ARTICLE

Few Catholic beliefs frighten non-Catholic Christians as much as the sacrifice of the Mass. They think it plainly contradicts biblical teaching about Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary. Often they cite Hebrews 7:26-27 as confirming this view: "For it was fitting that we should have a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself."

It is that last part - the "once for all" aspect of Jesus' sacrifice mentioned repeatedly in Hebrews (9:12, 28; 10:10, 12) - which supposedly refutes the sacrifice of the Mass. "After all," asks the non-Catholic Christian, "if Jesus offered the perfect sacrifice for sin 'once for all,' why do we need another sacrifice in the Mass? Besides, the Bible says Jesus has conquered death. Why then do Catholics think that he dies again?"

Fair questions. If the Catholic Church taught that the Mass is an independent sacrifice over against the finished work of the Cross, then the objection would be valid. And if the Church held that Christ is slain again in the Eucharist, then the Mass would indeed contradict the Bible. But the Church holds neither idea. And far from repudiating the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Letter to the Hebrews actually supports it.

The Sacramental Sacrifice

One thing we must get straight from the outset: the Church teaches that the Eucharist is a relative sacrifice - relative to the sacrifice of the Cross, not a salvific act independent of it. According to the Council of Trent, the Mass is the means "whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the Cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit" (Session 22, chapter 11). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body" (no. 1362).

Notice that both statements tie the Eucharistic sacrifice directly to the Cross. The Mass is not some other, independent sacrifice, but the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ offered here and now, though in a different way than on Calvary.

How is the Eucharist the same sacrifice as Calvary? As a sacramental sacrifice - that is, by means of sacramental symbols that re-present that once-for-all, historical sacrifice. The italicized, hyphenated word re-present is key here. It means more than a mere representation, in the ordinary sense of that word.

The Mass re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary in at least two complementary ways. First, in the symbolic sense we're commonly familiar with today. We might call this the ritual or liturgical representation of Christ's sacrifice. The Eucharist is symbolic in the sense that a symbol represents something, usually a very "big" something, thoroughly "shot through" with meaning. The flag, for example, is a symbol of the nation. It represents our country, uniting in one symbolic expression the notions of homeland, of constitutional government, of sacrifices made on behalf of freedom, beloved family members and friends - indeed, of our whole way of life.

The elements of bread and wine used in the Eucharist are certainly symbols of Jesus' sacrifice in that sense. Drawn from the Passover liturgy, they point at once to God's covenant with Israel and to the New Covenant established by Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, which fulfills the former. They are also visible reminders of Jesus' act of self-offering at the Last Supper, where he gave his body and blood for the first time as food and drink. Furthermore, as Jesus' blood was violently separated from his body in death on the Cross, the bread and wine of the Eucharist are dually consecrated - the bread into the Body of Christ, the wine into the Blood of Christ - again symbolizing Christ's sacrifice.

Most non-Catholic Christians have little problem with this. They acknowledge that the Eucharist is a symbol of Christ's sacrifice - when symbol is used in the modern sense of something which simply stands for something else. But the Church, following the early Fathers, says that the Eucharist is a symbol of Christ and his sacrifice in a different, fuller sense altogether. Symbol here should not be set over against the thing symbolized. The Eucharist is a symbol of Christ and his sacrifice that also contains the reality symbolized. So when Christ said at the Last Supper, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," he meant just that. When he said, "Do this in memory of me," he meant much more than, "Recall what I have done." He meant to make his sacrifice a present reality, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Eucharist "makes present" the sacrifice of Calvary more profoundly than a mere aide-mémoire: it is an anamnesis. The term comes from Greek, meaning "remembrance," and it refers to a real, as opposed to a purely symbolic or mental, participation in what is re-presented.

The Israelites experienced an anamnesis in observing the Sabbath. "Remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and that the Lord, your God, brought you from there with his strong hand and outstretched arm. That is why the Lord, your God, has commanded you to observe the sabbath day," Deuteronomy 5:15 declares. When this commandment was read again on the Feast of Tabernacles, the hearers were regarded as real participants in the salvific event recalled, not merely descendants of those who were.

As an anamnesis, Christ's once-for-all sacrifice is recalled and made present again in the Eucharistic liturgy. This is why St. Paul says of those who receive the Eucharist "unworthily" -without "discerning the body" - that they "will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). Such a severe judgment makes little sense if the Eucharist were a mere symbol of Christ - if didn't really participate in the reality symbolized.

What brings about this sacramental participation in Christ's sacrifice? It isn't the splendor of the ceremony, the grandeur of the liturgical music nor the richness of the priest's vestments. It isn't even the subjective participation of the congregants, however important that is for their spiritual well-being.

No, it is the action of Christ himself, working through the ministerial priest and really present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine, who makes the sacrifice a re-presentation of Calvary. The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is present because he who was both the high priest who offered the sacrifice on Calvary and the sacrifice that was offered is present: Jesus Christ himself.

Once for All

On the Cross Jesus declared, "It is finished!" The Letter to the Hebrews makes clear that Christ died "once for all" for our sins. He does not and cannot die again, nor does the Church teach otherwise. According to the Council of Trent, Christ is offered in the Eucharist "in an unbloody manner," i.e., a sacramental manner (Session 22, chapter 2), as opposed to the "bloody manner" of the Cross.

Yet Hebrews also states that Christ remains a "priest forever" and is "always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). Christ's role as high priest - as one who mediates between God and man by offering sacrifice - didn't end on Calvary. He continues to offer himself to the Father in heaven on our behalf. As Hebrews 9:11-12 states:

"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands ... he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

In the Old Testament, on the day of Atonement, the sacrificial animals were slain and their blood was taken by the high priest into the holy of holies of the temple where it was offered to God. The writer to the Hebrews sees this practice fulfilled with the work of Christ who, as victim and high priest, offered himself as the perfect sacrifice on the Cross. Afterward, he entered heaven, the true tabernacle and holy of holies, the abode of God himself (Heb. 8:2-3; 9:11-12, 24). There he continues to make intercession for us before the Father as the perfect offering and perfect high priest who offers.

Christ's continued presence in heaven as both high priest and offering explains why Revelation depicts Jesus there in the form of the Paschal Lamb (Rev. 5:6). The Eucharistic sacrifice is simply our earthly share in this heavenly offering of Christ to the Father. In this sense, the Eucharist offers a "God's-eye-view" of redemption, since the sacrifice of the Cross is eternally present to the timeless God and Christ himself is eternally before the Father on our behalf.

Adding to the Cross?

But doesn't all this amount to adding to Christ's work on Calvary? The Council of Trent declared that the Mass applies the effects of Calvary "to the remission of those sins which we daily commit." But if Jesus did die for all our sins, those committed after we've become Christians as well as before, what can the Mass possibly add?

The answer: nothing. The Council of Trent didn't claim that the Eucharist adds something quantitatively to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, merely that it applies the effects of Calvary to our lives. Non-Catholic Christians shouldn't object to this idea; it is essentially what they believe happens when a person "accepts Jesus as his personal Savior." The work of the Cross is "applied" to the one who believes.

Catholics and non-Catholic Christians both recognize a distinction between what Christ accomplished by his sacrifice on the Cross and our personal appropriation of it. The spiritual benefits of the Cross are the objective redemption. But these must be received by me - subjective redemption. In this respect, the benefits of redemption are like having money in the bank; it benefits you little personally if you can't - or don't - actually use it.

So the Eucharist is essentially Calvary made present to us in the person of Christ who is really present. Yet the Eucharistic sacrifice does differ from the historical sacrifice of Calvary, and in a way other than by the sheer fact that Calvary happened two thousand years ago. The difference is this: on Calvary Christ alone offered the sacrifice, the Church offering it only indirectly and proleptically in him insofar as he would become her Head and Bridegroom. In the Eucharistic sacrifice, however, the Church also offers the sacrifice with Christ.

This is an important point, one that often creates problems with non-Catholic Christians because it seems to them to get the whole thing backwards. For them, the proper order of things is that Christ offered himself for us, period. No sacrifice on the part of the Church is possible. But this view overlooks at least two important things.

First, the fact that the Church is a "royal priesthood and holy nation" (1 Pet. 2:9) because of Christ. This means the Church shares in the priesthood of Christ. If so, then the Church must have some sacrifice to offer, for priesthood implies sacrifice. And what sacrifice could the Church offer to God but the One Supreme Sacrifice of Christ?

If they think about it carefully, non-Catholic Christians should readily understand this notion because they affirm the "priesthood of all believers." They know that their sharing in Christ's priesthood takes nothing away from Christ, but actually draws its efficacy from him. Similarly, the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church takes nothing from Christ's saving work but participates in it. The Eucharist is the sacrifice of the Church because it is the sacrifice of Christ in whose priestly identity the Church shares.

A second point: the Eucharist is also the Church's sacrifice because of Christ's spousal union with his Church (Eph. 5:23-32). Because the Church is "one-flesh" with her bridegroom, Christ, his sacrifice is her sacrifice. Christ's act of self-surrender to the Father for love of the Church becomes her act of self-surrender for love of Christ.

The Eucharistic sacrifice, then, is not an independent "good work" we offer to God, but the work of Christ, to which we, as the Church, unite ourselves by faith, hope and charity. In other words, "through him, with him and in him," as we say in the liturgy, the Church's own self-surrender, as well as our individual acts of self-surrender, are made effectual.

Conclusion

"Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17), St. Paul wrote. Yet, tragically, the Eucharist is a point of major division among Christians. To some degree this division is a result of deep differences of faith, differences over what God has in fact revealed about the Eucharist and which only the Holy Spirit can bridge. But much of the disagreement comes from a profound misunderstanding: the mistaken notion that Catholics believe the Eucharistic sacrifice to be an additional sacrifice over against that of the Cross. Clearing up this point won't, of course, eliminate completely the present ecclesiastical apartheid. Nevertheless, it can help bring Christians closer together regarding the Eucharist, which, after all, our Lord intended to be a sign of unity among his disciples.

Mark Brumley, who recently moved with his family from San Diego to the Bay area, is managing editor of this journal.