These doctrines are unique to Mormonism.
To claim that the transhistorical power of the atonement is uniquely Mormon reveals ignorance of Catholic theology of grace and sacraments. Catholicism teaches that all grace that has ever existed enters the world through Christ’s Passion. The Fathers taught that the rituals of the Old Law were confessions of a true salvation made actual by the cross. Circumcision for instance, was a confession of faith in which the effects of Christ’s blood were given to the individual, as Aquinas writes, “circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ’s future Passion.” Moreover, St. Augustine taught that the offering of Melchizedek was the Christian Eucharist itself, “For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole world.” Further, the papal definition of the Immaculate Conception says Mary was saved from original sin “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ."
That Christ is the redeemer of all creation can be found in Col 1:20, which was taken quite seriously, and even to extremes, by some of the Fathers, particularly Origen. Suffice it to say that the new heavens and the new earth at the end of the Book of Revelation were understood to be consequences of the redemption of the cross, whereby Christ makes all things new.
So as you can see, Mormonism goes a lot further than traditional Christian theology in teaching the eternal and infinite nature of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
What I can see is that Catholic theology goes far in affirming the things you believe it to deny or overlook. If you do not know Catholic theology, you cannot competently explain how it contrasts with Mormonism.
Now there is a difference between something being infinite and eternal in its consequence, and it being perpetual. The two words do not mean exactly the same thing. “Perpetual” implies something that is being “repeated” or “happening all the time,” like “perpetual motion”. Infinite means something that is boundless or limitless. It is not restricted by limitations of time or space. It does not apply just to a specific period of time, but to all time. It is not limited to a small area of space but to all space.
This is groundless. The meaning of “perpetual” is “uninterrupted.” At least, that is the meaning of the Latin
perpetuus, which is the actual word used in historic Catholic doctrine. It indicates is that there is no period in time where the atonement is not present. The alternative to saying the atonement is “perpetual” is to say it is “interrupted.” Is that something you want to say?
The notion that the perpetuity of the atonement implies motion is profoundly, diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. In reality, the perpetuity of the mass is a corollary to the atonement’s transcendence of time. That the sacrifice itself, not just its effects, is unbounded by time is evident from the Rev. 13:8, which speaks of Christ as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The actual offering on the cross does not come newly into being at each mass; what does is our liturgical approach to that offering. Because the infinite is outside of time, it can contact the finite world at every moment while remaining itself in one eternal present. If it were not so, it would be false to say that the atonement transcends time and space.
So Mormonism has no difficulty coping with the idea of an infinite or eternal sacrifice. It teaches and understands that doctrine far better than traditional Christian theology does. But what we do have a problem with is the idea of a perpetual sacrifice—i.e. one that is, or needs to be, continually repeated. That is a false doctrine that has no basis in scripture.
This criticism depends on your interpretation of “perpetual,” which, we have seen, is false.
I have already provided you with a small part of the scriptural basis for the Eucharist as a sacrifice in my account of Heb 13:15, to which you responded merely by quoting some fairly weak proof texts without interacting with my reading of the verse. Since you have not engaged the evidence presented to you, you are in no position to claim that the Eucharist as a sacrifice has “no basis in scripture.” The scriptural evidence is plain: the Eucharist is instituted at a seder meal; the seder is a sacrificial banquet. That’s evidence. Moreover, consumption is part of Hebrew sacrificial rituals, including the Passover. Christ is the Paschal Lamb, and eating the Lamb is how one partakes of the Paschal sacrifice.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is eternal but not perpetual. It happened once, and does not need to happen again—either physically, or metaphorically, or allegorically. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is memorial, a remembrance, of that sacrifice; it is not a repetition, a perpetuation, or a reenactment of that sacrificed. That is the difference between the Mormon theology of the Sacrament, and the Catholic theology of the Mass.
There are many ways to disprove to the “memorial” argument. I will stick with the simplest one, which is endorsed by the Council of Trent: in Israelite customs and in the Torah, the Passover is a memorial. Because the Eucharist is the New Passover, it contains in itself the perfection of everything that was contained in the Passover offering. That means, it must have a memorial function, within its sacrificial operation. And indeed, we do remember Christ’s Passion and Resurrection in the mass.
Rather than undermining the claim that the mass is a sacrifice, the memorial aspect of the Eucharist supports it, because it draws firm the connection between the mass and the Passover meal. It would actually be a strong argument against the mass as a sacrifice if it were *not *a memorial.
