Cyprian Illickamury, OfmCap

Your title of the book “Sacrament of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ,” consider Eucharist as sacrifice. But you know Rene Girard consider the death of Jesus as an act to end sacrifice so that no more man is to be sacrificed which is scapegoat mechanism in religions where mimetic rivalry is dissolved by killing the scapegoat in holy violence. Are Christians to go back to such paganism?
The book Eucharist: Sacrament of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the topic under discussion. My main intention in writing this book was to clear some misunderstandings that are widespread not only among the ordinary faithful but also among pastors regarding the Eucharist and show the real nature and meaning of the Mass. Many think that Jesus offered a cultic sacrifice in the line of the sacrifices of the gentiles and the Jews. Their sacrifices were mainly by killing some animals and offering their flesh, fat and blood to the deity. Many Christians think that Jesus offered a sacrifice in the same line, that is to say, when he was crucified by the enemies He offered His body and blood to the Father and the Father pleased with this offering grants forgiveness of sin and salvation to men. This is a great misunderstanding about the Father and about the death of Jesus. And this misunderstanding is continued into the Mass, when they think that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in as much as the priest, representing Jesus, offers the bread and wine turned into the body and blood of Christ to the Father.

Actually Jesus did not offer any sacrifice at all in the technical and usual meaning in which we understand sacrifice. In the Old Testament we see many prophets who are critical of the cultic sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22; Is 1:1-18; Jer 6:20. 7:22-23; Hos 6:6; Am 5:22, etc.). Jesus also joins Himself to these criticisms (Mt 9:13; 12:7; Mk 12:33). By driving out from the temple those who sold clean animals which only could be offered in sacrifice, Jesus in fact made sacrifices themselves impossible.

In the New Testament only the Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus is a high priest and that He offered a sacrifice once-for-all. The author of this letter is a Jewish Christian, who writes for the Jews. For the Jews forgiveness of sin was connected with bloody sacrifices. To say that we obtain forgiveness of sin through the death of Jesus, the author of the letter to the Hebrews adapts
himself to the Jewish mentality and that is why he speaks of Jesus as priest and His death as a sacrifice. But he says that Jesus offered a sacrifice after His death by entering the heavenly sanctuary with His blood to offer it to the Father. The other NT authors including Paul do not connect the forgiveness of sin and sacrifice. Also the Fathers of the Church before St Iraeneus do not speak of any sacrifice of Jesus. Rather they assert that the Christians have no sacrifice except praising and glorifying God (e.g. Justin, Minutius Felix). But the Fathers after Iraeneus and the theologians and Magisterium of the Church speak of the sacrifice of Jesus and also of the Mass as sacrifice.

What is its justification? An expectant mother is told by the doctors that she can save her life only at the cost of losing the life of the child. She opts to save the child at the risk of losing her own life. We can say that the mother has sacrificed her life for the child. Or, a man jumps into the river to save a drowning man and thereby loses his own life. We can say that he has sacrificed his life for the drowning man. More or less in the same metaphoric sense we have to understand also the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus knows that God is a boundlessly loving Father who loves man – each man and all men – and wishes the happiness, the well-being, the salvation, of everyone. Jesus surrenders Himself totally to the Father and commits Himself relentlessly to the realization of the wish of the Father, namely the happiness and well-being of man. He announced this good news of God’s love and forgiveness to men and lived and spent His whole life in realizing the wish of God, which is the well-being and salvation of man. In the very beginning of his public life He proclaims this commitment as His manifesto in the synagogue at Nazareth. Healing the sick, casting out the demons, solidarising himself with the poor, the oppressed and the outcast, making himself a friend of the hated tax collectors and public sinners, abolishing the laws which oppressed men like the law of clean and unclean food, the law of divorce and even making liberal the law of Sabbath, He spent his whole life in the service of man. All that invited the envy and enmity of the priests and the Pharisees, who from the very beginning of His public life were on the lookout for some chance to destroy Him. Though He knew that it would cost Him His life, He did not cease from inveighing against their hypocrisy and their oppression of the poor and the ordinary people. And to crown it all came the cleansing of the temple, which was a hard blow against their prosperous business of selling clean animals for sacrifice, but at the double and triple price of buying them outside the temple. Also the exchange of Jewish money for the Roman money for offering in the temple was at a terribly unjust exchange rate. Jesus accuses them of making the Father’s house a den of robbers. Jesus knew that all this would cost Him His life, but He stood firm by His decision to commit Himself to the well-being and salvation of man, which He understood as the will of God. And all this made the Jewish authorities to arrest Him, and after a mock trial He was handed over to the Roman governor Pilate who at the insistence of the Jewish authorities crucified Him, though He was convinced of the innocence of Jesus.

But what was the attitude of Jesus in the face of these tragic events of His arrest, torture and crucifixion? He knew almost from the beginning of His public life that His total surrender to the Father and His complete commitment for the happiness and salvation of man would cost him His life and He gave several hints about it to the apostles. But towards the end of His life it had become almost a certainty, as we understand from His words, parables and especially the Last Supper. But in spite of foreseeing the bitter consequences of His decision for commitment to the salvation of man, He did not waver or flinch for a moment. He stood firm by His decision even to the last breath of His life until He breathed His spirit into the hands of God. And this surrender to the Father and this commitment for the well-being and salvation of man is the essence of the sacrifice of Jesus. It is His life-sacrifice, not a cultic sacrifice. It is not quite correct to call it the sacrifice of the cross, but the life-sacrifice which climaxed and concluded on the cross. This I have explained in detail in chapter V of my book. And all this shows that Rene Girard is quite right when he says that the death of Jesus is an act to end sacrifice, but understood in the cultic sense. And surely we have not to go back to such cultic sacrifices at all.

God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, today terrorists get the call of Allaha to kill Christians (good is what God commands and not God commanded because good), how do you understand Abraham’s sacrifice?
The second question concerns the sacrifice of Abraham. The story of Abraham comes from the pre-history of Israel and not from its history. That is to say, it is narrated from the vague remembrances and traditions of the people of Israel about their origin and their ancestors. It was the strong conviction of the people of Israel that their ancestor Abraham who migrated from the land of Chaldea to their present habitat Canaan was a man of very strong faith in the monotheistic God whom they worshiped and who was stronger than any of the gods worshipped by the polytheistic people of Canaan. Abraham’s faith was exemplary and proverbial. The inspired author shows how Abraham’s faith and fidelity to this God goes to the very extreme.

Abraham sees some of the gentiles among whom Israel lives show their devotion to the deity they worship in a very extreme way by sacrificing their own children (e.g. 2 king 3:27). Should his devotion and love for the true God whom he worships any less than that of these gentiles? That becomes a torturing question in his mind. As time passes he seems to hear an inner voice that he must even excel the gentiles in his love for God. He has only one son, Isaac. But should he love Isaac even more than God? His conscience tells him that God must be loved supremely. Slowly he comes to the conclusion that he must be ready even to sacrifice his only son. This he thinks is a divine command. We know from the history of Israel that they consider as God’s command what is expedient and advantageous for them, since they are the chosen people of God. Examples are plenty, like the slaying of the whole population of the conquered city including women and children. And obedient to the supposed command of God Abraham goes with Isaac to Mount Moriah to sacrifice him. But God’s real will is manifested to Abraham there: “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him” (Gen 22:12). The sacred author himself tells us that it was only a testing of Abraham. The purpose of the narration was not only to show the great faith and obedience of Abraham, but also to say that no human sacrifice shall be practised in Israel, as it was practised among the Gentiles. The terrorists completely misunderstand God and the scriptures and make God simply the instrument of their vested interests.

You speak of Eucharist veneration and not adoration, why? Do you think Eucharistic adorations in many place like retreat centres had become events where devotees enter into an ecstatic experience and not to responsibility of everyday life? Is the objective of religiosity ecstatic feeling which is a sort of escape from everyday burden of life?
Veneration is a wider concept than adoration and includes adoration. Vatican II and also the post-Vatican documents on the liturgy have insisted that all the practices of the Eucharistic devotion outside the Mass should be orientated to the Mass and lead to the Mass, e.g. Instruction on Eucharistic Worship of 25-5-1967 and Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass of 21-6-1973. Eucharistic devotions like adoration, which although developed only in the second millenium have their justification even psychologically and sociologically, as I have explained in chapter IX of my book. Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, ocular communion, and adoration help people who long for visual realism for the expression of their love and communion with the Lord, which may lead some to ecstatic experiences, but evidently that is not the ultimate goal of these devotions, but they should lead to the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist or Mass, as insisted upon by the official documents. And the Mass is the life-sacrifice of Jesus becoming present on the altar so that we may join ourselves with Jesus and like Jesus surrender ourselves to the Father and commit ourselves for the happiness and well-being of our sisters and brothers. Thus the ultimate aim of Mass and the other Eucharistic devotions is not to be an escape from every day burden of life, but making it all part of our life-sacrifice.

Jesus was brutally killed for His unwavering commitment to the way of God, is His life a way of sacrifice to God or a lifelong resistance to the powers of the world? Has our following of Jesus Christ become a lazy devotion devoid of any danger?
We have seen already in the first point that Jesus’ life was in obedience to the will of the Father a total commitment for the happiness and well-being of man, and for His liberation from all sorts of oppression and exploitation by the powerful. As the consequence of it He had to suffer and to die and that is the very meaning of his life-sacrifice. Following Jesus means we have to follow Him in this life-sacrifice. Evidently that is not a lazy devotion, devoid of any danger. The Mass is not simply a cultic act that ends in the Church but it must continue into our daily life.

After the ascension, Christ is really absent from us, how is the sacramental presence “real” and how does it create the reality of presence?
At the ascension the risen Lord has gone to the Father and being with the Father He is also present with us but in a pneumatic way, or we may say He is present in the Holy Spirit. In the celebration of all the sacraments His pneumatic presence is there, as He Himself has instituted the sacraments as the means of salvation and guarantees their efficacy in the Holy Spirit. But in the celebration of the Eucharist He is present in a very special way, for He Himself has said: “Do this in memory of me” and also: “Where two or three are gathered in my name I am there among them” (Mt 18:20). The command ‘to do this in memory of me’ (anamnesis) has a special meaning as I have explained in detail in chapter VI of my book. When we celebrate the Eucharistic meal in memory of Jesus, He becomes present on the altar with His life-sacrifice so that we may join His sacrifice and offer ourselves to the Father and commit ourselves to the well-being and salvation of our sisters and brothers. And in this celebration He binds His real personal presence with the bread and wine of the celebration so that we may receive Him and be strengthened for this life-sacrifice. This presence is by means of the symbols of bread and wine, which become the highest realizing signs of His presence in His physical absence. This bread and wine are transubstantiated into His real presence, not in the Aristotelian sense, but in the sense that their ontological reality is now the real presence of the Lord. There is no physical or chemical change in the bread and wine, but ontologically they have become the body and blood of the risen Lord. Or we can say that the risen Lord is present in the Eucharist as He is before the Father.

Poetic or symbolic presence makes the absence present as a wound, as a picture makes of the absence of the absent one painfully present, how is sacramental presence different?
The presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not a poetic or symbolic presence as a picture makes the absent or present, but it is much more than that as we have explained in the previous number. However, in the sacramental presence, especially in the Eucharistic real presence there is also a real absence and that is the eschatological tension between the ‘already’ of the presence and the ‘not yet’ of the fullness of presence. This is a wound and we wait for the healing of this wound in the eschatological fulfilment, when we will have the fullness of the face to face presence.