Sacrifice of the Mass?

[RevDrNorth]

I’ll preface this by sayin that I don’t know much at all about this subject so my question is not offend to know the true reason.

It was my understanding that the reason the orders are no longer valid is because the change in wording of ordination was such that the main function of the priest was not to offer sacrifice any more. That’s the main function of the preist - to offer sacrifice.

If a preist cannot offer sacrifice then why would anyone think Anglican ordiantions are valid?

{Reposted this as it kinds of starts a new topic about the issue of the sacrifice of the mass. I am interested to learn more of the Roman Catholic view so I posted this with scripture and cathecetical notations for some good dialogue}

Possibly because they (anglican Church) have the unbroken succession of laying on of hands since the apostles and intent to carry out the biblical faith of the Church?

As an aside, Grudem (Protestant theologian) - calls the sacrifce of the mass one of the most obejectionable Roman Catholic doctrines. He notes from Hebrews 9:25-28 that “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high Priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of homself…Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of may”. He goes on to quote from Otto’s Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (pro sacrifice of the mass) and then scripture to disprove this notion of the sacrifice of the mass.

The Catholic Catechism states that “As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed is celbrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out”.

North

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

{Reposted this as it kinds of starts a new topic about the issue of the sacrifice of the mass. I am interested to learn more of the Roman Catholic view so I posted this with scripture and cathecetical notations for some good dialogue}

Possibly because they (anglican Church) have the unbroken succession of laying on of hands since the apostles and intent to carry out the biblical faith of the Church?

As an aside, Grudem (Protestant theologian) - calls the sacrifice of the mass one of the most obejectionable Roman Catholic doctrines. He notes from Hebrews 9:25-28 that “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high Priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of homself…Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of may”. He goes on to quote from Otto’s Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (pro sacrifice of the mass) and then scripture to disprove this notion of the sacrifice of the mass.

The Catholic Catechism states that “As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out”.

North

Grudem is a Calvinist, I believe, so it’s perfectly understandable that he should write as he does.​

1. The Mass is a true sacrifice
2. It does not involve any intention or attempt to re-sacrifice Christ - to do that, is neither necessary nor possible, nor in accord with the Faith of the CC, nor implied by the CC’s teaching or theology.
3. It is an applicatory sacrifice - it applies the unique saving event of Calvary; what is multiplied, is not the Crucifixion (for that happened once only), but the availability of the grace & power of the Crucifixion; it is this that is made present time again, not the original event from which it flows.
4. There is no attempt by the CC to add to the finished work of Christ - there is no sacrifice but His, no Priesthood but His, no possibility of adding on to his saving acts.
5. Instead, the Church draws upon, and makes present, what He has done; this is possible because the value & saving power of His work is infinite, so it is absolutely inexhaustible. A video of a murder shows an event which cannot happen more than once - yet the video can be shown thousands of times; that doesn’t mean the original event is affected, it doesn’t mean the murder re-occurs even once. The death of Christ is no more repeated by the Mass than it is by being told of by missionaries & preachers - the event is single, the making available of it is multiple.
6. So there is no change to His activity - the change, variety, & multiplication is in the way it affects us, not in what He does.
7. It’s only fair to say that presentations of the Catholic teaching have not always been as careful to guard against distortions or misunderstandings as might be wished - the problems have arisen less among the theologians than in popular presentations of the Church’s Faith.

That’s for starters - hope it helps ##

 

[Swiss_Guard]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice offered by Christ on Calvary.

1382** The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated** and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us. (emphasis mine)
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/euch2.html#BANQUET

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice, but the same sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary. Christ, being both God and man, is temporal and eternal. While His death on the cross happened at a specific time and place, He gave the apostles the command to “Do this in memory of me.”

Christ instituted the perpetual sacrifice of Calvary at the Last Supper to show us that His sacrifice on Calvary, offering Himself to the Father in the Holy Spirit for the salvation of mankind, is both temporal and eternal.

The Protestant theologian you quoted does not understand the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He also isolates a passage from Sacred Scripture apart from all of Sacred Scripture. Grudem’s problem with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t with the Catholic Church, it’s with Jesus Christ.

 

[RobNY]

As an aside, Grudem (Protestant theologian) - calls the sacrifce of the mass one of the most obejectionable Roman Catholic doctrines. He notes from Hebrews 9:25-28 that “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high Priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of homself…Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of may”.

The conception of Hebrews is that of a repeated bloody sacrifice. The suffering piece is key-- Chirst’s suffering, death and resurrection formed a perfect sacrifice. If the Catholic understand required us to say Christ suffered again, it would certainly contradict with the Biblical evidence.

The opposite, though, is the case, in Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is explicit about the ‘unbloody sacrifice’ of the Eucharist. Christ does not shed his blood again, therefore not suffering again, in the Catholic conception of the Eucharist. Instead, what the Eucharist does is make present the one and same sacrifice of the cross.

Relevant portions of the Catechism:

**1366 **The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because **it *re-presents *(makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its *memorial *and because it applies its fruit:

**1367 **The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."188

-Rob

 

[ribozyme]

Well, the Hebrews verse is also covered in this recent thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111850

 

[jemfinch]

Possibly because they (anglican Church) have the unbroken succession of laying on of hands since the apostles and intent to carry out the biblical faith of the Church?

That latter part is particularly why the Catholic Church does not consider the Anglican orders valid. Though there may be Anglo-Catholic priests today with the proper intent, historically, there was a point at which none of the ordaining bishops believed in the Real Presence, and thus the orders they granted were invalid (because the priests they “ordained” were not ordained to perform a sacrifice).

At least, that’s my understanding, from very little reading. If you’re Anglican, you’ll probably be inspired to do more research

Jeremy

 

[mercygate]

Grudem is a Calvinist, I believe, so it’s perfectly understandable that he should write as he does.​

1. The Mass is a true sacrifice
2. It does not involve any intention or attempt to re-sacrifice Christ - to do that, is neither necessary nor possible, nor in accord with the Faith of the CC, nor implied by the CC’s teaching or theology.
3. It is an applicatory sacrifice - it applies the unique saving event of Calvary; what is multiplied, is not the Crucifixion (for that happened once only), but the availability of the grace & power of the Crucifixion; it is this that is made present time again, not the original event from which it flows.
4. There is no attempt by the CC to add to the finished work of Christ - there is no sacrifice but His, no Priesthood but His, no possibility of adding on to his saving acts.
5. Instead, the Church draws upon, and makes present, what He has done; this is possible because the value & saving power of His work is infinite, so it is absolutely inexhaustible. A video of a murder shows an event which cannot happen more than once - yet the video can be shown thousands of times; that doesn’t mean the original event is affected, it doesn’t mean the murder re-occurs even once. The death of Christ is no more repeated by the Mass than it is by being told of by missionaries & preachers - the event is single, the making available of it is multiple.
6. So there is no change to His activity - the change, variety, & multiplication is in the way it affects us, not in what He does.
7. It’s only fair to say that presentations of the Catholic teaching have not always been as careful to guard against distortions or misunderstandings as might be wished - the problems have arisen less among the theologians than in popular presentations of the Church’s Faith.

That’s for starters - hope it helps ##

Preach it, Gottle!

 

[mercygate]

That latter part is particularly why the Catholic Church does not consider the Anglican orders valid. Though there may be Anglo-Catholic priests today with the proper intent, historically, there was a point at which none of the ordaining bishops believed in the Real Presence, and thus the orders they granted were invalid (because the priests they “ordained” were not ordained to perform a sacrifice).

At least, that’s my understanding, from very little reading. If you’re Anglican, you’ll probably be inspired to do more research

Jeremy

Sigh. Yes, Jeremy. That pretty much sums it up. Historically, it is undeniable.

(Signed) mercygate, former-Anglican: If Peter is not in your house of Bishops, what are you thinking?

 

[rr1213]

Sigh. Yes, Jeremy. That pretty much sums it up. Historically, it is undeniable.

(Signed) mercygate, former-Anglican: If Peter is not in your house of Bishops, what are you thinking?

Why wouldn’t Peter be in your house of bishops if you are Anglican? The Anglican succession continues back in time through the Catholic bishops to, ultimately, Peter. Apostolic succession is a different, albeit related, issue from Papal primacy.

 

[mercygate]

Why wouldn’t Peter be in your house of bishops if you are Anglican? The Anglican succession continues back in time through the Catholic bishops to, ultimately, Peter. Apostolic succession is a different, albeit related, issue from Papal primacy.

Is the Anglican Communion in communion with the See of Peter? No.

Jesus saw fit to have a physical body when he walked among us as a man. His Body today, the Church, also must be a physical Body and united within itself.

 

[rr1213]

Is the Anglican Communion in communion with the See of Peter? No.

And neither are the Orthodox or other Christian Churches for which even the Catholics admit remain in Apostolic Succession. It seems that there is a confusion of issues. The Anglican Churches do, or do not, have Apostolic Succession based on who you believe. To me, that is a different issue from whether Papal primacy is, or is not, valid.

 

[mercygate]

And neither are the Orthodox or other Christian Churches where even the Catholics recognize remain in Apostolic succession. It seems that there is a confusion of issues. The Anglican Churches do, or do not, have Apostolic Succession based on who you believe. To me, that is a different issue from whether Papal primacy is, or is not, valid.

Apostolic succession of the Orthodox has never been challenged by Rome. The defect of form and intention which prevailed for >200 years in the Anglican Communion is a different thing altogether. The Orthodox, who were once inclining towards acceptance of Anglican Orders, never did, and still do not.

The point that pushed me over the Tiber applies even to the Orthodox (I, too, believed in the Anglican succession at the time): IF you have Apostolic Succession, and Peter is not in your house of bishops, your unity is at best off-center. It is Peter to whom Jesus promised the Keys.