How many people know what the Mass is all about? How many even care? The very idea of discussing its nature and substance has probably already inspired some yawns. There are, however, those who are fascinated by the Mass—some who want to understand the essential difference and others who are perhaps intrigued by its mystique. I once met an Evangelical minister who fell into the latter category.
When I was serving onboard my first ship I worked with a Protestant minister who continually asked the Roman Catholic priest to allow him to celebrate the Mass. The priest, however, refused his repeated requests to participate in the Roman Catholic rite for obvious reasons. I never discovered why his insistence on participating, but am convinced that he did not fully understand what the Mass is all about. Otherwise, I would dare say that he would have been dismayed at the prospect of wanting to partake in such a celebration.
For those unfamiliar with what transpires during the sacrament, John O’Brien, writing in his The Faith of Millions explains:
"When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon on altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man…
…[T]he priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ."
O’Briens’ words should strike the core of every Evangelical. Those who profess a love for and devotion to Calvary must seriously consider what it means to partake of the Eucharist. That O’Brien articulated the idea of the Eucharist as a reoccurring event when Christ is offered as a sacrifice upon the Roman altar, that Christ bows in "humble obedience to the priest’s command," and that Calvary is offered up a thousand times is the practical application of allowing another to define what is white when it is clearly black. That is, when the New Testament writers are not allowed to speak for themselves by defining the meaning and extent of a number of biblical doctrines from the atonement to the Lord’s Supper—all of which are perverted within the Eucharist—then any number of imaginable deceptions take root and are presented as serious dogma, essential in the salvific process of the sinner.
That Rome views the Mass as the same work, that is, a propitiatory sacrifice as Calvary cannot be overstated. The Catechism states that, "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." Remember that is was Ludwig Ott who summarized the Roman dogma when he wrote that the Mass is a "propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice…[that] possesses a finite external value." One cannot arbitrarily dismiss this teaching as merely a peripheral issue or one that is not central to the gospel of grace. On the contrary. We are, after all, talking about the core of the Christian message, and the idea that Calvary does not perfect for all time those who approach is in contradistinction to God’s Word. It is inconceivable to suggest that the Cross has limited value and that it fails to accomplish what it set forth to do and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Roman "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ is not a finished sacrifice.
If ever there were a more devoted Roman Catholic in all of King George County other my neighbor, she was never to be found. So dedicated was she to keeping her rituals and traditions, she immersed herself in the dogmatic teachings of the Church, spent at least 1/96 of each day in prayer, made daily examinations of conscience, observed liturgical celebrations from the first day of the year’s Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God to the last day’s First Vespers of thanksgiving for the end of the year, prepared feasts for all the saints, adorned her residence with statues and icons, engaged in austere Mariolatry, fashioned rosaries for her family and friends, and most importantly, observed the Mass—all for the sake of meriting eternal salvation. She explained once that a commitment to each of these rituals would help one enter through heaven’s gate, especially the latter. So each day she loaded her van with her kids and took them to the local parish for meditations and the celebration of the Mass.
Day after day, week after week, month after month, she religiously attended the Mass, the "propitiatory sacrifice" for her sins. Over the course of her life she might perhaps approach Calvary nearly twenty thousand times and yet she will always return the next day. Even though she participated in the "most holy sacrament" more times than all the other Roman Catholics I have met combined, it is at least theoretically possible and quite plausible that she could die imperfect and must endure purgatorial cleansing, or worse, commit a mortal sin and die and enemy of God and be eternally separated. Despite the rigid devotion to her traditions, namely, the Mass, she had no assurance that her sins were paid in full, yet she was confident this was the gospel of grace. She was beholden to a system that professed "grace," but new nothing of the sort. If only she recognized that her rigid devotion to performing good works were "as filthy rags," then she might have better understood biblical charis. Lighting candles to Mary, reciting the Rosary in a mantra-like fashion, consuming a wafer god and drinking his blood is no more redemptive than the addition to the Mosaic Law was by the Pharisees. In so doing, they were convinced that their actions were God-honoring, yet Jesus excoriated them by saying, "for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Matt 15:6). Adding anything to the "once for all saints faith" (Jude 1:3) makes "void the word of God," and nullifies the apostolic message.
It is reasonable for one to ask the question: If the Mass removes guilt and takes away sin, why does one keep going? That is, if one can come to Calvary over and over again how can he not be perfected for all time? How is it even possible for the sinner to approach the "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ and still die impure? I would submit to you that these questions become even more haunting when Hebrews 9 and 10 are properly understood and the idea of the Mass if fully comprehended.
It is important to remember the context behind this epistle. Jewish Christians were being tempted to abandon their Christian ideals and return to their former ways in Judaism. It is evident from the language of Hebrews that these Christians were being influenced to return to the Temple and to the synagogues and the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. But in chapters 9 and 10 the author repeatedly demonstrates the superiority and supremacy of Christ and how He was greater than all other priests were. Christ "entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). Christ’s sacrifice was radically different than the Old Testament offerings in that the former is able to "purify our conscience" (9:14).
Verses 24 through 28 are a comparison and contrast with the Old and the New with Christ bringing to fruition the latter. Christ entered heaven, the dwelling place of God, and presented the completed and perfect sacrifice on our behalf. He does not need to offer the sacrifice repeatedly because of its completion, whereas the high priest entered the holy place every year with "blood not his own".
Christ does not need to endure the passion more than once since His act is sufficient and able to "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself". The sacrifices of the Old Testament were never sufficient to "put away sin" since they had to be repeated over and over. The repetition of the Old sacrifices proved the insufficiency of their offerings and pointed towards a future sacrifice, a better one to come. They were looking for a "single sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:12). The sacrifices were committed again and again, demonstrating that they provided no real and lasting solution to the problem of sin which is why the priest stood "daily at his service" (Heb 10:11), because the priest’s job was never done. Yet, when Christ "offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb 10:12). Here is one of the most beautiful pictures in the Bible. Christ sat down, because His work was completed, a single offering that perfected for all time—the clearest proof that the sacrifice during the Mass is not the same sacrifice pictured in Hebrews.
The writer to the Hebrews pointed out to his readers that the sacrifice of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, was simply an anamnesis, a reminder, of sin. Meaning the sins of the people were not dealt with. The sinner standing before the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement knew the sacrifice would be repeated next year. He understood that it was not a finished sacrifice and that there was more to come. He knew on that day he would be standing in the exact same place the very next year. The sacrifice on the Day of Atonement was not a completed sacrifice—it was only an anamnesis of their sins and that they were not perfected. "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year" (Heb 10:3). The repetition highlighted the imperfection of the sacrifice under the Old Covenant, and in a similar manner, the repetition of the Mass shows the imperfection and reveals that it is not that one sacrifice for all sins that perfects those for whom it is intended.
What, then, shall we say about its sufficiency? The only logical conclusion in the sacrifice of the Mass is that it is insufficient to accomplish real and lasting redemption otherwise it would not have to be conferred over and over again. Yet the author in Hebrews 10, specifically verses five through nine, goes to painstaking detail to ensure his audience understands the superiority of the final sacrifice and how Christ supersedes the Old Covenant—a covenant that could "never take away sins" (Heb 10:11). But Christ’s sacrifice was different. It was a perfect and completed sacrifice which enabled Him to sit "down at the right hand of God" (Heb 10:12). That final offering needs no further additions nor does it need to be "re-presented" for sinners. The work is accomplished for all time. Just as it is recorded in verses seventeen and eighteen: "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more. Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." Where there is an offering still being presented, forgiveness is not yet found. However, Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice ushered in the New Covenant and results in the transformation and sanctification of the believer, and in the forgiveness of sins for all time.
The Mass and the work of the Cross are said to be the same, but we can see clearly that they stand at open variance with each other. Rome insists that one can come to Calvary through the Mass thousands of times during his lifetime yet remain unpurified and ultimately die an enemy of the God. In contradistinction to this viewpoint we find the biblical writer of Hebrews who presents the gospel message of grace in and through our great High Priest and His singular sacrifice that has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. The Mass, therefore, simply becomes a reminder of sin and how the sacrifice of that celebration is no greater than the sacrifices under the Old Covenant. The sacrifice of the Mass cannot and will not perfect, because it is not the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary. The inability of the Mass to purify the heart, mind, and soul of the sinner leaves him without the glorious hope of knowing we have a Savior who—as the angel foretold—saved a people from their sins (Matt 1:21). A sacrifice that does not perfect is not the biblical offering of our Lord Jesus Christ.
With that said, Evangelicals do have a reminder in the Lord’s Supper. This one, however, is radically different than the presentation of Rome. Arguably the greatest difference is that we do not suggest that the Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. Instead, it is an anamnesis, a reminder. The same word used in Hebrews is also used in 1 Corinthians 11 by the apostle. Paul speaks of observing the Lord’s Supper as a reminder—a reminder of what? Of sins? No. Paul quotes from Jesus who said, "Do this in remembrance of me" (italics mine).
Christians do not have an anamnesis, a reminder, of sin, but of a Savoir who bore the sins of His people. We remember the one sacrifice that brought the perfect and complete remission of sins. And that is how we know the Mass is not the same sacrifice.
Indeed, Rome leaves one with a great uncertainty, even after having participated in the sacraments. No where else is this illustrated as clearly as in the words of Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, who wrote the following: "The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification." Those words by Ott crystallize the pains Luther endured. For years he attempted to do everything the Church told him to do in order to achieve justification and peace with God but it was not enough. He never knew if he did enough. Similarly, no Roman Catholic can ever say with the apostle, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim 1:12). Nor can he have the assurance that John tells us we can have when he writes, "And by this we know that we have come to know him…" (1 John 2:3).
In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic view of grace does not bring about peace with God—the peace which Paul said we have having been justified by faith (Rom 5:1). Even the most devoted and earnest Roman Catholic who is born into the Church of Rome, baptized as an infant, faithfully receives the sacrament of Confirmation (which is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace), celebrates the Eucharist daily, approaches the sacrament of Penance faithfully, and receives Holy Orders, cannot know for certain if all his efforts will yield life in the eternal Kingdom. When the Roman Catholic lays his head on his pillow at night he cannot say for certain if he needs to undergo suffering in purgatory or if he has knowingly or unknowingly committed a mortal sin and is an enemy of God. It is no wonder Luther was plagued with insanity and attempted at all costs to taste that bit of righteousness. The crazed torment he endured was never palliated while he embraced the theology of Rome, and it is understandable when we learn how he lived in constant fear of the wrath of God pouring out upon him—especially since he could never know if "he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification".
The grace of God cannot be reduced to fulfilling certain rituals that purportedly serve as the basis of our justification. Instead, the Christian must stand in awe at the established relationship that God has made available through the eternal love and covenant relationship He had with the other members of the Godhead. We must not let ourselves become prisoners of a servile sacramental system that produces endless fear and perpetual uncertainty. We can come to Him in confidence in knowing that He paid the price for our sins and with the reality that we have access to Him through His Son. We have peace with God having been justified by His blood. Let us remember that each and every time someone attempts to usurp the grace of God and replace it with man-made rituals and take us back under a Law, that cannot save.
