Lucas U. Curcio

A lot of the popular-level Roman Catholic apologists today are actually quite dull on the subject of Eucharistic Sacrifice when compared with the vast majority of Roman theologians after the Council of Trent. For example, they commonly just say that "the Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross," or simply "applies the sacrifice of the Cross" while being unaware that most confessional Protestants also agreed to this without any difficulty. The real issue was that Roman Catholic theology has always historically held to the idea that a real immolation of the sacrificial victim is necessary and essential to the nature of a proper and external sacrifice. Without it, you merely have an oblation---but not a sacrifice. The views held by the Catholic Answers bros are actually out of step with even Trent itself, since they hold to something more like the view of Gabriel Vazquez or perhaps Maurice de la Taille, who were criticized on this very issue by other prominent authors, such as Emmanuel Doronzo. If you want the best survey possible, check out L'Idée du sacrifice de la messe by Marius Lepin. It is a 900-page study of all the different theories, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the majority of them are wrong and inconsistent in explaining how some immolation of Christ occurs in the Mass.