As is their custom, Anglicans tend to use a complicated explanation for a Eucharistic doctrine when a simple one will do. I laid out the simpler explanation in my post Why I Don’t Agree With the Concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass” :
Tying the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and the perpetuity of all things in God, the question remains: is the Mass a sacrifice in and of itself, or it is the re-enactment and/or extension of the original sacrifice? The scripture makes that answer clear:
But, this priest, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, which should serve for all time, ‘took his seat at the right hand of God,’ and has since then been waiting ‘for his enemies to be put as a stool for his feet.’ By a single offering he has made perfect for all time those who are being purified. (Hebrews 10:12-14, TCNT)
Given that there is only one sacrifice, and that the nature of this sacrifice is unique, the Mass must be an integral extension of the original sacrifice.
Roman Catholicism’s presentation of the concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass,” however, is at best confusing and at worst misleading.
Part of the problem is unwittingly pointed out by Kim herself:
…Our Saviour did sacrifice Himself once on the cross, but also on the night of the last supper, made a new covenant which is Himself, in the sacrifice of His Sacred body and blood…
Are we talking about one sacrifice or two? Our Lord’s institution of the Eucharist must be seen in totality and in unity with his sacrifice on the Cross. The whole core of the salvific history, starting at the Upper Room and going through the Passion and death to the Resurrection, must be seen from a theological standpoint as one event. The making of the New Covenant not only refers to the Last Supper but to the Cross itself. Pushed to its limit, calling the Mass a sacrifice per se implies that Jesus Christ is sacrificed on the Cross again each time, and this is unacceptable. Putting the emphasis on the relationship (which certainly exists) of the Mass and the Last Supper doesn’t solve the dilemma.
And this, I might point out, is an answer to a Roman Catholic, not an Anglican. Some further illumination on this topic can be found at John Chrysostom on the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Let me take this opportunity to address an idea floating around that, when Jesus is referred to as the “Host” of the Eucharist, he is the host in the same way that someone hosts a dinner party. I’m sure that the language has come full circle on this, but properly the “Host” refers to this, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The bread destined to receive Eucharistic Consecration is commonly called the host, and though this term may likewise be applied to the bread and wine of the Sacrifice, it is more especially reserved to the bread.
According to Ovid the word comes from hostis, enemy: “Hostibus a domitis hostia nomen habet”, because the ancients offered their vanquished enemies as victims to the gods. However, it is possible that hostia is derived from hostire, to strike, as found in Pacuvius. In the West the term became general chiefly because of the use made of it in the Vulgate and the Liturgy (Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:12; Mabillon, “Liturg. Gall. vetus”, pp. 235, 237, 257; “Missale Mozarab.”, ed. Leslie, p. 39; “Missale Gothicum”, p. 253). It was applied to Christ, the Immolated Victim, and, by way of anticipation, to the still unconsecrated bread destined to become Christ’s Body. In the Middle Ages it was also known as “hoiste”, “oiste”, “oite”.
It is embodied in this well-known hymn, whose initial author is Aquinas:
1 O saving Victim, op’ning wide
The gate of heav’n to us below,
Our foes press on from every side;
Thine aid supply, thy strength bestow.
2 All praise and thanks to thee ascend
Forevermore, blest One in Three;
O grant us life that shall not end
In our true native land with thee.LATIN –
1 O salutaris hostia,
Quae caeli pandis ostium;
Bella premunt hostilia,
Da robur, fer auxilium.
2 Uni trinoque Domino
Sit sempiterna gloria:
Qui vitam sine termino
Nobis donet in patria.
Positive Infinity 