Grudem versus Ott

[Truthstalker]

I’m reading Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (Zondervan, 1994). It’s not online, as far as I know

On page 578 he says

This New Testament emphasis on the completion and finality of Christ’s sacrificial death stands in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching that in the mass there is a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ.16. Because of this official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, many Protestants since the Reformation, and still today, are convinced that they cannot in good conscience actually participate in the Roman Catholic mass, because it would seem to be an endorsement of the Catholic view that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated every time the mass is offered.

That little tiny “16” is the following:

Footnote 16
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p 408 says, “In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Gift are identical; only the nature and the mode of offering are different…according to the Thomistic view, in every Mass Christ also performs an actual immediate sacrificial activity, which, however, must not be conceived as a totality of many successive acts but as one single uninterrupted sacrificial act of the Transfigured Christ. The purpose of the Sacrifice is the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass as in the Sacrifice of the Cross; primarily the glorification of God, secondarily atonement, thanksgiving and appeal.”

I can’t make out from Ott whether Grudem makes or does not make his point. My understanding is the SotM is a representation not a resacrifice. I don’t have a copy of Ott- could someone see if Grudem is accurately representing the passage in context? Is Ott saying it is NOT a new sacrifice, but the same sacrifice? Is he saying the transfigured Christ is still being crucified? What does he mean by the transfigured Christ, anyway?

 

[Pete_Holter]

“…an endorsement of the Catholic view that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated every time the mass is offered.”

Here are some thoughts on this from our Popes…

“The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

“The Sacrifice of the Mass is substantially the same as that of the Cross, for the same Jesus Christ, Who offered Himself on the Cross, it is Who offers Himself by the hands of the priests, His ministers, on our altars; but as regards the way in which He is offered, the Sacrifice of the Mass differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross, though retaining the most intimate and essential relation to it.

“Between the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross there is this difference and relation, that on the Cross Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; whereas on our altars He sacrifices Himself without the shedding of His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His passion And death.

“The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one only Sacrifice of the New Law, inasmuch as through it Our Lord satisfied Divine Justice, acquired all the merits necessary to save us, and thus, on His part, fully accomplished our redemption. These merits, however, He applies to us through the means instituted by Him in His Church, among which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (Catechism of Pius X).

“The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross. ‘It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of His priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different.’ ”

“The priest is the same, Jesus Christ, whose sacred Person His minister represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is made like to the High Priest and possesses the power of performing actions in virtue of Christ’s very person. Wherefore in his priestly activity he in a certain manner ‘lends his tongue, and gives his hand’ to Christ.

“Likewise the victim is the same, namely, our divine Redeemer in His human nature with His true body and blood. The manner, however, in which Christ is offered is different. On the cross He completely offered Himself and all His sufferings to God, and the immolation of the victim was brought about by the bloody death, which He underwent of His free will. But on the altar, by reason of the glorified state of His human nature, ‘death shall have no more dominion over Him,’ and so the shedding of His blood is impossible; still, according to the plan of divine wisdom, the sacrifice of our Redeemer is shown forth in an admirable manner by external signs which are the symbols of His death. For by the ‘transubstantiation’ of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into His blood, His body and blood are both really present: now the eucharistic species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His body and blood. Thus the commemorative re-presentation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood” (, 68-70Mediator Dei).

“ ‘The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice.’ Saint John Chrysostom put it well: ‘We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one… Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed.’

“The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it. What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its ‘commemorative re-presentation’ (memorialis demonstration), which makes Christ’s one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary” (, 12Ecclesia de Eucharistia).

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Nita]

That little tiny “16” is the following:

I can’t make out from Ott whether Grudem makes or does not make his point. My understanding is the SotM is a representation not a resacrifice. I don’t have a copy of Ott- could someone see if Grudem is accurately representing the passage in context?

The sentences quoted from Ott are accurate. Here is the way that section appears in Ott’s book - I used red print to indicate the lines you were asking about:
2. Essential Identity of the Sacrifice of the Mass with the Sacrifice of the Cross

In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and mode of the offering are different. (De fide.) The Council of Trent declared: (Latin text given) (the Host is One and the Same; He is the Same Who now offers Himself through the ministry of His priests and Who then by Himself offered Himself on the Cross. The difference lies solely in the mode of offering). D 940. Cf. the Encyclical “Mediator Dei” of Pius XII (1947).

The sacrificial gift is the Body and Blood of Christ, and by concomitance, the whole God-Man Jesus Christ. The sacramental species confer a sensible presence on the sacrificial gift, but do not themselves belong to the sacrificial gift. The Primary Sacrificing Priest is Jesus Christ who utilises the human priest as His servant and representative and fulfils the consecration through him. According to the Thomistic view, in every Mass Christ also performs an actual immediate sacrificial activity, which, however, must not be conceived as a totality of many successive acts but as one single uninterrupted sacrificial act of the Transfigured Christ.

The purpose of the Sacrifice is the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass as in the Sacrifice of the Cross; primarily the glorification of God, secondarily atonement, thanksgiving, and appeal.

While the sacrificial gift and the primary Sacrificing Priest are numerically identical, the outward sacrificial action is numerically and specifically distinct. On the Cross the sacrificial gift was offered in a bloody manner by a real separation of the body and blood (immolatio realis), in the Holy Mass it is offered in an unbloody manner by a mystical separation of the body and blood (immolatio mystica).​

 

[Nita]

Is Ott saying it is NOT a new sacrifice, but the same sacrifice? Is he saying the transfigured Christ is still being crucified?

It is not a new sacrifice in the sense that Jesus’ body is recrucified - undergoes a bloody physical death as He did on Calvary. Then - on Calvary - Jesus physically died. Now Jesus’ risen immortal human body can no longer undergo physical death; it is immortal.

But the Mass does involve an “actual immediate sacrificial activity” in the sense that Christ, in and through the priest, wills to make present in time the total offering of Himself made on Calvary. He wills to make Himself - the perfect, pure, New Covenant sacrificial offering - present in the Mass; He does this in and through the priest in order to glorify God and to make present the atoning offering for our sins.

Here are some of my personal ways of thinking about the “de fide” declarations involved.
On Calvary Jesus’ offering of Himself totally (body, blood, soul and divinity) was a mortal bloody act. On earth He had a mortal body and a total offering involved offering His mortal life. He offered Himself in “a bloody manner” or mode. He poured out His life for all people throughout time.

He continues to pour out His life for us.
*John 10:10-11 “…; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” *
He continues to make present His life poured out for us on Calvary. He makes it present for us to receive “abundantly”. He makes it present in an unbloody manner - in a sacramental mode - under the accidents of bread and wine.

Jesus IS “Life” - “I am…the life” (John 14:6)
John 6:52-54, 64 …and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world. …Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.
…The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

What does he mean by the transfigured Christ, anyway?

He means the resurrected Christ; Christ in His resurrected human nature - glorious and immortal.

 

[Nita]

Another way I have of understanding it:

Rev. 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for* their deeds follow them***!"

To me that means that in some way all of Our Lord’s deeds are present in eternity, including His sacrificial offering on Calvary. Thus the earlier passage in Revelation:

Rev. 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw* a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain***,

Our Lord’s sacrifice is present in eternity, in heaven; and He chooses to make what is eternally present there, present in time in the Sacrifice of the Mass

 

[Truthstalker]

Thanks, Nita!

I was going to ask you to put it in non-technical terms, but you went ahead and did that anyway. Offhand, I don’t see anything to make the “repetition” case. Grudem is echoing Calvin’s approach in Institutes Book 4 chapter 18; I’m wondering if, pre-Trent, there was a theologian of high repute running around promoting the repetition theory. SOMEBODY must have been saying that the CC believed in the repetition theory.

 

[Truthstalker]

“…an endorsement of the Catholic view that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated every time the mass is offered.”

Here are some thoughts on this from our Popes…

“The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

“The Sacrifice of the Mass is substantially the same as that of the Cross, for the same Jesus Christ, Who offered Himself on the Cross, it is Who offers Himself by the hands of the priests, His ministers, on our altars; but as regards the way in which He is offered, the Sacrifice of the Mass differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross, though retaining the most intimate and essential relation to it.

“Between the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross there is this difference and relation, that on the Cross Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; whereas on our altars He sacrifices Himself without the shedding of His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His passion And death.

“The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one only Sacrifice of the New Law, inasmuch as through it Our Lord satisfied Divine Justice, acquired all the merits necessary to save us, and thus, on His part, fully accomplished our redemption. These merits, however, He applies to us through the means instituted by Him in His Church, among which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (Catechism of Pius X).

“The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross. ‘It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of His priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner of offering alone being different.’ ”

“The priest is the same, Jesus Christ, whose sacred Person His minister represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is made like to the High Priest and possesses the power of performing actions in virtue of Christ’s very person. Wherefore in his priestly activity he in a certain manner ‘lends his tongue, and gives his hand’ to Christ.

“Likewise the victim is the same, namely, our divine Redeemer in His human nature with His true body and blood. The manner, however, in which Christ is offered is different. On the cross He completely offered Himself and all His sufferings to God, and the immolation of the victim was brought about by the bloody death, which He underwent of His free will. But on the altar, by reason of the glorified state of His human nature, ‘death shall have no more dominion over Him,’ and so the shedding of His blood is impossible; still, according to the plan of divine wisdom, the sacrifice of our Redeemer is shown forth in an admirable manner by external signs which are the symbols of His death. For by the ‘transubstantiation’ of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into His blood, His body and blood are both really present: now the eucharistic species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His body and blood. Thus the commemorative re-presentation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood” (Mediator Dei, 68-70).

“ ‘The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice.’ Saint John Chrysostom put it well: ‘We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one… Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed.’

“The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it. What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its ‘commemorative re-presentation’ (memorialis demonstration), which makes Christ’s one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 12).

With love in Christ,
Pete

Thanks, Pete. This is good background material.

 

[Nita]

Thanks, Nita!

I was going to ask you to put it in non-technical terms, but you went ahead and did that anyway. Offhand, I don’t see anything to make the “repetition” case. Grudem is echoing Calvin’s approach in Institutes Book 4 chapter 18; I’m wondering if, pre-Trent, there was a theologian of high repute running around promoting the repetition theory. SOMEBODY must have been saying that the CC believed in the repetition theory.

Page 402 in Fundamentals has the following: …Prior to the Reformers, Wycliffe denied the institution by Christ of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Since Fundamentals usually includes a very good, brief history of the dissent against a Church doctrine, I’m guessing that prior to Wycliffe there was no notable dissent denying the sacrificial aspect of the Mass.

As to the repetition theory – that Christ is repeatedly recrucified, I’m not sure how anyone could even think that’s what the Church believed and taught. To be crucified/killed repeatedly would mean one would have to repeatedly assume a mortal body that could undergo death. I don’t think there was anyone preaching it early on because it is irreconcilable to the Church’s teaching that Our Lord body is now risen and immortal. I can’t even understand how any of the reformers could have thought that’s what the Church meant in her teaching about the sacrificial aspect of the Mass.

In Fundamentals, under Eucharist, there is one whole section (pp 402 - 415) titled “The Eucharist as a Sacrifice”.

With the types of questions you usually have Truthstalker, it would be well worth your while to get a copy of Fundamentals. The red cover book is far superior in quality to the cheaper white covered edition. (I went thru 2 copies of the white cover – pages just break loose from the binding. Was so glad to finally find a better quality edition.
aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma/sku/18880/s/97?utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_source=googlebase&origin=product-search&kwd=%7Bkeyword%7D&cvsfa=3078&cvsfe=2&cvsfhu=3138383830&gclid=CPfmsdrsxLQCFStgMgod6ggAsQ

 

[Pete_Holter]

SOMEBODY must have been saying that the CC believed in the repetition theory.

In fairness to Grudem, he wrote his book before John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia came out. And Grudem may have been misled by comments such as this from Pope Pius X:

“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If You wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass” (Meditation before Mass).

Grudem’s Systematic Theology was my introduction to Christianity as an adult. What has you reading it?

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Truthstalker]

In fairness to Grudem, he wrote his book before John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia came out. And Grudem may have been misled by comments such as this from Pope Pius X:

“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If You wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass” (Meditation before Mass).

Grudem’s Systematic Theology was my introduction to Christianity as an adult. What has you reading it?

With love in Christ,
Pete

It’s been on my reading list for a long time.

I emailed Dr. Grudem and asked him to comment on this thread. If he answers, it may be some time before we hear anything.

 

[Truthstalker]

I think I understand both sides of the issue.

The Critics:

1. Catholics say it is a real sacrifice of Christ
2. It is repeated
3. Therefore it is a real, repeated sacrifice of Christ in violation of certain passages in Hebrews

The Catholics:
Well, no, it is a re-presentation.

The Critics:
But you don’t stop there.

The Catholics:
We stop there in some ways, but not in other ways.

The Critics:
You have got to be kidding me.

I think that is about the state of the argument.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thanks, Truthstalker!

By the way, here’s a partial view of Systematic Theology on Google Books: Systematic Theology.

You can also find some material from Grudem at Monergism. For example:

Chapter 16: God’s Providence
Chapter 32: Election and Reprobation
Chapter 34: Regeneration

Just putting this out there in case you come across something else in his book that you’d like to talk about.

One point that bothered me in Grudem’s book was that, when he sought to explain why Christ did not descend to hell, he told his readers that,

“The most satisfactory explanation of 1 Peter 3:19-20 seems rather to be one proposed (but not really defended) long ago by Augustine: The passage refers not to something Christ did between his death and resurrection but to what he did ‘in the spiritual realm of existence’ (or ‘through the Spirit’) at the time of Noah. When Noah was building the ark, Christ ‘in spirit’ was preaching through Noah to the hostile unbelievers around him” (Systematic Theology).

But what he didn’t tell us here is that Augustine also said of this passage that it is “wont to perplex me most seriously,” and that he asked Bishop Evodius to “remove and terminate my perplexities on the subject” by offering his own interpretation. Augustine approached this text with profound diffidence, but before he offered his interpretation he also had this to say: “It is established beyond question that the Lord, after He had been put to death in the flesh, descended into hell”; and he went on to ask, “Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?” (Letter 164)

I think that Dr. Grudem should have pointed this out to his readers, lest they be left with the impression that Augustine likewise believed that Christ did not descend into hell, or that Augustine thought it would be ok to use his interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19-20 against the doctrine of Christ’s descent, which he himself held to be a non-negotiable doctrine of the Christian faith.

And of course I disagree with Grudem when he says that…

“One clear example of such an addition to the commands of Scripture is found in the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to ‘artificial’ methods of birth control, a policy that finds no valid support on Scripture. Widespread disobedience, alienation, and false guilt have been the result. Yet such is the propensity of human nature to make such rules that other examples can probably be found in the written or unwritten traditions of almost every denomination” (Systematic Theology).

I’ve written about contraception in the Bible here. See also, down below, my response to Constantine in 4 parts. My hope is that Dr. Grudem will come to see the truth and biblical basis of this Christian doctrine.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Truthstalker]

Pete,

Please bear in mind that the work is an overview of Systematic Theology and should not be regarded as exhaustive. The subjects of most of the chapters have millions of pages written that he necessarily excluded. He is also Reformed and makes Reformed assumptions, such as that Mary had other children, of course. It is a thick book already. Nor is it oriented around Catholic theology. It looks at Catholic theology in passing, among others, and has references to a number of other systematic theologies, and references in general, at the end of every chapter.

I would not expect him to be an expert in Catholic theology.

Concerning the descent into hell, I have read threads here where Catholic posters are horrified at the concept of Christ descending into hell and argued that it is a Protestant error! A friend at Covenant Seminary told me one of the hardest assignments he had was a paper on the Descent into Hell, because it is an unbelievably complex subject when you get into it.

We all do better when we engage points of view we do not agree with.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Truthstalker! Have you shared your reasoning somewhere as to why you have not been able to embrace the Catholic faith?

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker! Have you shared your reasoning somewhere as to why you have not been able to embrace the Catholic faith?

In Christ,
Pete

No. And this thread is not about me.

 

[Vico]

No. And this thread is not about me.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does give the actual teaching.

There is one single sacrifice (CCC 1367). The liturgy makes present the sacrifice of the Cross because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit (CCC 1366) the work of redemption (CCC 1364) and the giving of “the very body which he gave up for us on the cross” (CCC 1365).

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

We are living in the eighth day.

349 The eighth day. But for us a new day has dawned: the day of Christ’s Resurrection. The seventh day completes the first creation. The eighth day begins the new creation. Thus, the work of creation culminates in the greater work of redemption. The first creation finds its meaning and its summit in the new creation in Christ, the splendor of which surpasses that of the first creation. 217

 

[Truthstalker]

With the types of questions you usually have Truthstalker, it would be well worth your while to get a copy of Fundamentals. The red cover book is far superior in quality to the cheaper white covered edition. (I went thru 2 copies of the white cover – pages just break loose from the binding. Was so glad to finally find a better quality edition.
aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma/sku/18880/s/97?utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_source=googlebase&origin=product-search&kwd=%7Bkeyword%7D&cvsfa=3078&cvsfe=2&cvsfhu=3138383830&gclid=CPfmsdrsxLQCFStgMgod6ggAsQ

I’m thinking about it, thanks. I plan to go through the Catechism and Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa first. My Catholic theological vocabulary is severely limited.