Im Confused About The Eucharist

[ICTHUS]

Okay, would someone explain to me the nature of the Eucharist as a sacrifice?

Coming (back) home to Rome...from a free evangelical church, I think I converted to the Faith too fast. One of the things that made me want to be Catholic was the Real Presence in the Eucharist...I believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.

However, I dont understand why or how it is a sacrifice. I dont understand what that sacrifice made present actually does for us, nor do I understand how this theology of the Eucharist as a sacrifice does not contradict Hebrews 7:27-28

Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

and

Heb 9:24-28

For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

If Christ was sacrificed ONCE, as Hebrews 9:28 claims, how can He be sacrificed again to take away sin, even if it is merely His death being "made present"

Im confused...I want to embrace the fulness of Orthodoxy, but obviously this is a MAJOR, MAJOR stumbling block that I dont fully understand yet...

God bless,

Ryan

[Mary's Knight, La]

It is sorta hard to understand but i'll try. Christ made the sacrifice of himself right, but it's the nature of a sacrifice that the people it's being made for must have something to do w/ it. In the Mass we participate in the act of Jesus on the cross. It's as if in each mass we went back in time to the hill on which the cross stood and participated with Jesus as he made the offering of His life to the Father. Because Christ was fully God and fully man the act is at once both inside and outside of time allowing everyone throughout the ages to participate in that one act. In a way it's sorta claiming the sacrifice as in saying (hey I'm who HE did that for).

Read and re-read the sections in the Catechism on it for more help. also the book Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed might help.

[cmotherofpirl]

Christ died once for the forgiveness of sin. At Mass he is not re-sacrificed, it is the original sacrifice. Think of it as you being on calvery at the foot of the Cross.

In the Mass we say do this in remembrance of me. Remembrance is a poor translation for what happens.

The definition of Anamnesis which you read is closer to the original

meaning than what we have in English - but it still does not cover the full

definition of the Greek word 'anamnesis'.

Jesus said (as expressed in English), "Do this 'in anamnesis' of me.

"Make ye my anamnesis" is UNDOUBTEDLY a better technical expresson of

the Greek than "Do this in (remembrance, memory, commemoration, memorial, or

memory) of me. All the words in (parens) have been used in various English

translations of Jesus' words in our English language Mass.

Various translators used those words because they corporately know there

is no English word which fully truly carries the sense of

the Greek word "anamnesis".

"Make you my anamnesis" is technically more accurate - but it would be

incomprehensible to most people.

Again, there is no precise English equivalent of anamnesis. WHY IS THAT

TRUE?

It is true because "commemoration", "remembrance", "memorial",

"memory" and all similar English words have a connotation of something which

is mentally remembered, without the thing itself being present in any other

way.

On the other hand (unlike our closesest English equivalents), in the

Scriptures 'anamnesis' (and its verbal form) means "recalling" or

"remembering" or "representing" before God a past event in THAT IS ACTUALLY

OPERATIVE IN ITS AFFECTS HERE AND NOW.

This is the actual sense of our English "commemoration" or "remembrance"

or "memorial" or "memory" which is used here when Our Lord says "Make you my

anamnesis".

It is not just a recalling of some past event.

While it IS also a "making present" of something which took place in the

past:

It is ALSO a reference to something which actually took place in the

past - but - whose affects are operatively also actually present in the here

and now. That is why it is referred to in several OT prophecies as a

"perpetual sacrifice" which will take place as a result of the arrival of

the Messiah.

But there is no way to clearly express in English the sense of the Greek

original.

[Cure of Ars]

Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist

During Mass the bread and wine are truly changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Not only this, but the one and the same sacrifice that Jesus preformed on the cross is made present in an unbloody manner once for all. (CCC 1367) This sacrifice is shown by Jesus’ words during the last supper when he said, “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” (Lk 22:19-20) Through the Eucharist we can consecrate and unite all our grace infused actions, our sufferings, and our total being to Christ’s sacrifice. Paul says, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16) Christ then takes our sacrifice, perfects it, and unites it to his own. (Heb 10:14,CCC 1369) Then Jesus’ sacrifice, united to the faithful, is offered to God the Father as a perfect sacrifice. (CCC 1370) This is why Jesus is our High Priest. (Heb 8: 1-6) As High Priest He is in heaven offering the sacrifice he performed on the cross to the Father and because we are a part of His body we can be a part of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Objection 1:The last supper was not a sacrifice it was only a “remembrance” of our lord.

The Bible passages on the last supper need to be interpreted through its Jewish context. Jesus and all the apostles were Jews and they were celebrating a Jewish ceremony called the Passover. The Passover itself is a sacrifice that prefigures what Jesus did during the last supper. God told Moses to perform the Passover so that the Hebrews would be liberated. God told them to sacrifice a lamb. But, most important, they had to eat the lamb. Because they did this, the angel of death passed over them and they were saved. In like manner, Jesus is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (Jh 1:29). Jesus said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…” (Jh 6:54) So when Jesus said, “This is My Body which will be given up for you," (Luke 22:19) it has a deep sacrificial meaning in the Passover context.

When Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, He was not telling them to do a cognitive exercise of thinking about Jesus. Again this needs to be interpreted though the Jewish Passover. When Jews celebrated the Passover they did not celebrate it like it was a past event. To them they were in fact a part of the one Passover that happened when Moses was alive. So when Jesus said remember he was talking about a sacrificial act of making present and becoming part of the one past event. In fact, remembrance is a translation of the Greek word anamnesis and in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the Apostles) anamnesis is used for the Hebrew word azkarah, which is a memorial sacrifice. (see Lev. 24:7and Numbers 10:10) So remembrance correctly translated is more than a cognitive event, but a past sacrifice made present.

Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” The Apostles as Jews would have recognized this as sacrificial language. It sounds very similar to this, "And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, 'Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.' (Exodus 24:8) The only time Jesus refers to starting a new covenant is during the last supper and this is always connected with his blood, because the new Covenant is based on Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross.

The happenings in the Old Testament point to a greater fulfillment in the New Testament. For example, Paul refers to typology when he writes, “Adam, who is a type of the one who is to come.” (Rom 5:14) Old Testament typology is depicted also in Hebrews 10:1. Paul indicates the law is only a shadow of the good things to come. The Old Testament just had symbols pointing to the new Covenant. In the New Covenant we have the fulfillment of the symbols, which is Christ himself. Some examples of the Old Testament symbols that are fulfilled in the Eucharistic sacrifice is the perpetual celebration of the Passover, the showbread in the temple (2 Chr 2:3) and other Hebrew sacrifices (see Num.28:1-6 and Ex.29:38-43).

Malchizedek is also a type of Christ. Hebrews 5:6 says that Jesus is a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. We do not know much about Melchizedek, but we do know that he was a Priest and King and that he offered bread and wine as a sacrifice. Where did Jesus use bread and wine as a sacrifice? The only place where Jesus offered bread and wine is during the last supper. This means that the last supper was a sacrifice. Malachi makes a prophesy that, “From the rising of the sun, even to it’s setting, my name is great among the nations [gentiles]; and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering;” (Malachi 2:11). Where is this prophesy being fulfilled? Where is there a sacrifice being offered everywhere by non-Jews and a pure one at that? The only pure sacrifice that exists is what Jesus did on the cross. The only place where this makes sense is fulfillment in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Mass.

Objection 2: Our works can’t be united to the Christ’s sacrifice because Jesus’ death on the cross is totally sufficient for our salvation.

It is correct that what Jesus did on the cross is totally sufficient. It has infinite value because Jesus was God. But God wants us to participate in his glory. Jesus wants us to take up our cross (Matt 16:24) because we are “God’s co-workers”. (1 Cor 3:9) We can participate in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, through grace, for the greater glory of God. A clear example of this is when Paul said the following, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church…” (Col 1:24)

Objection 3: The sacrifice of the Eucharist is a pagan corruption. The first Christians did not see the Eucharist as a sacrifice.

The early Christians saw the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Just because some pagan religions have remote similarities to the Catholic Mass does not mean that it originated from there. If this reasoning were true then the Virgin birth would also be a pagan corruption because some pagans also had this belief. But in both incidences pagan beliefs did not corrupt Christian beliefs. The truth is that the first Christians who were taught by the apostles saw the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Here is just a taste of what the early church fathers had to say.

This is a quote from the Didache. It was used for the instruction of new Christians.

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Here is a quote from Pope Clement I. He was the fourth pope of Rome and he learned the faith from Paul and Peter. In fact, Tertullian reports that Peter consecrated him as a bishop.

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Here is a quote from Ignatius of Antioch. He was the bishop of Antioch and learned the faith from the Apostle John.

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Objection 4: Why do Catholics re-crucify Jesus? Jesus death was “once for all”.

Jesus is not re-crucified in the Mass. The sacrifice of the Eucharist is the one and the same sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago made present today in an unbloody way. This concept is in Revelation. That is why Jesus is portrayed as, “a Lamb that seemed to have been slain” (Rev 5:1:6) Another Biblical example of Jesus’ one sacrifice being re-presented in a different place and time is Jesus as our High Priest in Heaven. The Bible says, “we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. Now every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus the necessity for this one also to have something to offer.” (Heb 8: 1-3) Jesus is in heaven right now presenting sacrifice to His Father.

“But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice.” We know that the end of the ages did not occur when Paul wrote Hebrews. The sacrifice happened once, but it can be made present yesterday, today, and tomorrow “once for all.” This miracle is possible because Jesus is outside of time, not bound by time, and He is God. He can do anything.

Conclusion

“The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life.” (CCC 1324) Through the sacrifice of the Eucharist we can participate in the greatest act of love. (Jn 15:13). Through the sacrifice of the Eucharist we participate in the wisdom and power of God, Christ crucified. (1 Cor 1:18-25) We pick up our cross and follow Jesus to the sacrifice. “For our paschal lamb Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast…” (1 Cor 5:7-8)

Questions to Ponder

Why is there a alter in Heaven (Rev 8:3)?

Why is Jesus seen in Heaven by John as a “Lamb that seemed to have been slain”(Rev 5:6)?

Paul says, “We [Christians] have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle [Jews] have no right to eat”. (Heb 13:10) What is the purpose of an alter? Why would the early Christian need an altar? Does your church have an altar?

“From the rising of the sun, even to it’s setting, my name is great among the nations (i.e. gentiles); and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering;” (Malachi 2:11). Where is this prophecy being fulfilled?

[JP2Iloveyou]

Read The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn.

[ICTHUS]

Whoa, that's...interesting. I never thought of that before, but I guess the word "anamnesis" doesnt really translate terribly well into English, does it...hence our English bibles dont really convey the meaning of what the Eucharist truly is....

[Jake Huether]

True, true. We do not re-sacrifice Jesus. Rather, we are transported in time (because God spans time and space). We are brought to calvary, where our Lord and Savior gives his Body and Blood up for our sins!

Another way of looking at it (I just thought of)... Not every human on earth has yet to be born. Therefore, salvation is still in process. Christ's blood will flow untill it has touched every last person. That is, in our time. Since Christ is God, and God spans time and space, his ONE death covered EVERY human that has been or will ever be born! In a snap of a fingure, when Christ offered up his soul, salvation spanned space and time. It touched the ends of past and future to infinitity. However, for us, who are trapped in time, Christ's death and resurection are still in progress, as presented at Mass. It is mind boggling to think about it. Mass is the necessary link to connect us, who are trapped in time, to Christ who is infinite. Mass brings us to the foot of the cross, so that we might recieve the Body and Blood of our Lord, as he offered it on the Cross in 33 ad!

Similar to the OT Passover. It wasn't enough the first time, but to continue the covenant, they were required to continue the sacrifice. But since lambs are creation - once they are sacrificed and consumed, they no longer exist. Therefore, they had to re-sacrifice each year. Not to mention, lambs, like humans are subject to time. So, for their salvific effects to take place for each generation, there must be a NEW lamb. But Christ is THE LAMB. He is not created. He cannot be reduced to ash. His salvific sacrifice spans all generations, via the Mass - which takes humans, who are subject to time, out of time.

[Dave]

I've posted this article from New Oxford Review magazine before. Now I think it would behoove me to post it again.

BLOODY OR UNBLOODY — OR BOTH?

Mario Derksen

Mario Derksen, of Coral Springs, Florida, is Editor of the Catholic Insight Web page (www.cathinsight.com). ***Note from me -- don't go to that site; it has a schismatic attitude -- the site is VERY sympathetic to the SSPX and highly critical of our Holy Father.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

There is probably no doctrine in the Catholic Faith that has been misunderstood more by Protestants than that of the Holy Mass. The Mass is the central act of Catholic worship: Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is perpetuated because the priest offers it anew to the Father. It is not a new sacrifice, but the same one that Jesus offered on the Cross 2,000 years ago, the difference being that in the Mass it is — in a sense — unbloody. Jesus does not die or suffer again at each Mass, but is simply re-presented, re-offered to the Father.

In short, the only difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Mass is that the mode of offering is different. On the Cross, the mode of offering was bloody; in the Mass, the mode of offering is unbloody. This is the only difference. Since Christ's Sacrifice is present both on Calvary and at every single Mass, it is the same Sacrifice, and what is said of one must be said of the other. Therefore, since Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary was propitiatory — i.e., sin-atoning — so is the Sacrifice of Holy Mass. The Council of Trent teaches very explicitly: "Appeased by this sacrifice [of the Mass], the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons…crimes and sins."

By giving us the Mass, our Lord has ensured a way to apply the graces merited on His Holy Cross to us today, to all of His faithful in any and every age. As James Cardinal Gibbons noted, "In the Sacrifice of the Mass I apply to myself the merits of the sacrifice of the cross, from which the Mass derives all its efficacy." The Mass carries the Cross throughout the centuries until Christ returns. Each and every day (except Good Friday), the Church celebrates Mass to make present what Christ has wrought, to dispense and unlock again the infinite graces which He earned for us so that God's wrath for us on account of our sins might be appeased. Since Christ's Sacrifice is infinite and all-pleasing to God, there is potential forgiveness of any sin, if our souls are properly disposed and we are truly penitent.

Protestants will try to tell you that Christ underwent our punishment — He did not! If that were so, then Christ would have had to be sent to Hell for all eternity, for this is what we truly deserve (see Rev. 20:13-14). Christ suffered for us, no question, but He did so in order to earn for us God's forgiveness, not so that we wouldn't have to suffer or be punished temporarily. In other words, Jesus helped us avoid Hell not by undergoing the punishment Himself, but by offering Himself to God in order to appease God's wrath and prevent His justice from being executed (see Isa. 53:10-12; Heb. 2:17). Just as lambs and goats were slain in the Old Testament in order to appease the wrath of God, so Christ was slain and slaughtered to appease God's wrath, but with Christ it was once and for all.

However, we are talking here about possible, or potential, forgiveness, not necessarily actual forgiveness. The Church does not teach that because of what Christ did for us, all sins will be forgiven in the sense that all people will be saved in the end; rather, the truth is that all sins can be forgiven because of Christ's ultimate act of love. What does the "can" depend on? It depends on us, on our willingness to repent, receive forgiveness, and obey Christ (see Heb. 3:12-15; Rom. 11:21-23). So that the graces of Calvary can be applied to all believers, and not just to those who were around the Cross that first Good Friday, our Lord instituted the Holy Mass. Now all who attend Mass can benefit from Christ's wonderful Sacrifice and receive His Body and Blood.

Protestants don't avail themselves of that privilege. All they do is pray, sing, read the Bible, and hear a sermon. No wonder, then, that the focus during their service is on the preacher, the "pastor," who is expected to give them a moving sermon. Protestants seem to believe that they have to "feel good" at their worship service. (I'm thinking especially of Evangelicals and Pentecostals here.) Since all they can focus on is the Bible, the music, and the pastor's sermon, it follows that if there is no emotional reaction on their part, they figure that something is wrong. This is evidenced by the preacher's tone, which is usually extremely emotional and theatrical. The desired outcome is that there be some sort of deeply felt reaction on the part of the listener — either intense joy or sorrow or shame or just simple but enthusiastic agreement that shouts "Amen!" from the back of the auditorium. The more touched one is, the more one has worshiped God, the Protestant axiom seems to be. After all, how often have we heard that a Catholic became Protestant or that a Protestant has switched to a different church or denomination because he "didn't get fed"! But the true believer goes to church in order to worship God, not to feel moved. Not Me, but Thee.

The standard for worship is certainly set by God Himself. In Hebrews 12:28, St. Paul says: "Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe." Gee, read that again. He doesn't say, "any worship, with shouts of joy and clapping of hands." He says it must be done in reverence and awe. Also, Paul emphasizes that the worship ought to be acceptable. This means that some worship is not acceptable. How to decide? Whom to trust on the matter? You can choose between the Protestant notion of "each believer decides for himself" (whence Paul's admonition in Heb. 12:28 would make no sense at all) and the Catholic notion of "listen to the Apostles and their successors," for they speak for Christ (see Lk. 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).

Here's the Catholic position, then. Since we're all imperfect, sinful, and totally dependent on Christ, we ourselves, no matter how much we might try, could not possibly worship God in a pleasing fashion. Think about it: God is infinite. He deserves infinite honor, glory, and worship. No creature could possibly give Him His due since all creatures are, by definition, finite. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were great, but by no means sufficient. God wanted to be worshiped by man in a particular fashion. Though the lambs and goats could never really take away sins (see Heb. 10:4,11), this is how God wanted man to make atonement for his sins under the Old Covenant. But now we're under a New Covenant, which is everlasting and a perfection of the Old. Through Christ, God is worshiped infinitely and perfectly. The Sacrifice of the Cross gives God His due! Hence, it follows that if we want to worship God in an acceptable fashion, as Paul commands us, we must somehow unite ourselves to that Sacrifice of Christ.

How? Through the Mass, which is the same Sacrifice made available to us here and now! No wonder the Church requires the faithful to go to Mass weekly! It is through Holy Communion (a visible sign conferring grace) that the believer unites himself with the Lord. No relying on fuzzy feelings, mustering a sense of faith, dramatic sermons, or "worship music." No, here we have something much more profound, something absolutely inimitable: a visible union between Christ and the believer. No shouting, dancing, or clapping can possibly trump that.

The Church teaches that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist is an intrinsic union of the recipient with Christ" (Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 394). Jesus affirmed this most eloquently: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (Jn. 6:57). Through Christ's Sacrifice, God is given infinite worship, and hence he who unites himself to that Sacrifice can worship God in an acceptable way, in the way He wants to be worshiped. "The sacrifice of the Mass…is always pleasing to God" (Ott, p. 413). That this is true is obvious since the true priest and victim of the Mass is Christ, who, on the Cross, was both priest and victim (see Heb. 7:26).

Now, all of this will raise some Protestant eyebrows. We often hear the argument that since the Mass is not a bloody but an unbloody Sacrifice, it cannot take away sins and therefore can't be the same as that of the Cross; after all, we read in Hebrews 9:22: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Thus, many Protestants conclude and triumphantly exclaim: "Look, your very own Bible condemns your Mass! It cannot take away sins if it's not bloody!" Gee, what happened here? Have Catholics overlooked this passage for 2,000 years? Are Protestants the first to have discovered Hebrews 9:22?

Actually, the Church wrote the Bible, compiled the Bible, and therefore interprets the Bible. It would be foolish to believe either that the Church was not aware of this passage, or that she teaches something contrary to Holy Scripture. So let's recapitulate: We've already seen that the Church insists that the Sacrifice of our Lord is one. It is unique and was done once and for all: "We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). The Church teaches that the Sacrifice of the Mass is identical to that of the Cross; it is not a different one; in fact, it could not be because this would imply that Christ's Sacrifice is defective, whereas both the Bible and the Church clearly teach the opposite: "Where there is forgiveness of [sins through Christ], there is no longer any offering for sin" (Heb. 10:18); "The satisfaction which Jesus Christ has in an admirable manner made to God the Father for our sins is full and complete" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IV).

Mass and Cross being the one Sacrifice of Christ, then, we must ask ourselves: What is the nature of that Sacrifice? Is it bloody or unbloody? Clearly, Christ's Sacrifice was bloody! After all, He shed His most precious Blood on our behalf (see Rom. 3:25, Eph. 1:7, etc.). In its essence, then, Christ's Sacrifice is bloody. What is different at Mass is the mode or manner of offering. It is to this sense that the Catholic refers when he says that the Mass is un-bloody. But in the Mass, bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body and Blood of Christ. So obviously, in that sense, the Mass is a bloody Sacrifice. It does (and must) contain the true Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise it could hardly be identical to the Sacrifice on Calvary. However, whereas on Calvary, Christ died and shed His Blood in a unique way, in the Mass our Lord mystically renews His death and Body-and-Blood Sacrifice in a sacramental way, not under the appearance of His Body and Blood, as on the Cross, but under the appearance of bread and wine; hence the manner of offering at the Mass is unbloody. It is bloody in the sense that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but unbloody in the sense that it is offered under the appearance of bread and wine in a sacramental fashion.

Christ does not suffer again or die again in the Mass; however, He does renew His already completed suffering and death on the Cross. Protestant Eric Svendsen wonders just what this means: "It is difficult to know just what the real difference is between a re-presenting of Christ's sacrifice and a re-sacrificing of him." Let's help Mr. Svendsen out here: A sacrificial action is clearly characterized by the killing of the victim. For there to be a new or another sacrifice, there would have to be a new killing. At Mass, no killing takes place, so it cannot be a re-sacrificing of Christ. What, then, does it mean to re-present or mystically renew the Sacrifice of Calvary? It means that we once again take the already sacrificed Christ, hold Him up to the Father, and say, "Father, look upon the Lamb that was slain for our sake. Through this holy and perfect Sacrifice, pardon our sins, and turn Your wrath away from us; be appeased by the pleasing odor of this unblemished Lamb." In order to do this, obviously, Christ must be made present again — which is why the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood.

This may all seem rather overwhelming due to the complicated theological matter. But let us remember that, being earthly creatures, we are always confined to a limited view of the truth and to expressing what we know about this truth in human and finite words. We must always keep in mind that we're dealing with mystery — a mystery that cannot be completely understood from this side of Heaven.

The Sacrifice of the Mass was prophesied in the Scriptures, most notably in Malachi 1:11: "From the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (italics added). How privileged are we who receive the sacramental Body and Blood of our Savior; it is as though we were at the Cross 2,000 years ago! "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).

[Donna]

If anyone wishes to understand, I suggest reading the Offertory up through the end of the Mass in the Missal of St. Pius V. Most of the above is on the thread "The Ordinary of the Mass" (1962 Missal), on Open Mic.