Alfonso quotes from the words of Jesus on the Cross, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30) and draws from this that the reenactment of the Last Supper in every Mass is incorrect.
If it is truly finished then why are we reenacting the breaking of the bread at every Mass in remembrance of Him? The reason is simple; Jesus asked us to do this in remembrance of Him; “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me" (Lk 22:19).
If Alfonso and others are saying, don’t reenact the breaking of the bread in every Mass and Jesus commands us to break bread in memory of Him; who should we follow, Alfonso or Jesus. The words “it is finished” were the last spoken by Jesus on the Cross, but He didn’t use this as reasoning for not reenacting the Last Supper. This type of reasoning is not coming from the Bible, but man-made tradition which is clearly at odds with the words of Jesus.
Alfonso also quotes Hebrews 10:10-14 as a reason why the breaking of the bread in the sacrifice of the Mass is invalid. In fact let’s take a look at one of these verses. “Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins. (Heb 10:11).
He and others would like us to see verse 11 read this way; “Every [Catholic] priest stands daily at his ministry [Mass], offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins. Is this a correct understanding of this verse? What are those same sacrifices that can never take away sins and is this the daily Mass?
Here is the question that is never answered and as a result, the context has been left out. Alfonso leaves out verses 3 and 4, the context. “But in those sacrifices there is only a yearly remembrance of sins, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins” (Heb 10:3-4). We now know by this that the sacrifices that can never take away sins are animal sacrifices. We do not offer animal sacrifices at any Mass; we offer Jesus. Verse 11 in context should be read this way; “Every [Old Testament] priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices [animal] that can never take away sins. Alfonso and others are confusing animal sacrifices with the Sacrifice of Jesus in the Mass.
Why do Alfonso and others quote verse 11 out of context and not bring up the fact that these are animal sacrifices and not the sacrifice of Jesus being offered at every Mass? This is because they moment that you mention these are Old Testament animal sacrifices; they can no longer use this against the New Testament Sacrifice, Jesus which is reenacted at every Mass. They may be following what they have been taught in their tradition and may not even know that they are using the Bible out of context.
In verse 12 we do have an offering that is done once and for all that is Jesus offered at every Mass. But this one [Jesus] offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God (Heb 10:12.
Some will say that Catholics re-crucify and re-sacrifice Jesus again and again at every Mass and thus it is at odds with the words of Jesus one sacrifice for sins. Yes, this is a problem teaching, but not a Catholic teaching. This problem teaching is a Protestant teaching or misrepresentation of Catholic teaching not to be confused with Catholic teaching. We do not teach that the offering of Jesus is a re-crucifying of Jesus at every Mass. We offer Jesus at every Mass because He asked us to do this in remembrance of Him. “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me" (Lk 22:19).
Communion was one of the first areas of division among Protestants, Luther believed in a real presence of Jesus throughout the elements (bread and wine) consubstantiation. Zwingli did not believe in a real presence of Christ in relation to the elements. Calvin believed in a presence of Jesus on top of the elements. Actually Calvin was trying to bring Luther and Zwingli together, but it didn’t work; he just came up with another version of Communion. The Protestant experiment was a house divided and remains divided on this and other doctrines of faith.