should be correct to say that he dies, although not again, but it’s always the same death, just like we believe it’s always the same sacrifice…

I find both answers impossible…heelp please, thanks!
E

 

[Conciliar]

Not sure I can help, but…

The re-presentation of Calvary at Mass is not so much the crucifixion, but the *offering *of Jesus Christ of Himself - in both His human and divine natures - to His Father. Standing in persona Christi, the priest offers Christ to His Father, re-presenting as it were that which took place definitively once for all at the crucifixion; namely, the total offering of Himself - the God-man - even unto death, to His Father.

As you said, it is the Risen Christ that we offer. It is the very fact of His being risen that makes the sacrifice - the offering - real.

As we proclaim: “Christ has died.” An historical event of the past. “Christ is risen.” A present and everlasting reality. The offering at Mass can re-present the offering at Calvary because Christ gives of Himself, in His humanity and divinity, to His Father eternally.

I guess in short, I woud say that the key is understanding the sacrifice more in terms of “offering” (Father, we offer you this holy and living sacrifice) than crucifixion or killing.

 

[bear06]

We humans like to put God on a timeline. He isn’t. Christ’s one act of dying on the Christ was also a timeless act. This is why it saves not only the people who lived in the time but us today. When protestants say “Wasn’t Christ’s death on the cross good enough?” they are actually agreeing with the premise that it’s a timeless act although they don’t understand the whole belief that God is outside of time. Like the CCC says, the Eucharist makes this sacrifice present to those of us who are on a timeline.

From the CCC:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187
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."188

 

[Conciliar]

The CCC references are excellent, bear06. Thanks.

I think one of the most key parts WRT the original question, “Does Jesus die in the Mass?” - to which the answer is no - are found in this part of 1367:

“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. . . (emphasis added)

I would say that the offering itself is timeless and eternal, but I would stop short of saying the same of the actual crucifixion, i.e. the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The CCC segments I emphasized refer to the historical quality of the bloody sacrifice - the actual death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That event truly did happen in time; Jesus was born, entering human history, and his death is similarly an historical event. It happened once in time, as did His birth of the Virgin Mary, and it happens no more. We can no more deem his death timeless than His birth.

Yet, the offering continues, and this is why we can call the Mass the re-presentation of Calvary and still maintain that Jesus does not die in the Mass.

 

[bear06]

The CCC references are excellent, bear06. Thanks.

I think one of the most key parts WRT the original question, “Does Jesus die in the Mass?” - to which the answer is no - are found in this part of 1367:

I would say that the offering itself is timeless and eternal, but I would stop short of saying the same of the actual crucifixion, i.e. the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The CCC segments I emphasized refer to the historical quality of the bloody sacrifice - the actual death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That event truly did happen in time; Jesus was born, entering human history, and his death is similarly an historical event. It happened once in time, as did His birth of the Virgin Mary, and it happens no more. We can no more deem his death timeless than His birth.

Yet, the offering continues, and this is why we can call the Mass the re-presentation of Calvary and still maintain that Jesus does not die in the Mass.

How about “timeless act carried out in time”?

Here’s a good article on the subject.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp

 

[Conciliar]

How about “timeless act carried out in time”?

Let it be so coined. You’re right, that was a very good article. Thanks. Hopefully fineca can say our posts were helpful.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yea, is it correct or incorrect to say Jesus dies in the Mass?

I know Jesus does not die AGAIN in the Mass, but does he die in the Mass?

I feel inclined to say it’s incorrect, because we believe the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus offered in an unbloody manner in memory of his death which happened once and once and for all, and because in the Eucharist it is the glorified and risen Christ we receive, the one that already triumphed over death…

However, I find this problematic since if it’s okay to say Christ is sacrificed in the Mass, even though his sacrifice was a once-for-all sacrifice, then why wouldn’t it be okay to say he dies in the Mass, since his sacrifice consisted of giving his life, and we do believe that the Mass is the SAME sacrifice as the one on Calvary… how can Christ be immolated in the Mass if he doesn’t die? How is it the same sacrifice then if he doesn’t die? If it’s the re-presentation of Calvary, ever present in heaven before the Father, then it should be correct to say that he dies, although not again, but it’s always the same death, just like we believe it’s always the same sacrifice…

I find both answers impossible…heelp please, thanks!
E

No, the Mass is not a redeath or recrucifixion. The Mass is a living sacrifice of the the already crucified and resurected Jesus Christ.

As the Eucharistic Prayer III says;

Father, callling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

Jim

 

[tradition]

Yea, is it correct or incorrect to say Jesus dies in the Mass?

I know Jesus does not die AGAIN in the Mass, but does he die in the Mass?

I feel inclined to say it’s incorrect, because we believe the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus offered in an unbloody manner in memory of his death which happened once and once and for all, and because in the Eucharist it is the glorified and risen Christ we receive, the one that already triumphed over death…

However, I find this problematic since if it’s okay to say Christ is sacrificed in the Mass, even though his sacrifice was a once-for-all sacrifice, then why wouldn’t it be okay to say he dies in the Mass, since his sacrifice consisted of giving his life, and we do believe that the Mass is the SAME sacrifice as the one on Calvary… how can Christ be immolated in the Mass if he doesn’t die? How is it the same sacrifice then if he doesn’t die? If it’s the re-presentation of Calvary, ever present in heaven before the Father, then it should be correct to say that he dies, although not again, but it’s always the same death, just like we believe it’s always the same sacrifice…

I find both answers impossible…heelp please, thanks!
E

Hi,
It goes this way, Have you seen the movie…“Back to the Future”? Well, this is just an analogy, however. But basically
it’s the same procedure…
.Because God is eternal…His sacrifice is and was and always will be ETERNAL. Which means- everytime we go to Mass WE ARE OUTSIDE OF TIME!!! Therefore we are participating in an
ETERNAL SACRIFICE. Even though our Lord did this way back when- you and I and every generation can participate as though we were at the foot of the cross THAT DAY every time we receive In Jesus
Him.

 

[jpjd]

Does Jesus die in the Mass? No.

Conciliar explained it well: “The re-presentation of Calvary at Mass is not so much the crucifixion, but the *offering *of Jesus Christ of Himself - in both His human and divine natures - to His Father…”

The crucifixion happened only once; Christ’s offering of Himself to God is perpetual. The offering is perpetual because it takes place in heaven which is outside of time.

I found this analogy very helpful in “Worthy is the Lamb” by Thomas Nash: The sun is always shining although to us on earth we see it rise and set. In heaven, the glorified, risen Christ is perpetually offering Himself to God, and in the Mass we become present to it, just like we on earth become present every morning to the ever shining sun.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am sure there is an article on this on the homepage.
from Karl’s book What do Catholics REally beleive

#18 Jesus dies and is sacrificed again at every Mass (common claim of fundamentalists and ill-catechized Catholics)

“Here are the facts in brief: Jesus does not die again at each Mass. As Scripture explains he died only once (Heb 7:27, 9:12, 9:25-28, 10:10-14). His one-time death was sufficient to atone for all ours sins. He gave himself up voluntarily to be killed–he was a wiling sacrifice.” . . .
In the Mass the sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented, not in a bloody physical way but in an unbloody sacramental way."
. . . Although Christ died only once, through the Mass his saving act is made actulaly present, day by day, until the end of the world."

still best brief explanation to be found, check it out.

 

[porthos11]

The CCC references are excellent, bear06. Thanks.

I think one of the most key parts WRT the original question, “Does Jesus die in the Mass?” - to which the answer is no - are found in this part of 1367:

I would say that the offering itself is timeless and eternal, but I would stop short of saying the same of the actual crucifixion, i.e. the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The CCC segments I emphasized refer to the historical quality of the bloody sacrifice - the actual death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That event truly did happen in time; Jesus was born, entering human history, and his death is similarly an historical event. It happened once in time, as did His birth of the Virgin Mary, and it happens no more. We can no more deem his death timeless than His birth.

Yet, the offering continues, and this is why we can call the Mass the re-presentation of Calvary and still maintain that Jesus does not die in the Mass.

I would also affirm that Christ does not die in the Mass, but I would kinda hesitate to affirm that his death isn’t present. The Biblical concept of anamnesis/zikkaron, and mentioned by the CCC, means that the historical event being commemorated (poor word) is actually made present. Of course this is possible because Christ is now eternal high priest before the Father, which is beyond time. Also, I base this on the Book of Revelation, where the Lamb is seen standing (alive) as if slain. Clearly, the two notions are not mutually exclusive. The Lamb is alive, but the death is present.

I am inclined to believe, therefore, that Jesus doesn’t die (the Church is clear that he is alive under both species) but his death, resurrection, and ascension are all present at Mass. This is in itself the whole Paschal Mystery, and is the same offering in heaven.

 

[Conciliar]

I would kinda hesitate to affirm that his death isn’t present…

I am inclined to believe, therefore, that Jesus doesn’t die (the Church is clear that he is alive under both species) but his death, resurrection, and ascension are all present at Mass. This is in itself the whole Paschal Mystery, and is the same offering in heaven.

Thanks for your thoughts. I love this kind of discussion, in part, because it really does challenge us to try to articulate such glorious and mysterious realities.

Yes, Jesus’ death is indeed present inasmuch as it is an historical fact without which resurrection has no meaning. In that sense His dying is made present, but His death, with regard to the actual historical event of His bloodshed is not re-presented in the same manner as the offering of Himself that is the Sacrifice. We can say that Jesus continually offers Himself to His Father, as culminated on Calvary - an offering that is re-presented at Mass as the priest acts in persona Christi. Yet we cannot say in the same way that He continually dies as once He did on Calvary.

 

[Thursday1]

Thanks for your thoughts. I love this kind of discussion, in part, because it really does challenge us to try to articulate such glorious and mysterious realities.

Yes, Jesus’ death is indeed present inasmuch as it is an historical fact without which resurrection has no meaning. In that sense His dying is made present, but His death, with regard to the actual historical event of His bloodshed is not re-presented in the same manner as the offering of Himself that is the Sacrifice. We can say that Jesus continually offers Himself to His Father, as culminated on Calvary - an offering that is re-presented at Mass as the priest acts in persona Christi. Yet we cannot say in the same way that He continually dies as once He did on Calvary.

I think we can say that Christ continually dies on Calvary. We exist inside of time and see an event in the past as past and only the present moment as “real.” But God exists outside of time, viewing all moments as equally real. There is no past, no future, just an eternal now. So, logically it follows that the moment on calvary is part of that eternal now. It is still the same death, but viewed from eternity, it is eternal.
The Mass “transports” us, not to that moment, but to the eternal view of that moment. When the priest consecrates the bread and wine, and they become the body and blood of Christ, his body and His blood are separated, we witness His eternal death. When His body and blood are reunited, we witness His eternal resurrection.
Needless to say this gets a little complicated, as Christ is God, and is eternal Himself, though in time through the mystery of the incarnation. However, if you think about it, how incredible is Christ’s sacrifice when you look at it through the eyes of eternity? God the Son, eternally offering His life for our salvation, and God the Father, eternally accepting His Son’s gift.
So, I wouldn’t say that Christ dies in the Mass, but that the Mass allows us to view His death as the Father views it.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[fineca]

Thanks to everybody for your helpful answers. I have lately come to realize the following oft-heard phrase in a new and eye-opening way, wonder why it’s not used more frequently in defending the Sacrifice of the Mass:

1. Cor. 11:26
   For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I may be beating a dead horse, but here goes…

The Mass makes us present at the crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, He does not die in the Mass, but rather we are present at His death celebrated in the context of His resurrection. As has been noted, God exists outside of time and space. For God there is only the eternal NOW. Everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen is present to God NOW. Hard to grasp, but that’s what Scripture teaches us.

Hope this helps.

Deacon Ed

 

[Thursday1]

I may be beating a dead horse, but here goes…

The Mass makes us present at the crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, He does not die in the Mass, but rather we are present at His death celebrated in the context of His resurrection. As has been noted, God exists outside of time and space. For God there is only the eternal NOW. Everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen is present to God NOW. Hard to grasp, but that’s what Scripture teaches us.

Hope this helps.

Deacon Ed

I had a professor once who said: “To God, there is only the present tense.”

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Conciliar]

Hi Thursday,

First of all, congratualtions on your engagement.

Secondly,

…how incredible is Christ’s sacrifice when you look at it through the eyes of eternity?

I know that was a rhetorical question, but very!

I think we can say that Christ continually dies on Calvary.

The trouble I envision with that statement is that it could lead to a detraction of the historical quality of the physical death of the man Jesus. We wouldn’t say that someone in our family - a great grandfather who passed away in 1950, say - continually dies, even within the vision of God. Yet their deaths are the same; both have truly died.

I see where you are going WRT God being outside of time and the eternal now of His vision, but even though God exists outside of time, the eternal Son, in the person of Jesus, willingly entered time; His birth happened within the confines of time as did His death. Therefore, I think that phraseology could be troublesome.

That said, you are touching on something important in the double consecration that makes present a “sacramental slaying” in the separation of Body and Blood. This is different, I beleive, than the sacrifice as offering re-presented at Mass. In the Mass, the Priest and the Victim are both Christ. It is the *same sacrifice *that happened on Calvary, but *the manner of sacrifice is different *- one is bloody, the other is not.

That is what leads me to say that Jesus’ dying is made present, (sacramental slaying) but His death, with regard to the actual historical event of His bloodshed is not re-presented in the same manner as the offering; High Priest offering Himself as victim. I think this is why we can say it is the Sacrifice at Calvary made present, yet He does not die again at Mass.

I am no theologian by far, so I imagine my understanding and wording are probably lacking in some manner.

 

[Jesusstreet]

JESUS gave HIS LIFE for the LIFE of the world. The sacrifice upon Calvary is the “greatest act of LOVE” and an act of total self sacrifice for the LIFE of the world. That being said, though we see the pain in the death of CHRIST, and worry that we hurt JESUS by this representation of the death of OUR LORD, we must see that JESUS did so willingly, for if it were not so consumatted then we would all be dead in our sins. But in that it has been accomplished in accordance with the will of GOD our FATHER, we must see it is done in LOVE. All LOVE being a sacrfice.

JESUS is the BRIDEGROOM who gives HIS BODY as a gift for HIS BRIDE, which is the CHURCH. JESUS is the seed which dies to give birth to the CHURCH. JESUS is the bread of LIFE which gave HIMSELF for the LIFE of HIS flock. This i believe to be the WEDDING FEAST OF THE LAMB. That we eat of JESUS and are married of the flesh to CHRIST in ONE BODY in the UNITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Thus JESUS dies at the mass, JESUS gives us LIFE at the mass, JESUS is wed to us at the mass, JESUS forgives us our sins and justifies us before GOD our FATHER at the mass, in a single powerful prayer JESUS unites us to HIMSELF, as a BRIDE AND A BRIDEGROOM that through JESUS we are saved. . .

I believe that the pain and humiliation of the crucifixion is a prefigurement of the JOY OF HEAVEN. That many who are first shall be last, and the last shall be first, is a reversal of that which is in pain and joy of the Earthly flesh of this backward world, and that which is to come in HEAVEN for the faithful is the reward of JOY, PEACE, and even GREATNESS for those who keep the commandments and die in service to CHRIST, having crucified the flesh, and walk the straight and narrow path to LIFE ETERNAL and ABUNDANT.

Could this WEDDING FEAST take place if JESUS were not present? Could we be wed to CHRIST in the HOLY EUCHARIST if the representation of Calvary were not again relived in GOD? For if you remember something it is again lived? and if GOD remembers something it is made manifest and real? without getting too metaphyical on that point, we say that JESUS is PRESENT LITERALLY in the HOLY EUCHARIST, as it is and must be so, even for the fulfillment of Scripture. So then if JESUS wasn’t brought again in an unbloody manner to the altar, you are saying that JESUS has some store of himself in HEAVEN which is just offered to us. Otherwise we have to go back to Calvary and place the challis under HIS wounds to bless the HOLY EUCHARIST . …

Though this blessing of JESUS is hidden under the appearances of bread and wine, thus we do not see the literal blood, except on rare occassions when we have witnessed by recorded miracles the bleeding of the host, and other EUCHARISTIC miracles . …

Thus the BODY AND BLOOD are hidden behind viels, but are indeed present in the EUCHARIST after the blessing. And this of course requires a representation of the Crucifixion . … of course GOD cannot die in HIS DIVINITY. But the HOLY flesh of GOD being presented first at the Last Supper, and sanctified in the Crucifixion must die, like a seed being planted in soil. We are the soil in which the seed is planted, and JESUS is the seed. And thus being united to THE WORD OF GOD we become TEH CHURCH in the unity of the HOLY SPIRIT.

LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
Amen.

As an addendum to my previous remarks.

It is interesting to note:
Genesis 2:22 *And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.

JESUS of course had not a bone broken in HIS body, but had this wound in HIS side from which flows blood and water, which is BAPTISM and the HOLY EUCHARIST. We have seen through messages of the Saints (as Saint Sister Faustina Kowalski) that this flows from the Heart of JESUS, though JESUS is risen and GLORIFIED at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD OUR FATHER. Of couse the rib becomes adam’s wife, and the wound in the side of CHRIST becomes the CHURCH. But the wound in the side of Adam was filled up with flesh. And the flesh which shall fill the wound in the side of CHRIST is flesh of the CHURCH. The wound remains open until all has been accomplished and the CHURCH being built and the days of the Earth are completed with the triumphant and glorious return of OUR LORD AND SAVIOR.

Amen.

 

[Thursday1]

Hi Thursday,

First of all, congratualtions on your engagement.

Secondly,
I know that was a rhetorical question, but very!

The trouble I envision with that statement is that it could lead to a detraction of the historical quality of the physical death of the man Jesus. We wouldn’t say that someone in our family - a great grandfather who passed away in 1950, say - continually dies, even within the vision of God. Yet their deaths are the same; both have truly died.

I see where you are going WRT God being outside of time and the eternal now of His vision, but even though God exists outside of time, the eternal Son, in the person of Jesus, willingly entered time; His birth happened within the confines of time as did His death. Therefore, I think that phraseology could be troublesome.

That said, you are touching on something important in the double consecration that makes present a “sacramental slaying” in the separation of Body and Blood. This is different, I beleive, than the sacrifice as offering re-presented at Mass. In the Mass, the Priest and the Victim are both Christ. It is the *same sacrifice *that happened on Calvary, but *the manner of sacrifice is different *- one is bloody, the other is not.

That is what leads me to say that Jesus’ dying is made present, (sacramental slaying) but His death, with regard to the actual historical event of His bloodshed is not re-presented in the same manner as the offering; High Priest offering Himself as victim. I think this is why we can say it is the Sacrifice at Calvary made present, yet He does not die again at Mass.

I am no theologian by far, so I imagine my understanding and wording are probably lacking in some manner.

Thank you very much!

I think you brought up some very good points, and pointed out where my own explanation was lacking.
No, we wouldn’t talk about a grandfather continually dying. But I think we can with Christ, for He is fully human and fully divine. He is both in time through the mystery of the incarnation, and eternal through His divine nature. So, Christ’s death is both an historical event and an eternal event.
I like that you used the word sacramentally, because that is exactly how we are made present at the eternal sacrifice. Sacramentally, we are brought to the bloody sacrifice, made present through the unbloody sacrifice.
And one last point, if we only dwell on the eternity of Christ’s suffering and death we will end up resorting to self-flagellation, fasting to the point of emaciation, and other penances for the Christ who hangs upon the cross “now.” But this is not the whole story, there is the Resurrection. If Christ’s death is an eternal offering to the Farther, Christ’s Resurrection is an eternal reward to the Son. The Resurrection was impossible with out the death, and the death would have been meaningless without the Resurrection. Mercifully, God lets us witness both in the Mass. The Mass is the eternal Pascal Mystery.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[HailMary]

The re-presentation of Calvary at Mass is not so much the crucifixion, but the *offering *of Jesus Christ of Himself - in both His human and divine natures

Conciliar,

I am no expert on this subject myself, but as I understand, Christ choose to save us only from his adorable Human nature, and not His divine. This can be show by the cross, since it was only his human nature was crucified.

correct me if I am wrong.