In Defense Of The Holy Sacrifice

[ICTHUS]

So, a girl in my online journal has asked me "Why are you a Catholic as opposed to a Protestant." My answer is a long one, and has mostly to do with the Eucharist.

I would like, firstly, for you guys to help me make this as orthodox as possible, so firstly, could you check over what I've written so far? Secondly, as I'll explain at the end of the document, I'm stuck: so, without further ado, here goes......................................................................................................

........

As for the second question, "Why am I a Catholic?", I hope you’ll forgive my going into some detail, as this is not a topic which I can gloss over in a few sentences (or a page or two, for that matter)

Well, for one, when I was in my non-denominational church I was extremely dissatisfied with the lack of theological depth present therein. Also, I developed a curiosity (some would say, an unhealthy one) for discovering the roots of Patristic Christianity - how exactly was the Lords Supper celebrated by the early Christians? Was the Early Church liturgical in its worship, as Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and some Presbyterian churches are today? In other words, I desired to know what form the Christian faith took, after the 13 Apostles who had directly seen the Lord Jesus, had passed away. To whom did they entrust the message of the Gospel? What day-to-day instructions did the Churches of God observe? Interestingly enough, a recent archaeological discovery in the area of early Christianity is that of a document called the Didache Apostolos – or, the Teaching of the Apostles. Obviously, it was not important enough to the Holy Spirit for the document to be included in the Canon of Scripture, as the Bishops of the Church did not include it when they finalized the Canon of the Bible in the 5th century. However, the Didache, which most scholars believe to be authored by the Apostles themselves, provides important insights into how the early Church conducted itself. More, however, on the Didache in a moment. 

What struck me most, however, was the correspondance between the Church Fathers conceptions of the Eucharist (The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word “Eucharistian”, or “Thanksgiving”), and Jesus' own words in John 6:48-68.

Influential Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, and even the aforementioned Didache Apostolos, all spoke of “The Eucharist”, the “Body of the Lord”, the “Sacrament of the Altar” and “The Sacrifice” – and all of these terms seemed connected in some way with the service I commonly knew as Holy Communion – the Lords Supper.  And all of these seem to give a literal interpretation of the Lord’s own words in John 6, and what’s more, attached far more meaning to the concept of the ‘memorial’ that the Lord commands in Luke 22:19. On this last point, it’s worthwhile to elaborate at some length, because it’s crucial.

Our Lord uses the Greek phrase “Touto poiete eis tan emahn anamneisin” in Luke 22:19, and it is usually translated as “Do this in memory of Me”. However, the Greek word “anamnesin” used herein demands a deeper reading. You see, English has no real equivalent to convey its meaning – we fall short of its real meaning when we try to communicate it in one or two words. It conveys the meaning of a memorial, but not in the sense that we usually think of a memorial. Memorial, in the sense of the word anamnesis, means something like “to actually revisit the event signified”. In order to really do justice to this word, then, we would have to portray Christ saying something entirely too unwieldy, such as “Make ye My anamnesis”, or, to eliminate the Greek derivative altogether, “Do this as a revisitation of the event signified by this action which I am performing.”

We then proceed, with this definition in mind, to the question “What event did the Last Supper signify?”  The ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ at the Last Supper, as is clearly indicated by the context, signified the imminent Passion, Crucifixion, and Death of Christ. If, therefore, Christ told his apostles to revisit the event signified by the action he was performing, he was actually telling His apostles to celebrate this supper, and every time they did so, they were actually present at His cross, witnessing the one sacrifice which He offered for all time and eternity, and receiving the benefits of that sacrifice, eating and drinking that which the Lord Jesus affirms is His own flesh and blood, given for the life of the world. (John 6:48-68) 

This may come as a shock to you that we believe this, but I assure you, this is the doctrine that the Church has taught for two millennia. (I can substantiate this with quotes from the Church Fathers to show the consistency of this teaching through the ages, if you like, but I will refrain from doing so at the moment for the sake of saving space.) The Lords Supper is much more than a superficial remembering of Jesus’ death on the cross. It is a revisitation of that same death – not a resacrificing of Him, as some of our Reformed brethren who misunderstand what we believe, think, but a participation in His one Sacrifice, which was offered by Christ for the salvation of all men, and for all time. This is why we sometimes refer to our Divine Liturgy as the ‘Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” – because it is a real participation in the one Holy Sacrifice offered by Christ.

So, why am I not a Protestant? Because, firstly and foremostly, Protestantism denies the doctrine I just described above. Ever since John Calvin and those who started Presbyterianism formulated the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Protestant Christians have misunderstood what we mean when we say that we offer Christ’s one sacrifice. They take it to mean that we offer Him again and again, which is, in my thought, an idea plainly blasphemous and hurtful to His sacrifice. If the Catholic Church taught it, I would be the first to leave her fold. But she does not. Rather, we believe that Christ Himself acts through the person of His presbyter, standing before the Father Himself, making intercession through His own blood.

(Ahem) I'm stuck here. I can't figure out what I should say next. Plus, the two Protestant confessions of faith I looked at (the Westminster Confession, and the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion) seem to flatly refute the idea of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. Here they are, for your viewing pleasure.

(Article 31, Anglican Church, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion)

31. The oblation of Christ finished upon the cross

The offering of Christ made once is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. There is no other satisfaction for sin but this alone. Consequently, the sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest offered Christ for the living and dead so as to gain remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, Part 2

II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]

What are your thoughts, folks??

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

excellent confession so far. it is very well written and i thank u for sharing it w/ us. since you are asking for contructive criticism, i would like to provide the following:

1. i prefer the term re-presentation over "revisitation" (the word you use). it is more than a visit, it is a presentation. it is the sacrifice of Christ eternally present before us. also, the word "re-presentation" (make sure u include the hyphen) better implies the idea of Christ's sacrifice truly transcending time. it is common knowledge that the results of his sacrifice were for all men, all those who came before, during, and after Christ. but, only in the Catholic Church is the actual sacrifice "one for all" as well. this seems like an important disctinction to me, and it appears to be orthodox, although i'll admit i have never seen this distinction made in so many words. at any rate, emphasize how monumentous it is that all generations can and do place themselves at the foot of the cross through the sacrifice of the mass.

2. beyond that single word choice, everything else is solid and appears orthodox to me. i would just continue by throwing in a transition phrase, and then beginning on another doctrine. for example:

"However, the celebration of the Eucharist in the Sacrifice of the Mass is not the only theological premise that separates the Catholic Church from the rest. I am also truly drawn to the devout reverence for Mary in the Catholic Church, a reverence that i find perfectly orthodox, and glaringly absent from Protestantism"

.......or something like that. just start in on another doctrine that u are particularly passionate about, one that makes catholicism unique. you could do this many times over. then, in ur last paragraph you would conclude by briefly presenting all the doctrines that you earlier elaborated upon, and say that it is because of those that you choose Catholicism.

does that help? holla back and let me know how ur coming along.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[ICTHUS]

Hmmm......

I'm needing help with the two Protestant confessions of faith. How does one refute them, as they seem quite damning...

Does Ellenita frequent this forum? Perhaps she could shed some light on the 31st Article of the Anglican Church.

[Mary's Knight, La]

my own take on the two prot confessions of faith

both imply that we need not make the offering. it seems rather arrogant to think that God will save us without our doing anything. As one prot pointed out to me, "the Mass and reconcilation are tied together." Why would God save us unless we beg for His mercy and offer sacrifice to Him? Sheed points out that Jesus did everything in His humanity that He could. It was only when the limits of human sacrifice and offering were reached that His divine nature made up the gap. If God would not allow Himself the easy road, then we too must offer up the very depths of human sacrifice which can only be done by being participating in the one eternal sacrifice.

article 31 is right in saying there is no other satisfaction for sin. because that is the case we must offer that same sacrifice and we do by participating with the priest at the Mass.

as for westminster if it were only commemoration then the Lord's Supper would have little reason to be repeated and lose value (as it has in many protestant churches, that I know of) and thus there would be little reason for Jesus to tell His apostles to do it. Yet that is one of His last instructions to them before completing the sacrifice was to have this supper with His people.

In the time when the ultimate battle against evil was about to come to a sudden and violent clash, it is absurd to think He would waste time with nothing more than a really neat way to remember Him.

anyways there's my $0.025 hope it helps some

[ICTHUS]

both imply that we need not make the offering.

In their thinking, the offering has already been made for us.

it seems rather arrogant to think that God will save us without our doing anything.

"While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" - he did save us, and we didn't do anything to deserve it...

as for westminster if it were only commemoration then the Lord's Supper would have little reason to be repeated and lose value (as it has in many protestant churches, that I know of) and thus there would be little reason for Jesus to tell His apostles to do it.

To be honest, I think the WCF's argument is actually the stronger of the two. Anamnesis, in Protestant thinking, can be an offering of "all possible praise" (as the WCF puts it)

[Theoketos]

In 31. There is a fallacy that is called Non-sequiter, which means it does not fallow. In other words, Holy Mother Church confesses the same, that is: Christ's sacrafice was prefect and united Him, as the Bridegroom, to His Bride the Church.

What is true is that the metaphysical nature of grace, allows us to be present at that same sacrafice every time we celebrate mass, we are experiancing what we saw take place in the Passion.

CCC 1366-1367

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187*

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."*

Christ was only sacraficed once, trying to kill Christ again would be bad. Hope that helps

*1 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27

*2 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14, 27.