Is it imperfect a second time?

[thinkandmull]

I know I could probably read up and find the answer to this question, but I thought I’d save time and bother all of you

When Catholics say the Mass is the act on Calvary represented, does this imply imperfection? I mean, did not God the Father get the message when His Son was holding His Body up by nails? Why does He need to be reminded by having the Sacrifice put in front of His face again? Did He not grant EVERYTHING possible when it was offered on that sad day? Are Catholics trying to bring about more saving tears from God by wringing blood from a stone?

Phrased it as strongly as I could.

 

[JRKH]

The sacrifice is not re-presented for God…but for us.

It brings us to the foot of the cross…and beyond to Christ’s resurrection.

No - we are not trying to wring more tears from God…We are praising Him and thanking Him for the beautiful gift he has given us…and doing so in the way that He wants us to do it.

Peace
James

 

[thinkandmull]

I’ve heard lots of Catholics say its represented to the Father, and they quote Hebrews as support. I don’t know if that’s dogma. I’ll read more on it when I get time and get back to you

 

[thinkandmull]

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session XXII - The sixth under the Supreme Pontiff, Pius IV, celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, 1562

**He instituted a new Passover, namely, Himself, to be *immolated *under visible signs by the Church through the priests in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father…And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is *contained and immolated in an unbloody manner *the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross… For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former.

It’s funny how the SSPX says that Vatican II was ambiguous. This seems to say it is a new, unbloody Sacrifice, instead of a representation towards the people of the bloody sacrifice.

The SSPX said that they would offer a thousands masses because of the “horror” of the Assisi events. I understand now what Protestants are saying. Why would you have to offer any masses, especially multiple ones as if two is better than one, of a Perfect Sacrifice?

Thanks

 

[JRKH]

Was the above post intended to be an answer to my earlier one?
If so - I don’t see anything that disagrees with what I said.

Peace
James

 

[thinkandmull]

Why is a mass ever in history offered for the same thing twice?? Is it the priest’s action as presider over the rite what is sought when masses are asked to be said for a person? It seems to imply imperfection otherwise

 

[thinkandmull]

TRENT

He instituted a new Passover, namely, Himself, to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through the priests in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father.

He was immolated by the Romans on Calvary, not by Catholic priests. I thought the dogma was that it is simply represented to US… See below:

And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross…

Two immolations. I thought the bloody one was Perfect? Again, the language should say that “the moment of time on Calvary is brought into the church at consecration, applying its fruits to us.” Trent’s language is a strong aberration it seems.

The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former.

Its not saying its offering a bloody sacrifice invisibly, under the form of non-bloody bread and wine. Two Sacrifices!

The Catechism of Trent makes clear:

For although the Church sometimes offers Masses in honour and in memory of the Saints, yet she teaches that the Sacrifice is offered, not to them, but to God alone

This second oblation (or millions) is offered to the Father, not to us.

through this unbloody Sacrifice flow to us the most plenteous fruits of that bloody victim.

Since there are two Sacrifices and we receive the most fruits from the latter ones…

Using the Book of Hebrews as an argument for this theology is mistaken. Jesus had many sacrifices on the way to Calvary. Thorns, whippings, ect. These are all in the temple of Heaven, but that doesn’t mean there are un-bloody ones going on upon earth.

I’ve really blown my mind with this one…

 

[thinkandmull]

The problem with Rome’s explanations over the years is that they are incomplete. Trent said that the priests “immolate” Jesus on the altar. Didn’t Jesus and the Romans do that on Good Friday? Trent must be using the word immolate in a very soft sense, although I don’t know why they would say this in the face of the Reformation (traditionalists are wrong that Vatican II alone has this problem!!)… My brother pointed out to me yesterday that there can’t be an “un-bloody sacrifice” because a sacrifice is to kill, so its the sacrifice of Calvary that is the bloody sacrifice presented as a unbloody “sacrifice” of bread and wine. In fact the Tridentine mass speaks of the host and wine as the sacrifice (again, this shows traditionalists are wrong about the New Mass). So the priest consecrates the bread, THEN the wine, thus doing his physical act of sacrifice, and then the moment of the Passion comes into the church, which was offered to God the Father on that Good Friday once for all time. “He instituted a new Passover, namely, Himself, to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through the priests”. The immolation is not really an immolation of Him in the strong sense, but an offering up of bread and wine, with the bread first consecrated, and then the wine, separating body and blood in a way, and than the Good Friday act(s) appear spiritually.

CCC The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated

John Paul II was so into ecumenism, so why is His ambiguous in this issue? The Mass can’t be a perpetuation as if it is represented to the Father, since it was perfect and thus accomplished what it meant to do when it happened.

Therefore, when the liturgy says this sacrifice is “offered for our Pontiff” ect it must not be speaking of the sacrifice immolation of the Roman soldiers, but of the priest separating the blood from the wine, this new mystery. And the priest does it as Christ! Christ actions get its “fruit” from Calvary. Most Catholics don’t seem to understand that Jesus doesn’t to offer His infinite loving sacrifice to the Father multiple times to the Father for something!

I think I got it…

 

[thinkandmull]

I think my analysis on this thread is accurate. I’ve read quotes by saints that say things like “we need to constantly appease the anger of the Father with Masses”. Such statements cannot truly be Christian. God the Father saw all that happened on Calvary, and to say He saw it without it “affecting Him yet” is insulting to His divinity. No wonder Protestants have youtube videos saying what they say!