A reader writes:
You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass. I want to say, No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do); at the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after the time? So my question is, is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?
There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think you’re on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.
To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events: The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass), the Crucifixion, and any particular Mass being held today.
Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.
The Masses (either the first one or a contemporary one) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting the Council of Trent):
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "[a] The victim is one and the same: [b] the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; [c] only the manner of offering is different." "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."
I’ve added the [a], [b], and [c] in that for the sake of clarity. [a] and [b]spell out the senses in which the sacrifice is the same: It has the same victim ([a]) and the same priest ([b]). Other sources add that the purpose of the sacrifice is the same (our redemption), making it the same sacrifices in those three senses. What is different is the manner of offering ([c]). Christ offered himself on the Cross by the shedding of his blood (i.e., in a bloody manner) but today he offers himself without shedding his blood (i.e., in an unbloody manner) while "enthroned gloriously in heaven". (So this doesn’t seem to be just a time warp to Calvary in A.D. 30.)
So that’s how the Masses are related to the Crucifixion.
Now, how is a current Mass related to the First Mass?
As you allude to, Jesus told his apostles:
"This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" [Luke 22:19b].
This is the command by which Jesus ordained his apostles as priests (since he was performing a sacrificial action and commanded them to do it, thus commanding them to perform sacrifice), but what is it precisely that he is commanding them to do?
Is it to nail him to a Cross?
No, if we read the first part of the verse, we find:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them [Luke 22:19a].
So when Jesus says "Do this," the "this" he is referring to is the act of taking bread, giving thanks/blessing it (the word here in Greek is eucharistEsas–"gave thanks"–from which we get "Eucharist"), and distributed it to those present. In other words, he told them to say Mass.
So in fulfilling Jesus’ command to "Do this" what the Catholic priests are doing is to saying Mass, just as Jesus did, not nailing him to a Cross. (As should be obvious.)
Thus the relationship between the Masses (first or later) and the Cross is one of presentation–they make the sacrifice of the Cross present in specific senses–but the relationship of current Masses to the first Mass is one of direct replication.
That means that the thing that is being repeated is the celebration of Mass, not the Crucifixion.
Your point about the Last Suppre pre-presenting the sacrifice of the Cross the way contemporary Masses re-presenting it is also a good one: If Jesus didn’t have a problem with having the Last Supper pre-presenting what he would do on the Cross–and if he told us to keep doing it after the Crucifixion–then we should have no problem with the Mass re-presenting the sacrifice of the Cross (in the senses indicated above).
In other words, whatever the relationship is of the Eucharist to the Cross, Jesus didn’t have a problem with it, so we shouldn’t either.
“That means that the thing that is being repeated is the celebration of Mass, not the Crucifixion.”
Sorry, wrong. Your theology is mixed; “repeated”, “remembrance” etc is not the Catholic approach.
When we eat this Bread and drink this cup we proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.
I was taught that the Mass is a participation in the Last Supper, the crucifixion, and Easter Sunday all rolled into one.
I was also taught that the Mass is a union with those in heaven, so that the Mass is both outside of time, and outside of space.
However, I was never quite sure whether it is they who join us, or we who join them. Either way, the idea of being one, is the same.
JTM,
I don’t think Jimmy was using “repetition” in any kind of theological sense. If a Mass is said on Tuesday, and a Mass is said on Wednesday, well that’s repetition. That is not the same thing as having a Protestant doctrine of “remembrance” only.
Jimmy,
Thanks for the link to your old article on “immolation.” I always thought grits were sacred!
“Re-presentation” is the conventional term used to avoid the impression that we’re only mimicking the Sacrifice, rather than actually participating in it.
PVO
What ever happened to saying it was a sacrifice?..Its now re presenting? politically correct or a compromise? Does re-presenting sooth the protestants and change the real presence? Am I missing something? Pax Christi..He is Risen!
Mark,
The word sacrifice or a form of it was used over a dozen times in Jimmy’s post.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I’m confused about something, though maybe it is just a mystery.
I have always been confused about the “unbloody manner” idea. The sacrifice of Christ and of the Eucharist are the same sacrifice, but how is it that the manner of this same sacrifice can be different? If Christ sacrificed himself by shedding his blood on the Cross, how can the same sacrifice be made present but without Christ shedding his blood?
Or does it only mean that the blood separated from Christ’s body never becomes present, only the whole Christ sacrificed on Calvary? This has been by theory, but Jimmy’s saying it is not just a “time warp” seems to suggest a more profound difference. How can there be a significant difference in the sacrifice being made if it is the same sacrifice? Can anyone shed light on this?
I think that at least part of the answer might lie in the fact that in the Crucifixion there were two parts to the sacrifice: the violence done to Christ’s body by the executioners and his subsequent death, and Christ’s offering up of his Body and Blood for the remission of sins.
The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way:
“The form lies, not in the real transformation or complete destruction of the sacrificial gift, but rather in its sacrificial oblation, in whatever way it may be transformed. Even where a real destruction took place, as in the sacrificial slayings of the Old Testament, the act of destroying was performed by the servants of the Temple, whereas the proper oblation, consisting in the “spilling of blood” (aspersio sanguinis), was the exclusive function of the priests.Thus the real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross consisted neither in the killing of Christ by the Roman soldiers nor in an imaginary self-destruction on the part of Jesus, but in His voluntary surrender of His blood shed by another’s hand, and in His offering of His life for the sins of the world.”
In the sacrifice of the mass today of his Blood the one part of the sacrfice (Christ freely giving his body and blood) is still given, while the second part (the violence done) is not.
But the act of oblation occured/occurs in both cases (the Crucifixion and the Eucharist).
Ryan,
Hmmmmm. Your expanation seems to make sense, though if the suffering of Christ is not made present that would diminish the mass in my mind. Still, if it is not so it is not so. Perhaps the mental and physical suffering could be present without the violent acts themselves?
A rereading of this post and a reading of the post on oblation that Jimmy linked to brought up something else though. I had somehow glossed over the “enthroned gloriously in heaven” part. This idea is more clearly discussed in the immolation post in which (and if I am wrong Please Please Please correct me Jimmy even though you don’t usually do that sort of thing) he seems to say that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered by the RISEN ENTHRONED GLORIFIED CHRIST and NOT the tortured, suffering, “pre-risen” Christ on the Cross.
The sacrifice is the same, it would seem in this view, only in the sense that the victim, priest, and purpose are the same, but they would be DISTINCT ACTS.
What happened to the sacrifice of Calvary being all-sufficiant. Jimmy’s interpretation of “once for all” that he wrote in the oblation post would seem to mean only that it will never happen in a bloody manner again but that similar unbloody sacrifices performed by the risen Christ are made at mass.
The quote provided from the Credo of the People of God in the immolation post only says that the risen Christ is made present in the Eucharist, without his leaving heaven. The former is common knowledge and the later is common sense. I have always been told that it is a distinct reality from the sacrificial dimension of the Mass and that the sacrificial dimension ends when the gifts are taken from the alter, but the presence of the risen Christ remains as long as the accidents remain. It is not the presence of the risen Christ then that defines the sacrifice, so I see no call to say it must be the risen Christ enthroned in heaven that is making the sacrifice.
Does anyone know anyone but Jimmy who makes the same claim, or am I misunderstanding the post? If Jimmy is right it would seem the sacrifice of Calvary is not being made present at Mass at all, but a new sacrifice of the risen Christ for us, perhaps a different one for each Mass. What was the use of the bloody sacrifice then, or else what is the use of these new ones? This whole business doesn’t smell kosher.
JR: The Mass is not a new sacrifice. It is our sharing of Christ’s one eternal sacrifice, that he offered on Calvary, and eternally offers to His Father in Heaven. You might want to read “The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass As Heaven On Earth”, by Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister who was once virulently anti-Catholic. He points out that what St. John recorded in the book of Revelation is Christ’s eternal Mass.
bill,
I have read The Lamb’s Supper, though it was over 2 years ago so I am a little rusty on what it contained. If you will read my post carfully, you will see that I beleive exactly what you said, but am concerned that Jimmy is saying something radically different.
If Christ sacrificed himself by shedding his blood on the Cross, how can the same sacrifice be made present but without Christ shedding his blood?
I don’t know if this article by Fr. John Hardon The Eucharist as Sacrifice and Sacrament will be helpful or not.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Or are you saying the sacrifice of Christ is eternal in the sence that he never ceases to offer it, so he offered it on the cross but now in heaven he continues to offer it? Then at mass the sacrifice of himself in heaven is made present but not when he was on the cross? That does not seem to be what Jimmy is saying though.
It still seems fishy, that the eternal sacrifice would be given by both the resurected and crucified Christ. I thought it was more that Christ at all times as God is eternal, so an act like the redemption would in a sense be eternall, eternally offered up to the Father, by Christ on the Cross.
That last one is to bill if there is any confusion.
OK, I have read Fr. Hardon’s thing and feel a “10,000 difficulties don’t make one doubt” moment coming on.
I still have this concern though:
Both Jimmy and Fr. Harden basically present the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross as distict, the former being offered by the suffering Christ on the Cross, the latter by the resurrected, glorified Christ. Fr. Hardin definitely gives the impression of a distinct “voluntary offering in every mass” though he does not put it clearly.
Fr. Hardin also makes the distinction that “whereas on Calvary Christ merited our salvation, it is mainly through the Mass that He now dispenses the riches of His saving grace.”
This further separates the sacrifices but also shows a connection in that the sacrifice of the mass seems to be dispensing the saving grace or merit of the sacrifice of Calvary.
The Catechism, however, says “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice.” The following lines, though by themselves seeming to support Akin and Harding, interpreted in light of the preceding sentence would seem to more or less be saying the sacrifice of the Mass, though in one sense offered up by the ordained priest in an unbloody way, is in a higher sense the making present of the one sacrifice of the Cross. It is easy to see how the “time-warp” idea would follow from this.
Then again it does say “Christ” and not specifically “the Cross,” but the following comparison between the manner of sacrifice seems to show clearly that by “the sacrifice of Christ” they mean the “sacrifice of the Cross” and are comparing that to the sacrifice of the Mass, saying they are one single sacrifice with only the “manner” of sacrifice being different.
Also, Jimmy himself said “In other words, whatever the relationship is of the Eucharist to the Cross…” and in the immolation post suggested that the “time warp theory” is as legitimate as the “heavenly existance theory” (except he takes the “heavenly existance theory”)
Perhaps we are looking at two sides of a mystery or paradox?
I hope (kind of) that other people are having similar problems, since I would not post all this stuff if it were only for my confusion.
I just remembered this also. It is a matter of private revelation, but evidently (from a special on EWTN) Christ appeared to St. Pio of Pietralcina (Padre Pio) once and told him he will never stop suffering until the end of time because of the Mass.
This of course would not mean that Christ Glorified in Heaven suffers, but that the suffering of Christ on the Cross in his Eternal Sacrifice, something so great it transcends time and space, is made present in all times and many places in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which after all is the same sacrifice but re-presented (presented once more) in an unbloody manner.
All right folks, I think I figured it out(ha!), at least in part.
Sorry to ask questions and then answer them, but I didn’t know I would think of this. Probably I should do my thinking and paceing before saying anything.
Redemption is a Divine act, right? Since God is outside of time, God does not do one thing, then another, then another. Every divine act transcends time. Thus we know God Creates the world and every human soul out of all eternity. It follows that he Redeems the world and every human soul that will accept him from all eternity.
This helps explain why Creation and Redemption are often called two parts of the same act. Also the idea that Christ redeems us by offering Himself as an acceptible sacrifice to the Father helps explain why we say only the Son redeemed us, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. All actions of the Trinity outside its inner life are performed by all, though we may speak of one person or the other doing them. The Redemption is not like that right? So Redemption consists of the Son offering Himself to the Father in attonment for our sins, in what must therefore (correct me if I’m wrong) be considered part of the inner life of the Trinity (since the Father is not offering himself up nor the Holy Spirit).
This offering, this sacrifice, temporally to be identified with Calvary, inasmuch as it is a Divine action is eternal. It applies to the Son “for all time” since He is outside of time. So though the sacrifice of Christ in his humanity, including his suffering, was limited to Passover 29a.d. (or whatever) the important sacrifice of God in his Divinity is eternal.
This eternal sacrifice would be made present in the Eucharist right? Then the sacrifice of Calvary would be the source of saving merit but the sacrifice of the Mass presenting the same sacrifice would be the major occasion of obtaining that grace.
I guess that still leaves open the question though of whether Calvary itself, Jesus suffering and offering himself up in his human nature, is made present or not. The question would become, does “unbloody manner” mean the suffering and death of Christ in his humanity does not become present or does it mean something else, like the violence done to him does not become present?
I light of this I could still interpret Jimmy and Fr. Harding as saying there is/are one or more separate sacrifices other than that of Calvary, but could the Son from (or in) all eternity offer himself to the Father multiple times? Perhaps I have not answered the question after all (darn!).
[is five posts in a row by the same person a record? Sorry]
When I read Scott Hahn’s exposition of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion as a single act of Passover, then I began to get a better, if imperfect, grip on this question.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
We need to recognize, also, that the sacrifice of the Mass is a mystery, and that we will not ever be able to fully comprehend it or fit all it’s aspects into neat categories.
Here’s what I’m curious about.
Don’t *all* the sacraments make present and impart the grace which Christ won for us on Calvary?
Therefore, why is it only the Mass that is a sacrifice, and not the six other sacraments?
Anyone?
If the Mass does make present the sacrifice of Calvary then that’s your reason. Otherwise?
Here is another thought for you, Seminarian Eric. The white bearded Divine Mercy priest on EWTN, whom I believe is named Fr. Mieczslaw, claims that the 6 other sacrements all give grace because of their relation to the Eucharist. Even baptism gives grace because it is a preparation to recieve the Eucharist.
I would say this make sense if the Eucharist includes the unique making present of the sacrifice of Christ and is the “source and summit of the Christian life.”
Certainly there is a difference between the merit of Christ and the sacrifice that earns that merit. Gaining the merit or grace from the sacrifice of Christ is not quite the same thing as the sacrifice itself is it? Then again if the sacrifice of Christ given by Christ eternally, why would it not be present wherever the second person of the trinity is?
This is complicated! Hoc est, I get. Quantum entanglement I get. This is complicated. Are you saying that Christ died once for all, the just for the unjust, or are you saying He is being made to die over and over, or that He is eternally suffering and dying?
There is no question that Christ died once for all, and that he certanly is NOT being made to die over and over, or eternally suffering and dying.
There also seems to be no question that he eternally offers himself to the Father for the forgiveness of sins, thus redeeming the world, while in heaven (where he is joyful and triumphant and not suffering at all).
The question is whether at the Mass the single suffering sacrifice of Calvery is made present (not happening again but an event in one place and time being supernaturally made present in another place and time) or whether the offering of himself of the Son to the Father in heaven is what is made present.
Wow – this is now my favourite posting and com-box ever!
JR, just a note to you that you’re not “the only one” struggling to understand this – and not the only one (evidently) fascinated by it. Years ago I tried to look into it in detail and gave up – the it came up at a youth-group meeting last night that I was facilitating and it’s complicated! Even that Catholic Encyclopedia reference provides several competing theories, and although the author decides on one, it’s not exactly with all the authority of the Magisterium or anything. I think you make some really good points, about it being the “same sacrifice” when it’s not offered in the same way etc.
What I haven’t seen mentioned here (excuse me if I just overlooked it) is the idea of the separate consecration of the Body and Blood as being a “mystical separation” of Christ’s Body and Blood – and thereby bringing about the “moment of sacrifice” to put it, probably, crudely. Yet in all such explanations theologians are quick to say that it’s not at all a “real” separation (each of the species really contains the entire Christ, as he cannot be separated)
Well, I’m sure there’s lots more reading for all of us on this subject! Anyone know some good books?
From the thing by Scott Hahn that Alan gave (and man, how Hahn opens up the scriptures!) It would definitely seem that the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice in heaven, and the Sacrifice of Calvary are really all THE same eternal sacrifice, not just in the sense that they have the same Priest, Victim, and purpose but in reality. Anyway, my whole faith and sense of discernment rebels against the idea of multiple distinct sacrifices.
I will therefore venture to say that I am right about the act of Redemption applying to the Second Person of the Trinity for all eternity and that it is this same sacrifice that is made present in the Mass.
Further if we accept (and I will) the revelation to Padre Pio we know that the agony of the Cross is made present at every Mass.
I would therefore propose that BOTH the “time warp theory” and the “heavenly existance theory” are true. Calvary is made present, which is the sacrifice eternally offered by the glorified Christ to the Father in Heaven. So we join in the “Heavenly Liturgy,” praising the risen Lamb of God at the Right Hand of the Father as we kneel at the foot of the Cross and celebrate the Lord’s Passover.
Any objections?
Of course the question of why the sacrifice is not said to be present where ever the Son is still needs to be resolved.
Just one – or rather a question –
If you’re saying that what is made present is happens is “the sacrifice eternally offered by the glorified Christ to the Father in Heaven” . . .then isn’t that a bit different to a timewarp? With a timewarp you’d end up 2000 years ago, but with what I understand you to be saying, you’d end up “touching” eternity.
If that’s the case – Christ’s offering of Himself would be an eternal event, made present in space and time once at the cross, and many times in the Mass. In different ways perhaps – the former as the source, or principle way, and the latter as an effect . .?
(pure untrained speculation)
Also, from Hebrews, we would consider Jesus to have entered the Sanctuary as Priest, with the Sacrificial gift (Himself) and never to have actually left that Sanctuary afterwards, which seems to me to support an “eternal” offering
But yes, that still leaves your question of why the sacrifice is not present wherever Christ is. How does “re-presenting” His death by the double consecration bring anything new to the table? (pun reluctantly intended)
JR, so are you saying that Padre Pio was not saying that Jesus is now, glorified and in heaven, suffering the agonies of the Cross, that in fact “it is finished”?
That we have something like (analogously) quantum entanglement and multiplication of His body and blood from that sacrifice, which was (from Scripture) both that Friday, April 3, A.D. 33, and yet also “from the foundations of the world” Without multiple sacrifices (which would be contrary to the letter to the Hebrews), or an on-going suffering and on-going dying? So that it is once for all, and yet truly made present to us, Really (capitalization intended)?
Mike, I’ll try to answer your question when I have time to dissect and analyze it.
But Puzzled,I think you are getting warmer but his body and blood are not “multiplied” in any real way. The entire Christ, present in Heaven, is made present. He neither leaves heaven nor is his body and blood multiplied and distributed. It is, or rather He, the whole Christ, is made present in every and visible partical of a host and likewise every drop of what has the appearance of wine. Am I making sense?
You are right though that Christ in Heaven is not suffering, nor could, I argue, there be more than one sacrifice made by Him, nor “an on-going suffering and on-going dying” per se, but that suffering and presumably dying is made present for us throughout time. It is indeed finished, accomplished, though Christ never ceases to offer Himself to the Father for the atonement of our sins even in Heaven. But by making His sacrifice, the sacrifice of Calvary, which is the sacrifice He presents in Heaven to His Father, present to us Christ allows us to accept it, to partake of its fruits, and to unite the sacrifice of our lives to His.
How the presence of Christ’s risen body which persists as long as the accidents (outer appearance) of bread and wine persists relates to the sacrifice made present temporarily on the alter is something I still don’t understand.
Ultimately we are dealing with incomprehesible mystery though, so we will never undertand it completely.
If you’re saying that what is made present is happens is “the sacrifice eternally offered by the glorified Christ to the Father in Heaven” . . .then isn’t that a bit different to a timewarp? With a timewarp you’d end up 2000 years ago, but with what I understand you to be saying, you’d end up “touching” eternity.
If I am right, we don’t end up 2000 years, the event 2000 years ago is made present here and now. This is indeed an eternal event, so we might say “by being present at Calvary we touch eternity.”
If that’s the case – Christ’s offering of Himself would be an eternal event, made present in space and time once at the cross, and many times in the Mass. In different ways perhaps – the former as the source, or principle way, and the latter as an effect . .?
More like the event 2000 years ago by the will of God transends time, so while it was 2000 years ago that Jesus was tortured and killed (bloody manner) that sacrifice of Calvary is made present at the Mass, allowing us to participate in it. The “eternal event” is the Son offering Himself to the Father by offering Himself up on the Cross, made present at mass, which is “forever” offered up by Christ in heaven since He is outside of time, unchangable, eternal. What I’m saying is you cannot separate the sacrifice being “made present” on the Cross and at Mass. They are the same moment. Therefore one is not the source and another an effect, they are the same thing. Also you shouldn’t abstract the sacrifice from the Cross too much just because it is eternal.
How does “re-presenting” His death by the double consecration bring anything new to the table? (pun reluctantly intended)
All sacraments, including the Eucharist, are signs that effect what they signify. Part of the “sign” of the Eucharist is the separate consecration of Christ’s “body” and “blood” signifying the sheding of his blood, his sacrifice, which is therefore made present (but in an unbloody manner somehow. I’m going with the idea that it means the violence acts are not made present until I learn otherwise).
Also, while that is the ultimate answer, keep in mind that, at least if Dr. Hahn is right and I follow him, the Eucharist is the combined third and fourth cup of the Lord’s Passover. The third cup includes both matzah (the bread of affliction) and wine. The fourth cup, which Christ seemed to skip and then go to the Garden where he prayed “Lord let this cup pass from me” was apparently the very sacrifice of Calvary, which Christ made and makes present at the thrid cup/matzah, at which he said “this is my body” and “this is my blood.”
Signs that AFFECT what they signify I think it should be. I’m bad with effect vs. affect.
Oh yes, there is still the issue of why the sacrifice of Christ is not present wherever he is. I suspect it has something to do with the sacrifice, and Redemption in general, being distinct from the person who does it, and so somehow the person of the Son who eternally sacrifices himself being present is one thing, but you can “additionally” have the actual sacrifice be made present in some way. Or is this impossible? I’m just guessing here.
Another possiblilty might be that the sacrifice is always present where the Son is, and since he in a certain sense it present everywhere being God, the sacrifice is always present. This could work into the idea that Creation and Redemption are two parts of the same act. Certainly Creation is always at work in the world, since God creates the whole world through all time “at once”. The sense in which the sacrifice is particularly made present at the Mass would therefore consist in the making present of the actual sacrifice of Calvary. This feels like its not the whole story though.
I wonder why this subject seems so vaguely defined by the Church when it is so clearly important. Not much in Catholic doctrine and practice is more important, it seems to me. Am I the only one who finds this situation insane, or is it just that I am the only one to post my thoughts like this? Maybe it is something the Church will formally clear up in the future, we are just not done with the development of doctrine yet.
JR (and all the others) thanks for those comments – I don’t think I can really add anything from here, but I’ll reread this all soon for my own edification.
But I agree with you that the Church’s teaching seems quite undeveloped on this, from what we have been able to muster, and it’s a bit frustrating. We criticise Protestants for misrepresenting our teaching, but it seems we struggle to give anything all that clear in response.
That’s not to criticise – we would probably all have similar difficulties with the Trinity, and many other things.