The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

PabloSerna said:

---

The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

---

But the Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Jesus IS the burnt offering provided by God. It's not a bloodless sacrifice. He's the Lamb. The crucifixion was the consummation of the sacrifice.

Bob Lee said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

---

But the Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Jesus IS the burnt offering provided by God. It's not a bloodless sacrifice. He's the Lamb. The crucifixion was the consummation of the sacrifice.

---

One of the changes in the most recent Catechim is that CCC 1367 refers to the Mass as the "unbloody sacrifice" which I think is a misrepresentation of what the Council of Trent was trying to say, which is that Christ wasn't sacrificed anew every Mass. Christ was sacrificed at Calvary once and for all.

I think the sacrifice portion and the suffering portion are not one and the same.

The death was incidental to sacrifice - some sacrifices require no death (grain or drink offerings for example). Sacrifices in their core are food.

Christ's suffering and death was necessary for the salvation of mankind. But His death was voluntary, He was not killed per se - He laid down His life, He says this repeatedly in St John's gospel.

We remember all of it at the Eucharist - the cross, the grave, the third day resurrection. But the fundamental nature of the Eucharist as sacrifice is sacrifice as meal par excellence.

The offering is perfect - a perfect unblemished gift offered voluntarily to the Father, received also by the Son - He is the offering, the priest who offers, and the receiver of the gift. The gift is not the suffering but Christ Himself.

And we do the same when we offer ourselves with Him, we are also the sacrifice, which is perfect spiritual and rational worship. We eat and commune and become the offering.

I think there is a lot of… danger? Not sure the right word… to confuse the suffering with the offering. The sacrifices in the temple did not suffer, God does not want suffering. It's not blood for the blood god.

The Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice because there is no re-sacrifice of Christ - it is the offering once for all that we participate in.

Check out "Welcoming Gifts" by Jeremy Davis. It is written from an orthodox perspective but I don't think there is anything controversial.

Zobel said:

---

Check out "Welcoming Gifts" by Jeremy Davis. It is written from an orthodox perspective but I don't think there is anything controversial.

---

Thank you!

Zobel said:

---

I think the sacrifice portion and the suffering portion are not one and the same.

The death was incidental to sacrifice - some sacrifices require no death (grain or drink offerings for example). Sacrifices in their core are food.

Christ's suffering and death was necessary for the salvation of mankind. But His death was voluntary, He was not killed per se - He laid down His life, He says this repeatedly in St John's gospel.

We remember all of it at the Eucharist - the cross, the grave, the third day resurrection. But the fundamental nature of the Eucharist as sacrifice is sacrifice as meal par excellence.

The offering is perfect - a perfect unblemished gift offered voluntarily to the Father, received also by the Son - He is the offering, the priest who offers, and the receiver of the gift. The gift is not the suffering but Christ Himself.

And we do the same when we offer ourselves with Him, we are also the sacrifice, which is perfect spiritual and rational worship. We eat and commune and become the offering.

I think there is a lot of… danger? Not sure the right word… to confuse the suffering with the offering. The sacrifices in the temple did not suffer, God does not want suffering. It's not blood for the blood god.

The Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice because there is no re-sacrifice of Christ - it is the offering once for all that we participate in.

---

The scriptures are pretty clear on the fact that He was killed. I forget exactly how many times but the Book of ACTS says 4-5 times that He was "killed". Obviously He went willingly to His death, but still, He was in fact, killed

Hmm. I think I would need help translating the word used there. Christ also says "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

He was crucified and put to death, but He gives up His life voluntarily.

St. Tomas Aquinas weighs in...


Buried deep in that article was this regarding the death of Christ:

"Christ's death is a crime and should not be considered a saving sacrifice."

Here Thomas tersely replies that Christ's execution was, indeed, a gravely sinful act on the part of his executioners, but Christ freely chose, out of charity, to undergo the suffering inflicted upon him. This response can only be fully appreciated against Thomas's theology of providence, in which divine causality and creaturely action are not in competition with one another: God's providence can attain its (good) ends through contingent (and at times sinful) creaturely (incl. human) acts. Thomas can, therefore, say that Christ's death was both a horrendously sinful act and yet had saving power and was part of divine providence. The one does not exclude the other."

Serviam said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

---

But the Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Jesus IS the burnt offering provided by God. It's not a bloodless sacrifice. He's the Lamb. The crucifixion was the consummation of the sacrifice.

---

One of the changes in the most recent Catechim is that CCC 1367 refers to the Mass as the "unbloody sacrifice" which I think is a misrepresentation of what the Council of Trent was trying to say, which is that Christ wasn't sacrificed anew every Mass. Christ was sacrificed at Calvary once and for all.

---

A major quarrel during the Reformation was the Roman Catholic belief that Christ was sacrificed at each Eucharist. There were clearly a lot of issues with the Medieval Mass.

From the Confutation:

"Again, their insinuations that in the mass Christ is not offered must be altogether rejected, as condemned of old and excluded by the faithful."

"Therefore the daily sacrifice of Christ will cease universally at the advent of the abomination - i.e. of Antichrist - just as it has already ceased, particularly in some churches, and thus will be unemployed in the place of desolation - viz. when the churches will be desolated, in which the canonical hours will not be chanted or the masses celebrated or the sacraments administered, and there will be no altars, no images of saints, no candles, no furniture."

That was written in response to the claims of the Reformers who said:

"[21] At the same time, an abominable error was also rebuked, namely, the teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ had made satisfaction by his death only for original sin and had instituted the Mass as a sacrifice for other sins. [22] Thus, the Mass was made into a sacrifice for the living and the dead for the purpose of taking away sin and appeasing God. [23] Thereupon followed a debate as to whether one Mass celebrated for many people merited as much as a special Mass celebrated for an individual. This resulted in the countless multiplication of Masses, and with this work people wanted to obtain from God everything they needed. Meanwhile, faith in Christ and true worship of God were forgotten."


The real question is does the Mass confer grace "ex opere operator?" Rome said yes, Reformers said no.

are you talking about Roman Catholics - that religion specifically,
or are you talking about Catholics in general?
which religious sect does not proclaim it's world wide?

Serviam said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

---

But the Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Jesus IS the burnt offering provided by God. It's not a bloodless sacrifice. He's the Lamb. The crucifixion was the consummation of the sacrifice.

---

One of the changes in the most recent Catechim is that CCC 1367 refers to the Mass as the "unbloody sacrifice" which I think is a misrepresentation of what the Council of Trent was trying to say, which is that Christ wasn't sacrificed anew every Mass. Christ was sacrificed at Calvary once and for all.

---

A major quarrel during the Reformation was the Roman Catholic belief that Christ was sacrificed at each Eucharist. There were clearly a lot of issues with the Medieval Mass.

From the Confutation:

"Again, their insinuations that in the mass Christ is not offered must be altogether rejected, as condemned of old and excluded by the faithful."

"Therefore the daily sacrifice of Christ will cease universally at the advent of the abomination - i.e. of Antichrist - just as it has already ceased, particularly in some churches, and thus will be unemployed in the place of desolation - viz. when the churches will be desolated, in which the canonical hours will not be chanted or the masses celebrated or the sacraments administered, and there will be no altars, no images of saints, no candles, no furniture."

That was written in response to the claims of the Reformers who said:

"[21] At the same time, an abominable error was also rebuked, namely, the teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ had made satisfaction by his death only for original sin and had instituted the Mass as a sacrifice for other sins. [22] Thus, the Mass was made into a sacrifice for the living and the dead for the purpose of taking away sin and appeasing God. [23] Thereupon followed a debate as to whether one Mass celebrated for many people merited as much as a special Mass celebrated for an individual. This resulted in the countless multiplication of Masses, and with this work people wanted to obtain from God everything they needed. Meanwhile, faith in Christ and true worship of God were forgotten."


The real question is does the Mass confer grace "ex opere operator?" Rome said yes, Reformers said no.

---

I don't know of anyone who believes that Christ is re-sacrificed at every Mass. The Church fathers as far back as the mid 4th century, St. John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St Ambrose of Milan, St Augustine all explicitly testify to the singular sacrifice on Calvary, that is bloodlessly recreated at every Mass.

This was a huge point of discussion among the early Church who wondered if they were lopping off pieces of Christ every time they confected the Eucharist, luckily the fathers answered that question guided by the Holy Spirit.

Admittedly I know very little about the impetus behind the Protestant confessions (I've heard of Westminster and Augsburg but haven't studied them), but I know enough about Catholic teaching to say "that's not we we believe"

---

You'd do well to read through the Confutation.

This is the comparison Rome makes:

Quote:

---

For St. Paul is speaking of the offering of a victim - i.e. of a bloody sacrifice, of a lamb slain, viz. upon the cross - which offering was indeed once made whereby all sacraments, and even the sacrifice of the mass, have their efficacy. Therefore he was offered but once with the shedding of blood - viz. upon the cross; today he is offered in the mass as a peace making and sacramental victim. Then he was offered in a visible form capable of suffering; today he is offered in the mass veiled in mysteries, incapable of suffering, just as in the Old Testament he was sacrificed typically and under a figure.

---

There seems to be a contrast being made between the bloody sacrifice of Christ and an ongoing sacrifice, that is not called bloody.

So nowadays, there may be answers to get around that or maybe the belief has changed, but these are the words Rome used to explain why their understanding of the Mass was correct and the Reformers were wrong.

You're absolutely correct, medieval mass was a mess in the Roman church. Priests didn't know the language (hence hocus pocus comes into the lexicon through slaughtering the Latin), most parishioners only received Eucharist once a year, priests didn't provide the elements to laity but took it themselves, and this issue. There's a lot taken for granted today that the reformation was proper to address.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

---

But the Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Jesus IS the burnt offering provided by God. It's not a bloodless sacrifice. He's the Lamb. The crucifixion was the consummation of the sacrifice.

---

One of the changes in the most recent Catechim is that CCC 1367 refers to the Mass as the "unbloody sacrifice" which I think is a misrepresentation of what the Council of Trent was trying to say, which is that Christ wasn't sacrificed anew every Mass. Christ was sacrificed at Calvary once and for all.

---

A major quarrel during the Reformation was the Roman Catholic belief that Christ was sacrificed at each Eucharist. There were clearly a lot of issues with the Medieval Mass.

From the Confutation:

"Again, their insinuations that in the mass Christ is not offered must be altogether rejected, as condemned of old and excluded by the faithful."

"Therefore the daily sacrifice of Christ will cease universally at the advent of the abomination - i.e. of Antichrist - just as it has already ceased, particularly in some churches, and thus will be unemployed in the place of desolation - viz. when the churches will be desolated, in which the canonical hours will not be chanted or the masses celebrated or the sacraments administered, and there will be no altars, no images of saints, no candles, no furniture."

That was written in response to the claims of the Reformers who said:

"[21] At the same time, an abominable error was also rebuked, namely, the teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ had made satisfaction by his death only for original sin and had instituted the Mass as a sacrifice for other sins. [22] Thus, the Mass was made into a sacrifice for the living and the dead for the purpose of taking away sin and appeasing God. [23] Thereupon followed a debate as to whether one Mass celebrated for many people merited as much as a special Mass celebrated for an individual. This resulted in the countless multiplication of Masses, and with this work people wanted to obtain from God everything they needed. Meanwhile, faith in Christ and true worship of God were forgotten."


The real question is does the Mass confer grace "ex opere operator?" Rome said yes, Reformers said no.

---

I don't know of anyone who believes that Christ is re-sacrificed at every Mass. The Church fathers as far back as the mid 4th century, St. John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St Ambrose of Milan, St Augustine all explicitly testify to the singular sacrifice on Calvary, that is bloodlessly recreated at every Mass.

This was a huge point of discussion among the early Church who wondered if they were lopping off pieces of Christ every time they confected the Eucharist, luckily the fathers answered that question guided by the Holy Spirit.

Admittedly I know very little about the impetus behind the Protestant confessions (I've heard of Westminster and Augsburg but haven't studied them), but I know enough about Catholic teaching to say "that's not we we believe"

---

You'd do well to read through the Confutation.

This is the comparison Rome makes:

Quote:

---

For St. Paul is speaking of the offering of a victim - i.e. of a bloody sacrifice, of a lamb slain, viz. upon the cross - which offering was indeed once made whereby all sacraments, and even the sacrifice of the mass, have their efficacy. Therefore he was offered but once with the shedding of blood - viz. upon the cross; today he is offered in the mass as a peace making and sacramental victim. Then he was offered in a visible form capable of suffering; today he is offered in the mass veiled in mysteries, incapable of suffering, just as in the Old Testament he was sacrificed typically and under a figure.

---

There seems to be a contrast being made between the bloody sacrifice of Christ and an ongoing sacrifice, that is not called bloody.

---

This sounds a lot like the distinction made earlier between meal and sacrifice. The bloody sacrifice as of a point in time at Calvary, and as an atemporal unbloody sacrifice.
Idk. I waffle between being at peace with the distinction and not.

Zobel said:

---

There is only one sacrifice, once for all. We ritually reenact and participate in that sacrifice. Through the mystery of the Eucharist that sacrifice is made present, we offer it again, on behalf of all and for all, and we both participate in it by offering ourselves, and we partake of it.

---

Seems paradoxical. There's one sacrifice (agreed), both bloody and unbloody. (Huh?)

What's the essence of Christ's sacrifice? Definitionally, what is it?

In the scriptures there's really only two forms of worship that I can see - both are forms of offerings. One is that of offering incense, and the other of offering food (sacrifice). So the basic pattern of worship is morning and evening offering of incense, and periodic offerings of food to deepen our relationship with our God. If we keep that in mind, I think the prayers said by the priest at the DL are helpful with this. Also probably useful to remember that the altar is a table.

Some excerpts:

You have granted us, Your humble and unworthy servants, to stand even at this hour before the glory of Your holy Altar of sacrifice and to offer to You due worship and praise.
…
We give thanks to You, O Lord God of Hosts, Who has made us worthy to stand even now before Your holy Altar of sacrifice and to fall down before You seeking Your compassion for our sins and those committed in ignorance by the people. Accept, O God, our supplication. Make us worthy to offer You prayers, supplications, and bloodless sacrifices for all Your people.
…
Again and countless times we fall down before You, and we implore You, O Good One, Who loves mankind: That You, having regarded our prayer, may cleanse our souls and bodies from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and grant to us to stand before Your holy Altar of sacrifice, free of guilt and condemnation.
…

You, as the Master of all, became our high priest and delivered unto us the sacred service of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood. Indeed, Lord our God, You alone reign over the celestial and the terrestrial; borne aloft on the cherubic throne, Lord of the Seraphim and King of Israel, the only holy and resting among the holy ones. I now beseech You, Who alone are good and inclined to hear: Look down upon me, Your sinful and unprofitable servant, and cleanse my soul and heart of a wicked conscience; and enable me, by the power of Your Holy Spirit, clothed with the grace of the priesthood, to stand before Your holy Table and celebrate the Mystery of Your holy and pure Body and Your precious Blood. I come before You with my head bowed, and I implore You: Turn not Your face away from me, nor reject me from among Your children, but make me, Your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer these gifts to You. For You are the One Who both offers and is offered, the One Who is received and is distributed, O Christ our God…
…

Lord God Almighty, You alone are holy. You accept the sacrifice of praise from those who call upon You with their whole heart, even so, accept from us sinners our supplication, and bring it to Your holy Altar of sacrifice. Enable us to offer You gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our own sins and the failings of Your people. Deem us worthy to find grace in Your sight, that our sacrifice may be well pleasing to You, and that the good Spirit of Your grace may rest upon us and upon these gifts presented and upon all Your people.
…
Your own of Your own we offer to You, in all and for all.
…
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we beseech and pray and entreat You: Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon the gifts here presented…

If we understand one pillar of sacrifice as offering of gifts, in a reciprocal and ever increasing sign of affection, then the Torah becomes much clearer. Add to that the second element of hospitality and you have it. The basic forms of worship are incense and food, offered in hospitality to draw near and have communion and relationship with God. When you break fellowship, repentance is required and then the offering signifies the acceptance of repentance and renewal of relationship. When something good happens, the offering is given in thanks. And so on. The Torah was given to teach these things, and they are fulfilled in the Eucharist.

Christ offers Himself to God - the perfect, unblemished, pure sacrifice as an offering. He did this because having died, He trampled down death, and through this and the incarnation destroyed the power of death over our human nature. This is how he is the Passover lamb, and our new Passover (Easter) fulfills the last. Just as Israel passed through death to life in the judgment of the gods of Egypt, we pass through death to life in the judgment of the gods of the whole world. And so participation and eating this marks us as part of the people of God just as eating the Passover marked one as an Israelite.

His enduring of the pain and death is part of the sacrifice but not the whole. It is also a thank offering, a free will offering, a sin offering (for the sin of the world). He is the goat that takes away sin, he takes on sin but is not made unclean by it - so he is also the goat that is offered, pure and acceptable. And this doesn't just take away the sin of the people and cleanse the temple and the camp for one year, but it was the ultimate atonement that purified the whole world, cleansing the gentiles and allowing them to come to know God, allowing him to dwell among them and us in the Holy Spirit.

The two above combine in St John the Forerunner's mixed metaphor of Christ being the lamb (Passover) who takes away sin (atonement).

He is also grain and drink offering in that we receive him through the gifts of bread and wine. And in the meal we commune with him, receive the forgiveness of sins, receive grace and immortality, and join our humanity to his humanity and therefore also we receive the grace of his divinity to become like him.

So the sacrifice is the perfect offering, once for all, to blot out, absorb, purify, consume sin once for all. And we participate in that by eating the sacrifice, a shared meal with him, just as the disciples did in the upper room.

AGC said:

---

You're absolutely correct, medieval mass was a mess in the Roman church. Priests didn't know the language (hence hocus pocus comes into the lexicon through slaughtering the Latin), most parishioners only received Eucharist once a year, priests didn't provide the elements to laity but took it themselves, and this issue. There's a lot taken for granted today that the reformation was proper to address.

---

Yep.

Medieval western Christianity was pretty wild.

It's pretty fascinating to look into

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The eucharist replaced the blood sacrifice.

---

But the Eucharist IS the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Jesus IS the burnt offering provided by God. It's not a bloodless sacrifice. He's the Lamb. The crucifixion was the consummation of the sacrifice.

---

One of the changes in the most recent Catechim is that CCC 1367 refers to the Mass as the "unbloody sacrifice" which I think is a misrepresentation of what the Council of Trent was trying to say, which is that Christ wasn't sacrificed anew every Mass. Christ was sacrificed at Calvary once and for all.

---

A major quarrel during the Reformation was the Roman Catholic belief that Christ was sacrificed at each Eucharist. There were clearly a lot of issues with the Medieval Mass.

From the Confutation:

"Again, their insinuations that in the mass Christ is not offered must be altogether rejected, as condemned of old and excluded by the faithful."

"Therefore the daily sacrifice of Christ will cease universally at the advent of the abomination - i.e. of Antichrist - just as it has already ceased, particularly in some churches, and thus will be unemployed in the place of desolation - viz. when the churches will be desolated, in which the canonical hours will not be chanted or the masses celebrated or the sacraments administered, and there will be no altars, no images of saints, no candles, no furniture."

That was written in response to the claims of the Reformers who said:

"[21] At the same time, an abominable error was also rebuked, namely, the teaching that our Lord Jesus Christ had made satisfaction by his death only for original sin and had instituted the Mass as a sacrifice for other sins. [22] Thus, the Mass was made into a sacrifice for the living and the dead for the purpose of taking away sin and appeasing God. [23] Thereupon followed a debate as to whether one Mass celebrated for many people merited as much as a special Mass celebrated for an individual. This resulted in the countless multiplication of Masses, and with this work people wanted to obtain from God everything they needed. Meanwhile, faith in Christ and true worship of God were forgotten."


The real question is does the Mass confer grace "ex opere operator?" Rome said yes, Reformers said no.

---

I don't know of anyone who believes that Christ is re-sacrificed at every Mass. The Church fathers as far back as the mid 4th century, St. John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St Ambrose of Milan, St Augustine all explicitly testify to the singular sacrifice on Calvary, that is bloodlessly recreated at every Mass.

This was a huge point of discussion among the early Church who wondered if they were lopping off pieces of Christ every time they confected the Eucharist, luckily the fathers answered that question guided by the Holy Spirit.

Admittedly I know very little about the impetus behind the Protestant confessions (I've heard of Westminster and Augsburg but haven't studied them), but I know enough about Catholic teaching to say "that's not we we believe"

---

You'd do well to read through the Confutation.

This is the comparison Rome makes:

Quote:

---

For St. Paul is speaking of the offering of a victim - i.e. of a bloody sacrifice, of a lamb slain, viz. upon the cross - which offering was indeed once made whereby all sacraments, and even the sacrifice of the mass, have their efficacy. Therefore he was offered but once with the shedding of blood - viz. upon the cross; today he is offered in the mass as a peace making and sacramental victim. Then he was offered in a visible form capable of suffering; today he is offered in the mass veiled in mysteries, incapable of suffering, just as in the Old Testament he was sacrificed typically and under a figure.

---

There seems to be a contrast being made between the bloody sacrifice of Christ and an ongoing sacrifice, that is not called bloody.

---

This sounds a lot like the distinction made earlier between meal and sacrifice. The bloody sacrifice as of a point in time at Calvary, and as an atemporal unbloody sacrifice.
Idk. I waffle between being at peace with the distinction and not.

---

Yeah...the challenge (hence ex opere operato) is what is happening in the mass? Is the very act of the priest "offering a sacrifice" what confers grace or something else?

This is where a lot of the troubles with private masses or masses in empty churches come up. There was (and maybe still is a view) that the very act of performing those masses bestows grace. If that's the case, then of course we should be running masses all day every day.

However, the reformers challenge was:

"[30] In the third place, the holy sacrament was not instituted to provide a sacrifice for sinfor the sacrifice has already occurredbut to awaken our faith and comfort our consciences. The sacrament makes them aware that they are promised grace and forgiveness of sin by Christ. That is why this sacrament requires faith and without faith is used in vain."

So is it a meal? Yes, but the meal doesn't deliver grace in its presentation, but through the faith in what that meal means.

Is it a sacrifice? Yes, in the sense that through the sacrifice of Christ, our faith is strengthened and the grace of Christ falls on us.

Is it either for a non-believer? No because the very acts performed is not where God's grace is found.

Serviam said:

---

I prefer a medieval sort of piety where I just put my head down and attend mass without knowing who the Pope is, or what he is doing because a ship from the Papal States hasn't docked in over 3 years

---

You'd know more if you just submitted to the true Pope in Avignon.

747Ag said:

---

Serviam said:

---

I prefer a medieval sort of piety where I just put my head down and attend mass without knowing who the Pope is, or what he is doing because a ship from the Papal States hasn't docked in over 3 years

---

---

Serviam said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Serviam said:

---

I prefer a medieval sort of piety where I just put my head down and attend mass without knowing who the Pope is, or what he is doing because a ship from the Papal States hasn't docked in over 3 years

---

---

---