Is the Mass the Real Sacrifice of Christ?

In Plain Site ^ | Febuary 7 ,2015 | James G. McCarthy

[RnMomof7]

Few Catholics think about this question. The reason is that most Catholics are not aware that the Church teaches that the Mass is an actual sacrifice. They know that the rite is called the Sacrifice of the Mass, that it is performed by a priest, that the congregation assembles before an altar, and that the consecrated bread wafers are called hosts. Nevertheless, most Catholics do not seem to realize that the Church teaches that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, that a prime function of the Catholic priesthood is to offer sacrifice, that an altar is a place of sacrifice, and that the word host is from the Latin word hostia, meaning sacrificial victim.

When I told Anthony, a Catholic catechism teacher, that he was going to a sacrifice for sins each week, he denied it. Anthony’s sister, Teresa, had been born again several years earlier and had left the Catholic Church. She had been sharing the gospel with Anthony, and he too now was claiming to be trusting Christ alone for his salvation. He remained, however, loyal to the Catholic Church and its practices.

"Anthony, you can’t say you are trusting in Christ’s finished work on the cross and keep going to a weekly sacrifice for your sins," I told him.

"But it’s not a sacrifice," Anthony insisted.

"Look at the Eucharistic prayer," I said, handing him an open copy of the Vatican II Sunday Missal, the book containing the words recited by the priest during the Mass. "What does the priest pray after consecrating the bread and wine?"

"‘We offer to you, God of glory and majesty,’" Anthony read, "‘this holy and perfect sacrifice the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.’"i He then added, "I don’t remember the priest ever saying that."

"Read on," I asked.

"‘Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our Father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek. Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.’" Anthony studied the prayer for a few moments in silence, and then added, "Well, I never heard this at the Mass."

"I’m not making this up, Anthony," I told him. "Next Sunday sit near the front of the church and listen carefully to the words of the priest. You’ll see for yourself. According to your Church, in some mystical way the cross transcends time and is made present by the liturgy of the Eucharist. I know this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but Catholicism teaches that the Mass is one and the same as the sacrifice of Calvary."

The next time I saw Anthony he admitted that he had been wrong. Despite almost forty years in the Catholic Church and experience as a catechism teacher, he didn’t know that the Mass was supposedly the actual sacrifice of Christ. Neither did he realize that he was not only attending Christ’s sacrifice, but he was participating in it.

It is indeed the priest alone, who, acting in the person of Christ, consecrates the bread and wine, but the role of the faithful in the Eucharist is to recall the passion, resurrection and glorification of the Lord, to give thanks to God, and to offer the immaculate victim not only through the hands of the priest, but also together with him; and finally, by receiving the Body of the Lord, to perfect that communion with God and among themselves which should be the product of participation in the sacrifice of the Mass. —Second Vatican Council (emphasis added)ii

One must ask: What kind of worship is this? The cross was a horrific event. It was the enemies of the Lord Jesus, not His disciples, who crucified Him. Why would anyone calling himself a Christian want to participate in the continuation of the cross?

Furthermore, as the Lord died on the cross, He cried out, "It is finished!" (John 19:30). Why then does the Church want to continue His sacrifice? He died "once for all" (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, 9:28, 10:10). How then can the Church say that each offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass appeases the wrath of God? The Lord "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). Why then does the Church seek to continually re-present Christ in His victimhood to the Father? The Lord is not in a state of victimhood. He is the risen, glorified, crowned King of Glory.

Rome’s theologians, you can be sure, have responses to each of these questions. But don’t expect any simple or straightforward answers. While writing The Gospel According to Rome, I asked Michael, a scholarly colleague with advanced theological degrees, to critique the section of the manuscript that reviewed the Church’s rebuttal to criticism of the Mass. About to complete a doctorate in biblical Hebrew at a leading university, I was confident that, if anyone could make sense of them, it was Michael. I was expecting him to carefully analyze each response, delving into the finer points of theology. To my amazement, he simply wrote in the margin, "WHAT A BUNCH OF HOOEY!"

Michael was right. Rome’s explanation of the glaring contradictions of the Mass amount to nothing more than mystical mumbo-jumbo and high sounding nonsense.

Even more distressing is the way the Church distorts the Scriptures in an attempt to provide a biblical basis for the Mass. Take, for example, the following reference to the Mass in Pope John Paul II’s recent best-seller, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

. . . the Church is the instrument of man’s salvation. It both contains and continually draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantly "enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption" (cf. Hebrews 9:12). —Pope John Paul IIiii

Here the Pope actually changes the Scriptures. Though he modifies the wording of Hebrews 9:12, he puts his new version in quotation marks and retains the reference, suggesting that it compares well to the original. Three alterations, however, have so distorted the meaning of the verse that the Pope’s new version teaches the very opposite of what the original did. Before examining how the verse has been changed and why the Pope would want to modify it, consider first the original meaning of the verse and its context.

At Mount Sinai God showed Moses a tabernacle in heaven, and instructed him to build a similar tabernacle on earth, carefully following its pattern (Exodus 25:9, 40; Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5). It was to be a rectangular tent with a single entryway and no windows. Inside a curtain was to divide the structure into a large outer room and a smaller inner room.

The earthly tabernacle was to serve as the focal point of Israel’s worship (Exodus 25:8; 29:42). Each day Jewish priests were to enter its outer room and perform various duties (Exodus 30:7-8; Leviticus 4:18, 24:1-9). Once a year on the Day of Atonement the Jewish high priest was to enter the inner room, presenting the blood of sin offerings to make atonement for himself and for the nation (Leviticus 16:1-34). In front of the tabernacle, God told Moses to construct a bronze altar upon which the priests were to continually offer animal sacrifices (Numbers 28-29).

Hebrews 9 reviews many of these details. There the emphasis is placed on the frequency with which the Jewish priests were to enter the tabernacle to perform their duties:

Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. —Hebrews 9:6-7 (emphasis added)

The verses that follow contrast the continual and yearly ministry of the Jewish priests in the earthly tabernacle with the once for all ministry of the Lord Jesus in the heavenly tabernacle.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. —Hebrews 9:11-12 (emphasis added)

These verses speak of an event following the crucifixion when the Lord Jesus entered into the presence of God in the heavenly tabernacle. There He presented His shed blood on our behalf (Hebrews 9:24-25). Unlike the Jewish priests, however, who "are continually entering" (Hebrews 9:6) and the high priest who "enters once a year" (Hebrews 9:7), the Lord Jesus, our High Priest, entered the holy place of the heavenly tabernacle "once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). Only one presentation of His blood was necessary for God accepted it as the perfect and complete satisfaction for our sins.

Now consider how Pope John Paul II has altered the meaning of Hebrews 9:12. He writes that "...Jesus Christ constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption’ (cf. Hebrews 9:12)."iv Three changes are apparent.

The original text of Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ "entered" God’s sanctuary. The Greek verb is in the indicative mood and the aorist tense. This portrays Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary as an event in past time, freezing the action as if taking a snapshot of it. The Pope changes the verb to the present tense, writing that Christ "enters into God’s sanctuary." This makes Christ’s entrance an event that is now occurring, viewing the action as something that is in progress.

Further distorting the meaning of the verse, the Pope introduces it with the word constantly, writing that "…Jesus Christ constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary’ (cf. Hebrews 9:12)."v The verse, however, says that Christ "entered the holy place once for all" (Hebrews 9:11). In Hebrews 9 it is the Jewish priests who are constantly entering into the tabernacle. This is contrasted with the Lord Jesus who entered only once.

Finally, John Paul changes the ending of the verse to teach that by constantly entering the heavenly sanctuary Jesus Christ is "‘thus obtaining eternal redemption’ (cf. Hebrews 9:12)."vi The Bible says that Christ entered the holy place once for all, "having obtained eternal redemption." The work of redemption is finished, not ongoing.

Now why would the Pope want to change the Scriptures? Why would he want his readers to think that the Bible teaches that Christ "constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption’" instead of what it actually teaches, that Christ "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption"? Why? Because Rome holds that Christ must be constantly re-presented in His victimhood to God through the Mass for our salvation. With each offering of the Mass, some 120 million times a year, the Church says that "the work of our redemption is continually carried out."vii The Pope, not finding Hebrews 9:12 to his liking, simply changed it. This was not a slip of the pen, but a calculated alteration of God’s Word to make the Sacrifice of the Mass appear biblical.

Adapted from Conversations with Catholics by James G. McCarthy (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1997)

Notes:

i. Liturgy of the Eucharist, First Eucharistic Prayer, The Memorial Prayer.

ii. Second Vatican Council, "Sacred Liturgy," Second Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 12.

iii. Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Knopf, 1995), p. 139.

iv. Ibid.

v. Ibid.

vi. Ibid.

vii. Second Vatican Council, "Life of Priests," no. 13. See also the Code of Canon Law, canon 904.

[Arthur McGowan]

Jesus isn't saying those incantations over those crackers.

Those "incantations" you mock are the exact words Jesus said as he held the bread and the chalice in his hands: This is my body...This is the chalice of my blood. When you meet Jesus, I hope you can explain to him why you sneered at HIS OWN WORDS recorded in the gospels, and why you defied his command to eat and drink his body and blood.

[CynicalBear]

>>Those "incantations" you mock are the exact words Jesus said as he held the bread and the chalice in his hands<<

Give us a break Arthur. Christ, the Lamb, is now on the throne having already conquered. He is not on the altar continually suffering nor being offered. Those who have been truly called by God see Jesus as the conquering King sitting on the throne next to the Father having finished the sacrifice once for all. When He said "it is finished" He meant it. The pagan belief of continually offering a sacrifice is anathema to God.

[huldah1776]

I still think it is just a representation of Jesus’ flesh and blood, not literally. Unlike the water turning to wine, Jesus does not turn the wine into blood, or the wafer into flesh. That is cannibalism. I think the reason we are to drink the wine and eat the wafer instead of pouring it onto an altar or a statue of Jesus on the cross, is because we are not to make any images of God. Just my opinion.

As for the example of David and his officers, David had been thirsty and given water. Where does it say he had blood? He was saying if he drank the water, it would be giving credence to the willfully selfish act of putting the life (the life is in the blood) of his beloved men before his own needs. No Godly king would do such a thing, nor a righteous warrior. David was not saying the water they brought from the well was blood. Good grief.

[Salvation]

Are you saying (like Bill Clinton) that you don’t know what the meaning of ‘IS’ is?

Jesus said, “This IS my Body.” Similarly “This IS my Blood.”

I believe Jesus’ words and don’t question them at all.

[Roos_Girl]

Interesting. What is the “two-fold consecration”? I’m obviously not Catholic. Unlike some, I have no interest in fighting my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about who is more Christian. I do like learning though, by having civilized conversations. My question about the taste of the bread and wine was an honest question; not trying to knit pick. How do we explain the taste of the wine, if it’s actually transformed into actual blood? I don’t like wine at all, and every time I take communion at my LCMS church I feel like I’m doing a horrible job of not scrunching my face up at the taste of it. I’ve joked with my husband about why Jesus couldn’t have used milk and chocolate chip cookies instead of bread and wine. Not meant to be disrespectful, just mostly poking fun at myself for not liking wine.

[RnMomof7]

Yea I wonder if they have a daily “resurrection”

[RnMomof7]

I want the quote Arthur ...If you take some time i am sure you can find it.. I have read the scripture several time I never saw what you said

[Romulus]

LOL, so you believe the bible is God’s word because the bible says so? And the reason you’re not Muslim or Mormon is...what exactly?

Got anything besides circular “reasoning”?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Jesus said, “This IS my Body.” Similarly “This IS my Blood.”

I believe Jesus’ words and don’t question them at all.” <<

.
So then you hold that he drank his own blood, and ate his own body?

.

[RnMomof7]

Bingo

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Got anything besides circular reasoning?” <<

.
Something that no catholic would understand:

A Thousand pages of fulfilled prophecy.

.

[Salvation]

It seems that you do not understand transubstantiation, do you?

trans = transfer
substantiation = substance

The wine is transferred into the Blood of Christ, but still appears as wine.

The host is transferred into the Body of Christ, but still appears as unleavened bread.

So Jesus drank wine as did the apostles, and Jesus ate the bread as did the apostles.

Hope this helps.

When we receive Communion we believe that we are receiving the transferred substance of Blood and Body under the appearances of wine and bread.

[CynicalBear]

>>LOL, so you believe the bible is God’s word because the bible says so?<<

The internal witness of the Holy Spirit says so.

>>And the reason you’re not Muslim or Mormon is...what exactly?<<

Um....it's the Catholic Church that says Catholics serve the same god as Muslims and the Catholic Church that claims beliefs not found in scripture like Mormons. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

[roamer_1]

It seems that you do not understand transubstantiation, do you? trans = transfer substantiation = substance

I understand it... Alchemy.

[RnMomof7]

I’m not aware of any scriptural translation that uses the word “sacrifice”, but the words “take this and eat it, for this is My Body”, and “take this and drink it, for this is My Blood” clearly follows the historical pattern of sacrificial meals.

LOL..Duncan WORDS MEAN THINGS ...The "last Supper" was not ever a "sacrifice".. It was a passover meal...a memorial..

Rome did not consider it a "sacrifice" Until long after the formation of the NT church

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

[CynicalBear]

Why do you believe Jesus sinned by eating blood?

[CynicalBear]

Revelation shows Jesus on the throne as a conquering King not on an altar.

[Romulus]

So you’re your own pope. Because you know you’re totally reliable on stuff like this.

[CynicalBear]

>>I believe Jesus’ words and don’t question them at all.<<

Not from what I can see. God said "do not eat the blood". Eating blood would have been a sin especially for Jesus and the apostles as they were still under the old law.

[CynicalBear]

No such thing as a pope taught in scripture. Here is what is taught.

1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.