Understanding the Mass as the Sacrifice of the Cross

Understanding the Mass as The Sacrifice of the Cross

Matthew Bellisario O.P. 2020

"Unless a Priest esteem the Holy Sacrifice as it deserves, he can never celebrate it with suitable devotion. Assuredly there is no action, which man can perform, so sublime, so sacred, as the celebration of Mass." Saint Alphonsus Ligouri

For the time being after the initial Coronavirus lockdown, most of us have access once again to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This access in the future however is not guaranteed. At this point and time, there is an unprecedented effort to kill the Catholic faith in Western civilization. At anytime the government or politicians who hate the Church may once again come up with a reason to close Catholic churches. It is also clear that most of the bishops are not going to fight to keep them open. Between the Corona madness and the senseless rioting going on, there are many reasons to think that our time as Catholics living our faith openly and with freedom may be short. It is time for us to realize exactly what is at stake in possibly losing the great treasure of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

Mass as Sacrifice

Pope Pius XII wrote that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, "the fountain-head of genuine Christian devotion." The Mass in the West has been traditionally referred to as 'The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.' Unfortunately this term has become somewhat obscured over the past 50 years or so. Most theologians refer to it now just as 'The Mass.' It is very unfortunate that this full explanatory term is rarely used at all today by theologians or the faithful in general. The reason for this is the loss of understanding of what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is in its essence. The essence of something is simply the definition of a thing, "what it is." One of the most extreme travesties caused by many modern theologians is that they no longer define anything with precision. They often use terms loosely not wanting to be pinned down by dogmatic language, and as a result, their theology mimics an amoebic ambiguous form rather than a coherent structured form. Only when we explain the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in concrete terms can we properly comprehend what its essence is.

Saint Thomas Aquinas gives an explanation as to the essence of the Mass in the Summa Theologica, "...the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's sacrifice...As the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, so the altar is representative of the cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species." There are many who now primarily refer to the Mass as a meal referring to the Last Supper. Yet, they fail to realize that the Last Supper itself is His Sacrifice in a real and proper sense. In other words, the Last Supper is in reality Christ's very sacrifice on the cross. The Last Supper and Calvary cannot be separated. The Body which we receive is truly that Body which Jesus Christ offered upon the cross, the same that was present at The Last Supper. The Last Supper was a pre-presentation in time of what would follow at the cross. To refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in essence as a meal would be incorrect and misleading. It is only a meal in the context of the Sacrifice, which is why when modernists refer to the Mass as a meal in relation to the Last Supper and the Mass, they are completely missing the point. They completely miss the prefigurations of the perfect sacrifice of Christ in the Old Testament especially that of Passover. Any effort to refer to the Jewish Passover as merely a meal is also misleading and insulting to its very sacrificial nature, hence this is the reason it was referred to as the Mishnah the "Egyptian Passover sacrifice". 

The Context of the Meal as Sacrifice 

All of the apostolic Churches understand the historical event of The Last Supper in a sacrificial manner including the Eastern Orthodox. For example, in Hieromonk Gregorios' commentary on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom he writes, "At the Last Supper, Christ celebrates sacramentally His sacrifice on the cross." As Cardinal Journet explained, Saint Cyprian of Carthage illustrated this point in his Letter LXIII to Cecil where he clearly spoke of the Mass as being the very same sacrifice as that of the Last Supper, and that of Christ's passion. The meal or "Supper" aspect of eating Christ's flesh cannot be separated from His sacrifice, and henceforth the sacrifice is the essence of the Mass. It is what the Mass is. To call the Mass a meal would be like calling a Holy Icon of the Virgin Mary a wooden board. The Holy Icon may be composed of a wooden board, but it is in its essence, a Holy Icon. Likewise, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass may have elements of a meal in its presentation by our eating of His Body and Blood, but it is in its essence a sacrifice or more specifically 'The Sacrifice.'

We must realize that the sacrifice that is taking place on the altar is the exact same sacrifice that happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, given under the mysterious veil of the Sacrament. Father John Hardon once wrote, "Trent tells us that the sacrifice of the Mass is not only a liturgical ceremony, or merely a celebration or merely a remembrance of the sacrifice on Calvary. No, the Mass is a sacrifice. The Mass is the sacrifice, which St. Paul tells us wiped out all the other sacrifices that had been offered until the coming of Christ. Christ’s death on the cross originally merited the graces to redeem the world, but Christ now actually confers those graces." Can this be any clearer? Christ being high priest and victim, presents Himself in the same manner of sacrifice, that of the cross, wherever the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is taking place here now on earth. It must be understood that not only is Christ present in His full substance, but His very sacrifice and passion are also truly present. So we must take care not to equate the essence of the Mass to a meal as if Christ is only giving Himself to be eaten or consumed. Understand, He is giving Himself in a particular context!

If we are not careful we may ignorantly fall into the condemnation of Trent, "If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema." Notice this condemnation is not related to one denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass, but the very manner in which He is present. If one were to believe that Christ was substantially present in the Mass in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and yet deny the essential manner in which He is present, which is that of sacrifice, one would still be in error. Once we come to understand this reality it should give us pause as to how we must view the prayers, rubrics, and setting of the Mass that surrounds the consecration, and to how they relate to the manner in which Christ is present in the consecration. 

Today's Common Practice

I have lived in several places in the US and traveled to many countries over the past 16 years I have been a Catholic. As a result, I have attended many Masses in many places in the US, and abroad over the same time span. In my experience, a majority of the Novus Ordo Masses that I have been to have not proven to be celebrated worthily as if they were primarily the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Only the traditional Latin Masses and the Eastern Liturgies have demonstrated consistently to resemble this fact in their reverence and execution. What is the reason for this? Have we lost the fact that the Mass is primarily a sacrifice? I believe this is the case. 

I am not one of those who believe the Novus Ordo is invalid. I am however firmly convinced that the Church did not make one of her best decisions by creating the Novus Ordo liturgy. I believe the liturgical change was overall a colossal failure. At some time in the future, the Church could very well decide to either reform the new Mass or go back to the Tridentine. The Church has realized at several points in time when she has made not the best decisions in the way the Sacraments were celebrated. For example, the Church eventually figured out that performing the Sacrament of penance in public was not a very good idea, and changed it back to be held in private. The decisions to have public confessions were a grave detriment to the Church and caused many scandals among the clergy and faithful. In short, it was a colossal mistake. 

With the exception of the Novus Ordo, every liturgical rite was established by the apostles and has grown and changed gradually and organically throughout time. The Novus Ordo concocted ad hoc by a group of appointed “experts” is the only liturgy of this pedigree the Church has ever produced. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is the only liturgy that does not put forth a Sacrificial, penitential tone predominately in its prayer form. It is also one of only two liturgies to be celebrated ad-populum (To my knowledge, the only other being the changed Maronite Rite) taking the focus off of the altar and the sacrifice and refocusing it on the community. This is one of the many reasons that over the years we have seen that in its execution, the clergy and laity in a general sense do not put forth a sacrificial, penitential tone in their actions. They treat the Mass more like a community gathering around a table than that of the Most Holy Sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

   

If we read theological works written on the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council, we see that the Mass was always referred to as the “Holy Sacrifice.” For example, in the work, “The Unchangeable Church” written in 1909, the very first sentence in chapter XXXI on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass says, “Sacrifice is an external act of supreme religious worship given to God alone.” Then it continues, “The Mass! What is the Mass? The Mass in one word is the very same sacrifice as that of the cross.” If that is the case, then why is that this is no longer the theological focus of most of today’s liturgical theologians? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most important action that anyone can participate in, this side of heaven. The Council of Trent reiterates, “...that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery. Wherein the life-giving Victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests.”

In addition, in the Novus Ordo, we have a wholesale change in the prayer form compared to the Tridentine Liturgy. The Novus Ordo seems to be more focused on the communal aspect of the Mass, which is a valid aspect, yet it has never been a primary theological focus by theologians throughout the centuries, and for good reason. Again, it is because the Mass in its essence is a sacrifice. Theologians now miss this point because they have also lost the theological tradition upheld by all theological schools, which understood what it was to define a thing and its essence. The Mass is in its essence a Sacrifice, not a communal gathering. You can actually celebrate a Mass with only the priest. But, even in recognizing the communal aspect, theologians today still miss an important point. They miss the fact that we are assembled primarily to give praise, thanksgiving to God, and to obtain graces and blessings from God, not to celebrate one another or the community. They also miss the point that when the laity is present, they are also participating in that same sacrifice with the priest in a unique way. All those present in some way make the great offering of sacrifice with him, “Pray, bretheren, that your sacrifice and mine may be acceptable to God.” That is why the laity along with the priest face the altar of sacrifice.

Arguments Against the Critics

Many Catholic apologists today hinge everything concerning the new Mass on the Vatican II document 'Sacrosanctum Concilium.' Although poorly written, the fact is this document was only a small part of the liturgical puzzle. Pope Paul VI issued other documents which gave further direction to the construction and implementation of the Novus Ordo that Sacrosanctum Concilium never addressed. Few Catholics know about the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgium that Pope Paul VI released in 1964, or the other documents such as Sacra Rituum Congregatio, which changed the face of how liturgical issues of the Church would be dealt with which established the new Congregation for Divine Worship. Bugnini's Consilium was given the position it needed through the latter document to interpret the VC II Constitution authoritatively, and eventually to implement the reform of the Mass in an official capacity. It would be a mistake to separate the many documents issued both before and after the Council document which put it in context. This fact is important because this commission of Bugnini was the "official" interpreter of the Second Vatican Council's ideas concerning the reform of the Mass. Unfortunately many Catholic theologians today take Sacrosanctum Concilium as a stand-alone text. 

The most common argument used today when deficiencies in the Novis Ordo are pointed out is that the new Mass was not implemented in accordance with the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy. However, the reality is quite different when examined in the context of how the Church works. Bugnini's ideas were in fact the one's taken by Pope Paul VI as being "authentic." Too many Catholic writers like to have their cake and eat it too. When a document that they agree with is promulgated by Church authorities they are too quick to point out how must listen to it as being an authoritative interpreter of the Council and its documents. When the opposite happens and the results are not so pretty, they completely discard the same type of documents and act as if they never existed and have no real authority.

For example, many claim that the Vatican II document never said anything about the priest facing the people, and that is correct. But the Consilium that was put in charge of constructing and implementing the Novus Ordo by the Pope himself, called for the reorientation of the priest. This group which was given authority by the Pope himself put everything in place for this to happen, with his approval. Trust me, there is no way that a rogue commission was responsible for overturning 2000 years of liturgical tradition with the priest now facing ad-populum. Almost every book written about the Mass since the time of the Council, which is in any way critical of the new Mass, makes the claim that the Council fathers never intended to implement liturgical changes as they were done after the Council. That may or may not be true, but in my opinion, this is completely irrelevant as we address this issue of the two Masses as they appear today in the life of the Church. The fact is, we have what we have because those in authority in the Church, including the Pope, gave us what we have, and that is what we must truly deal with, not what we wished should have happened in some fantasy world that does not, nor will ever exist. Like it or not, the Novus Ordo is "the" liturgical product of Vatican II. The papal authority from that time is the authoritative implementation of its liturgical document, and that is the fact with which we must deal with and address.

The True Application of the Mass

When we participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we give adoration to God, we thank Him for what He has given us and we petition him to give us the grace to remain faithful to Him so that we may do His will and not our own. Many Catholics today do not know that there are three “fruits” in which the Mass produces. The first is a general fruit in which everyone participates, which is the celebration by the priest for the entire Church. Then there are special intentions in which the Mass is said for one or more people, to which special graces are passed. Finally, there is a special fruit in which the priest himself participates. The Mass delivers special graces in each of these aspects and produces fruits through each of these intentions. It must be pointed out that it is through the Sacrifice itself that the true communal aspect is made possible so that the praise, thanksgiving, and the graces given are to be made pleasing to God. This is not to say that private prayer and devotion are not pleasing to God, but that as a Church in her liturgical celebration, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the legitimate means of obtaining these special graces where we give a sacrificial thanksgiving and receive these special blessings directly from God. This is also not to the neglect of the Divine Office which as we know flows forth from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

The Four Debts

St. Thomas Aquinas elaborates on the debts which we owe to God that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass infinitely atones for. “The first is to praise and honor the infinite majesty of God, which is infinitely worthy of all praise and honor the creature can give Him. The second is to satisfy for the many sins committed against Him. The third is to thank Him for the many favors received from Him. The fourth is to supplicate Him as the giver of all good gifts.” We seem to forget the idea that original sin has created a rupture between man and God. Divine Justice demands that these debts, for lack of a better term, are satisfied. Christ’s sacrifice is the only infinite means of satisfying an injustice to an infinite God. Thus we see how the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass satisfies Divine Justice. This is important if we are to understand the gravity of the Mass in which we regularly participate. We not only understand its essence but the reason for its essence. 

The Passion and Death

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an active celebration of the Passion and Death of Christ. There could be no sacrifice without a victim and a priest. The actions of the priest in the Tridentine Mass represent certain parts of Christ’s passion and death. For example, the priest going to the altar represents Christ going to Mt Olivet. The priest saying the Confiteor represents Christ falling down and sweating blood. The priest offering the bread and wine represents Christ being scourged, and so on. I have rarely read anything post-Vatican II that ever refers to such things. Many will argue that some of these things developed over time in the Latin Mass and so the Novus Ordo will develop as well. This however is not the point. The point is, the traditional liturgy had at its core the penitential and sacrificial nature built into its DNA from the beginning. The fact is, we don’t know exactly how the first Masses were said. We do know that what was passed down to us in the Roman Rite can be traced back to its origins in the apostles and that as it developed it was not diminished, but perfected over the years organically. This simply cannot happen with the Novus Ordo since it is not of the same origin, directly apostolic, nor is its prayer structure largely suited to this type of organic development. 

Our Redemption

Many will ask why other religious services including Protestant services cannot be pleasing to God. Many post-Vatican II theologians wanted the Novus Ordo to be more appealing to Protestants. This scheme however did not result in any new converts, and in fact, diminished the fact that the Mass was indeed very different from a Protestant service. It is the only valid way of celebrating our redemption that is pleasing to God. This same sacrifice of Christ that is made present in the Mass is not and cannot be made present in any other form of worship. “In a word: the bloody sacrifice was the instrument of redemption, and the unbloody sacrifice puts us in possession of it; the one opened to us the treasury of merits of Christ our Lord, the other gives us the practical use of that never-failing treasury.” (The Unchangeable Church) It is important to realize this fact. Any other form of liturgical worship that takes place outside the Catholic Church in other sects are not objectively pleasing to God. Any attempt to make the Mass more like a Protestant service only damages the faith of Catholics and obscures its essence and in the long run, does not attract those outside the Church. 

Graces Obtained

When we are at Mass then, we should put ourselves at the foot of the cross with Our Blessed Mother and the Saints. We should treat it is as a unique treasure and everything that takes place during Mass should be sacred. It is through this Holy Sacrifice that we obtain special graces. Every moment of our existence depends on God and God alone. Every “good” that we do is done with His grace. The Mass strengthens us and allows us to unite ourselves to Christ in a unique manner. We receive tremendous spiritual graces such as sorrow for sin, the ability to overcome temptation, and the nurturing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It gives us the grace to become saints. We receive special blessings and we participate in the Church’s mission to evangelize lost souls. The Mass also brings with it material blessings such as the health of our bodies, avoiding war, famine, and other pestilences. We receive more graces than we can imagine by reverently participating at each Mass. St Bernard of Clairvaux once wrote, “More is gained by a single Mass, than by distributing all of your goods to the poor, or going to pilgrimages to all of the most holy shrines in the world.”

The Dying, Death, and Those in Purgatory

Do we ever think to pray for those souls close to death or those suffering the pains of Purgatory while we are at Mass? If you have in your possession any of the traditional prayer books, they all have prayers that you can pray before during and after the Mass. If you notice, there are always prayers to obtain graces for those that will die that day, the dead, and for those souls in purgatory. The Mass merits grace for those souls as well. We petition God that we and others may have a holy and peaceful death. We also are able to obtain graces to shorten our time in Purgatory or avoid it altogether. One priest I recently had a conversation with pointed out the vast difference between a funeral Mass in the Tridentine Rite and the Novus Ordo Rite. The Tridentine Rite focuses on obtaining graces for the soul of the departed so that graces can be obtained to shorten that person’s time in purgatory. The funeral Mass is not primarily to celebrate the life of the departed as it seems to be much of the time at the Novus Ordo. We can celebrate the person's life at a wake. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is primarily aimed at obtaining special graces for the departed soul. In other words, we should see the focus again on the penitential and sacrificial rather than the communal.

The Late Monsignor Anthony La Femina Teaching us About Transubstantiation

The Miraculous Sacrificial Holy Eucharist

There are two miracles that take place at every Mass. The first is that at the consecration, the wine and bread become the Precious Body and Blood of Christ and the second that the accidents or appearance of the bread and wine remain. This action is known as Transubstantiation. After the consecration, we still see the appearances of bread and wine, which should not remain once their substance is changed. This is in itself a miracle. Christ is now truly present in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity and this is also a miracle. This all happens in the context of Calvary. This is another important reason why no other religious service through any denomination can be pleasing to God. Christ Himself instituted the Eucharist and is present “truly and substantially” in the Sacrifice of the Mass. (Trent). Remember, St. Paul states that partaking in other religious ceremonies is, “the table of devils.” (1 Cor 10) 

Conveying The Reality

With this truth and reality of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before us, how can it be that so many in the Church today act as if it is just a communal celebration? Was there a change in theology with the institution of the Novus Ordo? No change is found in any of the Vatican II documents on the liturgy, yet it is clear that the ambiguity of the following liturgical documents allowed an entire theological change for much of the faithful and the clergy. Anibale Bugnini the chief creator of the Novus Ordo wrote in his memoirs, “The path opened up by the Council will surely bring a radical change in the very appearance of traditional liturgical assemblies,..." This is exactly what happened. Appearances convey reality. The theology of the new Mass no longer remained focused on the Holy Sacrifice, and the uniformity established in the liturgical norms of the past that were meant to convey this true reality was in large part done away with. It was the intention of Bugnini according to his own words to do away with this traditional thinking on the Mass by freeing it from past uniformity. 

By his own admission, Bugnini tells us this clearly on page 42 of his memoirs, "This principle represents a momentous departure from past practice. For centuries the Church willed that all worship in the Roman Rite should everywhere show perfect uniformity. The two liturgical reforms which history has recorded - that of the eighth century and that promoted by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century- had precisely that aim... Social, religious, cultic and cultural considerations, and indeed the entire psychological climate, have changed radically in our day." This is why there are so many options in the Novus Ordo and why the rubrics are not as numerous as in the traditional Mass. It is more dependent on the priest and the particular community than the reality of Christ being the enter as Sacrifice. It is my hope that the proper sacrificial and penitential reality of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be restored and that in due time the Church will realize that the Tridentine Mass best exemplifies this reality.

 

The Real Question No One is Willing to Answer: Was the Novus Ordo Truly a Success?

There is a simple question to ask regarding the invention of the Novus Ordo liturgy concocted by "experts" under Pope Paul VI. The question is, was the Novus Ordo, the Mass of Paul VI a success or a failure? Now of course it is much easier for someone like myself to come along and look at everything in hindsight, but that is exactly what I am going to do, because, well... I can. I want to put the ball back in the court of those who lived in the time of Pope Paul VI who actually supported the new liturgical changes and ask them to put themselves in the shoes of Catholics today who come to Church looking for that beautiful and enriching tradition that the Mass of Pius V provides, that the Novus Ordo did away with.

Being able to look at the last 50 years or so allows me to challenge those who thought the Novus Ordo was going to enrich the faithful and improve the understanding of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Only 20 to 30 percent of Catholics now attend Mass regularly, down from approximately 60 to 70 percent before the liturgical changes. Surely the Novus Ordo Mass is not the only reason for today's low Mass attendance, but the mentality that shaped the new Mass goes right along with the mentality that has watered down Catholicism since the Council. Modernism is much of the cause of low Mass attendance.

Stubborn Facts To Consider

There are a few facts we must face if we are to answer the proposed question.

Fact 1. Catholics do not understand the faith or the theology of the Mass any more than they did before the liturgical changes. In fact, based on my extensive reading on the subject, Catholics do not understand the Mass as well today after the liturgical changes as they did before. Studies show that large numbers of Catholics think the Mass is similar to Protestant services, and many have no problem attending Protestant services. They do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They do not view the Mass as a Sacrifice and now view it as primarily a memorial supper. 

Fact 2. The vernacular did nothing to improve the understanding of the Mass or the Scripture readings at Mass. This was a motive that Bugnini and the liturgical "reformers" after the Council used to essentially do away with Latin, despite the call for its use in the Vatican document on the liturgy. The Vatican II documents are in my opinion, based on what we see going on in the Church today, not worth the paper they are printed on. They are so ambiguous and full of, "and, ifs and buts" that they are in many cases worthless. Read my article on Sacrifice and Sacredness for more details. 

Fact 3. The minimalizing of the prayers of the New Mass, such as doing away with repetition, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the changing of the confiteor, the omitting of offertory prayers, etc watered down the theology of the Mass and made it harder to see the theology of Sacrifice and redemption in the Mass. It has also taken the focus off of our sinful nature, and Our Lord's perfect Sacrifice which redeems us. In effect, it obscures the reality of original sin and its remedy. 

Fact 4. The loosening of the rubrics and the allowance of the many optional prayers in the New Mass has taken the focus off of Christ and has placed it on the priest. The priest no longer disappears into the person of Christ, priest, and victim, but now inserts his preferences and personality into the Mass. This is problematic both for the laity and the priest.

Fact 5. The abuses at many Novus Ordo Masses are not the reason why the Novus Ordo has been a failure. It is the mentality behind the creation of the Novus Ordo that made these radical abuses a reality. Many have said that Vatican II never wanted the priest to face the people. Yet that is how the Popes themselves have implemented the Novus Ordo and even have celebrated their Masses the same. Again, it is a mentality that drives the ideas behind the new Mass that have been the catalyst for its ultimate failure.

These are only a few facts which lead me to believe that the Novus Ordo, the only liturgy of the Church to ever be assembled ad-hoc by a committee of so-called, periti "experts," to have been a very bad idea and in the end not a success in the life of the Church. The fact is all the changes that these experts claimed to be needed to improve the Mass turned out to be a fallacy. The Novus Ordo did not improve upon the Mass of Pius V. There is no real middle ground here. The only way you can ultimately justify the Novus Ordo is to think that it improved on the traditional rite. Otherwise, there is no need for it. Again, this is no way making the claim that the New Mass is invalid. I attend both, yet if we are to be honest we must lay claim to the one form which we think to be most efficacious in the life of the Church. This is why I usually attend the Traditional Latin Mass when I can. 

Furthermore, the vernacular did not improve the understanding of the Mass, and truly it only causes division. Have you ever gone on vacation to Poland and tried to follow along with a Novus Ordo Mass? With the language barrier and the many prayer options, it is impossible to do so! The very fact that these "experts" assumed that the faithful were too stupid to use their Latin/English Missal to learn the language and theology of the Church was and is still insulting. As a result of living 50 some odd years after the implementation of the Novus Ordo, I can come up with a good idea. The Church needs to make at least one Latin Mass available at every parish available once a week on Sunday and all feast days in preparation for its restoration as the norm. The Novus Ordo experiment of Paul VI was a bad idea, and in hindsight, it has not lived up to the promises that were given to us for its creation.

Conclusion

It is not difficult to prove that Sacrifice is the essence of the Mass and was taught to the faithful as such until the changes after Vatican II came into play. Sacred Scripture and the testimony of the Church Fathers attest to the Mass as a Sacrifice. Saint Paul makes this idea clear in the book of Hebrews chapter 10 verses 10-12, "We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holies by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate.” Likewise Pope Clement I wrote around 80AD, "Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices.” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 ) St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote the following around 253 AD, "If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]). 

The reality of Sacrifice was always front and center despite the organic development of the Roman Rite throughout the centuries. This however has been lost in much of today's liturgical theology both in the classroom and in the pew. In order to change this, we must return to our roots and emphasize the sacrificial essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I believe this is best done in part by restoring the traditional Latin Mass. Do we truly appreciate our present access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Pray that we will persevere in the upcoming persecution of our faith and that we may never again lose access to the greatest treasure on this side of heaven!