Why is the Eucharist called a bloodless sacrifice?

[japhy]

Tuesday evenings from 6:30 - 7:45 I’m teaching Religious Education, so I might not be able to ask the question tonight. However, there is snow coming in, so R.E. might be canceled, in which case I can ask tonight.

If all else fails, I’ll ask on Open Line on Friday.

 

[porthos11]

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.

I don’t see how this is incompatible, after all, the Crucifixion is the climax of the mystery of redemption. The Mass is primarily, a making present of the whole Paschal Mystery, of which the Crucifixion is central.

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?

I’d use the imagery from the Book of Revelation, where we see the Lamb, standing (and therefore, alive) as if slain (i.e. bearing the marks of his death). That death is ever present in the heavenly liturgy.

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.

Perhaps, this is not an unfair way of understanding it, and is compatible with Revelation’s imagery. Again, I’m not a proponent of the “time travel” imagery, which is too mechanical. But anamnesis was always understood to have made the event present in a mystical way, so yes, it’s fair (and the Catechism states as much) to understand it that Calvary (i.e. the Crucifixion) is indeed present, but always along with the Resurrection.

1. 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?

Because sacraments are symbols, and of that there should by no doubt. But they are efficacious symbols which, as the Catechism states, make present the realities they symbolize.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

Right. The “paschal mystery” is made present at the Mass, just as it is made present in all the sacraments. But I think in this thread we are considering something unique to the Mass. It might be helpful to keep in mind that we are speaking of the sacrifice of the Mass, not the liturgy, not the Eucharist as sacrament, but the physical and metaphysical *sacrificial *nature of the Mass.

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.

I’m not sure what you mean here Porthos. I use “identical” as equivalent to “same”. The reason that the Crucifixion and the Mass can’t be identical is because of the various things which are not the same: bloody vs. unbloody, passible body vs. impassible body, subordinate priests vs. sole priest. But the Church has consistently taught that the Sacrifice is the essentially the same: the same priest, the same victim.

The Sacrifice is once for all. It has to be one and only one, otherwise, the Mass is another Sacrifice. That’s unaccaptable.

No one would deny it.

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

No, not disregarded. But there is a distinct consideration that anamnesis does not fully answer, namely how the Mass itself is a propitiatory sacrifice.

I don’t see how this is incompatible, after all, the Crucifixion is the climax of the mystery of redemption. The Mass is primarily, a making present of the whole Paschal Mystery, of which the Crucifixion is central.

Porthos, yes the Mass is the presentation of the whole Paschal Mystery, but the sacrifice is a distinct aspect of the Mass. We locate the sacrifice at the dual consecration.

In regard to the Paschal Mystery aspect of the Mass here is a classic quote from Fr. Nicolas Gihr:

                          The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the living commemoration and mystical accomplishment of the entire work of redemption (*opus redemptionis nostrae exercetur*); Christ, as Highpriest and as Victim, is present on the altar with all the fruits and merits of the redemption. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not only His passion and death, but also the life of His glory is mystically (*in mysterio*) represented and renewed. Three great mysteries are here principally made prominent: before all, the sufferings of Christ in His sacrifice and death on the Cross, as the essence and center of the work of the redemption; then the joyful resurrection and glorious ascension, which constitute the conclusion, crown and completion of the work of the redemption.”

No one, I think, would deny that the whole work of redemption is mystically made present to us with its saving power. But, again, perhaps in this thread we are considering something more specific – the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

I’d use the imagery from the Book of Revelation, where we see the Lamb, standing (and therefore, alive) as if slain (i.e. bearing the marks of his death). That death is ever present in the heavenly liturgy.

Sure.

Perhaps, this is not an unfair way of understanding it, and is compatible with Revelation’s imagery. Again, I’m not a proponent of the “time travel” imagery, which is too mechanical. But anamnesis was always understood to have made the event present in a mystical way, so yes, it’s fair (and the Catechism states as much) to understand it that Calvary (i.e. the Crucifixion) is indeed present, but always along with the Resurrection.

Porthos, yes anamnesis gives us insight into various aspects of the Mass, the liturgy, the sacraments, etc. But I don’t think it does the topic justice to say simply “Well, its anamnesis” and leave it at that.

Surely there might be more to it? There are various theories of sacrifice, there are schools of thought, there are volumes written regarding the relationship between the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Are you familiar with de la Taille? Cardinal Journet? Thalhofer? Casel? Gihr? Fr. Mcnabb? Garrigou-Lagrange? They all wrote extensively regarding the sacrifice of the Mass and it’s relation to the Cross. They critiqued each other, built upon one another, etc. There is much fascinating theology here that can be profitably considered.

I’d like you to continue with us on this journey. Perhaps we’ll all learn something from one another.

VC

 

[japhy]

I’d use the imagery from the Book of Revelation, where we see the Lamb, standing (and therefore, alive) as if slain (i.e. bearing the marks of his death). That death is ever present in the heavenly liturgy.

I see the Lamb the same way you do. But is his “death … ever present”, or is it simply that the marks of his death present? Jesus is not dead in heaven, he is alive. His death is represented by his glorious wounds.

The separated Host and Chalice after the consecration is not the re-presentation of a dead Jesus, it is a symbolic and mystical sign of his body and blood separated in his death. We are showing that Jesus did die, but Jesus is not dying or dead thereby. This act is one of the things guaranteeing the unity between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary.

 

[porthos11]

I see the Lamb the same way you do. But is his “death … ever present”, or is it simply that the marks of his death present? Jesus is not dead in heaven, he is alive. His death is represented by his glorious wounds.

The separated Host and Chalice after the consecration is not the re-presentation of a dead Jesus, it is a symbolic and mystical sign of his body and blood separated in his death. We are showing that Jesus did die, but Jesus is not dying or dead thereby. This act is one of the things guaranteeing the unity between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary.

I see no conflict. Jesus can’t be dead of course, but his death is present before the Father, who is beyond time. In much the same way, the separate consecration of the bread and wine symbolize the separation of body and blood, that is, death. But since sacraments are not mere symbols, but efficacious symbols, we can accurately say that Jesus’ death is made present on our altars during the Mass, or that we are, in a manner of speaking, “witnessing” Jesus’ death. Is Jesus dead on the altar? Of course not. Jesus is whole and alive under both species. But the “event” (which is becoming a scary word on this thread) is somehow brought before us again, just as we would expect in an anamnesis. We are not witnessing a dead Jesus under the separate species, but rather, the sacramental symbolism and remembrance brings the whole Mystery, passion, death, resurrection mystically to us.

 

[porthos11]

Porthos, yes anamnesis gives us insight into various aspects of the Mass, the liturgy, the sacraments, etc. But I don’t think it does the topic justice to say simply “Well, its anamnesis” and leave it at that.

Surely there might be more to it? There are various theories of sacrifice, there are schools of thought, there are volumes written regarding the relationship between the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Are you familiar with de la Taille? Cardinal Journet? Thalhofer? Casel? Gihr? Fr. Mcnabb? Garrigou-Lagrange? They all wrote extensively regarding the sacrifice of the Mass and it’s relation to the Cross. They critiqued each other, built upon one another, etc. There is much fascinating theology here that can be profitably considered.

I’d like you to continue with us on this journey. Perhaps we’ll all learn something from one another.

VC

I advocate anamnesis/zikkaron for several reasons: first of all, it’s the most Biblical and ancient of the understandings, and Jesus himself used it. Second, it’s used in the Anaphorae of all Divine Liturgies, including the Roman Mass. We also know that the English “calling to mind” is very weak when compared against the Greek and Hebrew terms. With the New Testament, especially Revelation, the concept of liturgical anamnesis is given its fullest understanding. Anamnesis does not call for “time travel”, which is a poor, sci-fi way of understanding it. It’s mystical, and made possible only through God’s intervention.

I understand that we’re dealing with the mystical, so there’s more than one way of understanding it, and none of them will probably capture the full reality. I, however, want to keep reading everyone’s ideas, because this is a good critical thinking exercise.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

I have to ask for clarification here. You said this in response to a quotation from Trent - is that what you can’t accept because it’s unBiblical? That would certainly be a problem for a Catholic. Or, is it something else? I didn’t see much in Verbum Caro’s words that differed from what Trent said, so you’ll have to explain this.

As far as your actual point is concerned, it’s not the least bit unBiblical what was said by Verbum Caro. Far from being unBiblical, it more greatly takes into accord the whole of what Scripture says about sacrifice. I went into this a bit below: each and every sacrifice has two parts: the sheeding of blood, and the oblation. The sheeding of blood on Calvary was not the Sacrifice of Christ. It was one out of two parts of the Sacrifice. After having died, Christ entered into the Holy of Holies of Heaven to make the oblation of His blood, which the book of Hebrews tells us. When somebody says that what happens at Mass is not what happened on Calvary, they aren’t in any way saying it’s a different sacrifice. It’s the same sacrifice, but the second (and eternal) part. In the sacrifice of Christ, the shedding of blood happened once, in time. The oblation of that blood is an eternal oblation taking place in the eternity of Heaven. Together, this shedding and this oblation are one sacrifice. Separate, the sheeding of blood on the cross would be no complete sacrifice.

Above, I have attempted here to show why this is not unBibilical, rather than why it is the required view, as there is no required view. Now, I will try to provide some brief reasons why I believe it is the view most consistent with Scripture and the teaching of the Church. For example, you said:

I’d use the imagery from the Book of Revelation, where we see the Lamb, standing (and therefore, alive) as if slain (i.e. bearing the marks of his death). That death is ever present in the heavenly liturgy.

The Lamb is standing - and so alive - yet as though slain - somehow His death is present. If we read this in the context of Bebrews 7, 8, and 9, we see several profound things come together. Hebrews tells us Christ is in Heaven ministering as high priest. Christ is the Lamb. The Lamb, then, is in Heaven, alive (standing in the imagery), yet as though slain, and so showing forth His death. Christ is in Heaven saving us by making intercession, yet an intercession which must be a part of His Sacrifice lest we say something apart from His sacrifice was needful. It becomes clear that Christ, in Heaven, is serving as our eternal high priest and eternally offering the oblation of His blood on our behalf. Because this is eternal, He has no need to shed blood again and again to enter into the Holy of Holies each year: it is once for all.

I also believe that you’ve in some sense made our point with your own words. The death is ever present in the Heavenly liturgy by means of the Lamb standing as though slain. Now whether that means, as I have suggested, that the imagery of His standing alive relates to His service as high priest in Heaven and His being as though slain represents the oblation of His body and blood, or whether in some other way, the point is that His death is ever present in the Heavenly liturgy, the liturgy we enter into in the Mass, quite apart from the our being brought back to Calvary, whether via some sort of “time machine” or otherwise. Rather, His death is ever present even in His glorified body in Heaven by some mystery, be-it due to oblation or some other thing.

Too long, must post again…

 

[Lazerlike42]

As such, I’d comment on your lament that the anamnesis is not being paid attention in this thread. I don’t think anybody rejects or fails to appreciate the notion of the anamnesis. Rather, I think that what is going on is that some understand exactly what it means at least somewhat differently than yourself. I personally have long been a strong advocate of a focus on the anamnesis, but I don’t believe that it necessitates exactly what you’ve put forth. Christ’s death - indeed the entire paschal mystery and His entire life - can be made mystically present without this being the means by which the Sacrifice is accomplished. Indeed, as someone else said, the fact that His entire life is made present seems to contradict this notion. Rather, it can be understood to be both an oblation (or some other theory) and an anamnesis in which the life of Christ is made mystically present, but in some way consistent with Revelation’s imagery that all of that, including His death, are present in the Heavenly liturgy with the glorified body of Christ.

For example, when the Jews celebrated the Passover with their concept of the Zikkaron, they believed that in some way they were being made present and taking part in the Exodus, as you’ve rightly said, but they didn’t believe that to mean that they were taking part in it really and truly. So for example, no first born would die were the Passover not celebrated. Now I don’t believe that you’re contending something so strong as this, at all, and I don’t intend to sete up a straw man. Rather, I am trying to give an extreme example to help make an illustration. In the anamnesis of the Paschal Mystery at the Mass, Christ’s death truly is made present in some way, but that neither A)excludes the possibility that the Sacrifice is effected by some other means (such as what I believe to be the very strongly supported oblation theory) nor B) conflicts with texts, such as Revelation, which assert that in some way Christ’s death can be present without the need to literally have the crucifixion present, mystically or otherwise.

In fact, I would suggest that Revelation teaches us that Calvary is mysticallly present simply by virtue of Christ having died there. In other words, were Christ standing in this room with me right now, with His pierced hands and all, by virtue that He carries that “history” with Him, Calvary would be mystically present because of the association. One of the interesting things about some of the teachings of the saints, in particular theologian saints like Aquinas, is the theme that associations have a reality to them that transcends mere connectedness, but that rather, by associations, two things are so truly connected that one, in some way, makes present the other. This is all the more true in reference to Christ, who is transcends all time and space. I think one problem is that we are truly thinking in such a human way… I want to say so materially, but I don’t think that that encompasses what I’m trying to say… There is so greater a reality to existence that we do not see and that we cannot understand fully, and I think this is one of those things. I believe we can get fleeting glimpses into this reality through different things, however. For example, we believe that when a person loses virginity, something about them changes, something that transcends both the physical changes in the body and the historical fact that the person has now had intercourse. What that something is, we cannot say, but we know that there is some greater reality to that person that has now changed. We believe that when a man lusts after a woman, he truly does in some way actually take from her some ounce of her dignity, though dignity can not be placed in a scale, and certainly her personal worth does not diminish. Those are fleeting glimpses into what I’m talking about.

So in other words, Christ’s death, and indeed entire life, I believe would be made mystically present, in a way consistent with the concept of anamnesis, were the Mass nothing more than an entry into the Heavenly liturgy, though I do not contend that this need be the case either.

All I believe about the Mass is this: Christ died on earth, in time, once for all, and now offers eternally the oblation of His body and blood on our behalf in the Holy of Holies of Heaven. In the Mass, we enter into that one eternal offering. Together, this death on Calvary and the offering in Heaven constitute the one Sacrifice of Christ (as indeed any sacrifice must consist of the shedding of blood and of the oblation thereof). How the anamnesis and other things play into it all, I have no firm opinion.

God bless**

 

[japhy]

But since sacraments are not mere symbols, but efficacious symbols, we can accurately say that Jesus’ death is made present on our altars during the Mass, or that we are, in a manner of speaking, “witnessing” Jesus’ death. Is Jesus dead on the altar? Of course not.

I can agree with you there. We are witnesses of Jesus’ death, certainly without him dying again, but we are witnesses to the unbloody immolation of Christ (in the separate consecration).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Porthos,

Would it be safe to say, then, that you join me (and others?) in a mild disdain for the contemporary and popular notion that the sacrifice of the Mass is somehow the actual crucifixion of Christ just “hidden” under sacramental signs. I think, rather, it makes more sense to speak of Christ’s interior oblation which somehow includes and refers to his prior *exterior *crucifixion.

VC

 

[porthos11]

Porthos,

Would it be safe to say, then, that you join me (and others?) in a mild disdain for the contemporary and popular notion that the sacrifice of the Mass is somehow the actual crucifixion of Christ just “hidden” under sacramental signs. I think, rather, it makes more sense to speak of Christ’s interior oblation which somehow includes and refers to his prior *exterior *crucifixion.

VC

I hesitate very much to say “actual” or “historical” in the context of liturgical remembrance, but I just as much hesitate to draw a line between the Sacrifice of the Mass, Calvary, and the heavenly Liturgy. I know the Crucifixion is present, and I know that somehow, time and space take a back seat to the liturgical remembrance.

 

[porthos11]

I have to ask for clarification here. You said this in response to a quotation from Trent - is that what you can’t accept because it’s unBiblical? That would certainly be a problem for a Catholic. Or, is it something else? I didn’t see much in Verbum Caro’s words that differed from what Trent said, so you’ll have to explain this.

Sorry, not the quote but this text from VC:
VC:

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.

Which he already clarified (my issue was with “identical”). As for using terms like “numerical” when we’re dealing with eternal realities, well, you see where the confusion lies. They can’t be numerically one, since each Mass is discrete, yet they must be one, otherwise, they’d be different Sacrifices, which is what I objected to as unbiblical.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I know the Crucifixion is present, and I know that somehow, time and space take a back seat to the liturgical remembrance.

Porthos,

But again I wonder if there might not be an important distinction between the Mass as sacrifice and the Mass (en toto) as liturgical remembrance.

Yes the Crucifixion is present in the Mass. But so is the Resurrection. And so is the Ascension. And those things aren’t just present at Mass, but at Baptism, and at Confession, aren’t they?

How would you address this? Would you hold that the Crucifixion is present in the Mass above and beyond the ways it is present in the other sacraments?

Thanks for the discussion,
VC

 

[benedictgal]

Porthos,

But again I wonder if there might not be an important distinction between the Mass as sacrifice and the Mass (en toto) as liturgical remembrance.

Yes the Crucifixion is present in the Mass. But so is the Resurrection. And so is the Ascension. And those things aren’t just present at Mass, but at Baptism, and at Confession, aren’t they?

How would you address this? Would you hold that the Crucifixion is present in the Mass above and beyond the ways it is present in the other sacraments?

Thanks for the discussion,
VC

However, in a uniquely singular way, the salvific Paschal Mystery is profoundly expressed within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You cannot have the Last Supper without the Crucifixion and you cannot have the Crucifixion without the Resurrection.

The Protestants argue that we focus too much on the Crucifixion and on the Passion of Jesus. These elements are present at every Mass, though, because they are integral components. It’s not just the Resurrection by itself.

In Confession we are washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb; however, we do not consume the living Flesh of the Saving Victim. In Baptism, we are baptized into the death of Jesus and partake of the light of the Resurrection; however, unless one is a member of the Eastern Church, we don’t partake in Holy Communion. Thus, you can’t very well say that all three elements are in these particular sacraments.

Porthos’ reference to the Book of Revelation is very appropriate. Inasmuch as the Lamb once slain dies no more and that the Last Supper, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus did occur on our around 33 AD, for God, every moment is the eternal present. Thus, at the Mass, we enter God’s time, not ours.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi benedictgal,

However, in a uniquely singular way, the salvific Paschal Mystery is profoundly expressed within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You cannot have the Last Supper without the Crucifixion and you cannot have the Crucifixion without the Resurrection.

What is the singular way? Can you elaborate on it?

But, again, I am wondering about the sacrifice that occurs at the Mass during the separate consecrations. We know that it is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the Cross. But does that mean that it is the same as the Crucifixion?

benedictgal:

In Confession we are washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb; however, we do not consume the living Flesh of the Saving Victim. In Baptism, we are baptized into the death of Jesus and partake of the light of the Resurrection; however, unless one is a member of the Eastern Church, we don’t partake in Holy Communion. Thus, you can’t very well say that all three elements are in these particular sacraments.

Let’s take a closer look. Are you saying that we are present at the *Crucifixion *because we consume Christ?

benedictgal:

Porthos’ reference to the Book of Revelation is very appropriate. Inasmuch as the Lamb once slain dies no more and that the Last Supper, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus did occur on our around 33 AD, for God, every moment is the eternal present. Thus, at the Mass, we enter God’s time, not ours.

Would you say, though, that we are just as present at the Crucifixion as St. John was in 33 AD?

VC

 

[porthos11]

Porthos,

But again I wonder if there might not be an important distinction between the Mass as sacrifice and the Mass (en toto) as liturgical remembrance.

For me, I don’t think so. The remembrance is what makes the Mass a (or the) Sacrifice in the first place, otherwise, and this was my first complaint, it becomes another sacrifice.

Yes the Crucifixion is present in the Mass. But so is the Resurrection. And so is the Ascension. And those things aren’t just present at Mass, but at Baptism, and at Confession, aren’t they?

How would you address this? Would you hold that the Crucifixion is present in the Mass above and beyond the ways it is present in the other sacraments?

Thanks for the discussion,
VC

I think that’s a fair way of putting it. The Mass is itself the making present of the Paschal Mystery through remembrance. As for the other Sacraments, I don’t think they make the Mystery present in the same way, although they “tap” into it as of course, their source.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The remembrance is what makes the Mass a (or the) Sacrifice in the first place, otherwise, and this was my first complaint, it becomes another sacrifice.

When would you say this remembrance takes place?

VC

 

[Lazerlike42]

For me, I don’t think so. The remembrance is what makes the Mass a (or the) Sacrifice in the first place, otherwise, and this was my first complaint, it becomes another sacrifice.

In light of this comment, while you’re not required to assent to the oblation theory (Christ’s death is the sheeding of blood that is the first part of a sacrifice, His eternal Heavenly oblation is the second part which is made present in the Mass) I’ve discussed a few times here, I’d like for you to comment on why the anamnesis is the only way to avoid having an unBiblically repeated Sacrifice. In other words, what about the view I’ve expressed is problematic?

 

[porthos11]

In light of this comment, while you’re not required to assent to the oblation theory (Christ’s death is the sheeding of blood that is the first part of a sacrifice, His eternal Heavenly oblation is the second part which is made present in the Mass) I’ve discussed a few times here, I’d like for you to comment on why the anamnesis is the only way to avoid having an unBiblically repeated Sacrifice. In other words, what about the view I’ve expressed is problematic?

I don’t think I’ve seen anything problematic in your views.

But to answer your perfectly valid question, I feel anamnesis is the only way because that way, the Sacrifice which was completed on Calvary (and therefore, no part 1 or part 2) is made present during the Mass. If not for anamnesis, then the Mass is another Sacrifice, which is plain unacceptable, because Calvary is once for all. In other words, anamnesis makes possible the fact that there may be many Masses, but only one Sacrifice, that of Calvary.

The heavenly oblation is not part 2, but the same Sacrifice of Calvary, full and complete, for in heaven, all is eternal. It is because of the heavenly oblation that the earthly anamnesis is possible.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I don’t think I’ve seen anything problematic in your views.

But to answer your perfectly valid question, I feel anamnesis is the only way because that way, the Sacrifice which was completed on Calvary (and therefore, no part 1 or part 2) is made present during the Mass. If not for anamnesis, then the Mass is another Sacrifice, which is plain unacceptable, because Calvary is once for all. In other words, anamnesis makes possible the fact that there may be many Masses, but only one Sacrifice, that of Calvary.

The heavenly oblation is not part 2, but the same Sacrifice of Calvary, full and complete, for in heaven, all is eternal. It is because of the heavenly oblation that the earthly anamnesis is possible.

The problem I see with this is that by it’s very nature sacrifice must have part one and part two. What happened on Calvary can’t be a completed Sacrifice, for Christ died, but there was no presentation of His blood. The other problem is that Hebrews makes it clear that Christ is right now (or really, eternally) doing something in Heaven which contributes to our salvation, and so what is going on in Heaven must be a part of the one Sacrifice, otherwise we’re in the position of saying that the Sacrifice of Calvary wasn’t sufficient and now this added intercession is required.

Now that’s a more “nuts and bolts” critique of the point, but there’s another that’s perhaps more philisophical and perhaps even more important. It seems that in saying that the Heavenly oblation is the one, completed Sacrifice of Calvary is really confusing some very important matters. First, it confuses the disctinction between those events taking place in Heaven and those on earth. If I understand what you’re saying correctly, on Calvary at one point in time, Christ died and offered Himself as a sacrifice, and because Heaven is eternal, that singular event is present in Heaven at all times, which also makes it possible that we in our day can, as if through a “conduit” (it may not be the best term, but I’m just going for something very general here), be present at that sacrifice.

I’ll let you confirm that before I go any further, because I don’t want to write a bunch of stuff about something you don’t believe.