Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Re-Sacrifice Of Christ?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a number of claims made by Steve Ray over at Catholic Answers. He touches on a variety of topics, but the emphasis here will be limited to the dogma of transubstantiation. Following are quotations from the author in bold letters and critical analyses of each claim of interest:

          "The Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is "re-sacrificed" on the altar. Why does Ankerberg say that it does? The quotation he uses from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not use anything like"re-sacrifice," yet Ankerberg says it teaches "re-sacrificing." Words are important; smart Catholics will catch on to what he is doing- playing footloose with terminology to suit his own interests."

          The eucharist is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068). We are told that the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of Jesus are "one in the same sacrifice" (CCC, 1367). The eucharist is believed to be propitiatory (CCC, 1367). It is believed to make atonement for sin (CCC, 1414). However, this "sacrifice" is done repeatedly. These sacrifices take place across the world. Thus, the Roman Catholic distinction between "re-sacrifice" and "re-presentation" is a distinction without a difference. The principle of Jesus Christ being offered "once for all" remains violated. He is not offering Himself for the sins of the world today because that has already been done (Hebrews 10:10-14). Even the presence of a sacrificial alter would seem to suggest a plurality of sacrifices being made.

          "Catholics teach that there was only one sacrifice and that the Mass is a re-presentation of that sacrifice, a partaking in and of the one sacrifice-the eating of the Lamb (Ex. 12:11, John 6:52-58)."

           The atonement sacrifices that were performed in the Old Testament pointed to the one sacrifice accomplished by Jesus Christ at Calvary (Hebrews 10:1). Steve Ray's use of typology is rather imaginative given that even pagans ate their own sacrifices of animals and those had nothing to do with us. On the other hand, there are valid connections made to Christ in Exodus 12, such as the bones of the lamb not being broken. According to the gospels, His bones were not broken during crucifixion. The blood of the covenant passages are not supportive of transubstantiation because they say nothing about a mysterious conversion of the consecrated elements at the mass into the literal flesh and blood of Christ.

          "So we have an anomaly: Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, and Christ, the Lamb of God, standing on the altar. In the temporal world, he was slain once-but in heaven, the world outside time, it appears that the sacrifice of Christ is an eternal event. We are even told that he was crucified before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8)."

          The reason for the imagery of Christ standing on the alter in Revelation is to remind us continually of His sacrifice for our sins. The effects of His work are permanent. Christ does not need to be offered as a sacrifice today. Only He could offer Himself up anyway.

           "Why is the Protestant position on the Lord’s Supper at such odds with the universal teaching of the first Christians who called the Lord’s Supper “Eucharist”?"

           It should not surprise us when early Christian writers made statements similar to "this is my body" and "this is my blood," since they were alluding to the words spoken by Jesus Christ during the Last Supper. The focus should become what is meant by such language. A person, for example, can point to a country on a map and say, "This is Israel." In that instance, he would not be literally saying the place pointed at on the paper is that nation, but that is what it represents. Even if a church father believed in some mystical presence of Christ in the communion elements, that does not demonstrate he believed in transubstantiation. The former notion can be embraced without knowledge or acceptance of the later.

           Augustine, for example, in his commentary on Psalm 33, spoke of Christ “holding Himself in a manner.” That is to be understood metaphorically. The point of emphasis there is the deep mystery and significance of the eucharist. It does not imply a literal physical presence. This aligns with the broader theological perspective that Christ’s presence in the eucharist is spiritual and symbolic rather than a physical transformation. This view underscores the belief that the communion elements are a profound reminder of Christ’s sacrifice. They are a means of spiritual communion with Him, rather than a physical consumption of His body and blood. It highlights the idea that the true presence of Christ in the eucharist is experienced through faith and the Holy Spirit, rather than through a literal change in the elements of bread and wine.

           This excerpt from Church Historian Philip Schaff's work called History of the Church, Volume II, paragraph 69, is pertinent here:

          "The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.”

          Robert J. Daly writes in his paper titled Eucharistic Origins: From The New Testament To The Liturgies of the Golden Age:

          "We do not know and cannot reconstruct in precise detail what Jesus did at his "Last Supper." The New Testament itself remembered and interpreted what Jesus did in quite different ways. Attending to these differences undermines the assumption that there is a single line of development that runs from Jesus to the later Eucharist of the Church, and that can be traced back by us toward Jesus. And indeed, if by Eucharist is meant what is now done in the Church, the farther back one goes, for example, to the "Eucharists" of James, Peter, and Jesus, the farther one gets from the Eucharist of the present. Indeed, if an exact reconstruction of what Jesus did at the Last Supper were possible, it would probably look quite different from what Christians now celebrate."

           This excerpt from John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 274, summarizes the current of interpretation present amongst various patristic authors:

          "...they saw the Lord's Supper with a strong degree of realism, though with a spiritualizing tendency. The elements really and truly were the body and blood of Christ, yet not in such a way as to be identical with the historical body of the Savior. Christ's literal body had ascended into heaven, to be brought from heaven only in His return in the last great judgment." 

          This excerpt from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online points out the ambiguity of the early development of what has been called the mass:

           "The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass. How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history of liturgy. During the last few years, especially, all manner of solutions and combinations have been proposed. We will first note some points that are certain, that may serve as landmarks in an investigation…Justin gives us the fullest Liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries (Apol. I, lxv, lxvi, quoted and discussed in LITURGY). He describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated at Rome in the middle of the second century; his account is the necessary point of departure, one end of a chain whose intermediate links are hidden. We have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries. This is the mysterious time where conjecture may, and does, run riot. By the fifth century we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change. At this time we have the fragment in Pseudo-Ambrose, “De sacramentis” (about 400. Cf. P.L., XVI, 443), and the letter of Pope Innocent I (401-17) to Decentius of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553). In these documents we see that the Roman Liturgy is said in Latin and has already become in essence the rite we still use." (emphasis added)

           Following are comments by John Darby regarding the substance and accidents Aristotelian philosophy on which the idea of transubstantiation rests: 

           "The doctrine of transubstantiation is simply the fruit of the scholastic use of Aristotle in the middle ages...this theory of a particular substance and accidents was a mere metaphysical theory, without any real foundation. We have got nowadays to molecules and atoms infinitely minute, which may be called perhaps substance or essential matter; but all this Aristotelian theory of an imaginary substance and accidents in material objects, is a mere groundless fancy. We see different qualities which awaken sensations in us; colour, form, hardness, etc., and the mind recognises there is something there. Of this conviction, which in relation to us creatures I do not dispute, Aristotle and the schoolmen, who were as a rule wholly under his influence, made a distinct but imaginary substratum in which the various qualities were inherent. There was the substance of bread, etc. But this was a mere philosophical notion, a mere theory of the heathen Aristotelian school, adopted by the schoolmen, and has no other foundation whatever. But the whole doctrine of transubstantiation, and even the word, depends on it, cannot exist without it, is the mere expression of it, only bringing in a miracle on the ground of it, as to the Lord's supper."

           Dr. Francis Nigel Lee highlighted ongoing debates and opposition to transubstantiation within the Roman Catholic tradition itself:

           "Even since A.D. 831, many Roman Catholics still opposed such transubstantiation. So: Ratramnus, Berengarius, John Scotus Eriguena, Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, Florus Magister, Eusebius Bruno (Bishop of Angers), Frollant (Bishop of Senlis), and Elfric. Also, according to the famous RC Cardinal Bellarmine in his De Sacramento Eucharistea (111:5 and 4 dII q.6 art. 1,2 and q. 3 art. 1,2 and I:5) - even the celebrated Cardinal Cameracensus said: "Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ .... To this Cardinal Roffensis, Cardinal Cajetan and also Scotus all concur." Indeed, the RC scholars Gabriel, Nicolus, Cusanus, Tapper, Hessel and others all present the "Protestant" interpretation of John 6:54. See Dr. P.G. Logan's Ph.D. dissertation The History and Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Sydney, 1994, pp. 84f."

           "Notice the sacrificial language being used. The term "table of the Lord" is a technical term which in the Old Testament always refers to a table of sacrifice. Why would Paul use such blatantly sacrificial terminology if he is trying to deny any association between the Eucharist and sacrifice?"

          The context of this passage is about appropriate conduct and the use of discernment in worship services, not having a correct view of the eucharist. The purpose and meaning, not the substance, of the communion elements are addressed in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Moreover, the communion that the pagans had with idols was very real, yet no evidence exists suggesting that their offerings were transubstantiated. Even granting that this text makes mention of the eucharist, that fact in and of itself does not prove the communion elements become the literal body and blood of Christ at the words of consecration by a priest.