Why is the Eucharist called a bloodless sacrifice?

[benedictgal]

Hi benedictgal,

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?

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

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

VC

The sepration of the Body and Blood during the Consecration means that in death, both elements are separated. The blood no longer flows through the veins of someone who has died. T

I have not had a chance to talk to my parochial vicar, but, I have heard his homilies for nearly 12 years to be able to recite what he says from memory. Of late, having read the books of the Holy Father, he has really preached a lot about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

From memory, this is what he has said (I realize that he is not the Magisterium, but, the notion of Sacrifice has long been ignored until he took the Holy Father’s football and ran with it).

We are not second-class Christians because we were not “there” when Jesus walked the earth. We are just as much present at Calvary as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene. During the Doxology, when the priest is lifting up the Body and Blood of Christ, saying, “through Him, with Him and in Him” he is offering the Sacrifice to God the Father.

We do not necessarily have to consume the Body and Blood of Christ to be present at Calvary. Were that the case, the folks who wouldn’t be able to receive Holy Communioni (divorced and invalidly rermarried Catholics, candidates and catechumenes) would not be participants in the Holy Sacrifice. The priest completes the sacrifice when he consumes the Sacred Species.

My pastor had an inservice for the EMHCs, lectors, catechists and others. He talked about the Eucharist, but, he only elaborated on the meal aspect. I love my pastor a lot; however, he and my parochial vicar are about as opposite as you can get. My pastor focuses on community and my PV focuses on the vertical. I did not feel comfortable broaching the subject with my pastor because I believe that the response would not be what I am seeking, or would be relevent to thsi thread.

 

[porthos11]

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.

Nope, I deny this absolutely and vehemently. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was complete, as Hebrews says: Christ died for sins once for all.

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.

Right. What’s in heaven is not merely “part” of the Sacrifice, but *the *Sacrifice itself, now in eternity with Jesus’ Ascension.

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.

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Because Heaven is eternal, Jesus’ sacrifice is now in eternity, which enables it to be re-presented and applied to us. If the Lamb is standing alive, but as if slain, we see the imagery of Jesus in glory, but the death still present.

 

[japhy]

Nope, I deny this absolutely and vehemently. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was complete, as Hebrews says: Christ died for sins once for all.

I think he meant that Christ’s death on Calvary was not the complete act of sacrifice: the immolation of the victim is only HALF the sacrifice, because the immolated victim must also be offered.

Rehashing:

The immolation on Calvary was bloody and the “altar” was the cross; the offering did not take place on Calvary or anywhere else on earth, but in Heaven.

The immolation in the Mass is unbloody upon the altar, under the signs of bread and wine being consecrated separately; the offering in the Mass is done just after the consecration, by Christ, through the person of the priest.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Nope, I deny this absolutely and vehemently. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was complete, as Hebrews says: Christ died for sins once for all.

This is the real problem here, and I think it’s one of misunderstanding. Let me try to repeat using slightly different language.

There is no question that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins, and that that sacrifice began on Calvary. The disagreement is whether or not that sacrifice was completed on Calvary, or if it - the same sacrifice - was completed in Heaven.

Again, every and all sacrifices have two distinct parts: the shedding of blood, and the presentation of that blood to God. This is an inescapable fact about the nature of sacrifice. Consider a man living during the time of the Temple. This man brings a bull to sacrifice at the Temple. He enters into the Temple area where sacrifices are slain, and he kills the bull. Then, he walks away. This man has not offered a sacrifice. He began to, but he never actually offered it because he didn’t present the animal to God (in this case that would constitute a priest burning the animal). Consider the high priest on the Day of Atonement, who is to slay an animal, then bring it into the Holy of Holies and spinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat. If the priest slays the animal but does not bring it into the Holy of Holies, there is no sacrifice, but only a dead beast.

When Christ died on Calvary, His sacrifice was not complete. What comes after is not a different sacrifice at all: it’s still the same one because the sacrifice offered on the cross hasn’t been completed until Christ enters the true Holy of Holies (Heaven) and presents His blood to God. This is how sacrifice works. Moreover, Hebrews explains that this is what Christ does - somewhat explicitly actually:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
(Heb 9:11-12)

The key here - and throughout the entire book of Hebrews - is the parallel drawn between Christ’s sacrifice and the sacrifices offered by the high priest in the Temple. This passage offers one example: the high priest in the temple first slew the animal, then using it’s blood as a “ticket” entered into the Holy of Holies, where he presented the blood. Christ’s entrance into Heaven is depicted as the same as the act of the priest, that is, an entrance to present blood that was shed outside. Later in the same chapter it is made even clearer:

For 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. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Heb 9:24-28)

Note above all the very, very critical point: the difference between Christ and the temple high priest is not that Christ’s presentation occured outside of the Holy of Holies, but rather that in order to offer it in the Holy of Holies He entered only once, whereas the high priest entered every year. Whenever he entered, the high priest needed to shed more blood, but Christ enters once and so, Hebrews says, He need not die again and again, as He does not enter again, which would require the shedding of blood.

The holy of holies on earth was just an image, and so the priests who entered had to leave, for they could not spend their lives in a chamber. They also had to leave because should they have sinned while in there, they would have died, and so they needed to get in, get it done, and get out. (For this reason, the high priest wore bells into the Holy of Holies and a rope around his ankle, so that if the attendants heard the bells stop, they would know he had died and drag him out.) The Holy of Holies Christ entered is Heaven - it is the reality, the true presence of God, where one can spend all eternity.

When Hebrews says Christ offered a sacrifice once for all, it is very, very clear that what it’s talking about here is the shedding of blood and the entrance into the Holy of Holies that occurs once, not that His sacrifice happened and ended and is now over. Quite on the contrary, Hebrews depicts Christ’s sacrifice as never-ending. 8:1-3 tells us that Christ is a high priest serving and offering sacrifice in Heaven: in fact it says He must have sacrifice to offer. 7:25 tells us that He saves us because He always lives to make intercession for us, unlike the other high priests who died. Again, this intercession is what saves us Hebrews says, and so this intercession must not be distinct from Christ’s sacrifice.

continued…

 

[Lazerlike42]

The sacrifice of Calvary and the Sacrifice of Heaven and the Sacrifice of the Mass are all the same sacrifice. The key is that every single sacrifice has two parts, the shedding of blood and the presentation of that blood. Hebrews goes to great lengths to point out that Christ’s sacrifice was no different, but was essentially the same as that of the Temple, with the exception of the fact that the Holy of Holies Christ entered into was the true Holy of Holies.

Thus, when I say that the Sacrifice of Calvary wasn’t completed, I don’t mean it wasn’t sufficient, or that it needed to be repeated. I mean quite literally that the sacrifice that Christ began on Calvary - the one, singular sacrifice - did not end until He appeared before the Father in Heaven, and Heaven being eternal, ithis presentation is eternal as well.

I hope by this time you understand my point, but I’m not sure that you didn’t before, so my question would simply be, how do you get around the nature of sacrifice itself, namely, that every sacrifice begins with the shedding of blood and is completed by the presentation of that blood? In my mind it’s simply undeniable that Christ’s actions on Calvary - the ones He physically performed in a moment of time in a particular physical place - did not constitute in and of themselves a sacrifice, but only the shedding of blood of a sacrifice. If the entire thing took place on that hill that day, then when did He present His blood? Further, if you can provide a theory for where He did that, then what is Hebrews talking about when it continually explains that Christ entered into Heaven to present His blood just as the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies to present the blood that was previously shed?

 

[porthos11]

The sacrifice of Calvary and the Sacrifice of Heaven and the Sacrifice of the Mass are all the same sacrifice. The key is that every single sacrifice has two parts, the shedding of blood and the presentation of that blood. Hebrews goes to great lengths to point out that Christ’s sacrifice was no different, but was essentially the same as that of the Temple, with the exception of the fact that the Holy of Holies Christ entered into was the true Holy of Holies.

Thus, when I say that the Sacrifice of Calvary wasn’t completed, I don’t mean it wasn’t sufficient, or that it needed to be repeated. I mean quite literally that the sacrifice that Christ began on Calvary - the one, singular sacrifice - did not end until He appeared before the Father in Heaven, and Heaven being eternal, ithis presentation is eternal as well.

I hope by this time you understand my point, but I’m not sure that you didn’t before, so my question would simply be, how do you get around the nature of sacrifice itself, namely, that every sacrifice begins with the shedding of blood and is completed by the presentation of that blood? In my mind it’s simply undeniable that Christ’s actions on Calvary - the ones He physically performed in a moment of time in a particular physical place - did not constitute in and of themselves a sacrifice, but only the shedding of blood of a sacrifice. If the entire thing took place on that hill that day, then when did He present His blood? Further, if you can provide a theory for where He did that, then what is Hebrews talking about when it continually explains that Christ entered into Heaven to present His blood just as the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies to present the blood that was previously shed?

I believe I see your point, and as I said, I haven’t seen any problem with your views. And yes, insofar as the whole thing you described fulfills the Old Testament foreshadowing, you’re right. But as I indicated, this is linked with the Ascension, which is part of the Paschal Mystery, and is also what is re-presented at Mass, so still, I see no incompatibility, and in fact, what you describe is essential to the anamnesis.

 

[japhy]

I asked on Open Line just now. I was the first called, about 10 minutes in. You can listen (encore) tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm PT. It will also be available as a podcast from EWTN.com soonish.

 

[japhy]

I asked on Open Line just now. I was the first called, about 10 minutes in. You can listen (encore) tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm PT. It will also be available as a podcast from EWTN.com soonish.

It’s online already. My call in its entirety begins at 11:36 and ends at 16:05. Here’s a rough transcript of the meat of it:
JP: I was having a conversation with a couple other Catholics about what exactly is made present during the Eucharist. We know it’s the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but with the language of “anamnesis” and “zikkaron” and “memorial”, my question is: is the crucifixion being made present, or is it rather the sacrifice which is being made present, because I think you can distinguish between the two. And the reason this came up is because we know the crucifixion is the bloody immolation of Christ but in the Eucharist we have an unbloody immolation which is signified by the separate consecration of] bread and the wine; and the crucifixion was just the immolation of Christ, it wasn’t the offering, and Christ offered himself in heaven and so he’s eternally offering himself in heaven. So I guess the question is: can you distinguish between the crucifixion as an event and the sacrifice, and which is being made present?

CD: Well, I think they’re not unconnected obviously, because a particular historical moment and historical means were chosen by which Christ made his sacrifice. But we would have to also say it was the offering himself even unto death that is meritorious before God, and not the means or the time or anything like that, although it is of course historically intimately connected.

To go back to the first part of your question, the Eucharist of course, what is made present in the Eucharist and that for which the sacramental signs are pointing to are the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Now the sacramental sign of the bread points to his body, which by the principle of concomitance, what comes along with his body is, because Christ is whole and entire, his Blood, his Soul, and his Divinity, so that the whole Christ is present. And also with the cup, the sacramental sign of the wine points to his blood, which then by concomitance, we have his Body, his Soul and Divinity; so again the whole Christ is present, and Catholics receive completely and totally our Lord under either species.

But then there is the element of the sacrifice, which is made present, and that’s why it’s called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after all. And that is by this two-fold consecration, by which again the sacramental signs – clearly, Christ is not being slain again in heaven, he’s there in his glorified body – and as the Council of Trent said, he is made present in a sacramental mode in the Eucharistic species, or by means of the Eucharistic species. But then also you have the two-fold – sacramentally again, because we see the sacramental sign of the body and the sacramental sign of the blood separated – and there again sacramentally his sacrifice is being re-presented which was accomplished historically once for all. So we’re not crucifying Christ again as if pounding nails into his hands is what accomplished our salvation. It was his sacrifice, it was the total gift of himself, his pouring out, to use the personalist language of the Theology of the Body, the total gift of himself, which was meritorious before the Father. And that is eternally present to the Father because he has ascended into Heaven and in Heaven it is eternity. So that is what is made present.

I don’t know if that answers your distinction completely, but that’s my attempt to do so in any case.
I didn’t press the issue any further. So that’s Colin Donovan’s take on the matter. It’s not magisterial, I just present it for consideration.

 

[ASD]

…so my question would simply be, how do you get around the nature of sacrifice itself, namely, that every sacrifice begins with the shedding of blood and is completed by the presentation of that blood?

Could Luke 23:46 be relevant?

And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost.

Aside: Reading this thread has been an education. However, can any of you point me to good discussion that, I guess, is logically prior to this one: Why sacrifice at all? TIA.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[japhy]

However, can any of you point me to good discussion that, I guess, is logically prior to this one: Why sacrifice at all?

I was looking at the Roman (Trent) Catechism just last night. The section on [the Eucharist as a Sacrifice](The Eucharist as a Sacrifice) is quite good. (Scroll down to almost the bottom; look for the heading “The Eucharist as a Sacrifice”.)

As for a CAF discussion on why it’s a sacrifice…

“Why did Jesus make the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”
“The Eucharist is the Sacrifice ‘Re-presented’”
“How the Eucharist be a Perpetual Sacrifice…”

 

[ASD]

Could Luke 23:46 be relevant?

And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend

It occurred to me to check the Greek for commend. It doesn’t really clarify the question for me. From Strong’s, FWIW:

3908 paratithemi par-at-ith’-ay-mee

from 3844 and 5087; to place alongside, i.e. present (food, truth); by
implication, to deposit (as a trust or for protection):–allege,
commend, commit (the keeping of), put forth, set before.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi folks,

I just wanted to return to this thread. It has been a interesting discussion so far, and in my opinion very valuable. I hope we can continue it.

Someone mentioned above (japhy? Lazer?) something that I think is very important, and it is something worth stressing as we continue. The Church, especially at Trent, has reaffirmed that the Mass is a sacrifice, and one essentially identical to the Sacrifice of the Cross, but She has never gone further to describe how exactly the Mass is such a sacrifice.

Because of this, various theological theories have been put forth over the centuries. Some rise, only to fade away. Some are rejected as untenable. And some remain today as possible explanations.

I just wanted to highlight this fact, because it is important that we all understand that there can be legitimate and Catholic disagreements regarding the metaphysical reality of how the Mass is a sacrifice. It means that the a) view we personally subscribe to isn’t the only possible one (and might not be the correct one); b)there might be things that commend one view over another, and c) we stand to learn much from one another as other theories might give us a deeper appreciation for the treasure of the Mass and of the liturgy. Help us to see a more complete picture, if you will.

With that said, here is a question that I thought was interesting.

---

I’d like to ask those who hold that the theory that the Mass is, in some mysterious way, Calvary itself: what exactly, would you say, is being offered in the Mass?

Thanks!
VC

 

[benedictgal]

My parochial vicar returned to this theme during the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas and, again, this past Sunday. He still maintains that we are made present at the Sacrifice of Calvary, his words.

I tend to lend out my Ratzinger books to priests who are slow in returning them. My pastor has both Spirit of the Liturgy and God Is Near. Both of these books make some references to the Sacrifice. I may just have to reorder them and let him keep them.

These books are great resources, if only I could get the priests to give them back to me. My PV has another one of my books. At least, as far as he is concerned, they are coming out in the homilies.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi benedictgal,

Charge him a late fee!

In the Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger has a very interesting chapter entitled “The Relationship of the Liturgy to Time and Space” which I know you’ll find (or rather, have already found) very interesting.

Quite an amazing book, particularly that chapter. The Holy Father’s writing is so expansive and careful, breathtaking.

benedictgal, about your PV. Do you think there is anything in the fact that he says we are made present at the sacrifice of Calvary (as opposed to, I guess, Calvary where the sacrifice took place)? Honest question, you know his mind better than any of us of course! Am I conveying that distinction well? (I’m not asking if you agree that the distinction holds water, just if you understand what I am trying to get at.)

What do you think about my other question regarding what is offered at the Mass?

Thanks!
VC

 

[japhy]

In the Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger has a very interesting chapter entitled “The Relationship of the Liturgy to Time and Space”…

Here are a few excerpts from that chapter (emphasis mine):
[p. 55]The Crucifixion of Christ, his death on the Cross, and, in another way, the act of his Resurrection from the grave, which bestows incorruptibility on the corruptible, are historical events that happen just once and as such belong to the past. The word semel (ephapx), “once for all”, which the epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes so vigorously in contrast to the multitude of repeated sacrifices in the Old Covenant, is strictly [p. 56] applicable to them. But if they were no moer than facts in the past, like all the dates we learn in history books, then there could be nothing contemporary about them. In the end they would remain beyond our reach. However, the exterior act of being crucified is accompanied by an interior act of self-giving …]. This act of giving is in no way just a spiritual occurrence. It is a spiritual act that takes up the bodily into itself, that embraces the whole man; indeed, it is at the same time an act of the Son. …] Just as the pain of the body is drawn into the pathos of the mind and becomes the Yes of obedience, so time is drawn into what reaches beyond time. The real interior act, though it does not exist without the exterior, transcends time, but since it comes from time, time can again and again be brought into it. That is how we can become contemporary with the past events of salvation.
So I would argue that from Cardinal Ratzinger’s perspective, “*n the Eucharist we are caught up and made contemporary with the Paschal Mystery of Christ” (p. 57); that is, the “interior act” is that which transcends time, and it is that which we are witnessing. This interior act, for reasons of necessity, manifested itself in an exterior way through a bloody immolation on a cross, but it was already a spiritual transcendental reality: at the Last Supper, Jesus “could say that his Body was ‘given’ only because he had in fact given it; he could present his Blood in the new chalice as shed for many only because he really had shed it.” (p. 55)

What this means to me, again, is that we are witnessing sacramentally (by means of true signs, not “mere” symbols) the immolation of Christ in an unbloody manner, and the eternal offering of himself to the Father in heaven. These two things are transcendent because Christ’s act of sacrifice (self-giving) to the Father “began” from all eternity in his very act of loving the Father. The crucifixion, then, is a “nailing” (forgive the pun) into historical time that transcendent reality of self-giving sacrificing love that the Son has for the Father for all eternity. The Eucharistic Prayer, on the other hand, is that same transcendent reality, now given greater clarity to us by his actual death, rendered under sacramental veils. It is the same reality, so it is the same sacrifice, only the manner of offering is different (as Trent says); so since the historical sacrifice was done bloodily on a cross, and this one (the Eucharist) is not, this one is not “the cross” but properly “the sacrifice of the cross”.

That’s my take on it.

I don’t think I a heretic, nor do I think a Catholic who disagrees with me is a heretic; so as Verbum Caro suggested, let’s keep our Catholic arms open wide on this one, ok? *

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Japhy,

Thanks for taking the time to type that in. I was thinking precisely of that passage, among others!

I think you and I agree substantially. (There might be a few small points that might be fruitful to discuss later, which could help both of us clarify our thought on it).

What I find interesting is that I sometimes get a sense (I know, I know, that isn’t a very helpful thing for our purposes and doesn’t really prove anything), a sense that when various authors speak of “the presence of the Cross” or “being at Calvary” that they qualify it a bit usually. And when they don’t qualify it, it sometimes seems to me that it is being offered more as a meditation or perhaps pastorally to wake people up to the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass, and not necessarily to describe, theologically, what is happening in the Sacrifice. Do you know what I mean, japhy? Does that make sense?

VC

 

[japhy]

I think you and I agree substantially. (There might be a few small points that might be fruitful to discuss later, which could help both of us clarify our thought on it).

Whether here, by private message, by email, or on a blog, I’d be happy to continue to pursue this!

… when various authors speak of “the presence of the Cross” or “being at Calvary” that they qualify it a bit usually. And when they don’t qualify it, … it is being offered more as a meditation or perhaps pastorally to wake people up to the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass, and not necessarily to describe, theologically, what is happening in the Sacrifice.

“Were you there when they crucified my Lord?”

I certainly don’t deny the spiritual and meditative value of “placing yourself at the foot of the cross” with Mary, John, and Christ. And for some people, yes, that sort of device (and I don’t use the word in a derogatory manner) is necessary for them to acknowledge the utter impact of the sacrifice. I try to do it during the Stations of the Cross: I meditate on the stations. When I was young, I remember attending a Stations liturgy wherein the meditation read at each station was designed to put you “in the scene”. It is very useful for prayerful meditation.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Colin Donovan’s answer to japhy, posted above is quite interesting. I think it contains some of the thoughts I’ve found expressed older works dealing with the theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass, but of course, it is limited by the format of the call-in program.

Colin’s answer, especially his reference to personalist philosphy, called to mind a phrase often used to describe married sexual relations. Sometimes I’ve heard it referred to as a “renewal of the marriage covenant” (c.f. John Kippley).

I don’t think those who subscribe to this view imagine that that their whole wedding ceremony is made present (after all some weddings come with inconveniences such as bowties that choke, misplaced rings(!?), inclement weather . . . you get the picture). I think the idea is that the “gift of self” is the same both at the wedding and in the sexual relationship, although in two very different manners. The wedding day is incorporated into the gift of self for two reasons a)it is the same self who is giving the gift of self both at the wedding ceremony and in the sexual relationship and b) the sexual relationship as “renewal of the marriage covenant” takes takes its meaning from and essentially refers to the wedding ceremony.

I haven’t really thought the whole thing out, and its not something that I myself would necessary put forth or subscribe to – just musing. Any thoughts?
VC

 

[japhy]

Colin’s answer, especially his reference to personalist philosphy, called to mind a phrase often used to describe married sexual relations. Sometimes I’ve heard it referred to as a “renewal of the marriage covenant” (c.f. John Kippley).

I don’t think those who subscribe to this view imagine that that their whole wedding ceremony is made present… . I think the idea is that the “gift of self” is the same both at the wedding and in the sexual relationship, although in two very different manners.

That sounds very reasonable to me. The signing of one’s self with holy water as a reminder of baptism (no matter where or how you were baptized) is another possible example of this.

 

[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?

VC