Why is the Eucharist called a bloodless sacrifice?

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi benedictgal,

What do you think of the quotes I’ve provided from Sheen and Fernandez?

Well, during the Mass we enter God’s time. For God, he lives in the eternal present. Everything is in the present before His eyes.

But isn’t quite a qualifier to say that for God everything is in the present before His eyes? In this regard, not only the crucifixion, but the Nativity, the great Flood, the Fall, and the creation of the angels are present to God.

benedictgal:

That is why during the Mass, the veil between heaven and earth and time and space is lifted. As I have said (in quoting my parochial vicar), we are just as present at the Sacrifice of Calvary as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene.

I agree if by “Sacrifice of Calvary” you mean the sacrifice which for them happened to take place on Calvary, and not “the Crucifixion”, which is the sense I sometimes get when this is brought up. The difficulty with the former sense though (without qualifying it) is that St. John and St. Mary Magdalene were not only present at the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, they were actually present at Calvary. So, I think they might have been present to something we are not, if you see what I mean. In that respect it we mean “Sacrifice of Calvary” in the former sense, then it seems misleading to single out St. Mary Magdalene. We, could, for instance say that we are present at the sacrifice just as St. Peter was (i.e. at the Last Supper), and I think convey the former sense better.

But if you do mean it in the latter sense (i.e. we are present at the Crucifixion), can you help me understand, then, what exactly is being sacrifice or offered at the Mass under this view?

Thanks,
VC

 

[benedictgal]

Hi benedictgal,

What do you think of the quotes I’ve provided from Sheen and Fernandez?

But isn’t quite a qualifier to say that for God everything is in the present before His eyes? In this regard, not only the crucifixion, but the Nativity, the great Flood, the Fall, and the creation of the angels are present to God.

I agree if by “Sacrifice of Calvary” you mean the sacrifice which happened to take place on Calvary, and not “the Crucifixion”, which is the sense sometimes get when this is brought up. The difficulty with that way of speaking though (without qualifying it) is that St. John and St. Mary Magdalene were not only present at the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, they were actually present at Calvary. So, I think they might have been present to something we are not, if you see what I mean.

But if you do mean it in the latter sense (i.e. we are present at the Crucifixion), can you help me understand, then, what exactly is being sacrifice or offered at the Mass under this view?

Thanks,
VC

However, the real clincher is Jesus specifically saying “Do this in memory of me.” This statement appears nowhere else in Sacred Scripture. And, we cannot separate the Sacrifice at Calvary (the Crucifixion) from the Last Supper nor the Resurrection. Each one has elements of the other.

Here is what Pope Benedict said in the homily he preached durinig the 2007 Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper. While he does not refer to time and space, he unites all three aspects (Last Supper, Crucifixion, and Resurrection):

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 paschal haggada, the commemoration of God’s saving action, has become a memorial of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ - a memorial that does not simply recall the past but attracts us within the presence of Christ’s love.

I have not had a chance to sit down with my PV, but, once again, he made the same point towards the end of his homily. It remains a recurring theme for him, especially during Lent.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

we cannot separate the Sacrifice at Calvary (the Crucifixion) from the Last Supper nor the Resurrection. Each one has elements of the other.

Yes. But I’m not sure how that relates, exactly, to the discussion at hand. I don’t think anyone would deny that these three things are connected in some way. If in no other way, they are connected in relation to Christ who was the central figure in each.

benedictgal:

I have not had a chance to sit down with my PV, but, once again, he made the same point towards the end of his homily. It remains a recurring theme for him, especially during Lent.

It seems a worthy and edifying topic, especially for Lenten homilies. But, again, I just want to point out that there might be a difference regarding one’s purpose. It seems natural for the purpose of greater contemplation or to excite the virtue of piety and reverence to indicate that at Mass we are in a manner of speaking present at Calvary. A homily might have a different purpose than a theological treatise on how the Mass is a sacrifice.

It seems to me that often when a priest or saint speaks of being present at the crucifixion it is more a pastoral or devotional exercise than a statement on the metaphysics of the sacrifice of the Mass.

When you do get a change to speak with your vicar, perhaps you can show him the quote from In Conversation with God, and see what he thinks? Please let us know!

VC

 

[japhy]

japhy, I’m not quite sure what you mean exactly regarding the heavenly presentation of Christ’s eternal self-offering. Could you explicate what you mean by “heavenly presentation” and “self-offering”, especially as it relates to the notion of sacrifice?

The relation of the Persons of the Trinity is often described as the Father begetting the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from each as self-giving Love to the other. I would propose that Christ’s earthly life is the human manifestation of that total self-giving (i.e. sacrificial) love from the Son to the Father. It culminated in the crucifixion, which resulted not only in the glorification of Christ’s human nature, but the redemption of those whose nature he assumed (namely, us poor sinners).

Conjecturing further: Before the Incarnation, the Son’s eternal self-giving to the Father in Heaven manifested itself somehow. How, I have no idea. But after the Incarnation, Christ’s self-offering includes what his human nature provided: true body and true blood, offered temporally on the altar of the Cross, but offered eternally at the true altar in the true Temple in Heaven. (I might go so far as to suggest that the Eucharist at Mass/Divine Liturgy is a “better” presentation of what that eternal self-giving sacrifice is like, than the crucifixion is.)

So you asked: “What is it do you think we are witnessing in Heaven? What offering?”

I think on earth we witness a complex “type” of Christ’s self-giving to the Father – it involves crucifixion “realities” (separation of body and blood) with resurrection “realities” (concomitance, joining of Host and Chalice) with Last Supper “realities” (bread and wine) with offering-in-Heaven “realities” (the priest explicitly stating that he is offering the Eucharist to the Father after the Consecration) with sacrifice “realities” (the consumption of the Body and Blood).

I think in Heaven we will witness in a way we can’t imagine the true presence (the anti-type as the Eucharist on earth is a type) of that self-giving. I think it will still involve some of the “realities” I mentioned above, except more gloriously. The “marriage supper of the Lamb” is mentioned in Revelation, for example. Christ’s self-giving to the Father is manifested also, then, in his self-giving to his Bride, the Church.

(I have no degree in this stuff. I think it’s possible God is supplying right now.)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks japhy, excellent post and insights.

As you might know, I tend to strive for (where possible) precision, so that is why I asked about the offering you were referring to.

This part interests me:

I would propose that Christ’s earthly life is the human manifestation of that total self-giving (i.e. sacrificial) love from the Son to the Father. It culminated in the crucifixion, which resulted not only in the glorification of Christ’s human nature, but the redemption of those whose nature he assumed (namely, us poor sinners).

I think we might have a difficulty here, unintended of course. Here you seem to equate sacrificial with self-gift. But, I’m not sure those terms are coextensive. We know that sacrifices don’t necessarily involve the the priest as the victim, although in Christ’s case it did. But, what I am getting at is perhaps an even more important distinction – that sacrifice involves something more than the interior self gift. I think the questions is, then, did Christ as the Word sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? I’m inclined to think not. You hint at this when you start out by saying that “Christ’s earthly life. . .” but then you go onto say is a “manifestation of . . . that (sacrificial) love”. I think if you mean by “sacrificial love” an actual sacrifice in the proper sense, then we might have to examine that more closely.

If you mean “sacrifice” in an analogous way or in the way of “sacrificial sentiment” then I don’t think we have a problem. In other words, I think we need to somehow say that the Eucharist (Last Supper, the Mass) and the Crucifixion are proper sacrifices, and that what happened before the Incarnation, and what happens in Heaven after the Incarnation, is not *exactly *a sacrifice.

japhy:

I think in Heaven we will witness in a way we can’t imagine the true presence (the anti-type as the Eucharist on earth is a type) of that self-giving. I think it will still involve some of the “realities” I mentioned above, except more gloriously. The “marriage supper of the Lamb” is mentioned in Revelation, for example. Christ’s self-giving to the Father is manifested also, then, in his self-giving to his Bride, the Church.

This seems much closer to referencing a distinction between sacrifice proper (here on Earth) and the self-giving/offering in Heaven.

Enjoying our continued discussion! Any thoughts on the above?
VC

 

[japhy]

Any thoughts on the above?

Always.

I think we might have a difficulty here, unintended of course. Here you seem to equate sacrificial with self-gift. But, I’m not sure those terms are coextensive. We know that sacrifices don’t necessarily involve the the priest as the victim, although in Christ’s case it did.

I would posit that the purest sacrifice is when the one sacrificing and the thing sacrificed are the same: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

perhaps … sacrifice involves something more than the interior self gift. I think the question is, then, did Christ as the Word sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? I’m inclined to think not.

By “Christ as the Word”, I assume you mean pre-Incarnation? At the very least, the Word assented to the plan of the Father which would involve his eventual Incarnation and death. But perhaps we are caught up in the temporal and physical concept of sacrifice, whereby something has to “die” or be “cut off”. There is no such concept, I would argue, in the eternal realms.

You hint at this when you start out by saying that “Christ’s earthly life. . .” but then you go onto say is a “manifestation of . . . that (sacrificial) love”. I think if you mean by “sacrificial love” an actual sacrifice in the proper sense, then we might have to examine that more closely.

What I meant is that by Christ’s life on earth, he manifested in the flesh what he was eternally manifesting as the Son: an existence of utter self-gift to the Father. The consequence of that self-gift for his Incarnation was death on a cross in obedience to the will of the Father.

I think we need to somehow say that the Eucharist (Last Supper, the Mass) and the Crucifixion are proper sacrifices, and that what happened before the Incarnation, and what happens in Heaven after the Incarnation, is not *exactly *a sacrifice.

I would still question whether our temporal and material sense of sacrifice is only a type of the eternal and spiritual true sacrifice (the anti-type). It’s just conjecture on my part.

In Heaven, the sacrifice (or, more accurately, the offering) is now (post-Incarnation) being carried out in a way that was not possible before the Incarnation. Before the Incarnation, the Son’s self-giving to the Father did not include his intercession for us by his very flesh and blood. I’m sure it anticipated it, but it was not yet accomplished. But now that Christ is before the Father in his glorified flesh and blood, he can offer himself to the Father in a way that fulfills both the spiritual and the physical requirements of sacrifice. In other words, he has always been presenting himself as a “spiritual sacrifice”; now he is presenting himself both as a spiritual sacrifice and a physical sacrifice.

But perhaps you are right… Since sacrifice has the immolation and oblation aspects, I don’t really know what might be deemed as the Son’s pre-Incarnation “spiritual immolation”. Perhaps, then, the Son was not “sacrificing” himself before the Incarnation, but was, in some other sense, “self-giving”.

Let me do some summarizing of my position…

(I want to avoid suggesting that the Son’s self-giving love to the Father was somehow incomplete without his Incarnation and physical sacrifice, because that would then imply God created the universe – and us – for His own perfection or completion, which means God is not perfect or complete in Himself!)

By means of the Incarnation, the perfect eternal “sacrifice” (the Son’s self-giving love to the Father) is united with the perfect temporal “sacrifice” (Christ’s obedience unto death for our redemption). The Son’s self-giving love manifested itself temporally as the sacrifice on the cross, but that love was not perfected or otherwise altered, simply manifested in the physical and temporal order. In the Mass, we are witnessing the union of the “eternal sacrifice” and the “temporal sacrifice” presented by different temporal means than the crucifixion that “cross over” into eternal (heavenly, spiritual) means: bread and wine transubstantiated and offered. Someone at the foot of the cross wasn’t witnessing the “eternal” aspect, just like the Son – before the Incarnation – was not presenting the “temporal” aspect. We are witnessing both.

Your turn.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the excellent reply japhy. I’ll dig in!

japhy:

By “Christ as the Word”, I assume you mean pre-Incarnation?

Yes.

japhy:

At the very least, the Word assented to the plan of the Father which would involve his eventual Incarnation and death. But perhaps we are caught up in the temporal and physical concept of sacrifice, whereby something has to “die” or be “cut off”. There is no such concept, I would argue, in the eternal realms.

Yes, exactly, those in heaven cannot die or be harmed . . . this, I think, is where the problem might be in regard to an actual sacrifice, properly speaking, in heaven.

japhy:

What I meant is that by Christ’s life on earth, he manifested in the flesh what he was eternally manifesting as the Son: an existence of utter self-gift to the Father. The consequence of that self-gift for his Incarnation was death on a cross in obedience to the will of the Father.

Right. But, again, this is what I am getting at – the consequence you speak of was only possible here in the wayfaring (and passable!) state. If true sacrifice requires some consequence (and I think it does) then. . . well, I think you might see where this is leading.

japhy:

I would still question whether our temporal and material sense of sacrifice is only a type of the eternal and spiritual true sacrifice (the anti-type). It’s just conjecture on my part.

It is a good question. Let me line up some interesting quotes, and you will see what has formed my thoughts on the matter:

The “heavenly sacrifice” of Christ, the existence of which is assumed by Thalhofer, Zill, and Schoulza, cannot be deduced from the Epistle to the Hebrews. In heaven Christ no longer sacrifices Himself. . .(Pohle, Joseph. “Sacrifice.” The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Which could use a bit of explanation.

A “sacrifice,” properly speaking, requires that something be done to the thing which is offered to God, for instance animals were slain and burnt, the bread is broken, eaten, blessed. The very word signifies this, since “sacrifice” is so called because a man does something sacred [facit sacrum]. On the other hand an “oblation” is properly the offering of something to God even if nothing be done thereto, thus we speak of offering money or bread at the altar, and yet nothing is done to them. Hence every sacrifice is an oblation, but not conversely. “First-fruits” are oblations, because they were offered to God, according to Deuteronomy 26, but they are not a sacrifice, because nothing sacred was done to them. “Tithes,” however, are neither a sacrifice nor an oblation, properly speaking, because they are not offered immediately to God, but to the ministers of Divine worship.(St.Thomas Aquinas, ST, II-II, 85, 3, ad. 3)

Abbot Vonier states it very forcibly:

There has been a tendency with certain pious minds to give to the Eucharistic mystery, and above all to the Eucharistic sacrifice, a heavenly prolongation; not in the sense of all things reaching consummation through the power of the Eucharist, but in the sense of a real continuation of the Eucharistic immolation in its proper kind. Some have spoken of the *sacrificium coeleste *(heavenly sacrifice) as being the third phase of a great sacrificial plan of which the first two phases would be the Calvary sacrifice and the earthly Eucharistic sacrifice. This introduces a useless confusion into theological thought. Heaven has no sacrifice (. . .)

It is clear that Saint Thomas knows of no sacrificium coeleste in the true sense of sacrifice. All sacrificial activity is in the militant Church. (. . .) The offerings laid on that heavenly altar are no longer Body and Blood, but the prayers of the saints.(Abbot Vonier, *A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, *pp. 173-174, Zaccheus Press (2003))

And Ott:

V. Thalhofer assumes a true heavenly sacrifice of Christ, in which the Transfigured Christ perpetually offers Himself to the heavenly Father. In the consecration the celestial High Priest and with Him His sacrifice, enter earthly time and space. By the separated forms, the inward sacrificial act, which is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, is made visible, represented ad extra. The point of departure of this explanation, the assumption of a true heavenly sacrifice of Christ, is very questionable, for a true sacrifice involves not merely an inward sacrificial act, but also an external sacrificial action. (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book IV, Part 3, Section 2.24)

japhy:

In Heaven, the sacrifice (or, more accurately, the offering). . .

Ah! Yes, an offering but not a sacrifice, that corresponds neatly with the above and with my line of thinking.

But then we part ways again ,

japhy:

But now that Christ is before the Father in his glorified flesh and blood, he can offer himself to the Father in a way that fulfills both the spiritual and the physical requirements of sacrifice.

I’m not sure what you mean by the physical requirements of sacrifice. If you’ll note the above there seems something required more than just* being *physical, i.e. there is something else needing to be done.

I want to note that the quotes I provided above were purposefully redacted to exclude some rather intriguing points regarding Christ’s priesthood which does exist in heaven. But I didn’t want to get to that just yet (but I think when we do it will be very profitable for us). I just wanted to focus on the idea of a sacrifice in heaven.

Good discussion! Your turn?
VC

 

[japhy]

Yes, exactly, those in heaven cannot die or be harmed . . . this, I think, is where the problem might be in regard to an actual sacrifice, properly speaking, in heaven.

Right. My position is that “sacrifice” in heaven consists solely of oblation (“offering”, in this case, “self-offering”) without immolation (since immolation is not possible). In my (present) mindset, that doesn’t make “sacrifice” impossible in heaven, it just means that in heaven, “sacrifice” is different from on earth.

The consequence you speak of was only possible here in the wayfaring (and passable!) state. If true sacrifice requires some consequence (and I think it does) then. . . well, I think you might see where this is leading.

I think I do see.

Ah! Yes, an offering but not a sacrifice, that corresponds neatly with the above and with my line of thinking.

Right. The working definition of “sacrifice” (for me) is an immolation followed by an oblation. Christ’s sacrificial death involved an immolation on earth but the oblation in heaven. I’ve been treating the two parts as a constitutive whole: “sacrifice”. The quotes you included seemed to lean towards “sacrifice” = “immolation”. But I understand the point they’re makign.

I’m not sure what you mean by the physical requirements of sacrifice. If you’ll note the above there seems something required more than just* being *physical, i.e. there is something else needing to be done.

My language of “physical requirements of sacrifice” seems to correspond to yours of “consequence”. Now, post-Incarnation, the Son’s self-offering to the Father includes the Son’s flesh and blood. In other words, now the Son’s self-offering includes something that had “consequences”. The Son’s self-offering now makes up a whole sacrifice. (I repeat that the Son’s pre-Incarnation self-offering without the immolation was in no way imperfect or incomplete. It simply was not the sacrifice which redeems us.)

So, let me re-present my position.

The Son, in pre-Incarnation eternity (I can barely wrap my head around that!) offers himself to the Father: self-giving love. This is his eternal “oblation”.

When the Son became Incarnate, that self-giving offering necessitated a “consequence” (a “physical requirement”) because it entered the temporal order. This temporal immolation is then mystically joined in heaven to the eternal self-offering (oblation), raising the earthly sacrifice to the heavenly and eternal state. So the temporal immolation and the eternal oblation are united (hypostatically, I would argue) in the Incarnate Word now in Heaven.

So what happened on the Cross – “the sacrifice of the Cross” – was the physical manifestation (consequence) of the Son’s eternal self-offering entering the temporal realm. To restate that: the cross was the immolation that a temporal offering requires, because when Christ’s eternal offering entered the temporal realm, it necessitated an immolation for it to be a true sacrifice, since an offering in the temporal realm necessitates some “consequence”.

What we witness at the Mass is that hypostatic union of temporal immolation and eternal oblation. The temporal element is re-presented under a sign (in bread and wine consecrated separately), and this is only possible because the temporal immolation has been united hypostatically to an eternal oblation. The eternal element is not so much “re-presented” (since an eternal thing can’t be “re”-anything!) as it is manifested: the Eucharist is offered to the Father by the Son, through the hands of the priest acting in the person of Christ.

What makes the temporal element’s re-presentation absolutely necessary is the fact that Christ is present bodily in heaven, and not only bodily, but bearing the wounds of his glorious Passion (as St. John attests to: “a Lamb standing as though slain”). Since the temporal and eternal are hypostatically united, where the eternal is manifested, the temporal must also be.

Are we closer to agreement?

(P.S. This is an awesome exercise. Does anyone else out there think about this stuff?)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

japhy,

I want to look over your latest post more closely when I can give it more time, so hopefully I’ll come back to it soon.

But, I wanted to give you something else to chew on because I think it might help refine the discussion re: “sacrifice” in heaven vs. sacrifice of the Mass/sacrifice of Calvary (note my deliberate construction there, the quotes and grouping ).

This footnote from Gihr:

this heavenly oblation of Christ is no sacrificatio vel immolatio corporis et sanguinis Christi – and consequently, it is no sacrifice in the real and strict sense as are the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Mass. – Therefore, the celebration of the Eucharist is a verum sacrificium and not a mere oblatio, since therein, as the Council of Trent says, Christ according to His humanity is offered in an unbloody, but yet true and real manner – incruente immolatur (sacrificatur, in statu victimae ponitur hic et nunc). But this last quality (actualis positio in statu victimae) is not to be found in the humanity of Christ, inasmuch as it is glorified in heaven, and therefore – because this requisite which is essential for the complete idea of sacrifice is wanting – there can be no question of heavenly sacrifice in the strict sense of the word. The heavenly interpellatio of Christ is indeed an oblatio sacerdotalis, but no actio sacrifica.

Read over this slowly, I think it pays back. It is a footnote which explicates the following passage, which also is very helpful:

Our Saviour having ascended into heaven does not sacrifice Himself, inasmuch as He is in the glory of the Father, but only inasmuch as He is present on our earthly altars under the sacramental species; in heaven He is not in the state of Sacrificial Lamb. . .

Note that in the above there is the unusual (at least to our 21st century ears) construction “does not. . . inasmuch as . . . but only inasmuch as”. That should be read, I believe, as “does not. . . because . . . but does when”, if you follow.

Again, thanks for the excellent exchange, and I hope to follow up with more soon.
VC

 

[japhy]

But, I wanted to give you something else to chew on because I think it might help refine the discussion re: “sacrifice” in heaven vs. sacrifice of the Mass/sacrifice of Calvary (note my deliberate construction there, the quotes and grouping ).

I think I can say I agree completely with the quote from Gihr. The heavenly act is only oblation, not immolation. Christ has already been immolated, once only, and temporally.

As for the second note, I agree that the immolation being re-presented is “earthly” (or “temporal” as I keep saying).

The only part I question is the meaning of “in heaven He is not in the state of Sacrificial Lamb”. St. John clearly sees “a Lamb standing as though slain”. If the note does not preclude the understanding that “in heaven He is in the state of the Sacrificed Lamb”, then I can agree with it. Christ in heaven dies no more, of course, but he bears the glorious wounds of his death nonetheless.

 

[cesmit2]

You all should watch the video by Dr. Scott Hahn titled - “The Fourth Cup”. I would also suggest reading up on Jewish history to find out more about the Mass and what is taking place. The Mass is not just the representation of the sacrifice at Calvary but moreover it is a complete beginning and end of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

When did the Passover event begin for Christ?
When did the Passover event end for Christ?

When does the Passover event begin for all of us?
When does the Passover event end for all of us?

Once you have the answers to these questions you will be much better informed about the Mass as a whole.

Peace!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Right. My position is that “sacrifice” in heaven consists solely of oblation (“offering”, in this case, “self-offering”) without immolation (since immolation is not possible). In my (present) mindset, that doesn’t make “sacrifice” impossible in heaven, it just means that in heaven, “sacrifice” is different from on earth.

japhy,

As Gihr says, he doesn’t think the controversy that surrounds (then surrounded*, but, I think once again surrounds!) the notion of a “heavenly sacrifice” is a serious theological issue but rather one of terminology. I tend to agree in your case (but I’m not sure in all cases of those who posit a “heavenly sacrifice”). I don’t prefer the term personally because I feel it introduces needless imprecision. I would rather hold to the more traditional distinction that true sacrifices, sacrifices proper*, only occur here on earth and are an aspect of religion. They aren’t needed in heaven, partly because propitiation is not needed in heaven.

Recall the four ends of sacrifice: adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation. Which one of these is the “soul” of sacrifice? It seems to me propitiation. Adoration, thanksgiving, and petition can be done in other ways. . . but propitiation seems to require (to be intimately bound up in) sacrifice.

So I would say, like the worthies who went before us, that the only “sacrifice” in heaven is an analogous one. But, in the strict sense, I would say sacrifice is impossible in heaven just as *faith *is, if you see my meaning.

The fascinating (and I think important point for our discussion) is that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a true (strict) and absolute sacrifice. And the Sacrifice of the Mass (and Last Supper) is a true but relative sacrifice.

japhy:

The working definition of “sacrifice” (for me) is an immolation followed by an oblation. Christ’s sacrificial death involved an immolation on earth but the oblation in heaven. I’ve been treating the two parts as a constitutive whole: “sacrifice”.

Why is that, do you believe? If the Sacrifice of the Cross required an oblation in heaven, when did this occur? At the Ascension?

japhy:

The Son, in pre-Incarnation eternity (I can barely wrap my head around that!) offers himself to the Father: self-giving love. This is his eternal “oblation”.

So far I am with you, because an oblation is not necessarily a sacrifice, as was mentioned above.

japhy:

When the Son became Incarnate, that self-giving offering necessitated a “consequence” (a “physical requirement”) because it entered the temporal order. This temporal immolation is then mystically joined in heaven to the eternal self-offering (oblation), raising the earthly sacrifice to the heavenly and eternal state.

Perhaps you can develop this further? It seems to return to my question above. . . when did this happen?

japhy:

So what happened on the Cross – “the sacrifice of the Cross” – was the physical manifestation (consequence) of the Son’s eternal self-offering entering the temporal realm. To restate that: the cross was the immolation that a temporal offering requires, because when Christ’s eternal offering entered the temporal realm, it necessitated an immolation for it to be a true sacrifice, since an offering in the temporal realm necessitates some “consequence”.

I don’t follow the last clause. Not all oblations need an immolation. Sacrifice, however, seems to require both.

japhy:

Are we closer to agreement?

japhy, the last two paragraphs of your post have much interesting in them, and I’d like to ponder it a bit more and discuss it in time. First, I wanted to just clarify some points.

Looking forward to your reply. Thanks!
VC

 

[japhy]

I tend to agree in your case (but I’m not sure in all cases of those who posit a “heavenly sacrifice”). I don’t prefer the term personally because I feel it introduces needless imprecision.

I’m fine with avoiding that terminology, then.

The fascinating (and I think important point for our discussion) is that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a true (strict) and absolute sacrifice. And the Sacrifice of the Mass (and Last Supper) is a true but relative sacrifice.

Could you describe “absolute” and “relative” here? I just want to make sure I know what you mean by distinguishing one from the other.

Why is that, do you believe? If the Sacrifice of the Cross required an oblation in heaven, when did this occur? At the Ascension?

Since it was only after the Ascension that Jesus’s body entered heaven, I might be tempted to say yes. I could also say yes in the sense that Jesus commended his spirit to his Father’s hands as he expired on the cross, and could have spiritually presented his body to the Father between the time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.

I’d be curious to know how the Sacrifice of the Cross could be made present in our day without it having an eternal component (namely, the offering in heaven).

Perhaps you can develop this further? It seems to return to my question above. . . when did this happen?

The letter to the Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is our high priest and that every high priest must have something to offer (or else he is no priest at all). So Christ as our eternal high priest is offering something in heaven, and he makes intercession for us by means of that offering. Christ brought his own blood into the heavenly sanctuary as his offering.

Are you asking why Christ’s death on the cross needed a heavenly completion whereas every other blood sacrifice did not? I would give this initial answer: the O.T. priests were making their sacrifice in a copy of the heavenly sanctuary, but the crucifixion was not done there: it had to be consummated in the true sanctuary.

Not all oblations need an immolation. Sacrifice, however, seems to require both.

Following the reasoning from your first paragraph, since Christ’s purpose was (in part) propitiatory, it had to be sacrificial. Thus, in Christ’s obedience to his Father’s will (which is part of his eternal self-offering: obedience), he accepted death; and not just any death, but a sacrificial death. Thus, the Son’s eternal self-offering (oblation), when manifested in the temporal realm through the Incarnation, necessitated (because of the reason for which he was sent) an immolation which could not have occurred in heaven because it is impossible there.

I am very much interested in examining (together) this notion of the “hypostatic” nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. I hope we can reconcile our differences of terminology (or otherwise) and move ahead! Let me know if there is still some disconnect between us.

 

[goodnewsgreatjo]

What is sacrifice? Sacrifice is suffering for another. Forgiveness is a type of sacrifice. An unwanted pregnancy is an opportunity for a mother to make a sacrifice for the baby in her womb - however conceived. Abortion is wrong not because it is the killing of a human being (it is) but because the opportunity to make a willing sacrifice for another is declined (Luke 6:27-36). By abortion, a mother denies her nobility. Abortion is an admission of baseness – of cravenness. It is a denial of who we are meant to be. The concept of a willing sacrifice for others is a notion that has been deprecated in our culture. We have forgotten our nobility. God, however, intended us to be noble like Him (Genesis 1:26). Nobility was God’s gift to us (Genesis 1:26).

For a sacrifice to be noble, however, willingness must attach itself to it. There is no nobility (Genesis 1:26) in a passage through a gauntlet of suffering without willingness. There is no nobility (Genesis 1:26) to slashing the throat of a sacrificial lamb who has not consented to the sacrifice. For Isaac, the reluctant victim, there was no nobility to his suffering. It was suffering at its evilest. For Abraham, His willingness to sacrifice His dearly beloved son for another, in this case for God, revealed his nobility (Genesis 22: 1-18) and by way of allegory revealed something about the most Holy Trinity (Mark 15:22-24). Imagine the nobility in this affair had Isaac been a willing participant in the sacrifice (Mark 15:22-24). Suffering against the will is nugatory. Voluntary suffering, however, is a horse of a different color.

Is the Mass a sacrifice? Tradition tells us that the Mass is a sacrifice. Sorry to be an iconoclast but I don’t see anything sacrificial about the Mass. Moreover, we should be wary of applying the word, ‘sacrifice’ to things that are not a sacrifice because doing so dilutes the meaning of the word. We do not want to dilute the meaning of a willing sacrifice for others. It is the touchstone of a life well lived.

Compare the real sacrifice of the Son of God with the so called sacrifice of the Mass.

The most Holy Trinity cast the hook of salvation into the pool of humanity to fish for the children of Adam and Eve. Even though the hook was sharp and the bait was live, they had impaled one of themselves, Jesus, the Son of God, upon it while He was human, alive and vulnerable. They did this gratuitously, willingly and pursuant to their unanimous consent. Running Jesus through the gauntlet of gruesome sacrifice was done for a purpose. It was done to demonstrate their radical love for us. Suffering is a price we only willingly pay for something that is extremely dear to us. God paid the price in the coin of suffering because we are extremely dear to Him.

At Mass, nobody gets impaled on the hook of salvation. The Mass is bloodless. No one is passing through the gauntlet of suffering. The Mass is painless. The evidence that my eyes see and my ears hear about the Mass tells me that the Mass is not a sacrifice even though tradition has been making such a claim. Besides, we don’t really want to mix a faux sacrifice with the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, do we? The mixing of the faux with the real would only cause confusion. We demean a true sacrifice by mislabeling. Mixing horse meat with beef is done because beef is more expensive than horse meat and by mixing the two together and labeling the combination as beef, the sellers of the combination, through fraud, increase their profits. There is absolutely no need for us to commit fraud by mislabeling the Mass.

The Mass is not a sacrifice. It is a reminder of God’s Sacrifice. In fact, it is a very special reminder.

The Mass is a victory party thrown by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit to commemorate and celebrate the successful passage of Jesus, God the Son, one of the most Holy Trinity, through the gruesome sacrifice of His passion and death on a cross. Wow! By Jove, He did it! He made it through! He didn’t quit. He crossed the finish line of a grueling race (2 Timothy 4:7). Bravo! Congratulations! Thanks be to God! It is time to strike up a song, break out the food and drink and clap our hands in happy celebration! A great love for us is burning in the heart of the Son of God. It made Him willing, while human, alive and vulnerable, to impale Himself upon the sharp hook of salvation to serve as bait cast into the pool of humanity to fish for the children of Adam and Eve. The bait lures the children of Adam and Eve back home to paradise where we can live our lives in abundant, eternal and perfect happiness with God and His family. The gruesome sacrifice opened a great expressway (Isaiah 35) for the children of Adam and Eve on which to escape through the hostile desert from the yoke of pharaoh to the promised land. The Mass commemorates the grand opening of this new escape route from godlessness to God. The significance of Jesus’s successful passage through the gauntlet of gruesome sacrifice is confirmed by the number, frequency and geographic distribution of the victory parties that God the Father and God the Spirit throw to commemorate and celebrate it whenever a priest says a Mass. The most Holy Trinity has been throwing parties for Jesus for more than two thousand years on every continent across the face of the earth! The Mass is an event as extraordinary as the gruesome sacrifice itself because, during Mass, Jesus, the Son of God, pays us a visit Himself. And He does not come empty-handed. He is not that kind of visitor. The Mass would be a poor facsimile of a party without food and drink being served. Therefore, we bring to the table the bread and wine and Jesus brings to the table His body and blood. In His body and blood is the gift of divinity.

Note: This post was too long by 1839 characters. To read the conclusion go to
goodnewsgreatjoy.com/notes-on-our-progress/2013/3/5/sacrifice.html