Is Jesus still on the Cross?

[distracted]

Please help me understand your posting regards to St. Faustina and Mary. Are you saying Mary is sovereign over God?

i am not sure i should even answer this… sounds too much like putting outrageous words in my mouth…

 

[distracted]

One of the problems with your presentation is that an “unbloody” sacrifice can not effect the remission of sin.

HOw do you KNOW?? You present your opinion, your subjective “reality” as though it were irrefutable fact… (yet that does not surprise me… )…

The actual shedding of blood (death of the sacrifice) is the biblical requirement for the remission of sin. Paul was very clear about that requirement.

So Jesus’ sacrfice, since the bloody one was accomplished 2000 yrs ago… should just be forgotten… Well, when one forgets the Cross, one eventually totally (virtually) forgets about Jesus… except in a… mental kind of way &/or incomplete way… (Protestantism). You can have your incomplete way… I benefit greatly by focusing on the 5 wounds of Christ while in the Real Presence… Words could never say how much i benefit… and how much i need to do that… and if i need to, i feel it safe to say all sinners need to…

 

[minkymurph]

Jesus is no longer on the cross. “It is finished!”
Jesus never was a “Victim” either. He went willingly, which means He did not go as a “Victim” much less an “eternal Victim”.

If the Mass was a “re-enactment” as some claim, then those offering it would be “impaling the Son afresh”. This can not be dismissed with the “bloodless sacrifice” nonsense that can not purge sin. Blood must be shed to remit sin.
The idea of Jesus being “eternally crucified” in humiliation would not allow for the resurrection, which is the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ ONE sacrifice that is finished. The Father’s acceptance is critical or we do not have our sins attoned for.

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, which means that His one redeeming sacrifice is finished and accepted by the Father. Jesus is now acting as our Mediator based on what He once did as High Priest on the cross and in the Heavenly Temple.

I take my reasoning from Hebrews chapters 3-10.

We could all pick out individual sentences in these passages to support certain ideologies; but as Paul himself says these things are difficult to understand, 'on this subject we have many things to say and they are difficult to explain because you have grown so slow at understanding…no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, (Hebrews 5:11-13), Paul obviously asks we reflect deeply on these passages of scripture.

God is not subject to either time or substance. Jesus took on human substance and entered time when on earth and in doing so, he placed on himself human constraints. When he rose body and soul to heaven, that is no longer the case. As his body and soul entered heaven, so did his blood which is now living matter in the eternal sense on the altar of God. It is no longer poured out in the human sense, the bloody manner of the cross, but in an eternal sense. His body did not see corruption, it is incorrupt in heaven, that is what Paul is explaining. The sacrifice in heaven is not bloodless, but it is bloodless in the human sense and Christ does not have to die over and over again. He does however offer his blood as our high priest and during the Mass, we commune with that offering.

'He is a priest for ever of the order of Melcizedek
He has entered the sanctuary taking with him …his own blood having won an eternal redemption

The sacrifice of Christ is therefore eternal, ongoing, but not offered in the human sense.

Yes I have picked out sentences before anyone else points out that’s what I’m doing, but I don’t have the space to comment extensively on the priesthood of Christ. I selected the quotes I did to present the overall theme of these particular passages. The resurection makes Christ an eternal sacrifice and forgiveness of sins does not take place in the absence of repentance. We as human are subject to time and substance and where not alive to repent at the time of the crucifixion. We also continually sin in thought and word if not in deed which is why forgiveness of sins needs to eternally happen for our salvation.

Christ was a ‘victim’ in the sense that he willingly allowed himself to be victimised by others to the point of death. Unlike human victims, he was not helpless which demonstrates what a great act of love his sacrifice was.

 

[distracted]

What is this discussion about? What exactly does it mean for Jesus to be on or off of the cross?

it means, in part, that Jesus is either still suffering (through rejection, etc.) or he is not… As per St. Matthew 25:31-46, when his followers (brethren) suffer, he suffers as well… “Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me…”

 

[brkn1]

HOw do you KNOW?? You present your opinion, your subjective “reality” as though it were irrefutable fact… (yet that does not surprise me… )…

So Jesus’ sacrfice, since the bloody one was accomplished 2000 yrs ago… should just be forgotten… Well, when one forgets the Cross, one eventually totally (virtually) forgets about Jesus… except in a… mental kind of way &/or incomplete way… (Protestantism). You can have your incomplete way… I benefit greatly by focusing on the 5 wounds of Christ while in the Real Presence… Words could never say how much i benefit… and how much i need to do that… and if i need to, i feel it safe to say all sinners need to…

In (Hebrews 9:22), there are the words: “…;and without shedding of blood is NO remission.”
That would require the Mass to be a bloody sacrifice where Jesus again sheds His Blood and dies. There would be no remission of sin, otherwise, according to the above verse.
The claim for an “unbloody” sacrifice that remits sin is not supported in the New Testament.

 

[brkn1]

I take my reasoning from Hebrews chapters 3-10.

We could all pick out individual sentences in these passages to support certain ideologies; but as Paul himself says these things are difficult to understand, 'on this subject we have many things to say and they are difficult to explain because you have grown so slow at understanding…no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, (Hebrews 5:11-13), Paul obviously asks we reflect deeply on these passages of scripture.

God is not subject to either time or substance. Jesus took on human substance and entered time when on earth and in doing so, he placed on himself human constraints. When he rose body and soul to heaven, that is no longer the case. As his body and soul entered heaven, so did his blood which is now living matter in the eternal sense on the altar of God. It is no longer poured out in the human sense, the bloody manner of the cross, but in an eternal sense. His body did not see corruption, it is incorrupt in heaven, that is what Paul is explaining. The sacrifice in heaven is not bloodless, but it is bloodless in the human sense and Christ does not have to die over and over again. He does however offer his blood as our high priest and during the Mass, we commune with that offering.

'He is a priest for ever of the order of Melcizedek
He has entered the sanctuary taking with him …his own blood having won an eternal redemption

The sacrifice of Christ is therefore eternal, ongoing, but not offered in the human sense.

It has to be a sacrifice in the “human sense”. That is why Jesus came down and took upon Himself a human body to accomplish the redemption of His sheep.

Yes I have picked out sentences before anyone else points out that’s what I’m doing, but I don’t have the space to comment extensively on the priesthood of Christ. I selected the quotes I did to present the overall theme of these particular passages. The resurection makes Christ an eternal sacrifice and forgiveness of sins does not take place in the absence of repentance. We as human are subject to time and substance and where not alive to repent at the time of the crucifixion. We also continually sin in thought and word if not in deed which is why forgiveness of sins needs to eternally happen for our salvation.

Christ was a ‘victim’ in the sense that he willingly allowed himself to be victimised by others to the point of death. Unlike human victims, he was not helpless which demonstrates what a great act of love his sacrifice was.

 

[minkymurph]

It has to be a sacrifice in the “human sense”. That is why Jesus came down and took upon Himself a human body to accomplish the redemption of His sheep.

The sacrifice did need to be human. Christ was not just human, he was also God. If a human sacrifice alone would have done the job, Christ did not need to take on flesh. The sacrifice needed to be sinless; that still does not mean the sacrifice had to be both God and man as humans cannot save; only God can save.

Christ by taking human form did accomplish redemption of His sheep. It did not however end there. He rose body and soul to heaven, unless anyone wants to dispute that. Those who die with him also rise with him and it is then, our salvation is complete.

 

[Ruthie]

Brkn1, you said,

We could never participate in the Perfect Offering as “co-offerers”, since such an Offering requires a Perfect Priest to be accepted by the Father. Our imperfection would ruin the offering.

That’s right, to a certain extent. Christ is the perfect priest, and He makes the offering through our priests. That’s what we mean when we say they act in persona Christi. Since He acts through them, their imperfections do not stand in the way.

When Jesus performed miracles of healing, He was God. When Peter and Paul did, were they doing it themselves, or was Jesus acting through them?

In (Hebrews 9:22), there are the words: “…;and without shedding of blood is NO remission.”
That would require the Mass to be a bloody sacrifice where Jesus again sheds His Blood and dies.

Here you are wrong. Jesus is our Passover lamb. Under the old law, the Passover lamb was sacrificed, then eaten. The sacrifice was bloody, but the eating was not. The Mass is not bloody because the bloody sacrifice took place 2000 years ago. We continue to participate in that sacrifice, which is no longer bloody, through eating His Body and Blood.

So you see, the sacrifice was once (the Crucifixion) for all (everyone then, now, for the rest of time).

Ruthie

 

[kentuckyliz]

The Book of Revelation depicts Jesus in Heaven as the lamb, standing as though slain.

So, he is constantly presenting himself as the sacrifical victim throughout all eternity, to God the Father.

The Mass connects with that one moment of the Eternal Now, in that offering, across time.

Christ our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed, therefore, let us keep the feast!

People get confused because they can only think about linear time in human history.

Time is dependent on creation because it is matter moving in relation to one another.

God exists before all creation, hence, before and outside of time (as well as in it).

With God, everything is the Eternal Now.

There. Easy question. Next!

 

[brkn1]

The sacrifice did need to be human. Christ was not just human, he was also God. If a human sacrifice alone would have done the job, Christ did not need to take on flesh. The sacrifice needed to be sinless; that still does not mean the sacrifice had to be both God and man as humans cannot save; only God can save.

Christ by taking human form did accomplish redemption of His sheep. It did not however end there. He rose body and soul to heaven, unless anyone wants to dispute that. Those who die with him also rise with him and it is then, our salvation is complete.

Christ did have to take on flesh, since the “shedding of blood”, necessary for the remission of sin, had to be physical blood.
Jesus performed that perfect Sacrifce once for our salvation. That Sacrifice is efficatious for all time (past, present, and future).
(Hebrews 7:27) says that Jesus does not need to do any form of sacrifice again as the Jewish priests did continually. Jesus did this perfect Sacrifice “…once, when He offered up Himself.”

There is the intercession that Jesus still does with the Father as our High Priest and Mediator, but there is no more sacrifice for sin, “seeing He ever liveth”. (Hebrews 7:25)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

One of the problems with your presentation is that an “unbloody” sacrifice can not effect the remission of sin. The actual shedding of blood (death of the sacrifice) is the biblical requirement for the remission of sin. Paul was very clear about that requirement.

Jesus met that requirement - once for all time. He does not need to be re-crucified. The mass is not the re-crucifiction. It is the representation of the same sacrifice. And it is not a problem with my presentation. It is a problem with your understanding of the mass; what it is and what it is not. You seem to think that the mass is the re-sacrifice of Jesus. It is not and we do not say it is. It is the re-presentation of the offering of the sacrifice.
brkn:

Jesus made that Offering Himself. We could never participate in the Perfect Offering as “co-offerers”, since such an Offering requires a Perfect Priest to be accepted by the Father. Our imperfection would ruin the offering. We can only receive the benefit of Christ’ Offering, not participate in the actual Offering. We do not shed our blood in that offering either. That is the role of Jesus alone as our Perfect Redeemer.

I did not say we were perfect. I did not say we make up anything that was lacking in Christ’s sacrifice. I agree that Jesus was the one perfect sacrifice. That’s not the issue. The mass makes present to us - in a real way -that perfect offering of Christ’s body and blood - the only pleasing and acceptable sacrifice for our justification.

How, and to what extent we - as members joined to the body of Christ - will suffer with Christ and join our sufferings to his as Paul described is another topic. No one suffers at the mass.

I see the same misconceptions over and over again offered by non-Catholics who object to the mass on very tenuous grounds that are completely unsupported by the actual teaching and understanding of the Catholic faith.

(1) There is no re-crucifiction at the mass
(2) There is no suffering (by Christ or anyone else) at the mass
(3) The mass is not to “make up” for anything lacking in Christ
(4) We do not shed blood (symbolically or otherwise) at the mass. We re-present the same sacrifice - the Son - without re-sacrificing Him because that does not need to happen… It (the bloody crucifiction and death - the completion and fullfillment of what was foreshadowed by the Paschal lamb) is finished.

We keep the feast. (1 Cor 5:7-8)

Peace,
-Robert

 

[minkymurph]

Christ did have to take on flesh, since the “shedding of blood”, necessary for the remission of sin, had to be physical blood.
Jesus performed that perfect Sacrifce once for our salvation. That Sacrifice is efficatious for all time (past, present, and future).
(Hebrews 7:27) says that Jesus does not need to do any form of sacrifice again as the Jewish priests did continually. Jesus did this perfect Sacrifice “…once, when He offered up Himself.”

There is the intercession that Jesus still does with the Father as our High Priest and Mediator, but there is no more sacrifice for sin, “seeing He ever liveth”. (Hebrews 7:25)

The point I was making was; why did it have to be Jesus himself who took on flesh, I was not inferring he did not have to. However it could be argued that God could have chosen to save us by another and as God, could not be questioned for not saving us by sacrifice. God saved us the way he did not because he was compelled to, but because he chose to. The reason Jesus does not have to die again and again in human form is because he rose body and soul to heaven and therefore, his human physical blood that was shed is in heaven in his body on the altar of God.

We all believe blood is necessary for the remission of sin. Why is it necessary for the remission of sin and why did Jesus have to rise body and soul to heaven in order for man’s redemption to be complete?

I have my own personal views on these questions. I’m just inviting discussion.

 

[minkymurph]

The point I was making was; why did it have to be Jesus himself who took on flesh, I was not inferring he did not have to. The reason he does not have to sacrifice himself again and again in human form is because he rose body and soul to heaven and therefore, his human physical blood that was shed is in heaven in his body on the altar of God.

We all believe blood is necessary for the remission of sin. Why is it necessary for the remission of sin and why did Jesus have to rise body and soul to heaven in order for man’s redemption to be complete?

I have my own personal views on these questions. I’m just inviting discussion.

 

[brkn1]

The point I was making was; why did it have to be Jesus himself who took on flesh, I was not inferring he did not have to. However it could be argued that God could have chosen to save us by another and as God, could not be questioned for not saving us by sacrifice. God saved us the way he did not because he was compelled to, but because he chose to. The reason Jesus does not have to die again and again in human form is because he rose body and soul to heaven and therefore, his human physical blood that was shed is in heaven in his body on the altar of God.

Does the RCC believe that Jesus does die again in some form during the Mass?

We all believe blood is necessary for the remission of sin. Why is it necessary for the remission of sin and why did Jesus have to rise body and soul to heaven in order for man’s redemption to be complete?

The Blood that Jesus shed represents the Life that He gave in His substitutional Sacrifice to redeem His sheep.
That Blood was presented to the Father in heaven as the accepted propitiation for our sin.

 

[minkymurph]

Does the RCC believe that Jesus does die again in some form during the Mass?

The Blood that Jesus shed represents the Life that He gave in His substitutional Sacrifice to redeem His sheep.
That Blood was presented to the Father in heaven as the accepted propitiation for our sin.

As he rose body and soul to heaven, his human body can no longer die. That is why he is an eternal sacrifice.

Yes blood represents life and is accepted for sin; but why? Why does it represent life? Why does it atone for sin? Why blood?

 

[brkn1]

As he rose body and soul to heaven, his human body can no longer die. That is why he is an eternal sacrifice.

Yes blood represents life and is accepted for sin; but why? Why does it represent life? Why does it atone for sin? Why blood?

A good verse to explain the “why” of blood can be found in (Leviticus 17:11).

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an attonement for the soul.”

The biblical use of “blood” can be referring to either “life” or to the “death” (of that life) depending on the context.
The biblical idea of blood atonement has to do with the sacrifice unto death by the shedding of blood. Blood must be shed to death as payment for the remission of sin. It has to be done according to God’s program and rules to be effective, not man’s ritual.

 

[distracted]

“in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, …” Revelation 5:6 - even in Heaven Jesus, the Lamb is still ‘as it were slain’. Calvary is an eternal event, still happening, which is the reason, the only possible reason, that the Mass is NOT a mere re-enactment of it.

thanks - uplifting to read. for one thing, it makes me realize all over again that Jesus suffers with us… He has “been there”… :console:

 

[minkymurph]

A good verse to explain the “why” of blood can be found in (Leviticus 17:11).

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an attonement for the soul.”

The biblical use of “blood” can be referring to either “life” or to the “death” (of that life) depending on the context.
The biblical idea of blood atonement has to do with the sacrifice unto death by the shedding of blood. Blood must be shed to death as payment for the remission of sin. It has to be done according to God’s program and rules to be effective, not man’s ritual.

I appreciate what you are saying and I am familiar with the scriptures you quote. There are lots of scriptures that support the belief that a the shedding of blood is necessary to atone for sin. However, this is not the reason I prompted the discussion. The reason I prompted the discussion is because I find the explaination; ‘blood has to be shed because it satisfies God’s ‘rules’ inadequate.’ I believe there is a deeper significance to the belief that blood atones for sin and a deeper meaning to the sacrifice of Christ than simply, ‘because God made that rule or, it was necessary to satisfy God’s criteria for the salvation of man.’

 

[brkn1]

I appreciate what you are saying and I am familiar with the scriptures you quote. There are lots of scriptures that support the belief that a the shedding of blood is necessary to atone for sin. However, this is not the reason I prompted the discussion. The reason I prompted the discussion is because I find the explaination; ‘blood has to be shed because it satisfies God’s ‘rules’ inadequate.’ I believe there is a deeper significance to the belief that blood atones for sin and a deeper meaning to the sacrifice of Christ than simply, ‘because God made that rule or, it was necessary to satisfy God’s criteria for the salvation of man.’

The Bible gives a sacred significance to blood.
Blood is representative of the life given to us by God.
Blood is used in all of the covenants God made with man.
It is so sacred, that God commanded man to not even eat the blood of animals.
No covenant was/is more sacred than a blood covenant.
God shares the same blood as man, since Jesus came down from Heaven to become God-Man.

This is a start for you, if you want to give your understanding.

 

[distracted]

In (Hebrews 9:22), there are the words: “…;and without shedding of blood is NO remission.”
That would require the Mass to be a bloody sacrifice where Jesus again sheds His Blood and dies. There would be no remission of sin, otherwise, according to the above verse.
The claim for an “unbloody” sacrifice that remits sin is not supported in the New Testament.

“having a personal relationship with Jesus” in not in scripture either.