The Mass and Hebrews

[Lazerlike42]

I understand most of the “once for all” stuff in Hebrews as it pertains to the Mass, but I am having trouble with this one:

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The way I have always heard it explained is that a sacrifice has two parts, the bloodshed part, which is properly called the sacrifice, and the offering part, where the offering is presented to God. However, this verse says that the offering was once for all, and that is what I thought we did at Mass.

 

[DeFide]

Lazerlike42:

I understand most of the “once for all” stuff in Hebrews as it pertains to the Mass, but I am having trouble with this one:

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The way I have always heard it explained is that a sacrifice has two parts, the bloodshed part, which is properly called the sacrifice, and the offering part, where the offering is presented to God. However, this verse says that the offering was once for all, and that is what I thought we did at Mass.

This passage merely contrasts Jesus’ sacrifice with the countless sin offerings of the Old Testament times that could not pay the price. I don’t think it’s meant to address the re-presentation of the sacrifice at the Mass.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Lazerlike42:

I understand most of the “once for all” stuff in Hebrews as it pertains to the Mass, but I am having trouble with this one:

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The way I have always heard it explained is that a sacrifice has two parts, the bloodshed part, which is properly called the sacrifice, and the offering part, where the offering is presented to God. However, this verse says that the offering was once for all, and that is what I thought we did at Mass.

Scroll down to the center of this link: catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp

 

[kleary]

Lazerlike42:

I understand most of the “once for all” stuff in Hebrews as it pertains to the Mass, but I am having trouble with this one:

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The way I have always heard it explained is that a sacrifice has two parts, the bloodshed part, which is properly called the sacrifice, and the offering part, where the offering is presented to God. However, this verse says that the offering was once for all, and that is what I thought we did at Mass.

God is not bound by time, to Him everything is present. To our senses it is like we are seeing it happen again and again and again because we are bound to time.

Ken

 

[RobNY]

Go to this website address which is a compilation of a huge amount of very useful links on the Eucharist:

phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=6565

Go especially to the section labeled: “The Mass as a Sacrifice.”

Christ’s Sacrifice “Once and for All.”

The Mass in Hebrews 10. (aaah! link appears not to be working-- instead take this link at the wayback machine which reproduces it)

Not sure this is relevant, but perhaps for your other topic, a Biblical Overview Sacrifice of the Mass, brief, but, whatever helps.

Back to something relevant. What actually helped me was this rather long page on Matt’s Apologetics Page titled, “The Eucharist: A True Sacrifice or a Denial of the Sufficiency of the Cross?”

It’s fairly thorough. Read it through and you’ll get a good feel for the position, as well as the arguments that Protestants typically raise against it. Read the official Catholic teaching section especially, if you aren’t familiar.

-Rob

EDIT: The Relationship of the Cross and the Mass.

 

[Psalm45_9]

I went to google.com and did a search with these words: catholic apologetics, Hebrews 10:10-14You should see all of the anti-Catholic sites that pop up, it seems those verses are very popular in the a-C world. However, although Karl Keating does not quote those verses anywhere in his tract he does provide a very simple way of understand how the Mass in no way interferes in those verses.

 

[porthos11]

Lazer,

Of course, there is no more bloodshed, and the presentation is eternal. This is the first meaning of “once for all”: the sacrifice was offered once, to be efficacious for all men of all times.

However, to answer your question, the Mass does present this. At Mass we are present on Calvary and in the heavenly liturgy. Christ does not die again but his death and resurrection are made present to us, in other words, we witness the death that took place 2000 years ago.

And this is symbolized by the SEPARATE consecration of the bread and the wine. This is why the Church forbids in the strongest terms simultaneous consecration of both species. By having the Body and Blood under both species, we see the representation of the separation of body and blood (representing Christ’s death), but he is fully present and alive under both species, signifying his Resurrection. Hence, you have your “bloodshed” representation, and the presentation (major and minor elevations, culminating at the Per Ipsum).

The Mass is an amazing event, really.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Lazerlike42,

What, specifically, do you not understand about this passage?

Do you notice these verses a little bit further down?

Heb10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

The sanctification of us is through (and by) his body, and we must enter into the “holiest”, which means the inner temple of Jesus’ body.

However, the purpose of a priest entering the temple is always sacrificial. Whether of incence for prayer, or blood of the lamb upon the ark for atonement.

The Eucharistic bread is taken on by jesus (joined) to his body, and allows us to enter as priests – to his temple. That is one sense of the passage.

But there is a question of what is offered in sacrifice.
The notion of ONE is twofold: it can mean solitary, and it can mean unity.

eg. Hear O’ Israel, your God is one [Trinity!].

The ONE sacrifice includes us. That ultimately is what you offer if you are in unity with Jesus. Jesus as himself, is offered, but we must also be united in that sacrifice.

On the other side, Jesus’s sacrifice is solitary in time. It will not be repeated – he can no longer suffer, no longer die.
The separation of wine and bread in consecration is only symbolic of atonement sacrifice because Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity totally in either species. We do not kill him anew.

That is, again, that the bread and wine are joined to his body such that it no longer exists by the remote power of his word, spoken at the beginning of the universe – but he himself personally (attentively/with presence) joins the bread and wine to himself such that they are connected to him. Therefore, the bread and wine are not “pieces” of Jesus once consecrated – but are rather more like a window to the whole resurrected Jesus outside of time and space. If you will, they show us the eternal moment of him offering his blood in heaven to the father.

Although the slaughtering portion any sacrifice is complete on an altar, the sacrifice of atonement is not complete until the blood is brought into the temple.
Again (and However) the temple of heaven is timeless.

Just so, the cross ended the butchering – but the blood did not enter heaven formally until the ascention.

The body – through the Eucharist – is available to eat. Just as the lamb, the bread, and the wine was available during the sacrificial passover meal that succeeded slaughtering the lamb.

-Huiou.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Rereading my last post, I would like to make one clarification:

The idea of the Eucharist is that the thing causing what is physically present to exist changes (transubstantiates) from the power of God’s command to the person of God himself.

When you eat something, it is transformed into you. That is a joining similar to the one occuring in transubstantiation, although the manner of the joining is obviously different.

I would not like you to think that something that is bread or wine remains after the consecration, except as a sign.