Is God propitiated in the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bcoger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the cross-exam portion of a debate on this very issue:

catholicintl.com/Media/DVD.htm

Laurence,
CAI
This debate seems to address the larger issue, “Is God Propitiated in the Mass?” The issue at present is narrower. Is Jesus Christ still hanging on a cross in heaven? Is there a way to access this debate without paying $20 for the DVD set? What is your response to the arguments in post #32?
 
Do you have an answer for the arguments in post #32?
How about post 33?

If Jesus was identified by John as the “Lamb as it had been slain” because of His wounds, in what way is Jesus the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”? Did He have these wounds before He went to the Cross? (Hint: Yes, in one sense; no, in another.)

Next question (2): Do you believe or not that God exists timelessly, outside of time, and has perfect simultaneous knowledge of all events past, present, and future?

Next question (3): If you answered yes to that question, does God see Jesus as on the cross? As a baby in the manger? As the resurrected Lord? As the Head of the Church? As the—well, you get the idea. Does God see all these things simultaneously?

If you answer these questions, I really think a lot of our argument would be over. I would be satisfied just with answers to (2) and (3). 🙂
 
How about post 33?
I understand your argument based on “chronos” and “kairos.” I want to do the study justice. I will have something we can discuss in a day or two.

In the meantime, what is your assessment of the post #32 argument based the Lamb references in Revelation, and Paul’s assessment of the cross in Galations 3:13?
 
I understand your argument based on “chronos” and “kairos.” I want to do the study justice. I will have something we can discuss in a day or two.

In the meantime, what is your assessment of the post #32 argument based the Lamb references in Revelation, and Paul’s assessment of the cross in Galations 3:13?
Well, I half-way agree, but I still think the other half has been left out. Yes, Jesus died on a cross for us (once) in history, 2000 years ago. Yes, He became accursed for us (past tense) back then. The other part is the eternal aspect of this event—yes, in the eyes of God, He is still on the cross, as well as living in His resurrection life.

Here’s a sort of parallel: The N.T. tells us BOTH that we were (past tense) crucified with Christ (so our death to sin is complete in that respect). AND it tells us to crucify ourselves daily (an ongoing process). So we are both dead to sin, as the Bible declares past tense, and dying to sin, as the Bible also declares present tense. I know it’s not an exact parallel, but my point is that, like God, we are to see ourselves in both ways simultaneously.
 
. Yes, He became accursed for us (past tense) back then. The other part is the eternal aspect of this event—yes, in the eyes of God, He is still on the cross, as well as living in His resurrection life.
A quick followup. If our Lord is still on the cross “in the eyes of God,” how do you avoid the conclusion from Galatians 3:13 that He is still accursed “in the eyes of God?” How do you avoid this parallel?
 
See earlier post on the difference between chronos and kairos.
Neither ‘chronos’ nor ‘kairos’ are specifically Christian words. Both words were used in non-biblical contexts long before the Christian era. This means that there is nothing inherent in the words themselves which require ‘chronos’ to refer to time on earth, and ‘kairos’ to refer to the timelessness of eternity.

Both words are used in the heavenly context in the New Testament. And both words are used in the earthly context in the New Testament. Listed below are a few examples.

‘Chronos’ in the heavenly context

Rev. 2:21 'And I gave her TIME to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
Rev. 6:11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest FOR a little WHILE longer, until {the number of} their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.
Rev. 10:6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, \who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there shall be DELAY no longer,
Rev. 20:3 and threw him into the abyss, and shut {it} and sealed {it} over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released FOR a short TIME.

“Kairos” in the heavenly context

Rev. 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the TIME is near.
Rev. 11:18 “And the nations were enraged, and Thy wrath came, and the TIME {came} for the dead to be judged, and {the TIME} to give their reward to Thy bond-servants the prophets and to the saints and to those who fear Thy name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.”
Rev. 12:12 “For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has {only} a short TIME.”
Rev. 12:14 And the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, in order that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a TIME and TIMES and half a TIME, from the presence of the serpent.
Rev. 22:10 ¶ And he *said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the TIME is near.

“Chronos” in the earthly context

Matt. 2:7 ¶ Then Herod secretly called the magi, and ascertained from them the TIME the star appeared.
Matt. 2:16 ¶ Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the TIME which he had ascertained from the magi.
Matt. 25:19 "Now after a long TIME the master of those slaves *came and *settled accounts with them.

“Kairos” in the earthly context

Matt. 8:29 And behold, they cried out, saying, “What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the TIME?”
Matt. 11:25 ¶ At that TIME Jesus answered and said, “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from {the} wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.
Matt. 12:1 At that TIME Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads {of grain} and eat.
Matt. 13:30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the TIME of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
Matt. 14:1 At that TIME Herod the tetrarch heard the news about Jesus,
Matt. 16:3 "And in the morning, {’ There will be} a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening. 'Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot {discern} the signs of the TIMES?
Matt. 21:34 "And when the harvest TIME approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce.
 
A quick followup. If our Lord is still on the cross “in the eyes of God,” how do you avoid the conclusion from Galatians 3:13 that He is still accursed “in the eyes of God?” How do you avoid this parallel?
Post 40. I think if you answer the second and third questions, which you are carefully avoiding, you would have the answers to your questions.

The list of references to chronos and kairos is helpful. I will investigate further, since I know of them primarily as theological categories.
 
Next question (2): Do you believe or not that God exists timelessly, outside of time, and has perfect simultaneous knowledge of all events past, present, and future?

Next question (3): If you answered yes to that question, does God see Jesus as on the cross? As a baby in the manger? As the resurrected Lord? As the Head of the Church? As the—well, you get the idea. Does God see all these things simultaneously?

If you answer these questions, I really think a lot of our argument would be over. I would be satisfied just with answers to (2) and (3). 🙂
(2) Yes, God exists timelessly, outside of time, and has perfect simultaneous knowledge of all events past, present, and future. I believe this and more. I not only believe God has perfect simultaneous knowledge of all ACTUAL events past, present, and future, I believe He has the same knowledge of all POSSIBLE events past, present, and future.

(3) Yes, God sees Jesus as on the cross, as a baby in the manger, as the resurrected Lord, and as Head of the Church.

What do you conclude from the answers to these questions? You seem to be saying that we will not only see our Lord on the cross, we will also see Him in the manger. Will we see Him at age 12 in the temple? Will we see Him working in the carpenter shop with His father Joseph? Will we see Him playing with His friends as a child? How far shall we go with this? When we see Him, shall we be viewing a movie of His earthly life?
 
(2) Yes, God exists timelessly, outside of time, and has perfect simultaneous knowledge of all events past, present, and future. I believe this and more. I not only believe God has perfect simultaneous knowledge of all ACTUAL events past, present, and future, I believe He has the same knowledge of all POSSIBLE events past, present, and future.

(3) Yes, God sees Jesus as on the cross, as a baby in the manger, as the resurrected Lord, and as Head of the Church.

What do you conclude from the answers to these questions? You seem to be saying that we will not only see our Lord on the cross, we will also see Him in the manger. Will we see Him at age 12 in the temple? Will we see Him working in the carpenter shop with His father Joseph? Will we see Him playing with His friends as a child? How far shall we go with this? When we see Him, shall we be viewing a movie of His earthly life?
Thank you. (I mean that, by the way.)

To answer your questions: I am not sure of our heavenly state, but I doubt that we will see things as you ask them. But my point is that the propitiation of Christ on the cross—as God sees Him (see your own answer to Question 3)—is presented in the Mass.
 
I think with that answer I am over and out. Thank you for the engaging question; this discussion has helped me clarify some things for myself, and was conducted throughout in a Christian spirit which I appreciate. But I’m done for now, so fare thee well and God bless.
 
Thank you. (I mean that, by the way.)

But my point is that the propitiation of Christ on the cross—as God sees Him (see your own answer to Question 3)—is presented in the Mass.
Is God propitiated in the Mass? That was the question in this thread. A straightforward answer to the question requires only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer followed by an explanation. Yes, God is propitiated in the Mass and here are the reasons. Or, no, God is not propitiated in the Mass and here are the reasons. Unfortunately, very little in this thread actually addressed the question. Most responders wanted to talk about the redemptive effects of the Mass (e.g. post #4 talks about the application of the Mass). This, of course, broadens the question to include not only the ‘propitiation’ of God (the divine side of the Mass), but also the ‘reconciliation’ of man (the human side of the Mass). For my part, I tried to follow the discussion wherever it went–to the cross, to the timelessness of heaven, before the foundation of the world, etc.

The following are some of the comments about ‘propitiation’ in this thread. In post #6, ‘propitiation’ is presented as a metaphor for a divine mystery. The purpose of a metaphor is to suggest a likeness between objects or ideas. Unless you know both sides of the metaphor, the metaphor is ineffective. That is why a metaphor cannot address a divine mystery. By definition, the divine side is not known (because it is a mystery). For example, the metaphor ‘drowning in debt’ requires one to know what ‘drowning’ means, and to know what a ‘debt’ is.

In post #8, it is said that ‘propitiation’ describes not the change in God, but the way we relate to God. In post #13, it is emphasized that since God is ‘changeless,’ He cannot literally be propitiated (i.e. his attitudes cannot change). The problem is that the term ‘propitiation’ cannot be used to describe man. There is already a term to describe the change in man. The term is ‘reconciliation.’ Man is said to be reconciled to God because man is changed in his relationship to God. God is never said to be reconciled to man for the very reason that He cannot change. Instead, God is said to be propitiated (appeased)in His relationship to man. Propitiation is an affirmation of divine ‘changelessness’ (i.e. the character of God never changes). We have to be careful how we use theological terms. All theological terms come from divine revelation. Revelation is divine. Our theological formulation of revelation is not divine. Pushed to absurdity, the ‘‘changelessness’’ of God would mean that God could never express approval or disapproval, because to do so would represent a ‘change’ of attitude. This view would clearly violate the very Scripture from which the theological category comes. God does express approval and disapproval throughout Scripture, and yet at the same time He is ‘changeless.’

In post #47, it was affirmed “that the propitiation of Christ on the cross…is presented in the Mass.” Again, this is not an answer to the original question. Whether or not propitiation is presented (or ‘re-presented’) is not issue. The issue is whether or not the wrath of God is appeased during the Mass? If not, whatever else may be said about the Mass, it is not propitiatory.
 
Is God propitiated in the Mass? That was the question in this thread. A straightforward answer to the question requires only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer followed by an explanation. Yes, God is propitiated in the Mass and here are the reasons. Or, no, God is not propitiated in the Mass and here are the reasons. Unfortunately, very little in this thread actually addressed the question. Most responders wanted to talk about the redemptive effects of the Mass (e.g. post #4 talks about the application of the Mass). This, of course, broadens the question to include not only the ‘propitiation’ of God (the divine side of the Mass), but also the ‘reconciliation’ of man (the human side of the Mass). For my part, I tried to follow the discussion wherever it went–to the cross, to the timelessness of heaven, before the foundation of the world, etc.

The following are some of the comments about ‘propitiation’ in this thread. In post #6, ‘propitiation’ is presented as a metaphor for a divine mystery. The purpose of a metaphor is to suggest a likeness between objects or ideas. Unless you know both sides of the metaphor, the metaphor is ineffective. That is why a metaphor cannot address a divine mystery. By definition, the divine side is not known (because it is a mystery). For example, the metaphor ‘drowning in debt’ requires one to know what ‘drowning’ means, and to know what a ‘debt’ is.

In post #8, it is said that ‘propitiation’ describes not the change in God, but the way we relate to God. In post #13, it is emphasized that since God is ‘changeless,’ He cannot literally be propitiated (i.e. his attitudes cannot change). The problem is that the term ‘propitiation’ cannot be used to describe man. There is already a term to describe the change in man. The term is ‘reconciliation.’ Man is said to be reconciled to God because man is changed in his relationship to God. God is never said to be reconciled to man for the very reason that He cannot change. Instead, God is said to be propitiated (appeased)in His relationship to man. Propitiation is an affirmation of divine ‘changelessness’ (i.e. the character of God never changes). We have to be careful how we use theological terms. All theological terms come from divine revelation. Revelation is divine. Our theological formulation of revelation is not divine. Pushed to absurdity, the ‘‘changelessness’’ of God would mean that God could never express approval or disapproval, because to do so would represent a ‘change’ of attitude. This view would clearly violate the very Scripture from which the theological category comes. God does express approval and disapproval throughout Scripture, and yet at the same time He is ‘changeless.’

In post #47, it was affirmed “that the propitiation of Christ on the cross…is presented in the Mass.” Again, this is not an answer to the original question. Whether or not propitiation is presented (or ‘re-presented’) is not issue. The issue is whether or not the wrath of God is appeased during the Mass? If not, whatever else may be said about the Mass, it is not propitiatory.
Sort of misses the point.

God is propitiated in the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation.

We participate in the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation in the Mass.

Since this is not the yes / no answer you desire, you may draw from it the inferences you want to.

But now I really am done. So long.
 
Sort of misses the point.

God is propitiated in the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation.

We participate in the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation in the Mass.
Maybe somebody else would like to comment? Propitiation by definition means the appeasement of the wrath of God. Who believes that the wrath of God towards the faithful is appeased in the Mass?
 
Who said anything about wrath of God toward the faithful? I thought God’s wrath was toward sin? And that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross propitiated God’s wrath toward sin?
 
Maybe somebody else would like to comment? Propitiation by definition means the appeasement of the wrath of God. Who believes that the wrath of God towards the faithful is appeased in the Mass?
This is something I wonder about, but you seem to be wandering about (I’m not Catholic, but interested). Christ’s work on the cross is complete. Done. Once and for all. Over. Perfect. Not to be repeated. This was a concrete act in time, that happened then. If somebody had a watch they could have noted the time of the beginning of crucifixion, when He let out His last breath, when they took Him down, etc.

That’s the easy part. The hard part is understanding what happened, because what happened ties directly into your question. What happened goes back to an understanding of the hypostasis - the relationship between God the Son and Jesus the Son of Man - the divine nature of God united with the human nature of Jesus. Jesus died on the cross. What happened to the hypostatic union then? That goes way beyond my ability to rightly answer. But it can be said that when someone says Jesus did something, they are saying the Second Person of the Trinity is doing something, and vice versa. God was born, God nursed at Mary’s breast, God died at Calvary.

No one man could furnish salvation for countless multitudes, however right or perfect he was, yet the sins of the whole world were laid upon the Christ. This I think is beyond human ability to bear, yet this was laid on the flesh of Jesus. But the atoning act was in some way done by the God-Man, so that God participated in it. That act in time had eternal consequences; before the eyes of God it is always happening, as God is outside of time and sees it, always. In that sense that atonement is occuring for you and me right now. When we pray, the cross is between us and God, as Jesus is our mediator. When He intercedes for us, the Father sees the cross.

He doesn’t see the cross as a memorial; He sees the living reality in the space-time continuum. For God all times are NOW, so as far as He is concerned it is happening now. For us, however, it is not happening now. For us it happened then, as we are in a different part of the space-time continuum.

Catholics argue, I think, that in the Mass the Sacrifice is made present, and present for us. I would argue instead that it is always present, and that the benefit to us is not that He comes to us, but He brings us to Him. We identify with the cross, as iron filings line up in the presence of a magnet; under the impetus of the Holy Spirit we surrender ourselves to Him and identify our lives with His. It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me. There is, the Catholics argue, I think, a grace that comes to them through this alignment, through this application of the cross to their lives. This is in contrast to the concept that there is a once and for all application of the cross to the entirety of a Christian’s life.

Otherwise I am not sure why they pray “may the sacrifice at your hands be acceptable to God.” Surely they are not talking about the cross, which we know is acceptable to God. They argue there is a real sacrifice occuring, but if it is not Christ’s, beats me. The only real sacrifice that satisfies God is Christ’s, and anything we try to add is unacceptable at best.

So I don’t know, and I don’t understand. I am sure this explanation is faulty.
 
Who said anything about wrath of God toward the faithful? I thought God’s wrath was toward sin? And that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross propitiated God’s wrath toward sin?
If God’s wrath is only directed toward the sinner’s sin, and not toward the sinner himself, why is there a place called hell?
 
Is God propitiated in the Mass? That was the question in this thread. A straightforward answer to the question requires only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer followed by an explanation. Yes, God is propitiated in the Mass and here are the reasons. Or, no, God is not propitiated in the Mass and here are the reasons. Unfortunately, very little in this thread actually addressed the question. Most responders wanted to talk about the redemptive effects of the Mass (e.g. post #4 talks about the application of the Mass). This, of course, broadens the question to include not only the ‘propitiation’ of God (the divine side of the Mass), but also the ‘reconciliation’ of man (the human side of the Mass). For my part, I tried to follow the discussion wherever it went–to the cross, to the timelessness of heaven, before the foundation of the world, etc.

The following are some of the comments about ‘propitiation’ in this thread. In post #6, ‘propitiation’ is presented as a metaphor for a divine mystery. The purpose of a metaphor is to suggest a likeness between objects or ideas. Unless you know both sides of the metaphor, the metaphor is ineffective. That is why a metaphor cannot address a divine mystery. By definition, the divine side is not known (because it is a mystery). For example, the metaphor ‘drowning in debt’ requires one to know what ‘drowning’ means, and to know what a ‘debt’ is.

In post #8, it is said that ‘propitiation’ describes not the change in God, but the way we relate to God. In post #13, it is emphasized that since God is ‘changeless,’ He cannot literally be propitiated (i.e. his attitudes cannot change). The problem is that the term ‘propitiation’ cannot be used to describe man. There is already a term to describe the change in man. The term is ‘reconciliation.’ Man is said to be reconciled to God because man is changed in his relationship to God. God is never said to be reconciled to man for the very reason that He cannot change. Instead, God is said to be propitiated (appeased)in His relationship to man. Propitiation is an affirmation of divine ‘changelessness’ (i.e. the character of God never changes). We have to be careful how we use theological terms. All theological terms come from divine revelation. Revelation is divine. Our theological formulation of revelation is not divine. Pushed to absurdity, the ‘‘changelessness’’ of God would mean that God could never express approval or disapproval, because to do so would represent a ‘change’ of attitude. This view would clearly violate the very Scripture from which the theological category comes. God does express approval and disapproval throughout Scripture, and yet at the same time He is ‘changeless.’

In post #47, it was affirmed “that the propitiation of Christ on the cross…is presented in the Mass.” Again, this is not an answer to the original question. Whether or not propitiation is presented (or ‘re-presented’) is not issue. The issue is whether or not the wrath of God is appeased during the Mass? If not, whatever else may be said about the Mass, it is not propitiatory.
Just finished editing a video debate on this between Dr. White and Dr. Sungenis:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6565487612889338989&hl=en
 
If God’s wrath is only directed toward the sinner’s sin, and not toward the sinner himself, why is there a place called hell?
For the overly contentious? 😃

This post avoids the question. You said the wrath of God is directed toward the faithful. I am unsure what you meant by that.
 
This post avoids the question. You said the wrath of God is directed toward the faithful. I am unsure what you meant by that.
Do not the faithful attend Mass because they sin? Are not Calvary and the Mass one and the same sacrifice for sin? Is not the ultimate punishment for unpropitiated sin hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top