Refutation of Mike Gendron's "The Sacrifice of the Mass -- Blessing or Bondage?"
Mike's words will be in blue; mine are in black.
First let us look to the Catechism for the definitions of the Mass and the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents [makes present] the sacrifice of the cross...and because it applies its fruit...the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same. 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 (1366,1367). It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection (1524).
Catholics are given no choice but to believe these inconceivable teachings. Is the Lord Jesus really physically present in the Eucharist? How Catholics answer this question has serious consequences. If they deny the presence of Jesus they are condemned by their church. Canon I of the Council of Trent states, "If anyone denies, that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, let him be anathema." Conversely, if they believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist they are committing the most serious sin of idolatry, showing their hatred toward God and breaking His second commandment (Deut. 5:8-9).
The Mass is...the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated (1382).
Believing in the real presence is not idolatry; the Eucharist, being Jesus' body and blood, soul and divinity, deserves the adoration reserved for God alone (because it IS God).
Based on these teachings Catholics are taught their redemption comes not from the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross but through the liturgy of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that the work of our redemption is accomplished. Every time this mystery is celebrated, the work of our redemption is carried on (1068, 1405).
Actually, the Eucharistic sacrifice IS the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus on the cross; they are one in the same. What happens during the mass is that God (who transcends time) goes back in time, takes Jesus' sacrifice, and brings it to the present so that we can offer it up to the Father again.
Incredibly the Vatican teaches the Eucharist has the power to produce divine life and to unite the people of God.
The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God. It is the source and summit of the Christian life. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself (1324,1325).
Well, think about it. Considering that the Eucharist really IS Jesus, this makes perfect sense.
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches the Lord Jesus Christ returns to the earth every day to be worshipped and sacrificed.
How can that be? Why would Jesus return to the earth in a different way and not to the Mount of Olives as God pre-ordained? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven (Acts 1:11). Why would Jesus change His mind about how and when He would return to the earth? He said, "For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be...immediately after the tribulation...and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:27-30).
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained (1374). In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ by genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord (1374, 1378). The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in our midst (1404).
Those two passages are referring to Jesus' second coming at the end of time; they do not exclude the possibility of Jesus being physically present in the Eucharist before that, just as they don't exclude the possibility of Jesus always being with us "to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
Father John O'Brien answers these questions from his book, The Faith of Millions:
As preposterous and unthinkable as this may sound, the Catholic priest is said to have the power to call almighty God down from heaven to continue to do what the Lord Jesus said was finished. Over 200,000 times each day, on Catholic altars throughout the world, priests believe they re-present Jesus as a sacrificial victim for sins. When we reflect on the excruciating pain and torture Jesus endured to redeem mankind, it is unconscionable that Catholics would want to continue His suffering and agony.
When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man-not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
First things first. Yes, the priest does have the power to call God down from heaven to be present in the Eucharist. This is a non-issue; just because something may sound ridiculous to some doesn't mean that God can't or won't do it (such as making a donkey talk in Numbers 22:28).
Secondly, Jesus did NOT say that His work of redemption was finished. What He DID say was that His passion and death were finished (John 19:30), but this in no way implies that we can't re-offer His completed sacrifice to the Father at every mass (in fact, Hebrews 7:23-25 indicates that we can).
Thirdly, we do not continue Jesus' suffering and agony; as Scripture says, Jesus does not die over and over again (Hebrews 9:25-26). Jesus' sacrifice is made present during the mass (can't logically object to this because God can do whatever He wants) and we re-offer it up to the Father. Jesus does NOT die again! He cannot suffer again because His death on the cross and the sacrifice of the mass are one in the same; however, if Jesus did suffer again, they would be two separate sacrifices.
Not only does Rome purport to continue this horrific sacrifice with Jesus as its "victim;" it dares to say the sacrifice on its altar forgives sins.
What absurdity! The perfect and actual sacrifice of Jesus, who poured out genuine blood and died a real death is said to be insufficient to forgive all sins, but its blasphemous re-presentation on Catholic altars is said to forgive sins that Jesus could not. Yes, the Catholic Mass blatantly denies the sufficiency of Christ's atonement that is so clearly stated in Scripture. In the book of Hebrews we read the believer's redemption is eternal because of a finished transaction. "By His [Christ's] own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (9:12). We also read, "So Christ was once [not many times] offered to bear the sins of many" (9:28). Again, "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [no re-presentations] for all" (10:10). Continuing, "But this Man [Jesus] after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.... For by one offering [not many] He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (10:12,14). It is perfectly clear that this one offering of Jesus took away sins. We also read: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" (10:17,18).
As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God. Holy Communion separates us from sin. I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy (1393, 1414).
Actually, Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to forgive all sins; it's just that they're not all forgiven at once. When we have our sins forgiven, only our PAST sins are forgiven (either through the mass, the sacrament of reconciliation, or some other way to attain forgiveness of sins); our future sins will be forgiven in the future. God does not forgive sins that we have not yet committed because we may not repent of them. The thing that Mike misses is that the mass (and every other way to attain forgiveness of sins) forgives sins BECAUSE OF Jesus' sacrifice. While this is most evident in the mass (because it IS Jesus' sacrifice), every other way to attain forgiveness of sins also draws its power solely from Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary.
Now, to deal with the verses Mike uses. Hebrews 9:12 just says that because of Jesus' sacrifice, we have been redeemed from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13). Now that we have been redeemed, God can give us a chance to be saved. It also says that Jesus entered the holy place once, which Catholics also agree with. He stays there and continues in His role as priest. Hebrews 9:28 says that Jesus was sacrificed once and that He is not to be sacrificed again (verse 26). However, the mass is not a re-sacrificing of Jesus; there's a difference between re-sacrificing and re-offering the same sacrifice. Hebrews 10:10 just says that Jesus' sacrifice was once for all (meaning that it happened only once), and we agree. It is not repeated; rather, it is re-offered to the Father. Hebrews 10:12, 14, again, say that Jesus was only sacrificed once, and, again, we agree! The only point that Mike may have is that verse 14 says that Jesus' sacrifice has perfected Christians FOREVER, seeming to imply that no more sacrifice is needed. However, this is a misreading of the text for a few reasons:
1) If no more sacrifice is needed, then our future sins have been forgiven. And if our future sins have been forgiven, then there's no chance of losing our salvation if
we fall away. However, the book of Hebrews contains numerous warnings against falling away and losing salvation (Hebrews 3:14, 6:3, 10:26-31, for example),
meaning that our future sins CANNOT be already forgiven.
2) As 2 Peter 1:9 says, our PAST sins are the ones that have been forgiven. We are perfected for all time because Jesus' sacrifice COMPLETELY forgives our
past sins, as opposed to the Old Covenant sacrifices, which could offer only temporary forgiveness.
In addition to warning against falling away, Hebrews 10:26 says, "For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." If we fall away, there will be NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS! This means that while the merits of Jesus' sacrifice have been applied to us, and our past sins have been forgiven, the merits of the cross will no longer be applied to us for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly in line with the Catholic doctrine of the mass.
Hebrews 10:17-18 just says that where there is forgiveness of sins, no more sacrifices need to be made, and we Catholics agree. Jesus' one sacrifice was enough. Mike seems to think that when Paul uses the word "offering," he's referring to when we offer the sacrifice (meaning that each mass would be a different offering), not the sacrifice itself (which would mean that when Paul talks of Jesus' one offering, He is excluding the possibility of it being re-offered during the mass), but that's not what Paul means. We can see from Hebrews 9:25-26, in which Paul says that Jesus was offered once so He doesn't have to suffer again, that the word "offering" refers to the sacrifice itself. Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus was offered once for all, he means that Jesus' sacrifice took place only once; he is not excluding the possibility of it being re-offered to the Father.
The sacrifice of the Mass more closely resembles the Old Testament animal sacrifices which had to be repeated and could never take away sins. By re-presenting Jesus as a sacrificial "victim" in the Mass, the Catholic Church keeps Him cursed on the cross and forsaken by God instead of glorified at His Father's right hand. Catholic priests have robbed the Lord Jesus of His highly priestly office of intercession, assuming the responsibility themselves. Yet, their role as priest is spurious and fraudulent. The only true priesthood on earth that is recognized in the New Testament is the spiritual priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9).
First of all, the mass does not resemble the Old Covenant sacrifices. They could never forgive sins, but the mass DOES forgive sins. The thing is, we must re-offer Jesus' sacrifice to the Father when we commit more sins. Secondly, the Church does not keep Jesus on the cross instead of glorified at the Father's right hand. Jesus IS at the Father's right hand, but He continually intercedes for us (that is, He re-offers His sacrifice to the Father) to save us (Hebrews 7:25). Catholic priests have not robbed Jesus of His of His priestly office. It is really Jesus who offers up His sacrifice to the Father; the priest just acts in persona Christi, that is, in the person of Christ. Because Jesus is not physically able to offer the sacrifice here on earth, He works through the priest who stands in His place. While the New Testament only mentions specifically the common priesthood of all believers (which we Catholics accept), the Old Testament prophesies about a priesthood consisting of only SOME believers.
"For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory. And I will also take some of them as priests and as Levites, says the LORD." - Isaiah 66:18, 21
When the doctrine and practice of the Mass is tested against the word of God, the only standard for measuring truth, we find definite and conclusive misinterpretations, errors, fallacies and heresies:
1. Jesus was never a "victim" but went to the cross in humble obedience to His Father (Phil. 2:8).
When we say that Jesus was a victim, we don't mean that He was sacrificed against His will. He was a victim in that He was the one sacrificed.
2. When Jesus demand that men eat His flesh and drink His blood, He said it had a spiritual meaning, not a literal one (John 6:63). He often spoke to them in figurative language (John 16:25). The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively to describe appropriating divine blessings to one's innermost being (Jer. 15:16; Isa. 55:1-3). To take His words literally would cause everyone to become cannibals, that is, to eat human flesh.
"It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." - John 6:63
How can one get a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist out of this passage? If it's from the phrase "the flesh is useless," then we'd have to also believe that He was saying that ALL flesh, including His own, is useless. However, we know this to be untrue. If it's because Jesus called His words "spirit and life," then that's a misunderstanding of Scripture. Whenever spirit and flesh are opposed to each other in Scripture, they always mean pure, holy, and of God, as opposed to carnal, sinful, and from humans (Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6, for example). Jesus was saying that His words were from God and had to be understood through the eyes of faith.
While Jesus did often speak figuratively, He didn't ALWAYS speak figuratively.
While eating and drinking in general may have been symbolic for blessings, to eat and drink someone's flesh and blood meant to grievously injure someone (Psalm 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3, for example), so Jesus would've been using a bad metaphor. Plus, the word used for "eats" in verses 54-58, "trogon," (which is a form of the verb "trogo"), means literally to chew; it cannot be used figuratively.
Cannibalism is eating the dead flesh taken from a person's body. Sacramentally receiving the Eucharist differs from this in a few ways:
1) We receive Jesus' living flesh rather than dead flesh.
2) We don't take it from a corpse.
3) It is under the form of bread and wine rather than the form of crude flesh and blood.
3. If we take Christ's words literally then "eating and drinking" is necessary for eternal life. This directly opposes hundreds of scriptures that reveal salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone. If eating and drinking is necessary for salvation it presents a dilemma, "What is a person eats and drinks but does not believe?" Or "what if a person believes but does not eat and drink?"
Jesus often used hyperboles to get His point across (Matthew 5:22, 30, 21:21-22), and He did the same here. The Eucharist helps us in our spiritual journey to attain salvation.
4. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as a memorial not a sacrifice (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24).
Actually, the Greek word used for remembrance (Do this in remembrance of Me), anamnesis, refers to a memorial sacrifice rather than a mere memorial. The Septuagint uses it in Numbers 10:10 and Leviticus 24:7 to refer to memorial sacrifices; thus, Jesus instituted the Eucharist not as a mere memorial, but as a memorial sacrifice.
5. The sacrifice of Christ was a once for all event (Heb. 9:12,26,28; 10:10,12,14).
I agree, but this doesn't mean that we can't re-offer Jesus' completed sacrifice to the Father again and again.
6. A sacrifice without blood cannot atone for sins (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22).
Jesus' sacrifice was bloody. The mass is unbloody not because the sacrifice itself is unbloody, but because the manner in which we re-offer it to the Father is.
7. Catholic priests violate Christ's unique role as mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5).
Not any more than Protestants violate it by praying for each other. Plus, like I showed before, the Old Testament prophesies about a priesthood in the New Covenant, meaning that it CAN'T violate Jesus' role as mediator between God and man. Jesus is the mediator between God and man in two ways:
1) He is the only Person who is both God and man.
2) He is the mediator of the New Covenant.
Neither of these have anything to do with priests.
8. No where in the first century Church do we find priests offering sacrifices for sin or Masses for the dead (Acts).
Oh, so just because the book of Acts doesn't explicitly teach that the mass is a sacrifice and can be offered for the dead means that the mass is blasphemy? Sola Acts (as opposed to sola scriptura)?
We have other writings from the first century, both Scriptural and non-Scriptural (accounts of early Christian practice) that refer to the sacrifice of the mass.
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23-24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, 'Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Clement's Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 80]).
From both of these first century writings, we clearly see that sacrifice was offered in the early Church.
"Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." - Hebrews 7:23-25
Here, we learn a few things:
1) Jesus holds His priesthood PERMANENTLY and continues forever; He did not stop being a priest after His death.
2) Jesus continually intercedes for us, and this intercession is in connection with His priesthood, meaning that He continually offers sacrifice (that's what priests do;
they offer sacrifices) to the Father.
3) Jesus saves us because He continually re-offers His sacrifice to the Father (that's the only sacrifice He could offer), not because He offered up His sacrifice to the
Father once 2,000 years ago.
Given the Catholic belief in purgatory (which is a separate issue that I won't get into here), there's no reason why the mass (and other prayers) shouldn't be offered for the dead.
9. Prayers and rituals for the dead are abominations before God (Deut. 18:9,11; 26:13-14).
"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead." - Deuteronomy 18:9-11
What God condemns here is not offering masses for the deceased; rather, He condemns consulting the dead to find out information.
"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year (which is the year of the tithe), giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows, so that they may eat their fill within your towns, then you shall say before the LORD your God: "I have removed the sacred portion from the house, and I have given it to the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows, in accordance with your entire commandment that you commanded me; I have neither transgressed nor forgotten any of your commandments: I have not eaten of it while in mourning; I have not removed any of it while I was unclean; and I have not offered any of it to the dead. I have obeyed the LORD my God, doing just as you commanded me." - Deuteronomy 26:13-14
Here, God condemns offering food to the dead, which has no connection whatsoever to the mass. We don't offer anything TO the dead; we offer masses TO God FOR the dead.
10. The alleged changes of bread and wine into flesh and blood are not miracles but counterfeits because they remain unchanged in appearance, substance and taste. True biblical miracles were real and observable.
First things first; Mike is a bit off. The Eucharist remains unchanged in appearance and taste, but its substance changes.
Secondly, not all biblical miracles were observable. Take the Incarnation, for example. How could you tell, just by looking at Jesus, that He was God?
Thirdly, this isn't even an issue. So what if other biblical miracles were observable? The Eucharist is a different sort of miracle, one that requires pure faith in Jesus to believe (John 6:63).
11. Worship of the elements of the Mass is idolatry (Ex. 20:4-5).
Not if the Eucharist is truly God.
12. Jesus will return to earth the same way He left, not in the form of a wafer (Acts 1:11).
I agree. At the second coming, Jesus will return again in the same way he left. However, this doesn't exclude the possibility of Jesus already being here in the Eucharist any more than it excludes the possibility of Jesus always being with us, "to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
13. Drinking blood was forbidden. Jesus would not have asked the Jews to break the law (Lev. 17:10-14).
Let's examine this objection. Leviticus 17 prohibits eating blood because it is the life of every creature; however, that's PRECICELY why we receive the Eucharist. By receiving the Eucharist, we are united more fully with Jesus and we abide in Him. The difference between drinking regular blood and Jesus' blood is that God doesn't want us to eat the life of another creature, but He wants us to share in His life.
