Question about a part of the Mass...

[The Joey-O]

I am a recent convert and I have been attending mass since I decided to convert. I just noticed a part of mass that I don't really understand. It happens right before the Eucharistic blessing (or is it part of it???) The congregation says: "...May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for your sake and the good of all His Church..." What is the "Sacrifice at your hands". When I asked around I got a lot of different answers. Some said the sacrifice was the offering. Some said it was a metaphor for all the congregations sacrifices for being a faithful Christian. Some said it was the Eucharist (which makes me think that the priest is sacrificing Christ every time he does Mass). Some said a combination of the above. Well, which is it?

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.

[Aloysius]

the sacrifice is the bread and wine, which symbolize us, our body and blood. symbolically then, we are also considering ourselves the sacrifice, that we would be transformed into the Body of Christ.

Also, at every Mass the priest offers the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner. It is one in the same sacrifice, the same event that happened 2000 years ago. it is a representation (re-presentation in the strictest sense) of that same sacrifice. so at every Mass the sacrifice of Christ can be considered at the priests hands. that's one reason why He washes his hands.

that sacrifice is truley present, at the priest's hands, so yeah, in that sense it is the priest offering Christ to God the Father.

[cmotherofpirl]

We don't re-sacrifice Christ, rather we go back to His timeless Sacrifice. We are at the foot of the Cross.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 4 2005, 08:49 AM']We don't re-sacrifice Christ, rather we go back to His timeless Sacrifice. We are at the foot of the Cross.
[right][snapback]810499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't know if the Theology of the Eucharist is possible for open theism to digest.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I heard Father John Corapi explain this on EWTN last night.

he said that the sacrfiice of Calvary is transcendent. it is always relevant to every time that their will ever be. in the mass the priest connects with the sacrifice at calvary, and brings it before us in an unbloody manner. but that their was only one sacrifice.

[Paphnutius]

I think this probably covers the question:

CCC 1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, 150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

[The Joey-O]

Thanx for the info.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:54 AM']I don't know if the Theology of the Eucharist is possible for open theism to digest.
[right][snapback]810502[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

bingo..

If it is the goofy "we art thou drawth out of the cosmic time safe" stuff

as far as the priest offering Christ to God that makes fine sense for an open theist. like Aloysius said

The sacrifice we are speaking about is Jesus' saving work for us in the cross which we apply to ourselves by doing what he asked: "Do this in memory of me." So it is his once-and-for-all sacrifice extended into our day that makes the Mass sacrificial. Not some goofy draw back from external time stuff. Seriously does that not sound funny to someone? Christ was sacrificed on earth, in the "time" as you would say, so are you saying we go back into time to draw this out? hmm, seems like we tried to put the time language in where it really isnt needed.

the whole language of "we go back to the foot of the cross" talk is a pretty picture, but in the literal sense it doesnt work. Unless you are trying to say that sin was "paid" for in a currency and it isnt valid unless we "go back in time" to put our sin on christ. Id rather stick to an atonement model that "once and for all" he died for our sins, like think of sin as a big old monster, and instead of christ feeding it breakfast in bed every once in a while christ because of the deity was an explosive food. So sin was killed. Hence why "sin" isnt the issue as much as the effect sin has on our sanctification and relationship with christ.

ok,. start the revprodeji abuse....



now

[N/A Gone]

ld.....like I told you bro, Open theism(or TWT as it is formally called) is my worldview, my lense, so I see catholic doctrines within that lense. No issue for me.