It’s all the same sacrifice. You are thinking in terms of time, the Christian Faith thinks in terms of eternity.
I’ve never understood what Protestants have against the Crucifix.
Really.. “for Christ’s sake” I wish they would just be honest..
Parsing the subject just looks too tacky..
At least in South America the RCC is proud of their idolatry.. they do it with “class”..
Pomp and circumstance and the whole nine yards..
I respect that.. Kabuki Theatre on cocaine..
If you dont like it.. lump it..
We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts...
The image isn't the sin. The sin is in how we relate to the image. We can make idols of even our thoughts. There IS something reasonable about iconoclasm, but I think it misplaces the problem, while failing to grasp the fullness of the implications of "He is the image of the invisible God," of the Incarnation.
In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated.
Not so much. I mean it is said, but not by those speaking carefully. There is only one sacrifice. It is an eternal reality. Unfortunately not too many Protestants (and not a whole lot of Catholics, come to think of it) have a clear idea of what "eternal" means. They wrongly think it has to do with span of time.
I don't think it's a "lie". I think it's an untrue assertion, but I don't think most of those making it intend to lie. They merely err. Their culpability probably lies in failing to take care to speak the truth.
Steve_Seattle, I don't think "recreated" is right either. In loose speech, "re-presented" is not so bad.
Hosepipe: the wafer(missa) is said to become Jesus at mass.
Are you saying that "missa" is is Latin for "wafer"? I don't think so, and neither does my Cassell's dictionary.
Much of christianity has DEVOLVED into idolatry.
Troo dat. We are delivered from idolatry by grace.
I have long wondered where to find this horrible "Roman Church"...
LOL. Me too. Strangely, I remember hating it, but I never found it anywhere.
agere_contra: We are truly present at Christ's gift of Himself. Nice.
Steve_Seattle:the Church does believe that the communion wafer and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, although it is said that the "accidental" (visible) characteristics of the elements remain unchanged and it is only - so to speak - the "essence" which is transformed.
I've heard one of the friars here say that. But he's the least theologically precise of the current squad. "Literally" is an over-used word. Even Rush uses it incorrectly. I try to avoid it.
"Really" is better, except that it just pushes off the question of what we mean by "real." My pet "problem" is, "What is it that makes a ring a wedding ring? Not the shape except it has to fit on a finger, I suppose. Not the gold or whatever it's made of. The "whatness" or "what-it-is-ness" of it is not in any of its sensible characteristics.
"Identical" might work. The Catechism of the Catholic Church § 1330 says: "[it is called] the Holy Sacrifice because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering."
Steve_Seattle: Once you've said "divinized" you've said a lot.
I would say "body has to do with "self" or "person," while the OT begs, shrieks, for blood to be associated with life, "for the blood is the life."
I don't think "re-enacted" applies except in am almost trivial way. I mean the "actions" of the Last Supper -- took, blessed, broke, gave -- are 'enacted'. There is a kind of "representation," fer shur. But the controversy is around what I think "re-presentation" denominates as well as any word.
The "ana" in anamnesis is the same as that in anastasis - resurrection, standing up. Anamnesis is "remembering up," FWIW.