“Actually you DID say it. And here’s the quote from post 339:”
Ha! That’s ridiculous. What we’ll see now is an attempt by you to prove that and it will utterly fail.
You quoted me as saying: “No one could and no one wants to either.”
First of all, note that that sentence doesn’t even mention anything about the Eucharist by word. For the sake of context, let’s put the whole quote here. Antecedent sentences are important.
“What’s false is clearly your understanding if you think anyone could sacrifice Jesus over and over again. *****No one could and no one wants to either.***** So which is it that you are getting wrong there? Are you wrong about someone being able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again or are you wrong on believing Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again? It has to be one or the other OR BOTH according to your own words. The correct answer is - BOTH - since both are impossible.”
Thus, we see that I said EXACTLY WHAT THE CCC says. Jesus was sacrificed. He could only be sacrificed once. His sacrifice is re-presented. Thus, I never denied the Eucharist is a sacrifice. I clearly affirm that it is in posts in this thread. I merely denied that any “one could ... wants to [sacrifice Jesus over and over again] either”.
The CCC makes clear that the sacrifice is once and for all on the cross and re-presented in the Eucharist. I said so too - repeatedly over the years - here at FR. I also said the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
“Yet, the CCC says the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”
So have I - including in posts going back several years as I posted minutes ago. Why do you deny what is on your own computer screen in front of you?
In 2013 I wrote: “The one sacrifice was enough and it is exactly that sacrifice which is re-presented to the Father at every Mass.”
Did you see that? SACRIFICE.
“Again, I ask you: who’s right? You or Rome?”
Since both of us affirm that the Eucharist is a sacrifice then the problem is your premise.
“You said “no one could,” and “no one wants to,” but Rome says the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”
No. I said no one could and no one wants to SACRIFICE Jesus AGAIN. But the Church can and does RE-PRESENT that SAME SACRIFICE in a non-bloody way just as it says in the paragraph YOU post and in which you highlighted the word “re-presented”. You have been wrong all along.
“Every time a Mass is said, Christ is sacrificed. Again. And again. And again.”
Nope. His sacrifice is RE-PRESENTED. You yourself posted this:
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...[he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
Thus, you see it right there: sacrifice re-presented - it’s in the passage twice and you were the one who posted it.
“Who is right? You....or Rome?”
Since both of us affirm that the Eucharist is a sacrifice then the problem is your premise. I’ve been saying it at FR for years and the CCC was published in 1992/93 and the text has always said it. Thus, the problem is entirely yours.
Hoss