Ecclesia de Eucharistia

I was reading Pope John Paul's Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia and came across these words on the Sacrifice of the Mass. I was utterly amazed at how similar the language was crafted by the Pope and the C17 Anglican Theologian, Lancelot Andrewes. This is particularly true in relationship to the Eucharist as the Christian Sacrifice. Let me say that Andrewes was not in favour of Transubstantiation and saw it as something that should not have been made an element of the faith but was an opinion of the Schoolmen. But, so much of what is said here on Eucharistic Sacrifice is also found in the writings of Andrewes; both in his sermons and his polemical works in response to Bellarmine and Perron. Andrewes went on to say in the Responsio that if Rome was to take away Transubstantiation there would be no difference in the Sacrifice between the English Church and the teaching of Rome. What Andrewes did in his writings was not to draw from Calvin, Luther, or any other continental reformer or any before him for that matter; rather, Andrewes went back to the sources of the fathers and particularly one will find very close similarities with Chrysostom and the other Eastern fathers in his writings. This is not to de-contextualise Andrewes but he was a rare individual who poured himself into the writings of the fathers concerning the mysteries of the faith. What I think this proves for me is that Andrewes can, to some degree, be a catalyst for ecumenism. My hopes that my final chapter or two would focus on this thesis. I leave you with a portion of the Encyclical.

12. This aspect of the universal charity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is based on the words of the Saviour himself. In instituting it, he did not merely say: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”, but went on to add: “which is given for you”, “which is poured out for you” (Lk 22:19-20). Jesus did not simply state that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all. “The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood”.13

The Church constantly draws her life from the redeeming sacrifice; she approaches it not only through faith-filled remembrance, but also through a real contact, since this sacrifice is made present ever anew, sacramentally perpetuated, in every community which offers it at the hands of the consecrated minister. The Eucharist thus applies to men and women today the reconciliation won once for all by Christ for mankind in every age. “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”.14 Saint John Chrysostom put it well: “We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one... Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed”.15

The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it.16 What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its “commemorative representation” (memorialis demonstratio),17 which makes Christ's one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary.

Andrewes used this same quotation and in the same way when he defended that the Eucharistic Sacrifice was not a new sacrifice of Christ but a making present that One Sacrifice anew.

Saint John Chrysostom put it well: “We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one... Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed”.

I meant to ask before so I am bringing this question in now: Is the language of theologians post-Vat II that much different from pre-Vat II or is it the case that we have not looked closely enough at one another's writings to try to better understand each other that makes this Pope and a 17C Anglican so very close in their discussing the Eucharistic Sacrifice? What I need to look at closely is a leading Roman scholar of pre-Vat II (one who is accepted by the Vat; not one considered neo-orthodox by the Vat) and compare them. Any readers have any suggestions of pre-Vat II eucharistic scholars to read?