Why is the Eucharist called a bloodless sacrifice?

[Lazerlike42]

Worthwhile reading on this subject includes the section entitled “The metaphysical character of the Sacrifice of the Mass” in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Sacrifice of the Mass.

The theory which I have found to make the most sense out of both Church teaching, modern and historical, and the Holy Scriptures is based upon the very important distinction between death and oblation as we discuss the nature of sacrifice.

Bloody sacrifices have two parts: first the shedding of blood, and second the offering of that to God (called the oblation). One can kill an animal, but this is not a sacrifice. People kill animals all the time without the acts being sacrifices. Similarly, one can offer an animal to God, but this is not a sacrifice either. (For example, a man may offer his Ox to God for the plowing of fields to feed the hungry; this is a fine act, but it is no sacrifice). What constitutes a sacrifice is when the two acts are joined together: the animal is slain, and then offered to God. Thus, at the temple animals were slain, and then burned. They were drained of blood, and then the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, and so forth. Were a person to bring his animal to the temple, slay it, and then leave it there on the ground without in some way presenting it as an oblation, he would not have completed his sacrifice.

Now when we apply this principle to the Sacrifice of Christ, we see that on the cross He was slain and His blood shed, while in Heaven His oblation was presented. The book of Hebrews is a very key text concerning all of this. In the Temple sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, the high priest, having slain the animal, entered into the Holy of Holies to present it to God on the behalf of the people. Hebrews (9:24) explains that “Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” It is there that He “always live to make intercession” (Heb. 7:25) in His role as “high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.” (8:1-2) (I’m jumping around here to fit this into my explanation, but the implications of these sentences express the very same in the fuller context of reading the entire book as well.)

So basically, on earth, Christ was crucified - this is the death, the first part of the Sacrifice. Then, He ascended into Heaven, the Holy of Holies, where He presents His blood as an intercession on our behalf - this is the oblation, the second part. Now this Sacrifice is eternal - it is outside of time - as Heaven is eternal. If I am not mistaken, there are explicit mentions of the Sacrifice being “eternal” in Church documents. This also fits in perfectly with JPII when he says that Christ perpetuates the Sacrifice. It echoes Revelation’s declaration that Christ is the lamb standing before the throne of God as though slain, from the foundation of the world. In the Mass, the priest, acting in the person of Christ the High Priest who is eternally in Heaven offering Himself, holds in His hands Body and Blood of Christ which is at this moment, in virtue of its eternality, being offered to the Father, and offers it. In other words, in the Mass we on earth enter in (other language I believe the Church uses; I believe its already been quoted here) to that eternal offering of Christ. In time, we enter into that one offering which never ceases.

The death of Christ happened once, but the oblation is eternal. These are both two parts of one and the same Sacrifice, which is called the Sacrifice of the Cross having begun there, and so the Church says that it is one and the same Sacrifice, yet unbloody - for Christ need not die again.

 

[japhy]

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.

Yeah, I’ll wait until tomorrow. (Where’s the schedule?)

 

[malphono]

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

If anyone is interested (or even cares), in Syriac the word is doukhrono (zicharon in Hebrew) and is one of those words that does not translate all that well.

Yes, it means “remembrance” or “memorial” but the sense is rather that is more “remembering an on-going action” than merely a memory of a static event in the past. In other words, the idea is not “memory” as in “I remember when Sister Scholastica forced us to learn the Our Father in Latin” but rather more like, “I remember when Grandma taught me how to make this dish that we all enjoy, and every time I do it, she’s with me, guiding my hand.”

In the Syriac Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, for example, the anamnesis prayer (in translation) is

As many times as you eat of these Holy Mysteries, and drink from the Mixture that is in this Cup, you do so in my memory until I return.

We do it with the knowledge that the instruction was given the day before the fact, but at the same with the knowledge that His blood was shed and that He sacrificed Himself for our sake.

 

[japhy]

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).

…

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

“The cross” was a bloody event. So if “the cross” is made present, then we are re-encountering a bloody presentation of the sacrifice. That is different from saying “the sacrifice of the cross” (meaning the sacrifice which was offered upon the cross) is made present.

Christ made the sacrifice present before the cross, in an unbloody manner, the night before. I’m not saying, then, that the Last Supper is “made present”, but that whatever Christ did mystically on Holy Thursday, he does mystically at each Mass. I think the crucifixion was the historical (that is, temporal) “tapping into” that mystical event, “the sacrifice of the cross”.

 

[japhy]

Bloody sacrifices have two parts: first the shedding of blood, and second the offering of that to God (called the oblation). One can kill an animal, but this is not a sacrifice. People kill animals all the time without the acts being sacrifices. Similarly, one can offer an animal to God, but this is not a sacrifice either. (For example, a man may offer his Ox to God for the plowing of fields to feed the hungry; this is a fine act, but it is no sacrifice). What constitutes a sacrifice is when the two acts are joined together: the animal is slain, and then offered to God.

Right. I’ve written about this before on here too. (Here, here (although I had the “foot of the cross” mentality), here, here, and here.)

The immolation (death) on the cross was bloody. It is re-presented in an unbloody manner (the separate consecration of the bread and wine).

Now when we apply this principle to the Sacrifice of Christ, we see that on the cross He was slain and His blood shed, while in Heaven His oblation was presented.

And since the Mass is a participation in the Heavenly liturgy… I’m sure you see where I’m going with that.

Now this Sacrifice is eternal - it is outside of time - as Heaven is eternal. … In other words, in the Mass we on earth enter in (other language I believe the Church uses; I believe its already been quoted here) to that eternal offering of Christ. In time, we enter into that one offering which never ceases. The death of Christ happened once, but the oblation is eternal. These are both two parts of one and the same Sacrifice, which is called the Sacrifice of the Cross having begun there, and so the Church says that it is one and the same Sacrifice, yet unbloody - for Christ need not die again.

I agree completely!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Lazerlike,

Yes, the article in the CE is very good, especially as it lays out a cogent theory of sacrifice.

Would you agree that it doesn’t match the language often heard today of “we are present at the foot of the cross” in the sense that we are *really *present there, i.e. that the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Crucifixion are identical, the Mass being “hidden” sacramentally?

VC

 

[porthos11]

Lazerlike,

Yes, the article in the CE is very good, especially as it lays out a cogent theory of sacrifice.

Would you agree that it doesn’t match the language often heard today of “we are present at the foot of the cross” in the sense that we are *really *present there, i.e. that the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Crucifixion are identical, the Mass being “hidden” sacramentally?

VC

Well, I wouldn’t say the “foot of the cross” reference isn’t there, since the Catechism itself says:

**1370 **To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. **In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ. **

A simple reasoning is because Christ’s sacrifice is one and can never be repeated, therefore, the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary must be the same event, made present to us. So I can’t see where “at the foot of the cross” is so difficult to understand. It’s not a time machine thing, but anamnesis does indeed transcend time in a manner of speaking.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, I wouldn’t say the “foot of the cross” reference isn’t there, since the Catechism itself says:

**1370 **To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. **In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ. **

Right. But, again, the phrase “as it were” seems pregnant with meaning doesn’t it?

Look at how that passage contrasts our communion with Mary who now is in heaven, with Mary “at the foot of the cross”. My inclination would be to read “at the foot of the cross” the same way we can say the Church walks the “way of the cross” – it seems to me a figurative way of speaking, not a proposal that the cross is really present.

A simple reasoning is because Christ’s sacrifice is one and can never be repeated, therefore, the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary must be the same event, made present to us.

Ah, but here seems to me an instance of the difficulty. What do you mean when you say “event”? What “event” constitutes the identity (identity in the philosophical sense – read “identical”) between the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary?

VC

 

[Cluny]

Consider this prayer from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Note the emphasized words.

        We give thanks unto Thee, O Lord God of the Powers, Who hast
        accounted us worthy to stand even now before Thy holy altar,
        and to prostrate ourselves before Thy compassion for our
        sins and errors of the people. Accept our supplications, O
        God; ***make us worthy to offer unto Thee prayers and
        supplications, and bloodless sacrifices*** for all Thy people.
        And enable us, whom Thou hast appointed in this Thy
        ministry, by the power of Thy Holy Spirit, blamelessly and
        without offense, in the pure testimony of our conscience, to
        call upon Thee at all times and in every place; that hearing
        us, Thou mayest show mercy upon us according to the
        multitude of Thy goodness.

 

[porthos11]

Right. But, again, the phrase “as it were” seems pregnant with meaning doesn’t it?

Look at how that passage contrasts our communion with Mary who now is in heaven, with Mary “at the foot of the cross”. My inclination would be to read “at the foot of the cross” the same way we can say the Church walks the “way of the cross” – it seems to me a figurative way of speaking, not a proposal that the cross is really present.

“As it were” in the standard sense means, that it’s not formally so, but it’s practically right. In other words, the Church is saying that we are at the foot of the cross, in a manner of speaking. It’s basically true, although we wouldn’t formally put it that way, as opposed to Q.E.D.

Ah, but here seems to me an instance of the difficulty. What do you mean when you say “event”? What “event” constitutes the identity (identity in the philosophical sense – read “identical”) between the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary?

VC

I find it unnecessary to try to nitpick between “event” and “reality” and “identity” beyond what the Church says. She says that we are present with Mary, as it were, at the foot of the Cross. That should be a fair enough assessment of her understanding of anamnesis. The saving event is made present, and that should be good enough. How, that’s up to God. To think of it otherwise would be to deny that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same, and that, of course, is unacceptable.

Similar language is used elsewhere in the Catechism:

[1363](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1363.htm’) 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.184 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.

Again, we have the “in a certain way”, where the Church stops short of defining it Q.E.D., but nevertheless, she still says “present and real”, which is not the language of metaphor.

What matters is that the salvific event is present, and of that there should be no doubt.

 

[AJV]

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

Verbum Caro,
I think you are quite right. The closest theory to this that I’ve read is Dom Casel’s (which I think you are familiar with?). But since I’ve not read very many, I’m interested in what discussion and theories this thread turns up

The scholastics, especially after the Protestant Reformation, have many theories on how the unbloody sacrifice and the bloody sacrifice are one and the same. However to me, they seem to be distinct from this and more laid in the identity of the Priest and Victim being one and the same.

It seems to me that when certain Fathers or saints or books used to speak of the foot of the cross, they were speaking in a mystical and poetic sense. I can see how the sentiment is derived from the identity of the Mass and the Cross, but it seems to have been a bit stretched. I always feel a little strange when I read arguments like “we are doing X at Mass. Would we have done X at the foot of the cross?” because it seems to overextend the fact that the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacrifice on the Cross are one to include “accidents” of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

 

[benedictgal]

I still hold to the teaching that we are present at the salviffic mysteries of our Faith during every Mass.

I realize that St. Thomas Aquinas may not necessarily be the Catechism or the Magisterium, but, here is what he wrote in Lauda Sion:

What at Supper Christ completed
He ordained to be repeated,
in His memory Divine.
Wherefore now, with adoration,
we, the Host of our salvation,
consecrate from bread and wine.

Words a nature’s course derange,
that in Flesh the bread may change
and the wine in Christ’s own Blood.
Does it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of light transcending,
leaps to things not understood.

In Pange Lingua, the Angelic Doctor writes:

On the night of that Last Supper,
seated with His chosen band,
He the Pascal victim eating,
first fulfills the Law’s command;
then as Food to His Apostles
gives Himself with His own hand.

Word-made-Flesh, the bread of nature
by His word to Flesh He turns;
wine into His Blood He changes;
what though sense no change discerns?
Only be the heart in earnest,
faith her lesson quickly learns.

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail;
Lo! o’er ancient forms departing,
newer rites of grace prevail;
faith for all defects supplying,
where the feeble senses fail.

Inasmuch as he doesn’t directly say that it is an unbloody re-presentation, the words of both hymns make it rather clear. What Jesus did at the Last Supper mystically he brought about on Good Friday. As Pope Benedict said, you can’t separate the Last Supper from the Crucifixion and you can’t have the Resurrection without the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi porthos,

Thanks for the reply.

I find it unnecessary to try to nitpick between “event” and “reality” and “identity” beyond what the Church says.

That’s fine of course, if you wish, Porthos. But the premise of this thread, and the ongoing discussion is seeming to center around a nitpick. I’d tend to call it investigating the intricacies – attempting to understand and think with the mind of the Church – not a nitpick. But if you feel that our discussion goes beyond what you wish to consider, I understand and respect your view.

The saving event is made present, and that should be good enough. How, that’s up to God. To think of it otherwise would be to deny that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same, and that, of course, is unacceptable.

This is why I think I, and some other posters here, might be striving for a greater precision. You say that the saving event is made present. What is the event? The crucifixion? Or is it the sacrifice?

For instance you say that to deny that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same is unacceptable. But I am *forced *to deny they are one in the same. For as Trent states:
It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of His priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different.
Since the Mass and Calvary offer the sacrifice in different manners they can’t be numerically one. The sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of Calvary however are identical, considered as a sacrifice.

And that brings us back to the issues that have been raised throughout this thread. It doesn’t seem to me that the traditional language that the Church uses provides much traction for the theory that the Mass and Calvary (the historical event) are the same.

God bless,
VC

 

[benedictgal]

Hi porthos,

Thanks for the reply.

That’s fine of course, if you wish, Porthos. But the premise of this thread, and the ongoing discussion is seeming to center around a nitpick. I’d tend to call it investigating the intricacies – attempting to understand and think with the mind of the Church – not a nitpick. But if you feel that our discussion goes beyond what you wish to consider, I understand and respect your view.

This is why I think I, and some other posters here, might be striving for a greater precision. You say that the saving event is made present. What is the event? The crucifixion? Or is it the sacrifice?

For instance you say that to deny that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same is unacceptable. But I am *forced *to deny they are one in the same. For as Trent states:
It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of His priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different.
Since the Mass and Calvary offer the sacrifice in different manners they can’t be numerically one. The sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of Calvary however are identical, considered as a sacrifice.

And that brings us back to the issues that have been raised throughout this thread. It doesn’t seem to me that the traditional language that the Church uses provides much traction for the theory that the Mass and Calvary (the historical event) are the same.

God bless,
VC

But, the Mass and Calvary are the same. It’s not that we are repeating what happened at Calvary. What we do is go back to that moment. God lifts the veil between time and space. With God, everything is in the present because He is eternal. That is why I maintain my position that we are just as present at the Mass, at the foot of the Cross, if you will, as were the Blessed Mother, and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene.

Jesus’ sacrifice was once for all; however, He entrusted the Church through the Apostles and their successors, to offer this everlasting sacrifice. Remember, too, that Jesus’ words at the institution narrative are in the present. It is not “this was my body”; rather, it is “this is my body”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

AJV,

Ah, a compatriot!

I think you are quite right. The closest theory to this that I’ve read is Dom Casel’s (which I think you are familiar with?).

Yes. I am painfully acquainted with it. To be be honest it keeps me up at night sometimes.

But since I’ve not read very many, I’m interested in what discussion and theories this thread turns up

I am too.

The scholastics, especially after the Protestant Reformation, have many theories on how the unbloody sacrifice and the bloody sacrifice are one and the same. However to me, they seem to be distinct from this and more laid in the identity of the Priest and Victim being one and the same.

There seems to be three main theories (not all scholastic) regarding the metaphysical nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass: 1)the oblation theory, 2)the destruction theory and 3) some synthesis of the two

It seems to me that when certain Fathers or saints or books used to speak of the foot of the cross, they were speaking in a mystical and poetic sense.

I completely agree here – mystical, poetic, devotional, pastoral. We can also note that our imagination places certain limitations upon us. japhy noted above the numerous images of Calvary superimposed over the Mass in devotional art. I think the reason for this is because we need some way to represent the identity between Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and Christ’s (and our) sacrifice in the Mass. Sense we can’t represent sacrifice in the abstract, it is only natural to depict the mode of offering (i.e. the Crucifixion event) to represent the sacrifice.

I can see how the sentiment is derived from the identity of the Mass and the Cross, but it seems to have been a bit stretched.

Yes, me too. Sometimes I wonder if modern scientific notion – the theory of relativity, time dilation, time travel – provided a too fertile soil for a “hyper-realistic” theory of sacrifice.

I always feel a little strange when I read arguments like “we are doing X at Mass. Would we have done X at the foot of the cross?” because it seems to overextend the fact that the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacrifice on the Cross are one to include “accidents” of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Precisely.

I’ll also note that I sometimes wonder of Casel’s theory and its development hasn’t contributed to a general popular notion that Christ gave his glorified body to the disciples at the last supper. After all, if an historical event can be “outside of time” why couldn’t Christ who had not suffered or died yet give his already risen body to his disciples? I’ve developed in another thread why I think this view is inadequate and confusing.

Let’s keep pursuing this conversation! I think it can be a very profitable and interesting discussion.

VC

 

[Lazerlike42]

But, the Mass and Calvary are the same. It’s not that we are repeating what happened at Calvary. What we do is go back to that moment. God lifts the veil between time and space. With God, everything is in the present because He is eternal. That is why I maintain my position that we are just as present at the Mass, at the foot of the Cross, if you will, as were the Blessed Mother, and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene.

Jesus’ sacrifice was once for all; however, He entrusted the Church through the Apostles and their successors, to offer this everlasting sacrifice. Remember, too, that Jesus’ words at the institution narrative are in the present. It is not “this was my body”; rather, it is “this is my body”.

I think that this is not entirely correct, for all of the reasons Verbum Caro, AJV, and some others have presented. Personally, I subscribe to the oblation theory, which I mention because it’s helpful to illustrate the point here… the oblation theory is based (in part) on the fact that Christ’s offering in Heaven is eternal. The eternality of God comes in to play there, not in that we “go back” to Calvary. It’s not necessary to say that the veil of time and space is lifted to return us to Calvary. It is just as possible, and I would argue far more consistent with Scripture, the Fathers, and Church teaching, that the veil is lifted to make present to us the Heavenly liturgy, the eternal Heavenly offering of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Verbum Caro quoted from Trent to support his point, and bolded one phrase which you responsded to, about “the manner of offering.” There is another key phrase there, as well however: “the same person *now *offers it by the ministry of His priests, who *then *offered Himself on the cross.” The way in which He now offers it is different from how He then did, and it is only then that He offered it on the cross.

It’s important to note here that this stuff is theological speculation, rather than anything binding, so you’re free to have your view. So far as our theological speculation is concerned, however, I don’t think the theory you’re advancing is the best, or holds up in every way.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that this is not entirely correct, for all of the reasons Verbum Caro, AJV, and some others have presented. Personally, I subscribe to the oblation theory, which I mention because it’s helpful to illustrate the point here… the oblation theory is based (in part) on the fact that Christ’s offering in Heaven is eternal. The eternality of God comes in to play there, not in that we “go back” to Calvary. It’s not necessary to say that the veil of time and space is lifted to return us to Calvary. It is just as possible, and I would argue far more consistent with Scripture, the Fathers, and Church teaching, that the veil is lifted to make present to us the Heavenly liturgy, the eternal Heavenly offering of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Verbum Caro quoted from Trent to support his point, and bolded one phrase which you responsded to, about “the manner of offering.” There is another key phrase there, as well however: “the same person *now *offers it by the ministry of His priests, who *then *offered Himself on the cross.” The way in which He now offers it is different from how He then did, and it is only then that He offered it on the cross.

It’s important to note here that this stuff is theological speculation, rather than anything binding, so you’re free to have your view. So far as our theological speculation is concerned, however, I don’t think the theory you’re advancing is the best, or holds up in every way.

Actually, the Catechism supports my view point:

1085 In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teaching and anticipated it by his actions. When his Hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father “once for all.”[8] ***His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is - all that he did and suffered for all men - participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life. ***

1104 **Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present./**QUOTE]

We can never fully understand the salvific mysteries unfolding before us. That full understanding will not come until we, please God (as at the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus used to say), are in heaven.

I maintain what I have been taught and what I hear almost on a daily basis when my parochial vicar preaches at Mass and always concludes his homily, tying it to the Sacrifice on the Altar.

 

[porthos11]

Hi porthos,

Thanks for the reply.

That’s fine of course, if you wish, Porthos. But the premise of this thread, and the ongoing discussion is seeming to center around a nitpick. I’d tend to call it investigating the intricacies – attempting to understand and think with the mind of the Church – not a nitpick. But if you feel that our discussion goes beyond what you wish to consider, I understand and respect your view.

This is why I think I, and some other posters here, might be striving for a greater precision. You say that the saving event is made present. What is the event? The crucifixion? Or is it the sacrifice?

It’s really the whole Paschal Mystery that is made present: passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, since these can never be separated from each other.

For instance you say that to deny that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same is unacceptable. But I am *forced *to deny they are one in the same. For as Trent states:
It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of His priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different.
Since the Mass and Calvary offer the sacrifice in different manners they can’t be numerically one. The sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of Calvary however are identical, considered as a sacrifice.

And I can’t accept this, because it’s unbiblical if we don’t accept that the Mass and Calvary are the same Sacrifice, not identical sacrifices. The Sacrifice is once for all. It has to be one and only one, otherwise, the Mass is another Sacrifice. That’s unaccaptable. Again, a study of zikkaron is invaluable.

And that brings us back to the issues that have been raised throughout this thread. It doesn’t seem to me that the traditional language that the Church uses provides much traction for the theory that the Mass and Calvary (the historical event) are the same.

God bless,
VC

I really don’t care so much about the historical event, as the event, or the Mystery itself, which has already entered beyond time. But we already cited the Catechism, which admits practically, but not formally, that the event is made present at Mass. According to anamnesis, the Mystery, which includes the Sacrifice is made present. It has to be the same one, and cannot and ever be another without violating the Scriptural truth that the Sacrifice is once for all.

I seem to sense though that the whole notion of anamnesis is being disregarded on the thread.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Actually, the Catechism supports my view point:

Hi benedictgal,

I do understand and sympathize with your view. As I said above it was exactly what I was taught and have seen reiterated countless times. I’m just not sure how well it can really be supported.

benedictgal:

1085 ***His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is - all that he did and suffered for all men - participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life. ***

---

---

The above passage from the Catechism should be read in context. It is discussing the entire liturgy of the Church, and all the sacraments, not only the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Because of this it poses a problem (I would think) to superimpose this discussion in the Catechism directly onto the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Why? Because if it applies to all the Sacraments, then how is the Sacrifice of the Mass distinct from Baptism, or Holy Orders, etc?

If we say that we are “present at the foot of the cross” at Mass, and at Baptism . . . doesn’t that take some of the explanatory power of the notion regarding why the Mass is a sacrifice?

When I read 1085 carefully I notice this crucial point:all that Christ is - all that he did and suffered for all men - participates in the divine eternity, and so **transcends all times while being made present in them all.
**All that Christ is transcends time and is present in all times. The mystery of redemption is made present, in its power, throughout all time. But this doesn’t mean that the actual bloody crucifixion is made present in the way some wish to indicate.

Here’s the question: the Church teaches unequivocally that Christ is in Heaven, gloriously enthroned, and cannot suffer anymore. If that is so, how are we to understand being “present” at his suffering and death?

Perhaps it might be better to say that Christ is present to us, and that he makes his sacrifice present to us, and he offers that same sacrifice to the Father along with us. In other words, Christ bears the wounds of the Crucifixion, he offers those wounds, but he isn’t on the Cross.

benedictgal:

I maintain what I have been taught and what I hear almost on a daily basis when my parochial vicar preaches at Mass and always concludes his homily, tying it to the Sacrifice on the Altar.

benedictgal, perhaps you can ask your PV what he thinks? Perhaps he means that the sacrifice is one and the same.

This is a difficult and taxing subject. One of the major hurdles we all face, I think, is that once we learn or conclude something we tend view everything through that lens. Sometimes it can be profitable to “step outside” of our old notions and view things with fresh eyes. It takes a cognitive shift though.

As an experiment you might try to abandon for a short time the notion that we are actually at the foot of the Cross, and read the Church documents, Ratzinger, Aquinas, etc. anew and see if other theories can’t also fit. For instance, try not to read the phrase “Sacrifice of the Cross” as the actual crucifixion, but rather read it as the act of Christ offering his body and blood.

For instance read this illuminating passage from Mediator Dei:70. Likewise the victim is the same, namely, our divine Redeemer in His human nature with His true body and blood. The manner, however, in which Christ is offered is different. On the cross He completely offered Himself and all His sufferings to God, and the immolation of the victim was brought about by the bloody death, which He underwent of His free will. But on the altar, by reason of the glorified state of His human nature, "death shall have no more dominion over Him,"and so the shedding of His blood is impossible; still, according to the plan of divine wisdom, the sacrifice of our Redeemer is shown forth in an admirable manner **by external signs which are the symbols **of His death. For by the “transubstantiation” of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into His blood, His body and blood are both really present: now the eucharistic species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His body and blood. Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood.

Why does the Holy Father go to such pains to distinguish what actually took place on Calvary from what is taking place at Mass? And if we are present at the foot of Cross, why would we say that Christ is *symbolically *shown to “be in a state of victimhood” rather that say that we are mysteriously present at his crucifixion?

Just some thoughts, I’m interested in yours. Thanks for the discussion!

VC

 

[japhy]

I completely agree here – mystical, poetic, devotional, pastoral. We can also note that our imagination places certain limitations upon us. japhy noted above the numerous images of Calvary superimposed over the Mass in devotional art. I think the reason for this is because we need some way to represent the identity between Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and Christ’s (and our) sacrifice in the Mass. Sense we can’t represent sacrifice in the abstract, it is only natural to depict the mode of offering (i.e. the Crucifixion event) to represent the sacrifice.

That rings true to me. The Mass is the presentation of the sacrifice in a different manner (unbloody under the forms of bread and wine upon an altar) from the crucifixion (bloody under the form of his nature upon a cross). The two “manners” are juxtaposed in the artwork to identify one with the other, differing only in manner, since the artwork inevitably shows the consecration (which presents the IMMOLATION), and not the part of the Canon immediately after in which the priest says he is offering the Body and Blood to the Father.