Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statement on the Mass

An extremely helpful and more clearly stated explanation of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is the 1971 Agreed Statement on the Eucharist from the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which was developed at Windsor. Personally, I would prefer the APA/REC Statement simply to borrow the following carefully-worded phraseology:

Eucharistic Doctrine, Windsor 1971

Christ's redeeming death and resurrection took place once and for all in history. Christ's death on the cross, the culmination of his whole life of obedience, was the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world. There can be no repetition of or addition to what was then accomplished once for all by Christ. Any attempt to express a nexus between the sacrifice of Christ and the eucharist must not obscure this fundamental fact of the Christian faith.(1) Yet God has given the eucharist to his Church as a means through which the atoning work of Christ on the cross is proclaimed and made effective in the life of the Church. The notion of memorial as understood in the passover celebration at the time of Christ - i.e. the making effective in the present of an event in the past - has opened the way to a clearer understanding of the relationship between Christ's sacrifice and the eucharist. The eucharistic memorial is no mere calling to mind of a past event or of its significance, but the Church's effectual proclamation of God's mighty acts. Christ instituted the eucharist as a memorial (anamnesis) of the totality of God's reconciling action in him. In the eucharistic prayer the church continues to make a perpetual memorial of Christ's death, and his members, united with God and one another, give thanks for all his mercies, entreat the benefits of his passion on behalf of the whole Church, participate in these benefits and enter into the movement of his self-offering.

(1.) The early Church in expressing the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection often used the language of sacrifice. For the Hebrew sacrifice was a traditional means of communication with God. The passover, for example, was a communal meal; the day of atonement was essentially expiatory; and the covenant established communion between God and man.

The 1979 Elucidation of ARCIC I again clarifies the meaning of the word anamnesis:

The Commission has been criticised for its use of the term anamnesis. It chose the word used in New Testament accounts of the institution of the eucharist at the last supper:
'Do this as a memorial (anamnesin) of me' (1 Corinthians 11.24-25; Saint Luke 22.19).

The word is also to be found in Justin Martyr in the second century. Recalling the last supper he writes: 'Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks said, "Do this for my memorial (anamnesin): This is my Body"; and likewise, taking the cup, and giving thanks, he said, "This is my blood"' (First Apology 66; Dialogue with Trypho 117).

From this time onwards the term is found at the very heart of the eucharistic prayers of both East and West, not only in the institution narrative but also in the prayer which follows and elsewhere: The Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom; Eucharistic Prayer I - The Roman Missal; The Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion - The Book of Common Prayer (1662); and Rites A and B of the Church of England Alternative Service Book (1980).

The word is also found in patristic and later theology. The Council of Trent in explaining the relation between the sacrifice of the cross and the eucharist uses the words commemoratio and memoria (Session 22.1); and in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) the Catechism states that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained 'for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby'. The frequent use of the term in contemporary theology is illustrated by One Baptism One Eucharist and a Mutually Recognised Ministry (Faith and Order Commission Paper No. 73), as well as by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (1970). The Commission believes that the traditional understanding of sacramental reality, in which the once-for-all event of salvation becomes effective in the present through the action of the Holy Spirit, is well expressed by the word anamnesis. We accept this use of the word which seems to do full justice to the semitic background. Furthermore it enables us to affirm a strong conviction of sacramental realism and to reject mere symbolism.

However the selection of this word by the Commission does not mean that our common eucharistic faith may not be expressed in other terms. In the exposition of the Christian doctrine of redemption the word sacrifice has been used in two intimately associated ways. In the New Testament, sacrificial language refers primarily to the historical events of Christ's saving work for us. The tradition of the Church, as evidenced for example in its liturgies, used similar language to designate in the eucharistic celebration the anamnesis of this historical event. Therefore it is possible to say at the same time that there is only one unrepeatable sacrifice in the historical sense, but that the eucharist is a sacrifice in the sacramental sense, provided that it is clear that this is not a repetition of the historical sacrifice.

There is therefore one historical, unrepeatable sacrifice, offered once for all by Christ and accepted once for all by the Father. In the celebration of the memorial, Christ in the Holy Spirit unites his people with himself in a sacramental way so that the Church enters into the movement of his self-offering. In consequence, even though the Church is active in this celebration, this adds nothing to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, because the action is itself the fruit of this sacrifice. The Church in celebrating the eucharist gives thanks for the gift of Christ's sacrifice and identifies itself with the will of Christ who has offered himself to the Father on behalf of all mankind.

All I can say is 'Amen!'

Isn't it wonderful not to have to re-invent the theological wheel!