Re-presentation in Practice?

[mbd1475]

Hi,

A question from an Anglican/Episcopalian who comes from what could be described as a high-church or Anglo-catholic parish. We, of course, believe that at Mass, our priest is effecting a re-presentation (not merely a symbol or memorial) of the once-and-for-all sacrifice made on Calvary, uniting the Church Triumphant and Militant, who join in presenting that sacrifice to the Father in heaven, so that he may make it be for us the Body and Blood of Christ, “the holy food and drink of new and unending life in Him.” So on, and so forth.

(Yes, I know that Roman Catholics believe our Mass is invalid, but that is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum and not the topic of this question).

My understanding is that Roman Catholics officially believe the same doctrine as I typed it above. (Yes, you may have a better way to word it, but I think we can agree that the “re-presentation” idea best describes Roman Catholic dogma concerning the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist).

When I watch Roman Catholic Masses on EWTN, I pay close attention to the liturgy, and I have to say, I do not feel as though the “re-presentation” idea is coming through very well. That is to say, there is an awful lot of pleading to God to (please, please, please) accept these gifts or (please, please, please) find the offering or sacrifice worthy. The last Mass I watched, there must have been 3 separate times where the priest was pleading to God to find the offering worthy of receipt. This was the Mass for the cause of beatification of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen at The Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception in Peoria, IL where Bishop Jenky was presiding over the Eucharist.

If it truly is a “re-presentation,” why does the liturgy require the priest to make so many pleas to God in order to make the Gifts worthy of acceptance? Has not the Father already accepted the sacrifice of Calvary? Are we (you) not merely “participating” in that once-and-for-all sacrifice that already happened? What else is going on here that is not able to be viewed in the re-presentation/participation lens through which I am viewing the Eucharistic discourse? It seems by watching the EWTN Masses, what is true in theory is not true in practice.

If you view this post as an “attack” or “anti-anything,” please do not respond. Likewise, any responses regarding the asserted invalidity of Anglican orders or priestesses is off-topic and will not be well-received. Thanks in advance for what I am sure will be helpful, high-minded and well-thought-out responses.

Mark

 

[japhy]

When I watch Roman Catholic Masses on EWTN, I pay close attention to the liturgy, and I have to say, I do not feel as though the “re-presentation” idea is coming through very well. That is to say, there is an awful lot of pleading to God to (please, please, please) accept these gifts or (please, please, please) find the offering or sacrifice worthy. The last Mass I watched, there must have been 3 separate times where the priest was pleading to God to find the offering worthy of receipt. This was the Mass for the cause of beatification of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen at The Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception in Peoria, IL where Bishop Jenky was presiding over the Eucharist.

If it truly is a “re-presentation,” why does the liturgy require the priest to make so many pleas to God in order to make the Gifts worthy of acceptance? Has not the Father already accepted the sacrifice of Calvary? Are we (you) not merely “participating” in that once-and-for-all sacrifice that already happened? What else is going on here that is not able to be viewed in the re-presentation/participation lens through which I am viewing the Eucharistic discourse?

My take on the matter is that we are asking God, first of all, to accept the bread and wine (and our very selves in union with them) as fitting for the altar in the first place. The Eucharistic sacrifice is a blend of two concepts: the offering of first-fruits to God and the offering of the transubstantiated bread and wine, now the Body and Blood of Our Lord, to God. Both facets need God’s approval. As for the requests and pleading after the consecration has been effected, I would say we are a) maintaining the proper attitude of supplication before God, and b) asking Him to overlook the sins of the minister who has presented it (as one of the prayers before Communion puts it: “look not on our sins, but on the faith of Your Church”. When it was offered by Jesus Christ, there was no such supplication needed; now, although the priest at Mass is offering it in persona Christi, he still asks God to overlook his personal state and see the Holy Victim.

 

[benedictgal]

My take on the matter is that we are asking God, first of all, to accept the bread and wine (and our very selves in union with them) as fitting for the altar in the first place. The Eucharistic sacrifice is a blend of two concepts: the offering of first-fruits to God and the offering of the transubstantiated bread and wine, now the Body and Blood of Our Lord, to God. Both facets need God’s approval. As for the requests and pleading after the consecration has been effected, I would say we are a) maintaining the proper attitude of supplication before God, and b) asking Him to overlook the sins of the minister who has presented it (as one of the prayers before Communion puts it: “look not on our sins, but on the faith of Your Church”. When it was offered by Jesus Christ, there was no such supplication needed; now, although the priest at Mass is offering it in persona Christi, he still asks God to overlook his personal state and see the Holy Victim.

My own take on this falls along the lines of what japhy noted. However, we must remember that when we participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the veil between time and space is lifted. In essence, we are in God’s time. Through some mystery that we cannot yet fathom, we become present at Calvary. In fact, at every Mass, we are just as present at Calvary as the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene were. Jesus doesn not repeatedly die at every Mass; however, at every Mass, we, ourselves, witness what happened at Calvary.

As japhy states, the priest acts in persona Christi when he utters the words of consecration during the institution narrative. These words are supremely important and cannot be changed. They must be recited as indicated in the Roman Missal. In fact one of the most important duties, if not the most important one, of a Catholic priest, whether he be priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope, is that he offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That is what his hands are consecrated and annointed to do.

Now, as far as the “look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church”, is concerned, this prayer comes after the Pater Noster, just before we impart the Sign of Peace. The priest prays this prayer on our behalf (and, on his, too). But, this does not take anything away from the Eucharistic Prayer. Furthermore, in the Roman Canon, there is a line that reads, “though we are sinners (and the priest strikes his breast), do not consider what we truly deserve”… Here, the priest includes himself.

I hope this helps.

 

[Digitonomy]

I think japhy did a great job answering what is actually a very good question. I would simply add that I suspect the form of the prayers borrows from Jewish sacrificial prayers.

benedictgal:

the words of consecration during the institution narrative. These words are supremely important and cannot be changed. They must be recited as indicated in the Roman Missal.

I would phrase this differently - the precise words are not supremely critical, as they are changed from one rite to another. Rather, it is critical that the words of consecration be recited, or else there is no consecration and no mass. The Church rightly guards against such a failure by fastidious observance of the prescribed prayer.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think that the key to the question was given in your own introduction: it is a re-presentation, not a symbol or some such thing.

Now if I were sitting in a Baptist church during their communion service, they wouldn’t be asking God to accept the sacrifice over and over because they believe the sacrifice already has been accepted. It happened 2,000 years ago, and it’s done with, in their eyes. Asking God to accept what’s already been accepted would be a bit rude, wouldn’t it?

But a re-presentation means that the sacrifice “hasn’t happened” yet. Now of course it has. It was offered and accepted 2,000 years ago. But when we re-present it, it is a true entering in to that one and eternal sacrifice. That doesn’t mean entering into something that “already” happened, but entering into something that is happening now.

Now there are two ways to view that, from the perspective of the sacrifice or from the perspective of the congregation. Let’s start with the easy one: the congregation. If the congregation is really and truly entering into that one sacrifice and we view the sacrifice as only having “happened” 2,000 years ago, then the congregation is in a mystical way going back in time to stand at the foot of the cross. The pleading with God to accept the sacrifice is not, as you said, a symbol of the pleading that Christ made before the Father, but the real and true presence on that Altar of the very pleading that Christ made. It is as if the congregation steps into a time machine. It is as if, at that moment, the sacrifice didn’t happen yet, because it is happening before their eyes.

On the other hand, if we view it from the standpoint of the Sacrifice, which is the more theologically correct way to do so, then essentially the same situation applies. The Sacrifice is eternal. Eternal does not mean “forever.” Eternal means “without beginning or end.” It means to simply be present. The truth is that the Sacrifice of Christ simply “is.” It did happen in time 2,000 years ago, but that’s not even really the right way to say it.

To understand, think of one of Christ’s statements in the Gospel: “Before Abraham was, I Am.” Now grammatically, that makes no sense. He is speaking about the past but using the present tense. This is because He is God. He has no beginning and no end. Christ really and truly did not exist 2,000 years ago. No, Christ does exist 2,000 years ago, just as He does exist now. It is far more accurate to say that God was at the time of Abraham than to say that God is at the time of Abraham, just as God is now, and God is 2,000 years from now in the future.

2,000 years ago, on the cross, the Sacrifice is happening. Right now, the Sacrifice is happening. Next Thursday, the Sacrifice is happening. It’s ONE sacrifice, not many. To offer the Sacrifice in Mass and to act as though it already “has been” accepted is to say that the sacrifice was finite and had an end. If a priest offers Mass, and acts as though the Sacrifice has already been accepted, then that would mean he is offering something else now, because the Sacrifice of Christ already would have been accepted.

No, it is the very same Sacrifice. When we attend Mass, it is the very same sacrifice that “happened” 2,000 years ago, but more accurately is happening 2,000 years ago and is happening yesterday and is happening now because it simply is, without beginning and without end. The petitions the priest makes that God accept the sacrifice is not repetetive because the Sacrifice is eternal. It is “always going on.” When a priest says “accept this Sacrifice,” Christ is also, 2,000 years ago asking God to accept His Sacrifice, and Christ is asking God now in the priest’s words to accept it.

I know that is all rather confusing, but that’s how this sort of thing can be. You seem to have gotten caught up in viewing the Sacrifice as one and eternal without really recognizing the full depth and meaning of that.

God bless

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I remember a homily given by a very kindly and intellectual priest a few years back at my university.

He took his starting point the dialogue between the priest and the assembly at the start of the Liturgy of the Eucharist:

Priest: Pray, brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

Assembly: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.

He pointed out that the sacrifice of Christ re-presented on the altar through the priest’s hands is always acceptable to the Father because it is the perfect sacrifice of the beloved Son of God. The focus of the prayer is not the perfect sacrifice of Christ that Jesus is offering through the priest, but our participation in that sacrifice. In Catholic theology, we are not mere spectators in the Eucharistic sacrifice; as members of Christ’s Body, the assembly, indeed the entire Church across time and space, is united with Christ and is offered by Christ to the Father. We pray that this sacrifice of ourselves may be worthy to be united to the offering of Christ re-presented, and so genuinely offer to God the praise and glory of his holy name. We pray that the Church’s celebration may be pleasing to the Father, and bring forth its fruits in our lives and for all our brothers and sisters in the Church. In the light of these thoughts, the pleading language is not just understandable, but very necessary.

In a more accurate translation of the dialogue, the rich dimensions become even richer:

Priest: Pray, brothers and sisters, that this sacrifice, mine and yours, may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

Assembly: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.

I think the identification of the sacrifice as “mine (the priest’s) and yours (the assembly’s)” highlight clearly (1) this is the sacrifice of the whole Church, (2) the different manner in which the priest and the people participate in the sacrifice, (3) the sacrifice of Christ that is re-presented and the sacrifice of the whole Church which is united with that blameless sacrifice of Christ.

 

[benedictgal]

I think japhy did a great job answering what is actually a very good question. I would simply add that I suspect the form of the prayers borrows from Jewish sacrificial prayers.I would phrase this differently - the precise words are not supremely critical, as they are changed from one rite to another. Rather, it is critical that the words of consecration be recited, or else there is no consecration and no mass. The Church rightly guards against such a failure by fastidious observance of the prescribed prayer.

But, as Redemptionis Sacramentum indicates, at least, as far as the Latin Rite is concerned (since, from the limited knowledge that I have of the Eastern Rites–they don’t seem to have their share of abuses), the words of the Eucharistic Prayer (or any part of the Mass, for that matter) cannot be changed:

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

Furthermore, earlier on in the document, RS states that:

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

 

[Digitonomy]

But, as Redemptionis Sacramentum indicates, at least, as far as the Latin Rite is concerned (since, from the limited knowledge that I have of the Eastern Rites–they don’t seem to have their share of abuses), the words of the Eucharistic Prayer (or any part of the Mass, for that matter) cannot be changed:

Furthermore, earlier on in the document, RS states that:

Yes. As I said,

The Church rightly guards against such a failure by fastidious observance of the prescribed prayer.