Free will faculty and the Mass

[Gorgias]

I don’t see why a Catholic can’t say the numbers of Masses said in all history is, along with the firs Good Friday, a necessary part of Jesus’s redemption of us.

Umm… because they’re not? A Mass that’s celebrated for a particular intention does not redeem anyone! (It might be efficacious for the purification of their soul in Purgatory, but it doesn’t redeem them!) Only Christ’s redemption is, well… redemptive!

On the other hand, there are those who would say that this fits under what St Paul was talking about in Colossians 1:24. That is, that our suffering – and our prayers, especially those offered in the Mass – is what is “lacking in Christ’s afflictions on behalf of… the church.” However, ‘lacking’ does not imply ‘insufficient for redemption’, but rather, just that these are part of Jesus’ plan for how we are redeemed.

this fosters to the idea in the Catholic community than the more Mass you offer, the more power they have. This is theological false, and is one of the reasons Protestants think we are non-Christians

Wait – so… Catholics who misunderstand Catholicism provide an example that causes those outside of the Church misunderstand what we teach? Shocking!

 

[Frankenfurter]

1. I did not see the website saying that our actions add anything to what Christ has already done.

That is a disingenuous reading. It is plain that we are adding something. We are after all the body of Christ and therefore suffer with him.

The entire meaning of human suffering would be lost if we could not offer it along with Jesus. amazon.com/John-Paul-Meaning-Suffering-Spiritual/dp/1592763146

Jesus’ love is overflowing, like a parent to his children. And when the young child wants to help paint his room, or fix dinner, or bury the family dog in the yard, that offering is mixed with the acts of the parent. It is definitely ADDED. Just like the water in the wine.

The protestant view on this is impersonal, cold and un-Biblical frankly. It has an a priori need to deny the value of human suffering. We are not talking about salvation here. I realize that God alone can grant salvation. But when a Christian offers up his pain and suffering to God and joins it with Jesus, this Christian is giving meaning to his own life, to Jesus’ sacrifice and in the most real way is humbly returning love to the Father which makes the Father happy. It is not because the Father rejoices in our suffering, it is because he rejoices in receiving love. And Jesus taught us that Love is sacrifice and suffering for another.

 

[Contarini]

That is a disingenuous reading. It is plain that we are adding something. We are after all the body of Christ and therefore suffer with him.

Nothing disingenuous about it, and your use of that word is insulting.

Of course we suffer with Christ. But we aren’t adding to Christ’s work.

I’m not sure we actually disagree, because I agree with your examples entirely. I’m just uncomfortable with the word “adding.”

The protestant view on this is impersonal, cold and un-Biblical frankly.

I entirely agree. And that may be why we are talking past each other. You think I’m maintaining the standard Protestant position, when I’m actually trying to get Catholics not to put their faith in terms that Protestants will take the wrong way.

It has an a priori need to deny the value of human suffering. We are not talking about salvation here. I realize that God alone can grant salvation. But when a Christian offers up his pain and suffering to God and joins it with Jesus, this Christian is giving meaning to his own life, to Jesus’ sacrifice and in the most real way is humbly returning love to the Father which makes the Father happy. It is not because the Father rejoices in our suffering, it is because he rejoices in receiving love. And Jesus taught us that Love is sacrifice and suffering for another.

That’s all fine. I just don’t think the appropriate way to describe this is “adding.”

The person who started this discussion, thinkandmull, has suggested that somehow if one Mass too few is said the Father would not be “appeased.” that was the specific context in which we started talking about “adding.” That is exactly the kind of “adding” that Protestants rightly deny.

Your examples are completely different, and I have no problem with them.

Edwin

 

[thinkandmull]

A Protestant can still believe that suffering has value in molding a person for eternity

 

[Frankenfurter]

I’m just uncomfortable with the word “adding.”

That’s all fine. I just don’t think the appropriate way to describe this is “adding.”

The person who started this discussion, thinkandmull, has suggested that somehow if one Mass too few is said the Father would not be “appeased.” that was the specific context in which we started talking about “adding.” That is exactly the kind of “adding” that Protestants rightly deny.

Your examples are completely different, and I have no problem with them.

Edwin

Please illuminate for us what the problem and uncomfortableness is with the word ‘adding’. I have seen others use the word ‘completes’ instead of ‘adds to’. Official church documents say that human suffering completes the suffering of Christ. You can’t complete something if you don’t add to it. Seems like a word game to me. I mean, I had 11 eggs, I completed the dozen by adding one more.

It’s a wonderful discussion full of the potential for insights. No insults are intended, and if perceived are strictly my own fault of choosing the wrong words at the wrong time.

Please understand that the water is ‘added’ to the wine. The symbolism is key.

I think this is the core of the question actually because by ‘adding’ (or ‘completing’ if one is uncomfortable), we must give something of our self, we must will it. Not just ride along the wave of grace but actively take part in it.

We are the body of Christ. Christ is alive today in us. When you suffer as a Christian, Christ suffers. You are that intimately connected to Christ. Perhaps that is uncomfortable for some.

So when one who mourns the death of a love one, offers up multiple masses for the dead, these are also a way to give (offer) one’s grief and suffering to God.

I have attended so many funeral masses where the sense of offering the life of the deceased and the suffering of the mourners is so critical to the mass. I find the denial of our ability to add something to be at odds with my direct experience of being a Christian and with scriptures and with what so many priests have said during funeral masses, and with John Paul II.

 

[thinkandmull]

Protestants believe in praying for each other, so why can’t they offer their sufferings for each other? I guess they think that is going to far. For them St. Paul merely meant he was doing on earth was Jesus “couldn’t” do because He was in Heaven. Evangelization was suffering

 

[Frankenfurter]

That’s a good point Thinkandmull. And you are putting it in terms of bible alone interpretation so that might appeal to them.

I think another place where things get confused is that there is a real Protestant complaint that Catholics add their own works to Jesus’ suffering for the purpose of gaining salvation. But it is Catholic doctrine that we cannot add anything to Christ’s suffering to gain salvation. We cannot merit it on our own. It is in fact a gift. Of course it is. A human can’t even access such a thing himself. We can however, lose it. That ability to lose it is Catholic doctrine and is where the Protestant ‘once saved always saved’ is heretical. The Catholic can lose his salvation, but when offered again, he can re-accept it. That is the forgiveness and mercy of God.

But when we offer our sufferings to God, when we offer our dead to God, it is an act of a higher form of love. We don’t expect something in return for it. But we do know that it makes the Father happy, or appeases him to use another word. He is after all a person.

When my son makes me breakfast in bed on Father’s day, I love it. He has already gained my inheritance, and his undercooked pancakes and blueberries do not increase his inheritance in any way. But I accept his gift as an act of love. And I have no problem if he were to do it every day!! His offering is unique and definitely adds something unique to his expression of love.

 

[Contarini]

Please illuminate for us what the problem and uncomfortableness is with the word ‘adding’…

Thinkandmull’s argument is that all the Masses that will ever be offered are necessary, as a sum, in order to “appease” the Father. That’s “adding,” as if the Father is not already perfectly appeased by Jesus’ sacrifice.

I don’t think this is what you are saying, and I don’t have a problem with what you are saying, if I understand it correctly.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

I have seen quotes from Catholic writers, and some saints, which say that the Mass appeases the anger of the Father, and in fact needs to be continually offered in order to appease for our sins. However, it seems to me that such language is only compatible with an Augustinian or neo-Thomistic view of free will and grace, and not with modern Molinism.

Do you by chance have those quotes, (properly referenced) ?

Jesus sacrifice did appease the Father. It is one sacrifice. And at mass, we are not resacrificing Jesus over and over again. We are doing what He said to do because it is a command…

At the Last Supper when Jesus said “DO THIS ( τοῦτο ποιεῖτε ) in memory of me” is that a suggestion or a command?

And what is HE doing, that His apostles are to do the same?

The links to the Greek are operational

Jesus

• changed bread and wine into His body and blood. He made that happen
• also at the same time, instituted the ministerial priesthood at this supper, by ordaining His apostles to do the same (make happen) what Jesus did (i.e. change bread and wine into His body and blood) by saying (commanding) THEM, "DO this in memory of me"
• placed no limit to the number of times they are to "DO THIS in memory of me"

ONLY a validly ordained ministerial priesthood can offer sacrifice, and make this sacrificial meal happen.

Jesus is giving His apostles the power and authority to “do” what Jesus is doing i.e. make the Eucharist happen. Which means this same sacrifice of Jesus is to be made present every time the Eucharist is celebrated.

That’s also why Catholics have continuous masses said for a loved one.
t:

If man always choices what is most pleasing and powerful on his will (although the operation of choosing still goes on in his will), then the Mass can be understood as just a real part of the sacrifice of Calvary. Augustinian compatible.

However, if you believe it is primarily up to the free will of the priest on whether the Mass will be offered today, then it would seem wrong to say that Mass is needed to appease God because that would mean that Jesus historical sacrifice was not enough to appease Him.

What do ye think? This is an important issue because of ecumenism.

Without specific quotes it’s not effective answering “what ifs”
t:

Offering multiple masses for a cause (for the Pope for example) is tricky. Is more than the priests activity being applied for the cause? If it is the Sacrifice of Calvary itself, we have to be able to explain to Protestants why Calvary was not imperfect in spite of the repetition of its application to a cause

Don’t get suckered into some silly strawman argument. The sacrifice of the mass is offered over and over again because Jesus commanded it. Period dot end of sentence

 

[thinkandmull]

Thinkandmull’s argument is that all the Masses that will ever be offered are necessary, as a sum, in order to “appease” the Father. That’s “adding,” as if the Father is not already perfectly appeased by Jesus’ sacrifice.

I don’t think this is what you are saying, and I don’t have a problem with what you are saying, if I understand it correctly.

Edwin

Not if Jesus’s sacrifice is the same as that sum

 

[thinkandmull]

Do you by chance have those quotes, (properly referenced) ?

Jesus sacrifice did appease the Father. It is one sacrifice. And at mass, we are not resacrificing Jesus over and over again. We are doing what He said to do because it is a command…

At the Last Supper when Jesus said “DO THIS ( τοῦτο ποιεῖτε ) in memory of me” is that a suggestion or a command?

And what is HE doing, that His apostles are to do the same?

The links to the Greek are operational

Jesus

• changed bread and wine into His body and blood. He made that happen
• also at the same time, instituted the ministerial priesthood at this supper, by ordaining His apostles to do the same (make happen) what Jesus did (i.e. change bread and wine into His body and blood) by saying (commanding) THEM, "DO this in memory of me"
• placed no limit to the number of times they are to "DO THIS in memory of me"

ONLY a validly ordained ministerial priesthood can offer sacrifice, and make this sacrificial meal happen.

Jesus is giving His apostles the power and authority to “do” what Jesus is doing i.e. make the Eucharist happen. Which means this same sacrifice of Jesus is to be made present every time the Eucharist is celebrated.

That’s also why Catholics have continuous masses said for a loved one.

Without specific quotes it’s not effective answering “what ifs”

Don’t get suckered into some silly strawman argument. The sacrifice of the mass is offered over and over again because Jesus commanded it. Period dot end of sentence

I wasn’t talking about the Mass being offered again and again, but offering a Mass for a special intention again and again.

As for the quotes, I use to have a traditionalist book from Tan publishing that was about the propitiatory nature of the Mass and how the saints spoke of this. I don’t have the book anymore, but the essence is properly understanding how the Mass is propitiatory.

 

[Contarini]

Not if Jesus’s sacrifice is the same as that sum

OK, I get the argument. But again, I think you misconstrue the relationship of the Mass to Calvary. The Masses that are offered are not quantitative additions to Jesus’ sacrifice. They are multiple applications of the sacrifice to specific times and places. They don’t exist on the same level, as it were.

The reason this is important to me is that the view you seem to be defending is the view Protestants typically attack. It was a pretty important part of my coming to accept Catholicism as basically true to understand that this was a caricature.

Now you’re arguing that it isn’t. I’m pretty sure you’re wrong, so the discussion doesn’t have much impact on my view of Catholicism. But if you convinced me, that would have serious implications. And hence my concern lest you (from my perspective) mislead others in this way.

Edwin

 

[Gorgias]

As for the quotes, I use to have a traditionalist book from Tan publishing that was about the propitiatory nature of the Mass and how the saints spoke of this. I don’t have the book anymore, but the essence is properly understanding how the Mass is propitiatory.

It is propitiatory, but it’s important to understand what that means in this specific context. It does not mean that each Mass is a separate act of propitiation, or that each Mass attempts to make up for a deficiency of previous Mass(es). Rather, it is a participation in Calvary through a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice to the Father.

Perhaps an example will help. Suppose I get up each morning and tell my wife, “I love you.” How is she to understand my statement? Does she think to herself, “hmm… this is a new act of love? He didn’t love me yesterday, but he loves me today?” – of course not. Or, perhaps she thinks, “his love for me yesterday was fatally flawed – it looks like he’s trying to make up for yesterday’s flawed love, by trying again” – of course not! Rather, one hopes, she thinks, “he loved me yesterday and the day before; and today, he’s professing his love again!”

We are humans, and therefore, we live in time. So, what we do, we do in a temporal framework. In that framework, we are expressing our obedience to Christ’s command to “do this in memory of me”. we do that yesterday, today, and tomorrow – not as a ‘new’ sacrifice… not as an attempt to ‘fix’ what we did imperfectly yesterday… and not as a means to heap additional merit on His sacrifice. Rather, we simply look at the cross and recall Christ’s sacrifice, and re-present Him to His Father… “in memory of” Him.

 

[steve_b]

I wasn’t talking about the Mass being offered again and again, but offering a Mass for a special intention again and again.

As for the quotes, I use to have a traditionalist book from Tan publishing that was about the propitiatory nature of the Mass and how the saints spoke of this. I don’t have the book anymore, but the essence is properly understanding how the Mass is propitiatory.

I think Fr Hardon aswers your questions

Fr. Hardon Archives - The Sacrifice of the Mass

 

[Frankenfurter]

Fr Hardon does indeed say that we add to the offering. He describes how Jesus’ sacrifice is complete and achieves forgiveness and salvation, but also a punishment for our own sins is due. And even though we are forgiven through Jesus’ sacrifice, our own sacrifices reduce the punishment due to sin.

I am glad to see this. I would have been very disappointed if the Church would say that all of the masses that have been said had no value in God’s eyes.

 

[Contarini]

Fr Hardon does indeed say that we add to the offering. He describes how Jesus’ sacrifice is complete and achieves forgiveness and salvation, but also a punishment for our own sins is due. And even though we are forgiven through Jesus’ sacrifice, our own sacrifices reduce the punishment due to sin.

I am glad to see this. I would have been very disappointed if the Church would say that all of the masses that have been said had no value in God’s eyes.

Why would the Church say this?

Surely you have not so badly misunderstood my posts as to think that I was suggesting that “all the masses that have been said have no value in God’s eyes.”

I am uncomfortable with the second paragraph of the “propitation” section–the part you are referring to. The whole concept of “temporal punishment” as some kind of legal debt is problematic, I think. I don’t see why he couldn’t have stopped with the first paragraph.

This is a serious, theological question. I just don’t see a lot of value in framing the application of Christ’s sacrifice to us, or the process of sanctification for those who are repentant believers, in terms of legal punishment. I think we can get exactly the same orthodox results much better through ontological, transformational language, as the Eastern Church does.

Edwin

 

[Frankenfurter]

From the Fr Hardon archives, at the end of the The Mass is a Sacrifice of Propitiation for Sin:

Saint Leonard observed that except for the Mass being offered on thousands of altars throughout the world, the world by now would long ago have been destroyed because of its sins.

I have always viewed (from my Catholic upbringing) that sins destroy the world. I have heard priests describe how we unleash sin into the world. I have come to see this directly - how sin destroys the world. So while it may be fine that we are all forgiven, our sins can actually destroy. There are many innocent people right now paying the ultimate price for the sins of others.

So perhaps, rather then viewing God punishing us for sins, and then reducing this punishment because of our offerings, instead, God can intervene with his Grace to remove the harmful effects of sin that we have unleashed ourselves. God can undo the complex entanglement.

 

[Contarini]

From the Fr Hardon archives, at the end of the The Mass is a Sacrifice of Propitiation for Sin:

Saint Leonard observed that except for the Mass being offered on thousands of altars throughout the world, the world by now would long ago have been destroyed because of its sins.

I have always viewed (from my Catholic upbringing) that sins destroy the world. I have heard priests describe how we unleash sin into the world. I have come to see this directly - how sin destroys the world. So while it may be fine that we are all forgiven, our sins can actually destroy. There are many innocent people right now paying the ultimate price for the sins of others.

So perhaps, rather then viewing God punishing us for sins, and then reducing this punishment because of our offerings, instead, God can intervene with his Grace to remove the harmful effects of sin that we have unleashed ourselves. God can undo the complex entanglement.

Yes, I like that way of thinking about it.

Edwin

 

[thinkandmull]

In conclusion of this discussion, I feel traditionalist priests like Fr. Cekada who speak about the proprietary nature of the mass need to clarity that it is in application of Calvary, and in a sense Calvary itself. But multiple Masses are not needed to appease the Father. That’s were their statements veer of the road