Chapter 11 - MASS
Either as a starting point, or in response to your witness about your assurance of salvation, you may have to deal with the Mass. For instance, your Catholic friend might tell you he is pretty sure of making it to Heaven because the Roman Catholic Church has a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Or he might say, "The trouble with you is that you do not have the salvific liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church." (Anytime you stumble over a term you do not understand, you will probably find help in A Christian's Guide to Roman Catholicism, (Discount price $7.50 from Ephesians 5:11, P.O. Box 99141, Louisville, KY 40269). By salvific, your Catholic friend is talking about that which tends toward, or produces salvation. By liturgy he means public worship, with a special emphasis on the Mass. There is a reason we do not have salvific liturgy - it is not needed, for we have a perfect Saviour. Since they can never know a completed work of salvation, they need their ritual, especially the Mass, to try to supplement their work of salvation.
It is easy to get embroiled in an argument about peripheral aspects of the Mass - transubstantiation, substance and accidents, Latin or English, real presence, etc. - but we must train our minds always to seek to get to the heart of the matter. Their real problem is an unscriptural concept of Christ.
What is the Mass? According to the Council of Trent, "The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." This may be too archaic for your Catholic friend, who thinks that the Council of Trent has been superseded by Vatican II (in actual fact, all the errors of Trent have been re-enforced by Vatican II).
St. Peter's Catechism (a post-Vatican II, 1972 publication) states: "The Mass is a real sacrifice because in it a Victim is offered by a priest for the purpose of reconciling man with God." (Note the capital "V" signifying Deity).
Jesuit John Hardon wrote in The Catholic Catechism (1975): "The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross." (page 466)
Priest Bertrand Conway, in The Question Box, states, "It is the Mass that matters. With its validity Roman Catholicism stands or falls." I agree 100% with this statement. If the Mass is valid, Roman Catholicism is a true religion. If the Mass is invalid, Roman Catholicism falls.
We will study some of the externals of the Mass, and try to relate each one to the central theme: the infinite Christ of the Bible or the finite "Christ" of Roman Catholicism.
Central to the Mass is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Although this term is not used as frequently today, it was still cited by Pope Paul VI in his "Credo" as the correct way to define the mystery of the Eucharist, and was contained in the Anglican/Roman Catholic statement on Eucharistic Unity (known as the Venice Statement). It is a long word, but easy to understand.
Trans - substan(ce) - tiation: the act whereby the substance of something is changed into another substance. The priest holds the wafer in his hand and says, "This is my body" (Latin: hoc est corpus meum, from which actually came the term "hocus pocus"). At this moment, according to Roman Catholic theology, "the wafer ceases to exist." (Pope Paul VI, 1968, Credo of the People of God) This teaching was formalized by St. Thomas Aquinas, who borrowed concepts from Aristotle's philosophy to explain the Mass. The key words were substance (essence) and accidents (appearance). Something is what it is even if the appearance changes, demonstrated by Aristotle by ice, water and steam all being substantially the same yet being different in appearance, or accidents. He also used the example of a boy growing to a man still being substantially the same while varying in appearance, or accidents.
As it was proved that accidents can change while substance remains the same, Aquinas reasoned that God could, if He wanted to, make accidents (appearance) remain the same while substance changed. This change of substance was called transubstantiation, and took place at the moment of consecration, so that the wafer still looked like a wafer (accidents), but substantially the wafer ceased to exist, so that it (or more properly, It) was now Jesus Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity. We will not go into detail as to the implications of this belief (the hazard of drinking the consecrated wine and spilling God onto your beard, a mouse running away with the Blessed Sacrament and dozens of other ludicrous concepts) but we will look at a couple of points arising from this belief and aim them toward a presentation of the Gospel.
Because of the wafer's becoming Jesus Christ, those who partake of Holy Communion have the real presence of Christ within them. It is generally thought to be 10-15 minutes before the wafer is digested (although theologians submit that digestive juices only destroy the accidental portion of the wafer and not the substance, but since substance cannot exist without accidents, when the accidents are destroyed, the substantial presence of Christ ceases to be with you). This is why a Roman Catholic Church in Oakland, California, on June 30, 1957, included in their church bulletin the following: "The Church tells us Jesus remains in our bodies 15 minutes after we receive Holy Communion ... we should not leave the Church until our Lord is no longer with us." This is a very normal Roman Catholic response to the doctrine of the Real Presence which is a natural outgrowth of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even if it were true that "Our Lord is with you for fifteen minutes after you take Communion", is not this a finite concept? What does the Bible say - "Lo, I am with you always" (Matthew 28:20). Which "Real Presence" would you rather have - one that lasts for 15 minutes and must be continually renewed, or an Infinite Saviour Who promised always to be with us? You can testify to His abiding presence, not because you feel Him, but because of His promise. In this way you can contrast the finite "Christ" of Romanism with the Infinite Christ of the Bible.
No Roman Catholic doctrinal teaching is complete today without the doctrine of transubstantiation, yet we find no such teaching in the Bible. The two main scriptures Roman Catholics like to use concerning transubstantiation are Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53. In the context of Matthew 26 :26, Jesus, having said what the Roman Catholic Church calls the "words of consecration" would have known, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, that the fruit of the vine in the cup had ceased to exist, yet He still called it "the fruit of the vine" in Matthew 26:29. In Roman Catholic circles, once the wine has been consecrated in the Mass, it is always treated not as wine, but as blood. Jesus did not believe this to be so.
In John 6:53, Roman Catholics make much of Jesus' talking about the literalness of salvation in the use of the terms "eating my flesh" and "drinking my blood." However, they neglect to read verse 54, where Jesus proclaims that all who eat and drink HAVE (present tense) everlasting life. No Roman Catholic can claim assurance of salvation because he once partook of Holy Communion! In verse 63, Jesus further explains it when He talks about "His Word" being life. In verse 54, "eating his flesh" brought life. What is He saying?
He is saying that the receiving of Himself as Saviour through the Word of the Gospel is real and literal - it is not a ghostly, nebulous, unsure transaction. Becoming a Christian is as real and literal as physically partaking food, but is not fleshly partaking that profits, but the Spirit. When we are saved, we actually partake of Him; the words that He speaks to us, they are spirit and they are life! Jesus was talking about a literal, real salvation - a salvation that cannot be understood by your Roman Catholic friends who are centering their religious beliefs around a finite concept of Christ who can never completely save them from their sins.
Also, we must believe that the early Apostles who preached the Gospel proclaimed the true and complete Gospel. Paul said he had preached the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The concept of transubstantiation was unknown in Paul's preachings and writings, and was not unearthed until many centuries later, to become the philosophical heart of what is supposed to be the basis for every Roman Catholic's salvation. Without transubstantiation, the "whole counsel of God" could not be proclaimed IF this doctrine were a part of God's plan of salvation.
One thing that disproves the Mass supremely is its repetitive nature. If a Mass were valid and was able to remove sin, only one Mass would be necessary. The priest could say, at the close of the Mass, "It is finished. You never have to come to another Mass." He cannot say this, as all Roman Catholics are bound to attend Mass every week. By celebrating Mass this week, the priest is admitting that the Mass he celebrated last week did not complete the job.
The contrasts between partial and complete; progressive and finished; finite and infinite are easily illustrated and can lead to the very heart of evangelism concerning the Mass. Transubstantiation is a foul and foolish doctrine, but it is our mission to get to the heart of the matter and preach the Gospel. This entails the contrasting of the finite "Christ" of Romanism and the infinite Christ of the Bible.
If I were to come to your home to visit you, I would knock on the door. If you did not hear the first knock because you were at the back of the house, I would knock again. The only reason for repetition of my action was that the first knock didn't accomplish what it was supposed to. Once you hear my knock and answer the door, I do not stand there continuing to knock. Once the job has been completed it needs no repetition. Repetition is only necessary when a job is not complete or has been poorly done. Repetition in the Mass signifies this incompleteness which makes it contrary to the finished work of Christ.
When you call your son in from playing for supper, he might be some distance from the house and you might have to call him several times. You stand on the front porch calling, "John, John, John." When John finally hears you and comes home you do not stand on the front porch shouting "John, John, John." The calling has now finished and because it accomplished its end John is home.
You may read a serial in a magazine about poor Linda, whose husband is out of work, whose roof leaks, whose cat has just had kittens, and whose dog has mange. You will read, with great interest, about how some of her problems are solved and others get more complicated, and then you come to the words, "TO BE CONTINUED." Next month you hurry down to get the next installment, which contains other very exciting happenings and then says, "TO BE CONTINUED." After many months you will read an installment in which all of Linda's problems are solved; her husband got a job, the roof was repaired, the kittens were given away and the dog was healed; and then it will say "THE END." You do not hurry down to the magazine store next month to see what happened to Linda; the story has ended. The point is that each installment either concludes with TO BE CONTINUED or THE END. If it is THE END it is not TO BE CONTINUED. If it is TO BE CONTINUED it is not THE END. The sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary was THE END (Romans 10:4); the Mass is TO BE CONTINUED.
You can ask your Roman Catholic friend how many Masses he has attended, get a rough figure and ask if he is now perfect and complete in Christ. He will have to say No, for there is nothing in the Mass or any of the Sacraments that guarantees completion or perfection. You can say, "By hundreds of offerings you have not yet been made perfect, but the Bible says, By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."
These illustrations can help your Catholic friend to see that an offering for sin must be either complete or partial; finished or progressing; infinite or finite. You can challenge your Catholic friend by saying that if he can ever uncover any infinite concept in the Mass, you will become a Roman Catholic. (We mean a truly infinite concept, not one that merely claims to be and then must be repeated next week.)
There is not one infinite concept in the Mass or any Sacrament, devotion or other means of salvation. All are finite. All are repetitive. All are incomplete, for a finite devil cannot build infinite concepts into his religion.
To deliberately miss Mass is a mortal sin. Many priests are not nearly as definite in defining mortal sin as they used to be but even modern Roman Catholic catechisms state that deliberately disobeying any law of the Church is a mortal sin, and a law of the Church states that every Roman Catholic must celebrate Mass every Sunday (you can attend Sunday Mass on Saturday afternoon) and Holy Day of Obligation. Mortal sin brings death to the soul, and if one dies in a state of mortal sin, one goes eternally to Hell.
Consider the fictitious 100 year old man who has been to Mass every Sunday of his life. On the Sunday after his 100th birthday, he says, "Ach, I don't feel like going to Mass today; I'm going fishing instead." He has deliberately missed Mass, which is a mortal sin.
On his way to the river, he trips on the root of a tree and falls into the stream, dying instantly. He has died in mortal sin, and is doomed to Hell for eternity. The 5,000 Masses he had attended were not able to save him, but the one Mass he has missed has damned him forever. Your Catholic friend might think this is far fetched, but it is technically and theologically possible. It illustrates the impotence potence of Mass to save, and must be presented with the glorious news of God's appointed Saviour, Who is able to save to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25)
Roman Catholic catechisms say that the Mass is identical to the Sacrifice of Calvary, but they admit it is different - one is bloody and the other (Mass) is unbloody. Yet the Bible clearly states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22), so that the Mass cannot take away sins. When looking for cleansing from sin, we can go to the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shed His blood. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin (I John 1:7)
The Council of Trent stated that the Mass atones for the sins of the living by whom, and the dead for whom it is offered. Now we know that the Atonement of Christ for sins is complete since He is the perfect Saviour. Roman Catholic theology admits that atonement is not completed in the Mass. St. Peter's Catechism, No. 212, states: "All the souls in Purgatory will go to Heaven when they have atoned for their sins." Rev. Anthony, a Marianhill Father from Dearborn, Michigan wrote a letter commending the giving of offerings for Masses for the dead. He said, "We cannot stay (in Heaven) unless we ourselves have atoned." The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in a prayer to God in the book The Seven Last Words of Christ, said to God, "Reconciliation is Thy work; atonement is mine."
Self atonement is a scary prospect as it is dependent on my own finite work, and can never, until the end of eternity, equal the infinite atonement of Christ. The aspect of atonement must be faced on the concept of the finite or in finite.
The Mass is supposed to "offer the superabundant merits" of Calvary to men. If this were true, how many times would one have to receive infinite grace to be completely ready for eternity. A millionaire could become broke, but one with an infinite supply can never know need.
Many of the accompaniments of the Mass which are central to its celebration, e.g., bells, vestments and incense, were admitted by Cardinal Newman to be of pagan origin. Roman Catholic theologians tell us that God authorized the Church to clothe this ceremony with appropriate decoration - is the addition of pagan ritual "appropriate decoration" of that which is supposed to transmit God's salvation to men and women?
You may run into progressive Roman Catholics (among them charismatics) who will vehemently argue that the Mass is merely a memorial. This term was used in the Venice Statement, which endeavored to find doctrinal agreement on the eucharist with Episcopalian (Anglican) clergymen. They then go on to definite the word "memorial" as follows: "the making effective in the present of an event in the past."
This is not a correct definition of the word memorial; what they are doing is taking a Protestant word and giving it a Catholic definition. A memorial does not effect the same result as the event being remembered; it merely brings it into memory.
A better Catholic definition of the Mass was given by Jesuit John Hardon in The Catholic Catechism of 1975: "The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim." (The word immolation means destruction).
When dealing with a Catholic charismatic, it is good to center the discussion on the Mass. The concept of the Sacrifice of Mass is at the heart of Roman Catholic theology, and Pope John Paul VI and later Pope John Paul II both commissioned Belgian Cardinal Leo Suenens to "guide the evolution of the Catholic charismatic renewal so that it enters fully into the heart of the Church." (Rayma, Catholic Charismatic magazine, May/June 1979).
A Charismatic Catholic may claim to be trusting the finished work of Christ, but Hebrews 10:18 makes it plain that where remission of sins has been accomplished, (as it clearly states was the transaction at Calvary, verse 14), there is no more offering for sin. The Sacrifice of the Mass, said John Knox, is blasphemy, and this is true, for it attempts to perpetuate, continue, repeat or make effective that which has already been infinitely completed by our Lord.
The crucifix, almost always present at Mass (revised liturgical law says only that a Cross should be near the altar, which makes a plain cross possible, but in almost every case a crucifix is still used) gives mute evidence of the unfinished nature of the Mass. While it may be seen as a devotional symbol merely to remind people of the passion of Christ, at the end of the Mass, which is often thought to be a visual representation of Christ's death, the figure of Christ remains on the crucifix. In the actual completed work of Christ as pictured so plainly in Hebrews 10:11-18, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, He sat down at God's right hand, picturing completion and resurrection. (See also Hebrews 1:3; 12:2)
We will often run into the word "eucharist" when dealing with Catholics. They may call Mass "The Eucharist", or refer to Holy Communion as the "Eucharist Meal." The word comes from the Greek "eucharista", meaning giving thanks. Because Jesus gives thanks for the Last Supper, it was gradually used to signify the thanksgiving memorial supper. As the institutional church became more sacramental, the term "Eucharistic sacrifice" was used to denote the Mass, which is also called "Holy Mystery of the Eucharist."
You can use this term evangelistically by telling your Catholic friend that you have a true Eucharistic Supper at your church when you gather to remember His death for you. You are truly giving thanks because the work He did on your behalf is complete and perfect, and has assured salvation for you. While they may claim this word, there can be no real giving of thanks for there is absolutely no understanding of anything really accomplished for which they can give thanks! All they have is a partial salvation that is unsure and depends on their participation for its completion. You have a glorious, risen Saviour Who has, by His own death, completely effected your eternal salvation.
You may run into the word "liturgy". Pope Paul VI stated that it must through the liturgy that our salvation is effected (Credo of the People of God). The liturgy is the form of public worship, with a special emphasis on the Mass. A Roman Catholic may be relying on liturgical celebrations to work out his salvation, but none of these gives any guarantee or assurance. Salvation is wrought, not by outward acts or performances of human priests, but by the Lord alone. The plain results of the salvific liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church vs. God's salvation wrought in Christ are manifested by the unassured, hoped-for salvation of the Catholic and the completed, assured salvation perfected by an infinite Saviour.
Modern Roman Catholic theologians who have found the medieval trappings of the Mass repugnant, have tried to water down their theology by substituting the idea of transignification for transubstantiation. Their theory is that Christ does not become substantially present, but that, when the words of consecration (this is my body, this is my blood) are said, the elements take on the real significance of Christ, so that He is sacramentally present. This theory has received no support whatever from the official teachers of the church. Pope Paul VI said that "when the words of consecration are spoken, the wafer and the wine cease to exist." This underlined the Roman Catholic Church's traditional belief in transubstantiation.
Of course, even a modern interpretation like transignification still does not make the Mass capable of producing a completed salvation. Even if a person does not believe in transubstantiation, the Mass remains a ceremony that must be continually repeated, in which none of the single acts of "sacrifice" are capable of completing salvation.
You will probably have to deal with the Mass often in your contact with Roman Catholics. You must remember that, while peripheral subjects cannot be side-stepped and must be scripturally dealt with, the important part of our confrontation only becomes true evangelism when we contrast the Roman Catholic concept of Jesus Christ, as mirrored in the Mass, with the biblical revelation of a perfect Saviour. If you memorize no other scripture, be sure to have Hebrews 10:14 (For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified) at your fingertips, for it is the message of this complete and perfect Saviour that is the power of God unto salvation.
The contemporary Roman Catholic is not nearly as concerned with some of the more old-fashioned aspects of the Mass. One good example is the technical theology that a separated crumb (called a Particle) of the consecrated Host becomes a complete Jesus - body, blood, soul and divinity. This was the reason why, when Holy Communion (the wafer) was placed on the tongue, an altar boy had a receptacle under your chin to catch any flakes that might fall; these were later mingled with the consecrated wine (blood) and taken by the Priest. A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, Volume I, page 9, quotes a Canon of the Rabbulas of Edessa in the fifth century: "Let any crumb of the holy Body which falls to the ground be searched for, and if it be found, let the place be scraped should it be of earth, and the dust therefrom mixed with water and given to the faithful as a draught of blessing."
A more contemporary writer, Priest John Kersten, writes in Bible Catechism, "Traditional ceremonies concerning tiny wasted particles of the host ... are magical exaggerations." Of course this statement is not thought to be infallible any more than the fifth century statement was, so nobody really knows. This lack of understanding concerns a vital part of the ceremony upon which is based the salvation of every Roman Catholic. Isn't it a blessing that biblical salvation is clearly put forth from every corner of the Bible, leaving no Christian in doubt of any part of God's methods of saving mankind.
While some things have changed with the advent of the New Mass and guitar-led choirs sometimes singing "A Mighty Fortress" or "Amazing Grace", the essential elements of the Mass remain the same - the offertory, or offering the elements to God; the consecration at which time transubstantiation is effected; the elevation during which time the faithful adore or worship the Host (God); and the actual sacrifice, effected, in the words of the Roman Catholic training Film, Mass Is a Sacrifice, "The sacrifice is complete when the priest consumes the wafer." And yet millions of Masses have been celebrated through the ages modern or ancient; Latin or English; charismatic, conservative, progressive or traditional and yet all of these have not been effective in the reconciliation of one soul to God, have not washed away one sin; have not released one soul from "purgatorial fires." But of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible bears witness, "by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."
One might wonder how it all started, and how the Mass developed from the simple biblical remembrance at the Lord's table. One of the earliest perversions of truth came through references to the elements of the Lord's table as "spiritual food" and the "medicine of the soul" by Irenaeus and Ignatius. A tendency toward sacramentalism is seen here as undue emphasis was given to the actual elements rather then to the objective Cause they are supposed to represent. Then, in the following century, Cyprian referred to the presiding officer at the Lord's table as "hierus" - a sacrificing priest. Never in the New Testament was a Christian minister called by that name, and now we see, in a church that was departing from New Testament principles, a spiritual food dispensed by a sacrificing priest, and sacramentalism, which was supposedly defeated when the Gnostic heresy was repulsed, is now in full bloom. Sacramental salvation is not consistent with scriptural salvation; the former is subjective and the latter objective. Salvation by sacraments can never be complete or guaranteed and therefore can give no assurance, whereas Biblical salvation is based upon a completed work and therefore saves, satisfies and assures (I John 5:11-13).
Any institution based on sacramental and not scriptural premises for salvation is departing from New Testament truth (apostasizing), and any departure from God brings one toward the camp of the enemy which is the beginning of complete defeat (Genesis 13:12; 14:12; 19:1-38). Therefore, when, in the next century, toleration and then full status as State Religion of the Roman Empire was granted to the institutionalized church, the defeat was finalized and the union of paganism with decadent Christianity came about.
One of the first marks of this was the decreeing of a daily sacrifice and the use of the round wafer, borrowed from the pagan worshippers of the sun. This, of course, is a fact Christians should know, but it is not a primary argument to be used evangelistically. The evangelistic issue is ALWAYS the contrast between the counterfeit concept of Christ held by the Roman Church and biblical revelation of a complete, perfect, infinite Saviour.
The fact that the Mass developed over the centuries is freely admitted by Catholic scholars. Karl Adam writes In The Spirit Of Catholicism, "We Catholics acknowledge readily without shame, yea with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity ..." Bible Christians wholeheartedly subscribe to "the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). While a universally prescribed liturgy for the Mass was not developed until the 16th century (Council of Trent), the greatest single development of the Mass was the decreeing of transubstantiation by the 4th Lateran Council (1215) and its subsequent explanation by St. Thomas Aquinas by using pagan Aristotelian philosophy. Why anyone should be proud of a development that includes pagan ideas is beyond my comprehension.
Several years ago we were asked to visit a Cistercian (Trappist) monastery in Portglenone, Co. Antrim, Ireland, for the purpose of discussing issues with a priest that would hopefully deter a young unsaved Protestant man (with a Christian mother) from marrying a Roman Catholic.
The priest (a Cistercian monk) came into the room bubbling over with ecumenical enthusiasm. "Isn't it wonderful," he gushed, "that we can sit down and discuss these truths without the arguments and wrangling we used to have. I wonder if you have any questions about the Catholic faith that I could answer."
"Yes," I replied, "I would like you to tell me where in the Bible you find the Sacrifice of the Mass?"
"We find it in the book of Hebrews."
Rather surprised at his answer (because Hebrews tears the Mass to shreds), I asked him exactly where in the Book he found the Mass.
I think he realized he had been too exuberant and hasty in his opening remarks, so he began to retrench. "Well," he said, "it is not just in the book of Hebrews," and began a long drawn-out explanation of the fathers and the popes and their teaching on the Mass. I sensed that he was trying to lead me off the track, and, not having a very good memory, I hastily wrote down, "The Mass in Hebrews."
When the thought he had led me far enough away from the subject, he came up for breath, and I said, "That was interesting, but I would like you to show me the Mass in Hebrews."
"Oh yes, of course. I would be very happy to."
"Here is my Bible. Show me." (He hadn't brought his Bible with him).
"I couldn't find it in your Bible; I'll go and get mine."
I glanced at my watch and timed him. He left the room and did not return for a full five minutes. (I didn't know if it had taken him five minutes to find a Bible in his monastery, or five minutes to find a text.)
He had a Jerusalem Bible, and also brought four large books of theology which he plunked down on the table. He proceeded to explain the Mass from these.
Finally I interrupted him. "I wanted the Mass in Hebrews."
"Oh, yes. Of course," as if that has been his intention all along. "`The Mass in Hebrews. We find that in Hebrews 13:10 - (he quoted from the Jerusalem Bible). The fact that the Bible speaks of an altar means there must be a sacrifice. And since there is a sacrifice, it must be the Mass."
I was stunned. I had met teenagers on the streets of Dundalk in Eire where I witnessed who gave a better theological presentation of their beliefs. It was only later that the full implications of his presentation hit me.
We were talking about the Mass - the center of Roman Catholic theology, the celebration on which hinges the personal salvation of every Catholic. We were talking to a Cistercian monk, who had been a regular priest (one who lives by the rule of the monastic group) for thirty-five years. Every morning he was up at 5 a.m., to go to chapel and sing praises to his concept of God. He lived a rigorous life hard work, little conversation (they are a semi-silent order), a lot of ritualistic worship. Yet he could not, from the Bible, give a simple verse to back up the only really salvific reality in his theology - the Mass. This is the tragedy of Roman Catholicism. Had he been a bank robber, a murderer, or no-good rascal one would not feel nearly as bad. But here is a man who had given the best part of his life to his concept of religion and yet had no biblical basis for that which is his only hope of salvation. A newly-saved Sunday School child who can quote John 3:16 is immeasurably better off than this good-living, moral, religious, lost priest in Portglenone.
I had a seminar in Catholic evangelism in Aberdeen, Idaho, and learned, on Sunday afternoon, that several Catholics were planning to attend the evening service. I anticipated this greatly, but was even happier to learn, before the meeting started, that they had come. During the song service, with my back toward the door, unknown to me another man slipped into the congregation. I saw him as I started to preach, and half-way through the sermon, he changed position slightly to reveal he was wearing a Roman collar - the priest had come to check up on what is parishioners were hearing.
I was preaching on "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", and hit it as hard as I could. A question and answer session was planned when I had finished, and the priest was the first one on his feet.
"`You folks don't seem to understand the Catholic Church today. We used to be a little behind the times, but we have changed. We are really like you folks in many ways. We even have (and I'm sure the Lord caused him to say the next words) remission of sins, just like you do."
I challenged him with a question. "Could you please tell me whether the Mass is an offering for sin?"
If we had been alone, he might have hedged on this and come up with words such as "memorial" to try to put me off the track. However, he knew that every modern Roman Catholic catechism still admits to the sacrifical nature of the Mass, and there were four of his flock in the audience. So he answered me in the affirmative.
I then turned to Hebrews 10:18 - "`where remission of these (sins, see verse 17) is, there is no more offering for sin."
The priest sat down, made no further comments, and quickly left after the service was over. The point is always the sufficiency of the work of Christ vs. the continuing, repetitious, never-completed Sacrifice of the Mass.
A friend in Ohio has been burdened to send a Gospel-preaching letter to the priests of his diocese. He used to be an altar boy and knows some of them personally. The answers he receives have given him a keener insight into Roman Catholic thinking, but some of them have been a bit difficult to field.
One priest told him that the Mass was not really a repetition, continuation, re-enactment or memorial of Calvary. What it is, he said, is that God opens Heaven to demonstrate the death of Christ to us; Mass is merely a demonstration of that completed act so that we can visualize what Christ really did.
This sounded a bit confusing, for he was admitting they were not and could not repeat the sacrifice, but were merely demonstrating what he called the infinite work of redemption by Christ.
Thinking it through, however, brought us to the crucial point. If the Mass is a demonstration of Calvary, can anyone go to one Mass in his lifetime, believe, and be saved? Is there really any infinite worth derived from seeing and believing that demonstration of Calvary? The answer, of course, is no. While slick, modern terminologies are sometimes used, the Sacrifice of the Mass always perishes on the rock of infinity. They call their Mass "infinite", but one is never enough!
The Mass is not infinite; the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was infinite. The revelation of that transaction by the Holy Spirit in the one convicted by the same Spirit of his utter hopelessness without Christ demands a response. A negative response seals condemnation; a positive response brings life (John 3:36).
There are many real problems with the Mass - the myth of transubstantiation, the fleeting "real presence", the use of devices admittedly of pagan origin - the sign of the Cross, holy water, candles, bells. All of these can be exciting areas of argument, but there is only one truth that truly demolishes the Mass. That is the infinite work of Jesus Christ when He completed forever those whom He has set apart because of their trust in His Work for them.
We might add just a word about Holy Communion, which is technically and theologically a separate entity. One must go to Mass every week, but one is bound to go to Communion only once a year. Because of the stringent requirements years ago (fast from midnight and freedom from mortal sin which used to seem much easier to fall into) very few Roman Catholics took Communion at any given Mass. Today the reverse is true. Fast laws have been eased or erased and mortal sin is deemed by some theologians to be almost passe. Very few people miss Holy Communion when they attend Mass.
The partaking of the Host by the priest is sacrificial, but, even though the smaller Host the people receive is still the complete Christ, their eating Him is not sacrificial, but communal. He abides in them (until the outward form of the wafer is digested at which time He is not there anymore). In some ways, we can see some basis for the claim that Holy Communion is memorial, for Jesus did say, "Do this in memory of Me."
The question must then be asked, what do they remember? When we as Christians partake of the memorial supper, we remember His completed work for us, His promise to be with us always, and the assurance that, according to His Word, He will come again and receive us unto Himself. The only thing a Roman Catholic can remember is:
(1) a sacrifice for sins that does not complete the work;
(2) a real presence that lasts for 10 - 15 minutes
(3) a Second Coming at which time, according to his own theology, a Catholic will be finally judged and sent to Heaven or Hell.
Aren't you glad you are a Christian? Should you not tell this glorious news of the Gospel to your Catholic friend?
One of the foremost tendencies of modern Roman Catholicism is to try to divorce themselves from terms and beliefs that sound too ancient and superstitious. This is the reason why they are using the term "memorial" whenever they can instead of what has been traditionally called "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass." However, they cannot completely eliminate the word "sacrifice", as it is too firmly rooted in their creeds and catechisms. The next best thing would be to moderate the definition of the word.
In The Sacrifice of the Mass by the Catholic Enquiry Center, on page 79, this is done. They say, "A sacrifice is an offering of a gift to God, in the name of the people, by a man chosen by God."
This is an incorrect definition. The Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary says that a sacrifice is an immolation, that is, something killed. The Hebrew word for sacrifice is zebach and means "to slaughter". Sacrifice always entails the destruction of the victim and is not a mere offering of a gift to God. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary meant the death of the Victim, bringing life to us.
Also intrinsic in the Roman Catholic belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Host (the Blessed Sacrament) is the reality of His actual presence in the tabernacle (the gold box on or near a Roman Catholic altar) when a consecrated Host is placed therein. From Here I am, published by the Benedictine Convent of Perpetual Adoration, we read, on page 59, "If someone were to ask me ... `Where is your God?', I would not have to map out some pilgrimage route to a distant land, but simply point to the tabernacle." What a pagan concept of God!
Traditional Roman Catholics have taken a clear stand against the New Mass in English, and have reverted to the Old Latin Mass of the Council of Trent. Some have been extremely vocal about what they term unauthorized changes, as they interpret the Council of Trent as having decreed a Mass for all time that cannot be changed. A traditional Roman Catholic Church in the Chicago area, The Church of St. Joseph, branded Paul VI as "anti- Christ" because he had committed the "abomination of desolations" by allowing Mass to be said in the common tongue.
They rightly argue that because the contention had always been that the inviolability of the Mass was preserved by its being said in a dead, unchanging language, the switch to a living tongue jeopardizes the purity of the Mass. They even charge that mis-translations have caused havoc not only to the Confiteor, but also to the actual words of consecration, so that a priest using the modern form in the vernacular does not effect transubstantiation.
From a strictly legal and technical sense, the traditionalists are correct. Even Pope Paul VI seemed to agree with them when he said, "It cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to express belief in the Eucharistic mystery." (Pope Paul VI, Alden Hatch, page 222).
Paul VI did not infallibly decree the change in the Mass, so therefore he was modifying the formulas of Trent on his own authority, and the traditionalists are correct Roman Catholics when they stick to the Latin Mass. The clear truth, however, is that the Latin Mass has no more power to save than does the English.
In the Anglican-Roman Catholic Venice Statement on the Eucharist, page 10, it reads, "When the people are gathered at the eucharist to commemorate his saving acts for our redemption, Christ makes present among us the eternal benefits of his victory." They don't believe this - if they did, one Mass would secure eternal benefits and would be all that any person would require for salvation.
Modern Roman Catholics, some deceptively and some sincerely, will try to equate the Mass to the Protestant Communion service. Eucharist, Center of Christian Life, by Jesuit R. J. Kessinger (1972) states, "If we delete from the Mass its Canon ... what would be left is fundamentally the Lutheran Service and the Catholic Mass." (The canon consists of the offertory, consecration, elevation and actual sacrifice when the priest destroys the Victim by eating Him.)
The Booklet, Why Did They Change the Mass? by Jesuit Donal Sullivan (1970), states, "to make atonement we offer gifts in love." This is a basic misconception, not only of atonement, but of love. The Bible says, "not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The basis of God's atonement is not our love but His love. To make effective our reconciliation with God, He offered a gift of love (Romans 6:23)
Self-atonement is a theme that recurs often in Roman Catholic thinking. The late Fulton J. Sheen, in his Book The Seven Last Words of Christ, finished his chapter on "It is Finished" with a prayer to God in which he says, "Reconciliation is Thy work; atonement is mine." I would not like to base my hopes for Heaven on any work of atonement that I effect; I am glad for the Gospel message which states very plainly, "We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement." (Romans 5:11)
To sum up the matter, we will quote from two authorities. The Council of Trent is still the bed rock of Roman Catholic theology. It said, "The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true, proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead."
The Bible says, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; ... For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified ... And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:11,12,14,17,18)
It is the Mass that matters; with its validity Roman Catholicism stands or falls.
The Mass is invalid because:
(1) It has to be repeated and doesn't even claim to be finished (Hebrews 10:11- 18)
(2) The Mass is unbloody (Hebrews 9:22)
(3) It doesn't guarantee salvation, and missing Mass is a mortal sin.
(4) Thomas Aquinas "proved" the basic theory of the Mass by using pagan philosophy of Aristotle (Isaiah 8:20; II Tim. 3:16)
(5) The Mass is unscriptural (Mal. 1:11; Jn. 6:53-63; Mt. 26:26-29)
(6) The Mass has changed
(7) The Mass is idolatrous; men are called to worship the Host, a man-made object (I Cor. 6:9)
(8) The Mass is blasphemous. By stating that it is perpetuating, continuing or making effective the work of Christ, it is supplementing that work and thereby declaring Christ's work to be merely finite.
All these points are directly addressed by a scriptural presentation of Christ, Who finished the work (Jn 19:30), shed His blood (I Jn. 1:7), guarantees salvation (I Jn. 5:13), is testified of in the Bible (I Jn. 5:11), never changes (He. 13:8), and is infinite (Ps. 103:12; Heb. 7:25; Isa 53:5,6; Mt. 20:28, I Pe. 1:18,19, etc.)