What is the salvific effect of the Cross?

1Thess521

Well-known member
Catholics,
In regards to propitiation, the New Covent going into effect: and our sins being paid,
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
You seem to be very obsessed with this point. Yes all Catholics believe that Jesus died on the Cross thereby paying the price for our sins. But for us the Covenant is in the consummation of our intimate relationship with Him that makes it meaningful. "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6 53-54)

Like a marriage where the commitment is ratified before the altar (ratum), it is only valid when the intimate exchange takes place (consummatum). Ratum and consummatum are essential.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
You seem to be very obsessed with this point. Yes all Catholics believe that Jesus died on the Cross thereby paying the price for our sins. But for us the Covenant is in the consummation of our intimate relationship with Him that makes it meaningful. "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6 53-54)

Like a marriage where the commitment is ratified before the altar (ratum), it is only valid when the intimate exchange takes place (consummatum). Ratum and consummatum are essential.
Catholics,
In regards to propitiation, the New Covent going into effect: and our sins being paid,
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
 

balshan

Well-known member
You seem to be very obsessed with this point. Yes all Catholics believe that Jesus died on the Cross thereby paying the price for our sins. But for us the Covenant is in the consummation of our intimate relationship with Him that makes it meaningful. "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6 53-54)

Like a marriage where the commitment is ratified before the altar (ratum), it is only valid when the intimate exchange takes place (consummatum). Ratum and consummatum are essential.
No it is obvious that the poster is really trying to understand what RCs believe. Their posts are all over the place like a dog's dinner.

You have still failed to clearly answer the question
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Catholics,
In regards to propitiation, the New Covent going into effect: and our sins being paid,
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
@dingoling.
Not if we understand what is happening and what Jesus is doing in the upper room.
share your understanding and answer

re: propitiation, the New Covent going into effect, and our sins being paid,
What took place on the Cross that did NOT already take place at the Last Supper?
 
Last edited:

dingoling.

Well-known member
i asked about
In regards to propitiation, the New Covenant going into effect: and our sins being paid,
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
When did the NC go into effect? Not 100% certain when the NC went into effect.

The offering didn't end on the cross. Jesus had to enter the Holy of Holies in the heavenly tabernacle to complete the offering of his sacrifice.

So maybe the NC didn't go into effect until Jesus had completed the offering.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
When did the NC go into effect? Not 100% certain when the NC went into effect.

The offering didn't end on the cross. Jesus had to enter the Holy of Holies in the heavenly tabernacle to complete the offering of his sacrifice.

So maybe the NC didn't go into effect until Jesus had completed the offering.
this is the question
it is about 3 different aspects of salvation

In regards to propitiation, the New Covenant going into effect: and our sins being paid,
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
I am asking Catholics
In regards to propitiation, the New Covenant going into effect, and our sins being paid;
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
But Scripture doesn't teach such a linear understanding of the economy of salvation. The Council of Trent affirmed what Scripture actually teaches ie...

"...Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:256), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2)."

Jesus is the propitiator through faith in His blood.
 

balshan

Well-known member
But Scripture doesn't teach such a linear understanding of the economy of salvation. The Council of Trent affirmed what Scripture actually teaches ie...

"...Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:256), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2)."

Jesus is the propitiator through faith in His blood.
The economy of salvation?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
But Scripture doesn't teach such a linear understanding of the economy of salvation. The Council of Trent affirmed what Scripture actually teaches ie...

"...Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:256), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2)."

Jesus is the propitiator through faith in His blood.
There was a point in the history of salvation where propitiation at not taken place: then it had.
There was a point in the history of salvation where the New Covenant had not gone into effect; then it had.
There was a point in the history of salvation where the the penalty for sin had not been paid: then it had.

Did propitiation, the New Covenant going into effect, and our sins being paid take place at the Last Supper or on the Cross?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Catholics,
In regards to propitiation, the New Covent going into effect: and our sins being paid,
what took place on the Cross that did not take place at the Last Supper?
That depends on what you mean.

But if you want a simple answer, here it is: NOTHING.

Want an explanation? Read below.

In ESSENCE, that is, in SUBSTANCE, in PRINCIPLE, in PATTERN, the Last Supper and the Cross event are one in the same sacrifice. There is only one sacrifice of Christ, not many. Thus, the Last Supper and the Cross cannot in principle, cannot in essence, cannot in substance, cannot in pattern be a different sacrifice. If they were, there would be two different and competing sacrifices of Christ which is impossible.

There is but ONE sacrifice of Christ.

The question then, is what is DIFFERENT on the cross vs. the Last Supper?

The difference between the Last Supper and the Cross is not in the sacrifice itself, but in HOW the sacrifice is presented; that is, the MANNER or MODE in which the sacrifice is presented.

At the Last Supper, the sacrifice is presented in SACRAMENTAL form; that is, it is presented in an unbloody, unfleshy manner, a manner that does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT involve the suffering and physical death of Christ. On the cross, the the sacrifice is presented in a physical and EARTHLY manner; a manner that involves suffering and death. This presentation of the sacrifice is UNIQUE, NEVER TO HAPPEN AGAIN, NEVER TO BE REPEATED. Christ suffers and dies ONCE and ONLY ONCE.

When Mass is celebrated, a sacrifice takes place, namly, that of Christ. However, Christ is glorified and thus, does not suffer and die in the sacrifice of the Mass.

The problem with Protestants in understanding this is twofold in my opinion. 1) the Nominalism in which they are unwittingly steeped and perhaps more importantly, 2) Their identification of the Sacrifice with the CROSS, rather than Jesus himself.

In the system of Nominalism, universals do not exist; they are just names we assign things for the sake of convenience. Only particulars exist. Becasue if this, it is understandable why Protestants think each Mass is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, and why they would see the presence of Christ in the hosts as multiplied in thousands of hosts throughout the world, and why they would see Jesus as a prisoner in the tabernacle. If only particulars exist, it is impossible for the sacrifice of Christ to be ONE yet----"many." In other words, it is impossible for there to be ONE sacrifice of Christ, yet many presentations of that ONE sacrifice.

As for point 2: Christ himself IS, note the use of the verb to be--as in present tense, the sacrifice. Christ did not offer himself (past tense) Christ will not offer himself at some point in the future, Christ IS the sacrifice. On the cross, Christ IS the sacrifice. In the resurrection Christ IS the sacrifice. The resurrection is not something fundamentally different than the sacrifice. The resurrection IS the sacrifice perfected. It is why the Mass is possible.

For Protestants, however, they seem to think the resurrection is something different in kind from the sacrifice itself. They do not see the identification of the cross with the resurrection. They think the cross is one thing, the resurrection another. They aren't. They are one in the same reality.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
But Scripture doesn't teach such a linear understanding of the economy of salvation. The Council of Trent affirmed what Scripture actually teaches ie...

"...Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:256), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2)."

Jesus is the propitiator through faith in His blood.
Stella, the Nominalism in which Protestantism is unwittingly steeped requires a linear understanding of everything in the Faith.

This is exactly what makes the Protestant Faith--so whitewashed and one dimensional; flavorless, flat, sterile, lifeless, etc. Protestantism has no character, color, etc.

Protestantism is like a black and white picture of Christianity with no dimension or depth. Catholicism a color picture with depth and dimension.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No it is obvious that the poster is really trying to understand what RCs believe. Their posts are all over the place like a dog's dinner.

You have still failed to clearly answer the question
No, as I think it is Ding who correctly observes---Thess is attempting to prove that Jesus is speaking symbolically at the Last Supper.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Does anyone here know what the Passover was,
and why it was part of the 1st of the 3 Feast of the Lord
Lev. ch 23
a memorial of what???????
and what it pointed forward too,

Christ was Teaching his 12 the true Passover
not instuting something new
 
Top