Does Jesus die in the Mass?

[Thursday1]

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.

No, this is not correct. (I’m sure Conciliar won’t mind me answering for him.) Here is a link to the Summa Theologica on it: newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#3

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

No, not in any sense. The Mass is His work, affecting us - it does not affect Him; nothing is “done to” Him.​

The Mass makes present the total reality of what Calvary is - all its effectiveness, its value; it does so in a different manner from Calvary, which was a bloody offering ending in death for its Victim. The Mass shows forth His Death - what His Death is - without bloodshed. Not because He or His work is defective, but because we are. We were not there at time - & if we are to profit by His Work, it must be applied to us. The Holy Spirit does this - it is His Power that makes the Gifts we offer become the Body & Blood of Christ. And He exercises this Power through human beings - that is why there are priests; they have no sacrifice to bring but Christ’s.

If Christ’s work were not made present to us & for us, we could not be saved, or not on the same terms as those who were present at Calvary or at the Last Supper: we are saved by the same Lord & the same Atoning Death as they - or not at all. So it has to be as present to us as it was to them. His death was sacramentally made present by means of the “breaking of the bread” (see Acts 2) - & so it is with us.

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…

Because the Mass is not only a sacrifice - it is a sacramental sacrifice. It is fatal to emphasise any aspect of the reality we call the Eucharist so strongly, that any others are obscured.​

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

 

[HailMary]

No, this is not correct. (I’m sure Conciliar won’t mind me answering for him.) Here is a link to the Summa Theologica on it: newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#3

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

Thank you for the reply. I think this summarizes it nicely:

CCC 468

After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople in 553 confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in **Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject**, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity." ****