Re-Sacrificing Jesus?

Q. Are there any theological differences between the old mass and the new mass of 1970?I grew up in the church after Vatican Two so I do not know much about the old tridentine latin mass.

A. There are no theological differences between the old Latin mass and the new one. None. The dogmas and doctrines have not changed and cannot change. I think that is one of the main points that the Pope wanted to make by freeing the Latin Mass from the control of Bishops–Vatican II did NOT CHANGE THE CHURCH AND MOST OF THE CHANGES WE HAVE HAD WERE NEVER RECOMMENDED LET ALONE COMMANDED BY VATICAN II. I think perhaps he would like to go back and try it again. Vatican II was meant merely to refresh the Church.

Q. Do catholics with the old mass have to comeback every Sunday to be atoned for? Because, I read that the prayers of the old mass were. ” receive this spotless host which I your humble servant offer to thee to atone for my numberless sins and offences”or something close to this.

A. NO. Jesus died once for our salvation. He atoned for the eternal consequences of our sin. He is ETERNAL and His sacrifice is ETERNAL. We are the ones trapped in time and need to return to receive Bread From Heaven at each mass to strengthen us on our journey.

Q. My brother who is a Presbyterian said he thought that the Catholic mass was were the priest offered up a sacrifice for you and the souls being purified in purgatory.



A. No that is not Theologically correct.

The mass is a RE-Presentation to God of the ONE sacrifice of Christ. Jesus is not re-sacrificed. He makes Himself present to us under the appearance of bread and wine for our sake–in order to be fed by HIM.

We do need to come and receive forgiveness for our sins over the past week or day, however. That is why there are several places in the mass where we ask for forgiveness.

We who are in time return to Calvary to partake of that ONE sacrifice. Yes, this is done in an unbloody manner in obedience to Jesus Christ. We actually receive sanctifying grace in communion if we are free from mortal sin, otherwise we compound our sin.


4 Responses to Re-Sacrificing Jesus?

  1. zandi says:

    Thank you for this info. Nice site:)

  2. Thanks for commenting Zandi – I dig your avatar!

  3. John Quinn says:

    The main change in the Mass since Vatican 2 is the ‘opening up of the treasures of sacred scripture’. This was mandated in the Constitution of the sacred liturgy. We now, for example have 71% of the New Testament in the lectionary (this was just 17% in the ‘old Mass’).

    Also, translations were made directly from the original texts into the vernacular, thus bypassing Latin.

  4. Michael says:

    “Jesus died once for our salvation. He atoned for the eternal consequences of our sin. He is ETERNAL and His sacrifice is ETERNAL.”

    I do not know of a Magisterial document that proposes that Jesus’ Sacrifice is ”eternal”. Our Presbyterian friend will find it impossible to reconcile such an idea with the fact that “Jesus died once”, and rightly so. A death is one off event by definition, and can’t be eternal. I do not deny that, in a certain sense (“High Priest” in Hebrews, “Lamb” in the heavenly liturgy of Revelation) Christ’s sacrifice is eternal, but that is not what the Documents known to me assert, at least not explicitly. In any case, from “He is eternal” it doesn’t follow (if that is what you mean) that “His sacrifice is eternal”, if His Sacrifice consisted in His Death.

    Nor do I know of a document in which it is proposed that the Mass is a “RE-Presentation to God of the ONE sacrifice of Christ.” It is not disputable that it is one. But

    anathemized by Trent (D 948) is the proposition that “in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God”. And in the body of the document we find that, at the Last Supper, Christ left to the Church “a sacrifice that was visible” (D 938). In another place (D 940) it is Christ himself who is “offered” or “makes the offering through the priest”. In my words, it is a sacrifice of its own right, not a re-presentation to God of the Sacrifice on the Calvary.

    But from what you say it would appear that there is no true, proper, visible sacrifice in the Mass offered to God, but the “eternal” sacrifice is re-presented to Him.

    The Council uses the word “re-present” in the sense of “make present” – ((Vatican II would say: “perpetuates” (SC 47) to avoid, I believe, the original Trent’s “representere” being misunderstood, as the SSPX do, for “the role proper to an image in relation to reality to which it refers” (p. 79 of their “The Problem of the Liturgical Reform”)) – but applied to Christ’s Sacrifice “on the altar” (CCC 1109), not to re-present it “to God”: it is “offered to God” (D 948).

    Although in the Mass a true etc. Sacrifice is offered to God, our Presbyterian friend can rest assured that we do not claim that Jesus is re-sacrificed; but one cannot rebut it by saying that, in the Mass, His Sacrifice is re-presented to God, while not being re-presented, made present, perpetuated on the altar, i.e. that in the Mass no true, proper, visible sacrifice is offered to God. There are various theories how it is possible without repetition, but one cannot deny that it is true. “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice” (CCC 1367, “one and the same” in the Compendium 280).

    It is not that Jesus only “makes Himself present to us under the appearance of bread and wine for our sake–in order to be fed by HIM”, but His Sacrifice itself is made present too. In the words of Institution it is signified by “which is given up for you”, “which is shed for you”, and it is explicitly articulated in the Anamnesis. In point of fact, Pius XII says that the presence of this Sacrifice is symbolized by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, whereby by the separation of the two Jesus is “signified and shown forth in the state of victim” (Mediator Dei). Trent anathemized the proposition that “the sacrificial offering (in the Mass, my note) consists merely in the fact that Christ is given us to eat” (948).

    The Presbyterian is likely to say that “to be fed by HIM” sounds a bit canibalish, and he would be right. I think that, strictly speaking, we are nor “eating” or “drinking” Him, but in the same way as He (i.e. of His Body and Blood) appears to us as a bread and wine, so our union with Him effected by the Holy Communion, appears to us, as “eating” and “drinking”, and we eat and drink the appearances, not Him. Once the appearances of the bread and wine are corrupted by eating/drinking His Presence ceases – what remains is our union with Him. You can buy this explanation if you wish – it makes sense to me.

    But more to the point, while our union with Christ (in His Church) is effected by the Eucharist in so far as it is a Sacrament as you imply, there are also effects of the Eucharist in so far as it is a Sacrifice which are overlooked.

    By being Christ’s Self-Sacrifice, it is an act of praise and thanksgiving of an infinite value (L. Ott, p.414) and, if rightly disposed, we add to it our own praise and thanksgiving (CCC 1359).

    And it is “THEOLOGICALLY CORRECT”, not incorrect, to say that we “GET THE BENEFITS OF CALVARY APPLIED TO” us, and could be applied to others, living and dead: the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory and impetratory (CCC 1367, 1414), regardless of whether we receive Holy Communion (Trent, D 950).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: