"Once for all," a strengthened form of hapax means only once at all ever (Thayer's lexicon: epi, /D. in composition /1. continuance, rest, influence over any person or thing). That means, no resacrifice of any part of his body or blood, ever. His one sacrifice is never to repeated, because it was perfect, taking away all sin forever, and the persistently committed yielding of a human's trust in that sacrifice invokes graciously granted coverage for eternity under by that offering for his sinfulness and sins perpetrated, both at once, and for all time. Thus, like Martha, everlasting life (Jn. 11:25-27;). No resacrifice needed. Remembrance is an ordinance.
His “sacrifice” for mankind is represented to the Father every day and every hour around the world in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Literal or figurative?
Transubstantiation is a figment of a very active allegorizing imagination, whose explanations will not survive a literal historical hermeneutic for interpreting the event at Last Supper in its context, and most certainly not with the pattern of worship under the Aaronic priesthood, which is what the Roman liturgy is meant (IIRC) to continue.
It’s God’s plan, in Daniel and Malachi the Mass and the Holy Eucharist are prophesied. In Daniel, the “continual sacrifice”, this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
In Daniel 9:27 my take on that is consistent with dispensational eschatology: When the bodies and persons of those saved in the age of churchianity are suddenly removed by the Lord and Redeemer claiming His Bride, the Man of Sin will be revealed, and he will permit the Temple to be rebuilt, and the resumption of the dead Jewish religions sacrifices that were ended after Tisha B'Av (70 Ad) until now. This the practice of animal sacrifices (oblations) that you and the patristics have allegorized into resacrificing Jesus daily. Not supported by a New Covenant Supper of Remembrance.
And summoning up the Malachi prophesy to fit the concept of continually resacrificing Christ wouldn;t seem to me to impress pagans. Such an application is a far reach, a clutching of straws in translation that abandons all NT context.
See below, how the KJV changes the verse, from the original. The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
Yep, an uninspired translation of an uninspired translation, not a literal grammatical interpretation of the original language. Though also uninspired, the AV does a little better--it follows the literal equivalency, standing nearer the original Hebrew on the agreement of several witnesses trained in the Hebrew and related languages. The AV English translation is accepted widely by Jewish scholars above modern versions. DRB not so authoritative, or well-received by Hebrew experts, IIRC.
No human brings Christ down from heaven on his demand (Rom. 10:6,7). When He is to come, no one knows but the Father.
Respecting The Sovereign, and His Word (Ps. 138:2)--
“Once for all,” a strengthened form of hapax means only once at all ever (Thayer’s lexicon: epi, /D. in composition /1. continuance, rest, influence over any person or thing). That means, no RESACRIFICE of any part of his body or blood, ever. His one sacrifice is never to repeated, because it was perfect, taking away all sin forever, and the persistently committed yielding of a human’s trust in that sacrifice invokes graciously granted coverage for eternity under by that offering for his sinfulness and sins perpetrated, both at once, and for all time. Thus, like Martha, everlasting life (Jn. 11:25-27;). No RESACRIFICE needed. Remembrance is an ordinance.”
~ ~ ~
The world keeps sinning, Christ’s one time sacrifice on Calvary is “made present” in the Mass and offered to the Father which pleases Him very much. I shared paragraph 1364 of the Catechism in my last post, here are two others to help you. Paragraph 1366 especially, you can understand, I believe, I hope. And never forget, many, many non-Catholic ministers, intellectuals, atheists even, read the quotes of the first Christians and changed, they converted.
Our Lord isn’t “resacrificed” as you keep saying imardmd1.
blessings,
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are MADE PRESENT to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on a new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is MADE PRESENT: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains every present. (Cf. Heb 7:25-27) As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrifice’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out. (Lumen Gentium 3; cf. 1 Cor 5:7)
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (MAKES PRESENT) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [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.
“Literal or figurative?
Transubstantiation is a figment of a very active allegorizing imagination, whose explanations WILL NOT SURVIVE a literal historical hermeneutic for interpreting the event at Last Supper in its context, and most certainly not with the pattern of worship under the Aaronic priesthood, which is what the Roman liturgy is meant (IIRC) to continue.”
~ ~ ~
What do you mean “will not survive”....? More Christians believe in the Real Presence than not so open you heart to believing imardm1. And sorry, the “CONTINUAL sacrifice” prophesied in the Old Testament has to be offered by a priest. There are no priests found in Protestantism or Judaism today, only in Catholicism.
We agree, yes, God can do anything. There are mysteries of the faith you accept not understanding...which is faith. You accept the Incarnation, that God would have two natures on faith. Oh such a mystery, Our Lord is fully God, fully man.
Accept “Transubstantiation.” Jesus tells you in John 6,
think in the spiritual which means supernaturally and not
in a human way of seeing. When Our Lord says “spirit” in the Gospel, it never means a symbol. It means supernatural.
It’s God’s plan to come to us in the Eucharist. Jesus had
just revealed to His disciples that they must eat His body
and drink His blood, seeee... but with a supernatural understanding.
John 6:64
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
You do not object that certain things in Old Testament are “types” prefigured for the greater things in the New Covenant. It’s right before you, there is a New Covenant priesthood to offer sacrifice, the New Covenant priesthood is so much greater~! Forget the Old Covenant “animal” sacrifices, Our Lord’s one time sacrifice on Calvary is made present in an unbloody manner, offered to the Father, in the Holy Mass.
The Lamb of God, Jesus, is the Passover Lamb in the New Covenant and you agree, so go further, we must consume Him. Those who believe do, receiving the most Holy Eucharist.