How/why does the cross save?

[biblicalAdam]

Hi all. I am new to this forum, but thought I would just jump in with a question. I am a Catholic with a couple of questions? So, hopefully someone can help me out.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that I do not have a good understanding of how and why the cross/resurrection is efficacious towards our salvation. So, if someone could explain how and why the cross saves, that would be great. Now, as understand it, the cross was not technically a necessity in our salvation and that God could have chosen another way to merit us salvation. Instead, the cross was an “appropriate” means of our salvation. But how and why?

 

[Pax]

God is infinite and man is finite. Adam and Eve sinned against God. There is nothing that they or any of their offspring could ever do to offer a suitable sacrifice. As finite beings man is unable to offer satisfaction. Man can only be redeemed by a sacrifice that has infinite merit. Jesus is both God and man and is the only man that could offer the sacrifice on behalf of man and by so doing offer a sacrifice of infinite value because He was perfect and divine. It is in this redemptive sense that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man.

I hope this helps.

 

[biblicalAdam]

Thank you Pax and all,

I do understand the aspect that Jesus (being both a human and divine Person) can mediate. But can you go a bit deeper (or someone else) as how and why the death obtains that salvation? In other words, why does a deathly sacrifice wipe away sins? Why would this be pleasing to the Father?

Certainly the obedience of Jesus was pleasing to the Father; and certainly the love of Jesus was pleasing to the Father. But why is the cross pleasing, as Catholic we do not believe that Christ’s death satisfies the blood lust of the an angry Father. So, how did the cross actually accomplish what our faith tells us it does?

According to the CCC (651): The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ’s works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

I used to have difficulty with this section of the CCC because it implies that the resurrection was not primarily salvific in itself, but that the resurrection was primarily a type of divine stamp of approval by the Father.

But, now (several years later), I find this statement in the CCC to make a bit more sense: the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus’s message of universal salvation was true! That the Father does want to save everyone. But where does this leave the cross as a salvific event? Certainly Jesus could and did fogive sins before the cross (the man lowered on the mat, the woman in adultery, etc)? So what salvific meaning does the cross have? how does it save?

These questions are sincere, I am not trying to seek debate, but better understanding of our great Catholic faith.

through Mary,

-Adam

 

[Pax]

The sin of man against an infinite God is “deserving” of death. Jesus death and resurrection satisfy the punishment and overcome death. Paul tells us the following:

1 Cor 15:13-18
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

Much more can be said on this subject because the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross can be pondered forever. Consider the OT Passover and consider the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross within the context of the Last Supper/Passover. When Jesus says, “It is finished” just before expiring on the cross, He is speaking of the completion of the Passover/Last Supper. This sacrifice on the cross is the sacrifice re-presented at mass in an unbloody manner. We are unified with Jesus in his offering to the Father and we receive him in the Eucharist. Read Malachi 1:11 and ponder what it says.

Malachi 1:11-14
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised. ‘What a weariness this is,’ you say, and you sniff at me, says the Lord of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the Lord. Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.

Jesus says that “No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friends.” That is exactly what Jesus did for our salvation. He gave himself as the perfect and unblemished lamb of sacrifice in the pattern of the Passover Lamb. Thus our salvation is won and our sins passed over.

Notice in Malachi 1:11 that this is a prophecy. At that time the Lord’s name was not great among the nations. Today the sacrifice of the mass is offered from the rising to the setting of the sun around the globe. Jesus is the pure offering spoken of in Malachi. What greater and more perfect sacrifice can be offered? What greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for his friends?

Jesus dies for us as the perfect sacrifice and He conquers death through the resurrection.

I hope this helps.

 

[biblicalAdam]

Pax and all,

So, this quote from Malachi does certainly speak of the Eucharist (and the sacrificial aspects of it)… I agree!

And certainly Christ’s death is done in the manner and type of the passover. I agree! And the symbolism of the Christ of the Lamb of God certainly points to this.

But, if we say that Christ’s death is salvific and pleasing to the Father because it is done in the type and manner of the OT sacrificies, then it just begs another question: why would the death of a lamb be pleasing to the Father.

In other words, if the meaning of Jesus’s death is to be understood in light of the OT sacrifice, then we must first find a relevant interpretation of OT sacrifices (which is a struggle for me). Why would the death of an animal cleanse sins? I do not know. And since it is difficult to find meaning in the OT sacrifices, it is difficult (for me) to find meaning in imagery of Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb.

You also reference the Gospel that there is no greater love than to lay down your life… Yes, I agree. Certainly a soldier who dies for another soldier is meaningful and I can direct interpret that meaning. Or someone who knocks another out of the way of a car only to be hit by the car themselves… that has immediate meaning and I can interpret that. But I have difficulty connecting those types of meaningful actions to the death of Christ. …

Let me think here:

[1] Christ enters into solidarity with sin-tainted man through the Incarnation

[2] Christ preaches the truth (repentance, forgiveness of sins, etc),

[3] Christ is put to death for preaching the truth (man tainted by sin rushes against the love/truth of Christ)

[4] Christ is raised by the Father to show that the truth preached by Christ is from God

[5] we reach the gift of salvation by accepting/following what Christ preached- that is repentance/forgiveness of sins (which was declared true through the resurrection).

Well… it is late, there really is not a question here at the end… sorry… I will just post what I have… everyone have a good night.

Through Mary!

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Hi all. I am new to this forum, but thought I would just jump in with a question. I am a Catholic with a couple of questions? So, hopefully someone can help me out.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that I do not have a good understanding of how and why the cross/resurrection is efficacious towards our salvation. So, if someone could explain how and why the cross saves, that would be great. Now, as understand it, the cross was not technically a necessity in our salvation and that God could have chosen another way to merit us salvation. Instead, the cross was an “appropriate” means of our salvation. But how and why?

Hi Adam, The sacrifice of the paschal lamb was a foreshadowing of the cross of Christ and the true atonement for our sins. The Father poured out His just wrath for our sin upon His Son, our Lord. Man cannot atone for his own sin for how can the guilty make recompense for the guilty. The atoning sacrifice God commanded had to be a spotless, unblemished Lamb, which is why John the Baptist and we today still call Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. To really get an idea you have to go back to the prophets that spoke of the Christ 1000 years and 700 years prior to His birth.
The prophet Isaiah 700 BC Chap.53:vs1-10:

Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no {stately} form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being {fell} upon Him, And **by His scourging we are healed. ** All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But **the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. ** By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered that **He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due **His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting {Him} to grief; If He would render Himself {as} a guilt offering, He will see {His} offspring, He will prolong {His} days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

So the wrath of God was poured out on the Son of God for us sinners that the guilty would not get a free pass but instead all sins and crimes against Holy God were paid for on that cross in full as Jesus cried out.
Mark the scribe of Peter:

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

And this was the cross prophesied by David 1 milennia before Jesus would make that the instrument of His atoning sacrifice.
David 1000BC:

Psa 22:12-18 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

saint John:

John3:16-21 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

May the peace of the Lord be with you, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Pax]

Pax and all,
…
In other words, if the meaning of Jesus’s death is to be understood in light of the OT sacrifice, then we must first find a relevant interpretation of OT sacrifices (which is a struggle for me). Why would the death of an animal cleanse sins? I do not know. And since it is difficult to find meaning in the OT sacrifices, it is difficult (for me) to find meaning in imagery of Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb.
…
…

Everything revolves around sacrifice. Originally sacrifice was not by way of institutionalized rituals of animal sacrifice and shedding of blood. Note the importance of Melchizedek who offered bread and wine. Jesus is our high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Blood sacrifice came into the picture for a couple of reasons related to the breaking of God’s covenants by the Israelites. The Israelites were surrounded by pagans and often fell into idolatry and would participate in pagan animal sacrifice and consuming of blood and other blood rituals. God’s instructions to sacrifice animals to Him was one of the ways of reinforcing the fact that worshiping animals, golden calves, etc. was idolatrous and forbidden. The very objects of idolatrous worship were to be killed and offered to the one true God.

Why the blood?

A look at the OT reveals some interesting insights relative to the new covenant. In Leviticus 1:1-5 we read the following:

“THE LORD called Moses, and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of cattle from the herd or from the flock. ‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.”

There are many similar references in the OT describing animal sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar. This was done for the atonement of sin. When we compare this with the NT we see that “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:13]

The scriptures then go on to say “Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” [Hebrews 9:1-14]

There is clearly a foreshadowing in the Old Testament and an unveiling in the New Testament when it comes to blood, sacrifice, atonement, and eternal redemption. This foreshadowing includes the Eucharist which is prefigured by the manna and the bread of the presence as well as the sprinkling with blood. This whole theme in the OT is also continued in the Passover which requires the participants to consume the lamb. Jesus is the paschal lamb in the New Covenant.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont from prior post

So why is blood so important and why the prohibition of consuming blood in the OT? Furthermore, why does the consumption of Jesus flesh and blood become mandated in the New Covenant? Scripture clues us in by telling us the significance of the flesh and blood. The blood is considered to be “the life” in the living creature. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” Once again, this is a prefiguring of Jesus eternal redemptive sacrifice where we have a better covenant.

Please note that the “life” of the animal is in the blood and that is why the blood was given to God in sacrifice and everyone was forbidden to consume it. In the New Covenant Jesus blood gives us life. Animal blood in sacrifice cannot give that to us and that is why the Jews were told not to consume it. Eternal life is given to us through the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. His flesh and blood are not like the flesh and blood of the animal sacrifices of the OT. Moreover, we do not consume the flesh and blood of Jesus in the same fashion as condemned in the OT. In the Eucharist we receive Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity. In the Eucharist we receive this precious life giving gift sacramentaly rather than carnally. The prohibition in the Old Law simply does not trump Jesus’s command that we eat his flesh and drink his blood as true food and true drink.

The body and blood of Jesus are the “life” of Jesus. We are a priestly people and have a ministerial priesthood. Priests offer sacrifice. Hebrews 9:7 indicates that sacrifices are not offered without blood. Our sacrifice is the re-presentation of Jesus sacrifice of his body and blood offered to the Father. Jesus has told us to “do this in remembrance” of him. Jesus is the paschal lamb and must be consumed. Jesus says, “this is my body…this is my blood.” Jesus says, “"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Eternal life is in the blood of Jesus and it is his blood that we are to consume.

I hope this helps.

 

[csmatyi]

Much more can be said on this subject because the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross can be pondered forever. Consider the OT Passover and consider the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross within the context of the Last Supper/Passover. When Jesus says, “It is finished” just before expiring on the cross, He is speaking of the completion of the Passover/Last Supper. This sacrifice on the cross is the sacrifice re-presented at mass in an unbloody manner. We are unified with Jesus in his offering to the Father and we receive him in the Eucharist. Read Malachi 1:11 and ponder what it says.

Notice in Malachi 1:11 that this is a prophecy. At that time the Lord’s name was not great among the nations. Today the sacrifice of the mass is offered from the rising to the setting of the sun around the globe. Jesus is the pure offering spoken of in Malachi. What greater and more perfect sacrifice can be offered? What greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for his friends?

Excuse me, how did you arrive at these conclusions? You are taking Scripture way way out of its context. Why do you connect the Last Supper being finished at the cross? This is so arbitrary. Jesus’ **work of salvation on the cross was finished **there and then when he gave up His soul. Also, how is it that you so arbitrarily connect the sacrifice in Malachi 1 to the eucharist in the Catholic Mass? Why not the sacrifices in pagan Hinduism? What is the real basis for your statements?

“What greater and more perfect sacrifice can be offered? What greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for his friends?”

Yes, but this sacrifice happened once and only once, because it can’t be topped. Sorry, the sacrifice of Christ being reenacted or represented in the Mass is a no-go. Btw: representation of sacrifice: doesn’t this mean that the Mass should not have any salvific effect? If it’s only a sign of the real thing?

I’m afraid you’ve got the whole thing upside down.

Through Jesus,

csmatyi

 

[BenBornAgain]

From Thomas Nash, interview here
'Many Protestants have a limited view of what a sacrifice is. They think that if a victim is involved, then slaughtering the victim must always take place to have a true sacrifice. Thus, if a victim has already been slaughtered, the victim cannot be offered anymore, even if the effects of that offering may continue. Consequently, many Protestant have a peculiar belief of the “once-for-all” nature of Jesus’ (cf. Heb. 7:26-28, 9:28), namely, that His Offering began and ended on Calvary (cf. Jn. 19:30). They mistakenly believe that Catholics are attempting to crucify Christ again and again at every Mass, thereby undermining the biblical belief that His Sacrifice is “once for all.” Luther considered the Mass a “blasphemy,” because he believed it called into question the efficacy of Christ’s one Sacrifice.

The Catholic view is actually much more profound and biblically based than its critics contend, as I demonstrate in great detail in my book. **In short, Christ’s Sacrifice follows and fulfills the “two-phase” model of the Day of Atonement sacrifices **(cf. Lev. 16). On this Day, among other sacrifices, a bull and a goat were slaughtered. But the sacrifices of these animals didn’t end there. To complete these offerings, the high priest would take the blood of these animals into the holy of holies—the innermost chamber of the Temple—and sprinkle it before and on the Almighty’s mercy seat, which was perched atop the Ark of the Covenant.

Similarly, Christ’s Sacrifice did not begin and end with His Sacrifice, in which Christ suffered, died, and rose from the dead (the earthly phase). As unique priest and victim, Christ had to ascend to complete His Sacrifice, presenting His Self-Offering to the Father in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:3-24). Thus, the image of the lamb standing in heaven in triumph, even though he bears the marks of being slain (cf. Rev. 5:6). Because heaven is timeless, Christ Sacrifice culminates in everlasting glory at His Ascension.

The Catholic view makes sense of the biblical assertion that Christ continues to serve as a priest in heaven and therefore must have something to offer in heaven (Heb. 8:1-3, cf. 7:23-25). In other words, if Jesus offered only one Sacrifice, and He continues to offer a sacrifice in heaven, then “once for all” must also mean that is His Sacrifice is everlasting. It is this “completed,” glorified Sacrifice, culminated in everlasting glory that Catholics become present to and participate in offering at every Mass

 

[biblicalAdam]

Hi all, Thanks for everyone’s response to my initial question.

So, blood is a religious symbol of life. But, this symbol does not (by itself) answer why God IN REALITY found the bloody death of an animal (or later Christ) to cleanse sin. It seems a bit arbitrary that this could be salvific (I am trying to bridge faith with reason here).

When searching for an answer to the question “why/how Christ’s death saves”, our primary explanation cannot be that Christ’s death fulfills the OT sacrifices in type and manner — because that does not fundamentally answer the question as to why sacrifices (in general) can cleanse sin.

For example, think of the classical interpretation of the scapegoat: the priest lays hands on the goat, the sins are placed on the goat, the goat dies, and the sins die with the goat. But does that really make sense? I mean what does a poor goat have to do with our sins? Does it make sense that a lamb/goat could metaphysically represent our sins before God? And why would God make any connection between a goat’s death and forgiveness of sin?

So, because (in my opinion) is difficult to make sense of the OT sacrifices, it is difficult to see how Christ’s bloody death atones for sin.

Therefore, I think another route must be taken (aside from the OT sacrifices) to better understand why Christ’s death brings salvation.

In Christ,

-Adam

 

[cyber1call]

BiblicalAdam

Look up a book on Amazon titled “Saved From Sacrifice” by S. Mark Heim. It’s deep but I think you might like it.

 

[Dee123]

Hi all, Thanks for everyone’s response to my initial question.

So, blood is a religious symbol of life. But, this symbol does not (by itself) answer why God IN REALITY found the bloody death of an animal (or later Christ) to cleanse sin. It seems a bit arbitrary that this could be salvific (I am trying to bridge faith with reason here).

When searching for an answer to the question “why/how Christ’s death saves”, our primary explanation cannot be that Christ’s death fulfills the OT sacrifices in type and manner — because that does not fundamentally answer the question as to why sacrifices (in general) can cleanse sin.

For example, think of the classical interpretation of the scapegoat: the priest lays hands on the goat, the sins are placed on the goat, the goat dies, and the sins die with the goat. But does that really make sense? I mean what does a poor goat have to do with our sins? Does it make sense that a lamb/goat could metaphysically represent our sins before God? And why would God make any connection between a goat’s death and forgiveness of sin?

So, because (in my opinion) is difficult to make sense of the OT sacrifices, it is difficult to see how Christ’s bloody death atones for sin.

Therefore, I think another route must be taken (aside from the OT sacrifices) to better understand why Christ’s death brings salvation.

In Christ,

-Adam

I am so glad you asked this question. I like the answers that have been provided and I couldn’t do any better, I know. Perhaps you need to ask the Holy Spirit for a deeper understanding. Perhaps you can check the writings of the church Father’s re: blood sacrifice and how it is that God came to choose this as the method of atonement. Why did God decide to choose blood as the means of sacrifice? It would be interesting to see if anyone ever has come up with an answer to this. Again, maybe the Church Father’s…does the CCC have anything to say about blood sacrificie? I haven’t had the chance to look since reading this.
Another idea: go to some Jewish sources to find out how they interpreted a blood sacrifice…
Just some ideas. But I think we could definitely use the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit on this one…

 

[BenBornAgain]

A simple answer at the question:“Why do (or more exactly did) sacrifices atone for sins?” would be " Because God wills it so".

Now, to deepen the reason of the adequacy of the blood sacrifice, we can turn to these words from our beloved JPII .
"Christ’s Blood is the precious source of salvation for the world precisely because it belongs to the Word who became flesh for our salvation.

The sign of “blood poured out”, as an expression of life given in bloodshed as a witness to supreme love, is an act of divine condescension to our human condition. God chose the sign of blood because no other sign suggests a person’s total involvement so eloquently."

 

[agent_grey]

Here is how I look at it. Yeshua became a man and was going to die by the fact that he became a man either way. Whether it be the cross or when the sun goes pop. The mechanism of his death is of absolutely no use for salvation what so ever. the fact is that he did die as a man and was raised as a man. The resurection is our act of salvation not death. The death was merely part of a human life. No miracle in death what so ever.

The importance of the cross: a spectacular method of propegating a message through the ages. If Yeshua died like anybody else we may not even know about him. But to institute comunion, die on the cross for all to see and then be dead on the sabbath and rise from the dead ties all respectable religion of the time together and by a natural consequence has all those with faith looking were they should look. Whether it be the people of the scriptures or Mithraism. All eyes of faith are on Yeshua!

I picture a God that knows all things. He wants to save us. He knows that we need to say in our minds and heart… that ONE is my God. That ONE is the true God. He sits on the sidelines knowing that if he becomes a man at one time few if any will say there he is. But at another time he knows that the entire planet will have the opportunity to say… my knee touches this ground for YOU are the living God thank you for being as a man so I may know you and be saved.

 

[foundthelight]

We were slaves to sin. We needed a redeemer to pay the price for us to get out of slavery. This redeemer had to be a kinsman, thus had to be fully human. He also had to be God to be perfect enough that his blood sacrifice would be sufficient for all time to cover our sins. The requirements for a sacrifice and the redeemer are called out in Leviticus.

It is not the cross that has purchased for us eternal life. It is His redemptive act of sacrifice to meet the requirements of the Law and usher in a new Covenant. His redemption is sufficient for all who take advantage of it. If we abide in Him He will abide in us. If we reject him we will be destroyed. When you read about the function of the redeemer in Leviticus you will realize that it is possible for the redeemed slave to fall back into slavery through not managing his affairs well. We manage our affairs and stay out of slavery by abiding in Christ and obeying His commands.

We are reminded of His redemptive act whenever we see the Corpus on a cross, i.e. a Crucifix. I personally believe that those who proclaim the empty cross are missing a great part of the Mystery of Redemption. It is the Act of willingly laying down His life to purchase us out of slavery that gives us the chance at salvation, not the cross itself.

One reason that the Mass must be an ongoing event is that a dead man cannot redeem and payment cannot be made in advance. Think about it. We each, individually, have to be purchased out of slavery through His sacrifice. We receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, we are buried in death and arise anew in baptism.

 

[Pax]

Excuse me, how did you arrive at these conclusions? You are taking Scripture way way out of its context. Why do you connect the Last Supper being finished at the cross? This is so arbitrary. Jesus’ **work of salvation on the cross was finished **there and then when he gave up His soul. Also, how is it that you so arbitrarily connect the sacrifice in Malachi 1 to the eucharist in the Catholic Mass? Why not the sacrifices in pagan Hinduism? What is the real basis for your statements?

“What greater and more perfect sacrifice can be offered? What greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for his friends?”

Yes, but this sacrifice happened once and only once, because it can’t be topped. Sorry, the sacrifice of Christ being reenacted or represented in the Mass is a no-go. Btw: representation of sacrifice: doesn’t this mean that the Mass should not have any salvific effect? If it’s only a sign of the real thing?

I’m afraid you’ve got the whole thing upside down.

Through Jesus,

csmatyi

Dear Friend in Christ,

Please note the following which will be a highly abbreviated answer to your post:

1. The OT prefigures the NT and the OT is but a shadow of the good things to come.
2. The Jewish Passover has a dimension that is described as Anamnesis. Please go to the following non-Catholic link for a nice explanation: luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/6-4_Romans/6-4_Jones.pdf I’m giving you a non-Catholic link so that you will see that this isn’t an understanding unique to the Catholic Church. Please read the whole bit on anamnesis and its meaning and significance.
3. The Last Supper is the Passover. If you examine the Passover requirements and liturgy and compare them to the Last Supper, you will notice from the gospel narratives that Jesus and the apostles leave the upper room prior to the completion of the Passover. The fourth cup had not been consumed. You can get a decent presentation of this in Scott Hahn’s book The Lamb’s Supper. You might even be able to find an article of his called The Fourth Cup online that gives a summary of this as well.
4. In the garden of Gethsemane Jesus asks the Father, if possible, to let “this cup” pass from him. This is a reference to the fourth cup of the Passover and to his suffering and death on the cross. It is a reference to one and the same thing and it ties the Last Supper and his death on the cross together. The Passover is “finished” when Jesus says so on the cross. The OT Passover is but a shadow of the good things to come which included eating the NT Passover lamb we know as Jesus Christ. Read Jesus promise in the discourse on the bread of life in John 6 and tie that to Jesus words, “This is my body and this is my blood” at the Last Supper. Then think and ponder anamnesis as a starting point. Just remember that this abbreviated and that there is much more.

Your remarks about my reference to Malachi are way off. Please note once again, that there is only one pure/perfect sacrifice and that is the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Hinduism (LOL) doesn’t offer a perfect or pure sacrifice and neither does any other religious system. Only the Catholic mass is celebrated and offered every day from the rising to the setting of the sun, and only the Catholic mass offers the sacrifice of Jesus. Only the Catholic mass meets the criteria set out in Malachi and it is the Catholic Church alone that makes the claim that the mass fulfills the prophecy. No other body makes the claim for itself, and no other religious group meets the criteria. Yet that prophecy is true and it is fulfilled in the NT church established by Christ. Christ’s Church has always taught the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

Scripture denies your misunderstanding about the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus. Yes, Jesus died only once upon the cross. Catholics do not claim otherwise so you shouldn’t try to confuse the issue with the suggestion that we are saying anything like that. Later tonight when I return home I will touch upon Jesus sacrifice and the mass some more.

Yours in Christ Jesus Crucified,

Pax

 

[geekborj]

Hi all. I am new to this forum, but thought I would just jump in with a question. I am a Catholic with a couple of questions? So, hopefully someone can help me out.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that I do not have a good understanding of how and why the cross/resurrection is efficacious towards our salvation. So, if someone could explain how and why the cross saves, that would be great. Now, as understand it, the cross was not technically a necessity in our salvation and that God could have chosen another way to merit us salvation. Instead, the cross was an “appropriate” means of our salvation. But how and why?

The Cross is a symbol of Faith: the perfection of latria – the offering of the Lamb of God as the only true and acceptable offering to God. This is the perfection of the form of worship in the Old Covenant (read: OT), hence Sanctification. The Lamb of God took the sins that Man did and suffered the Death that Man should, hence Justification. That through the same Cross and death, the Lamb conquered Death, so that Death can no longer separate us from God and each other, hence Redemption.

The Cross is a symbol of Hope: the fulfillment of God’s promise – the example of loyalty to the covenant He made with the early Fathers. With Christ’s death and resurrection, Christians hope that one day we will live with Him in Heaven.

The Cross is a symbol of Love: the Love of God – it extends to all, both to sinners and great sinners. It is the very model of how each human should love his neighbor.

God took his Cross, Man should take his and accept the burden of life; for through it, we shall earn rewards in Heaven. To avoid sinking into our human frailty, we should constantly look at the face of Jesus, and contemplate on a Cross – just as Peter should have done to not to sink while walking on water.

 

[Pax]

biblicalAdam,

You might find the following article helpful:

dominicanfriars.org/2008/03/24/the-meaning-of-his-piercing/

The portion under the heading The Blood is the most helpful part, but the whole thing is worth reading.

 

[Pax]

Excuse me, how did you arrive at these conclusions? You are taking Scripture way way out of its context. Why do you connect the Last Supper being finished at the cross? This is so arbitrary. Jesus’ **work of salvation on the cross was finished **there and then when he gave up His soul. Also, how is it that you so arbitrarily connect the sacrifice in Malachi 1 to the eucharist in the Catholic Mass? Why not the sacrifices in pagan Hinduism? What is the real basis for your statements?

“What greater and more perfect sacrifice can be offered? What greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for his friends?”

Yes, but this sacrifice happened once and only once, because it can’t be topped. Sorry, the sacrifice of Christ being reenacted or represented in the Mass is a no-go. Btw: representation of sacrifice: doesn’t this mean that the Mass should not have any salvific effect? If it’s only a sign of the real thing?

I’m afraid you’ve got the whole thing upside down.

Through Jesus,

csmatyi

I mentioned in an earlier post that I would talk more about this subject. I think the following article is much more eloquent on the subject than I am so I recommend that you go here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

God bless.