Sacrifice of the Mass/Catholic & Protestant Viewpoints

[rr1213]

Hello! I’m KellyH on CARM, and I’d much rather chat with you here…but that’s for another thread.

In regard to the Eucharist and the way the view of it changed during the reformation needs to be expanded a bit. What else changed? Suddenly, many thought it wrong to baptize infants. Marriage was no longer viewed as permanent. Holy Orders? Apostolic Succession was lost on the protestants. Confession? Suddenly no longer necessary. Real Presence? Yes for some, not for others. Confirmation? Only for those who kept the infant baptism. Anointing of the sick/extreme unction? Nope. All of the Sacraments were stripped in some shape or form.

Hi Kelly!

I understand your point. The reason that there is disunity on doctrinal matters within the Protestant Churches is because they do not have a unifying Magisterium. This results in different interpretations of doctrine and scriptural mandates. It is a different question though, I believe, as to why there is this general misconception about what the Catholic Church teaches as to the sacrifice of the mass. Do you see what I mean? It’s one thing to say “I’ve looked at Scripture and it appears clear to me that the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching transubstantiation” as opposed to saying “the Catholic Church teaches the re-sacrifice of Christ” when it appears that it does not. The first is an interpretation of Scripture (which may or may not be right) the second should be a mere acknowledgement of what “the other guy” is saying.

Stated differently, I am usually perfectly capable of expressing lucidly the viewpoint of people with whom I do not agree. Being is disagreement is one thing, misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) the other side is another. I don’t find it credible that all of the Reformers either misunderstood the Catholic position regarding the mass, or purposely misrepresented that position, so I am looking for “why” there is the dichotomy.

RR1213

 

[rr1213]

Laudatur Iesus Chistus.

I do not think we need rely too heavily on references to things “outside of time”; The Holy Mass is the work of the Messiah perpetuated through time.

The difficulty about “multiple sacrifices” may have arisen because of a too simplistic understanding of the Temple Sacrifice, and therefore of its perfection in the Holy Mass. In the Temple Sacrifice the victim was slain separately from the altar; the flesh and blood were separated and brought to the altar in golden vessels. (See, Qorbanot article on Judaism 101’s website.) At the altar the blood was poured out around the altar and the flesh was partially burned as an offering to God. The balance of the flesh was then (in most forms of sacrifice) divided between the priest and the worshipers to be eaten as a feast.

The confusion under discussion may have arisen (and continue to arise) from the use of the word “sacrifice” to refer to several different things in this liturgical process at the Temple in Jerusalem: (1) the killing of the victim, (2) the offering of the flesh and blood to God, (3) the name for the victim offered, and (4) the name for the entire process.

In the Holy Mass, the miracle of the Consecration is parallel to the miracle of the fish and the loaves. There is only one sacrifice in the sense that Jesus Christ is the only Victim. There is only one sacrifice in the sense of the killing of the Victim, since Christ died only once on the Cross on Calvary. However, there are many sacrifices in the sense that, by the miracle of the Consecration, the very flesh and blood from that single killing of the single Victim is made present on each and every altar. In the Mass this same Flesh and Blood is offered – presented again – to God as a continuation of the work of the Messiah.

It is easy to understand how people would become confused, if they were unfamiliar with the practices of the Temple Sacrifice, and had only newly become familiar with images of “blood sacrifices” in ancient Rome and Greece; in the pagan sacrifices, the offering and the killing of the victim were the same act, and the killing was done on the altar.

Confusing the Sacred Liturgy of Israel and the Holy Mass with these pagan blood sacrifices might easily lead the prideful to assert that the Church was mistaken and that multiple killings of Christ were being claimed, because the “sacrifice” in the sense of the Victim and the slaying of the Victim might be confused with the “sacrifice” in the sense of the presentation of the Flesh and Blood of the Victim to God, with prayers of thanksgiving, supplication, intercession, and praise. In this sense of the offering or “presentation of the Victim to God” the “sacrifice” is multiplied without limit as “from east to west a perfect sacrifice is made in praise and thanksgiving.”

Another sense of sacrifice is important in understanding the Mass: we present our sacrifices in the form of bread and wine. These “sacrifices,” which carry our intentions and offering of ourselves to the altar, are new at each Mass. These “offerings” are destroyed in the Consecration when they become Christ’s perfect offering. Thus our “little” offerings are transubstantiated into Christ’s perfect Offering, so that we can share in His merits and be admitted into Communion with the Trinity.

Given this complexity, and the fact that few people even in our “literate age” understand these matters, it is not surprising that a generation unfamiliar with the liturgical practices at Jerusalem or the details of Church teachings on these subjects could be honestly confused and mistaken about the matter of “many sacrifices.”

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

This is very thoughtful. Thank you.

 

[Fidelis]

Mike Brick;2315270:

Some of these people changed because their ruler changed faiths, others because they were convinced by the reasoning of the Reformers

I think this is a vast oversimplification of the actual facts, and one that could impede your understanding of the situation at that time, and thus the question at hand…

As others have stated, owning to the state of illiteracy and the all-consuming task of just surviving day to day in Europe at the time that much of it became Protestant, there is no way the majority of the people embraced the ideas of the Reformers due to careful study and considered reasoning (though of course, many may have). Even the invention of the printing press had no immediate effect on those who could not read. It is only in fairly recent times that there has been anything like universal literacy. The real strength of early Protestantism was not in the truth of it’s ideas, but in the political and material advantage of those who wished to free themselves from the moderating hand of the Church, and to seize her property and influence for themselves.

It is similar to the conditions that make the overall concept of Sola Scriptura so untenable. To modern Protestants, looking at it as it is traditonally practiced, it makes perfect sense. But looking at it in the context of past times, it is an entirely unbiblical, unreasonable and unworkable process.

To really answer your original question in an honest manner, you must come to grips with the general situation at that time. This article by Jimmy Akin may, indirectly, give you more insight into this.

**THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA **
cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm

 

[Zooey]

Do you think that people really understood that well, or were they just accepting of what they were being taught?
I don’t think that it is fully possible for most of us, to imagine what it was like to live in an age when–never mind anything else different–even those who could read, had very little** to** read. For the most part, they were dependant on their teachers, & I think that a lot of the people doing the teaching just prior to the Reformation, were not as well up on the fine points as they would have been before the Plague Years. A lot was lost in those terrible times.
And the impact of illiteracy can’t be overstated. If you have never, ever been taught even the beginnings of reading…How would you be able to grasp concepts that are expressed in the language of scholars??
Maybe this is more obvious to me, having had a great-grandmother who only learned to read as an adult, & then only by teaching herself, using her old Dutch/Netherlandic Bible that she brought with her, when my great-grandparents came to the U.S. She had learned Scripture by heart, & then would manage to find it, & sound it out to herself…But she had a way to learn. Suppose you don’t have even that???

And then there is the possibility of actual mischief…I don’t know who first came up with this particular mis-statement of facts, but once it was in the air, I’m betting that there were any number of folk, more than willing to repeat it.

 

[jmcrae]

I think that most of us come at this problem with the assumption that the Reformers understood Catholic doctrine, and had been doing a great deal of research that led them to disagree with Catholic theology at an intellectual level - so we wonder how on earth they managed to arrive at their conclusions, and wonder if they saw something that we’re missing.

I wonder if that’s actually the case, though, because the more I look into it, the more it seems as though they had some other agenda, and that they weren’t actually making use of Catholic resources to make a considered decision.

It seems as though they were already in schism before they ever started thinking about theology.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Our work inside and outside of the Mass is to come into closer and deeper conformity with the mind, will, work, and desires of Christ. This conformity is called “holiness.” Its spread and increase is called “sanctification.”

Sanctification is the work of Christ. It is often said, from our point of view, that Christ came to save us; however, it is also helpful to consider this from Christ’s perspective: Christ’s mission to the world is to sanctify men, society, earth, and all of creation, and to offer them to the Father as pleasing gifts. In this sense, Christ’s work of salvation is a seamless part of His “work” of loving the Father. The Father gave everything to Christ; Christ seeks to sanctify everything He has been given and (thus) to give it to the Father – to be “caught up in the Spirit” is to be caught up in this flow of love among the Persons of the Trinity. The Sacraments and commands given by the Savior are designed to help us join and assist in Christ’s efforts to make us presentable gifts to the Father. To the extent that we succeed, we enter into the action and intention of the Son’s love for the Father. In Scripture, this is called “the name of Christ.”

We are fallen, and while we live we are changeable, malleable, and capable of failure as well as improvement. Holiness, however, is not a matter of attribution or “painting over” the truth of how we are; holiness is a true change of our fallen nature into a new nature and of our sinful habits into a new life. Only when these changes are authentic can a person be a worthy gift from Jesus to the Father.

In the Holy Mass, we offer ourselves, our lives, desires, wills, intentions, minds, actions, etc. to Jesus to be presented by Him to the Father; this is done through prayer and the ritual offering of the unconsecrated bread and wine. At the Consecration our offerings are transubstantiated and become the Offering of Christ Himself to the Father. Our action in making our offerings is similar to the re-dedication to God’s service that Israel made each morning and evening in the mandated sacrifices in the Temple. However, Jesus perfects our offering by miraculously making it into the Flesh and Blood (soul and divinity) of His actual and perfect Sacrifice on the Cross.

The question for the Christian conscience is: how close is my personal offering to conformity with the perfect Offering made in “the name of Christ”?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[John_Hiner]

A problem I have with the Mass being a re-presentaion of the one sacrifice is the results attributed to it. The Catholic Church says it is the same sacrifice as Calvary offered in an unbloody way. It is said to be propitiary in that it results in the forgiveness of venial sins. However, the original sacrifice forgave both mortal and venial sins. If it is the same sacrifice re-presented, should it not have the same result with both mortal and venial sins being forgiven by it?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear SyCarl:

I am not sure that I understand your concern. However, I hope these comments might be of some help:

Mortal sin is not “forgiven” at Mass, even though the Mass is integral to the work of Salvation, which makes recovery from mortal sin possible. Mortal sin is a decision to oppose God; it requires work for us to overcome; this work is done in personal Confession, personal penance, and charity. Only when this work is done and we are re-oriented to cooperating in Christ’s love for the Father, are we ready to fully, consciously, and actually participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass, as we are called and commanded to do.

As you say, the Mass is propitiatory. Each Holy Mass is a gift from the Son to the Father, it pleases the Father and entreats Him on behalf of the whole world to stay His hand and to delay the Day of Judgment, so that Christ’s work of sanctification can continue and reach more of creation. It is not primarily the venial sins of the repentant that the Mass propitiates, but the sins of the unrepentant whose offenses would easily justify the Father’s wrath. Acting as a part and representative of mankind, the Church seeks the Father’s indulgence for those who do not yet love Him.

As to those who seek forgiveness for mortal sin, Jesus has provided ample means of obtaining grace and forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It would not be proper for those who have fallen into mortal sin to seek reconciliation in the Mass. Those who repent of mortal sin seek to be returned from a state of opposition to God, a state of death, into a state of grace; they ask Christ to again make them alive and again make them into fit offerings to God. The Mass is a time for the presentation of gifts to the Father, not for the repair or resuscitation of unfit gifts. The Mass is a sacrifice performed in “the Name of Christ.” It would not be appropriate to enter the Mass while standing in opposition to God (in a state of mortal sin) and so definitively outside of “the Name of Christ.”

Understood in this way, it is possible to see how the Holy Mass continues and propagates the exact effects of the Sacrifice of Calvary. When Jesus died on the Cross, mortal sins were not forgiven, not for those who crucified Jesus nor for those who sought His forgiveness during His public ministry. Those who sought forgiveness during the Ministry were forgiven as Jesus spoke the words, “your sins are forgiven you,” (or words to that effect). Those who crucified Jesus remained burdened with their mortal and venial sins (though they were not burdened with the specific sin of the Crucifixion, because of Jesus’ prayer that they be forgiven for that particular sin).

By his death on the Cross, Jesus built a bridge between God and men. The merits of the Cross made it possible for those who trust and obey Jesus to be made into acceptable gifts to the Father – so long as they cooperate with and join in Christ’s efforts to heal their shortcomings and to turn them away from habits and even instances of sin. Calvary made union with the Trinity available to men; the Holy Mass makes it available to the particular people who are alive in a given time and place. The work is the same; both Calvary and the Holy Mass are part of the same saving act of the Lord Jesus.

I hope this is helpful.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[Contarini]

(3) Finally, assuming that the Protestant accusation of a repeated re-sacrifice is theologically erroneous, from what did this accusation arise? I’ve skimmed the Book of Concord and don’t see where that accusation is made (although I very easily could have missed it). In the Westminster Confession, however, it does seem to suggest that the Calvinists did believe that Catholics were resacrificing Christ. See Chapter XXIX, paragraph II below:

“In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any Real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.”

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Calvin and the other signatories to the Westminster Confession were not uneducated or stupid people. What about the Catholic Church’s description in the 1500s of the sacrifice of the mass would have lead educated persons to believe that Catholics were professing a form of sacrifice that, today at least, it seems clear that they are not?

I’d appreciate some serious responses if possible…please, let’s just skip over all the “Satan made them do it” stuff, ok?

One theory is that many sixteenth-century Catholic theologians did basically teach that each Mass was a separate sacrifice, and that Protestants were responding to this “misunderstanding” of the orthodox Catholic position. Certainly the question was not as well-defined as it became later, but Francis X. Clark argued in the 1960s (Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation) that in the first place there was no such “misunderstanding” among Catholic theologians (i.e., none of them taught that Christ is resacrificed or anything that might reasonably imply such a thing) and that in the second place the language of the Reformers clearly implies a rejection of the Catholic doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice itself and not merely some corruption thereof. I do not know for sure if Clark was right on the first point, though I’m inclined to think he was. But I think that the best way to describe the Protestant polemic is as a polemical characterization rather than a misunderstanding. It’s like the question of whether Catholics worship Mary. Catholics often claim that Protestant accusations to this effect are “misunderstandings.” Sometimes they are, but not necessarily. By many Protestant definitions Catholics do worship Mary. Many Protestants simply refuse to accept the Catholic distinctions among various levels of religious honor and veneration as meaningful. That is a legitimate move (though of course it raises the question of why those same Protestants typically don’t object to other kinds of “secular” honor and veneration, which from a different theological perspective might seem far more idolatrous than any honor paid to the Mother of God). If Protestants want to define things that way, no one can stop them–though I think they are losing by it.

Same here. Protestants define the Catholic doctrine as a resacrifice because they reject the notion that the Mass can in any sense be the same act as the sacrifice of Calvary. And even if Clark was right, the fact that the doctrine was less well defined in the 16th century made this easier to do. I think that we have available to us a richer notion of sacrifice today which undercuts many of the 16th century debates (if you start with the idea that sacrifice is a meal shared with the deity rather than with the idea that sacrifice is an act by which you appease the wrath of the deity, then the whole question of Eucharistic sacrifice looks very different).

I hope this is somewhat helpful.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

It is helpful. Thanks Edwin.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I’d appreciate some serious responses if possible…please, let’s just skip over all the **“Satan made them do it” **stuff, ok?

aw shucks, that’s my favorite line!:crying:

 

[BobP123]

One needs to read either the Eucharist Prayer #1 or the Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass. The theology behind the Sacrifice of the Mass is right there. It’s what Catholics believe, whether the Protestants like it or not.

 

[rr1213]

aw shucks, that’s my favorite line!:crying:

Believe me, I’ve seen it plenty of times although not necessarily always from you.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Just to set the record straight, it appears Fidelis quoted me in Post #23 saying I wrote: “Originally Posted by Mike Brick. Some of these people changed because their ruler changed faiths, others because they were convinced by the reasoning of the Reformers”. That was not my writing, I actually posted:

“I have been with you all on this thread so far and saw no need to weigh in until now. Although I am not a scholar on the reformation, it is my understanding that there was nowhere near half of the Church that left at that time or after. However, there were whole governments and/or states whose rulers took sides and their subjects would have been counted in, but had not made any such decision to leave the Church. For example when Henry VIII took his action, does that mean that all faithful British Catholics left with him? Someone with more direct knowledge of this issue should help us here please. rr1213, help us please, what is your source for the one-half figure?”

It appears the quote attributed to me by Fidelis, was actually from rr1213, but the server printed my name instead of his. I never said Catholics were convinced by the reformers, although some may have been. Just want to set the record straight, and let you all know it appears the server let us down.

I have enjoyed and benefited from this thread, especially from the writings of John Hiner, who has the gift of writing in a way that explains more of the whole of the issue, not just small points. Thanks John!

 

[Newchasm]

I think the difficulty comes from how something is re-presented without being a shadow or type but the real deal. Protestants would make the Eucharist a shadow or type of Christ’s sacrifice to do otherwise would seem to re-sacrifice Christ.

Furthermore, protestants are more weary of attaching propitiatory efficacy to the Eucharist. To do so is to replace the original sacrifice with something else in time. Yet, this relates again to how the eucharist is seen as not a shadow or type but the real thing, shown again outside of time. Catholics really aim to make it the same sacrifice in a much more mysterious way. They are content with leaving some mystery in how. The protestants were not content with such mystery and ‘superstition’. Yet, the Catholic answer to the protestants has never clearly shown this shift.

Furthermore, one has to go to the early church fathers for answers on this issue. The early church fathers propped up real presence with the mystery of the incarnation. I still don’t see it as convincing because I feel that this mystery of God/man is much more straight forward than God/bread. The re-sacrifice probably did come from Protestant reformation rhetoric. (Along with Hocus Pocus.) So that Catholics are more clearly under the anathema of Hebrews.

Finally, I have to say that Catholics also had a misunderstanding of Protestants not believing in a sacrifice that was once and for all time. Protestants believed that sacrifice as bloodly presented and applied mysteriously through Christ’s intercession. But not in an unblood form that could be mysteriously presented by priests standing and acting in place of Christ. It seems heresy to them say that they were the same sacrifice. Along with other doctrines that tried to explain such. (Transubstantiation and consubstantiation.)

 

[misslollipops]

A problem I have with the Mass being a re-presentaion of the one sacrifice is the results attributed to it. The Catholic Church says it is the same sacrifice as Calvary offered in an unbloody way. It is said to be propitiary in that it results in the forgiveness of venial sins. However, the original sacrifice forgave both mortal and venial sins. If it is the same sacrifice re-presented, should it not have the same result with both mortal and venial sins being forgiven by it?

Hebrews 9:22 says without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

 

[mercygate]

A problem I have with the Mass being a re-presentaion of the one sacrifice is the results attributed to it. The Catholic Church says it is the same sacrifice as Calvary offered in an unbloody way. It is said to be propitiary in that it results in the forgiveness of venial sins. However, the original sacrifice forgave both mortal and venial sins. If it is the same sacrifice re-presented, should it not have the same result with both mortal and venial sins being forgiven by it?

But did Calvary forgive all mortal and venial sins that would be committed throughout time until the end of days? Catholics believe that the Sacrifice of Calvary WAS for the sins of all eternity but WE exist in time and place. Time and space intersect with eternity first in the Incarnation; the Mass places US in OUR time and place at that intersection of time and eternity.

 

[misslollipops]

But did Calvary forgive all mortal and venial sins that would be committed throughout time until the end of days? Catholics believe that the Sacrifice of Calvary WAS for the sins of all eternity but WE exist in time and place. Time and space intersect with eternity first in the Incarnation; the Mass places US in OUR time and place at that intersection of time and eternity.

Hebrews 10:11-12 (New King James Version)

Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

 

[mercygate]

Hebrews 10:11-12 (New King James Version)

Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

Sigh. Once more for the record. The Mass is not a “repeated” Sacrifice as the blood sacrifices of the OT Covenant were.

The Mass IS Calvary because as God, the eternal Christ is, outside of time, eternally offering Himself to the Father. The Mass, in time, enters.the unbloody Sacrifice of the Lamb, who stands eternally “as though it had been slain” – yet standing before the Throne of the Father. It is Christ. He is the Priest. He is the Sacrifice. The Priesthood of the Church is a spark from the flint of Christ Himself.

 

[rlg94086]

Hebrews 9:22 says without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

Christ shed his blood therefore there is remission.

misslollipops:

Hebrews 10:11-12 (New King James Version)

Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

The priests being referred to were preforming the Old Testament sacrifices. Catholic priests are re-presenting Christ’s one sacrifice.

 

[misslollipops]

Sigh. Once more for the record. The Mass is not a “repeated” Sacrifice as the blood sacrifices of the OT Covenant were.

The Mass IS Calvary because as God, the eternal Christ is, outside of time, eternally offering Himself to the Father. The Mass, in time, enters.the unbloody Sacrifice of the Lamb, who stands eternally “as though it had been slain” – yet standing before the Throne of the Father. It is Christ. He is the Priest. He is the Sacrifice. The Priesthood of the Church is a spark from the flint of Christ Himself.

In my bible, Jesus said ‘it is finished’ Jn19:30