Propitiation

[PJD1987]

"The mass, no less than Calvary, is expiatory for sin because the mass is supposedly the same sacrifice as Calvary. According to Rome, then, the offering of Christ in sacrifice is not finished but continues and is perpetuated through time. But such teaching contradicts Scripture. The word of God teaches that Christ has made a complete propitiation for sin through his once–for–all sacrifice of atonement. It is finished. The Greek word translated once–for–all is ephapax. It is used in particular with reference to Jesus’ death and communicates the thought that Christ’s death is a finished work which cannot be repeated or perpetuated:

Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives He lives to God (Rom. 6:10).

Jesus’ death was a unique historic event which is completed and therefore he can never experience death again. In addition to Paul’s affirmation of this, Jesus himself states: ‘I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore’ (Rev. 1:18). The word used to describe the death of Jesus as a finished work—ephapax—is the same word used to describe his sacrifice and the offering of his body (Heb. 10:10; 9:25–26). Just as Christ cannot die again, neither can his body be offered again or his sacrifice be continued for sin. This is because apart from his death there is no sacrifice that is propitiatory for sin. What made his sacrifice propitiatory in God’s eyes was his death. Hebrews 9:22 makes this point: ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’ As a result then of this one sacrifice, the bible teaches that God has accomplished a sufficient and finished atonement. Since Christ cannot die again there is no more sacrifice for sin and therefore the mass cannot be the same sacrifice as Calvary. On the basis of that finished work God now offers complete and total forgiveness to man. There is no more sacrifice for sin: ‘Where there is forgiveness of these things there is no longer any offering for sin’ (Heb. 10:18). And since there is no need for further sacrifice, Scripture also teaches that there is no need for a continuing sacerdotal priesthood. Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament ceremonial law and it is now abrogated (Heb. 7:11–19). He has become our Sacrifice and Priest and the only Mediator by which we approach God (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:22–25). Christ’s atonement has completely removed the guilt of our sin and its condemnation because he has paid the penalty in full. To suggest that a sacrament is necessary to continue to offer Christ’s body and blood to make sacrifice for sin is completely antithetical to the teaching of Scripture, and undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s work. This teaching of the mass as a perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ which is propitiatory for sin was a point of universal opposition by the Reformers."

This is from [edited] site from a really hateful anti-Catholic, who has lots of other stuff too. [edited]
Could someone please explain “propitiation” and how to refute this type of hate from websites such as this?

 

[japhy]

Simply put…

The letter to the Hebrews says that God established Jesus as our high priest, as “a priest forever.” (Heb 5:5-10; 6:20)

It also says that Jesus, as an eternal priest, is always exercising His priestly ministry: “[Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:23-25)

Because Jesus presented Himself (“offered” the sacrifice) to His Father in Heaven, this act of offering is “once”, but also eternal, because it occurs in eternity in Heaven. His death was also “once”, but only temporal, not eternal, since it took place in time on earth. Jesus does not need to return to earth to die and then return to Heaven to offer Himself: His sacrifice has only been done once.

The Mass is another sacrifice; it is only the temporal experience of the eternal offering of the Son.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Hebrews 7:25 verse in previous post is a good one to refute this. There are also many commentaries, including many Protestant ones, that admit that when Paul says he makes up for what is lacking in Christ’s suffering, that it is Christ suffering through the members of His body as well. In the order of time, this obviously occurs after the Calvary event with Christ incarnate.

There is a debate between James White and Robert Sungenis (Catholic) on this topic as well. This issue came up. You can check that out here.

 

[PJD1987]

Thank you for the responses, it’s awfully sad how hateful and angry the person who runs that site is, very disheartening. And his “refutations” are written convincingly for those who seek no other source. That is why I appreciate being able to come here, it is very edifying and I thank you again for your responses.

 

[fhansen]

The sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same.

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:

• thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
• the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
• the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his *Spirit. *

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is a very important NT text that clearly supports the Catholic understanding of the Mass as a Sacrifice. I’m borrowing this from the Council of Trent’s own decrees:
Mal 1:6-8,
If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil?
The term “Lord’s Table” is synonymous with Sacrificial Altar. And this is right in context with the famous Mal 1:11.

Now turn to 1 Corinthians 10:
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
The context here is explicitly that of a sacrifice (the Jewish sacrifices and eating, the Christian sacrifices and eating, and the pagan sacrifices to idols and eating). The parallelism would be destroyed if this didn’t carry over to the Eucharistic celebration. Note how when Paul says “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” the “table” here is none other than the Altar. Such imagery would not have been missed by the early Christians. This is clear and explicit Biblical proof the Mass is a sacrifice.

More importantly, the real problem is Protestants have a very wrong view of the Cross, read this article and especially this article to see the plain truth!!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well done, CD.

 

[ryanoneil]

The website should have backed up a few verses.

According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. (Heb 9:22-24)

Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once.

This is because, Christ’s sacrifice is ever present before God in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. When we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

One thing is that the at the Mass christ is not rescarificed over and over again, but we are joined through the Mystry of God with him at the crusifixion on calvery.

 

[thenobes]

CD

You make a good point. However, while the real presence of Christ’s sacrifice is strongly implied by your logic, it doesn’t quite show that the presence of the sacrifice has a current expiatory, propitiatory nature, and not just a eucharistic, a thanksgiving, nature, in combination with our own sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

I think that one needs to look at the verse the anti-catholic adduces as his rationale for saying “the offering is over”.
He says:

There is no more sacrifice for sin: ‘Where there is forgiveness of these things there is no longer any offering for sin’ (Heb. 10:18).

However, there is in actuality only an offering of forgiveness towards us by God. Forgiveness is only granted with repentance. So until every sin has been confessed,the the offering is not completed.

“For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”

Now ,“are being sanctified” is a better translation than “are`sanctified”. And “for all time” is translated as “continually” elsewhere.

Thus, “For by one offering He has perfected continually those who are being sanctified.”

And if the perfection is continual, it must take place through continual repentance, and thus continual offering for us by Christ before His Father.

So when we enter into the presence of His sacrifice in the Mass, we are also brought into the presence of His continual offering for us (which will end on the last day).

peace
steve

 

[IHSpetros]

According to Rome, then, the offering of Christ in sacrifice is not finished but continues and is perpetuated through time.

False. The Catholic Church does not teach that Christ sacrifice “is not finished.” In the Council of Trent it states “He, then our Lord and God, was **once and for all ** to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish for them an everlasting redemption” (Chapter 1). Be careful with the words these polemicist use. Although Catholics do believe that Christ represents the same sacrifice of Calvary to the Father, we don’t say “it is not finished.” Rather, we believe that the once finished sacrifice is continually presented to the Father. He tried to be sneaky and clever by inserting that in there, but its just not Catholic teaching.

The word of God teaches that Christ has made a complete propitiation for sin through his once–for–all sacrifice of atonement. It is finished. The Greek word translated once–for–all is ephapax.

Catholics do not disagree here. We do believe that Christ death was “once for all.” See the above quote from Trent.We also believe that the sacrifice is indeed propitiatory: “Therefore, the holy Council teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, so that, if we draw near to God with an upright heart…we may recieve mercy and find grace…” (Trent, Chapter 2). This person is commiting nothing more than a straw-man fallacy.

Just as Christ cannot die again, neither can his body be offered again or his sacrifice be continued for sin.

The Catholic Church has never maintained that Christ “dies again.” Regarding Christ continually offering his body for sin, Scripture makes it clear that Christ acts as a Priestly figure before the Father, offering continual intercession by appearing as the sacrificial victim so that God may be propitiated.

Hebrews 9:22-24 states “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”

Notice what is going on here. The sacred author is pointing out that the “shedding of blood” is in connection with both the “Law” (i.e. the Old Covenant) and with Christ in Heaven. Thus, Christ’s work in “heaven itself” is a “shedding of blood.” This requires us to conclude that, in some manner, Christ’s shed blood appears in heaven, which would coincide with verse 24 that He will “now appear before us in heaven.” It is not surprising then, that Revelations 5 describes the Lamb as slain before the Throne in Heaven. But the question must be asked, what is He doing before the Father? Hebrews 8:1-3 tells us “we have such a high priest who sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” Thus we see that Christ acts as a High Priest in heaven, serving in the sanctuary and tabernacle. Both terms “sanctuary and tabernacle” are associated with priestly sacrifice in the OT. Additionally, we see from Hebrews 7:24 that Christ has a “permanent priesthood” and that he “always lives to intercede for them” (Heb 7:25). However, notice that Hebrews 9:22-24 uses the plural sacrifices in reference to Christ’s Priestly ministry in heaven. Since verses 22-24 state that these “sacrifices” incorporate the use of “blood” and occupy a “sanctuary” of “heaven itself” where Christ “appears for us in God’s prescense,” the most likely meaning is that the single sacrifice of verse 26 is being repeatedly presented in heaven. Since Christ’s sacrificial office is patterened after the priesthood of Melchizedek who offered bread and wine (Gen 14:18), the repeated presentation must them point to the same bread and wine of the Eucharist, for it is the only sacrifice of Christ that is periodically performed. The plural “sacrifices” of Heb 9:23 would then refer to the multiple times and locations on earth that the Mass is celebrated. This coincides with Malachi 1:11’s plurality of location and singularity of “offering.”

Thus, Christ, who died once and for all, appears in Heaven before the Father as our permanent Priestly intercessor, serving in the sanctuary and tabernacle, to continually present his Body as a Lamb Slain before the Throne to propitiate for our sins and to seek effectual Graces.

 

[IHSpetros]

“Just as Christ cannot die again, neither can his body be offered again or his sacrifice be continued for sin.”

He said that this sacrifice cannot “be continued for sin.” However, Hebrews 2:17 states the following “Hbr 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

Notice the phrase “to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” The word “propitiation” is a present infinitive verb, meaning that that this one act in the past is continually be applied in the present. Thus, Wescott points out “‘The present infinitive must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (10:12-14) is here regarded in its continous present application to men (cf., 5:1-2),’ Westcott” (The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll, pp. 269-270; cf., F. Blass, Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch, Gottingen, 1896, p. 88, Wescott’s Epistle of St. John, pp.83-85). Hence his claim that Christ’s sacrifice cannot be continued for sin is unsubstantiated according to the grammar.

Since Christ cannot die again there is no more sacrifice for sin and therefore the mass cannot be the same sacrifice as Calvary.

This person is working under the false premise that Christ dies again at every Mass. That is simply ignorance of Catholic teaching.

On the basis of that finished work God now offers complete and total forgiveness to man.

No one disagrees with that.

There is no more sacrifice for sin: ‘Where there is forgiveness of these things there is no longer any offering for sin’ (Heb. 10:18).

We don’t claim to resacrifice Christ, but to represent his one time sacrifice.

 

[IHSpetros]

And since there is no need for further sacrifice, Scripture also teaches that there is no need for a continuing sacerdotal priesthood. Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament ceremonial law and it is now abrogated (Heb. 7:11–19).

Actually, Scripture doesn’t say that the priesthood was done away with, but simply that there was a “a change in the priesthood” (Heb 7:12). Furthermore, Scripture doesn’t prohibit men from participating in Christ’s ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant. In fact, the word “minister” is associated with priestly function. When Biblical authors spoke of he “ministers” of the tabernacle or Temple, they used a specific word to describe them. In Greek it was hiereus, meaning, literally “sacred person.” That’s the word we usually translate into English as “priest.” The title meant that they were set apart for holy services. So in the OT and the NT, the terms priest and minister are used somewhat interchangeably. The priests fulfilled the sacrificial ministry. St. Paul understood his role in priestly terms. He spoke of his calling as “the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God” (Rom 15:15-16). We also see that although Christ is our high priest, St. Paul performs the priestly function of forgiving sins “in the person of Christ” (2 Cor 2:10), hence sharing in Christ’s priestly ministry. This is further illustrated by 2 Cor 5:18, in which Paul says that he recieved “the ministry of reconciliation.” Finally, the NT teaches us that the Apostles had a sacrificial role when administering the Eucharist, hence a priestly role. Luke 22:19 “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” The word translated “memorial” or “remembrance” used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word “anamnesis.” It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). “Anamnesis” translates the Hebrew word “azkarah,” which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that “anamnesis” is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus’ use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me.” The use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial (“mnemosunon,” cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4).

He has become our Sacrifice and Priest and the only Mediator by which we approach God (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:22–25).

If he’s our High Priest, then what is his function as High Priest in heaven? Don’t priest offer sacrifices? But if he already offered one sacrifice, then what is Christ doing acting as a priest - a perpetual priest? Could it be that he presents the same sacrifice to the father continually? Certainly, as I’ve previously showed, he is acting as our intercessor before the Father, serving in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle (both priestly functions), and continually presenting his Body to propitiate the Father. Furthermore, in Hebrews 9:23, the plural word “sacrifices” is found in connection with the singular “sacrifice” in verse 26, suggesting that this one sacrifice is continually presented to the Father. Moreover, Heb 7:24-25 says that Christ does this “continually” and “permanently,” not just one time. And yes, he is our only Mediator, but that has nothing to do with whether he continually presents his one sacrifice or not, so that was merely a red herring.

 

[IHSpetros]

Christ’s atonement has completely removed the guilt of our sin and its condemnation because he has paid the penalty in full.

Wrong. Christ did not “pay the penalty in full” because the “penalty in full” would be eternal damnation. Firstly, Scripture never says that Christ suffered the equivalent of eternal damnation, therefore he did not “pay the penalty in full.” Secondly, if Christ “paid the penalty in full” then no one would go to hell, since Scripture says “God desires all men to be saved” (2 Tim 2:4).But it is a fact that not all men will be saved. Hence, the Atonement cannot be a “payment” for their sins, since if their sins are paid for then they cannot be required to pay for those sins themselves (and be punished eternally). Rather, Scripture teaches that Christ’s death was a “propitiation” (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 Jhn 2:2; 1 Jhn 4:10), not a legal payment for sins. Hence, the Catholic Church teaches an Atonement in which Christ appeases God’s personal wrath against all of mankind, and because God is thus appeased, God is moved to mercy to allow the doors of salvation to open once again for the whole human race, the same doors that were closed for the whole human race when Adam sinned.

To suggest that a sacrament is necessary to continue to offer Christ’s body and blood to make sacrifice for sin is completely antithetical to the teaching of Scripture, and undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s work.

How this undermines the "sufficiency of Chrit’s work, he doesn’t say. However, this is no more true than saying belief in Christ undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s work. The work of atonement is not mechanical, Jesus didn’t die and automatically people were saved. There are contingencies upon which the atonement of Christ is applied to someone. Even in protestant theology, you must believe in Jesus in order to apprehend the merits of the atonement. In Catholic theology, you must not only believe but you must also partake in the Sacraments. In either case, there is a contingency upon which we apprehend the merits of the atonement. So if this person wants to be consistent, then he must say that Faith undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s work.

“This teaching of the mass as a perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ which is propitiatory for sin was a point of universal opposition by the Reformers.”

Unfortunately for this person, this was precisely the unanimous concent of the Church Fathers. Hence, the “Reformers” were going against 1500 years of Church teaching and therefore innovating doctrine.

 

[IHSpetros]

I hope that helps. God Bless.