The 1975 catechism on the eucharist

[6glargento]

an anti catholic i encountered alleged that the 1975 catechism teaches that jesus is re sacrificed (recrucified) at every mass rather than re presented he cites:

“The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did on the cross.”

i know that he is missinterpreting this passage, does anyone know where i can find this catechism online so i can see the passage in its proper context? (Note that this is NOT the catechism 2nd edition that came out in 1991)

 

[Fidelis]

an anti catholic i encountered alleged that the 1975 catechism teaches that jesus is re sacrificed (recrucified) at every mass rather than re presented he cites:

**“The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did on the cross.” **

i know that he is missinterpreting this passage, does anyone know where i can find this catechism online so i can see the passage in its proper context? (Note that this is NOT the catechism 2nd edition that came out in 1991)

Why don’t you ask him to show you out of his copy?

Honestly, though, context or not, I don’t see how anyone can get out of this passage as stated, that Catholics teach we “re-sacrifice” Christ repeatedly. It seems clear from the wording that it is the **same **sacrifice, re-presented.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Here it is with page citation and author.

“The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross.” (THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM, 1975, John Hardon, S.J., page 466).

 

[Struggling]

unbloody immolation

I think the key word is “unbloody”. Christ is clearly not being crucified again, but the Mass is a sacrifice (the same sacrifice as the Cross) of Christ.

But the Sacrifice of the Mass is defined by the Church to both be a real absolute sacrifice in itself, while still being a relative sacrifice deriving its efficacy from the Cross. In otherwords, they are the same sacrifice only offered in different manners.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

The old conception, which our catechisms even today proclaim to the people as the most natural and intelligible, may be fearlessly declared the patristic and traditional view; its restoration to a position of general esteem is the service of Father Billot (De sacram., I, 4th ed., Rome, 1907, pp. 567 sqq.). Since this theory refers the absolute moment of the sacrifice to the (active) “sacramental mystical slaying”, and the relative to the (passive) “separation of Body and Blood”, it has indeed made the “two-edged sword” of the double consecration the cause from which the double character of the Mass as an absolute (real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We have an absolute sacrifice, for the Victim is – not indeed in specie propria, but in specie aliena – sacramentally slain, we have also a relative sacrifice, since the sacramental separation of Body and Blood represents perceptibly the former shedding of Blood on the Cross.

Lessius (De perfect. moribusque div. XII, xiii) goes beyond the old explanation by adding the not untrue observation that the intrinsic force of the double consecration would have as result an actual and true shedding of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens impossible in consequence of the impassibility of the transfigured Body of Christ. Since ex vi verborum the consecration of the bread makes really present only the Body, and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance (“Ep. clxxi, ad Amphil.” in P. G., XXXVII, 282): “Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [anaimakto tome] thou separatest [temnes] the Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [phonen echon to Xiphos].”

It points out the error in a theory that I think is a common misconception of Catholics about the Sacrifice today:

The Jesuit Gabriel Vasquez, whose theory was supported by Perrone in the last century, requires for the essence of an absolute sacrifice only – and thus, in the present case, for the Sacrifice of the Cross – a true destruction or the real slaying of Christ, whereas for the idea of the relative sacrifice of the Mass it suffices that the former slaying on the Cross be visibly represented in the separation of Body and Blood on the altar. This view soon found a keen critic in Cardinal de Lugo, who, appealing to the Tridentine definition of the Mass as a true and proper sacrifice, upbraided Vasquez for reducing the Mass to a purely relative sacrifice. Were Jephta to arise again today with his daughter from the grave, he argues (De Euchar, disp. xix, sect. 4, n. 58), and present before our eyes a living dramatic reproduction of the slaying of his daughter after the fashion of a tragedy, we would undoubtedly see before us not a true sacrifice, but a historic or dramatic representation of the former bloody sacrifice. Such may indeed satisfy the notion of a relative sacrifice, but certainly not the notion of the Mass which includes in itself both the relative and the absolute (in opposition to the merely relative) sacrificial moment.** If the Mass is to be something more than an Ober-Ammergau Passion Play, then not only must Christ appear in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed on that very altar.** The theory of Vasquez thus fails to fulfil the first condition which we have named above.

Christ does not merely commemorate his previous sacrifice on the altar, but truly re-presents or re-offers that SAME sacrifice of his body and blood, sacramentally (though, due to the glorified and impassible concomitance, no longer really) seperated in the double consecration, being both an absolute act of sacrificial destruction in itself, but referring to and deriving its merit truly from the Sacrifice of the Cross which it is truly identical with essentially.

From section II-C of the article on the sacrifice of the Mass:
newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

 

[VociMike]

an anti catholic i encountered alleged that the 1975 catechism teaches that jesus is re sacrificed (recrucified) at every mass rather than re presented he cites:

“The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did on the cross.”

In the very first place, let’s all understand that this is not a Vatican Catechism but one written by an individual priest. Having said that, there is nothing false in what you quoted above. The Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed no mere commemoration, but a true and proper act of sacrifice. What could have been clarified more (and maybe it was, in text that was not quoted here) is that the sacrifice is the same sacrifice as that enacted on the cross. It is not a new sacrifice, but a re-presentation of the one sacrifice.

Ask your anti-Catholic friend if he really thinks Christ would let Himself be re-crucified millions of times each day. Does he really think Catholics are so stupid as to believe we can compel Christ to undergo a million or more new crucifixions each day? Does he really think that Catholics believe we can “drag Christ out of heaven” millions of times each day against His will, as I saw one anti-Catholic put it?

 

[Fidelis]

Here it is with page citation and author.

“The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross.” (THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM, 1975, John Hardon, S.J., page 466).

As a previous poster pointed out, Fr. Hardon’s fine book is NOT a Catechism in the sense of the Catechism of Trent or the current official Catechism, but a popular style book that explains Catholic teachings. To equate them shows a profound ignorance of Catholicism.

(BTW myfavoritmartin, might **you **be the “anti-Catholic” the OP "encountered who gave him this bit of mis-information? :ehh: )

 

[myfavoritmartin]

(BTW myfavoritmartin, might **you **be the “anti-Catholic” the OP "encountered who gave him this bit of mis-information? :ehh: )

Not anti-catholic, rather pro-evangelic. Its important to me to share any knowledge from the other side of Christianity
for protestants who may be looming around here.
And no misinformation, just the facts mam’.
No twisted scripture.

 

[Fidelis]

Not anti-catholic, rather pro-evangelic. Its important to me to share any knowledge from the other side of Christianity for protestants who may be looming around here. And no misinformation, just the facts mam’.No twisted scripture.

So you *were *the mis-information-wielding anti-Catholic the OP referred to. I thought as much.

'nuff said.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So you *were *the mis-information-wielding anti-Catholic the OP referred to. I thought as much.

'nuff said.

Thanks, for the charitable attacks at me personally!
Much appreciated.
If it were me, 6 would have said MFM stated.
Ya know maybe you wouldn’t take my comments as attacks and therefore, so personally, if they didn’t resound as truth to you.
My apologies if you feel attacked that is not my intent, forgive me.

 

[scylla]

I would correct him on his interpretation and state that since he is not Catholic he is not able to state with any authority what Catholics mean by the statement in that Catechism.
Not only that it isn’t an official Catechism, and it doesn’t mean what he says.
So only by being dishonest is he able to attack the Catholic Church as all attacks on the Church are based on misinformation or dishonesty.

Now regarding the Sacrifice, I would agree that it is a Sacrifice and point out that only Catholics worship God properly.

As the ultimate act by a human was Jesus dying on the cross. We regular people no matter how many praise and worship services we hold, how many “preach it brother” sermons, even all the prayers we do in a lifetime are insignificant compared to that one holy Sacrifice on the Cross, which we truly put our trust in at Mass.

So Catholics being true Christians do the Christian thing and bring to the present the one Sacrifice that saves us. Instead of relying on our works we remember Jesus dying on the Cross and offer that up to God.

The Mass is an excellent way to evangelize as it truly presents proper worship and a trust in the Sacrifice of Jesus.

In Christ
Scylla