In Roman Catholic theology, every particular mass is itself a sacrifice, not merely the memorial of a sacrifice. At the same time, however, the mass is essentially the same sacrifice as Calvary, even though the mass is not in every respect Calvary itself. The Council of Trent says:
And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory… For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different (Council of Trent, Twenty-Second Session, chapter II, cited in The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, H. J. Schroeder, translator, [Rockford, IL: Tan, 1978], 145-146).There is one sacrifice, which is re-presented and perpetuated in many sacrifices. Is this a difficult concept to understand? Sometimes Roman Catholic apologists accuse Protestantism of being a religion devoid of mystery and Protestants in general as being incapable of grasping the concepts of eternity and the supernatural. Karl Keating put it this way:
In the final analysis, what makes the Mass literally unbelievable for fundamentalists is that they cannot conceive of a single act that is perpetuated through time. For them, what happened on Calvary happened there alone and remains in the dead past. They see Catholic priests conducting a sacrifice today and conclude that today’s sacrifice must be distinct from Calvary’s. If it really is a sacrifice, it is an attempt to replay Calvary in the most literal way—which, they know, is quite impossible. Christ cannot be killed again. So, for fundamentalists, what priests do at the altar really reduces to a show. Priests may think they are re-presenting the same sacrifice, but fundamentalists know they are only play-acting. It is fundamentalists’ sense of the mysterious, their sense of the supernatural, that is undeveloped…Having been instructed poorly in the supernatural as such, fundamentalists have not given it much thought, and they have trouble imagining that God is actually beyond time. They usually think of eternity as being nothing but endless years, a time line that disappears into the mists at each end, and they do not think of Calvary being a perpetual Now…It requires a determined refocusing of the mind to see things from the Catholic perspective, and this is not easy for fundamentalists [sic] to accomplish (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 257-258).When Keating speaks of a “single act that is perpetuated through time,” he is essentially stating a version of the metaphysical problem of the one-and-the-many. How can something that is essentially one also be essentially many? Attempts to solve his problem are as old as philosophy itself. Plato credits Heraclitus with raising the issue of whether or not it is possible to step in the same river twice. If we may oversimplify, the history of philosophy can pretty much be read as a coversation between those who say you can and those who say you can’t and those who say that both sides are right. Those who say you can are the philosophical “lumpers,” those who see forests before they see trees, those who stress unity over diversity. Put a foot in the Nile today, do it again tomorrow, and you’ve stepped into the same river twice, right? Wrong, say the “splitters”—those who tend to see the trees rather than the forests. These will be the first to tell you that the water you put your foot in today is not the same water you’ll put your foot into tomorrow—it’s just too far downstream to be “the same river.” Then there are the “synthesizers”—those who want to have it both ways. Sure, it’s different water, but it’s the same river. The outward appearance (accidents) may have changed, but the essence (substance) of the river has not.
We can modify Hericlitus’ quandary: Can you step into the same sacrifice twice? The theological “lumper” says you can and would appeal to mystical categories to explain how the mass and Calvary are numerically identical. Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott refers to this as the “Mystery Theory,” but notes that this theory was rejected by Pope Pius XII in his encylical, Mediator Dei (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [Rockford, IL: Tan, 1960], 411). The theological “splitter,” in contrast, would say that Calvary is ontologically distinct from the sacrifice of the mass. Generally speaking, Protestants would come close to this position if they were to regard the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. The Roman Catholic position, then, is clearly synthetic. The mass is both the same sacrifice as Calvary (essentially) and a different sacrifice from Calvary (in its manner of offering).
What of Keating’s accusations? Are Protestants incapable of grasping metaphysical concepts such as the one-and-the-many problem and the philosophical definition of eternity as being outside of time? Are Protestants incapable of grappling with mystery and the supernatural? Of course, Keating doesn’t really have all Protestants in mind, but rather the anti-intellectual “fundamentalist.” But is it not the case that even the most backwoods, snake-handling, Bible-thumper can and usually does accept the doctrine of the Trinity? In fact, most fundamentalists do accept the major creeds of the church catholic and would therefore agree that Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father” (the eternity problem) and that the one God exists eternally in three consubstantial persons (the one-and-the-many problem). Still, there will always be those in the church who will eschew philosophical and metaphysical categories for expressing biblical doctrine. Let’s assume that Keating’s fundamentalist is precisely that kind of Christian—one who believes that all true doctrine is "expressly set down in Scripture”—but one who also denies that true doctrine may be deduced from Scripture "by good and necessary consequence” (Westminster Confession of Faith, I:6). Could such a Christian ever hope to understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass?
We think so. For the problem of the one-and-the-many is not just a metaphysical problem; it is also a thoroughly biblical one. Paul, for example, displays “lumper” tendencies when he speaks of the “summing up of all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). His preference here is to see the essential "oneness" of reality in relation to Christ. On the other hand, Paul can be a “splitter”: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘and to your seed,’ that is, Christ” (Galatians 3:16). Paul’s Christological argument depends upon the distinction between the singular “seed” and the plural “seeds.” If reality is not "many" in this case, then Paul’s distinction is hardly warranted. On yet another hand, Paul exhibits “synthesizer” tendencies when he draws his analogy to the body: “We being many are one body in Christ” (Romans 12:5, see also 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:20, 27; Ephesians 4:25) Christ is both one and many—one in his person, many in his church.
We can see, then, that depending on the issue, the Bible can resolve the one-and-the-many problem in any number of directions. Therefore even Keating’s Bible-only fundamentalist should have no problem, in principle, with the concept of one sacrifice perpetuated through time. Now let us assume for the sake of argument that the Last Supper (and therefore every mass) really was a sacrifice in the precise sense Rome requires. How might a fundamentalist or any other reader of scripture evaluate Rome's position (assuming the mass is a sacrifice)?
The One-and-the-Many Problem in Hebrews
The obvious starting point (which is as far as this article will go) is the letter to the Hebrews since it’s author takes up a remarkably parallel problem with respect to the relationship of the one sacrifice on Calvary to the many sacrifices that yearly took place in the Temple on Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement. Using our admittedly oversimplified “lumper, splitter, synthesizer” schema, we can attempt to locate this author’s theological preference for relating the one sacrifice (Calvary) to the many sacrifices (Yom Kippur). The relevant texts are the following:
Hebrews 7:23-28
“Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”The author to the Hebrews develops his argument with a series of antitheses that contrast the perfect high priesthood of Jesus to the imperfect Levitical priesthood. The antitheses between the one and the many, the perfect and the imperfect suggest that the author should be classified as a theological “splitter.”
The One: The unique priesthood of Jesus is permanent because he lives forever (7:24).
The Many: The temporal Levitical priesthood is subject to mortality (Hebrews 7:23).
The One: Jesus is able to completely save sinners because he can intercede perpetually (7:25).
The Many: Levitical priests cannot save anyone and can only intercede as long as they live (implied).
The One: Jesus our high priest is without sin (7:26).
The Many: Levitical high priests are sinners (implied).
The One: Jesus does not need to offer sacrifices day after day (7:27).
The Many: Levitical priests need to offer daily sacrifices on behalf of themselves and others (7:27).
The One: Jesus is appointed high priest by divine oath which supercedes the law (7:28).
The Many: Levitical high priests are appointed by the now obsolete law (7:28).
The One: Jesus is a perfect high priest forever (7:28).
The Many: Levitical high priests are weak and will die (7:28).
From these antitheses, we can draw the following conclusions. The priesthood of Jesus is perfect because it is permanent (7:24), efficacious (7:25), constituted of one sinless priest (7:25), based on one, unrepeatable sacrifice (7:27), and not derived from the obsolete Law, but rather divine promise (7:28). In contrast, the Levitical priesthood is imperfect because it is temporal (7:23), ineffective (7:25), constituted of sinful priests (7:26), based on multiple sacrifices (7:27), and because it is derived from the obsolete Law (7:28).
The argument in 7:23-25 is designed to show how it is possible for Jesus to completely save sinners. Jesus can save sinners completely because “he always lives to intercede for them,” which follows from the fact that Jesus lives forever. We can thus infer that any priest that does not live forever cannot intercede perpetually for sinners and is therefore unable to completely save sinners. But if this argument demonstrates the impotency of the Levitical priesthood, it would also seem to imply the impotency of any other cultic priesthood (such as that of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) whose priests are likewise mortal. Strictly speaking, the author is not so much concerned with the mortality of Levitical priests as he is with the fact that there were so many of them. Mortality simply explains why there were so many. New Testament scholar, William L. Lane (an Evangelical) explains the argument this way:
The fact that there were many priests under the Levitical arrangement is important to the writer’s argument. In Hebrews multiplicity signifies incompleteness, imperfection, and inconclusiveness (e.g., 1:1; 10:1-4)…In contrast to the Levitical priests, whose ministries were continually disrupted by death, there is no temporal limitation to the ministry of a priest who lives forever. The eternity of the Son qualifies him to exercise a ministry that is permanent and final. The unequivocal statement that nothing can infringe upon Christ’s priesthood includes the subsidiary notion that it passes to no successor” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 47a, [Dallas: Word, 1991], 188-189).The argument in 7:26-28 establishes why Jesus does not need to offer multiple sacrifices. The author begins with the fact that sacrifice must be offered for both the priest who is weak and for the people who are sinners. The implication here is that so long as either party is sinful, there will always be a need for continuing sacrifice. The solution to the problem is Jesus’ impeccability and self-sacrifice. Jesus is both sinless priest and sinless victim. Since Jesus is a sinless priest, he obviously does not need to offer sacrifice for himself. Yet because the people are still sinners, it would seem that there must be continued sacrifices on their behalf. For Roman Catholics the sacrifices of the mass (divine liturgies for the Eastern Orthodox) are precisely these ongoing sacrifices. But for the author to the Hebrews, it is because the priest and victim is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,” that only one sacrifice is necessary. In other words, a sinless victim offered by a sinless priest is a perfect sacrifice that obviates the need for any continued sacrificial offering. This is why the author can say, “he sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself” (7:27).
For the author to the Hebrews, the need for continued sacrificial offering has more to do with the nature of the sacrifice than the sinfulness of the sinner. Only imperfect sacrifices are offered more than once, whereas a perfect sacrifice can only be offered once. “Where there is remission of sin, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin” (Hebrews 10:18). Contrast this to the Roman Catholic view that holds that because we continue to sin, we are in continuous need of multiple sacrifices. For the author to the Hebrews, those who despise the one, perfect sacrifice by continuing to sin willfully “are crucifying the Son of God all over again” (Hebrews 6:6). For such as these, “there is no longer any sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26).
Now consider for a moment the conditions for the possibility of such an assertion. To say that “there is no longer any sacrifice for sins” simply precludes the possibility that there is any such thing as ongoing propitiatory sacrifices (such as the mass) in the church. The author to the Hebrews simply does not deal with the problem of ongoing sin by multiplying sacrifices to remit them; rather he insists on steadfast repentance so that the one, perfect sacrifice can be effectively appropriated in the life of the believer. In other words, instead of continued sacrifices for sin (e.g., the mass), the author to the Hebrews holds for the continued efficacy of the one sacrifice for the penitent believer.
Hebrews 9:11-12
“When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 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 9:24-28
“For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”The author continues to develop his argument by means of antitheses. The Levitical priesthood is an imperfect type that has been fulfilled and replaced by the perfect antitype in Jesus’ unique high priesthood. Again, the author continues to approach this version of the one and the many problem as a “splitter.”
The One: As high priest, Jesus entered the perfect heavenly tabernacle once and for all (9:11; 24-28).
The Many: Levitical high priests yearly enter a tabernacle that is an imperfect copy of the original (9:12; 24-25).
The One: Jesus’ sacrifice achieved eternal redemption (9:12).
The Many: Levitical sacrifices achieve temporary redemption (implied).
The One: Jesus entered the perfect tabernacle by means of his own blood once and for all (9:12, 24-28).
The Many: Levitical priests enter the imperfect tabernacle by means of animal blood on a yearly basis (implied).
The One: Jesus offered one, perfect and unrepeatable sacrifice valid for all time and eternity (9:26; 10:14).
The Many: Repeat sacrifices necessitate multiple deaths (9:26), which is a sign of their imperfection.
The priesthood of Jesus is superior because Jesus cleansed the perfect tabernacle in heaven (9:11), by means of his own blood (9:12), once and for all (9:12; 28), thereby having achieved an eternal redemption (9:12; 26). In contrast, the Levitical priesthood is imperfect because its high priests enter an imperfect tabernacle (9:12; 24), year after year (9:26) cleansing it with animals’ blood (9:12), thereby achieving a redemption that is valid for only a year.
The argument continues to assert the superiority of the one sacrifice over and against the many sacrifices. If Jesus had offered himself “again and again,” then he would have had to suffer “many times.” For the author to the Hebrews, there is only one offering per sacrifice and every sacrifice entails suffering. As he says elsewhere, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (9:22). The author to the Hebrews simply would not accept the idea of a repeatable “unbloody” sacrifice in which the victim does not suffer. Such a sacrifice would not be a sacrifice at all. For the Roman Catholic, an unbloody sacrifice is surely a mystery. But for the author to the Hebrews, it is an oxymoron.
Hebrews 10:1-18
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming-- not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'" 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 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. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.”The author continues to argue for the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood by means of several more antitheses which contrast the superiority of Jesus’ sacrificial offering to that of the Levitical priests. Once again, the author continues to exhibit “splitter” tendencies.
The One: If Jesus’ sacrifice were to be offered repeatedly, this would imply its imperfection (10:1-2).
The Many: The repetition of the same sacrifice implies its imperfection (10:1-2).
The One: Jesus’ unique sacrifice removes consciousness of past sins because of the efficacy of Christ’s blood (10:2).
The Many: Levitical sacrifices continually remind the sinner of his sin because of the impotency of animal blood (10:3).
The One: God is pleased with Jesus’ obedience to His will that took him to the cross (10:4-9).
The Many: God is not pleased with the animal sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood (10:4-9).
The One: Jesus offered his sacrifice once and for all and then sat down, signifying the completion and perfection of his sacrifice (10:10-14).
The Many: Levitical priests stand day after day to offer the same sacrifices that cannot take away sin. Their work is never complete (10:10-14).
The One: Once sin has been forgiven, there is no need for any further offering for sin (10:15-18)
The Many: To continue to offer the same sacrifices implies a continued need for sin offerings.
The sacrifice of Jesus is perfect because it is offered once and for all (10:1-2), efficacious (10:2), pleasing to God (10:4-9), eternally complete (10:10-14) and eternally valid (10:15-18). In contrast, the sacrifices of the Levitical priests are imperfect because they are repetitious (10:1-2), impotent (10:3), unpleasing to God (10:4-9), never complete (10:10-14) and therefore always needed (10:15-18).
The argument in 10:1-4 raises the question of what exactly makes a sacrifice imperfect. Is a sacrifice offered more than once because it is imperfect? Or is the sacrifice imperfect because it is offered more than once? For the author to the Hebrews, the answer seems to be both. On the one hand, the proof that a sacrifice is imperfect is the fact that it needs to be offered more than once:
“For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins (Hebrews 10:1-2).On the other hand, the only reason sacrifices must be continually offered is because the sacrifices themselves are intrinsically imperfect:
“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3-4).What, then, might the author to the Hebrews conclude about the sacrifice of the mass? At first, he might conclude that it is an imperfect sacrifice simply because it is offered repeatedly. But would he think differently if the offering itself were intrinsically perfect? In other words, if he knew the mass to be an “unbloody” re-presentation of the original blood that was shed on Calvary (rather than the shedding of animal’s blood, which cannot take away sin), would he change is mind about the imperfection of repeated sacrifices in this case? Would he embrace the doctrine of a single, absolute sacrifice (Calvary) perpetuated through time by means of multiple relative sacrifices (the mass)?
Probably not. While such a view may be tenable for a “synthesizer,” the author to the Hebrews (a confirmed “splitter”) would probably never accept such a position. If the perfect High Priest does not need to offer himself over and over again, then surely the imperfect priests of the church do not need to either. If the movement of salvation history is from the lesser to the greater, the imperfect type to the perfect antitype, the copy to the original, then the development of a new cultic priesthood that offers “re-presentations” of the original sacrifice would surely be a step in the wrong direction, at least as far the author to the Hebrews is concerned.
If Jesus has finished his sacrificial work (as the session at the right hand of the Father indicates), then could he envision a new cultic priesthood that must continually “re-present” to the Father the very work that Jesus has already presented to the Father once and for all? If, for the author there is “no further offering for sin,” could he ever imagine continued propitiatory sacrifices (the mass) in the life of the church? To ask such questions is to answer them.
