Was the sacrifice of the cross for all time?

[Nekic]

In all my 18 years of being a catholic, I have always been told that Christ’s sacrifice on calvary was for many, and for all time.

Yet, I read this:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/catechism.htm
Someone posted it on one of these forums, I can’t remember who.

Here is the quote that troubles me.
A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan:

Q. What does the prophet Malachy say touching this sacrifice?
A. “From the rising of the sun, even to the going down thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in EVERY PLACE there is SACRIFICE, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.”
Q. Does not Malachy foretell here merely the sacrifice of the cross?
A. No, not that alone; for he speaks of a sacrifice to be offered in every place, and the sacrifice of the cross was offered in only one place and for one time. Hence, there must be a sacrifice of the new law, intimately connected or identical, with that of the cross, to be offered up in every place, which can be no other than the Eucharistic sacrifice.

There is even an Imprimatur.
A Doctrinal Catechism:

IMPRIMATUR:
+ JOHN CARDINAL McCLOSKEY
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK

Does this mean that the sacrifice of the cross is only perpetuated by the same sacrifice, during mass?

If so, How does one answer the protestant charge that the sacrifice on calvary was perpetual and doesn’t need mass to perpetuate it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think because the sacrifice at Mass–at every Mass–is the very same sacrifice. Once for all, as they say.

Christ isn’t be ‘resacrificed’. Instead, in a mysterious manner that transcends physical time and space, at every Mass, everywhere, Catholics are present at the one and only sacrifice of Christ. Mysteriously, we are present back then in about 29 A.D. at the foot of the actual cross which held the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus–that very same body and blood, soul and divinity that He offered for us at the last supper the day BEFORE He actually suffered. . .

The same sacrifice, for all time. . .

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Dying on the cross was turly the greatest sacrifice of all.

 

[Nekic]

I think because the sacrifice at Mass–at every Mass–is the very same sacrifice. Once for all, as they say.

Christ isn’t be ‘resacrificed’. Instead, in a mysterious manner that transcends physical time and space, at every Mass, everywhere, Catholics are present at the one and only sacrifice of Christ. Mysteriously, we are present back then in about 29 A.D. at the foot of the actual cross which held the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus–that very same body and blood, soul and divinity that He offered for us at the last supper the day BEFORE He actually suffered. . .

The same sacrifice, for all time. . .

I already know this.
The question I’m asking is wether or not the sacrifice made on calvary in itself, without the representations of the same sacrifice during mass, is perpetual.

 

[VociMike]

I already know this.
The question I’m asking is wether or not the sacrifice made on calvary in itself, without the representations of the same sacrifice during mass, is perpetual.

What does that actually mean, “is perpetual”? What would that perpetual sacrifice “look like” if it were not ceaselessly re-presented in the Mass?

 

[Nekic]

What does that actually mean, “is perpetual”? What would that perpetual sacrifice “look like” if it were not ceaselessly re-presented in the Mass?

When I think of the perpetuity of the sacrifice of calvary, I think of it trancending time.
Does it really need the mass to be perpetual?

Wha twould it look like? It would look like Jesus hanging on the cross, and this action needing no help for it to be perpetual.
It would actually look quite gruesome…

Sorry if i came across as rude before, very annoyed with the piano…

 

[VociMike]

When I think of the perpetuity of the sacrifice of calvary, I think of it trancending time.
Doe sit really need the mass to be perpetual?

Sorry if i came across as rude before, very annoyed with the piano…

Yes, it does transcend time. But what does that mean to us humans who are bound in time? What would it mean to us to say that a sacrifice which occurred in time, transcends time?

The reason that the one sacrifice is re-presented in time is precisely because we are creatures bound in time, and God desires each of us to be fully present at, and to fully join with and partake of, that one sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice does not “need” the Mass to be perpetual, but apparently we “need” for it to be made fully present for us in every age and in every place.

 

[Milliardo]

When I think of the perpetuity of the sacrifice of calvary, I think of it trancending time.
Does it really need the mass to be perpetual?

Yes, because it is at Mass that that sacrifice is made ever-present, ever-real. So we can see that the sacrifice transcends all eternity through the Mass, siince it is there that the Cross is made present to us.

 

[JimG]

The sacrifice of Calvary is perpetual, in the sense that it transcends time and space, and is effective for all mankind of all times and places.

Since man exists in time and place, Christ instituted the Eucharist as a means of making this perpetual sacrifice present in every time and place, whenever and wherever the Mass is offered.

 

[Nekic]

Yes, because it is at Mass that that sacrifice is made ever-present, ever-real. So we can see that the sacrifice transcends all eternity through the Mass, siince it is there that the Cross is made present to us.

You know what?
I was just about to ask since when does God need the help of man to do something.

Then I realised the stupidity of the question.
He doesn’t.
Eg, he asked Mary to give birth to Jesus, when God could just have easily dropped his son out of the sky, fully gestated.

He chooses to perpetuate it through the mass.

But why?
Is there a clear cut reason?

And why was I taught that the action of him sacificing himself on calvary in itself was perpetuated, without help from the mass?

 

[Nekic]

The sacrifice of Calvary is perpetual, in the sense that it transcends time and space, and is effective for all mankind of all times and places.

Since man exists in time and place, Christ instituted the Eucharist as a means of making this perpetual sacrifice present in every time and place, whenever and wherever the Mass is offered.

See this is what I thought.

But the article says otherwise.
It says the action of Jesus offering himself on calvary was only valid for one time, at one place…

Whats up with that?

 

[Nekic]

Yes, it does transcend time. But what does that mean to us humans who are bound in time? What would it mean to us to say that a sacrifice which occurred in time, transcends time?

The reason that the one sacrifice is re-presented in time is precisely because we are creatures bound in time, and God desires each of us to be fully present at, and to fully join with and partake of, that one sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice does not “need” the Mass to be perpetual, but apparently we “need” for it to be made fully present for us in every age and in every place.

This i get.
I fully understand now.
I think.

What i don’t get is what the article is trying to say.

 

[Milliardo]

You know what?
I was just about to ask since when does God need the help of man to do something.

Well, He let the Apostles and prophets proclaim the Word for Him. He could’ve done it Himself, yet lets man do the proclamation for Him.

But why?
Is there a clear cut reason?

It is to show us that we must cooperate with Him in His plan of salvation.

And why was I taught that the action of him sacificing himself on calvary in itself was perpetuated, without help from the mass?

It’s because the Mass is the result of that action; in other words, what happened at Calvary didn’t need any other motivation to perpetuate itself since it was already part of God’s plan; however, what happened at Calvary cannot be physically present at each and every Mass all over the world, at least not with the Roman soldiers, the thieves, the Pharisees, etc. present all the time. So to make that reality present, we have the Mass.

 

[Denise_Shae]

When I think of the perpetuity of the sacrifice of calvary, I think of it trancending time.
Does it really need the mass to be perpetual?

Wha twould it look like? It would look like Jesus hanging on the cross, and this action needing no help for it to be perpetual.
It would actually look quite gruesome…

Sorry if i came across as rude before, very annoyed with the piano…

Hi Nekić,

Peace be with you!

RE: "Does it really need the mass to be perpetual?"​

I don’t think the phrase, “need the mass” is appropriate, here.
The reason we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is because Jesus commanded: “Do this in memory of Me”.

So, do we “need” it? Only in as much as Jesus, Himself, commanded that we do it.
Not to celebrate Mass would be directly disobeying our Lord’s command.

Does that make sense?

God Bless!

 

[JimG]

See this is what I thought.

But the article says otherwise.
It says the action of Jesus offering himself on calvary was only valid for one time, at one place…

Whats up with that?

I don’t think that is quite the intended meaning of the article you quoted. The article was talking about the sacrifice of the Mass as a fullfillment of the prophecy of Malachy. Indeed the sacrifice of calvary occurred only once and in a particular place. Nevertheless, it transcends time, and I don’t think the author would have disagreed.

Indeed, the Church teaches that the one sacrifice is even effective for those who do their best to do God’s will without having any knowledge of the Mass.

 

[Deacon_Bob]

You might want to look at my posting on a different thread: The Mass as sacrifice, which I posted today.

It may answer questions, and at the same time engender additional ones.

I think that if I’d noticed this thread, I’d probably have posted my comments here!

Peace,