*** THIS IS FOR THE 2019 2ND EDITION ***
Since the time of Martin Luther, many have claimed that the Catholic Mass is an unbiblical practice, that it repudiates the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary as expressed in the book of Hebrews. Still others have denied that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Do these criticisms have any validity? A thorough investigation of Scripture and history reveals that the answer is a resounding NO. As never before, the Catholic church has been called upon to be the defender of Scripture and preserver of truth in modern times. Not by Bread Alone will set the biblical and historical record straight. But more importantly, as you learn the real truth about the Catholic Mass, this book will offer you the means to come to one of the deepest relationships with God you have ever experienced.
This is the most comprehensive, detailed treatment of the Mass and Eucharist available today. It answers the question about how the Mass and the Once-for-All Sacrifice of Christ coincide. It shows why God desires to see both the sacrifice of the Cross and the Mass. It answers the main Protestant critics of the Catholic Mass and Eucharist. It addresses the Fathers, Medieval, the Popes, the Councils with detailed commentary. It critiques modern conceptions of the Eucharist. In short, everything you ever wanted to know about the Mass is here.
Nihil Obstat
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz : "Robert Sungenis has prepared a wonderful defense and explanation of the Holy Eucharist based on Sacred Scripture and Catholic theology. This is solid Catholic doctrine regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It is a fine new look at traditional Catholic Eucharistic theology geared to the eager and fervent Catholic priest and lay person."
Sample:
Introduction to the Issue
The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Council of Trent
Concerning Christ's sacrifice on the cross, Scripture states the following:
Hebrews 7:27: "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself."
Hebrews 9:12: "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."
Hebrews 10:10-14: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, and sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool because by one sacrifice he had made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
With these numerous references to one death and one sacrifice of Christ, how can the Catholic Church insist that she must offer to God, day after day, a "re-presented" sacrifice encapsulated in the Catholic Mass? A cursory reading of the above passages would appear to make this question a legitimate one.
Even more graphic concerning the sacrifice of the Mass is the Catholic dogma from the Council of Trent, Chapter 1 (September 17, 1562):
He, then, our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father, by his death on the alter of the cross, to accomplish for them everlasting redemption. But, because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper, 'on the night he was betrayed,' in order to leave to his beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as human nature demands) -- by which the bloody sacrifice which he was once for all to accomplish on the cross would be represented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world and its salutary power applied for the forgiveness of the sins which we daily commit -- declaring himself constituted 'a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek; he offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father . . . 1
Endnotes
1) The Doctrine On The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Session 22, Chapter 1 (The Christian Faith, pp. 585-586). The next portion states: " . . . and, under the same signs gave them to partake of to the disciples (whom he then established as priests of the New Covenant), and ordered them and their successors in the priesthood to offer, saying: 'Do this as a memorial of me,' as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught . . ." Catholic theologian David N. Power writes: "In its canons on the sacrifice of the Mass, the Council of Trent defined that the eucharist is not merely a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, nor only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but is itself a propritiatory sacrifice. It was clearly referring to the ministerial act of the ordained priest in making this definition, as has been recently reaffirmed by the Roman congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (The Sacrifice We Offer: The Tridentine Dogma and its Reinterpretation, p. xii).
Various Protestant groups and denominations have also expressed a desire to incorporate sacrifice into the eucharistic institution. In Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, the Lima document of the Faith and Order Commission of the World council of Churches states: "It is in the light of the significance of the eucharist as intercession that reference to the eucharist in Catholic theology as propitiatory sacrifice may be understood' (Faith and Order Paper No. 111, Geneva: WCC 1982).
Although the Councils of Fourth Lateran and Trent composed the dogmatic formulation of the Eucharist, previous ecumenical councils, namely, Nicea in 325, Ephesus in 431, and Nicea II in 787, had already adopted the literal interpretation of the Eucharist. Not until the eleventh century in the objections of Berengarius of Tours, who was influenced by the writings of John Scotus Eriugena (d. 844), were any formal objections made against the literal interpretation. Berengarius had relied on the dispute between Radbertus and Ratramnus (both monks at the same monastery) in which it appeared that Ratamnus was denying the substantial presence. See Appendix 1 for more study on issues surrounding Berengarius' denial. Only a few theologians just prior to Trent (Cajetan, Tapper of Louvain, Hassel, Jansen) had considered including a figurative interpretation, especially in answer to Hussite claims that the laity must partake of the cup. For details on Cajetan's three-fold interpretation and his dealings with the Bohemian sects, see Darwell Stone's A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, pp. 66-68.