WOWWWWWWWWWWW was in the subject line of the email from the PT reader who sent this in. It’s pretty strong, perhaps overstated. But the main point is a good one, I think. And please note, the author does not deny that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. It’s by Mark Johnson, who teaches religious studies at the University of Sydney. From CathNews.
Share on:
#1 by Jack Wayne on September 5, 2010 - 8:55 pm
Quote
Growing up, I had no knowledge of the Mass-as-sacrifice, so I have trouble sympathizing with pleas that we not focus on that aspect so much. I spent most of my childhood thinking Mass was solely a communal get-together where we sang songs, held hands, and (the most boring part) play-acted the last supper. It wasn’t until I learned about the Reformation in school that I came to know about the real presence or the sacrificial nature of Mass, and it wasn’t until I possessed this knowledge and came to believe it that Mass meant anything really special or had any real importance in my life.
The friendship/sacrifice aspects of the Mass of course need to be balanced, but I wouldn’t argue that the sacrifice aspect is the over-emphasized of the two. I would argue that many Catholics are completely unaware that the Mass has any sacrificial nature at all (I once had someone tell me in all seriousness, when I referred to the Mass as sacrifice, that “it isn’t a sacrifice to me at all because I enjoy going to Mass.”).
#2 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 5, 2010 - 9:08 pm
Quote
+JMJ+
Apart from its needless polemicism, the article seems to divorce the Eucharist as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (to use the language of the “new-orthodoxy”) from the Eucharist as Holy Communion. Calling the Mass a “holy sacrifice” does not mean it is “all we are concerned about”. But if Jesus gave us this sacrament and told us to do it in memory of Him, and if His presence in the sacrament is different from all other modes of His presence, it seems important that we celebrate it properly and reverently.
If we recognize that the Eucharist is not only a Trinitarian sacrifice but also a sacrament, meant to be offered to God’s people, then we should be able to see that “our central act of worship is that of relationship and of friendship.”
#3 by Bill Dilworth on September 5, 2010 - 9:31 pm
Quote
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
The Sacrifice of the Cross – and by extension the Mass – is all about friendship. It just isn’t the sort of friendship that Mark Johnson is thinking of.
#4 by Tim English on September 5, 2010 - 11:18 pm
Quote
Fr. Anthony may appreciate that when I was in discernment with my local Benedictine community, the vocation director gave me a book entitled “The Eucharist and Spiritual Growth” by Anselm Grun,O.S.B and the book aims to bring the reader to an appreciation for the sacrament of the Eucharist. The chapters are: The Mass as sacrifice, The Eucharist as a meal, the Eucharist as transformation, the Mass as a sacred drama and the celebration of death and resurrection.
I too rarely heard the terms the sacrifice of the Mass, but since my dad was a former seminarian, I heard the term at home. It was explained to me that the reason why the Mass was a sacrifice was because we remember the sacrifice that Jesus did for us by dying for us on the Cross for our sins when we celebrate Mass. Now, yes, the Mass is a communal gathering, but it is more than that, it is a public/communal act of PRAYER. And the it’s more than hand holding and singing songs. It’s hearing the Word of God, meditating on it(through the Responsorial Psalm), praying the intercessions for the various needs, receiving our Lord in the sacrament of Holy Communion( receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist, in COMMUNION with our brothers and sisters in Christ.)
#5 by Philip Endean SJ on September 6, 2010 - 1:27 am
Quote
MJ is making a point far too often forgotten: that the images we use in articulating our faith lose their point and their force if we stray too far from the particular history which generates them. I think he weakens his case by putting too much weight on the image of friendship, in the way that Mr Dilworth (partcularly) is pointing up. The right use of ‘sacrifice’ in connection with the Eucharist is dominated by a sense that Jesus transformed traditions of sacrifice, to the point of leading some to think he abolished them. The same, mutatis mutandis, goes for other concepts such as friendship or commuinity.
#6 by Philip Endean SJ on September 6, 2010 - 9:47 am
Quote
I hope it’s not too gross to reply to myself: I’d like to sharpen.
If, on the basis of the NT and tradition, we hold that who Christ is and what he did are in a strong sense unique, then NO categories predicated on likeness between different instances of the same reality can be used straightforwardly in the Christ-context. If only theologians and bishops could grasp this logical point, a lot of silly discussions could be avoided.
#7 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 6, 2010 - 5:35 pm
Quote
+JMJ+
Certainly what Christ did (and does) is unique, but He did it in the context of certain established practices, one specific example of which is the todah sacrifice, which some modern Catholic scholarship has drawn attention to.
Ratzinger wrote in Feast of Faith that, if the Eucharist is to be categorized, classifying it as the todah par excellence is far more precise than merely “sacrifice” or “meal” or “feast”.
#8 by Donna Eschenauer on September 6, 2010 - 8:06 am
Quote
I agree, the main point is a good one because we often forget that we come to Eucharist to remember what happened at the Font – Baptism is about relationship – to God, Church and world.
And, the Reign of God is about right relationships!
#9 by Ioannes Andreades on September 6, 2010 - 8:30 am
Quote
When I read the accounts of the Last Supper, I don’t read a story about a bunch of friends yacking it up. It’s a story of quibbling and betrayal with one man alone understanding what is really about to happen and powering through the small mindedness.
#10 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on September 6, 2010 - 8:34 am
Quote
I think of Pope Benedict’s intervention at the Synod of Bishops, when the discussion was about to be derailed by playing ‘meal’ and ‘sacrifice’ off each other, pointing out that it is both, they are complimentary.
In that spirit, I think it’s unhelpful to downplay other aspects of Eucharist in order to have enough focus left over for ‘sacrifice.’ Rather, the way forward is to unpack the full meaning and mystery of ‘sacrifice.’ One meaning of sacrifice is ‘propitiation for sins.’ (Some conservatives emphasize this meaning.) This meaning is true, but it’s only part of the picture. Sacrifice also means -and this isn’t an exhaustive list – joining in Christ’s self-offering, likewise dying to self, offering self to others in love and service, building up community – and these all have deep implications for our moral life, social witness, our personal conversion.
I cringe when I read on blogs (and you find this all over the place) that the 1962 Mass makes the sacrificial aspect clearer. I think, rather, that it obscures it. It gives the impression that the ordained priest is actualizing Christ’s propitiation, for or on behalf of the community. That is true, sort of, but it’s also a distortion. (I grant that one could have a fuller understanding of the 1962 Mass than this, but the form of the rite makes it difficult.) I think the reformed Mass, at its best, implies a richer understanding of ‘sacrifice.
awr
#11 by Jack Wayne on September 6, 2010 - 10:36 am
Quote
I kinda think the 1962 Mass, when celebrated in light of the 20th Century liturgical movement, actually does a better job at balancing the community/sacrificial nature of Mass than the new Mass does. However, I realize this perception might be a result of my own bias, and tainted by my own experiences growing up (just as I think a lot of peoples’ perceptions of the 1962 Mass is tainted by such things).
#12 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on September 6, 2010 - 1:42 pm
Quote
Jack, I don’t follow. Even at its very best, Mass with the 1962 missal doesn’t bring out at all that a priestly community is brought into Christ’s self-offering by their own self-emptying to each other for the sake of the world, drawing them ever closer to each other in community. Even at its best, it looks like there’s only one priest, and everyone else is privileged a) to be present as he offers sacrifice and b) to receive grace his ritual brings to them.
Do you really think that the 1962 missal comes close to fostering a full sense of sacrifice? I just don’t see it. I think it strongly implies a rather one-sided distortion of propitiation-theology, at the expense of everything else. Just what theology of sacrifice does the 1962 missal foster in your mind?
awr
#13 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 6, 2010 - 5:39 pm
Quote
+JMJ+
Fr. Anthony, I’ve read some personal missals and other books on the old Mass (written before 1962) which go to surprising lengths to show that the congregation is a priestly community joining themselves to Christ’s sacrifice.
“The Splendour of the Liturgy” (Zundel) and “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (Gihr) are two examples.
#14 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on September 6, 2010 - 5:48 pm
Quote
Jeffrey – that’s great to hear. I have a hunch (but it’s only a hunch since I don’t know if your sources) that these would have been reform-minded folks who wanted to revive an earlier understanding in people’s minds even though that understanding was no longer apparent in the rite. It’d be interesting to know whether they supported a) the idea of ritual reforms and/or b) the ritual reforms we got.
My point is that the rite in its 1962 form didn’t foster such an understanding, and that people like Zundel and Gihr had their work cut out for them trying to propogate that understanding when the rite was working against them in some ways.
awr
#15 by Ioannes Andreades on September 6, 2010 - 10:01 pm
Quote
Fr. Anthony,
In what prayers in the new mass is the priesthood of the laity mentioned? What prayers in the new mass stress the multiplicity of understandings of sacrifice? At least back in the old solemn high mass, it was part of the rubrics for the laity to be incensed (like the priest and the bread and the wine) to show that the laity’s purity and holiness was important for the sacrifice and there is a unity between priest and people and the offerings and people. Whatever community is fostered in the post Vat. ii missal, it’s not obviously a priestly one. It has been years since I was incensed in the ordinary form (I’ve been incensed at it multiple times). Also, making changes in the mass was not necessarily the goal of the Liturgical Movement, at least early on.
I apologize if this comment seems a little foreceful. I have to admit that for a long time I have had the belief that the reforms missed a golden opportunity to present the congregation as a priestly people. Rather than lifting up the laity to a priestly level, the reforms succeeded in making everyone–priest included–pedestrian, ordinary–exactly the opposite of what was once conceived of as priestly. God forbid that laity touch gold ciboria made for God’s service–let’s make the vessels out of bad pottery. Look at the way the congregations dress. Do they dress like a priestly people? The message isn’t getting across.
#16 by Michael Podrebarac on September 6, 2010 - 11:50 am
Quote
Thanks, Father Anthony, for your excellent points made about the full nature of sacrifice. We would do well to think upon these things often.
When I first read Kevin Irwin’s Models of the Eucharist several years ago, I was caught by the fact that, while I could only read one chapter at a time, all the chapters were nevertheless always true. We can only really focus on one aspect of the Eucharist at a particular moment, our minds being limited, but that of course doesn’t mean that all the other aspects somehow cease to be, or that we don’t value them.
And I have never understood the complaint made that the 1970 Missal obscures the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. That’s a difficult argument to make when the Missal in fact repeatedly uses words like “offer” “offering” and “sacrifice”. How many times do we need to say it in order to prove that we really mean it?
Of all the synthesized descriptions of the Mass, I myself like St. Thomas Aquinas’ perhaps the best: “O Sacred Banquet! In which Christ is received, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the mind is filled with grace, and the pledge of future glory is given to us.” The Eucharist is in fact all of these, all of the time, with no one particular part fully able to exist without the complimentarity of the others.
#17 by Bill deHaas on September 6, 2010 - 10:30 am
Quote
Best approach is traditional catholic theology – “both/and”. Either extreme diminishes the richness of our sacramental theology as developed in the 20th century and articulated in the VII documents by folks such as Schillebeckxx and Rahner.
Here is a recent article on the meaning of meals by Brian Gleeson, CP: http://www.catholica.com.au/gc0/bg/008_bg_310810.php
Highlights:
“This ministry of table fellowship exercised by Jesus affirms just how much he has been a lover of life, a saver of life, and a giver of life, a ‘prolife’ person in the best sense of the word. A particularly wonderful and amazing thing about it all is how his ministry of meals continues in the Eucharist, called by the first Christians by those beautiful names ‘the Breaking of Bread’ and ‘the Lord’s Supper’. By the latter expression they understood that it was the Risen Lord himself who was calling them to get together to celebrate all he meant to them, and that it was he himself who led them in their celebrations from start to finish.
A rich way of understanding the Eucharist is that it is Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday wrapped up in one ritual. The post-resurrection meals of Jesus, in particular, remind us that it is the risen Christ whom we meet in the Eucharist and who leads us in its celebration. Christians can therefore say with Peter that we are among those ‘who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead’ (Acts 10:41).
#18 by Lynne Gonzales on September 6, 2010 - 11:08 am
Quote
Seeing all the angst and problems and hurt caused by “atonement theology”, it is good NOT to emphasize “sacrifice”…”atonement” keeps our spiritual lives in such disarray!
#19 by J. G. LAPOINTE on September 6, 2010 - 12:31 pm
Quote
THE ITALIAN MISSAL RENDERS IT THIS WAY:
Padre veramente santo,
fonte di ogni santità,
santifica questi doni con l’effusione del tuo Spirito
perché diventino per noi il corpo
e + il sangue di Gesù Cristo nostro Signore.
Egli, offrendosi liberamente alla sua passione,
prese il pane e rese grazie,
lo spezzo, lo diede ai suoi discepoli, e disse:
PRENDETE, E MANGIATENE TUTTI:
QUESTO É IL MIO CORPO
OFFERTO IN SACRIFICIO PER VOI.
#20 by Paul Inwood on September 6, 2010 - 6:42 pm
Quote
Not for much longer, one suspects. My Italian friends are tearing their hair out at what CDWDS is trying to impose. I suspect the Italian bishops are, too.
But offerto in sacrificio per voi is a great gloss.
#21 by Jack Wayne on September 6, 2010 - 9:30 pm
Quote
In response to Fr. Ruff’s question: “Just what theology of sacrifice does the 1962 missal foster in your mind?” I feel very much included and involved in what is taking place, and never consider myself an onlooker. To me, this comes largely from the communal direction we face at Mass, my own knowledge of the Mass, and my verbal participation in the Mass (I would be perfectly happy if the “quiet congregation” model – which doesn’t have to be inherent to the TLM – were scrapped for good). I brought a non-Christian with me to my first Latin Mass, and she was surprised to learn that it wasn’t how Catholics usually worshiped – she felt that the priest’s direction emphasized that he was “one with the people.”
I like the clearly defined roles found in the old Mass – to me it emphasizes that we all inherently have a unique, but important, role to play. I think the only bad thing that occurred prior to Vatican II is that the congregation’s role was taken over by both the choir and servers – this definitely needed to be “given back” to the people, but the new Mass wasn’t required for this and doesn’t really do it “better.”
#22 by Jack Wayne on September 6, 2010 - 9:49 pm
Quote
I’m not sure that either missal *inherently* fosters a certain theology – one’s perception of Mass needs to be formed. If a TLM parish were to emphasize the “priestly people” aspect of the Mass and encourage participation in the responses and singing, then I imagine that the people there would not see themselves as being excluded. Conversely, if a Novus Ordo church were to emphasize the “priest acting on our behalf as we watch” theology, I imagine they would indeed feel excluded regardless of music, lectors or EMHCs. Growing up, I didn’t feel all that included because I wasn’t really taught that I was.
#23 by Father Allan J. McDonald on September 7, 2010 - 6:43 am
Quote
For the life of me, especially now as I celebrate both forms of the Mass, I really see no difference between the two Masses in terms of doctrine and dogma. If there is a difference in participation it has to do with the Latin language in the EF and old habits of quietly participating which are simply part of a form of “spirituality” that may well be different than the OF’s spirituality of easy accessibility in terms of the language that thus makes it easier to verbally participate. In terms of sacrifice and meal the teachings are the same, Vatican II and subsequent reforms of the Mass changed nothing of the core meaning of the Mass only a more verbal, participative spirituality. The most frequent comment I get from those who have never been to an EF Mass and really don’t intend to make this Mass their primary Mass is that it is “more reverent.” I think this has to do not so much with the language, although that could be part of it, but with the silences, and the more complex rubrics, bows, genuflections, etc. In their mind this tends to emphasize not so much sacrifice over meal, but the “awesomeness” of the real presence of Christ which seems to be “visually” not “doctrinally” diminished in the OF Mass. Again this is perception. If there is any neglect of sacrifice in the OF Mass, it is not from the Mass itself, but “theologies” that have developed since Vatican II, ways of explaining the Mass and our participation rather than what actually happens doctrinally.
#24 by Samuel J. Howard on September 7, 2010 - 11:49 am
Quote
How much experience do you have as a participant in the ’62 form? How often have you been present at a solemn celebrations (priest, deacon, subdeacon)? Have you ever been present regularly at solemn celebrations by a community that regularly worships together using the solemn form of the 1962 Missal? How often? Have you ministered at or participanted in a solemn pontifical function?
Judgments about whether the ’62 Missal creates an appearance or feeling of a community, a priestly people, (speaking roughly) depends on a depth of experience with the rite as a living part of the Church, that experience is not widespread.
My experience (MC/chorister/server/pew-sitter in both forms at all levels of solemnity for a number years) is that there’s a tighter integration of the worshipping community with the action of the celebrant in the ’62 form than in the reformed form.
That doesn’t mean nothing can be said about the ’62 liturgy, even by those who’ve never seen it, but judgments about subjective or experiential elements require some sort of qualification as to depth of experience.
#25 by Samuel J. Howard on September 7, 2010 - 11:57 am
Quote
And even in the celebration of the reformed liturgy, even with concelebrating Bishops, when it’s celebrated according to the Ceremonial of Bishops, there’s still always a principal celebrant, he is the principal celebrant, and he’s more than primus inter pares.