There is no straw man. In your post you implied that mass was not a sacrifice. First you state that the author is flat wrong in saying their practice of the Mass in which Christ is “re-sacrificed". Then you go on to make the rightful claim that there was only one sacrifice.
What I really see is two views being presented by you. First, in post 21 there is only one sacrifice. Then in post 24 there are multiple sacrifices. So which is it?
>>>> It’s like you recognize two positions, yours and your straw man. If something isn’t yours, it must be your straw man. <<<<
>> What I really see is two views being presented by you. First, in post 21 there is only one sacrifice. Then in post 24 there are multiple sacrifices. So which is it? <<
A perfect illustration of what I was commenting on. How in the world can you get the idea from post 24 that there are multiple sacrifices, when post 24 clearly states, “this remembrance is one and not many... He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice.”
You set yourself two false logical assertions, “If not A, therefore B; If not B therefore A,” then accuse me of contradicting myself when I assert, “not A nor B.”
Try and comprehend this: Christ is sacrificed once, and only once; yet that one sacrifice occurs in many places and in many times.
And, read from the ancient Church Fathers that this is not some modern sophistry nor a logical contradiction created to befuddle modern Protestants, but is the consistent teaching of the Church. How incredible is it that modern physics now phrases itself in the exact same language as these ancient mysteries of the Catholic faith: one electron can be entirely in two places at once, and remain entire and whole and one? If Schroedinger can do it with an electron, cannot God do it with his own body?