The Cycle of Sacrifice
in the
Roman Catholic Mass

Julie Sheehy

The Christian Church is centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This is what set the early Christians apart from their Jewish roots. In the Christian Church the notion of sacrifice is based on Jesus Christ as the ultimate sacrifice.  This comes from a long tradition of sacrifice throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.   In the Jewish tradition there are sacrifices made at certain times of the year. For example, traditionally during Passover each family has a rabbi sacrifice a lamb.  The Jewish belief is that this sacrifice must take place every year at Passover.  The Christian belief has changed since the death of Christ.  Christians believe Christ has become the one true sacrifice.  The reason the sacrifice of the Hebrews must be continued is two fold.  The Hebrew sacrifice is made to God, by a priest who is imperfect, and the sacrifice itself is also imperfect. This imperfection and the presence of sin prevent the sacrifice from becoming eternal and therefore must be repeated.   In the Christian view, Jesus is the perfect victim and the perfect sacrificer. 

The emphasis on sacrifice in the Catholic Church has changed.  In the earliest days bread was broken in a meal of fellowship.  Eyewitness accounts of the works of Jesus Christ were the center of the fathering.  It was a gathering of a community of believers.  Gradually this emphasis on community and discussion has changed to an emphasis on the sacrifice of Jesus. By the middle ages this is the center of all.  People came to adore the Blessed Sacrament while the priest offered the sacrifice.  This centrality on the eucharist and the priest as sacrificer was solidified by the Council of Trent.  In time, the people yearned for a greater participation in the liturgy.  This led to the Second Vatican Council in which great changes to the liturgy resulted in a shift of emphasis back to the words and works of Jesus and to the people as the mystical body of Christ. 

            In the earliest church there was little to no mention of sacrifice.  The focus of the beliefs of the community was around the resurrection and good works of Jesus.  Just after the death of Christ, Jewish Christians gathered in homes after the Temple service.  This gathering was called and an agape or "love feast."  People would gather to share in a meal of fellowship and listen to eyewitness accounts of the good works of Jesus.  They gathered in remembrance of these good works.  At this point in the church there were not prescribed rites that accompanied this service.  It was a casual gathering of friends. 

By the year 150 the fellowship meal had nearly died out.  What had remained instead was a Eucharistic meal, so named because the prayers, which accompanied the sharing of bread and wine, were mostly prayers of thanks to God similar to that of the Jewish fellowship meal.  This Eucharistic meal sometimes proceeded the early morning thanksgiving service or was often separate with the Eucharist being shared in the evening.  The Thanksgiving service developed into a longer more ritualized event consisting of an opening greeting by the leader, the bringing of offerings of bread and wine, breaking of bread and sharing of the bread and wine and a dismissal.  It is in this early ritual that we see the emergence of Hubert and Mauss's structure of sacrifice.  Usually at the breaking of the bread an allusion was made to the words of Christ at the Last Supper and sometimes these words were added to the prayers of thanks and praise, but because this ritual was only done in remembrance of Christ and held no meaning of sacrifice, this was not always done.

The early form the eucharist, therefore, does not contain any mention of the sacrifice of Christ nor make any attempt to connect the bread and wine to the sacrifice.  The early service does not contain the "words of institution"  "This is my body...This is my blood...Do this in memory of me."  An increase of the structure of sacrifice is seen when Hippolytus of Rome publishes a liturgical book, The Apostolic Tradition.  It is through this suggestion of an order of worship that a framework for sacrifice emerges.  This service consisted of readings from the writings of the apostles and prophets, an explanation if these readings, prayers of thanks and praise by the leader in which the people responded with "Amen" and the sharing of the Eucharistic meal.  The service focused on the readings of the works and deeds of Christ and the priest’s explanation of these readings. Hippolytus included examples of prayers for the bishop to use but insisted they be used as guidelines for a bishop to pray to the best of his abilities. This book was used as a framework and evolved differently in different part of the world based on the needs of the community. [1]

            In the first three centuries, a leader presided over the community but the Eucharist worship was one of the whole community.  It was through the communal worship that Christ became present. The sacrilization of the bread and wine was the ritual action that repeated and commemorated what Christ had done at the last supper. In their eucharistic worship they experienced a unity with the community of believers in the living presence of Christ. Their ritual action both expressed and strengthened what they felt and believed.

            Slowly, perhaps because of the accusations by the Romans that the Christians were atheists, a shift began from communal gathering of thanksgiving to ritual of sacrifice.  From the fourth to the sixth century eucharistic worship evolved from a simple ritual meal into an elaborate ceremonial liturgy.  At this time the Christians began to explain the eucharist in terms of sacrifice. The leader of the community and the people offered the sacrifice but Christ was considered both priest and victim. Thus, the people were the sacrifier and Christ was both the sacrificer and the victim. Because Christ is the sacrificer a priest is not necessary. Instead, the entire community came together as participants in his redemptive sacrifice.  As these documents began to circulate, the belief of Christ as a sacrificial victim grew stronger. 

By the third century a priest or bishop had become an ordained member of the community.  The bishop and his assistants began to do more and more of the worship while the people for the congregation.  In this way the priest becomes the sacrificer.  Christ is now seen as only the victim of sacrifice and the people become the sacrifiers from a distance.  The liturgy continues to be unregulated and varies from local church.  The eucharistic service, however, remains somewhat standard including a bringing forth of  gifts of bread and wine, a prayer  said over the gifts recalling the last supper and a sharing of bread and wine with the congregation.  This sharing and consumption of the sacrifice continues to make the eucharist a communal sacrifice. 

As Christianity grew and spread, the priest as sacrificer became of increasing importance.  He continued to take a more active role in the eucharist.  Because Christianity was the official religion of Rome, the eucharist was a public function as well as a religious ceremony.  Along with the power to both mediate between the profane and the divine, and the power to sacrifice came legal rites in Rome.  Bishops were made judges and given high rank.  This brought the ceremonial honors of sitting on a throne, being accompanied in procession and greeting by genuflection into the liturgy. 

            The first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea in 325, had canonized the doctine of the trinity.  The practical effects emerged in the liturgy in the fifth century.  As the people began associating the bread and wine of the eucharist with Christ and Christ with God, a decline began in the reception of communion. The people no longer wanted to come into direct contact with the creator of the universe.  As a result, the priest became the primary receiver of the sacrifice as well as the sacrificer.  This caused a further increase in the role of the clergy.  The people continued to respond to prayers and sing at various points throughout the mass but the focus of the liturgy was now on the sacrifice and therefore, the sacrificer. 

             The idea of Christ as sacrifice had been circulating in the Christian community for at least two centuries, but there had yet to be a total acceptance of the idea. By the end of the fourth century the church understood the words "This is my body...This is my blood" to be the words of God.  They accepted this as the true literal meaning and it became doctrine.  It is these words of God that allow the sacrifice to take place.  It is at that moment when the priest says these words of God that the bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  In this way the idea of priest as mediator between sacred and divine is established.  Christ is still the sacrificer, but does so through the hands of the ordained man.

            In the seventh century, St. Gregory I formalized a standardized Eucharistic prayer, or canon.  Until the thirteenth century, the canon was the only consistent part of the liturgy.  By the thirteenth century the liturgy of the Roman Curia was adopted.  This was a somewhat formalized version of the entire liturgy. In this official format of the liturgy the Eucharist was placed in the middle of the liturgy where it still remains. 

In the middle of the thirteen century there came a new reverence for the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Even during the mass people wanted to constantly be able to gaze at their savior in the consecrated host.  As a result, mass began to be said "before the Blessed Sacrament" [2] meaning the host was on display the entire mass for people to adore.  This extreme reverence and feeling of the presence of God in the host, led to the decline of the reception of the Sacrament by the people.  The community gathered for mass to be able to see Christ in the bread and the wine but no longer took part in the communal aspect of the sacrifice.  The reception of the Sacrament declined so much that in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council ordered reception at least once a year.  In this time period the people focused their faith inward.  There was a deep and often mystical devotion for God.  During this time, however, the mass grew as a clerical liturgy.  The community was focused inward or on the host rather than toward a communal sacrifice that brought the whole community closer together. 

The sacrifice of the eucharist was seen now as more of an expiatory sacrifice offered by the priest for the forgiveness of the people’s sins.  This Council also formalized the doctrine of transubstantiation.  For the first time the idea of Jesus as a true sacrifice is made doctrine.  Now it was an official church teaching that the bread and wine were ultimately transformed by Christ through the hands of the priest into the body and blood of Christ

            The Church continued to be focused on its cleric members over its lay members.  This, in addition to the alliance with political powers in Europe, led to much decay in the Church.  When there is an issue of belief or doctrine that concerns the entire church an ecumenical council is called in which all of the church bishops from all over the world attend.  In the history of the Catholic Church there have been twenty-one ecumenical councils convened.  Each council focuses on the issue they have been called to discuss.  These councils usually last about a year.  Twice in the history of the Catholic Church there have been councils called to discuss many issues.  The first of these councils was the Council of Trent.

Pope Paul III convened the Council of Trent in 1545, after a delay of ten years.  The council was called in response to the state of the Church at the time.  There were many problems within the Church, many of which were the cause of the Protestant Reformation.  Before the election of Pope Paul III, it was clear that the next pope would need to call a council.  The intent of the council was to reconcile the Catholic and Protestant views.  However, by the time the council finally convened it was clear the split could not be reconciled. 

            The Council of Trent was a monumental time for the Catholic Church.  The Church defined the eucharistic theology in a way that had never been done before.  It's short, precise format consolidated the eucharistic theology of the scholastics, defended the sacramental practices of the Church and gave theology and practices official ecclesiastic approval.  Church officials, for the first time, used theology as a general criterion against which to judge the sacramental practices of the church.

            In the Council of Trent the Catholic views were solidified and written in precise doctrine.  Each canon states if he does not believe the way the Church does on an issue "let him be anathema."  The canon is stated, clearly, directly and simply.  Following the canons is an explanation explaining the meaning of some of the decrees; however, others are so strongly worded that there is no need for explanation.  

            The most relevant sessions for this paper in the Council of Trent is the twenty-second session On the Sacrifice of the Mass. This section focuses on the doctrinal institution of the mass as a form of sacrifice rather than the mass as a form of worship.  The first canon states, "If anyone saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema." [3]   This is  that transubstantiation is what truly happens in the mass.  The Church is reiterating the early doctrine from the Fourth Lateran in 1215 on transubstantiation in response to the Protestant idea of consubstantiation or of the eucharist as a remembrance rather than a true sacrifice. 

            Canon VIII of  On the Sacrifice of the Mass states, "If any one saith, that masses, wherin the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema." [4]   Canon VIII is defending the idea of the votive mass in which no congregation is present. The Protestants argued that a mass must have a congregation.  The bishops of Trent, however, felt while attending mass would help people spiritually it was not necessary to conduct a mass.  Taking this one step further the bishops argued that the priest sacrificing the mass was doing so not simply for himself but for "all of the faithful who belong to the body of Christ."  In this section the bishops are also urging the people to receive the sacrament of the eucharist.  They consider the receiving of the eucharist to be a "more abundant fruit" that can be derived from the sacrifice.  This statement is explained in Chapter 6 following the canons but no reference is made in the canon itself about the people receiving communion.  By stating such an important belief solely in the commentary it seems to hide the idea of the people receiving communion as tantamount.

            Canon III has three different sections.  The first section states, "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving;..." [5] This section of the third canon is not even discussed by the chapters of commentary.  The bishops might have thought that this was clear and did not necessitate any further discussion.  The idea contained in this canon is, however, one of the major causes of the Protestant split.  Transubstantiation became an official church doctrine in 115 by the Fourth Lateran Council.  It returns to the idea in the first canon of this section of a true and proper sacrifice.  The Protestants do not see the eucharist as a sacrifice, but rather a remembrance of the Last Supper.  In the first section of this canon the Church reinstates the doctrine of transubstantiation simply and without discussion.  The second section states, "or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; that it profits him only who receives; and that it not be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities." [6]   The first part of this section again talks about the people of the congregation receiving communion.  The third canon says one will still receive the same propitiatory benefits if one attends and watches the service as the one who receives communion at the service. As a result this canon encourages people to follow the suggestion made by the Fourth Lateran Council and continue to receive communion only once a year.  The final part of this canon is the only part addressed by the bishops in the commentary.  This explains the votive masses in which people asked and usually paid money for a priest to offer a mass for a particular person, living or dead.  The bishops explain this part of the canon by saying that Christ died for the sins of the people so that in reenacting his sacrifice on the cross our sins may be forgiven. 

Canon II in the twenty second session of the Council of Trent states, "If any one saith that by these words, ‘Do this for the commemoration of me,’ Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.” [7]    The commentary tells us that the sacrifice of the mass is different than other sacrifices in the Hebrew scriptures because of the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood.  Because these priests and sacrificers are not perfect these acts must be repeated again and again.  As the one true sacrificer Christ is the redeemer of all.  It refers to Christ as "priest forever." 

            This document is the first doctrinal explanation of Christ as sacrificer.  It institutes the sacrifice of the mass as the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  The council declares Christ as perfect sacrificer, yet relies on the clergy to perform the sacrifice through the priesthood Christ established through Melchizedek.  This is a reference to Hebrews 7:3, Melchizedek  “Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” [8] This, as Nancy Jay suggests, creates descent through the offering of sacrifice in contrast to the Levitical priesthood of birth descent.    This furthers the emphasis of the first canon on the "true and proper sacrifice"  but also on the role of the ordained priest.   Chapter one of the twenty-second session states, "He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer (them)." [9]   This statement strengthens Jay’s argument of a sacrificial priesthood as well as the power of the clergy within the church. 

            Canon IX can be divided into several parts.  The first part states, "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned." [10]   The custom of pronouncing the consecration in a low tone reiterates the idea of the priest as sacrificer for the people.  The people don't need to be active or even actively listening for the sacrifice to take place.  The use of a bell after consecration was common practice to signal to the people that the consecration was complete, so people would stop praying the rosary or other private prayers and adore the host.  No response to any of the prayers was necessary from the people. For these reasons a low tone could be used for the consecration.   The bishops of the council explained this document to mean that sacred words should be spoken in a low tone as a sign of respect.   

            The second part of Canon IX states, "...that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only..." [11]   In this canon, the church is defending it's position of using the traditional language of the Roman rite.  The commentary provided by the bishops gives little proof for this point.  Latin is still considered the high language and therefore should be the language of the church.  It seems this decree remains in the Catholic doctrine purely for reasons of tradition.

Several reasons are given by the bishops for the final part of the ninth canon which states, "...water ought not be mixed with wine that is to be offered in the chalice." [12]   The council believes that this act is passed down from us through Christ himself.  Secondly, during the crucifixion blood and water ran from his side.  The final reason is perhaps the most interesting.  The bishops point to the apocalypse of blessed John where the people are called waters.  The bishops saw the joining of water and wine in the chalice as a symbol of the joining of Christ with his people.  This idea seems to further the belief that it is not necessary for the people to consume the sacrifice because the people are already joined with Christ by this action.   

            In the end, the council's accomplishments were more doctrinal than practical.  The fathers were clear on the beliefs of the church particularly on those concerning the eucharist, but, in the end, relatively little in the church changed.  The bishops recognized the need to eliminate the abuses of the church but could not agree on how this should be done.  They agreed to "keep the essentials and eliminate abuses" but left the enforcement of this to the Roman curia and its administrators.  This gave the pope a new power of rule over the liturgy and the church that had been previously given to the bishops of each diocese. The council also declared a Roman missal be written and under the authority of Pius V was made mandatory for all of Catholicism.  The missal gave specific instructions for every part of the mass including what tone should be used for each mass and each portion of the mass,  the prayers that should be said each day and the number of crosses that should be made over the bread and wine.  The translation of the missal from Latin to the vernacular was forbidden.  For this reason and the low tone used for the consecration, the time of the liturgy was a time for private devotion except during the adoration.  The eucharist could be adored outside of the liturgy as well in the tabernacle or during the exposition of the blessed sacrament.  There existed a further disconnection between communion and the liturgy for the laity.  Holy communion was usually distributed before and after mass so as not to disturb the sacrifice.  At a solemn high mass the priest was the only one who could receive communion.  The priest as sacrificer thus remained central to the Tridentine mass.  The people were sacrifiers in that they benefited from the sacrifice by being present. 

                        It was this individual spirit that shifted the focus of the church from the early church to the “modern” church.  People no longer came to mass to break bread and hear the stories of Jesus.  They came to watch the priest perform the sacrifice and  prayed on their own.  People might adore the blessed sacrament together but they each experienced the presence of Christ separately.  People might attend mass together but the spiritual merit of attending mass depended on each person’s disposition. 

            From the Council of Trent in 1563 to Vatican II in 1965 there were no major changes in the Catholic Church.  The liturgy was standardized and remained almost exactly the same.  The documents of Trent had left many questions that theologians could not answer.  Trent seemed to have been the last word on matters of doctrine and liturgy. This stagnancy of the liturgy did not go unnoticed.  Beginning in the 1920s there were worldwide movements for a change in the liturgy.  Intense study of the church prior to the Middle Ages revealed the Tridentine mass to be very different from the mass of the early church. The push for restoration began. Theologians and liturgists examined texts of the early church in an attempt to develop the true church.  There were movements of the laity to help people understand their role in the body of Christ.  In 1959 John XXIII announced the need for an ecumenical council.  All of the bishops and the Roman curia, as well as the theological and canonical faculties voted on topics to be discussed.  The council was to have two overarching goals: reform within the church and unity among Christians and in the world. 

            With the idea of restoration in mind the council began by writing the Lumen Gentium or Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.  This document begins by stating that Christ is the founder of the church and that everything in the Catholic Church should be related to Christ.  Sacrosanctum Concilium or The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is the most relevant document for this discussion.  This document outlines the reforms that should be made to the liturgy.  It begins the opening of the constitution by defining the liturgy and it’s purpose.  Chapter I:7 states, “From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of its Body the Church is a sacred action surpassing others” [13] This shows the importance of the liturgy as a whole.  The Church clarifies the meaning of the word “liturgy” by saying,  “He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister….but especially under the Eucharistic species…He is present in his word , since it is He Himself who speaks with the holy Scriptures are read in the church.  He is present, finally, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: ‘Where two or three are gathered for my sake there I am in the midst of them’ (Mt 18:20)” [14]   In defining the liturgy the council is emphasizing the importance of the different parts of the liturgy.  The Council of Vatican II is accentuating the need for all parts of the liturgy rather than the Tridentine interpretation of the liturgy being solely focused around the consecration of the Eucharist.  This statement also discusses the importance of the word, a theme to which the council will return to throughout the documents of Vatican II.  In the final part of this section the council recalls Christ’s words of the importance of community.  This is showing a commitment of the council to restore the church to being community oriented.

            The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy does not emphasize sacrifice the same way the document of Trent did. The Council of Trent wrote an entire document titled On the Sacrifice of the Mass while Vatican II mentions the eucharist as sacrifice but highlights other ideas about the eucharist.  “…All who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of his Church, to take part in her sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper.” [15]   This statement recognizes the consecration as sacrifice but then uses, “and to eat the Lord’s supper” as this was a separate entity, therefore taking the emphasis off of the sacrifice.  The tenth section goes on to say, “the renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man draws the faithful into the compelling love of Christ and sets them afire.  From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, as from a fountain, grace is channeled into us.” [16] This statement is important because it is aimed at shifting the focus of the Eucharist.  In the Tridentine mass the eucharist was a sacrifice the priest made and the people would receive some sort of benefit from watching it.  The council is restoring the Old Testament idea of a covenant with God.  In the early Church the eucharist was considered the “New Covenant of God.”  The council is trying to restore that idea of a covenant.  A covenant, by definition, is a two way promise.  The people then have to keep their covenant with God as well.  This shows the importance of the whole community of the church.  This statement also mentions grace.  In the middle ages people were told that they could only receive communion if they were cleansed of all their sins first.  This led to the decline in the number of people who received the Eucharist.  The council is now changing the church’s view and saying that people will receive grace merely for participating in the Eucharist. 

            The second section of the document on the liturgy is titled “The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation.”  This section begins by saying, “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by the people is the aim to be considered above all else; for it is the primary and indispensable force from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit.” [17]   This is showing the council’s dedication to the people as participants and not spectators.  In the early church, the people were given roles for different parts of the service.  In saying that participation is where the Christian spirit comes from, the council is showing restoration of the people’s roles is a true priority in the church.  The Council ends this section by saying, “With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful.”  This is the first time the Church has been insistent on educating the people.  Prior to Vatican II all the religious texts were in Latin and there was little understanding of what the eucharist or the Latin readings actually meant.  The fathers were very insistent on  “zeal and patience.”  The idea was that there must be a balance of excitement for the mysteries of the church and the patience for taking the time necessary to explain these mysteries to the average member of the church.    

            The third section, entitled “The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy” the Council sets out to define the actual changes that should be made to the liturgy in order to make it accessible to the people.  Chapter 24 states, “Sacred Scripture is of paramount importance in the celebration of the eucharist… Thus if the restoration, progress and adaptation of the sacred liturgy are to be achieved it is necessary to promote that long and living love for the scripture.” [18]   This shows the true shift away from the centrality of the eucharist in the liturgy.  No longer are people to rush from mass to mass to see the elevation of the host. Now people are to focus on the Scriptures as a way of understanding Christ.  In the time immediately following the death of Christ, Christians focused on the eyewitness accounts of the good works of Jesus.  Now these accounts have been written as Scripture and the council recognizes the need for people to understand the life and deeds of Christ rather than simply the sacrifice.  The next section mentions that liturgical books need to be revised so the people hearing the Scriptures can understand them. 

            In the second part of the section on reform of the liturgy it states, “Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the ‘sacrament of unity’ ” [19] This is reiterating the idea of the Church as a community.  The term “celebration” is an attempt to restore the Church to its earlier form.  In the beginning, the Jewish-Christians would gather for a meal to celebrate Christ.  They would sing and share a meal with joy and excitement.  In the Middle Ages mass became a solemn occasion.  The signing was almost entirely eliminated and the people sat with quiet reverence watching the priest as sole sacrificer.  This part goes on to say, “Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church…but they concern individual members of the Church in different ways” [20]   This pertains to the roles different members of the church should have.  In the early church, members had different responsibilities.  People offered gifts, led songs, read from scriptures and broke bread.  By the middle ages this had changed to the priest as sole leader, lector and sacrificer. 

            Chapter II, “The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist” is concerned directly with the importance of the eucharist and the manner in which it should be carried out.  Article 46 begins this section by saying:

At the last supper on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood.  He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout centuries until He should come again and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind filled with grace and a pledge of future glory is given to us. [21]

The wording of this opening statement is infinitely different than that of the documents on sacrifice from the council of Trent.  Trent named a section for the sacrifice of the mass.  The Vatican II documents use the word sacrifice but talk little about the eucharist as sacrifice.  Instead, Vatican II discusses it as a “memorial” of the death and resurrection and tells of this being instituted at the last supper.   This idea of a memorial directly contradicts the Tridentine document that states, “that it is a bare memmoration of the sacrifice on the cross.  The Vatican II documents do not call it a “bare” memorial but still use it as a memorial with no mention of transubstantiation in the opening section on the Eucharist.  Also, in contrast to the Vatican II documents, the Tridentine documents do not metnion the last supper. 

            In addition this opening statement gives four purposes for the Eucharist.  The first which is “a sacrament of love.”  This could be a reference to John 12 which says “For he so loved the world that he gave his only son.”  It reminds us of the idea of a covenant with God.  Next the Eucharist is “a sign of unity.”  This shows the understanding of the Eucharist as a communal sacrifice.  Through this sacrifice the community draws closer to each other and to God.  The Eucharist is also called a “bond of charity.”  This recalls the purpose of the church to reach out and help others.  This is what the early Christian community did.  They shared the good works of Jesus and wanted to emulate him through charitable works of their own.  The council desires to bring back the idea of Christains reaching out and helping others as this is one of the main purposes for the ecumenical council.  The final reason given is, “a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed.”  It is interesting here that the council chooses to list this purpose of the Eucharist last.  This is a direct reference to the Eucharist as sacrifice, however,  contrary to the Council of Trent the Vatican Council fails to use the word sacrifice.  The Council chooses to shift the emphasis to the word “consumed.”  The Council of Trent made a vague attempt to reinstate the consumption of the Eucharist but were fairly unsuccessful.  For this reason, the Vatican Council insists on repeatedly emphasizing the idea of a communal sacrifice. 

            Section 48 states, “They should be instructed by God’s word, and refreshed at the table of the Lord’s body;” [22] The importance of the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist together is restated here. The council continues, “ they should give thanks to God by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also with him.” [23] This again is a plea for the people to become involved with the sacrifice.  The priest has been given the authority by Christ through the apostolic succession but the people also must become personally involved with the sacrifice.  They too need to become active sacrificers rather than merely passive sacrifiers.  The first part of this statement “give thanks to God by” also somewhat contradicts the Tridentine document that says, “only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.”  The Council of Trent did not want the Eucharist to be considered a sacrifice of thanksgiving while the Vatican Council commands the people to give thanks by offering a sacrifice. 

            After stating the purpose of the Eucharist the Council begins to discuss the way in which the liturgy should be changed to better fit the purpose.  It discusses further the need for active participation by the people and a relevant liturgy. Section 50 states, “other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the holy fathers.” [24]   By saying this the council is admitting some parts of the Tridentine mass have little purpose in the liturgy and should therefore be removed.  The council uses the word “restore” in order to communicate that the early mass did not have all the extras and that is the reason they should be eliminated. 

            The next relevant portion of the documents of the Second Vatican Council is the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests.  At the time of the Council of Trent the abuses of the clergy was an important topic but the council did little to right the situation.  This section of Vatican II outlines the roles of the priest.  The priests, “have as their primary duty the proclamation of the gospel of God to all.” [25] This is vastly different from the role as sacrificer of the Tridentine mass.  The priests of the middle ages performed masses several times a day in order to perform the sacrifice of the eucharist.  In these low masses the gospel of Christ was not mentioned, there was no homily and often no people to watch.  The council is also establishing the role of priest as teacher.  “Let the priest take care to cultivate an appropriate knowledge and facility in the liturgy.” [26] The Vatican Council is returning the role of the priest as the leader of the community rather than simply the sacrificer. 

            The documents about the priesthood are perhaps the most clear indication of a restoration to the earliest church   In the earliest church there was no priest and no true sacrifice.  Nancy Jay argues that this shift in the role of the priest puts an end to the idea of sacrifice as we know it. The documents of Vatican II have had widespread influence.  Reforms in the Catholic Church have far outreached these mentioned directly by the council.  Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of Vatican II is the idea of cultivating mature members.  In the earliest church people listened to eyewitness accounts of Jesus and felt his real presence in the community.  Later Scriptures and the mass were in Latin and people were forced to be like little children believing in Jesus and the doctrines of the church simply because the “adult” clergy told them to.  The post Vatican II church is much better educated.  With the mass and Scriptures in the vernacular, people can read the life of Christ an the doctrines of the church for themselves and make mature decisions about their faith.

            Following the doctrines of Vatican II many changes continue to take place within the Church.  While the Church maintains that the documents of Trent hold the same power and truth as they did when written, there has been a falling away of these doctrines.  The Council of Trent solidified the idea of transubstantiation as the only true interpretation of the Eucharistic sacrifice.  Vatican II does not deny this, but also does not reaffirm this truth.  Therefore theologians have been exploring other options such as transignificance.  This theory says that the significance of bread and wine are changed by the action of the sacrifice. 

             In an effort to keep relevant to the changing conditions of the world, the Catholic Church has changed the emphasis of its doctrines from the Council of Trent to Vatican II.  This change, however, is a restoration to the emphasis of the early church.  In the early church the Eucharist was a communal breaking of bread. In time this became a communal sacrifice.  By the Fourth Lateran Council the doctrine of transubstantiation was official.  The Council of Trent solidified this interpretation of the Eucharist as an expiatory sacrifice.  The Second Vatican Council again changed the emphasis and returned it to the emphasis on a communal sacrifice.  Catholic theologians today argue if the cycle of sacrifice will complete itself and return to the eucharist as a community celebration rather than sacrifice as it was in the early church. 

Bibliography

Adam, Adolf, The Eucharistic Celebration: The Source and Summit of Faith. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1994.

__________, Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992. 

Gihr, Nicholas, The Holy Sacrifice of theMass: Dogmatically Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained. London: B Herder Book Co., 1949.

Hubert, Henri and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Functions (1898). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Jay, Nancy, Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion and Paternity. Chigaco: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Lebon, Jean, How to Understand the Liturgy. New York Crossroad Publishing, 1991.

Martos, Joseph, Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church.  Liguori: Triumph Books, 1981.

Documents of Vatican II. Abott, Walter M. ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.