Why is the Eucharist called a bloodless sacrifice?

[Binary]

My understanding of church teaching is that when this sacrament takes place, we are present at the foot of the cross while Christ is being sacrificed (certainly a bloody event). In this case, does “bloodless” refer to the gifts of bread and wine?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Binary,

As far as I can tell, that isn’t Church teaching.

It is one theory of what is happening. Regarding the theory itself, I’m not sure how widely accepted it is among theologians. It sometimes seems to me that the idea of actually being at the foot of the Cross (i.e. Mass as a kind of “time machine”) is more of a trend in popular thought.

Personally, I tend to see the Church steering away from such an idea. I don’t think it was understood this way traditionally.

I know that it is a common way to speak about the Mass, but I haven’t really figured out where it comes from or what supports it.

I think it is an excellent question and topic for a thread. I really look forward to the discussion and the contribution of our fellow forum members. I’m eager to learn more about the various theories of sacrifice in regard to the Mass, and perhaps try to more fully understand the above theory and how it squares with the teaching of the Church.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
VC

 

[Walking_Home]

Pope John Paul II —Ecclesia De Eucharistia

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDeEucharistia.html#anchor546721
Mystery of Faith

1. This aspect of the universal charity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is based on the words of the Savior Himself. In instituting it, He did not merely say: “This is My body”, “this is My blood”, but went on to add: “which is given for you”, “which is poured out for you” (Lk 22:19-20). Jesus did not simply state that what He was giving them to eat and drink was His body and His blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present His sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all.** “The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood**”.13

The Church constantly draws her life from the redeeming sacrifice; she approaches it not only through faith-filled remembrance,** but also through a real contact, since this sacrifice is made present ever anew, sacramentally perpetuated, in every community which offers it at the hands of the consecrated minister.** The Eucharist thus applies to men and women today the reconciliation won once for all by Christ for mankind in every age. “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”.14 Saint John Chrysostom put it well: "We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one… Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed".15
The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it.16 What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its “commemorative representation” (memorialis demonstratio),17 which makes Christ’s one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Relevant Catechism paragraphs on the “unbloody” nature of the Eucharist:

*1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, 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. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:
Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.
Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.*
The “manner” is different even though it is the same sacrifice. This sacrifice is made present truly and substantially under the species of bread and wine.

 

[benedictgal]

The Mass is an unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. At every Mass, the veil between time and space, and heaven and earth, is lifted. It is not a time machine because for God, every moment is in the present. Thus, we are just as present at the Last Supper, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord as were the Blessed Mother, Sts. John and Mary Magdalene, St. Peter and the other nine Apostles were.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The Mass is an unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. At every Mass, the veil between time and space, and heaven and earth, is lifted. It is not a time machine because for God, every moment is in the present. Thus, we are just as present at the Last Supper, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord as were the Blessed Mother, Sts. John and Mary Magdalene, St. Peter and the other nine Apostles were.

Hi benedictgal,

First, I want to reiterate my love for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and my desire to adhere solely to Church teaching, and to understand as much as possible the mind of the Church and conform my mind to it.

Second, it is my sincere hope that no one on this thread mistake my desire to enter into discussion about the holy mysteries of the Sacrifice of the Mass as anything subversive or that I have and desire whatsoever to contradict Church teaching.

I say both of these things because I think that a)this can be a heartfelt and personal subject, and b) we all might have preconceived notions of what the Sacrifice of the Mass is and c)those notions might be challenged.

My interest is mainly twofold – what does the Church actually teach about the Sacrifice of the Mass, and what are the various theories that are permissible.

I think I understand what you are saying above, I’ve often heard it repeated. But is that just a theory? Is there another way to read the Church’s teaching of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

For instance, if one looks at the various posts above you’ll see that the Church speaks of the Sacrifice of Calvary or the **Sacrifice **of the Cross.

It seems to me that there is a distinction between the Sacrifice of Cross and the actual crucifixion. I think currently there is a trend to read “sacrifice of the Cross” as equivalent to “the crucifixion.” But is that what the Church is really saying?

I hope that no one reject out of hand what I am pointing out. I think it merits some consideration. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion that helps us all appreciate the greatness of the Mass.

Looking forward to your response,
VC

 

[benedictgal]

Hi, Verbum Caro:

Pope Benedict XVI, in the homily that he preached for Holy Thursday 2007 made some very valid points. He noted that all three aspects of Triduum, Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Easter Vigil are interconnected. You cannot have one without the other two.

Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb - no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10: 18).

At the time when he offered his Body and his Blood to the disciples, he was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He himself offered his own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.

…Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb and without a temple; yet, not without a lamb and not without a temple. He himself was the awaited Lamb, the true Lamb, just as John the Baptist had foretold at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1: 29).

And he himself was the true Temple, the living Temple where God dwells and where we can encounter God and worship him. His Blood, the love of the One who is both Son of God and true man, one of us, is the Blood that can save. His love, that love in which he gave himself freely for us, is what saves us. The nostalgic, in a certain sense, ineffectual gesture which was the sacrifice of an innocent and perfect lamb, found a response in the One who for our sake became at the same time Lamb and Temple.

Thus, the Cross was at the centre of the new Passover of Jesus. From it came the new gift brought by him, and so it lives on for ever in the Blessed Eucharist in which, down the ages, we can celebrate the new Passover with the Apostles.

From Christ’s Cross comes the gift. “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord”. He now offers it to us.

The Last Supper anticipates the Sacrifice at Calvary, the Cross, if you will, when Jesus sheds His blood for us.

Here is what Pope Benedict said in his homily for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi:

If the close relationship between the Last Supper and the mystery of Jesus’ death on the Cross is emphasized on Holy Thursday, today, the Feast of Corpus Christi, with the procession and unanimous adoration of the Eucharist, attention is called to the fact that Christ sacrificed himself for all humanity.

He ties all of this up rather well in his book God is Near.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi benedictgal,

Thank you for the response.

That is a beautiful passage from a wonderful book. Thank you for sharing that with us.

I’m not sure I see, though, how it answers Binary’s specific question regarding “present at the foot of the cross”.

For instance you mentioned that we are *just *as present at the Death of Our Lord as St. John was. But I’m not sure if we are. St. John was actually present at the foot of the Cross.

While the sacrifice of Christ is made present to us at Mass, and the fruits of the Passion and Death become accessible to us, I’m not sure we can say that we are as present as St. John was to the actual cross on that hill almost 2000 years ago.

Do you see what I am getting at?

I know it is a common way of speaking lately (within the last 100 years or so?) But I’m not sure how it really fits in with much of what the Church holds forth regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I should note, too, that I was taught exactly the same thing as you mentioned. But as I began studying more, I began to find hints – intimations – that it was a fairly new theory.

Any thoughts?

VC

 

[Binary]

Hi benedictgal,

Thank you for the response.

That is a beautiful passage from a wonderful book. Thank you for sharing that with us.

I’m not sure I see, though, how it answers Binary’s specific question regarding “present at the foot of the cross”.

For instance you mentioned that we are *just *as present at the Death of Our Lord as St. John was. But I’m not sure if we are. St. John was actually present at the foot of the Cross.

While the sacrifice of Christ is made present to us at Mass, and the fruits of the Passion and Death become accessible to us, I’m not sure we can say that we are as present as St. John was to the actual cross on that hill almost 2000 years ago.

Do you see what I am getting at?

I know it is a common way of speaking lately (within the last 100 years or so?) But I’m not sure how it really fits in with much of what the Church holds forth regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I should note, too, that I was taught exactly the same thing as you mentioned. But as I began studying more, I began to find hints – intimations – that it was a fairly new theory.

Any thoughts?

VC

VC,

I think Benedictgal’s post was relevant to the discussion, but not meant to address the “present at the foot of the cross” idea. Walking Home’s post answers my question perfectly.

My confusion first came up when I attended a lecture given by the priest about the Eucharist, where he was explaining the different latin words for time, chronos versus kairos. Saying that we’re present at the foot of the cross is one way to put it, but I think it lends itself to being misunderstood.

Thanks to all of you for helping me understand this.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think it lends itself to being misunderstood.

Hi Binary,

I very much agree.

I must admit that I hope the conversation continues, even if you feel your question has been answered. But I’m glad you have been answered to your satisfaction!

Personally, I have a difficult time reconciling the notion that we are “present at the foot of the Cross” with the way the Church traditionally speaks of the Sacrifice of the Mass, if the “foot of the cross” is understood as the foot of the actual Cross that Christ was shedding his blood on.

If present “at the foot of the Cross” is understood in a more poetic way, and refers to the sacrifice considered in itself and not the cross itself then it seems much more easy to reconcile it with Church teaching that the Mass is the same sacrifice which once took place on the cross.

VC

 

[japhy]

Here is what the Council of Trent says regarding the “unbloody” nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session XXII, Chapter 2):
And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. 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. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one…
From Trent, then, we see that the Church teaches that Christ is still the victim (“the victim is one and the same”), Christ is still the priest (“the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross”), but Christ offers this sacrifice without again being slain and shedding his blood (since that has happened once and for all, and Christ no longer dies).

I don’t know that the Church officially teaches that we are “at the foot of the Cross”; rather, she teaches that the sacrifice is “made present”. Perhaps this means by extension that the circumstances or environment of the sacrifice (i.e. Calvary) are made present.

 

[porthos11]

Binary,

As far as I can tell, that isn’t Church teaching.

It is one theory of what is happening. Regarding the theory itself, I’m not sure how widely accepted it is among theologians. It sometimes seems to me that the idea of actually being at the foot of the Cross (i.e. Mass as a kind of “time machine”) is more of a trend in popular thought.

Personally, I tend to see the Church steering away from such an idea. I don’t think it was understood this way traditionally.

I know that it is a common way to speak about the Mass, but I haven’t really figured out where it comes from or what supports it.

I think it is an excellent question and topic for a thread. I really look forward to the discussion and the contribution of our fellow forum members. I’m eager to learn more about the various theories of sacrifice in regard to the Mass, and perhaps try to more fully understand the above theory and how it squares with the teaching of the Church.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
VC

The “time machine” theory is not the best way of explaining it, but yes, indeed we are present at the foot of the Cross, AND at the empty tomb, AND at the Ascension, while at the same time we are still in our own space and time.

The key to understanding this is to understand the ancient Jewish concept of zikkaron, or anamnesis in Greek, that is, the memorial in which the event being recalled is mystically made present. Jesus used the word “anamnesis”, and is worth the time to study. When Jesus said “anamnesis” at the Last Supper, and in the conext of the Passover, the disciples would have understood what he meant.

The idea of being “present” at the event is not novel at all, but has very ancient roots.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t know that the Church officially teaches that we are “at the foot of the Cross”; rather, she teaches that the sacrifice is “made present”.

Yes, japhy, that’s exactly what I mean, and I would point to the same portions of Trent as you.

japhy:

Perhaps this means by extension that the circumstances or environment of the sacrifice (i.e. Calvary) are made present.

I think the key word, as you highlight, is perhaps. I don’t think the Church teaches it. I’m not sure if the mind of the Church expresses itself in a way consistent with the theory. I’d like to find out.

I’m somewhat at a loss to understand how it could be the case that the attendant historical circumstances of the sacrifice are present when the manner of offering is not the same, Christ’s body can’t be separated from his bloody anymore, and He is enthroned gloriously in Heaven.

In other words it seems one thing to say that Christ and his action of offering himself (i.e. his sacrifice) transcends time, but it seems a different thing to postulate that the crucifixion itself, as an historical event, transcends time and is made present.

But if the attendant circumstances are not really present, in what way does it make sense to say that we are present at the crucifixion itself or the crucifixion itself (and not just its effects or its sacrifice) is made present to us?

What do you think, japhy?

VC

 

[Walking_Home]

The key to understanding this is to understand the ancient Jewish concept of zikkaron, or **anamnesis in Greek, that is, **the memorial in which the event being recalled is mystically made present. Jesus used the word “anamnesis”, and is worth the time to study. When Jesus said “anamnesis” at the Last Supper, and in the conext of the Passover, the disciples would have understood what he meant.

The idea of being “present” at the event is not novel at all, but has very ancient roots.

---

CCC

1354 In the **anamnesis **that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

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.182** 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 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 ever present.183 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."184

 

[japhy]

In other words it seems one thing to say that Christ and his action of offering himself (i.e. his sacrifice) transcends time, but it seems a different thing to postulate that the crucifixion itself, as an historical event, transcends time and is made present.

But if the attendant circumstances are not really present, in what way does it make sense to say that we are present at the crucifixion itself or the crucifixion itself (and not just its effects or its sacrifice) is made present to us? What do you think, japhy?

I’m curious whether the phenomenon of the zikkaron and anamnesis (translated loosely into English as “memorial”, but better rendered by “making-present”) pertains to the historical event itself (e.g. the exodus from Egypt; the Crucifixion) or to the spiritual reality made present in that event (e.g. the freedom from slavery and captivity; the sacrifice of Christ).

We say that at Mass, heaven meets earth. Heaven is timeless, so perhaps that’s why one might say that we go back to the Crucifixion (since in heaven there is no “time” to “go back” through). But I think it might be safer (in terms of what has been revealed to the Church) that we are experiencing the heavenly liturgy which involves the presence of “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Rev 5:6) and not the scene of the crucifixion itself.

In defense of “the crucifixion being made present”, I can call to mind numerous images – such as here and here – which depict the priest at the altar offering the Eucharist juxtaposed with Christ hanging on the crucifix. But I don’t know whether this art is merely the perception of a spiritual reality through a historical image, or whether it is the depiction of literal Catholic belief.

 

[japhy]

CCC 1362: The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

CCC 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.

CCC 1364: In the New Testament, the memorial takes on 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 ever present. “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”

So the question that Verbum Caro asks must still be asked: is the sacrifice something distinct from the historical setting? That is, when we say “the sacrifice of the Cross” is made present, do we mean that the historical and geographic event is made present, or do we mean that the action, the substance of the event is made present?

 

[japhy]

I am going to call Catholic Answers Live tonight with this very issue.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

who’s on tonight?

VC

 

[benedictgal]

who’s on tonight?

VC

I thought that the topic was going to be Spiritual Welfare? The one before that is about Oprah and New Age.

Tomorrow is Open Mike with Karl Keating and Tim Staples.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks, benedictgal.

japhy, when you do call (thanks, by the way), try to make the distinction between the mysteries of Redemption which are present in the Eucharist Sacrifice (since Christ, Himself is present) and the specific “foot of the cross” presence (whether it to us or we to it).

I think you are right about the anamnesis referring to the spiritual or mystical presence of the whole salvation event.

The difficulty I have is when people speak of the “the cross” as somehow present, in reality, through some sort of transcendence of time.

I don’t know what Karl Keating will say. But I’m pretty sure Jimmy Akin would say that the “transcending time” view (in the hyper-realistic way it’s often spoken of )doesn’t really find traction in the documents of the Church.

VC