Why is the Eucharist called a bloodless sacrifice?

[PJM]

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

Your understanding is correct.

However Christ could and did only die Once!

**What the priest does **in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to make that One SAME Sacrifice present time and time again. Thus is it a “bloodless” Sacrifice, but nevertheless, the very same Sacrifice.

Christ died once for “all,” so that “many” would be Redeemed!

Good question, thank you.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I was still wondering though, for those who explain the sacrificial nature of the Mass by describing us as being at the foot of the cross: what would you say is being offered in the Mass?

Any ideas?

VC

 

[benedictgal]

Any ideas?

VC

I have not been able to sit down and have a serious talk with my PV over chicken, as we are wont to do at times. Today, being the feast of St. Agatha, he again brought up the fact that we are just as present at Calvary as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene. He said that we are not second-class Christians in that we “weren’t there” when it happend “historically”. However, he stressed that with God, He is in the eternal present.

As others have indicated, Jesus doesn’t die over and over again. His death is once; however, the moment is made present for us again during the Mass. I guess it’s almost like the movie Groundhog Day where Bill Murray is living and re-living one particular day over and over agian. It’s not the best comparison, and of course, I am only going by the plotline (not having seen the movie), but, it strangely follows the general idea I suppose.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi benedictgal,

Thanks for the reply, and if you do have a sit down with your PV (sounds nice, by the way!) please let us know if your discussion works its way around to this topic.

I’m not focusing, of course, only on your PV, because it is a fairly common way of speaking (and I was taught this way too). I’m still a bit perplexed by some of it.

For instance, what does it mean that we are just as present as St. John? I think there are few ways to take that type of statement. japhy and I (I believe) are wont to take it in a more meditative or poetic sense. Others, I think, take it in a more literal sense, i.e. that the actual crucifixion is somehow present.

For those who take it in the literal sense, I’m not sure if they mean that the making present of the crucifixion is the *reason *they would give that the Mass is a sacrifice or if there is some other reason.

I’m interested also in what exactly is being offered in the Mass for those who take the literal sense. Do you have an opinion on that? (Or does anyone else?)

VC

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

japhy, benedictgal, Lazer, AJV, et al.,

I wanted to clarify something I said earlier. AJV responded to my question about actually being present at the foot of the cross by pointing out

AJV:

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?).
Verbum Caro:

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

When I mentioned being painfully acquainted with it, and being kept up at night, I didn’t intend it pejoratively, necessarily, of Dom Casel’s theory. What I meant is that I have difficulty grasping it fully, as well as discovering how it would work in continuity with the Church’s teaching.

For instance, Fr. Ott mentions Casel’s theory in the *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *and not favorably:

The Sacrament of the Eucharist
(. . .)
§24
(. . .)
The Mystery Theory (O. Casel) put forward** the idea that the Mass is numerically the same as the historical sacrifice of the Cross, i.e., the Sacrifice of the Cross in a mysterious way above all time and history is present at the Mass.** The proofs from Scripture and Tradition, adduced in support of this mysterious real presence of the sacrifice of the Cross in the Mass, are not cogent. The **theory was rejected in 1947 by Pope Pius XII **in the Encycl. “Mediator Dei” (D.2297,2).

That seems a fairly serious charge. I don’t know quite what to make of it. Some have criticized the translation of Ott’s work here. Some, also, have held that Mediator Dei didn’t criticize Casel. Casel, himself evidently felt Mediator Dei was favorable to his theories.

For reference here is the Denzinger that Ott points to:

Denzinger 2297 (from Mediator Dei): In every liturgical act there is present together with the Church her divine Founder; Christ is present in the august Sacrifice of the altar, not only in the person of His minister, but especially in the species of the Eucharist; He is present in the sacraments through His power which He transfuses into them as instruments for effecting sanctity; finally, He is present in the praises and supplications directed to God, according to these words: “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” Matt. 18:20 ]. . . .

Therefore, the liturgical year, which the piety of the Church fosters and follows, is no cold and indifferent representation of those things which belong to times of the past, or a simple and bare recollection of things of an earlier age. But rather, it is Christ Himself, who perseveres in His Church, and who is pursuing the way of His great mercy; indeed, when He made His way through this mortal life doing good, He entered upon it with this purpose, that His mysteries might penetrate the minds of men and that through them in some way they might live; and these mysteries surely are present and operate continuously not in that uncertain and obscure manner about which certain more recent writers babble, but in the manner that is taught us by the Church; since, according to the opinion of the Doctors of the Church, the examples of Christian perfection are pre-eminent, and the sources of divine grace, because of the merits and deprecations of Christ and by their effect endure in us, although they exist individually in their own way according to each one’s own character for the sake of our salvation.

Just a reminder, again, for all of us on this thread (and those who may be reading it), that what we are discussing are the theories of how the Mass is a sacrifice, not that it is a sacrifice. The fact that it is a sacrifice, substantially identical to the Sacrifice of the Cross is taught clearly by the Church. What this means, and how it happens has been left open (for the most part) to theology.

VC

 

[AJV]

japhy, benedictgal, Lazer, AJV, et al.,

I wanted to clarify something I said earlier. AJV responded to my question about actually being present at the foot of the cross by pointing out

When I mentioned being painfully acquainted with it, and being kept up at night, I didn’t intend it pejoratively, necessarily, of Dom Casel’s theory. What I meant is that I have difficulty grasping it fully, as well as discovering how it would work in continuity with the Church’s teaching.

For instance, Fr. Ott mentions Casel’s theory in the *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *and not favorably:
That seems a fairly serious charge. I don’t know quite what to make of it. Some have criticized the translation of Ott’s work here. Some, also, have held that Mediator Dei didn’t criticize Casel. Casel, himself evidently felt Mediator Dei was favorable to his theories.

VC

(Fr.) Francis Clark, in Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, puts Casel’s theory in the 4th of the broad categories he mentions as representative of the views of theologians - the “sacramental sacrifice”.

He further notes that most modern theologians adhere to it - in particular he notes Fr. Doronzo who I’ve seen praised highly elsewhere as a very stringent theologian (i.e. he usually held the most conservative positions on most matters)

However, there is the addendum that Doronzo (I’m quoting from memory so this may not be exact) “arrives at the same conclusion but using different language”. I’ve never read Doronzo who wrote in Latin which I find particularly difficult when it deals with theology so I can’t comment on the exact difference…but perhaps it was something to do with aspects of Casel’s theory being unsuitable?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

(Fr.) Francis Clark, in Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, puts Casel’s theory in the 4th of the broad categories he mentions as representative of the views of theologians - the “sacramental sacrifice”.

AJV,

VERY interesting! Thank you, I’ll try to track that down (I’ve some good theology libraries nearby).

You mentioned Clark’s four categories. I imagine the first two are 1)destruction(mutation) and 2) oblation. The fourth, you tell us, is “sacramental sacrifice”. What is the third?

By the way, did he include Vonier under “sacramental sacrifice”?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As far as a theory of sacrifice goes, I suppose I remain on a search for a synthesis of the strong candidates. Can anyone suggest some authors/texts?

While the “mystery theory” has a certain appeal to it, I also have difficulty with it. For instance, I am perplexed about what is being offered (?) at Mass, if one holds that we are “(really) present at the foot of the cross”.

I am inclined to view the sacrifice more along the following lines taken from Radio Replies, vol 1:

Q. 868. Christ made the one and only Sacrifice when He died on the Cross.

A. The Sacrifice of the Mass does not take the place of that on Calvary. Far from supplanting it, it supposes it; and the Mass would have no value apart from the Sacrifice of the Cross. That Sacrifice was the one absolute Sacrifice. The Mass is substantially that same Sacrifice, not another. It is the same priesthood of Christ offering the same Victim, Himself; and for the same purpose. In the Mass, Christ merely offers Himself in a new way, applying the fruits of Calvary to those present, and to all for whom the Mass is offered. Far from diminishing the efficacy of Calvary, it manifests that efficacy.

If anyone is not familiar with Radio Replies, I recommend it as a fascinating series of books.

It seems to me that the distinction between the “present at the foot of the cross” theory and other sacramental theories (i.e. re-presents versus represents) might be highlighted in the following way. In the first theory (“present at the foot of the cross”) it seems to me that it is the Christ on Calvary which is the sacrifice, whereas in other sacramental theories it seems to me it is the **Christ of Calvary which is the sacrifice.

Does the Church makes a distinction between the sacrifice on calvary and the sacrifice offered in the Mass, not that they are distinct sacrifices, but insofar as they are distinguishable events?

For instance, when I read Pope John XXIIIin Ad Petri Cathedram (1959):

1. . . . it is also common knowledge that only one sacrifice is offered in the Church. In this Eucharistic sacrifice Christ Himself, our Salvation and our Redeemer, immolates Himself each day for all of us and mercifully pours out on us the countless riches of His grace. No blood is shed, but the sacrifice is real, just as real as when Christ hung from a cross of Calvary.

it seems one could view that as making a distinction. If the sacrifice of Calvary is the same as the sacrifice in the Mass it would seem odd to distinguish between the reality of one sacrifice and the reality of the other. Anyone agree? In other words, we know that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary . . . what we don’t know is if it is Calvary also. But to say that the sacrifice of the Mass is just a real sacrifice as the sacrifice on Calvary wouldn’t seem to be necessary if we thought that they were the same reality. Would it? Or perhaps my take on it is flawed.

I find the same distinction implicit in Pope Paul VI *Mysterium Fidei (1965):
*

We desire to recall at the very outset what may be termed the very essence of the dogma, namely, that by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was once offered on Calvary, is remarkably re-enacted and constantly recalled, and its saving power exerted for the forgiveness of those sins which we daily commit.

This is the distinction that I have been mentioning throughout this thread – the distinction between the Sacrifice of the Cross and Calvary. Note that Pope Paul seems to be saying that the sacrifice of the cross was offered on Calvary. This seems to me to imply that the Sacrifice of the Cross can be offered in other manners as well, and distinct from the events on Calvary.

For reference, here is Latin of the above:

Illud in primis, quod huius doctrinae est veluti summa et caput, iuvat meminisse, scilicet per Mysterium Eucharisticum Sacrificium Crucis, semel in Calvaria peractum, admirabili modo repraesentari, iugiter in memoriam revocari eiusque virtutem salutarem in remissionem eorum quae quotidie a nobis committuntur peccatorum applicari

Anyone agree? Disagree? Is this a possible reading? An improbable one? Absurd?

VC

 

[japhy]

I find the same distinction implicit in Pope Paul VI Mysterium Fidei (1965)
Pope Paul VI’s words seem to match my personal idea quite well.

I wonder if, in the theory that we are witnessing the crucifixion at Mass, the idea is that in the separate consecration, we are witnessing Christ dying on the cross (under sacramental veils), rather than that the separate consecration re-presents that death as a means of identifying this sacrifice with that one. I think there’s a distinction to be made between those two. In the one, the separate consecration is a necessity; in the other, it is a sign to us that what we are witnessing is the same single sacrifice.

Or maybe it’s too early in the morning to make these sorts of conjectures.

 

[AJV]

AJV,

VERY interesting! Thank you, I’ll try to track that down (I’ve some good theology libraries nearby).

You mentioned Clark’s four categories. I imagine the first two are 1)destruction(mutation) and 2) oblation. The fourth, you tell us, is “sacramental sacrifice”. What is the third?

By the way, did he include Vonier under “sacramental sacrifice”?

VC

Clark admits that the categories he proposes are very broad , that some do not fit exactly into one, or may fit into more than one, and mentions in a footnote where one might find other schemes. But his division is:

1. the sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the cross simply because in both there is the same divine victim and the same high priest, and the same salutary effects are made available for men.

– under this he groups the “destruction” theologians (Bellarmine, Suarez, De Lugo, etc.) as well as the school of Cardinal Billot (Gihr, Hugueny, Van Noort, Tanquerey, Lercher…) which opposed the destruction theory.

1. They are the same for the further reason that the sacrificial will, considered to be the essential constituent of sacrifice, is the same in both.

— the “inner oblationists” such as Lepin, Berulle, Condren and Olier

1. They are the same because one combines with the other as the part of the whole.

----the theory of de la Taille and he also cites +McDonald.

1. They are the same in the strictest numerical identity because through the Mass, as a sacramental means, the very reality of the redemptive sacrifice is made present and operative in a manner transcending time and space.

---- “the theories of a large number of present day i.e. circa 1960) theologians”. Among them he counts Volnier, Casel, Gillet, Heris, Diekamp, Warnach,Van Hove, Doronzo, Journet, Schillebeeckx. I quote here certain parts of what he says that I hope go some way towards his nuances:

“…although there are numerous divergences in the explanations of these authors, one principle can be traced which gives a broad unity to their speculations: what si done in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is in the order of sacramental causality, that mysterious domain in which signs are effective of what they signify by a supernatural manner of operation unknown in the world of natural causes…”

“…Some of these theologians speak of a metahistorical presence in the Mass of the sacrifice of Calvary and explain that the latter by a mysterious operation of the divine power, is brought forward in its physical reality, outside the natural order of time, so that in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Christians are present i the saving event of Calvary in its very happening. Others, leaving this terminology aside, prefer to say more simply that by sacramental causality the sacrifice of the cross becomes efficaciously present in tis permanent consequences and with all its mysterious power. A number of authors find the link with Calvary in the abiding sacrificial state which Christ retains in his heavenly glory and which he brings with him to the Eucharistic mystery…”

 

[Verbum_Caro]

AJV,

Very, very interesting!

It looks quite nuanced and well thought out – as evidenced, for instance, in grouping *both *those who held for a destruction theory and those who held against it under a broader category of “same victim, same priest, same effects”.

AJV:

1. They are the same because one combines with the other as the part of the whole.

----the theory of de la Taille and he also cites +McDonald.

I’m of a mind to think that this theory, especially as proposed by de la Taille, has ultimately been rejected. Can anyone confirm?

It seems that the difficulty here would be the danger of viewing the Sacrifice of Calvary as incomplete somehow. (i.e somehow the Last Supper and Calvary are a process).

AJV:

1. They are the same in the strictest numerical identity because through the Mass, as a sacramental means, the very reality of the redemptive sacrifice is made present and operative in a manner transcending time and space.

Ah, now we get to the heart of our discussion.

I note how careful he is to give a relatively “bare” theory here. This theory exists as a core or kernel within many other embellishments.

I would say that the broad “bare” description of the theory matches Vonier* fairly well, would you all agree?

My difficulty is in the expansion of the theory. I’m not completely certain that it was Casel himself, or those who followed upon Casel.

Can someone who has access to some primary sources (Casel) reproduce a relevant passage that speaks of us being actually present at the Crucifixion?

"…Some of these theologians speak of a metahistorical presence in the Mass of the sacrifice of Calvary and explain that the latter by a mysterious operation of the divine power, is brought forward in its physical reality, outside the natural order of time, so that in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Christians are present i the saving event of Calvary in its very happening."

Ah, yes, this is it.

And it brings up one of my primary questions again:
**

1. What is being offered at the Mass?? **Can anyone take a crack at this?

"Others, leaving this terminology aside, prefer to say more simply that by sacramental causality the sacrifice of the cross becomes efficaciously present in tis permanent consequences and with all its mysterious power. "

Better, to my mind. But I would want to distinguish between the sacrifice which is present simply, and the crucifixion which is present virtually (that is, in potency (virtus), i.e. “efficaciously present in its permanent consequences”).

AJV:

A number of authors find the link with Calvary in the abiding sacrificial state which Christ retains in his heavenly glory and which he brings with him to the Eucharistic mystery…"

I’ve noticed this one as well. I think Vonier does have an element of this in it, and it is certainly coincides with the biblical data of the “Lamb standing as though slain” in heaven.

I think, though, that can also be embellished to mean an actual sacrifice occurring in heaven. I think there is some controversy regarding viewing an actual sacrifice in Heaven. (Lazerlike, you might be interested in following up on that, as I think you might have referred to a sacrifice in heaven).

VC

• Abbot Vonier wrote extensively. His work, recently republsihed, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist is a must read.

P.S. Heads up to all, Journet’s The Mass: The Presence of the Sacrifice of the Cross was recently translated into English. Of course, it is always checked out of my local libraries.

P.P.S.
AJV, did you include a + beside McDonald’s name because he has passed away? I admire that custom.

 

[AJV]

P.P.S.
AJV, did you include a + beside McDonald’s name because he has passed away? I admire that custom.

Eh, no. It was because he was a bishop, Arthur MacDonald.

Incidentally, issues of the Ecclesiastical Review are online, both at GoogleBooks and the Internet Archive in which his work is discussed.

books.google.com/books?id=RW4oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA300&dq#PPA297,M1

I will try and look up Casel tomorrow.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Eh, no. It was because he was a bishop, Arthur MacDonald.

Well, let’s add that to the things I am learning in this thread. I admire that custom as well (now that I’ve learned of it!)

AJV:

Incidentally, issues of the Ecclesiastical Review are online,
. . .
I will try and look up Casel tomorrow.

Thanks for the heads up. :tiphat: And I’m looking forward to anything you can provide of Casel.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

What happened on Calvary can’t be a completed Sacrifice, for Christ died, but there was no presentation of His blood.

Lazerlike,

I wanted to come back to this point, and ask for some clarification.

It seems to me that what are positing is a variation of de la Taille’s notion that the sacrifice of the cross was only part of the sacrifice of Christ. De le Taille, of course, located the oblation at the Last Supper and the immolation on Calvary, whereas you seem to be locating the immolation on Calvary and the oblation in Heaven.

De la Taille’s work undoubtedly influenced a generation or more of theologians and seminarians, but it seems to have been heavily criticized. Part of the criticism, I think, is that he seems to remove the sacrificial nature of the Crucifixion by making it one part of a sacrifice. The “heavenly oblation” theory, when taken too far, seems to create the same problem.

I know the “heavenly oblation” is popularized quite a bit by Dr. Scott Hahn, but I’m not sure he draws the same conclusion as you seem to here. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes reference to the oblation on the cross as *well as in Heaven. *It seems to me reasonable that Christ on the Cross was immolated and offered his body and blood to the Father.

I think the danger is taking Judaic liturgical practice of presenting the blood in the sanctuary as an essential component of sacrifice and then drawing a conclusion that Christ’s sacrifice the Cross was only the first portion of a sacrifice. Rather, it seems that the offering is an essential component, but that seems to have taken place on Calvary.

By the way, are there any other ramifications of the way you’ve presented this theory? Do you mean that there was no sacrifice until the *Ascension?

*Looking forward to your comments! Perhaps I am missing something, and you can help me out.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I noticed an interesting post by a poster on another thread:
Yours Truly:

Did you yourself know that at the Mass the sacrifice of Jesus that took place on Calvary is really and truly repeated? That is what the Mass is. It is the one sacrifice of Calvary transcending time and space and made present, in such as way that, according to the explanation of Fulton Sheen, if Mary closed her eyes at Calvary, and if you close your eyes at Mass, you are present at exactly the same event.

I’m not certain what the poster believes, or how he or she intended the above to be read (perhaps they will join in this conversation). I don’t quote it to inquire into their belief, but only to show what I think might be representative of the “really present at Calvary” view.

I’ve seen Fulton Sheen mentioned in this manner before. What, I find interesting, though, is that it is often related as “if one closes one’s eyes” that one is present at exactly the same *event.

*I find it odd. For those who hold the “actually present at Calvary” theory, why would Mary have to close *her eyes? *She, after all, is witnessing Calvary. Anyone see what I am getting at?

Perhaps what is implicit in statements such as this is that Mary is present at both the crucifixion and a sacrifice when she is at Calvary. If she closes her eyes, we consider her presence at the sacrifice qua sacrifice, apart from the crucifixion. In the same way could we say the Mass is the sacrifice, but not the crucifixion?

I also want to note what I believe to be Archbishop Sheen’s actual quote that this seems to be drawn from:
Fulton Sheen:

The Mass is not a souvenir. When you go to Mass it is not the same as going, for example, to Calvary and chipping away a rock and saying, “This is a souvenir of the place where our Lord died.” No, the Mass is a vision; it is an action in time and in eternity. It is in time, because we see it taking place before our eyes on the altar. It is also in eternity, as regards the value of redemption. All the merits of our Lord’s death, Resurrection, ascension, and glorification are applied to us. We unite ourselves with that great eternal act of love. The mass, then, is not a distinct sacrifice from the cross. If we at the Mass close our eyes and concentrate on that mystery, we are in effect with Mary, and Magdalen, and John at the foot of the cross.

A couple of interesting points here.

1. The Mass “is an action in time and in eternity. It is in time, because we see it [the Mass] taking place before our eyes on the altar. It is also in eternity, as regards the value of redemption.**”

It seems the focus here is that the effect of the crucifixion transcends time (and not the crucifixion itself) Since the merits of Christ’s death are applied to us at Mass, one can say the crucifixion is virtually (i.e. in power) present. But is Sheen saying that Calvary (the cross, the soldiers, etc) are present?

1. “The mass, then, is not a distinct sacrifice from the cross.” Note the focus, again, on the sacrifice and not the cross.

"If we at the Mass close our eyes and concentrate on that mystery, we are in effect with Mary, and Magdalen, and John *at the foot of the cross.

*Here we see that the “eye closing” is recommend only to those of us at Mass, not those at Calvary. And notice that qualification “in effect”. I’ve mentioned this before, that often there is a qualification to show some sort of difference from actually being at Calvary. Other qualifiers are “as it were”, or “in a way”, or “in a manner of speaking.”

Does it indicate a devotional way of speaking in contradistinction to a theological thesis? I’m inclined to think so. Anyone have any thoughts?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

All,

I ran across a passage in the work In Conversation with God by Francis Fernandez* which seems to put forth in a succinct way the position that the sacrifice of the Mass consists in something different than physical events of Calvary.

30.2 The Holy Mass, a renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross.

To help us to meditate today on the unity that exists between the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Holy Mass, let us fix our attention on the interior oblation that Christ makes of himself, with a total self-surrender and loving submission to his Father. The Holy Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross are one and the same sacrifice, although they are separated in time. There is made present once again, not the sorrowful and bloody circumstances of Calvary, but the total loving submission of Our Lord to his Father’s will. This internal offering of himself is identical on Calvary and in the Mass: it is Christ’s oblation. It is the same Priest, the same Victim, the same oblation and submission to the Will of God the Father. The external manifestation of the Passion and Death of Jesus goes on – in the Mass, through the sacramental separation, in an unbloody manner, of the Body and Blood of Christ through means of the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine. (In Conversation with God, Volume Two: Lent – Holy Week – Eastertide)

A few notes:

1. “let us fix our attention on the interior oblation that Christ makes of himself”
2. “The Holy Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross are one and the same sacrifice” – again, it seems useful to read “sacrifice of the cross” in a way that can be distinct from “the crucifixion”.
3. The key sentence: "There is made present once again, not the sorrowful and bloody circumstances of Calvary, but the total loving submission of Our Lord to his Father’s will.
4. “This internal offering of himself **is identical **on Calvary and in the Mass” – again, it is the internal offering of Christ at Calvary and the internal offering of Christ in the Mass in which we find the identity between Calvary and the Mass, not the manner of offering. . . not the crucifixion.
5. But what of the external manifestation of the sacrifice? Is it there in the Mass? Yes, but in a different manner: “The external manifestation of the Passion and Death of Jesus goes on – in the Mass, through the sacramental separation, in an unbloody manner, of the Body and Blood.”
   But we should note that, although the Crucifixion and the Mass are the same internal sacrifice but in two different external manners, there seems to be a connection – a mystical representation – such that Fernandez says “the external. . .goes on”. But, again, he points out that it is a sacramental separation, and unbloody.

I return again to what seems to be that crucial phrase often used by saints and theologians when speaking of the Mass and Calvary, that in a way, or in a manner of speaking, we are present at Calvary. I would take it to mean the externals of Calvary “go on” in a way. . . through sacramental representation. . . but not in the way of “we are as present as Mary and John”. Why? Because Mary and John were present (in the normal sense of the word) at the sorrowful and bloody circumstances of Calvary, and we are not.

Any thoughts? Any clarifications? Can you help refine my approach?
VC

*(this is the orthodox work, not the heterodox but similarly titled “Conversations with God”)

 

[japhy]

1. “let us fix our attention on the interior oblation that Christ makes of himself”
2. “This internal offering of himself **is identical **on Calvary and in the Mass” – again, it is the internal offering of Christ at Calvary and the internal offering of Christ in the Mass in which we find the identity between Calvary and the Mass, not the manner of offering. . . not the crucifixion.

How’s this:

Jesus, the Son, by the nature of his very Person, exists to give himself completely to the Father. His entire existence – and especially his human life – is a self-giving to the Father in the Love of the Holy Spirit. In the words of a fellow blogger, “Anselm”: “Christ offers his own infinitely precious self as a gift which is more pleasing to God than all our sins are displeasing. That this gift of himself took the form of death does not mean that it is death precisely as such that God is pleased with. It was rather the perfect expression of love that goes all the way ‘to the end’ (Jn 13:1).”

This means that Christ’s eternal self-offering to the Father was manifested temporally as his crucifixion, his death on a cross on Calvary. As real and significant as that crucifixion and death and sacrifice is, it was also the “external” presentation in time of the eternal self-offering of the Son to the Father.

This is how the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is linked to the sacrifice on the Cross: at Mass, we are not witnessing the brutal temporal external presentation of Christ’s eternal self-offering, but we are witnessing (behind sacramental veils) the heavenly presentation of Christ’s eternal self-offering. It is still presented to us by external means, but these are external means which better present the “living” aspect of Christ’s eternal self-offering – that is, that Christ is alive and dies no more.

In summary: The sacrifice is and has always been Jesus giving himself utterly to the Father, and for our sake. The cross was the temporal manifestation of that offering. The Eucharist is the sacramental manifestation of that offering, and is somewhere between being “temporal” and “eternal”. In Heaven, we will witness that offering without and veiling at all.

(Post-script: I wonder if this presentation of the doctrine of the Eucharist might help Protestants come to a better understanding of it, and eventually to accept it…)

 

[centurionguard]

How’s this:

Jesus, the Son, by the nature of his very Person, exists to give himself completely to the Father. His entire existence – and especially his human life – is a self-giving to the Father in the Love of the Holy Spirit. In the words of a fellow blogger, “Anselm”: “Christ offers his own infinitely precious self as a gift which is more pleasing to God than all our sins are displeasing. That this gift of himself took the form of death does not mean that it is death precisely as such that God is pleased with. It was rather the perfect expression of love that goes all the way ‘to the end’ (Jn 13:1).”

This means that Christ’s eternal self-offering to the Father was manifested temporally as his crucifixion, his death on a cross on Calvary. As real and significant as that crucifixion and death and sacrifice is, it was also the “external” presentation in time of the eternal self-offering of the Son to the Father.

This is how the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is linked to the sacrifice on the Cross: at Mass, we are not witnessing the brutal temporal external presentation of Christ’s eternal self-offering, but we are witnessing (behind sacramental veils) the heavenly presentation of Christ’s eternal self-offering. It is still presented to us by external means, but these are external means which better present the “living” aspect of Christ’s eternal self-offering – that is, that Christ is alive and dies no more.

In summary: The sacrifice is and has always been Jesus giving himself utterly to the Father, and for our sake. The cross was the temporal manifestation of that offering. The Eucharist is the sacramental manifestation of that offering, and is somewhere between being “temporal” and “eternal”. In Heaven, we will witness that offering without and veiling at all.

(Post-script: I wonder if this presentation of the doctrine of the Eucharist might help Protestants come to a better understanding of it, and eventually to accept it…)

Thanks Japhy; Loved your description of the SACRIFICE of the Mass. It’s sometimes regrettably that words like these can’t be exactingly incorporated into a frequent homily for a reminder or on the Feast of Corpus Christi.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

but we are witnessing (behind sacramental veils) the heavenly presentation of Christ’s eternal self-offering. It is still presented to us by external means, but these are external means which better present the “living” aspect of Christ’s eternal self-offering – that is, that Christ is alive and dies no more.

Hmmm. Up until that point I think we follow substantially the same path.

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?

japhy:

In Heaven, we will witness that offering without and veiling at all.

There, that’s the question I have. What is it do you think we are witnessing in Heaven? What offering?

Thanks japhy,
VC

 

[benedictgal]

Hmmm. Up until that point I think we follow substantially the same path.

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?

There, that’s the question I have. What is it do you think we are witnessing in Heaven? What offering?

Thanks japhy,
VC

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. 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.

The Book of Revelation speaks of the heavenly liturgy. What we experience on earth is a foretaste of the heavenly liturgy, of the Lamb’s Supper, the wedding feast. It prepares us for what we will experience in heaven.