The Sacrifice of the Mass: New and Not New

One of the books that I have really come to appreciate is Father Robert Sokolowski's book Eucharistic Presence. His explanation of the Eucharistic presence and sacrifice in a theology of disclosure really helps one to understand and come to grips with the reality of the Eucharistic sign. Sign has come to be such an empty meaning in many theological circles; particularly within a reformed and anti-sacramentarian understanding of the Eucharist. What I mean is that we must come to see that sign and reality are one and the same in sacramental worship and hence this is why we genuflect and say, 'My Lord and My God' after the consecration!

How can the Eucharist really be a sacrifice? Sokolowski explains,

The fact of being a sign takes on particular importance in the Eucharist, because the Mass can be considered a true and proper sacrifice each time it is offered only if the sacramental appearance brings an increase in identity and being. If the new appearance did not have something entitative about itself--in the way in which manifestation in all its forms is a dimension of being--the present celebration would fail to distinguish itself appropriately from the event that occurred only once. The necessary range of differences would not be available to allow the sacramental reenactment of the original action.

Thus,, it is in the area of presentation that the new element of the liturgical celebration takes place; it is there that we can find the differences within which the identity of the redemptive action of Christ can be sacramentally disclosed. James T. O'Connor observes that the Council of Trent left many issues concerning the issues concerning the Eucharist open for further theological discussion, and among them 'it left unexplained in the novem (the new element) present in each Mass.' It is not that more is offered in the Mass than in the original sacrifice or that something else is offered, but the mode of presentation is changed, along with the new datives for this presentation, who are then drawn into the offering. The sacramental sacrifice both is and is not 'new,' in the way--analogously--that a picture both is and is not other to what it depicts, and a quotation both is and is not a new statement.

The Mass is different from such worldly analogues, however, because at its core it is a presentation not just before us but before the eternal Father. The Eucharist is a reenactment in time of the action of the incarnate Son before the Father; what is it to quote, image, recall, and proclaim this act before God the Father? The original sacrifice is not 'past' for the eternal Father in the way it is past for us; hence quotation and representation before the Father are not like quotations and representations exercised simply among men. The Eucharist transcends time for us because it presents itself before the transcendence of God. In these and many other respects, the way in which the Eucharist is a sign is an issue for the theology of disclosure.

I find this explanation by Sokolowski to be quite helpful to the discussion of how we understand the Eucharist to be an offering to the Father. I believe that something very close along these lines could be argued from the works of Lancelot Andrewes where he would join Sokolowski in maintaining the uniqueness of the one offering but continuing to see the new and not-so-new offering of Christ in the Mass. I would be interested in any thoughts on the presentation of this theological point by Sokolowski. Does it help to further one's understanding about the mystery of our re-presentation of Jesus before the Father in the Mass?