I hope you don't mind me pointing out that the wording of that catechism does not say that what is on that altar is only a "uniting" with something that happened in the past. You're adding meaning to what is actually stated, which is something my friends try to do in order to try and side-step the difficulty behind the understanding of a re-sacrifice on a daily basis.
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the
offering of her Head.
With him, she herself
is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist
the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with
his total offering, and so acquire a new value.
Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
Please explain to us all how "she" can be offered along with your Jesus if that is not an actual sacrifice going on at the present time of each and every time it is exercised on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but your words don't align with what that catechism says in the clarity of its language. Adding words in that are not there, taking away words that are, clearly is not an honest handling of what that statement says to the reasonable, unbiased thinking of the average, intelligent reader. Was the writer of that catechism remiss in what is written, and thus inadvertently misleading everyone by misstatement? When it says "
Christ's sacrifice present on the altar" has an unmistakable meaning, and we
must believe that the writer of that catechism, and all the other indicators in that catechism, said
exactly what he meant. BY what authority do roman catholics add to it, or take away from it, the clarity of what anyone can read as to what it clearly states?
MM