"unbloody manner"

[Brywan]

I am having difficulty understanding and explaining the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Eucharistic sacrifice:

“,the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” (CCC 1367)

Specifically, if it is “one single sacrifice”–if it is the same sacrifice, made present in space and time on the altar–why is it described as “unbloody?”

And how does this “unbloody” sacrifice tie in with the teaching that the body and **blood **of Christ are substantially present in the Eucharist?

More specifically–and more to the point–Protestants challenge this teaching by quoting Hebrews 9:22: “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.” They contend that if the Eucharistic sacrifice is “unbloody” then it is not the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Christ–and thus would not be efficacious for the atonement of sin.

I have a feeling that the word used, “unbloody manner,” may be the key to what I’m trying to understand but I need a little illumination.

If this has been discussed in another thread, save yourself some time and just direct me to that thread— Thanks for your help!!!

 

[Lujack]

I believe that “unbloody manner” refers to the fact that there is (for lack of a better word) gore. The Body and Blood present in the Eucharist don’t display the ravages that Crucifixion inflicts on a human body. The sacrifice is the same one (and the Precious Blood being shed is the same Precious Blood), but it is not shown in the same way.

At least, that would be the way I understand it.

 

[NPC]

As Lujack said, the term “unbloody manner” refers to the fact that there is no “gore”.

I have just begun reading a book by Fr Martin van Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass, in which he explains the very issue you are wondering about. Fr van Cochem quotes at length St John Chrysostom; I will quote what he has written:

“The Lamb of God is immolated for thee, His Blood flows mystically upon the altar; the Blood contained in the chalice is drawn for thy cleansing from His sacred side… Once for all Christ shed His Blood in a visible and painful manner, but at this we could not be present. The shedding of blood is, however, repeated daily in an invisible manner: His hands are wounded, His feet are transfixed, His side is pierced, His Blood is made to flow, but in a manner of which our senses cannot take cognisance. We can appropriate to ourselves His infinite merits by our glowing desire, by our contrition and sorrow, by Holy Communion, but above and beyond all by hearing Mass… In the Mass, the priest, by the prayer of Consecration, draws, as it were, the Blood from the Saviour’s side, in order to apply it to thee for thy cleansing, thy sanctification, the forgiveness of thy sins.”

I hope St Chrysostom has been of help to you:thumbsup:

The Protestant argument which you cite is a non-runner really, since we are witnessing the same sacrifice of Calvary - the Blood which is in the chalice after the Consecration is the same Precious Blood which fell from Christ’s body at the Crucifixion.

 

[japhy]

“…the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” (CCC 1367)

Specifically, if it is “one single sacrifice”–if it is the same sacrifice, made present in space and time on the altar–why is it described as “unbloody?” And how does this “unbloody” sacrifice tie in with the teaching that the body and **blood **of Christ are substantially present in the Eucharist?

The fact that the bread and wine are consecrated separately is the visible sign by which the Lord’s death is shown; by this separate consecration, the Mass makes present the death of our Lord under a sacramental veil. (Later in the Mass, a fragment of the Host is placed into the Chalice as a sign of the Lord’s Resurrection, the reunion of His blood [and soul] to His body.)

This is called “unbloody” because while Christ’s blood is made present, this happens without piercing Him, without Him shedding His blood again. Rather, it is simply made present.

More specifically–and more to the point–Protestants challenge this teaching by quoting Hebrews 9:22: “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.” They contend that if the Eucharistic sacrifice is “unbloody” then it is not the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Christ–and thus would not be efficacious for the atonement of sin.

The blood has been shed, and that same very same blood is made present again but without being shed again.

Here’s a sampling of Magisterial (and non-Magisterial) quotes using the term “unbloody”.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As St. Nicholas Cabasilas said, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist consists of the change of the bread and wine into the Flesh and Blood of the Immaculate Lamb, sacrificed once for all time.

 

[Brywan]

Thanks everyone, for all of your very helpful replies–I want to make sure I am using the language of the church correctly here:

–with this in mind–would it be correct to emphasize that it is the manner which is “unbloody” and not the matter I have heard Protestants say that the sacrifice is “unbloody”–but my reply would then be that it is not the sacrifice which is unbloody but rather the manner in which it is made present…

Still not sure this would satisfy or make sense to a Protestant apoligist, but I want to make sure I have the teaching right…

 

[japhy]

Would it be correct to emphasize that it is the manner which is “unbloody” and not the matter…

When the Church speaks of the “unbloody sacrifice”, she means the manner of its offering. When the sacrifice of the Mass is offered, it is done without the shedding of Christ’s blood, which has been once shed for all; to that extent it can be called an “unbloody sacrifice”, in that blood is not shed anew by Christ, but is made present under a sacramental veil. The manner of the offering is unbloody.

What the Church teaches is that Christ’s body and blood are made present in the Eucharist, the very same body and blood that He died in and which were raised and glorified, and the very same body and blood which He presented to His Father in Heaven. His blood is made present in the Mass without it being shed again, because it has been shed once for all. It is as though the temporal reality of His death is manifested to us through the sacramental signs which appear to us as bread and wine, although the past death is not repeated, only made present to us: remember, even in Heaven, Jesus is seen mystically by John the Evangelist as “a lamb standing as though slain.” (Rev. 5:6)

In the words of Trent (Session XXII, c. 2): “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.”

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Since the OP has asked for a mere explanation and not for a challenge/objection to the teaching of the Church I will allow it to remain in the L&S forum. Any challenges/objections to any teaching of the Church, however should be made in the Apologetics forum. Thank you all.

 

[Brywan]

Thanks again for all of your replies–

Japhy, your final clarification did help and I think I get it!

I converted to Catholicism out of Evangelical Christianity --the Eucharist is what attracted me to the Church–and I am still astounded by the Mass–it seems I can never come to an “end” of my understanding it…the breadth, length, heighth and depth of God’s love which surpasses knowledge…grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace…