Francis Clark SJ and the Heart of Eucharistic Sacrifice

To speak of the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ's death can mean either that it is a reminder to the godly communicant, a sign to recall to his remembrance the passion of Christ and the benefits it won for him; or that it is an objective anamnesis, a memorial rite performed to proclaim outwardly and show forth Christ's sacrificial death. The Eucharistic memorial merely in the first sense is wholly a 'manward' action; in the second it may become 'Godward'.

Francis Clark SJ writes the above statement that really does show the difference between a Catholic and Protestant understanding of the Eucharistic memorial. One finds this clear explanation in the words of Peter Lombard which will be quoted below. The question that needs answering is how can something not objectively present be effectually transformative in others if the presence is not real and the sacrifice is not real? In other words, can the reality of Christ's presence be communicated from a symbol where that presence does not objectively dwell? It is the denial of an objective presence of Christ in the elements that did not allow for many of the Reformers to see the point of Eucharistic sacrifice. But Peter Lombard describes for us how this sacrifice is to be properly understood. As you read the quotation, please note that he uses words like recalling and corresponds, which some present-day Reformed men pretend are 'reformational' words and key sign posts that one cannot be speaking about an objective presence or a real sacrifice. Here is Lombard,

In Christ the saving victim was offered once. Then what of ourselves ? Do we not offer every day? Although we do offer daily, that is done for the recalling of his death, and the victim is one, not many. But how can that be—one and not many? Because Christ was immolated once. For this sacrifice is what corresponds to that sacrifice of his: the same reality, remaining always the same, is offered and so this is the same sacrifice. Otherwise, would you say that because the sacrifice is offered in many places, therefore there are many Christ’s? No, but there is one Christ in all those places, fully present here and fully present there. And just as what is offered in all places is one and the same body, so there is one and the same sacrifice. Christ offered a victim and we offer the selfsame now; but what we do is a recalling of his sacrifice. Nor is the sacrifice repeated by reason of its weakness (since it is what perfects mankind), but by reason of our own, because we sin daily.

Now, for those of you who followed a bit of the debate on my views of Andrewes' theological position on Eucharistic sacrifice and presence, I personally, can hardly see ANY difference between Lombard and what I have discovered in my research. But that is another point. What is important is that the concept of sacrifice not be narrowly defined to only mean a change in the victim or something altogether new and different from the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. That is not the Catholic understanding of Eucharistic sacrifice no matter how many times Calvin and his children say that it is.